The Rock was Christ

3 For I will proclaim the name of the Lord; ascribe greatness to our God! 4 The Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he; Deut. 32:4 NRSV

47 The Lord lives! Blessed be my rock, and exalted be my God, the rock of my salvation, 2 Samuel 22:47 NRSV

Notice in the Scriptures above that the "Rock" has a "work" that is "perfect" and "ways" that are "just." God/Yahweh here is the Rock and He is a living personal and acting creator. 2 Samuel even says Yahweh "lives!" Deuteronomy goes on to even describe Yahweh as a "he"; "faithful"; "without deceit"; "just" and "upright". God is not a "what" but a "who" that speaks as a "he".

Daniel L. Segraves notes that "we are to read the Old Testament as did the writers of the New Testament: the events found in the Hebrew Scriptures anticipate and represent greater realities that will be brought to light in the messianic age, with the coming of Jesus Christ."(1) It is indeed the coming of Jesus, and not a Trinity, that the Old Testament foretells. In Jewish homes the song "The Rock From Which We Have Eaten" is sung around Shabbat. Messianic Jewish scholar David Stern suggests “One of the best known zmirot (songs) sung in Jewish homes on Shabbat is “Tzur Mishelo Achalnu” (“The Rock From Which We Have Eaten”). Since it may date back to as early as the second century, and because so many of its ideas parallel those of these verses, I quote two stanzas:”

The Rock, from whom we have eaten—

Bless him, my faithful friends! 

We have eaten our fill without exhausting the supply, 

Which accords with the Word of Adonai.

He nourishes his world, our Shepherd, our Father;

We have eaten his bread and drunk his wine …. 

With nourishment and sustenance he has sated our souls …. 

May the Merciful One be blessed and exalted! (2)

In this song Jews have no problem calling the "Rock" a "He" who is a "Shepherd" and a "Father". Emil Schurer in his voluminous work on the Jewish People says that the Shema and the Shemoneh Esreh “occupy...so prominent position in the Jewish liturgy”. Shurer suggests that the Shema (Jewish confession of faith, consisting of Deut. 6:4-9, 11:13-21, Num. 15:37-31) is cited, preceeded by prayers, so that they would be in “constant remembrance of Him.” The Shemoneh Esreh is the “chief prayer, which every Israelite, even women, slaves and children, had to repeat three times a day...it is so much the chief prayer of the Israelite, that it is also called merely ‘the prayer.’”(3) Here are parts of the prayer I would like to consider closer. Notice how they echo that of Stern's Jewish song.

We praise Thee, for Thou art the Lord our God and the God of our fathers for ever and ever; the Rock of our life, the Shield of our salvation, Thou art for ever and ever...Cause us to turn, O our Father, to Thy law, and draw us near, O our King, to Thy service, and restore us in perfect repentance to Thy presence. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who delightest in repentance. 6. Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned; pardon us, our King, for we have transgressed; ready to pardon and forgive Thou art.

Let’s examine more Scripture about the Rock that was with the Israelites. Notice these passages:

Isaiah 44:8, Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.” ESV

 I Samuel 2:2, There is none holy like the LORD; there is none besides you; there is no rock like our God. ESV

 II Samuel 22:2-3, He said: “The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior—from violent men you save me. ESV

 II Samuel 22:32, For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? ESV

 II Samuel 23:3, The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me: ‘When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God, ESV

 Psalm 18:2, The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. ESV

 Psalms 62:1-2, For God alone my soul waits in silence; from him comes my salvation. 2 He only is my rock and my salvation, my fortress; I shall not be greatly shaken. ESV

In the previous passages we can make some important conclusions. 1) no God or Rock besides "me" 2) no other God or Rock is known 3) this Rock is God or Yahweh of the Old Testament 4) God is our rock, refuge, shield, holy, stronghold, and savior. 5) The God of Israel, the Rock of Israel, even speaks. 6) God is a who and is described as a "him" and a "He". The Hebrew word הוּא appears which typically is a referent of whom or what is spoken about. In this case the whom is "He" and is referring to Yahweh. The New Bible Dictionary makes an important concession in light of popular trinitarian apologetics,

"Without the titanic disclosure of the Christ event, no one would have taken the OT to affirm anything but the exclusive, i.e. unipersonal monotheism that is the hallmark of Judaism and Islam."(4)

This well known fact is overlooked and still ignored by Trinitarians. The Old Testament is unipersonal and that is why Judaism is unipersonal. The "Christ event" however did not introduce another person no more than it revealed another, even lesser, Yahweh. God comes. He is Jesus.

The prophet Isaiah saw a vision of Jesus sitting on heaven’s throne (Isaiah 6:1ff.), with such a robe that its train filled the temple. Clearly no other person is on the right nor the left of God, and His throne. The seraphim present identifies what Isaiah saw as Yahweh. Isaiah later points out that it would be His birth of a virgin (7:14) from David’s lineage that would qualify Him to sit on David’s throne, fulfilling the ancient prophecy of Nathan. But this descendant of David would also be the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father Himself.

