Against Dalcour
*Below we
continue with excerpts from our exegetical refutation(s) of the charges
of Edward Dalcour toward Oneness Pentecostal believers. As before, I
have simply copied Dalcour’s assertions from his website in *black
with categorical and textual rebuttals immediately following in *blue.
This particular post specifically targets Dalcour’s claims regarding
the ancient hymn found in Colossians 1.15-16. Corroboration of
Dalcour’s quotes can be located HERE. Enjoy!
Colossians 1:16-17: “For by Him
all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all
things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all
things and in Him all things hold together.”
*Not
surprisingly, Dalcour here violates his own criteria of exegesis and
analytical discourse by overlooking the introduction of the dependent
“hoti” (ὅτι) clause of v. 16, which is hinged on the independent clause
of v. 15. That is, vv. 16-17 hang upon v. 15, which, as we shall see,
is crucial to understanding what Paul was naturally communicating if
this text is allowed to stand uninterrupted on its own strength.
Despite the biblical simplicity, Bernard (1983: 116-17) attempts to circumvent the biblical truth that the Son is the Creator of all things:
Perhaps
these scriptural passages have a deeper meaning that can be expressed
as follows: Although the Son did not exist at the time of
creation except as the word in the mind of God, God used His
foreknowledge of the Son when He created the world …The plan of the Son
was in God’s mind at creation and was necessary for the creation to be
successful. Therefore, He created the world by the Son (emphasis added).
This
is an obvious case of eisegesis. Bernard’s assertion is clear:
passages that speak of the Son as the Creator mean that when the Father
created all things, He had the “plan of the Son” in mind or in view,
that is, “God used His foreknowledge of the Son when He created the
world.” Bernard’s conclusion assumes unitarianism and disallows normal
exegesis.
*“Normal exegesis” does not completely ignore the all-important explicating-subordinate
conjunction translated “for” (ὅτι) at the beginning of a passage.
Ironically, it is Dalcour who is “disallowing normal exegesis” and
“assuming” his predisposed Trinitarian theology.
*Further,
this passage does not “speak of the Son as the Creator” – this is
supplied by Dalcour contra the inspired biblical data standing alone.
By contrast, it is Dalcour who shows an “obvious case of eisegesis” by
imposing his theology upon the God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) text—a text that never states the same as we shall demonstrate below.
In the first place, Colossians 1:13-15 clearly differentiates Jesus from the Father. These verses contextually prohibit the Oneness notion that Jesus is both the Father and the Son:
*It is not
“the Oneness notion” that teaches that Jesus is simultaneously the
Father and the Son of God—it’s the forced conclusion and plain
statements of Scripture itself. Moreover, it was Christ’s “notion” as
well! When asked about the location of the Father, Jesus responds by
expressing surprise in exclaiming, “Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me, Philip? The one having seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14.9).
*If Jesus is someone other than the One inquired about, His response is entirely non-sensical. “Am I with you so long a time, and you have not known Me,
Philip?” Dalcour’s usual dodge of this clear passage is to appeal to v.
6 in an effort to somehow circumvent and disallow Jesus’s
self-declaration in order to protect his religious (Trinitarian)
tradition—of course, operating under the guise of “context.”
*Trinitarianism
is both a denial and an insult to the plain self-identifications of
Christ – and it’s painful to watch them attempt to spin away from such
passages. There are many other similar verses that Trinitarians like
Dalcour labor long and hard to explain away (e.g., Isaiah 9.6; John
14.16-18; 2 Corinthians 3.17; et al.).
*Moreover,
Oneness believers gladly acknowledge that there’s a distinction between
the Father and the Son of God. Indeed, such a distinction is decidedly
paramount to understanding Christ’s biblical identity. However, Dalcour
assumes that this “differentiation” demands “co-equal, co-eternal,
divine, persons”—it does not. Ironically, the very verses to which
Dalcour appeals below actually militates against his doctrinal
posturing, and that on the grammatical level.
“For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He [the Son] is the image of the invisible God [the Father].”
Consider also, as we have shown (cf. Chapter 2, 2.4.4), that Paul’s
main purpose for writing the book of Colossians was to provide a
meaningful refutation of the proto-Gnostic ideology concerning spirit versus matter.
*Note above
that Paul defines God’s Son as the One in whom we have “redemption” and
“the forgiveness of sins.” Specifically whom “redeemed” us—a
“pre-existent 2nd of 3 co-equal, divine persons” or the
“God-Man?” This is both the grammar and context of this ancient hymn,
as Dalcour accurately points out.
The
Gnostic system did not allow Jesus to be the Creator of something so
inherently evil as “matter.” In light of this, Paul provides a clear
anti-Gnostic polemic by firmly demonstrating that Jesus the Son of God
did in fact create all things. Note the clear and forceful (and even redundant) way he presents this: “By Him [en autō] all things [panta] were created … all things [panta] have been created through Him [di’ autou] and for Him [eis auton]. He is before all things [autos estin pro pantōn], and in Him [en autō] all things [panta] hold together” (emphasis added).
*Both above
and below we have exegetically demonstrated that the force of these
prepositional constructs and pronouns used by Paul do not teach a
“pre-existent Son of God” as a “second divine person in the Trinity” if
the inspired text itself is allowed to stand alone.
The following grammatical aspects pointedly codify Paul’s argument:
1. Along with John 1:3, Paul employs the neuter panta, which indicate that the Son was the actual Creator of all things. White (1998: 213) remarks on the theological implication of Paul’s use of the neuter:
It is significant that Paul does not use the more popular terms pas or pan, both of which had meanings in Greek philosophy that allowed the creation to be a part of God or God a part of creation (as in pantheism). Instead, he uses a term that makes the creation a concrete, separate entity with the real existence.
