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.
