How Many Gods are there?

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Aug 03, 2021 6:11 pm

Oh, but the first and the last (God) said, "I was dead" twice in Revelation.

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by Paidion » Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:09 pm

Dwight, you wrote:Oh, but the first and the last (God) said, "I was dead" twice in Revelation.
Clearly, those two references from Revelation refer to Jesus. But there is nothing in the references to justify your placing "God" in parentheses in your quote.
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
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by Homer » Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:42 pm

Darin,

You wrote:
Fair enough that these are the words of Paul, but (we've discussed this before) the text says "blood of his own." His own refers to Christ. Christ is His own. It is Christ's blood. Though not necessarily construed one way or the other, saying "His own blood" has a much different context in most eyes than "blood of his own". At best it's ambiguous, but I believe he's referring to the blood of Christ.
Apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr. comments on the problem Unitarians have with Acts 20:28:
To get around the reading “which he purchased with his own blood,” some scholars in the past century or so have argued that the clause should be translated, “which he purchased with the blood of his own.” What is at dispute here, in technical terms, is whether to take TOU IDIOU adjectivally (“his own”) or substantivally (“of his own”). The simplest reading in terms of the grammar is the adjectival reading, “through his own blood.” (Greek often places the adjective after the noun in this construction, article-noun-article-adjective, called the second attributive position.) The NWT Reference Bible, in an appendix on Acts 20:28, admits that this would be “the usual translation” (p. 1580). However, Harris and some other scholars favor the substantival reading. On this reading, “his own” is a kind of description or title of Christ. They admit that Christ is nowhere else in the NT called “his own,” but they compare this way of construing the words to other titles of Christ using adjectives, such as “the Righteous One” or “the Beloved.”

The NWT reflects a similar approach; it translates the text, “the blood of his own.” The NWT Reference Bible appendix does not state whether this translation is based on the text-critical view of Hort that “Son” was originally in the text or on the grammatical view that TOU IDIOU is to be construed substantivally. The appendix presents both explanations and leaves it at that.

I don’t find the arguments for these views persuasive. There is zero manuscript evidence to support Hort’s speculation, despite the fact that there are several other textual variants in the manuscripts for this verse. So I think that view may be safely set aside as both unsubstantiated and improbable.

The view that TOU IDIOU is a substantive is at least plausible, but I think it is also unlikely. Against it I would make the following six arguments.

1. The other titles of Christ based on adjectives (e.g., “the Beloved”) all have multiple attestations in the NT and continued to be recognized as Christological titles and used by the early church. This is not the case with the hypothetical title “His Own.” Moreover, in the case of these other titles there is no grammatical ambiguity about their usage as there is here.

2. The smoothest and simplest reading is the adjectival reading, “his own blood.” I don’t know of anyone who disputes this fact. Again, as noted above, the NWT Reference Bible appendix acknowledges that this would be “the usual translation.”

3. It is prejudice against the text speaking of God’s “blood” that drives the substantival reading, as Harris himself candidly states. The NWT Reference Bible appendix makes this clear as well, observing, “That has been a difficult thought for many.” But ultimately this begs the question.

4. The early church clearly did not even entertain the substantival reading. Copyists who were bothered by the text altered “God” to “Lord” (as noted above) or made other changes, attesting to their understanding TOU IDIOU adjectivally. As best I can determine, the substantival reading is only about a hundred years old. This doesn’t make it certainly false, but it does place a heavy burden of proof on the substantival reading.

5. As Harris himself points out, as quickly as the early second century Ignatius could write about “God’s blood” (Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians, 1:1). Where did Ignatius get such language? Is it best explained as an Ignatian innovation or as reflecting Paul’s words in Acts, originally spoken to the Ephesian Christians (Acts 20:17, 28)? The Ephesian connection gives weight to the latter view.

6. The Bible elsewhere speaks in similar language of Christ’s blood, e.g., “through his blood” (DIA TOU hAIMATOS AUTOU, Eph. 1:7), “through his own blood” (DIA TOU IDIOU hAIMATOS, Heb. 13:12). (Again, the position of TOU IDIOU cannot be said to make any difference in the absence of some evidence for that claim.) Admittedly, the Bible can also use a substantival expression in the final position, as in “through the blood of his cross” (DIA TOU hAIMATOS TOU STAUROU AUTOU, Col. 1:20), but again, here the adjective AUTOU functions adjectivally to mean “Christ’s,” not “the Father’s.”

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:03 pm

Paidion wrote:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:09 pm
Dwight, you wrote:Oh, but the first and the last (God) said, "I was dead" twice in Revelation.
Clearly, those two references from Revelation refer to Jesus. But there is nothing in the references to justify your placing "God" in parentheses in your quote.
No, not in those references alone, but we already established in one of my previous posts that "the first and the last" refers to God. Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12 I agree with you that those 2 references refer to Jesus, so we have Jesus ALSO claiming to be the first and the last - that is, God.