The Rock was Christ : Jesus is Yahweh


Paul, speaking of the Israelites in the days of Moses, said, “They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (I Corinthians 10:4). The Rock is a type of Christ but also identifies Jesus as Yahweh. Jews and Trintarians will stumble here. Jesus, the everlasting Father, is also the Son, who is also the Mighty God (See Isa. 9:6). The only God the Father in the either Covenants is Jesus, the Son. Jesus then is the True God (1 John 5:20). Fundamentally, the One who existed prior to the Incarnation is the same One who existed after the Incarnation but in a different form.

It was not the human Son of God, the seed of the woman, that was with the Israelites on that day. Yet, the one eternal personal Spirit of God preexisted the Incarnation. In his book Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity Richard Bauckham notes:

The implication for Jewish monotheism and Christology is remarkable: the exclusive devotion that YHWH's jealously requires of his people is required of Christians by Jesus Christ. Effectively he assumes the unique identity of YHWH. This is coherent with the suggestion that Paul already has the Song of Moses in mind in 10:4 ('the rock was Christ'), alluding to the description of YHWH as Israel's Rock that is characteristic of the Song (Dent. 32:4, 15, 18, 31; note the close association with the theme of Israel's idolatry in v. 18).(5)

James D.G. Dunn, in his book New Testament Theology notes:

...in the Gospels it is typically Jesus who heals or saves, or through whom God saves. And it is noticeable that, in the Pastorals in particular, the title of Savior is used of God as much as of Christ.(6)

Not a verse of Scripture even hints of any other Rock or significant Savior other than Yahweh. (See also Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31; Psalm 28:1; 42:9; 61:2; 71:3; 94:22; 95:1, Isaiah 51:1.) With Jesus now understood to be included in the identity of Yahweh does not introduce another Rock, Savior or Yahweh. If so, the closest possible explanation would be polytheism and not Trinitarianism (i.e. more than one divine person can be called Rock, Savior, Yahweh).

Yahweh is a who that speaks as a he. Such self utterances and reflections by others on Yahweh as a he or him certainly reflect the indivisible nature of God's being as well as His inexhaustible person (esp. in contrast to worship of Baal(s)). For Israel Yahweh is an eternal undivided self. Notice these passages. Well before Christ was ever born the Old Testament prophet Isaiah states:

Isaiah 8:13-14, “But the Lord of hosts, him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 14 He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over—a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

In the Acts of the Apostles Luke records Peter’s affirmation in the clearest way possible: 

Acts 4:10-11, “let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead(7). 11 This Jesus is ‘the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.’” NRSV

The Apostle Paul, in Romans 9:32-33, also says “They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, “See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” NRSV

In even clearer terms Paul states: 1 Corinthians 3:11, For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. NRSV

NOTES:

1) Segraves, Daniel L. (2008). Reading Between the Lines (Kindle Locations 2920-2933). Word Aflame Press. Kindle Edition.

2) Stern, D. H. (1996). Jewish New Testament Commentary : A companion volume to the Jewish New Testament (electronic ed.) (1 Co 10:3). Clarksville: Jewish New Testament Publications.

3) Schürer, E. (1890). Vol. 4: A history of the Jewish people in the time of Jesus Christ, second division, Vol. II. (86, 87). Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

4) Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.) (1209). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

5) Richard Bauckham. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament's Christology of Divine Identity (Kindle Locations 1362-1366). Kindle Edition.

6) James D. G. Dunn (2009). New Testament Theology (Library of Biblical Theology) (Kindle Locations 1533-1537). Abingdon Press. Kindle Edition.

7) Who raised Jesus from the dead? 2 Cor. 5:19—God was in Christ, reconciling the world…..; John 2:19—Jesus, Destroy this temple and in 3 days I will raise it up; Gal. 1:1—Father raised Christ from the dead and Rom. 8:11—Holy Spirit raised Christ from the dead. God raised Christ from the dead.

Monotheism

Recently Millard Erickson noted, "Monotheism means exclusive worship of and obedience to the one true God." (Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions) Monotheism is the worship of the one True God. The Israelites were not evolving polytheists but held strict devotion to the One True God. For Christians the One True God entered into His own creation. Jesus is Immanuel--God with us.

This does not mean Israel was without those who fell away or turned to other gods. Deuteronomy 6:4 makes this plain as it was intended to exclude polytheism and henotheism. From the text we can gather that there is one God and one way to worship Him. In singleness of heart, will and with all one's person. Our undivided commitment to God matches the number of God as well. Ten verses later Yahweh commands them not to go after “gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you.” (6:14, ESV) These other "gods" were clearly fictional gods and not worthy of their worship and commitment. 

