p.ost

how to tell the biblical story in a way that makes a difference

The appointment of the Son of God

If we think that the New Testament always presupposes the pre-existent, divine identity of Jesus as the eternal Son of God, we have to understand Paul’s statement in Romans 1:4 that Jesus “was declared (horisthentos) to be the Son of God in power” (ESV) to mean that, while Jesus was always the Son of God, the fact that he was Son of God in power was not announced until after the resurrection. There are two problems with this theological interpretation of the passage—on top of the fact that it could have been stated more simply.

1. The verb horizō doesn’t mean “declare” in the sense of saying this is what something is in itself. The underlying idea, according to BDAG, is “to separate entities and so establish a boundary”. We get the word “horizon” from it. It can mean to define or set limits to ideas or concepts; or it can mean “make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set.” Daniel’s enemies say to Darius: “did you not fix a ruling (horismon hōrisō) that no person would pray a prayer or request a request from any god…?” (Dan. 6:13 LXX = 6:12 MT). The ESV translation “declared”, therefore, in Romans 1:4 has to be understood as a speech act: a statement that makes something happen.

Luke is especially fond of the word.

  • Jesus says that “the Son of Man goes as it has been determined (hōrismenon)” (Lk. 22:22). He does not mean “declared”. He means that a decision or commitment has been made—at his baptism, or perhaps when he was tested by Satan—to go by the way of suffering.
  • Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite (hōrismenē) plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). This is a plan that has been determined, decided, established by God.
  • The “disciples determined (hōrisan), every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea” (Acts 11:29). They didn’t say that they would do this. They made a decision; they fixed on a policy.
  • God “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined (horisas) allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26). The word is used a number of times in Joshua for the determination of the boundaries of Israel (Josh. 13:7, 27; 15:12; 18:20; 23:4 LXX).
  • Finally, and most importantly, Jesus is the man who has been “appointed (hōrismenos) by God to be judge of the living and the dead”; and God “has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed (hōrisen); and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 10:42; 17:31). These are not mere declarations regarding the eternal Son of God. They have to do with the divine determination of a particular man (en andri hōi hōrisen) to act as judge over the Greek-Roman world (oikoumenēn) at a particular time in the foreseeable future.

2. The context in Romans 1:4 makes it clear, I think, that horisthentos means appointed at a particular moment.

  • It is not the Son who existed beforehand but the promise of the gospel (Rom. 1:1-2). The prophets foresaw that someone would be appointed Son of God in power to rule over the nations (cf. Rom. 15:12).
  • The origin of the Son goes back only as far as being “born from seed of David according to the flesh” (tou genomenou ek spermatos David kata sarka). This contrasts with the parallel statement: “appointed Son of God in power according to (kata) the Spirit of holiness from (ex) resurrection of the dead.” His existence in the flesh was determined by the family line of David. His existence as Son of God in power was determined by (ex) his resurrection from the dead. What controls the meaning of horisthentos is not some act of speaking but the event of the resurrection.

The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus became something following his resurrection from the dead that he was not before. He was given something that he did not have before. He was given the kingdom and honour and glory. He was given authority to judge and rule over Israel and the nations. He was made Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). He was appointed Son of God in power. He was given the name which is above every name. He was given the scroll of God’s wrath to open.

This was the gospel. The man who had been sent to look for the fruit of righteousness in Israel had been violently killed, but God had raised him from the dead and had seated him at his right hand, to rule until the last enemy is destroyed. Then the first resurrected man, the second Adam, would step down from his throne, and God would be all in all (1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Occasionally, however, another narrative flashes like lightning to illuminate the solid ground of this testimony, which is that in these civilisation-changing events the creative Word or Wisdom of God became flesh in order to bring about a new creation. That is what set the early church in the Greek world on a long path in search of a christology that would transcend the apocalyptic storyline.

Comments

This is helpful; thank you.

I’m curious what you make of the argument (IIRC) in NT Wright’s work that “son of God” in Rom 1:4 is to be understood as “Israel’s Messiah” (and with all that entails, in terms of de jure wider rule over Gentiles, in the context of Jewish apocalyptic expectation) and that the “ex” is instrumental (“by”, as so commonly translated to English, which does invite the understanding “declared”) in the sense that the resurrection was God’s reversal of the judgment of the rulers that Jesus was a false messianic pretender. I found this reading deeply appealing when I first encountered it years ago.

Of course, the two aren’t incompatible but I see your point (if I understand it) that this might not be what Paul is affirming in this text.

I would agree that “Son of God” implies rule over the nations. It echoes Psalm 2, and the argument of Romans bears this out. I’m not sure that “the resurrection was God’s reversal of the judgment of the rulers that Jesus was a false messianic pretender” would necessarily reduce to declaration. It is the act of raising from the dead that determines his status as “Son of God in power”. Otherwise he would just be dead. I also think the contrastive parallel between ek spermatos Dauid and ex anastaseōs nekrōn is probably decisive.

