1. On Firstborn
What you appear to be doing is roughly this. There is a word we all use, “goodbye,” that happens by history to be a sharp contraction of “God be with ye.” But over time the word’s raw etymology gave way to common usage, and it is now a simple way of saying “I am leaving now,” or some such thing. Were an atheist to say it, we would not assume he had suddenly become a believer in God. We would assume he was simply talking about departure.
Similarly, the word prototokos, meaning “firstborn,” has a long and well-established history. It’s etymology in classical Greek did give more credit to the notion of biological birth in time. But by the time the LXX was created, the word had shifted significantly, such that the “tokos” component, “birth,” had receded in importance, and “proto,” meaning “first,” had become the controlling element.
For a modern example, when we say Prime Minister, we do not mean the first minister ever in time, we mean the minister of greatest importance. “Proto” has nearly exactly the same sematic value.” The “tokos” is now just coming along for the ride.
For a Biblical example, see:
Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
What is interesting is that the LXX translators used prototokos here, not in a biological or temporal manner, but purely as a function of rank, designating Messiah to be the preeminent one, because one cannot already exist, and then be made into a firstborn. You either are or you aren’t, if taken in the strictly temporal sense. But taken as a function of rank, it more naturally describes promotion to the highest level of authority.
This is what we find in the NT, which was not only written well after the LXX, but was deeply affected my it’s approach to translating the Hebrew into Greek. Hence, when Paul says:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: [17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
… his use of firstborn in verse 15 corresponds to the point he is driving home and brings to a crescendo in verse 18, “that in all things he might have the preeminence,” which corresponds perfectly to the LXX usage of expressing rank, but has nothing to say about time of birth or following some earlier act of creation.
So we conclude that in the broader context, the use of firstborn actually strengthens the argument for the deity of Christ, because as we know, God will not give his glory to another, yet here we see repeatedly in Scripture that as the firstborn he is the rightful inheritor of all that is the Father’s, that he is to be made preeminent in all things, king of kings, Lord of Lords, that at his name, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord. This bespeaks deity.
2. On Monogenes
“monogenes” is often translated “only,” or “unique,” or “uniquely begotten” or some such thing. See here:
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
But I do understand the Arian/Gnostic position is that this should be translated “only generated,” which they surmise would help their angel theory.
But why would we assume that God is like a man? Because that is exactly what this “generative” approach slides into under the Gnostic/Arian influence. It reduces God to human categories and makes no allowance for the uniqueness of God being God.
Let me explain. Humans are time-bound, finite little creatures skittering around the planet like little bugs. When one of them gives birth, they do it in the context of human biology. That is, for humans, when we give birth, we “generate” another finite, time-bound little bug, because what we generate is more of us, and that’s all we can generate, and that’s the only way we can generate.
But God is the supreme Creator of all things. He upholds the universe by the word of his power. He stands alone and above and outside of our finite limitations of time and space. What would it mean for him to “generate” in like kind? Can any mortal mind even begin to conceive that? Would not eternal generate eternal? Would not infinite generate infinite? Would it be right to say it had a beginning? But how could that be right, if time only limits us little bugs, but not the Creator of time itself?
Is the Son like the Father? Absolutely. You keep trying to press folks back to the question of Jesus being the Father, but there’s another way to look at that, which also avoids your angel-agency theory. Simply this, that as anyone knows, when you look into the face of a son, you do see the father, because the son is genetically from the father, and therefore the father is genetically present in the son.
I get this all the time with my son. We look so alike we get people, total strangers, coming up to us and asking us if we are father and son. We must be, they reason, because the genetic cues are unmistakable. He has my eyes, my nose, my hair, my posture, my way of walking, and to top it all off, he grew a beard! We are unmistakably father and son, and he can honestly tell people, if you’ve seen him, you’ve seen me. And yet he is still him, and I am still me.
And all of this goes quite well with John 1:1, the final clause, “And GOD he was, the Word.” Remember we said that due to the emphatic position and the lack of a concretizing article, this was effectively saying Jesus belonged to the class of things we call God, of which there is only one member.
But having said all that, we find that even “monogenes” is not consistently used as a description of generative relationships, but may also sometimes describe the primacy of a relationship:
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
Here, if we use a rigidly biological or generative definition for “monogenes,” we would have a contradiction in Scripture, which can never be, because Abraham had two sons, not one, and his firstborn son wasn’t even Isaac. It was Ishmael. Here, the notion of primacy of importance, rather than primacy of generation, is the only way to reasonably explain this language.
3. Back to John 1:1
Therefore, as none of your proposed evidence has dislodged the clear statements of John 1:1-3, I thought it might be good to take another look there, especially since you raised (if perhaps inadvertently) the question of punctuation.
First, as you are probably aware, there is no punctuation in the original Greek. It’s all caps too. It’s easy enough to read if it’s your main language. But what if you were a first century Gnostic, whose goal in life was show that Jesus was just a created angelic being? Well, there was such a man, and his name was Valentinus. How do you suppose such a man would feel about John 1:3? Well, he wouldn’t like it, not one bit. So he recommended numerous changes to the Biblical text, to promote his view of what it should have said (the sheer presumption of the man!).