Trinitarians seek to posit that God here is only described as one in being not person. God is somehow so other than those created in His image (Gen.1:26-27) that He can somehow be one being and yet three persons. As proof they suggest that God's being is unlimited and unlike our own. While this is true in many ways it does not necessarily follow that God is more than one person. If God's being is unlimited and unlike ours to such a degree then certainly the same can be said of the person of God Himself. Especially in light of the fact that God or Yahweh is explicitly personal and clearly interacts as one to one existentially. Walther Eichrodt, from Basel University, notices that Yahweh's oneness is not only in reference to His being but also in His person.

"Linguistically, it is certainly possible to support the rendering "Yahweh our God is one single Yahweh"; that is to say, he is not a God who can be split up into various divinities or powers, like the Baals of Tyre, of Hazor and or Schechem, etc., but one who unites himself as a single person everything which Israel thought of as appertaining to God." (Theology of The Old Testament)

The Shema is not confusing. Yes, it has yielded much debate but some basic things can be said. God is echad or one. Echad is the Hebrew word for the number one. Every Hebrew boy or girl learns this at a very early age to distinguish one person or thing from another person or thing. In Deuteronomy 6:4 echad is no doubt used as it is in other places. 

Echad signifies one place (Gen. 1:9), anyone soul or person (Lev. 4:27), or one justice (Num. 5:16). Here we have that there is only one Yahweh. He is one. There is no reason why echad cannot be referencing the person of God in Deuteronomy 6:4. Hebrew children regularly used echad to distinguish one person or thing from another. Unless the Trinitarian is willing to say that God is impersonal or a thing then the reference can include person. In the case of God He is most definitely personal.

The Biblical data clearly indicates that Yahweh or God exists as one personal Spirit being (Ps. 139:7-12; Isa. 31:3; John 4:24) who is invisible (Deut. 4:11-15; Job 9:11; 1 Tim. 6:15-16) omnipotent (Gen. 17:1; 18:14; Ps. 135:5-6), omniscient (Gen. 6:5; 1 Kings 8:39; Job 37:16), self-existent (Ex. 3:14; Isa. 43:10, 44:6; Jer. 10:10) who is personal enough to think and know (1 Sam. 2:3; 1 Chron. 28:9; Job 28:20-24), to create plans and act upon them (Isa. 14:26-27, Isa. 46:10; Isa. 55:11) make judgements (Prov. 5:21; Jer. 20:12) feels emotion (Gen. 6:6; Deut. 32:35-43; Job 19:11)) and respond to others (Ex. 3:7, 6:5; Job 34:28; Ps. 81:19).

Such things are true statements of what should be both the Jewish and Christian creed. This is not to deny that there are certain irreconcilable differences (between Judaism and Christianity) but it is to affirm, for the sake of this discussion, that Yahweh is one. This unchanging creed should help us govern our understanding of the majesty and might of the undivided True and Living God. There is no reason to suppose that the Shema includes a reference to the being of God but not His person. In light of the Incarnation this understanding does not change but further affirms that God is truly one and that one God has been manifest in the flesh. Jesus is that God manifest in flesh.

Roger Perkins and James White Debate Audio

Congratulations to Bro. Perkins on an excellent job in giving an answer and defense to Trinitarian apologist Dr. James White. Listen below to hear an excellent debate on "Did the Son, as a self conscious divine Person distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, exist prior to His Incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth?"



Right click a link below and choose the "...save as..." option to save audio and as an mp3 to your hard-drive. You can also open a link in your browser to listen online.

Opening Statements:

First Rebuttals:

Second Rebuttals:

First Cross-Examination:

Second Cross-Examination:

Audience Questions:

Closing Statements:

Thanks to Pastor Craig Ireland and Hope Christian Church for making this audio available. Click here to listen from Hope Christian Church, Brisbane, Australia.

Dr. Michael Brown - A Queer Thing Happened to America

The Pre-existence of Christ In Scripture, Patristics and Creed by James White

In a previous post Roger Perkins cited an online article by Dr. James White about the pre-existence of Jesus. Here is the link and a portion of that material. 


Click here to read article from AOMIN.org http://vintage.aomin.org/The_Pre_Existence_of_Christ.html
________________________________
The Pre-existence of Christ
In Scripture, Patristics and Creed

by James White

Introduction

Our modern world is decidedly confused. On the one hand, the rationalistic, humanistic viewpoint dominates within our public education system. We are now taught to question the validity of anything that can be called "supernatural." The very idea that someone might believe in miracles, revelation, etc., is opened up to direct ridicule. At the same time, in a direct reaction against this kind of dry humanism, many people are fleeing for refuge into every kind of spiritistic group imaginable. "Channeling" (a fancy way of saying a spirit medium) is very popular, and the Eastern ideas of reincarnation and mysticism are drawing converts from every walk of life.

In the midst of all of this confusion we find the Bible, continuing to proclaim the timeless message of Jesus Christ. Yet even the Lord Jesus has come in for modern "updating" in many men's writings. After a century of "searching for the historical Jesus" men (hopefully) have discovered that outside of the inspired writings of the apostles in the New Testament, we will not find much information on who Jesus was. Indeed, unless we see that it is illogical and irrational to reject the Scriptures for what they claim to be(1) we will never have much to say to our world.