1. NIDNTT: We must remember, however, that Paul does not indicate anywhere else that he thought that Jesus was installed as Son first at his resurrection (cf. Rom. 8:3). He holds that Jesus was God’s Son from all eternity (1:473, Determine, K. Munzer).

Romans 1:4 is preceded by Romans 1:1 in which Paul identifies himself as a slave of Christ which entails that he is a worshiper of Christ - and only God is to be worshiped. Indeed, Romans 1:4 is followed by a prayer to Jesus in Romans 1:7 - and only God is to be prayed to.

Romans 8:3 speaks of God sending his Son (as he had previously sent the prophets) in the flesh, corresponding to “his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh” in Romans 1:3. Nothing is said about Jesus being “God’s Son from all eternity”—though I acknowledge that the “sending” motif can be dismissed so easily.

In Romans 1:4 the Son who was of Davidic descent according to the flesh has been appointed “Son of God in power” as a consequence of his resurrection from the dead.

I think we have basically the same or a related idea in the following passages:

he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:31)

For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. (2 Cor. 13:4)

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name…. (Phil. 2:9)

and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. (Eph. 1:19–21)

“Slave of Christ” simply means that he serves Israel’s anointed Lord and King. It doesn’t mean worship. Kings and masters have slaves. Talking to Jesus is not necessarily prayer.

You wrote: “Slave of Christ” simply means that he serves Israel’s anointed Lord and King. It doesn’t mean worship. Kings and masters have slaves. Talking to Jesus is not necessarily prayer.

Slave of Christ means a worshiper of Christ.
Murray Harris: The very existence of the phrase ‘slave of Christ’ alongside ‘slave of God’ in New Testament usage testifies to the early Christian belief in Christ’s deity. Knowing the expression ‘slave of the Lord’ from the Septuagint, several New Testament writers - John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude - quietly substitute ‘Christ’ for ‘the Lord’, a substitution that would have been unthinkable for a Jew unless Christ was seen as having parity of status with Yahweh ((Slave of Christ: A New Testament Metaphor for Total Devotion to Christ, page 134).

Talking to Jesus is prayer because one can do so silently within their heart and He will perfectly know what is said.

Christ is the master of slaves because the creator God made him to be such (Daniel 7:13-14). At an earlier time God had made Nebuchadnezzar the master of all kings and ruler (Greek: kurios) over the earth (Daiel 2:37-38). The New Testament writers give us every indication that Christ’s authority was something given to him, not something intrinsic.

The fact that He is worshiped demonstrates that the authority He has is intrinsic. For if it wasn’t intrinsic that would would mean God the Father created another God.

The problem with that assessment seems to be that the Greek word for worship (proskunesis) did not always designate the worship owed to the Creator God in Jewish contexts.A plethora of human figures in the LXX appropriately receive proskunesis.

Prayer is due unto God alone. Christ is the proper recipient of prayer. Therefore, Christ is God.

Simple.

I’m inclined to be sympathetic to the leaders of the Gentile churches in the centuries when Christology was crystallizing. It’s hard to make a credible claim that the crucified would-be king of a subjugated nation is in fact the rightful lord of all the nations, and particularly of the empire that subjugated his homeland.

It may have been necessary as an apologetical matter to make a “more than human” claim about Jesus in order to credibly assert his lordship over the empire. (I have not previously understood Andrew’s language about this, but perhaps I am finally “getting it.”)

And, having made this commitment, it is hard to back down later.

I remain “not completely persuaded” that “incarnation” as traditionally conceived is a misunderstanding, but I’m inclined at the moment to modulate my private christology in the direction that Jesus is the human nature within the hypostatic union (versus the more conventional view that Jesus has a human nature). But I imagine even that adjustment puts me outside the pale.

You wrote: It’s hard to make a credible claim that the crucified would-be king of a subjugated nation is in fact the rightful lord of all the nations, and particularly of the empire that subjugated his homeland.

No it isn’t. Even in the Old Testament it teaches He will judge with the same knowledge to that of YHWH (Isaiah 11:3-4) .

@ Samuel

I’m inclined at the moment to modulate my private christology in the direction that Jesus is the human nature within the hypostatic union (versus the more conventional view that Jesus has a human nature).

This is a subtle distinction indeed!

How about abandoning the hypostasis lingo altogether?

We would get rid of all talk about Jesus or his hypostasis being eternal (and, implicitly, pre-existing).

What is eternal is God’s word/logos/dabar (an attribute of God, NOT a person) that became incarnated in Jesus. (John 1:1-2,14)

It’s not all that subtle. The conventional, mainstream view (at least in US at “pew level” is that Jesus is the hypostatic union, from which naturally flows the (to my mind) simplistic language that “Jesus is God.” I don’t understand the details of Nicene Christology well enough to know whether the statement “Jesus is the hypostatic union” is a good summary of Nicaea, but I suspect that it leads to “confusion of the natures”, which I do know the traditional statement warns against. For example, if “Jesus is God”, and “God is omniscient”, how does one account for Jesus’ ignorance of the details of the timing of the coming disaster in Israel?

