1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

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

1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:49 am

Homer wrote:
Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:44 pm
Darin wrote:
This is hard for moderns, but if a king or pharaoh had a son and he gave the signet ring to him and sent him into the land, people would rightly bow down and pay honor to that prince - but, it was derivative, and the real object was the authority of the pharoah/king that was being worshipped. If someone explicitly were to say the prince was a part of a ruling "pair" and not recognize this as derivative, that person likely would be put to death (and likely the prince for encouraging or permitting it). So, this is shaky ground, I think.
I understand your argument regarding certain things being derivative but that argument only goes so far. Consider the following:

Numbers 21:4-9

4. Then they set out from Mount Hor by the way of the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the people became impatient because of the journey. 5. So the people spoke against God (Elohim) and Moses: “Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we are disgusted with this miserable food.” 6. Then the Lord (YHWH) sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. 7. So the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, because we have spoken against the Lord (YHWH) and against you; intercede with the Lord (YHWH), that He will remove the serpents from us.” And Moses interceded for the people. 8. Then the Lord (YHWH) said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and put it on a flag pole; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, and looks at it, will live.” 9. So Moses made a bronze serpent and put it on the flag pole; and it came about, that if a serpent bit someone, and he looked at the bronze serpent, he lived.


In Numbers we are informed That Jehovah was offended. In 1 Corinthians we are informed by Paul it was Christ:

1 Corinthians 10:9
New American Standard Bible
9. Nor are we to put the Lord (Christos) to the test, as some of them did, and were killed by the snakes.


How is this to be explained? In the OT story God is offended. Paul says the offense was against Christ. He had just informed the Corinthians that Christ was the "rock" that followed the Israelites in the desert. Easily explained by the Trinitarian; I don't see how the Unitarian can explain it.
This is an interesting one to raise and one I haven't fully considered in connection with this topic. So, I will consider it more fully.

Of course all analogies fall short, but the typification of Christ between Joseph and Pharoah is also apropros on this perspective. I don't see how the 1 Corinthians/Numbers example exemplify a shortcoming of the discussion of derivative authority. But, in any event, it is an interesting separate argument in support of Trinitarianism. This may deserve its own thread, so I'm starting a new topic for this discussion and will move this post there once created.

On the wilderness wanderings, I know that Dwight doesn't like secondary references, but they are useful to show examples of how people have thought through issues like this and can be useful to dialogue and consideration of alternative positions. Yes, as Dwight says, their usefulness depends on them following or being true to scripture. That is just as true as our own exchanges and ideas. But, since you don't see how someone might explain this 1 Cor passage, I provide one commentator's thoughts for your consideration.

In short, it is well agreed that the many references to Christ in the Israel wanderings do not suggest identity with Christ but are types of Christ and reveal spiritual truths about the coming Messiah that is fulfilled in Christ. To my mind, it is just as ill-advised to use literal interpretations here in support of dogmas as this is what leads to silly futuristic theories about Revelation leading to Dispensationalism.

Here is at least one person's discourse on the 1 Corinthians passage. It is discussing 10:4, but that was the presumption for the discussion of 10:9, so I thought it might be a good place to start. Again (for Dwight), I do not present this as authoritative, but as helpful to share a perspective that perhaps hadn't been considered and give us a convenient basis for further discussion.

https://dividingword.wordpress.com/2013 ... hians-104/
1 Cor. 10:4 states,

They drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ.

ImageThis picture is said to be the rock that Moses struck. You may click on that rock to refer to the webpage.

The Trinitarian mind-set would have us believe Paul was trying to tell us Christ literally existed in the time of the wanderings in the wilderness, but this is not what Paul said or was trying to convey to us.

We know that the Messiah did not literally exist as a rock, nor follow the Israelites all around in the wilderness. Nowhere in the Hebrew Testament does it mention the Messiah being with the Israelites in the wilderness. And if he had been, he certainly would not have been “following” them. The Hebrew Testament does not say the LORD “followed” the Israelites as Paul spoke of the rock that followed them; scriptures states that the LORD “went before them,” not following them. (Ex. 13:21,22) The context, however, in 1 Cor. 10:4 shows that Paul is speaking of the things as types.