Today it is normal for "Christian" theologians to de-emphasize the doctrinal aspects of the Person of Jesus Christ. Since rationalism and naturalism are the modes of the day, it is unpopular to deal with the clear Biblical teaching of the deity of the Lord Jesus and his pre-existence. The person who looks to the Bible, however, has little choice in the matter - the doctrine is clearly stated both in the Gospels as well as the epistles, and indeed it is implicit in most of the New Testament.

One cannot easily disassociate the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ from that of his deity, as they are part and parcel of the same teaching. An in-depth discussion of the deity of Christ is outside of the realm of this paper, and it will be assumed that an understanding of the main elements of this doctrine are shared with the reader.(2)

This discussion will be limited to the focal passages found in the New Testament that deal with the pre-existence of the Lord Jesus. For our purposes these are as follows: John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17, and Philippians 2:5-7. Each of these passages have much in common, as we shall see in our examination of them, both in an exegetical understanding, as well as in patristic interpretation.

It will be relevant to a discussion of the early Church's views to discuss the order of writing of the books which contain our primary data on the pre-existence of Christ. Generally, the Pauline epistles are dated anywhere from the late 40's to the late 60's of the first century. The majority of scholarship sees Paul's writings preceding John's by quite some time, and there is general agreement concerning the order of Paul's letters and their place in history.(3) The question of the exact date of John's gospel, however, is not so easily resolved. Merril C. Tenney(4) notes that modern estimates range from 45 to beyond 100 A.D. Part of the problem can be found in the fact that during what might be called the "hypercritical" period of the last century, it became quite popular to deny the Johanine authorship of the Gospel of John, and, due to its high Christology (which the rationalists assumed had to be a mythological invention of the early Church) place it at least into the second century. Modern textual finds (such as the famous P75) have demolished any ideas of a second-century date for John, and today the dates normally fall between A.D. 85 and 95.(5) What is very important to notice about the fact of the early (i.e., non-second century dating) is that the Christology of John is, therefore, no different than that of the early Church as the book was written during the same time period! Indeed, there is no way for there to have been sufficient time for such "myths" to have evolved, and, it is not logical to think that John would have written about certain events that could be proven false by living witnesses! With these facts in mind, we can move on to the actual exegesis of these passages.

Exegesis of Principal Passages

The Prologue of John (1:1-18) is unique in Biblical literature. It is clear that the main point of John is not the person of God. His emphasis is the identity of the Word. The Logos is the central figure of the work, and the teaching of the passage is that the Logos is intricately involved with the creation of the universe. The pre-existence of the Logos is clearly stated and assumed throughout the prologue.

Much has been said concerning the origin of the term logos. Philo(6) used the term, yet the logos of Philo is simply an impersonal manifestation of the Wisdom of God. John's usage of the term may indeed borrow from Philo (especially if John wrote the Gospel while in Ephesus, as the Greeks would be able to understand the term), but he goes far beyond anything Philo dreamed of. Rather than a pantheistic, impersonal divine emanation, the Logos of John is a personal, eternal being who is not simply a part of creation, but is rather the Creator himself.

The first verse itself must be examined to be understood. Transliterated into Greek the verse reads: En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos. The verse breaks down into three clauses, each being vital to the whole. The first thing to notice is the fact that the imperfect form of eimi is used throughout the prologue in reference to the Logos. This tense, attached to the phrase "en arche" is timeless - i.e., as far back as one wishes to push the "beginning" the Word is already in existence. This is seen, for example, in the translation of the New English Bible which renders it, "When all things began, the Word already was." Today's English Version puts it, "Before the world was created, the Word already existed...." Hence, the first phrase clearly presents the eternality of the Word and hence his pre-existence.
The second phrase presents the inter-personal relationship of the Logos and God. The Greek phrase pros, translated "with," refers to the existence of communication and fellowship between the Logos and theos.(7)The word was used to describe being "face to face" with another. Now, unless John had added the final phrase ("and the Word was God") there would have been a problem here, as the first phrase clearly presents the Logos as eternal, while the second demonstrates his distinct personality. This would create polytheism without the final phrase's emendation. At the same time, this second clause ends any chance of Sabellianism's success.

The final phrase, kai theos en ho logos, presents a syntactical arrangement in which the term theos is emphasized. At the same time, the sentence is copulative, and the presence of the article with logossimply sets it out as the subject of the sentence. Much has been said concerning the lack of the article with theos(8) but -that discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. Basically, the construction 1) avoids modalism (i.e., the Word is not said to be completely co-extensive with theos) and 2) teaches that the Word has the same nature as God (a point that Paul will reiterate in Philippians).

Verse 3 links the eternality of the Word with creatorship. "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John here is intent on separating the Logos from the realm of the created - he started in the very first phrase by asserting his timeless existence and continues here by attributing to the Logos all of creation, an item that will reappear in Colossians. The only possible way to interpret these verses is to see the Logos as an eternal being who created all things.