That there might be complexity within the Divine Being seems possible to me. Jonathan Edwards’ “Essay on the Trinity” strikes me as a plausible argument. It’s abstract and rationalistic and shouldn’t IMO be regarded to control one’s interpretation of the biblical text, but I think there is a place for arguments of this kind. If God is indeed “omniscient” and consequently “knows Himself perfectly”, then perhaps the entailments that Edwards perceives do follow.

Regarding the “Son of God in power” (yiou theou en dynamei - Rom 1:4), it is worth reading the note 1 sn appended to the verse by NETBible:

1 sn Appointed the Son-of-God-in-power. Most translations render the Greek participle ὁρισθέντος (horisthentos, from ὁρίζω, horizō) “declared” or “designated” in order to avoid the possible interpretation that Jesus was appointed the Son of God by the resurrection. However, the Greek term ὁρίζω is used eight times in the NT, and it always has the meaning “to determine, appoint.” Paul is not saying that Jesus was appointed the “Son of God by the resurrection” but “Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection,” as indicated by the hyphenation. He was born in weakness in human flesh (with respect to the flesh, v. 3) and he was raised with power. This is similar to Matt 28:18 where Jesus told his disciples after the resurrection, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

It is inconsequent, though, to deduce from the above (or from elsewhere) that …

It is the act of raising from the dead that determines his status as “Son of God in power”. [Andrew, 21 June, 2019 - 15:06]

In the last day the elect are going to be raised to life everlasting. They are not going to be made “Sons of God in power” by their resurrection, though.

Re: ” In the last day the elect are going to be raised to life everlasting. They are not going to be made “Sons of God in power” by their resurrection, though. “

If “in power” is a “political” statement of Jesus’ authority to rule, then perhaps there are “sons of god in power” – those who have earned the privilege of participating in “the first resurrection” (this is not “the last day”, of course) and with whom Jesus “shares the throne”.

That bit of Rev 20 has always mystified me. Thanks, Andrew, for offering clarity on this.

Andrew: is this what John 1 is talking about with its language of “right to become sons of god”? Or does that text have a larger group in view?

Increasingly, it looks to me like Michael Heiser might be right that this “sons of god” language does refer to some kind of “divine council” of rulers or advisors, to which some believers are admitted, and that the “son of god” language is a technical term.

It is not “sons” but “children” (tekna) of God in John 1. The reference is presumably more generally to God’s people.

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, swho believed in his name, the gave the right uto become children of God…

John 8:39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did….”

John 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

It is not “sons” but “children” (tekna) of God in John 1. The reference is presumably more generally to God’s people.

Precisely! And the “children [tekna] of God”, at the resurrection, are not going to be “children-of-God-in-power”.

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

Answer:
a. The Father (Galatians 1:1)
b. The Lord Jesus (John 2:19-21)
c. The Holy Spirit (Romans 8:11)

And according to Acts 13:30, God raised Him from the dead.

Again, all Three were involved. Nothing was cited that refuted this.

Proverbs 29:9

That the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of just one prayer demonstrates that He is God. Seeing that the Bible teaches He is the proper recipient of prayer in multiple passages further proves this point.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18)

… given …

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (NASB)

BDAG (3rd Edition): Of Jesus’ total authority (exousia, page 353).

TDNT: Elsewhere, however, it is said of the Redeemer during His earthly life that He has laid aside His power and appeared in lowliness and humility…Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact. A new situation is brought into being with the crucifixion and resurrection. The Chosen One seizes the full power which He had from the beginning of the world, Mt. 28:18 “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (5:895, All).

Those who believe the Lord Jesus is God can account for the fact that He was “given” all authority/power in that before His resurrection He simply refused to always employ His omnipotence, but those who deny the Lord Jesus is God are unable to satisfactorily explain that the Lord Jesus possesses (right now) all authority/power - He is omnipotent/Almighty.

Thus, when the full power of Jesus is occasionally mentioned during the time of His humiliation, it is merely a proleptic fact.

That Jesus was “in the form of God” (en morphē theou - Phil 2:6) means that Jesus was the incarnation of an essential attribute of God, God’s word/logos/dabar, NOT that he was YHWH.

Proleptic (adj. from prolepsis) means (American Heritage®):

2.a. The assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a time that precedes it So. if and where full power is ascribed to Jesus before his ascension, this is a case of prolepsis.

#3 the use of a descriptive word in anticipation of its becoming applicable.

As I already pointed out, Jesus didn’t always employ His omnipotence, but that doesn’t mean He isn’t. In fact, He possesses “all power”.
And to be all-powerful (Matthew 28:18) means to be Almighty.

[prolepsis - Random House] #3 the use of a descriptive word in anticipation of its becoming applicable.

Precisely! Omnipotence was NOT applicable to Jesus before it became … applicable. Jesus did NOT restrain his alleged omnipotence. He simply did NOTpossess it. It was … given to him!

Wrong.

You just created more of a mess, for if Jesus was given omnipotence then the Almighty created another Almighty.