One of those recommended changes was inserting punctuation to break the final “ho gegonen” (“created things”) away from the end of John 1:3 and attaching it to verse 4 instead. The result in verse 4 is what can only be described as an abrupt end to a classically rhythmic Johannine passage, with the word “one” teetering off the edge waiting for a referent that never arrives. Whereas verse 4 ends up being redundant, having “created things,” designed in tense to flow with the previous sentence, tacked crudely onto “in him was life.” It really makes no sense:
From page 118 of The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon, 1896, we have the following:
“Epiphanius, who points out that the sense is not complete until you have read the words [Greek: ho gegonen]. A fresh sentence (he says) begins at [Greek: En auto zoe en][476].”
“Chrysostom deals with the latter. ‘Let us beware of putting the full stop’ (he says) ‘at the words [Greek: oude hen],—as do the heretics. In order to make out that the Spirit is a creature, they read [Greek: ho gegonen en auto zoe en]: by which means the Evangelist’s meaning becomes unintelligible[477].’”
And why do such violence to an orderly and beautiful passage? Because Valentinus “found it simply unmanageable.” Ibid.
Wow. Do you see the extremes to which so many have gone to avoid the plain and easy sense of John 1:3? And why? To hang on to an undocumented angel, a mere creature, when what God is offering us in his own Son … is Himself.
Peace,
SR
How Paul used the term “firstborn” is evident in Heb. 11:28 when he recounts the Israelites splashing blood on their door posts to prevent the death of their “firstborn”, a term applied to both man and animal.
In the usual sense of first one born Paul uses the term “firstborn” at Romans 8:29. And it is that obvious sense that Jesus was called the “firstborn” of Mary at Matt. 1:25.
That one might find exceptions to the usual and normal usage such as Isaac being treated as firstborn though Ishmael was born earlier should not cause us to treat every usage as the exception.
Attempting to explain Christianity in Greek philosophical terms produced thinking like Origen’s that spoke of “eternal generation” (a nonsensical term) of the Son while calling him the “firstborn”.
“Were an atheist to say it (good bye),.....)”
We would assume he meant it in the most typical and often used way unless we could find him making an exception.
“So we conclude that in the broader context, the use of firstborn actually strengthens the argument for the deity of Christ, because as we know, God will not give his glory to another”
A faulty conclusion based upon a misunderstanding I think.
The angel that appeared after Jesus birth shared God's glory (Luke 2:9) and Jerusalem coming down from heaven shared God's glory (Rev. 21:9,10), Christians even reflecting that glory. (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
“But why would we assume that God is like a man? Because that is exactly what this “generative” approach slides into under the Gnostic/Arian influence. It reduces God to human categories and makes no allowance for the uniqueness of God being God.”
The description of the relationship between God and Jesus as father and son was not invented by Arius and the Gnostics but by God Himself. That it is not same in every fine detail is obvious but it well describes the gist of their relationship as it would to any Middle Eastern mind.
“Col. 1:15
… his use of firstborn in verse 15 corresponds to the point he is driving home and brings to a crescendo in verse 18, “that in all things he might have the preeminence,” which corresponds perfectly to the LXX usage of expressing rank, but has nothing to say about time of birth or following some earlier act of creation”
Again Jesus is the “image”, the “firstborn” not the invisible God and “all things are made through him (Jesus)”.
There is a difference between the image and the thing imaged. Between the coin and Caesar's eikon, image on it.
“Monogenes
Both mono and generate were commonly and regularly used by the NT writers (neither Arians nor Gnostics) in just the way we understand the meaning: Mono, only without others, as when Jesus went off alone and
ginomai, made, as when the water was made into wine.
How that classical Greek used such terms is another matter.
“Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”
It wasn't an elevation of Isaac to the position of firstborn, he, indeed, was the first born of Abraham and Sarah.
John 1:1-3
“Wow. Do you see the extremes to which so many have gone to avoid the plain and easy sense of John 1:3? And why? To hang on to an undocumented angel, a mere creature, when what God is offering us in his own Son … is Himself.”
‘undocumented angel, a mere creature”...These are your words not mine. Perhaps it's just hyperbole....
It might be helpful to consider the trinitarian definition of God when reading John 1:1-3.
Three persons in one God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do I have that reasonably correct?
Then when I read these verses I read the Word (pros)was with God and the Word was God and was in the beginning (pros)God.
Who is the God that the Logos was “with”? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? John said the Word became flesh (vs 14) so “the God” that the Logos was with leaves Father and Holy Spirit. But..
The God (first instance) could just as easily be the Father alone and so “the God” would refer only the Father that the Logos was with.
The Word was God but not “the God (theon)” as there is no article with God (theos) in the second instance. Is the Logos fully “the God”? or 1/3 of “the God”? Or both?
In beginning the Logos is with “the God” (theos).
This is where trying to force the trinitarian definition of God to John 1:1-3 leads...an incomprehensible redefinition of the Greek words used by John.
“From page 118 of The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon, 1896, we have the following:.....”
Was there any text other than the King James translation and the Received Text that Burgon did not consider corrupt?