There are many passages that the Messiah was the hope of Israel, and people who looked forward to him were strengthened by their anticipation of their coming Messiah.

Paul was using a “typology” with reference to Christ, who is the Messiah, accompanying Christians in their lives. We as children of God are passing through this world and wilderness as pilgrims. Our experience is being read back into the experiences of the Israelites. Twice Paul tells us he is speaking “typically” in verses 6 and 11. Here is what we can learn as one brother has well stated:

◾Passing through the red sea/cloud = Christian baptism.
◾The miraculous manna = Continuous supply of spiritual food.
◾Striking the rock (tsur) at Rephidim= Christ in the flesh smitten for sins of man.
◾The gushing out of water = The giving of holy spirit.
◾Striking the rock (sela) at Kadesh= Christ our High Priest not to be smitten twice but only to be addressed. Yet “they impale the Son of God afresh”
◾Water came out abundantly = The supplying of holy spirit.

The 2 rock incidents were at each end of the wanderings (Exodus 17 and Numbers 20).

Paul designates the “rock” that Moses struck as a “type,” of Jesus. Paul does not say that Christ is [present tense] that rock as assumed by many.

The spiritual “rock” was Christ, that is, that rock that the LORD had provided by means of his spirit is a type of Jesus. There is nothing in this that means that Jesus “was” LORD as in Yahweh. The food — the manna — and drink — the water — provided by the LORD is a type of the food and drink provided through Jesus. Jesus himself tells us this. (John 6:48-58) There is nothing in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 that proves that Jesus is LORD (Yahweh) who provided the rock, and the manna, and the drink through the rock.

Paul was speaking figuratively. He draws an illustration of how the literal “rock,” that the Israelites literally drank from, spiritually represents Jesus (1 Cor. 10: 6-11). Christ is our nourishment and our strength (John 6:35; Phil 4:13). Paul is giving an example by referring them back to the nation of Israel for the benefit of the Christian (v.6).

So Paul is in no way saying that Christ literally existed as a rock or that he existed in the time of the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites.


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

1 Corinthians 10 - Christ as the Rock in Numbers

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:50 am

I've been looking into 10:9 because it is more problematic than the clear typification in 10:4 (and hence seems incongruent). So far, I have found that there is considerably suspicion of manuscript corruption here (as in a number of Trinitarian proof-texts). Apparently, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read "Lord" rather than "Christ." Codex Alexandrinus reads "God" rather than "Christ." So, I would lean very carefully on 10:9 as a Trinitarian proof-text. That said, I'd like to know more about that textual variant and will inquire further. When was it introduced, etc.

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

Re: Worship of Jesus in NT

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:10 am

This is a pretty well reasoned discussion of some of the manuscript considerations. One reason I love the NET bible is you get the benefit of their analysis of why they chose certain variants and interpretations and can assess and consider the extent to which they are reasonable assumptions.

https://worshipingmind.wordpress.com/20 ... existence/

1 Corinthians 10:9 and the Question of Christ’s Pre-existence

April 20, 2014· worshippingmind·

Among the texts from the Pauline corpus popularly used to show Paul’s (and early Christians’) belief in Jesus’ personal pre-existence, 1 Corinthians 10:9 is a favorite. The Evangelical New English Translation (NET Bible) renders it:

“And let us not put Christ [ton christon] to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes.”

In its study edition, the footnote on the “Christ” reading states, “the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ.” This is the conclusion drawn after considering the variant manuscript renderings of the text, and finally concluding that the best reading should be the “Christ” reading. Christopher Tuckett comes to the same conclusion:

“1 Corinthians 10:9 (probably) has ‘we must not put Christ to the test as some of them [=the Old Testament Israelites] did.’ Hence, again, Paul seems to presuppose that Jesus was present in the period of the wilderness wanderings.”[1]

While popular, the personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is not the conclusion drawn by all eminent NT scholars today. Two key factors determine the conclusions drawn from this text, namely hermeneutics and manuscript preference.

