Text of 1 Tim 3:16

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 05:03 AM 12/28/95 -0600, you wrote:

>1) There has never existed a masoretic text of 1 Timothy.
>
>2) The oldest and most reliable NT texts have "he" not "God" there. 
>Even the Alexandrinus ms has "he" there in the original reading. It was 
>misread for centuries because of a "strikethrough" from the letters on 
>the other side of the page. This fact has been known since the 1700s.
>
>You may be trying to refer to Textus Receptus, which indeed has "theos" 
>in this verse. I am aware of the fact that American fundamentalists 
>have some sort of love affair with the 1611 King James Version, but 
>like all love affairs it's built on rosy illusions not facts. 
>

Well, Jan, I have never claimed to be a Biblical scholar :-) I am sure you
are correct in your above statement.  The texts that I used to derive the
statement I made above show several sets of texts together, all of which
show the Greek wording of -Theos-.  However, according to other sources that
I have, we are both wrong.  Apparently the early texts used Omicron Sigma
(os), which was later changed to Theta Sigma (Ths - The abbreviation for
God, Theos).  The difference between Omicron and Theta is quite well known
to simply be a line through the middle of the O for the Greek letter Theta.
Also, the Cod. Sinait. certainly has os, and to this do even older versions
agree.  By accepting this text, os, which means WHO (not HE), is a relative
which must have an antecedant.  This has usually been solved by adding the
word He to the beginning of the 'who' and should be thus translated "He who
..." instead of merely "He..."  However, this may be also incorrect since
there is no expressed antecedant for the masculine gender for it to agree
with.  The antecedant, therefore, must be looked for, and gathered from the
preceding text, ro musterion res eusebeias.  This is obviously in reference
to Christ. The mystery of the entire Old Testament, which was wrapped up in
all manner of 'types and shadows,' expressed Christ.  Moses spoke of him,
the Psalms spoke of him, the prophets prophecied of him; Isaish was probably
the greatest prophet to speak of Christ in his relation as God manifest in
flesh (Is 9:6; Is 7:14).

Isaiah foretold of the suffering Servant as someone separate from God, but
also spoke of this same Christ as the physical incarnation of that God.
This is the mystery, how that God would become a man - Deity clothed in
humanity.  The Jews misunderstood Christ's claims and thought the opposite -
that he being a man was making himself God.  (By this alone, we should
become vividly aware that Christ was something more than merely a man as
some have tried to profess).

The original text may not acutally state Theos, as you have indicated, but
since God became (was made) flesh (John 1:14), in fullfillment of Isaiah's
prophetic words, and because man did not understand, this was a mystery.
Therefore, it is no difficult thing to pass from "mystery" to "God in
Christ," and to supply the word "God" as the antecedent to the Greek Os (Who).

I do disagree with the idea which suggests that the New Testament Greek
texts did not portray any Christological statements.  I am sorry, but I just
do not agree with this statement.  The texts do profess a doctrine
concerning Christ - in fact a great doctrine.  It is certainly true that
they did not suggest any extreme ideas that have been formulated over the
last 1900 years by man-made theology.  Nevertheless, they do provide the
firm doctrinal support needed to understand the person and nature of Christ.
Without the texts themselves, we would have no basis whatsoever to even know
anything about Christ.

To suggest that the NT texts do not teach anything about Christ is to say
that they are not necessary, and are not God-breathed.  I sincerely believe
that the Greek texts, written by the Apostles, and disciples of Christ, were
for a serious purpose.  That purpose being to set down, in writing, the
truths concerning what had transpired during the lives of Jesus and his
Apostles.  Within its pages is all that we need to form doctrine, for it is
doctrine.  

> Different people, Arians, Modalists and 
>Trinitarians have been involved in a snowball fight for over 1500 
>years, throwing arguments at each other and carefully avoiding any good 
>points made by the opposition.
>

Oh, please do not misunderstand me, Jan.  I am not even attempting to
discredit anything that you may have stated.  For you are very correct in
the statements that you presented.  The only thing that I disagree with, is
your suggestion that the texts do not give a Christological statement at
all.  They do, albeit not to an extent that the Second, Third, and Fourth
centuries began to place on them.  For by trying to "figure God out,"
useless theories and ideas about God have been presented, even to the
extreme of outright polytheism.

God never intended for this to happen.  He intended for us to use the texts
that were written, and accept them for what they stated.  That is why I do
not take to much fault at M.Murphy in his understanding of the texts.  I
assume that he is merely trying to take the Word for what it says, and
nothing more, and that is admirable.  However, we must use the Word to
understand the Word.  Accept it all, or leave it all for naught.  This is
the reason we understand that Jesus was indeed Deity - the 'rest' of the
Bible declares it.  [And now you know the REST of the story.  ;-) ]

>Please acknowledge that there 
>may be valid counter-arguments to your ideas. Don't say, or imply, that 
>some hot eternity awaits those who happen to disagree with you. 
>Remember the pharisee who boasted to God about not being like the tax 
>collector... 
>

Jan, I don't remember stating what you seem to imply.  Please do not
misunderstand me.  I may believe that Knowledge of God and his Person is an
extremely important aspect of Godly knowledge; yet, I also admit that many
statements made by yourself and M.Murphy are very valid.  Murphy is not
'wrong' in what he has stated concerning scripture's reference that Jesus
was a man.  And, you are not wrong in the references you have made
concerning Jesus' acceptance of Divine Rights, such as worship. 

Murphy has also remarked that he even prays to Jesus, which is surprising,
since he doesn't believe Jesus is Deity.  This is the reason I wrote such a
long text. Obviously God has been dealing with Murphy for a while now, and
obviously Murphy has a deep notion that "Well, maybe Jesus really is God."
I believe God is trying to reveal himself to Murphy, as he does to all mankind.

One more thing - if we begin to simply accept all aspects of theological
thinking made by all manner of men, then why did the Apostles defend their
doctrine so emphatically?

>God may have other standards than us. Also remember that God is far 
>beyond any idea, doctrine or vision we may have about Him. Any attempt 
>to violently force God into our box-like ideas are presumptuous to the 
>extreme.
>

Wonderfully stated, Jan.  Man should never limit infinite God within a
finite understanding.  God is God.  But, we should also remember that God no
longer veils himself in a mystery.  God has openly revealed his Word and his
Person.  Remember, many times Jesus spoke the words, "He that has eyes, let
him see; and he that has ears, let him hear."  The essence of those words
are: understand what I have to show you.  The mysteries of God have been
made clear unto his Saints by his Spirit.  It is true - the Word of God is
spiritual; thus it necessitates the Spirit for spiritual understanding.  You
don't need a college degree to understand God's Word. [However, from a lot
of stuff I have read on this list, you would believe that many here think
otherwise. ;-) ]

Michael Frazier
miykael1@mail.pernet.net
http://www.pernet.net/~miykael1/index.htm
"... I am set for the defense of the gospel ..." (Phip 1:17)