You may wish to hold on to your trinitarian hocus-pocus as much as you like. You may invoke the authority of BDAG and TDNT as much as you like.

But you still haven’t seriously confronted this:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18)

… given …

Thanks for your admission that Jesus possesses omnipotence.

Omnipotent = Almighty

Thanks for your admission that Jesus possesses omnipotence.

You’re welcome! I have no problem with subscribing to what the NT clearly says:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18)

… given …

You, OTOH, do not refrain from constructing on this a trinitarian idol (verbal and visual) …

2 Beings that are Almighty.
Polytheism.

2 Beings that are Almighty.
Polytheism.

You say the Father is Omnipotent.

You say the Son is Omnipotent.

You are kicking up a huge fuss about words, nay, about nothing.

Because they are one Being.This is why (one reason among many) Trinitarianism is correct and Unitarianism is wrong.

Trinitarianism - only 1 Tri-Person Almighty

Unitarianism - 2 Beings who are Almighty (your brand of it anyway, which is not even Unitarianism, but rather polytheism).

Trinitarianism - only 1 Tri-Person Almighty

Enjoy your verbal concoction and hold on to it :)

Thanks. I will (Matthew 28:19).

“Because they are one Being”

they are not “one being,” they are three separate persons who are not identical to each other and they do things the other does not do, the thing they share are same/similar powers.

1. does god the son KNOW how it feels to exist as god the father ? no, is the father aware of this, yes? TWO BEINGS. please stop saying “one being” this is trinitarian trickery.

your “one being” is poetical , not literal.

“You just created more of a mess, for if Jesus was given omnipotence then the Almighty created another Almighty.”

what different does it matter? if a god “switched off his power” and then turned it back on, he gained and lost, this is like creating another almighty . are you saying your god cannot hand his power over to another ? if he can switch it off , surely he can hand it to another while he is empty of it, right?

He didn’t switch off all His power, He just simply refused to always employ it. There is a difference.

Again, thanks for your clarification of your belief - The Almighty created another Almighty.
So that means God (Almighty) created another God (Almighty), yet you believe Jesus is not God.

Like I wrote early, it’s a mess.

“He didn’t switch off all His power, He just simply refused to always employ it.”

LOL ,what kind of NONSENSE is this? when the power was not employed, what the heck was it doing ? playing tiddly winks with the father? you are saying that POWER existed “UNEMPLOYED” hahahahaah

so i am asking, your god CAN give this power to OTHER beings other than he.

“There is a difference.”

no difference, a power EXISTING UNEMPLOYED!

“Again, thanks for your clarification of your belief - The Almighty created another Almighty.”

ITS all nonsense to me mate, but in your belief it is perfectly logical to have POWER TRANSFERRED to another.

“So that means God (Almighty) created another God (Almighty), yet you believe Jesus is not God.”

no, it means your god TRANSFERRED his powers lol. transferring and CREATING are two different things. your god “empowered” by transferring his power.

“Like I wrote early, it’s a mess.”

yes, triune religion is a mess.

Jesus can refrain from using His power. Who are you to insist that He can’t or shouldn’t?

“Jesus can refrain from using His power.”

so then the father can transfer those same powers to someone else since the father of his ownself can do everything.

so it seems to me that you imagine a god who works with and without power i.e a changing god. an intermittant god. an angel like being.

person MINUS/PLUS power lol

so you worship a god who is “-/+” power

so jesus is a being who is “-/+”

a changing god. a creature just like an angel. intermittant. using/losing.

funny how you change your words “refrain from using his power”

when jesus was on earth, was he HAVING THE same experiences that he had with “father in heaven” in his power? if not, then we see a changed god. so then the question is, why can’t father TRANSFER power that was given to jesus?

“Jesus can refrain from using His power.”

can i ask , why trinitarians play word trickery?

you said jesus was “refraining to use his power,” but then what was he using ? he was using his non-divine attributes? doesn’t that mean that while he is experiencing being x, he is not experiencing how it was WHEN he was “using his powers” ?

now look at the direction of change

god——> becomes ——> created

so all i am asking is, if god can become created and experiencing being a man and “divinise man,” and currently god is existing as “fully man and fully god”

then do you see why i say you guys play word trickery? you pay lip service to monethiesm, but in heart fully polythiests.

Jesus didn’t always have to always display His power. So it is not trkcery.

What is trickery is when those who deny the Lord Jesus is God say either (1) He is not to be prayed to - even though the Bible teaches this truth or (2) He can be prayed to but this doesn’t mean He is God.

“Jesus didn’t always have to always display His power. So it is not trkcery.”

sorry mate, jesus EXPERIENCED by a HUMAN being, how can that SAME HUMAN being exist as divine being? two contradictory things.

if a lion does not “display his power” does that mean lion is now a weak mouse?

so when yhwh is not “displaying his power” he is a weak human being ?

do you see what i am trying to say? you are playing trinitarian trickery with your “display his power”

That’s not a contradiction. He was a human and yet He was/is the proper recipient of prayer - that means He is God.
The trickery is by those who deny He is God even though prayer is properly addressed unto Him.