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by darinhouston » Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:13 am

dwight92070 wrote:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:03 pm
Paidion wrote:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:09 pm
Dwight, you wrote:Oh, but the first and the last (God) said, "I was dead" twice in Revelation.
Clearly, those two references from Revelation refer to Jesus. But there is nothing in the references to justify your placing "God" in parentheses in your quote.
No, not in those references alone, but we already established in one of my previous posts that "the first and the last" refers to God. Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12 I agree with you that those 2 references refer to Jesus, so we have Jesus ALSO claiming to be the first and the last - that is, God.
The question is whether it uniquely refers to God, but we have disagreed on this before.

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by darinhouston » Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:16 am

Homer wrote:
Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:42 pm
Darin,

You wrote:
Fair enough that these are the words of Paul, but (we've discussed this before) the text says "blood of his own." His own refers to Christ. Christ is His own. It is Christ's blood. Though not necessarily construed one way or the other, saying "His own blood" has a much different context in most eyes than "blood of his own". At best it's ambiguous, but I believe he's referring to the blood of Christ.
Apologist Robert M. Bowman Jr. comments on the problem Unitarians have with Acts 20:28:
***
Without responding to every point he makes, even if it is "God's own blood," it is fair to say that Jesus is His "blood" in a sense we commonly use the term. One's child is one's own "blood" - it is quite reasonable for God to see it as having shed His blood when His son was killed in His name.

On Bowman, briefly, if you are familiar with The Great Trinitarian Debate he put together a few years back, he in the end admitted that his position was completely implicit and he cancelled the poll at the end of the debate as to who won. Take that for what it's worth, but I'll go back and see if this position was in the debate when I get a chance.

[update] I found Burke's response to Bowman on this passage...
Rob appeals to Acts 20:28 (PJIHP, p144) –
Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
Some translations have “…with his own blood”, implying it was God who sacrificed Himself for us, which has been used to argue that Jesus is God (since it was he who died for our sins). Rob prefers this translation, using it in his book.

The NET rejects this translation on grammatical grounds:
Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.”

The genitive construction could be taken in two ways:
(1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or
(2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.”

In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.
Rob’s interpretation faces theological dangers.

“…with his own blood” is danger of implying that the Father Himself died on the cross (the Patripassian heresy), or that God Himself has blood (problematic since for Trinitarians the word “God” may refer to the Trinity as a whole, implying all three persons have blood).

Thus Acts 20:28 is indecisive as a Trinitarian proof text.
I also see that Acts 20:28 has textual variants and that in some manuscripts it says "Church of the Lord." Since the term theos isn't used here, it's possible it isn't even talking about Yahweh's blood in any context.

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:21 am

Isaiah 44:6 - "Thus says the Lord, ... I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me." This is God speaking.

Revelation 1:17-18 - "I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore,..." This is Jesus speaking.

Isaiah 48:12 - "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last." This is God speaking.

Revelation 2:8 - " ... the first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, ..." This is Jesus speaking.

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by Paidion » Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:32 am

There are many ways to be "the first and the last". The phrase doesn't necessarily mean the first and last being ever to exist.
Once as a boy I raced with other boys. I was the first to enter the race, but I was last to reach the goal.
Yes, I was the first and the last.
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: How Many Gods are there?

Post by darinhouston » Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:53 pm

Paidion wrote:
Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:32 am
There are many ways to be "the first and the last". The phrase doesn't necessarily mean the first and last being ever to exist.
Once as a boy I raced with other boys. I was the first to enter the race, but I was last to reach the goal.
Yes, I was the first and the last.
I do think it is meant to convey something special about God and Jesus, and not just a common expression. But, along the lines of "be all and end all" might be used today. Certainly, God is first and last in a unique sense as Master and Lord and Creator over all that ever existed, but that is also true of His Son, who is Master and Lord and (in a sense) creator over the new creation and is a "chip off the old block" as you might say. That doesn't equate them, even if the same is similarly true about both of them. I think we fail to appreciate today how ancients viewed royalty and pharoah's family line and agency within their ranks. We are SOO FAR removed from them that from our perspective, Jesus is God as far as we are concerned just as Pharoah's prince might be considered "Pharaoh" to the nations as far as it concerned them. If the prince spoke, it was Pharaoh speaking. If he had the signet ring, he was Pharaoh. That "notion" of things has to be at least in our mind as we read things like this. Agency to us is trite and corporate and conditional. In the ancient world, it was MUCH more akin to equality but that didn't mean "same in identity."

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

Re: How Many Gods are there?

Post by Homer » Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:19 pm

Darin,

Re Burke's reponse to Bowman you posted:
“…with his own blood” is danger of implying that the Father Himself died on the cross (the Patripassian heresy), or that God Himself has blood (problematic since for Trinitarians the word “God” may refer to the Trinity as a whole, implying all three persons have blood).
That is quite the strawman argument; I've never heard of a Trinitarian who thought God (the father) has blood any more than He has a human body. Scripture plainly informs us that God is spirit, is invisible, yet Jesus is visible and has a body. There is both unity and diversity in the Godhead.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”