For my Sister, Jackie Griggs Horner: The term Lord in the NT - Jesus and Jehovah? The term Lord in the NT – Jesus and Jehovah? The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Cor 8:4-6 that God is the “one God”, the Father, so the father is Jehovah, who is God! This would seem to disagree with later Trinitarian theology, that God [“yet for us there is but one God, the Father” – [NIV]] who is the father, consists of three persons, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”! As in John 17:3, so too in 1 Cor 8:6 the Father is distinguished from the “Son” as the “only true God” or the “one God” alone! Trinitarians would react and say, but 1 Cor 8:6 differentiates between the “one God” of true Christians, the Father and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ” [NIV] Then the Trinitarian will turn round and also say, since JW’s conclude that only the father is the “one God”, it therefore means, that Jesus cannot be God and therefore, using the JW reasoning [as far as the Trinitarian is concerned] if Jesus is the “one Lord” [NIV] the Father cannot possibly also be “Lord”! JW’s believe that the father, Jehovah is the “one God”, but it is a fallacy on the part of Trinitarians to think that JW’s do not believe that Jesus cannot be called ‘God’ or even “a god” in a particular sense and to a certain degree! The depiction of the father as being the “one God” in 1 Cor 8 rules out the possibility of Jesus [also] being called the “one God” [See John 17:3] because the expression “one God” [the term God is used with singular pronouns, such as I, he, him, who, his so cannot be referring to more than one person] is referring to just *one* person, not two or three and that one person, is not the “Son” or the so-called “Holy Spirit”, but only the father to which the designation [“one God”] is solely applied and to no other! Paul did *not* say, “…for us there is but one God, the Father”, who [God] also consisted of “Son” and “Holy Spirit”, another two persons, no he did not say such as thing, Paul did not articulate 4th century Trinitarian theological jargon, which had to be invented, as there is no such jargon to be found on the lips of the NT writers, such jargon was centuries off! In a similar vein, the father cannot be the “one Lord” of the Christian Congregation! Why can this be said? It is because the father has surrendered to his Son a distinctive/particular kind of ‘Lordship’, just as he has given him a distinctive/particular kind of “authority to do judging” [John 5:22, 27] and because Jehovah is and always will be Sovereign and with respect to that sovereignty he can hand over a particular aspect of Lordship to his Son, without relinquishing his absolute Sovereignty; the Son has a degree of Lordship, but it is not absolute, in the absolute sense that the father is Lord or God]! It must also be noted that the particular Lordship that Christ exercises is time limited, as his Lordship is with purpose in mind [Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 15:24-28] The Greek word “kyrios” which in English means ‘Lord’ will have several meanings depending on the context in which it is used! The context of 1 Cor 8:4-6 is a *contrasting* context! It will be noted, that the “one [true] God” is seen in contrast to the major pagan gods of the nations and that Christ is contrasted with the minor or secondary pagan gods of the nations and that these secondary or minor gods attended the major gods as mediators between themselves [the principal/major gods] and mankind! It will also be noted, that the title “Lord” in 1 Cor 8 is also a contrast with the “many lords” [NIV] of the nations, as they were viewed as secondary mediators i.e. go betweens, for the principal gods, especially in the Greek and Roman world, so in [say] Greek pagan terms, Jehovah, the father would have taken the place of Zeus [Jupiter] and Christ who would have represented one of the demiurgic lesser deities , who would have been assigned cosmic functions and be expected to be a go between for the major god and men! [See Prof. Robert M. Grant, “Gods and the One God” pages 112 and 114] So, the apostle Paul was simply contrasting the “many [principal] gods” of the nations and the “one God” the father [Jehovah] and a contrast is to be seen with the secondary gods/deities of the nations, the “many lords” with the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the “one mediator” between the “one [true] God” and mankind [1 Tim 2:5] Paul was simply making a point by using contrast, which the context clearly shows! To be noted too, that it is not the father who performs mediation on behalf of sinful mankind, he is not a mediator, but it is the Lord Jesus, as it is “from” [ek] the father out of whom all things came to be, who is the “only true God…the one God”, both texts indicating or referring to just one person, who constitutes the “one God”, Trinitarians inject their [4th century] “theology” into the biblical text! Trinitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses on 1 Tim 2:5? Both agree that Jesus is the mediator between the Father and mankind. From this, Trinitarians conclude from the Witnesses’ understanding of 1 Tim 2:5 that Jesus cannot be God, because a mediator is a person who is totally disconnected from the ones who are in need of mediation, the mediator is a totally separate person, so to speak; yet using this line of Trinitarian reasoning and logic we must then conclude, that Jesus is not a man either, yet the scripture in 1 Tim 2:5 does call Jesus a man, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” [KJV] In the quote from the KJV above on 1 Tim 2:5, there is something that Trinitarians miss and the point is important! The text tells us several things i.e. there is only, “one God” and “one mediator” between the “one God” and “men”! The point Trinitarians consistently fail to see, is that Jesus himself, cannot be the “one God” for whom he “mediates”, he [Jesus] cannot be included or among the men [as one of sinful mankind] for whom mediation is needed either, as he himself needed no mediation, he being perfect and sinless; mediation is for the sinner and not the sinless and this is a point that Trinitarians consistently miss! It will be seen that it is the “one God” and not just “God”; Trinitarians tend to leave of the “one” part of the expression “one God”, thus Trinitarians weaken the force behind the expression “one God”, by employing the term “God” and not the “only God”, which is very clever of them, but is entirely misleading, the term “God” does not convey the expressiveness behind the “only god”, it weakens the impact and force of that expression, which is the aim of the Trinitarian! Trinitarians will also say of JWs that our reasoning on the above text of 1 Tim 2:5 means that Jesus cannot be “a man”, but they fail, yet again [because of bias and theology] to see in the above text, that the terms “man” and “men” are mentioned by Paul and we must reasonably conclude, that Jesus just cannot be the “men” [mankind for whom he is mediator], but it must be admitted that he, whilst on earth was “a man”, just as scripture tells us and if he wasnt a man, what was he! It is interesting, that Paul is referring to the historical person of Jesus, as “a man”, as after Paul was converted personally by the resurrected Jesus, he assumed the role of an apostle! The apostleship of Paul is important, not because he was made an apostle directly by Christ… but what did Paul said in relation to his apostleship, was it from “man” that he was given his apostleship or someone else, “Paul, an apostle not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God the father…for I did not even take it over nor receive teaching from a man, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ” Gal 1:1, 11, 12 [Byington, The Bible in living English] Trinitarians say that the resurrected Jesus is a glorified man in heaven, but a man nevertheless, this demonstrates that flesh and blood did not make Paul an apostle! Implied or Not? Even if 1 Cor 8:4-6 did not differentiate the, “many gods and many lords” of the nations in relation to and with the “one God” [the father] and the “one Lord” [Jesus Christ of the congregations] and was not even hinted at or contextually implied, the contention against the above view by Trinitarians is indefensible and here is just one reason why! When the term “Lord” [kyrios] is applied to Jesus Christ it has an entirely different meaning [semantic range], when the same term “Lord” is applied to the father and the simple reason for this is, that it was the father who made his Son “Lord” and not the “Son” himself [Acts 2:36] and it was the father who exalted his “Son” to a superior position, compared to what his position was before [Phil 2:9] the Son did not exalt himself! And Trinitarians should note that the father [God] is not “Lord” because someone *made* him such i.e. the father is not “Lord” because of another person! And the problem with Trinitarians is that the forget this, dismiss it [because of bias] or are plain just not aware of this due to ignorance…! When discussing the term “Lord” in relation to the father and the Son, the above must be kept in mind! Lord God The expression found in the Hebrew Scriptures “Lord God” is frequently used of the One called “God” and this is to be seen in the LXX and the NT also. But and it is a big, big but, it is never, ever used of Jesus Christ, never, only the father, the “one God…the only true God…God the father”! It must also be noted, that the term “Lord” when the NT writers apply such a term to Jesus, is not a natural term and does not in the slightest identify him with the father Jehovah, but it will be seen, that the application of the term “Lord” with Jesus Christ, is not in relation to the father, but in relation to the cosmos i.e. man and his domain, the world around him etc another thing Trinitarians forget…especially lay and uneducated Trinitarians, who seem to believe everything they read without bothering to research the subject impartially…and scholars across the religious divide are all too well aware of this, especially Trinitarian scholars! What we must not forget, is that when the shared title “Lord” is [semantically] applied to Christ, we must not confuse the issue and begin to think that bearing such a shared title as “Lord” is associating, connecting, equating or connecting Christ with the father, the “one God”, the One who made him such i.e. “Lord”! One of the reasons why the father made his Son “Lord” was to authorise him, so that the Son could oversee, administrate or dispense the will of the father, the father has given the Son complete “authority” in order for the divine will to be accomplished and even the Son can give/delegate authority himself! [Math 7:28; 9:6; 10:1; Mk 1:22; 2:10; 6:7; Luke 5:24; John 1:12] Luke 7:8 says much, “For I too am a man placed under authority” The Roman army officer highlighted, like Jesus, that he “too” was “a man placed under authority”! This man was empowered or authorised by someone else, a superior, so too “the man Jesus”, he too was empowered or authorised by someone else, a superior; the “One” who is called “father”! Trinitarians should take note of the Army Officer’s astute comments, “For I *too* am a man [not a god/man, but a man] placed under authority”, no one places the “one God”, the father under authority, but the “one God” has given the Son divine and royal authority, he [Jesus, the Son] did not take it upon himself to have such authority, but he awaited, and was placed under such, only from and by the father, who is the “one God” the “only true God”! That the father has given or bestowed on the Son such authority, all authority in heaven and on earth…the ‘Lordship’ that the Son of God executes, is that which the father has given or bestowed on his beloved Son, an authority, that the Son did not take or assume for himself! [John 5:26, 27] And when the divine will has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the father, the “one God” [one person, not three] by his Son, Jesus Christ, then the Son of God does something! And then what? “But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him…” Put it another way, “But when all things will have been subjected to him [the Son], then the Son [Jesus] himself will *also subject himself* to the One [the Father, the “one God…the only true God” = Jehovah, a 1 person in 1 God, not a 3 persons in 1 God = a metaphysical Greek God] who subjected all things to him [the Son]…”! And what then? “Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to ***his God*** and Father…that God [his God - Eph 1:3; Heb 1:9; Rev 3:12] may be all things to everyone [including himself, the Son]”! In the end, the Son of God [God, who is the Father] will, as he did before, prior to his earthly sojourn, submit himself to the authority and divine and royal sovereignty to the absolute will of the “one God”, the “only true God”! For, Jackie!
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:30:33 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015