Without taking the variant readings into account for now, and accepting the “christon” reading in this text, referring to Christ as the one pre-existing during the time of the Israelites, and by implication identifying Christ as Yahweh (the Rock, the One disobeyed in the OT narrative of Num. 21:5-9) needn’t be the necessary conclusion drawn. A typological reading of the whole chapter 10 is in order, as explicitly stated by Paul in 10:6:

“…and those things became types (or examples, “tupoi”) for us, for our not passionately desiring evil things, as also these did desire.”

Here the interpretive key is given by Paul himself; setting out the typological pattern his discourse would follow:

(i) …for our not passionately desiring evil things (Christians living now, at the end of the system)…

(ii) …as also these did desire (the ancient Jews did under a different system and circumstances).

Assuming the “christon” reading of the text, James Dunn follows an identical course of hermeneutic:

“It is hardly likely that Paul intended to identify Christ as the wilderness rock in any literal sense. So ‘the rock was Christ’ must denote some sort of allegorical identification: the rock represents Christ in some way; as water from the rock, so spiritual drink form Christ… Paul himself describes the whole affair as τυποι (types) and as happening to the Israelites τυπικως (typologically) in vv. 6 and 11… In other words, Paul says to his readers: if you compare yourselves to the Israelites you will see what peril you are in. They experienced the equivalent of what we have experienced: they went through what we can call a baptism; they enjoyed what we can call ‘spiritual food’ – you only need to equate Moses with Christ… and the rock with Christ to see how close the parallel is to your situation – and yet look what happened to them (vv.5, 9f.).”[2]

Karl-Joseph Kuschel addresses Paul’s hermeneutic along the same line:

“[T]he form of the statement is not a ‘dogmatic’ reflection on the person of Christ, but a typological interpretation of an important salvation even from the Old Testament…, and had already been interpreted typologically by Philo of Alexandria: the manna and the rock are allegories of the universal Logos and personified wisdom. And Paul himself interpreted this Exodus narrative typikos (10:11), i.e. as an episode the meaning of which points beyond itself. Paul evidently wants to make it clear that in the perspective of God’s action there is a connection between then and today, between the situation of the wandering in the wilderness and the situation in Corinth, between the Jews once and the Christians now. The allegorical equation ‘Christ = spiritual rock’ is the key to this…”[3]

From a Pauline hermeneutical perspective then, a literal or real pre-existence of Christ needn’t be concluded from 10:9. This is the case even if the original text read “christon.” The evidence for this reading is however, rather dubious.

Several variants for this text exists in the ancient manuscript tradition, ranging from “christon” to “theon” to “kurion.” The earliest manuscript containing this text is the Alexandrine papyrus 46 (200 C.E.) which reads “christon.” What is noteworthy is that some later manuscripts also from the same Alexandrian text tradition read “kurion” (א [4th cent]B [4th cent] C [5th cent] P [6th cent] 33 [9th cent] 104 [11th cent] 1175 [11th cent]). This observation is noteworthy in that it would be hard to imagine a change or correction in a reading from “christon” to “kurion” without good reason, particularly since it would be imagined that the “christon” reading would serve a Christocentric reading of the text so much better. Since the “kurion” reading would pose no difficulty to Christian believers of those centuries, whether it was understood typologically or pre-existentially, doctrine is probably not the motivation for this change. There are various arguments in favour of the “christon” reading in the 1 Corinthians 10:9, particularly by the NET Bible Commentary of which Evangelical text critic, Dan Wallace, is a contributor. Their linchpin arguments go like this:
1.Early Church fathers rendered the verse to say “christon,” so, originally, the text probably had the “christon” reading; and
2.Because an enemy of Christians (Marcion) has the “christon” reading in his Pauline text, it is highly probable, if not certain, that “christon” was the original reading.[4]



As discussed below, there are few potential errors in these interpretive strategies.