“That’s not a contradiction. He was a human….”

so tell me, when god stops “displaying his power” is he a human being ?

“and yet He was/is the proper recipient of prayer - that means He is God.”

so jesus was praying to himself ? jesus the “god human” WAS PRAYING to jesus the “god god” ?

by the way, how many gods do you worship ? you have jesus praying to the father who is identified as god, then you have “jesus the human” who u identify as god, how many gods?

And yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60), and Paul (1 Corinthians 1:2), etc.

how come jesus goes around telling his desciples to pray to the father in heaven and then one UNKNOWN desciple called stephen breaks that rule ?

in the new testament, the jews accuse jesus of casting out devils in satans name, little did i know that the jews USED the name of solomon to cast out demons and jesus said in the nt that they, the jews were successful.

it seems to me that the new testament authors like mark would be against praying to jesus because mark has jesus tell the people to pray to the father and the father alone.

I noticed you gave no passage from the Bible to support your assertion that “mark has jesus tell the people to pray to the father and the father alone.” The reason is because Jesus never said that. In addition to Stephen, I also wrote Paul prayed to Jesus and I cited 1 Corinthians 1:2 - and notice that it teaches that all who are Christians have called on the name of the Lord Jesus. This means praying to Jesus.

R. T. France: It is striking first to note the ‘definition’ of Christians in 1 Corinthians 1:2 as ‘those who call on the nameof our Lord Jesus Christ’. Not only does the phrase itself indicate that prayer to Jesus was a normal and distinguishing characteristic of Christians in the 50’s, but ‘to call on the name of the Lord’ is a regular OT formula for worship and prayer offered to God (Gen. 4:26, 13:4; Ps. 105:1; Jer. 10:25; Joel 2:32, etc.) (“The Worship of Jesus - A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?”, Vox Evangelica 12, c.1981, pages 28).

“I noticed you gave no passage from the Bible to support your assertion that “mark has jesus tell the people to pray to the father and the father alone.” The reason is because Jesus never said that.”

as jesus identified the father as the 1 true god?

yes

did jesus go in to sinagouges and tell people to worship the 1 god ? yes

did jesus the human being call out to the 1 god in the gospel of mark ? “our father in heaven” ? yes

“In addition to Stephen, I also wrote Paul prayed to Jesus and I cited 1 Corinthians 1:2 - and notice that it teaches that all who are Christians have called on the name of the Lord Jesus. This means praying to Jesus.”

are the christians meant to IMAGINE the invisible yhwh when they say “ya-shua” ? or a human being in the form of a jew? if they are meant to imagine a human plus the second person of trinity, then they have completely gone against what jesus went around doing and that it to identify one person as the one true god.

R. T. France: It is striking first to note the ‘definition’ of Christians in 1 Corinthians 1:2 as ‘those who call on the nameof our Lord Jesus Christ’. “

the name jesus is not unique to jesus of christianity, the name belongs to people other than jesus. now, what are the christians thinking when they “call on the name” ?

jewish WOMEN named their CHILDREN “jesus”

are they imagine the ONE yhwh or are they imaging second person of the trinity who is “full man” ? so christians are going against the teachings of jesus since jesus CALLED to the father

“Not only does the phrase itself indicate that prayer to Jesus was a normal and distinguishing characteristic of Christians in the 50’s, but ‘to call on the name of the Lord’ is a regular OT formula for worship and prayer offered to God (Gen. 4:26, 13:4; Ps. 105:1; Jer. 10:25; Joel 2:32, etc.)”

so this means christians were giving the rights of the father to the son, which implies they became pagans in the 50’s?

AGAIN , what does it mean “name”? MANY PEOPLE were given the name BACK in the day.

the name is NOT unique to jesus. think about it, under roman occupation, why would you name your child “ya saving ” or “ya hears prayer”

they are just identifying /imaging the ya who saved the jews from pharoah

You didn’t cite any passage from the Gospel of Mark.

the new testament seems to be implying that even i as a normal human being can receive the powers of the father in heaven. different writers had different ideas about god. in the torah, the gods “die like men,” but this means that the gods had some divine attributes which made them unique from men.

gods sharing their powers with creatures seems to be the view of nt, atleast some parts of it.

for example, jesus says to peter that just COMMANDING the mountain to dunk itself in the sea …..

just by COMMAND, wow!

thats exactly what yhwh does when he commands things. jesus thinks this can be TRANSFERRED to normal created humans.

That’s different from “all power” (Matthew 28:18).
Big difference.

but you missed the point, the object RECEIVES some kind of “divine power” regardless of scope

you are reading the text completely wrong. the gods GIVE the powers to the object, but KEEP absolute power to themselves. THEY are the “givers” and “controllers” the objects are DEPENDANT and can have their “divine powers” taken awat when ever the top god wanted to, “you will DIE like men”

plus authority and “absolute power” are completely TWO different things.

it would be a lie to say that “god the father” has IDENTICAL power to “jesus the RECEIVER

i am 100 % sure their is big difference between authourity and power ESPECIALLY in the cotext that the object CANNOT be “all powerful” since he RECEIVES something from someone GREATER than him .