The prologue continues by identifying the Logos with the person of Jesus Christ in 1:14. It is interesting to note that John very carefully differentiates between the Word in his absolute nature and all other things. When the eternal Word is in view, John uses en. When created things are being discussed (such as John in 1:6), the aorist egeneto is found. However, when we come to the time event of 1:14 (i.e., the incarnation), John switches from the timeless en to the aorist egeneto - the Word became flesh at a point in time in history.

Finally, in 1:18(9), John seals the case by calling Jesus the "only-begotten God," or, more accurately, the "unique God"(10) who reveals the Father, who "exegetes"(11) God to man.

These verses with which John begins his gospel are meant, in my opinion, to form an "interpretive window" through which the reader is meant to look at the words that follow. One must constantly keep the Logos in the back of the mind when interpreting the words and actions of Jesus.(12) Much of what Christ says must be understood in this light to even make much sense! His unique relationship with the Father is intelligible only in the light of his eternal preexistence with him.

<trunc.

Endnotes

1) 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21.

2) This writer sees the following passages as directly ascribing to Jesus Christ the term God: Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew: Elohim), John 1:1 (Greek: theos), 1:18, 20:28, Acts 20:28 (depending on text), Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1 and (possibly) I John 5:20. Interestingly, in reference to Titus 2:13 (and 2 Peter 1:1 - both similar syntactical constructions) Chrysostom ("Homily lV on Philippians in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers volume 13) pg.207 clearly understood the implications of the syntax of Titus 2:13, and bases part of his polemic against the Arians on the application of theos to Christ. See also A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pgs. 61-68.

3) F. F. Bruce Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1977) p. 475 places the epistles of Paul in the following order: Galatians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians,

Ephesians, Philemon, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus with Galatians at 48 A.D., Colossians and Philippians in 60-62 A.D., and Paul's death in approximately 65 A.D. This is almost identical to A. T. Robertson's (" Paul the Apostle" in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1956) vol. 3:2265 - 2266) order of writing, with the exception of Galatians, which Robertson places just before Romans. See also Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" in The New Century Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) pg. 30 on the dating of Colossians.

4) Merril C. Tenney, "John" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981) vol. 9, pp.9-10.

5) Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1985) vol.1:721-724 gives a good argument for Johanine authorship, and dates it before 100 A.D. A.T.Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932) vol.5:1 dates John at A.D. 90. James lverach, "John the Apostle" in The lnternational Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1956) vol. 3:1721-1722 also dates John at the end of the first century.

6) G.L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, (London: SPCK, 1952), pp. 124,141. Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" in The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1973) pg. 58.

7) A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934) pp. 625f. See discussion in A. T. Robertson, The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1976) pp. 34-46.

8) See F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1983) p. 31, or Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1971) pg. 77 for a discussion of some of the issues involved in the translation of this phrase. Most noteably, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society mistranslates the phrase as "the Word was a god."

9) On the text of 3 John 1:18 and the superiority of the reading theos over huios, see Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1975) p.198, A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 5:17. For citation of manuscripts, see the UBS text, 3rd ed. corrected, p. 322.

10) For the true meaning of monogenes see J. H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1935) pp. 416-417.

11) Greek: exegesato, to lead out, bring forth, make known, explain.

12) For an interesting discussion of the relationship of the Prologue to the rest of John, see John A. T. Robinson, Twelve More New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1984) pp. 65-76.

13) Philip B. Harner, The I Am Sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John, (Fortress Press, 1970).

14) Ralph Martin, "Colossians and Philemon" pp. 55 -57; F. F. Bruce, Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Freepp.418ff. For further information on the passage as well as exegesis, see John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries vol. 21:151-152.

15) See Wilhelm Michaelis, "Prototokos" in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1982) vol. 6:872ff.

16) See M. Tsevat, "Bekhor" in Theological Dictionary of the old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1975) vol.2:121ff. On prototokos see entry in Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature edited by Gingrich and Danker, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) p. 726.

17) J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959) pp. 150-151. See also pp. 151-153 on the extent of ta panta.

18) For other views and discussion on Colossians 1:15-17 in a theological setting, see Donald Guthrie,New Testament Theology (Inter-Varsity Press: USA, 1981) pp.344-352; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1974) pp. 419-421.

19) Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology pp. 342- 352; George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament pp. 419-421; Henry Alford, New Testament for English Readers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983) pp. 1262-1264; Kenneth Wuest, "Philippians" in Word Studies in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981) pp. 62-65;J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's Epistles to the Philipians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953) p. 137.

20) See discussion under patristic interpretation.

21) Ibid.

22) Both the Authorized Version and the New International Version see that the term kenosis is always used metaphorically by Paul hence, the translation "to make of no repute" or to "make himself nothing." It is never used by Paul of a literal "emptying."

23) J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Longman Inc., 1981) pp. 87, 91..cw 9.

24) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1981) vol. 1:546.

25) For the text of the Nicene Creed, see J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: Longman Inc., 1981), pp.215-216 and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985) vol. 1:27-28.

26) Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1:30.