Does Patristic rendering imply textual superiority?

The difficulty in using Patristic rendering of a text as evidence for textual superiority lies in the following:

a) One cannot always determine whether a Church Father was quoting Scripture, was merely expressing a personal conviction, or whether the quote is an accurate recollection of the text of the time;

b) Church Fathers had among themselves diverse convictions on several matters, often in response to other considered “heretical” influences; and

c) The texts of the Church Fathers have suffered editing by copyists, especially since the mandate toward textual integrity and faithful transmission is not equivalent or as high as that involving sacred text.

Bruce Metzger writes in this regard:

After the true text of the Patristic author has been recovered, the further question must be raised whether the writer intended to quote the scriptural passage verbatim or merely to paraphrase it. If one is assured that the father makes a bona fide quotation and not a mere allusion, the problem remains whether he quoted it after consulting the passage in a manuscript or whether he relied on memory…Furthermore, if the father quotes the same passage more than once, it often happens that he does so in divergent forms. Origen is notorious in this regard, for he seldom quotes a passage twice in precisely the same words. Moreover, while dictating to one of his several amanuenses, Origen would sometimes refer merely to a few catchwords in the Scripture passage…later the amanuensis would hunt out the passage in a Biblical manuscript and insert its words. [5]

A case in point is, interestingly enough, again from the tenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. Support for the “christon” reading in verse 9 from among the Patristics include Clement and Irenaeus,[6] which also cite verse 5 of 1 Corinthians 10. What is different from the manuscript evidence of the text is that early witnesses used in favour of the “christon” reading (MS 81 [11th cent], Clement, Irenaeus) omit “o theos” from texts quoting 1 Corinthians 10:5.[7] Since these witnesses are given priority in deciding on the more probable reading of verse 9, are we to follow the same course in “correcting” verse 5 by omitting the “o theos” reading?



Does Marcion’s quoting the “christon” rendering indicate its superiority?

In arguing for the superiority of the “christon” reading, the NET Bible Commentary states:

“Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel, because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, {Marcion} read a text with ‘Christ.’”[8]

The argument in the above statement implies that, since Marcion was in the habit of rewriting authoritative texts,[9] and since this practice was inspired by his particular theology (namely his dislike of the OT Yahweh and his preference for the True High God of Jesus Christ), it is expected that he would have changed 1 Cor. 10:9 as well, to exclude Christ in the historical involvement of Israel. Marcion didn’t, which implies, following the argument above, that he quoted from an extant manuscript containing the “christon” reading. To be sure, neither of the two premises (Marcion as text-redactor and Marcion as Yahweh-hater) would have necessitated him to change the “christon” reading to either “kurion” or “theon.” It would have been much easier to excise this text from his canon altogether (in accordance with the charges against him). If a dislike of the OT Yahweh motivated him to that extent, reference to neither Christ (christon) nor Lord (kurion, whether Jesus or Yahweh), nor God (theon = Yahweh) would have satisfied his discomfort with a reference to the OT events.

What logically follows is to determine how Marcion treated authoritative Christian texts which made reference to OT events. Did he exclude them from his canon? Would he have been offended at reading “Christ” or Christ-references in such OT renderings from Christian texts?

In Marcion’s Evangelion there are several passages referring to stories or characters found in the Old Testament. He states for instance that a woman is entitled to healing as a “daughter of Abraham” (13:16); he includes the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, complete with references to Abraham’s bosom (16:19-31), and even positively endorses the Law of Moses. How were these stories understood by Marcion, since they clashed with his theology? Allegorical understanding of these stories and appreciating their universal truths opened their way for inclusion into Marcion’s Evangelion.[10]



It should be clear therefore, that Marcion’s treatment of the text as reading either “christon” or “kurion” is inconsequential for our inquiry. This is so whether Marcion was a text redactor (who failed to correct or excise several other references in conflict with his theology) or a faithful copyist (who would have understood 1 Cor. 10:9 allegorically or mythologically).