” He just simply refused to always employ it.”

hahaha, what kind of nonsense is this ? “refused to employ it” hahahaha, this is called “intermittant”

and how does an INHERENT attribute which is INTRINSIC/INHERENT “refused to be employed” ?

it should always be “FUNCTIONING” within the person, thats what makes the person UNIQUE and different, on the other hand , your god plays “on/off” with his powers, which means he can TRANSFER it to me and make me ALMIGHTY god. hahah

” He just simply refused to always employ it.”

so he put himself back in it? what was he before he got his powers back? what ? do explain lol

what was he? hahahah

BEFORE your god was “unemployed of his powers” what was he? do answer.

he surely couldn’t be god in the sense the father is, the fathers powers were “fully employed”

so what was your god BEFORE he got his “powers back” ?

or before he played “on/off” with them?

what was he ?

now, lets see, while your god was “unemployed of his powers” couldn’t the father TRANSFER those POWERS TO aother being and make it almighty?

“all things are possible for the father”

I hope you are upfront with people you come in contact with about this and tell them right away that there is more than 1 Almighty.

“I hope you are upfront with people you come in contact with about this and tell them right away that there is more than 1 Almighty.”

trinitarianism allows for their to be a TRANSFER OF POWERS.

yes, in your religion other persons could become god.

so i am saying other persons COULD share in the EXPERIENCE of the powers and become god, just like “switching jesus” could.

why do you worship a “switching jesus” but do not dare think that powers could be TRANSFERRED ? “all things are possible” for the father.

“He didn’t switch off all His power, He just simply refused to always employ it. “

this is the trinitarian trickery.

while he is NOT EXPERIENCING his powers and EXPERIENCING a NEW STATE of existance, then we are seeing a different thing here.

“simply refused to always employ it” is nonsense when you are “FULLY BLIND

i will explain

if jesus did not “use his omniscience” and EXPERIENCED being fully BLIND, then jesus EXPERIENCING something other than what he was expeirencing before.

no he is “using his fully blind” quality and experiencing it.

this is called a “switching ” god.

so now, why not give that attribute to someone else while it is not being employed?

WHILE a god is EXPERIENCING being blind, is he now the SAME as “omniscience being while he is “REFUSING to use” his OMNISCIENT quality?

while do trinitarian play trickery?

Go ahead and explain how the “Almighty” applies to two Beings and how that isn’t polytheism.

I’m not sure this discussion is going anywhere very useful. How about calling it a day?

No problem, Andrew. I am glad though he admitted that Jesus is omnipotent/Almighty. That is a huge first step in the right direction.

“No problem, Andrew. I am glad though he admitted that Jesus is omnipotent/Almighty. That is a huge first step in the right direction.”

i didn’t admit to anything .what are you talking about ?

Dear Andrew , no problem.

quote :

Go ahead and explain how the “Almighty” applies to two Beings and how that isn’t polytheism.

is “god the son” 100 % identical to “god the father” ? if not, then we have TWO beings which we can tell apart. while you say this is 1 being, i see your 1 being as really 2 beings.

if trinitarianism is not polytheism, how is transferrance of powers polytheism, since you still have a dominant god who isin control of what he transfers to another.

Romans 8:11 does not say the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. It references “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead.” God raised Jesus from the dead; the Spirit is His Spirit.

And this refers to the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:20). He is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). When the Holy Spirit abides in the believer this means the Father and the Son do as well (John 14:23).

The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, but the verse you cited does not say the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. It calls the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead.” That verse identifies God the Father as the one who raised Jesus from the dead, not the Holy Spirit.

You wrote, “The Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit.”

Romans 8:9 also tells us that He is also the Spirit of Christ.

And according to Romans 8:11 He was involved in raising Jesus from the dead.

Romans 8:11 says exactly the opposite of that. I strongly believe you’re being deliberately obtuse because you know your point doesn’t work.

If the Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) of he who raised Jesus from the dead (i.e. God) dwells in you, then he (i.e. God) will also raise you from the dead. God is the one doing the raising. Romans 8:11 says He will do this for those who have the Spirit. That’s all the Spirit is doing in Romans 8:11. If you have the Spirit, then the one who raised Jesus from the dead will also raise you from the dead.

There is no way to read Romans 8:11 as the Holy Spirit raising Jesus from the dead.

In order for your perspective to work, then both “He” and “the Spirit” would have to have the same referent. Basically, according to you, Paul would be saying that the Spirit is the Spirit’s Spirit.

Your point doesn’t make any sense and it only solidifies the notion that you’re so committed to finding your theology in the Bible that the actual words of the Bible don’t seem very important to you.

TDNT: In R. 8:1-11 the Spirit of God in you (v. 9) alternates with Christ in you (v. 10), you are in the Spirit (v. 9) with to those in Christ (v. 1). No material distinction can be discerned here (6:433, pneuma).