27) John Chrysostom, "Homilies on St. John" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Philip Schaff, ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1980) vol. 14:8.

28) Chrysostom, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:12.

29) Chrysostom, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14:18. His entire exegesis found in pages 10-19 is excellent.

30) Chrysostom, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 13:271.

31) Chrysostom, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 13:207-208.

32) Athanasius, "Four Discourses Against the Arians" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (series II) ed. by Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1980) vol. 5:409.

33) Athanasius, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4:329.

34) Athanasius, "Statement of Faith" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5:85.

35) Athanasius, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5:375. See also 5:382.

36) Augustine, "Homilies on the Gospel of John" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series I, edited by Philip Schaff, vol. 7:7-13. Augustine also connected the idea of pre-existence with the absolute usage ofego eimi at John 8:21-25 in vol. 7:218-219.

37) Augustine, "Enchiridion," in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3:249.

38) See also Augustine, "On Faith and Creed" in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3.322-323, 329.

39) Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3:619-620.

An Open Response From Roger Perkins to James White Part II

RP: On the October 25th edition of James White’s webcast (The Dividing Line) Mr. White continued in his typical condescending and pompous demeanor of my first rebuttal.  I have dictated his remarks below to the best of ability in red, with my counter-responses immediately following.  I copied his words in hurriedly so every single small term [i.e., vowels, articles, etc.] may not be word-for-word, but in 98% of the cases they are exact.  I refer readers to the show for corroboration of the info. below. 

_____________________________________________________________  

JW:  Mr. Perkins chose to be offended at my remarks on the DL of his previous debates, instead of listening, learning and growing.

RP:  Again, you posture yourself as the teacher, and we all the “learners”.  As I said before, it’s quite hard to “learn” from someone who infers that God did not fully “reveal” His true identity to His OT Covenant people.  Not to even mention the “Three-Separate-Centers of Consciousness within each Divine Individual” position you hold to!?  Or, your comment in your article John 1:1, Meaning and Translation, Section II,  that states “The Logos is not all of God”.  Interesting indeed!  Let me guess, I’m taking the terms you chose to employ out of context again…right?

JW: In the Oneness camp, if someone says you’re factually wrong, it’s automatically an “Ad Hominem” attack.

RP:  As I said to you before, I’ve received numerous emails from all over the country, both Trinitarian and Oneness, who expressed their disdain for your undue polemics.  This includes terms such as “Ridiculous,” “Plain Silly,” “Absurd,” and, now add to the mix, “Lying”!  “Ridiculous” indeed!  If you can dish it out sir, then don’t cry when I return the favor…I can do both.

JW: Perkins arrived on Monday of the week and did nothing all week, and apparently required a lot of looking after, which I typically try to avoid.

Well, the people at Hope Christian Church confirm it was their joy and pleasure to host me and do not feel as though I was a trouble for them. I have been reading your material and studying your stuff for approximately 5 months intently and was fully ready to debate you the moment I stepped off the plane. But, this is all relevant to Theology….HOW???

JW:  Perkins did not engage the actual subject

RP:  I spent 3 hrs. debating your subjects.  I simply did not provide the responses you wanted me to give, thus the ol’ familiar Trinitarian charge, “You’re not answering my questions”.  Hmmm, kinda’ like you did when I asked about the natural ramifications of the anthropomorphical language applied to God as possessing one mouth, pair of hands, feet, face, etc.  To which you replied, “God having a mouth does not infer He is one person anymore than when the Bible says He has feathers He’s a chicken!”  Good for laughs, but also a professional dodge which ignores the point of the question now doesn’t it [I.E., Ignoring the Question!].  Or, when asked why singular personal pronouns in the NT equals one single person, but 9,000 singular personal pronouns applied to God in the OT, the person-hood criteria shifts to being-hood.  You said, “The difference is there’s no personal dialogue in the OT (which is quite strange for co-eternal persons now isn‘t it?).”  I should have responded by asking if there has to be dialogue for a single-person-pronoun to indicate personhood?  But, alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20 vision!

JW: Every time I look up Perkins’ scholarly references, they are in error.

RP:  Hmm, did you take the time to look up the various prepositional usages in BAGD for the baptismal accounts in Acts…which expressly reference an oral invocation of the Name [eis (acc. case) to onama, epi (dat. case), en]?  BTW, it’s quite strange that the lone witness of Mt. 28:19 necessitates the baptismal “formulae,” while the multiple attestations in Acts and the epistles simply denote Christian ‘authority’??  And you’re teaching me about proper “hermeneutics”??  

Did you take the time to look up Louw-Nida’s semantic domain or Thayer’s on para in the dat. case as including “in the judgement of, in the opinion of, or metap., in the mind, Jn. 17:5 [this last reference is Thayer].”  Or, how about Zodhiates with dia in the gen. case in Col. 1:16...was that also in “error,” esp. since Zodhiates & Thayer explicitly reference the verses under consideration, and Louw-Nida says para in the dat. Case “includes” the mng. “in the opinion of, in the judgement of”.  I referenced everyone of these in the debate, to which you offered no response.  BTW, before you call the term “includes” a “weasel word” [as you have charged me before], I’ll simply remind you that you yourself used this word in partially quoting BAGD’s def. of monogenes in the back of your book [pg. 203 or 208 if I’m not mistaken?].  But, this is the typical scholastically hypocrisy I’ve come to expect after studying you for intently for several months now. 