Conclusion

Following Paul’s typological hermeneutic, referencing Christ in 1 Cor. 10:9 would not have one arrive at a thoroughly developed doctrine of pre-existence in Paul. The typology is clear, namely that the Corinthian Christians were in a situation similar to that of the ancient Israelites. Through paraenetic rhetoric, Paul reminds those Christians of ancient Israelite history, and urges them to refrain from putting Christ to the test in their day, as opposed to what the ancient Israelites did during their sojourn in the wilderness.

From a text-critical perspective, the “christon” reading remains dubious. Patristic support and Marcionite rendering provide no conclusive answer to the question of variant superiority:[11]

“…precisely this form of 1 Corinthians 10:9 was used to counter adoptionistic Christologies during the period of the text’s corruption. Two of our ancient sources cite the text against Paul of Samosata to show that Christ was not a mere man, but that he was alive and active already in Old Testament times…The text was changed by proto-orthodox scribes who saw ‘Christ’ as the one who exercised divine prerogatives even during the days of the Exodus.”[12]

Regardless of the popularity of 1 Corinthians 10:9, it is highly doubtful that Paul had a pre-existent Jesus Christ in mind when he wrote what is today the tenth chapter of first Corinthians.



[1] Christopher Tuckett, Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest Followers, p. 64.

[2] Christology in the Making, James D.G. Dunn, p. 184.

[3] Born Before All Time? The Dispute over Christ’s Origin, Karl-Joseph Kuschel, p. 283.



[4] NET Bible Commentary, 1 Corinthians 10:9, ftn. 7.

[5] The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Bruce Metzger, 3rd ed., pp.87, 88)

[6] Exhortation to the Heathen 9.84.3 (possibly); Against Heresies IV, 27.3

[7] Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, pp. 89; See Against Heresies IV, 36.6

[8] NET Bible Commentary, 1 Corinthians 10:9, ftn. 7.

[9] See the Patristic charge against Marcion in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies I, 27.2; III, 12.12 and Tertullian’s Against Marcion IV, 2.1, 4. Disputing these charges, see Jason D. BeDuhn, “The Myth of Marcion as Redactor: The Evidence of ‘Marcion’s’ Gospel Against an Assumed Marcionite Redaction,” Annali di Storia Dell’Esegesi, 29/1 (2012), pp. 21-48

[10] Referring to Abraham as the “common father” allegorically, Marcion argued that “…both of the Creator’s rewards in hell, whether of torment or of comfort, are intended for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets, while he defines as heavenly the bosom and the haven of his particular Christ and god.” – Against Marcion IV.34.11). The Marcionite text of the two sons of Abraham (Gal. 4:22-31) is also allegorical (Against Marcion III, 5.4).

[11] Interestingly, in manuscript 1739, appeal is made to Origen’s lost Stromateis and Epistle of Hymenaeus, quoting 1 Corinthians 10:9 to refute adoptionism. Ehrman concludes: “This means that the reading that is preserved widely among the Alexandrian witnesses otherwise understood to be superior is, in fact, original. The text was changed by proto-orthodox scribes who saw ‘Christ’ as the one who exercised divine prerogatives even during the days of the Exodus.” This conclusion is particularly strong, since the Alexandrine scribes, who had all the doctrinal motives to have the “christos” reading, instead copied and rendered it as “theos.” See Ehrman, Ibid., 90

[12] Bart Ehrman, Ibid., pp. 89, 90.

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

Re: Worship of Jesus in NT

Post by Homer » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:07 pm

One of the arguments against a Trinitarian understanding of the passage in 1 Corinthians 10 is that the Christ would not have been following behind the Israelites in the wilderness. However this is a very weak argument as the Greek word akoloutheo literally means "to be in the same way with"; to accompany. God was with them in Christ.
1 Corinthians 10
1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; 2 and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and they all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed (Grk akoloutheo) them and the rock was Christ.