We’re talking about whether or not Romans 8:11 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead. This is what you claimed. It does not.

You can think that despite what the evidence says.
The Spirit refers to the Holy Spirit and He was involved in raising Jesus from the dead.

What passage would you use to substantiate that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead?

Romans 8:11

Ok, at this point, we only have three possibilities.

1. You’re trolling, and you want to see how wound up you can make everyone here for your own personal enjoyment.

2. You’re arrogant and stubborn and cannot bring yourself to admit any kind of error no matter how small the error or how ridiculous you sound when trying to avoid it. I live in the US and we have a president like this, so I get it.

3. You are tremendously, tremendously dense.

Any of those options means I’m not really interested in continuing the discussion much further. I mean, all you had to do was say, “Ok, looking back at Romans 8:11, I see that it says that God raised Jesus, not the Spirit, but I think my other points are solid.”

If I post a notice about my lost dog, and I say, “If you have my dog, then I, the owner who has given rewards to other finders, will also give you a reward,” that doesn’t mean my dog gives the reward. The dog is what I own, you have it, I gave rewards to others, and I’ll give you one as well.

This is the structure of Romans 8:11. If you have God’s Spirit, then God who raised Jesus from the dead will also raise you from the dead. I just cannot imagine where this massive amount of denial comes from on your part. This is just the way sentences work.

It reads “the Spirit of Him” raised Jesus. So unless there is something seriously wrong with you, then it is you who is incredibly dense and not willing to admit that the passage does NOT say “God.”

Get a clue.

It reads “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus.” to pneuma tou egeirantos. It is the “Him” who raised Jesus, not the “Spirit.” The Spirit belongs to the “Him.” That guy. Which guy? The guy who raised Jesus.

What an interesting life you must lead.

“Hey, could you return my money that you borrowed?”

“Why would I return money to money?”

You wrote: The Spirit belongs to the “Him.”

Thus the Spirit had a part in raising Jesus from the dead. If not then there would be no need to have “Spirit” written. Why mention the Spirit at all?

Because you have to have the Spirit to be raised. That is literally the entire point of that verse. If you also have the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus, then that person will also raise you.

Paul’s readers have the Spirit, therefore they can be comforted that God will raise them from the dead, just as He did Jesus. Because they have God’s Spirit.

It’s amazing what you can learn from the Bible when you aren’t trying to prooftext.

You wrote: If you also have the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus, then that person will also raise you.

Yes, the Spirit raised Jesus. “Paul believes that it was by the agency of the Spirit of God that raised Jesus from the dead and will also raise the bodies of believers at the eschaton (Romans 8:11)” (Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters, Tony Costa, page 381, footnote 156).

PHIL: If you have my dog, I’ll give you a reward.

MARC: Your dog will give me a reward?

PHIL: No, I will do that.

MARC: Why even mention the dog, then?

PHIL: Because… you have to have my dog to get the reward.

MARC: So the dog is INVOLVED in giving me the reward.

PHIL: Well, he’s not involved in any way in giving you the reward. You have to have him. I’m not giving rewards to just anybody. But if you have my dog, I’ll give you the reward.

MARC: So, your dog is giving me the reward.

PHIL: No, I am.

MARC: Obviously, you and your dog are the same being.

I have already pointed out that the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ. But you quickly bypassed that information.

Romans 8:9 also tells us that He is also the Spirit of Christ.

As the Word/logos/dabar is an essential, eternal attribute of God, likewise the Spirit/pneuma/ruach is the other essential, eternal attribute of God.

That the Spirit of God is also the Spirit of Christ is fully true only after the Resurrection, the Ascension and the Pentecost, in the sense that Jesus sends it (it …) from God, the Father Almighty:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.” (John 15:26)

I continue to be fascinated/challenged by your pursuit of a Jesus as a political/historical/non divine figure. I do wonder what prompted these particular observations on Romans 1:4, as they don’t seem to arise out of anything in particular in previous posts. Have I missed something?

The meaning of ‘declared’ by comparative word study and etymology does not conclusively support your case. ‘Son of God’ is, amongst other meanings, a messianic designation, and that is at least one meaning in Romans 1:4. The logic of ‘declared’ as ‘appointed’ which would preclude divine pre-existence would then also have to apply to any previous sense of Jesus as ‘messiah’. But Jesus clearly was messiah before any ‘appointment’ described in Romans 1:4, and understood himself to be so eg Matthew 22:41-45. What has changed now is his being declared ‘with power’.

In Romans 1:4, ‘declared’ modified by the sense of ‘defined’ can also apply to ‘son of God’ as pre-existent divine being, if Jesus is understood as divine person who entered history, subjecting himself to time and historical processes as a man. In such a historical process, he died. By his resurrection, his messianic credentials were established, but now receiving the plaudits and position accorded to God alone. This establishes rather than eliminates divine status as son of God, which includes and continues as messiah.