JW: Perkins is a sad example of not focusing on the arguments

RP:  Hmm, seems the unbiased moderator, as well as several in the crowd did not feel that way.  Once again, you set yourself up to be the final authority as to what qualifies as “effective argumentation” and what does not.  Sorry Mr. White, we are not at your mercy in these [or any other] areas.

JW: If Perkins really wanted to refute me, all he had to do was offer meaningful exegesis.

RP:  Let’s see, I touched on Para in the dat. case, dia in the gen. case, plural vs. singular verbs in regard to the subjects they modify, referenced Louw-Nida, BAGD, Thayer, Friberg, Robertson, Moulton, etc.  No, I did not get to offer an in-depth analysis of the Carmen Christie, though I had two pages on it alone.  But, this was due to the format THAT WE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE DEBATE AND YOU AGREED TO!  I was asked to delineate my position in detail to the audience, then begin our rebuttals in the very short time we had left…which I spent handling your charges in your own rebuttal.  And, even then I fit in Jn. 17:1-5.  So, if it makes you look better, keep singing away, but it’s quite odd the unbiased moderator and several others [Trinitarians] did not feel this way.

JW:  Perkins can’t pronounce Greek words, knows nothing about Greek grammar, and can’t even read the Greek alphabet

RP:  Ahhh yes…here we go.  This is the very reason the moderator had to issue you a warning in the debate, and gave me a few choice words after the debate for you.  Understand, he is a judiciary debate judge well trained on critiquing debates, and I was quite shocked when he told me he thought I won the debate and presented the clearer case.  Again, I never make such claims, but allow others to be the judge.

Now, you are very, very wrong about my knowledge of the Greek language and I have written entire symposium papers about how to read lexicons.  So, here, let me help you out a bit:  The lexicographers give the literal definitions of said terms, then from there begin to place the passages in the category that they best feel reflect their understanding of how the word is used is used various contexts.  It is at this point that carefulness must be exercised lest one mistakes their commentary as grammatical fact.  Thus, the context is the determining factor.  And, I wrote this & many other similar points long before I ever heard you say a thing about it! 

Regarding my reading the Greek language, you are quite in error here also.  Certainly I have a ways to go, but am in the learning process and can indeed read some Greek, but, again, it’s quite an on-going process.  Ironically, the participles are what I seem to pick up quite readily.  Also, there are entire passages that I can translate & read now, but again it’s quite a learning experience.  

However, you do reveal your motives here:  If you thought I could not read Greek, then what was your reasoning in asking me IN GREEK what the verbs in Phil. 2 meant?  If you thought I didn’t know how to pronounce the words…why did you insist on pronouncing, quoting, and reading from the Greek text.  As I was told later, this was to try and loft yourself as the superior, and I as the inferior…which “isn’t an effective form of argumentation.”  But, sure fools the crowd [some of them at least] doesn’t it Mr. White?

JW: I quoted Moulton & Milligan exactly in the English language

RP:  Now who’s “lying” sir?  I challenge any one reading this response to simply reference your article “The Pre-Existence of Christ” from your web-site and look down to about the 5th paragraph on the second page.  You expressly state in quotation marks, “unique God” (10), which is a reference to Moulton & Milligan, pp. 416-417.  When one consults the reference YOU provided in quotes, the words in quotes appear absolutely nowhere in your footnoted source!  Explain it away all you want, it’s right there for the honest in heart.  I have written many symposium papers and the editors would hand me my head if I did this.  This is NOT proper academic authorship…no matter how you try to rationalize it away.  At least have the decency sir to acknowledge you should have written it better and withdraw the quotation and reference source.  I have already included the genre of the quote as it appears in my first rebuttal for readers to view for themselves, especially their specific comments regarding Jn. 1:18 [the very verse you were referencing]...which states the entire opposite of what your paper infers.  I won’t even take the time to rehash your partial quote from BAGD, or your ‘deception by omission’ tactic you used in your “evidence” for Monogenes Theos selected from UBS-4.  Yes, “Abuse” indeed!

JW:  Can any rational thinking person think I wasn’t saying Moulton & Milligan was identifying as “Unique God”

RP:  Then don’t include it in quotes with a footnote reference right beside it citing your source with page numbers!  What does this tell anyone in first year college?  I know it’s a novel idea for you, but how about simply acknowledging your poor reference and move on? 

JW: Perkins has a horrific lack of scholarship

RP:  Said the man who told the world last Fri. night that God exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!?  No one knew a thing about such as existence for 4,000 years and 70% [or the remaining 30%] of the Bible…..and I’M THE ONE WITH HORRIFIC SCHOLARSHIP??  If your peculiar idea of a three-minded God constitutes “scholarship,” I think I’ll stay as far away from your brand of “scholarship” as I can, as well as teach others to do the same!

