jt: Paul is not contradicting anything written in the
rest of the Bible. Look at the scenario when the world were created in
Genesis 1 and tell me if you see any mention of God having a son: "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without
form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters. And God (the Word) said, Let there be
light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God
divided the light from the darkness." Where is there any mention of "the
son" here? This is a John 1:1 happening.
DM: Don't you
think you are adding to God's Word here?
BT: Not in the least.
DM: What translation translates Col.
1:16 this way. I cannot find a single translation that matches up
with you here. Surely this is the Bill Taylor translation
(or should I say interpretation), is it not?
BT: You are correct, David, in that this is my
translation; however, it is not at all uncommon in the process of translation
to sometimes supply the
antecedent in a statement where only a pronoun stands in the text (if
you insist I will demonstrate this to you through the translation of your
choice), and this is especially true in Greek, where on many occasion the
nominative is implied by the predicate. One of the first things that a student
is taught in classes on exegesis and interpretation is to identify the
antecedents in a passage; this so that the reader may know who is being spoken
of. Sometimes this is an easy and elementary task; other times it becomes a
very difficult procedure. Of course any time an antecedent
is identified, it is open to interpretation; this because its initial
identification involved an interpretive task. To me this passage seems fairly straightforward and self-explanatory.
The only difficult placement, in my opinion, is the intensive autos
(himself) of verse 20 -- the question being, does it refer to the Father
or the Son: "and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether
things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of
His cross." I interpret this to be a referent to the Father, but, as I say,
that is open to interpretation.
DM: Something that would help me communicate with you is to hear
you identify a few other terms and their applicability to the person
Jesus Christ.
BT: I will try to do this, David. My only concern is that on some of
these the answer will raise a question of foreknowledge on the part of God. I
don't really want to go into that too much here, simply because it involves a
great deal of speculation and much more commitment than I have time to invest.
I will also be treating "eternity" as if it is marked by time. I happen to
think that there is time in eternity, i.e., points along the way;
although Augustine would very emphatically disagree with me.
DM: 1. Is the term "Jesus" something applicable to this
person prior to his being born of Mary?
BT: At the point that sin entered the world, the Son
was destined to be called Jesus.
jt: The worlds were created long before the first
Adam; so why does scripture call Him the lamb slain before the foundation of
the world - why not the son?
BT: He identifies himself as the ego eimi, the 'I AM,' which is
roughly (and in its context) a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew covenant-keeping
name of God -- YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah). The name
Yeshua means Yah Saves (or something similar). In
my opinion, this name is applicable to the Son from the moment, at
least (I will get to this below), that sin entered the world. Before
there was sin, there may not have been a need for "salvation"
(see immediately below). There is indication, however, that in eternity past
God anticipated (here's the question of foreknowledge: Did he "anticipate" it
or was it a fact by way of decree?) that sin would be an issue which would
have to be addressed. Paul states in Ephesians that before
the creation of the world the Father purposed to adopt sons and daughters
"through Jesus Christ." David, this will probably involve one of
those non sequiturs :>) but if he purpose to adopt us in
"Jesus," then the very name of him through whom we would be adopted seems to
imply at least a potential need for our salvation.
jt: So does God knowing about it since before the
foundation of the world make the Church an eternal Church and every
individual an eternal individual?
BT: Hence, it seems to me that the name Jesus
can be considered applicable to this Son, not only before his birth,
and not only from the introduction of sin into creation, but even back into
eternity to that point when the Father purposed to adopt sons
and daughters through this One whose name means Yah Saves.
jt: God just forgot to put all this in His Word for
thousands of years and called the Son the Word - so when was He begotten if
not at the "incarnation?"
DM: 2. Is the term "Messiah" or "Christ" applicable to
this person prior to his being born of Mary?
BT: The same answer applies here in many of the same ways as it does to
the name Jesus. The Father purposed to adopt us through the Christ, and this
he did before the foundation of the world. I believe therefore that the Christ
was destined (in fact predestined) to come to us in incarnate form; this from
that point in eternity.
jt: To me this appears to be massive
presumption. You don't know who the Church consists of because only those
called by the Father are able to come to Jesus and only those who come to
Jesus know the Father. Yes the mystery of the Godhead has been
revealed but nowhere in Old or New Testaments are we told that the man Jesus
has been a son for all eternity.
BT: Yes, I believe it is applicable. I also believe, however, as per acts
2.36 and Phil. 2.11, that because of sin and the need to purge it, the
"Christ" had to die and rise anew before he could be fully equipped and
qualified to function as such in that role.
jt: So what equipment was he lacking?
DM: 3. Is the term "son of David" applicable to this person
prior to his being born of Mary?
BT: From the moment that the "Seed" passed through the loins of Jesse
into David, the term is applicable, although this person did not become the
"son of David" until his physical birth.
jt: So you also include natural generation so it's
not specifically spiritual seed as per "The Lord is that Spirit and where the
Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty?" Now it's really getting
complicated.