There is more than a hint of theology in Romans 1:4, though perhaps not in a fully fledged form. This appears in a parallelism which is even clearer in the Greek, with two clauses introduced by ‘kata’. According to (‘kata’) the flesh (his humanity), Jesus was a messiah as a descendant David. According to (‘kata’) ‘the Spirit of holiness’, ‘he was declared with power to be the son of God’. The human genealogy of Jesus is set against the divine.

Both meanings of ‘son of God’, in my opinion, come into view here. The resurrection was how Jesus in both designations was ‘declared with power’ by ‘the Spirit of holiness’ (which also brings God as Holy Spirit into view). ‘Declared’ can be understood through the modifier ‘defined’ since that was how the resurrection now presented Jesus, and also appointed him in the unique role in which as both messiah and divine son of God he was now cast.

I see both messiah and divine son of God as tightly packed into the meaning of Romans 1:4, though the latter not in fully fledged form. Paul’s concern is to lead us to the challenge of the call of the messiah in Romans 1:5, not to theological speculation. This call is to “the obedience of faith(fulness)”. Faith without obedience is no faith at all. I believe Paul is less concerned with either narrative-historical reductionism or theological speculation than to lead us to this point in his introductory remarks.

@ Peter

I continue to be fascinated/challenged by your [Andrew’s] pursuit of a Jesus as a political/historical/non divine figure.

Me too.

Especially because, while he is in “pursuit of a Jesus-as-political/historical-non-divine-figure”, also attempts to have the Trinity “fit in”, somehow, the talk on Jesus (see for instance Talking Jesus: problems with the modern evangelistic paradigm and Talking Jesus: how does the Trinity fit in?)

The point about horizō, Peter, as I understand it, is that the word doesn’t mean “to declare”, except perhaps in the sense of a speech act: eg., “I declare you man and wife.” It’s not a verb of saying. You wouldn’t use horizō to say to a couple who have been married for ten years, “I declare that you are man and wife.”

We also have to consider how Paul uses the term “Son of God”. I think probably he only uses it with reference to the risen Christ (cf. 2 Cor.1:19; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:13). So in Romans 1:2-4 the contrast is clear: being Son of David according to biological descent is contrasted with being “Son of God in power” by virtue of divine action in raising him from the dead. It is the divine action that determines this new status.

By his resurrection, his messianic credentials were established, but now receiving the plaudits and position accorded to God alone.

You would have to show that Paul worked with this notion of pre-existence. It is certainly not part of his argument here. It’s also difficult to see what the difference would be between his pre-existent status and his post-resurrection status that would justify the notion of an appointment as Son of God in power.

I also think that Paul always things of Jesus as a resurrected person, in an imperishable body, in the presence of God—the first of many who would be resurrected to reign with him in heaven. It’s difficult to square that with a pre-incarnational existence as the eternal Son of God, for which in any case there is no evidence in Paul.

Point taken about horizō not meaning “to declare”, but “mark out”, “determine”, and sometimes, but not always, “appoint”.

Of the three other usages (apart from Romans 1:4) of “Son of God” by Paul to which you refer, Galatians 2:20 speaks of the Son of God “who loved me and gave himself for me”. “Gave himself for me” must refer to the cross, about which Paul is speaking. “Loved me” is then understood to refer not simply to the earthly ministry of the Son of God, but the plan from all eternity for the Son of God to “give himself” for those such as Paul.

This pre-existent plan and Christ’s own pre-existence is corroborated by the generally accepted understanding, though not yours, of Philippians 2:5-11, v.6,7,8 in particular. So yes, I think Paul did work with this notion of pre-existence.

In Romans 1:4, “marked out” might be a better translation of horisthentos than “declared”. But “appointed”? Also, I did say that what was new was Jesus being “declared/marked out with power to be the Son of God”. I question whether “Son of God” in Romans 1:4 (and Galatians) means that Paul had no understanding of Jesus as messiah before.

I also think the two clauses introduced by “kata” do suggest parallelism between “flesh/human nature” and “Spirit of holiness”, the former describing a man of the flesh whose genealogy affirmed his messianic credentials, the latter describing a somewhat unique man in whom “the Spirit of holiness” not only “marked him out” through his resurrection, but also uniquely was the empowering agent of that resurrection.

I question whether “Son of God” in Romans 1:4 (and Galatians) means that Paul had no understanding of Jesus as messiah before.

Galatians 2:20-21 is interesting in this regard:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal. 2:20–21)

It would be wrong to make too much of this—there are plenty of passages where Paul speaks of God sending his Son, not sparing his Son, etc., and of believers being sons of God because they suffer. But as the object of proclamation, as the content of the gospel, as in Romans 1:1-4, I think “Son of God” refers to the exalted Jesus and his future political significance.

In the Galatians passage above, Paul is crucified with the Messiah, who died, but he has faith in the exalted Son who was revealed to him (Gal. 1:16).

I don’t think Philippians 2:6 is a statement about pre-existence, and I am currently writing a book in defence of that thesis (among other things).