          

JW:  Only Roger Perkins has the ability to misread any scholarly source that’s presented to him

RP:  Contrare’ Monfrare’.  I actually presented Friberg to you in regard to ‘aykone,’ with their reference to Col. 1:15...& you just ignored it altogether.  As well as you did my references to Louw-Nida, Thayer, etc. concerning Para in the dat. case.  But, as usual, you simply plod along in your typical ad-hom style, all the while denying the same….a natural out-growth of your “Reformed Theology” [i.e., “Elect”].

JW:  He was lying in our debate

RP:  Ho-Hum and Big Yawn!  If I inadvertently misquoted BAGD, that’s not a “lie” [I suppose my reference to Friberg was also a “lie”?].  Perhaps we should do a home Bible study on the definition of Lying [so typical for reformed theologians BTW]. Concerning Moulton, it was your quotations and resource reference right next to it…not mine.  

JW:  Perkins key argument in ‘trying to get around Col. 1:16’ was his argument from BAGD, which made no sense.

RP:  Actually, I have conceded that I misspoke regarding the passage in the sense that the Son created as to His pre-eminence.  As I’ve already said, as soon as I said this I knew it did not at all come out right, nor did the statement accurately reflect my thoughts.  But, there was no time to correct it during a fast-paced cross-ex.  However, the overriding point remains valid and I have already enunciated this in my last open rebuttal to you.  The Son is contextually presented to us in Vss. 14-15 as the one who redeemed us to the forgiveness of our sins, and the visible image of the invisible God.  The word ‘aykone’ is where we get the English word ‘Icon’ & invariably defines as a tangible, visible representation [see Amplified, & Dr. W. E. Vine].  Clearly this is not the pre-existent world,  but the Human Messiah [God in Flesh] who “redeemed” us.  This is who the pronouns in Vss. 16-18 grammatically point back to, as evidenced by the conjunction hotee introducing a dependent causal clause in Vs. 16, further elaborating on Vs. 14-15.

JW: Over and over, Perkins does not know how to read a Lexicon

RP:  Funny, even if this were the case [which it’s not at all], you have told us that Lexicons only reflect that particular lexicons understanding….which is PRECISELY the point I have made in my teachings about lexicons [symposium papers, etc.].  And, I wonder if this holds true for your beloved A.T. Robertson, Benjamin Warfield commentary, and the 75 sources you reference in your book??

JW: Perkins has never spent one day taking Greek, and yet he refuses correction…which is a mark of Cultism

RP:  Elder David Adams was a Greek professor for 3 yrs. at a Bible college in Parkersburg, WV.  He graduated Greek 5 with a 97% and can transliterate the ancient language. WVU has approached him about teaching Greek in their accredited university.  He has written an entire translation/commentary on the Revelation.  He is an esteemed Elder of mine and he has spent much time with me in the language.  I also have Mounce, Wallace, Dana & Mantey, BAGD, Thayer, Vine’s, Moulton, Robertson, Diesmann, etc….which are the same sources YOU refer to sir.  Yes, I still have much to learn, as do you with the infinitives, but learning I am!  So, your first point above it entirely moot and off-base.

Secondly, if the doctrines of “Reformed Theology” are not “Cultic,” I don’t know what is!  By your own definition, if one refuses correction, they are “Cultic”….said the man who argues for a God who exists as “Three-Divine-Individuals, each with their own Separate Center of Consciousness”!?  Not one Jewish writer from Gen.-Rev. arrives at such a conclusion and, indeed, would likely rebuke one who taught such.  “Cultic” indeed!

JW:  Perkins’ accusation that I misrepresented Moulton is a lie and we need to move on to someone who can read a Lexicon.  It’s simply reprehensible.

RP:  In the first place, I read the Lexicons quite well, though I may have inadvertently looked over the sub-category in BAGD.  Regardless, even the listing you mention, “Christ,” is both definitional and biblically a reference to the Messiah who walked the Earth & redeemed mankind, as opposed to a “2nd of 3 separate divine individuals, each with their own independent center of consciousness”.  Thus, the BAGD reference still stands, as well as Friberg, Vine’s, and the Amplified Bible’s translation [and I have several more references].

Concerning “moving on” to someone else, as long as you continue to offer your critiques on the DL, I’ll be here to offer a surrejoinder.  Obviously, I will not continue forever, as I am beginning a church-plant and am shifting my focus to this arena, though I will certainly always continue my studies. 

As I said to you earlier, you had a perfect example to clearly enunciate your position to our agnostic moderator who is a professional debate judge and came out of interest.  Now, due to your obvious attempts to play the crowd with citations to Australian movie lines, and clear arrogant behavior, if he comes to anyone, it will be us.  To God the Glory!

I await your next DL critique, at which time I will respond accordingly.

Roger Perkins