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

Re: 1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by darinhouston » Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:36 pm

Homer, whether the rock was leading or following or in the way of Israel is not really a point being made here -- it is largely a side note. The larger issue is whether this is typology and in what sense Paul is making the connection. That doesn't depend on the word meaning and is a larger argument.

User avatar
StevenD
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:25 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by StevenD » Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:58 pm

Seeing that the exchange here pivots around Paul's acknowledgment of Jesus as the rock, it makes sense to consider Peter's input along similar lines. Since a bulk of metaphorical links to stones and rocks pivot around Peter's own confession of Christ as the Son of God (including Peter's own change of name), it's likely that Peter spent some time meditating on the subject. Whether or not one honors Peter's words as inspired or not, his conclusions are both apostolic and grounded in the words of the prophets.

Accordingly, in the context of the book of Acts he identifies Jesus with "the stone" that the builders rejected (4:11; see Psalm 118:22). In Peter's first epistle he links the concept of a cornerstone (Isaiah 28:16) with the same stone that the builders rejected (Psalm 118:22) before citing Isaiah a second time to identify Jesus as a stumblingstone and a "rock of offence" (Isaiah 8:14).
1 Peter 2:6-8 reads:
v. 6: "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
v. 7: Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.
v. 8: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."
The meaning of v. 8 is more plainly exhibited by glancing back to the context of Isaiah 8:13-14, a segment of prophecy from which Peter derived some unique phraseology ("stone of stumbling" and "rock of offence"). Paul used the same language in Romans 9:33.
Isaiah 8:13-14 reads:
v. 13: "Yahweh of hosts--him you shall sanctify--and he will be your fear, and he will be your dread.
v. 14: and he will be for a sanctuary, but for a stumblingstone and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel; for a trap and a snare to the dweller[s] of Jerusalem."
It seems to me that anyone who drills beyond the surface of either Peter's epistle or Paul's letter to the Romans will encounter the larger context of Isaiah's prophecy. While I'm certain that my imagination is capable of entertaining fanciful interpretive schemes, I cannot conceive of any reasonable way to ignore that Isaiah is talking about Yahweh.

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

Re: 1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by darinhouston » Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:32 am

StevenD, that's a very interesting observation - I'm not sure this argument pivots around Jesus being the rock, but I'll have to look into that and meditate on it a bit - it's particularly interesting since Peter also was "the rock." The metaphor clearly was not lost on him. I don't see how that affects the interpretation so much in this context, but it's definitely interesting.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:19 am

John the Baptist clearly tells us that Jesus pre-existed in John 1:30. Again, no man in history has pre-existed. The Bible tells us of only one, Jesus, who was "God with us, the I am". But, of course, opponents will explain this away as well, just like they do with all the multitude of other scriptures that we have put forward - and, of course, there are even more.

Dwight

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: 1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by dwight92070 » Sun Feb 28, 2021 10:46 am

The argument that when the blind man (who Jesus healed) and Paul used the words "I am" in a sentence, they were not claiming to be God - is just plain silly. The blind man and Paul were not claiming to pre-exist, nor were they taking for themselves the name of God. It's apples and carrots. It reminds me of the argument that when Jesus raised Lazarus, it's a good thing He used Lazarus' name - otherwise all persons would have been raised from their graves - this is also just silly. Only the one who Jesus wanted raised would be raised, whether He used Lazarus' name or not. This silly argument assumes that Jesus has no control over His miracles. Ha!

Dwight

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

Re: 1 Corinthians 10 - Jesus in OT

Post by darinhouston » Sun Feb 28, 2021 7:10 pm

Some say it's silly to suggest it in either case. And what you say is simply "explaining away" these things is a 2-way street. Both views are seeing this from their pre-conceptions. Many mainstream and highly respected trinitarian scholars see the so-called "I Am" passages as wishful thinking on the part of Trinitarians. And the pre-existence verses are very subjective and their meaning changes dramatically whether you're approaching them from a Hebrew mentality on pre-existence or a hellenized greek (dare I say pagan) perspective.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”