Quote:
Originally Posted by rdp
Prax, while it is true that the neuter hen generally means "one" in the sense of unity, as I would imagine you know, there are numerous places in the NT where it can also means "one" in person.
Romans 12:5 So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
The above verse will perhaps help illustrate what I am saying. Here is the exact parsing of the verse:
http://interlinearbible.org/romans/12-5.htm
As you will see, the first "one," as in "one body" is the neuter sing. "hen," while the second "one," as in "individually members 'ONE' of another" is the masc. sing. heis. And, it even contains the same plural verb (ἐσμεν/esmen) as in Jn. 10.30.
The "one" that appears in the independent clause could be taken to mean "one person" inasmuch as "one body" is never more "one person." Conversely, it could also be interpreted to mean "one in unity" due to "many members" clearly are not "one person." Here is where context will enter the picture to be the final judge.
However, the "one" that appears in the dependent clause is clearly talking about "one 'individual' person" (talk about demolishing the "multiple-divine-persons," or "Trinity".....the Masc. Sing. does it!).
Personally, due to context, I think Jesus intended one-person in Jn. 10.30 based upon the response of those standing on the spot. "You being a man are MAKING YOURSELF GOD."
There was something in the force of His usage of "one" which caused them understand His assertion as a statement of identity as not just "in unity" with the Father....But in reality "making yourself God."
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
He seems to be telling them, "I and the Father have the same Hand....We are 'ONE'." This is what incited the Jews extreme anger, whereas, IMO, a statement of "unity" would not have elicited their precise wording (esp. since the pious Pharisee's-Chief Priests made the same assertion all the time).
Just some random musings...........
|
That's why I said early that it wasn't always used that way.
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/heis.htm
BTW I don't believe the idea of Hen being "unity" there is contrary to the Oneness.
Also "you being a man make yourself to be God", theos is without the article. Daniel Wallace lists it as a qualitative PN
b. Qualitative Predicate Nominatives24
John 1:14
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
the Word became flesh
The idea is not that the Word became “the flesh,” nor “a flesh,” but simply “flesh.” That is, the Word partook of humanity. Many pre-1933 exegetes (i.e., before Colwell’s rule was published) saw a parallel between this verse and
John 1:1, noting that both PNs were qualitative.
John 5:10
ἔλεγον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τῷ τεθεραπευμένῳ, σάββατόν ἐστιν
Then the Jews said to the man who had been healed, “It is Sabbath”
Although this could be translated “it is the Sabbath” or, a bit less naturally, “a Sabbath,” one must remember to argue from sense rather than from translation. The point the Pharisees were making had to with the kind of day on which this man was working-hence, a qualitative noun.
1 John 4:8
ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν
God is love
The meaning is certainly not convertible: “love is God.” The idea of a qualitative ἀγάπη is that God’s essence or nature is love, or that he has the quality of love. Thus love is an attribute, not an identification, of God.
Phil 2:13
θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν
the one working in you is God
Although it is certainly possible that θεός is definite,25 the force in this context seems to be a bit more on what God does in the believer rather than who it is that does it. In the previous verse, the apostle exhorts his audience to work out their own salvation. Lest they think they are alone in this endeavor, he hastens to remind them that the one working in them has the ability to bring about their complete sanctification.
p 265 265
Cf. also
Mark 14:70;
Luke 22:59; 23:6;
John 3:6; 9:27, 28;
10:33; 12:36, 50; 13:35; 18:35;
Acts 7:26, 33; 16:21;
Rom 14:23;
1 Cor 2:14; 3:19;
2 Cor 11:22, 23;
1 John 1:5.
Wallace, D. B. (1999). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (264–265). Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software.
.....
This is what I mean
Jason Dulle
Now we will examine Jesus' use of this verse in
John 10:34. The event that prompted Jesus' quotation of this verse was the Jews' response to His claim of deity. Not only did He claim deity, but He claimed to be Yahweh Himself (
Deuteronomy 6:4;
John 10:30-33). The Jews did not understand Jesus' statement, "I and my Father are one," to mean that Jesus was in unity with God's purpose.
They understood Him to be claiming that He and God were one in essence and substance. To the Jews this was blasphemy. Blasphemy received the death penalty by stoning according to the Law of Moses. That is why they took up stones to stone Him.
Jesus knew that it was His claim to be God Himself that infuriated the Jews enough to kill Him. If Jesus only meant that his oneness with the Father was of purpose, and not of essence, this would have been the perfect time to explain to the Jews that He was not claiming to be God, but merely a demigod, or second God sent from the Lord. Instead He quoted
Psalm 82:6 saying, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?".
http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/yegods.htm
Threaded Mode