“Is the Son like the Father? Absolutely. You keep trying to press folks back to the question of Jesus being the Father, but there’s another way to look at that, which also avoids your angel-agency theory. Simply this, that as anyone knows, when you look into the face of a son, you do see the father, because the son is genetically from the father, and therefore the father is genetically present in the son”
And you might have a grandson that closely resembled you but you wouldn't call those three person the husband of your wife no matter their similarities.
When “the God” is defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Son is called God, then the trinitarian definition does indeed confuse Father with Son.
In Col. 1:14-20 Paul said all things were creaed in, through and for the Christ. In vs. 18 Jesus is called the firstborn of the dead. How so?
First in importance certainly but the larger sense first in time since he was the beginning of the church being the first raised to heavenly life from the dead.
How Paul used the term “firstborn” is evident in Heb. 11:28 when he recounts the Israelites splashing blood on their door posts to prevent the death of their “firstborn”, a term applied to both man and animal.
In the usual sense of first one born Paul uses the term “firstborn” at Romans 8:29. And it is that obvious sense that Jesus was called the “firstborn” of Mary at Matt. 1:25.
That one might find exceptions to the usual and normal usage such as Isaac being treated as firstborn though Ishmael was born earlier should not cause us to treat every usage as the exception.
Attempting to explain Christianity in Greek philospical terms produced thinking like Origen’s that spoke of “eternal generation” (a nonsensical term) of the Son while calling him the “firstborn”.
“Were an atheist to say it (good bye),.....)”
We would assume he meant it in tne most typical and often used way unless we could find him making an exception.
“So we conclude that in the broader context, the use of firstborn actually strengthens the argument for the deity of Christ, because as we know, God will not give his glory to another”
A faulty conclusion based upon a misunderstanding I think.
The angel that appeared after Jesus birth shared God’s glory (Luke 2:9) and Jerusalem coming down from heaven shared God’s glory (Rev. 21:9,10), Christians even reflecting that glory. (2 Cor. 3:17,18)
“But why would we assume that God is like a man? Because that is exactly what this “generative” approach slides into under the Gnostic/Arian influence. It reduces God to human categories and makes no allowance for the uniqueness of God being God.”
The description of the relationship between God and Jesus as father and son was not invented by Arius and the Gnostics but by God Himself. That it is not same in every fine detail is obvious but it well describes the gist of their relationship as it would to any Middle Eastern mind.
“Col. 1:15
… his use of firstborn in verse 15 corresponds to the point he is driving home and brings to a crescendo in verse 18, “that in all things he might have the preeminence,” which corresponds perfectly to the LXX usage of expressing rank, but has nothing to say about time of birth or following some earlier act of creation”
Again Jesus is the “image”, the “firstborn” not the invisible God and “all things are made through him (Jesus)”.
There is a difference between the image and the thing imaged. Between the coin and Caesar’s eikon, image on it.
“Monogenes
Both mono and generate were commonly and regularly used by the NT writers (neithr Arians nor Gnostics) in just the way we underst6and the meaning: Momo, only without others, as when Jesus went off alone and
ginomai, made, as when the water was made into wine.
How that classical Greek used such terms is another matter.
“Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,”
It wasn’t an elevation of Isaac to the position of firstborn, he, indeed, was the first born of Abraham and Sarah.
John 1:1-3
“Wow. Do you see the extremes to which so many have gone to avoid the plain and easy sense of John 1:3? And why? To hang on to an undocumented angel, a mere creature, when what God is offering us in his own Son … is Himself.”
‘undocumented angel, a mere creature”...These are your words not mine. Perhaps it’s just hypebole....
It might be helspful to consider the trinitarian definition of God when reading John 1:1-3.
Three persons in one God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Do I have that reasonably correct?
Then when I read these verses I read the Word (pros)was with God and the Word was God and was in the beginning (pros)God.
Who is the God that the Logos was “with”? Father, Son, Holy Spirit? John said the Word became flesh (vs 14) so “the God” that the Logos was with leaves Father and Holy Spirit. But..
The God (first instance) could just as easily be the Father alone and so “the God” would refer only the Father that the Logos was with.
The Word was God but not “the God (theon)” as there is no article with God (theos) in the second instance. Is the Logos fully “the God”? or 1/3 of “the God”? Or both?
In beginning the Logos is with “the God” (theos).
This is where trying to force the trinitarian definition of God to John 1:1-3 leads...an incomprehensible redefinition of the Greek words used by John.
“From page 118 of The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, by John Burgon, 1896, we have the following:.....”
Was there any text other than the King James translation and the Received Text that Burgon did not consider corrupt?
“Is the Son like the Father? Absolutely. You keep trying to press folks back to the question of Jesus being the Father, but there’s another way to look at that, which also avoids your angel-agency theory. Simply this, that as anyone knows, when you look into the face of a son, you do see the father, because the son is genetically from the father, and therefore the father is genetically present in the son”
And you might have a grandson that closely resembled you but you wouldn’t call those three person the husband of your wife no matter their similarities.
When “the God” is defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the Son is called God, then the trinitarian definition does indeed confuse Father with Son.