*We are rather puzzled how Dalcour thinks Paul’s usage of πάντα (panta) in this text vindicates the Son of God as a supposed collateral co-existent divine person? The Greek adjective πάντα (panta) here is merely the nominative neuter plural form of πᾶς (pas).
There is absolutely no theological significance relative to the
Godhead in this form of the adjective—and is but another case of a
fertile Trinitarian imagination.
2.
Paul utilizes four different prepositions to magnify his affirmation
that the Son was the Agent of creation: All things were created “by/in
Him” (en + dative; vv. 16, 17); “through Him” (dia + genitive; v. 16); and “for Him” (eis + accusative; v. 16); and, He is “before all things” (pro + genitive; v. 17). To say again, Paul is speaking here of the Son, not the Father (cf. v. 14).
*Here’s the actual Greek text of Colossians 1.16 (NA28):
ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες
εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·
τὰ πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·
“because in Him were created
all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the
invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all
things have been created through Him and unto Him.” (Colossians 1.16; BLB)
*Note the
prepositional construct above translated “in Him” (ἐν αὐτῷ + dative) in
the opening (ὅτι) dependent-causal clause. Though there are at least
ten different forms for ἐν + dative, the most straightforward meaning of
this particular preposition governing a dative case pronoun (αὐτῷ) is:
“properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) ‘in the realm (sphere) of,’ as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within)” (cf. Greek prepositional chart online [http://www.chioulaoshi.org/BG/Lessons/lesson05.html]; also see http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm). This is quite different in both translation and meaning from Dalcour’s theologically preferred “by Him” rendering above.
*Significantly, Dalcour apparently fails to realize above that the verb translated “were created” appears in the aorist tense, passive—contra the active—voice. Exegetically, a passive voice verb generally denotes the subject (in this case the Son of God) as the recipient of the action whereas the active voice denotes the subject as the actual doer
of the action. If – as Dalcour repeatedly asserts – the Son of God is
presented as the “actual Creator” in this hymnal context, the active
voice would have been employed as consistently done elsewhere in
Scripture when the subject is the confirmed doer of the verb.
*Indeed, in
3.10 (of the same book) Paul readily uses the aorist active form of this
selfsame verb (κτίσαντος, contra ἐκτίσθη of 1.16). Hence, the routine
“deponent verb” dodge of this exegetical fact from Trinitarians will not
do at this point. Deponent verbs are typically verbs for which no
active form is found in the Greek New Testament. And, as demonstrated
above, that is not the case with this particular verb.
*That is,
when Paul wanted to state that the subject is “active,” as Dalcour
inflicts into the text above, he precisely uses the active voice in
Colossians—but does not do so at 1.16 as he does in 3.10. To somehow
shift the meaning of a passive voice verb in this text betrays an
over-eager theological rush that negates even 1st year Greek grammar.
*Neither can
Trinitarians appeal to the supposed “divine passive” of the verb
translated “were created” in Colossians 1.16 since this is merely
another theological assertion and not a direct exegesis of the actual
inspired data itself. See here renowned Greek grammarian Dr. William
Mounce: “Divine passive” is more of a theological category than grammatical. In form and basic meaning, it is simply a passive, but when God is the author of the verb, we call it a “divine passive.” (https://billmounce.com/blog/divine-passives-and-seminary-education-eph-3-19)
*{Note: The (perfect) passive ἔκτισται is equally employed in the final clause of this hymnal text. Indeed, in no portion of this entire context is the active voice used for “created” relative to the Son of God. This is nothing more than Dalcour’s intrusion into the biblical data.}
*This does not even delve into the depths of (i) the specific psalm context of these passages, and (ii) the pronouns translated “Him” that modify their antecedent noun translated “image” (εἰκὼν), which is lexically defined as “an embodiment or living manifestation of God form, appearance (CO 1.15)” (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT).
Clearly “God the Son” did not posses an “embodiment” (a synonym for
“incarnation” [cf. Oxford’s Dict.]) in eternity-past, unless Dalcour is
now advocating bodily separation for each “divine person in the
Trinity?”
*Renowned exegete Dr. Murray J. Harris comments on v. 15 (cf. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; Colossians and Philemon; p. 39):
Εἰκὼν
(-όνος, ἡ, image) is nom. after the vb. εἰμί, and is anar. because a
pred. noun after εἰμί sometimes lacks the article (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4). It
is definite (“the image,” “the visible image [NLT], “the visible representation” [Cassirer]) although anar. An εἰκὼν is a “likeness” or a “visible expression.” The degree of resemblance between the archetype and the copy
must be determined by the word’s context but could range from a partial
or superficial resemblance to a complete or essential likeness. Given 1:9 and 2:9, εἰκὼν here signifies that Jesus is an exact, as well as a visible, representation of God…The invisible God, who dwells in unapproachable light (I Tim. 6:16), is visibly expressed in his Son (cf. John 1:18; 12:45; 14:9).
*Just for good measure – see here the New International Greek Testament Commentary quote concerning Colossians 1.15:
As the
sequence of parallels with motifs characteristically used of Jewish
Wisdom in these verses will confirm, the writer here is taking over
language used of divine Wisdom and reusing it to express the
significance of Christ, if not, indeed, taking over a pre-Christian hymn
to Wisdom. That is to say, he is identifying this divine Wisdom with
Christ, just as ben Sira and Baruch identified divine Wisdom with the
Torah (so also Heb. 1:3; cf. particularly Davies, Paul 168-75; Weiss,
Untersuchungen 306-8). The effect is the same: not to predicate the actual (pre)existence of either Torah or Christ prior to and in creation itself,
but to affirm that Torah and Christ are to be understood as the
climactic manifestations of the preexistent divine wisdom, by which the
world was created.
It is
Christ in his revelatory and redemptive significance who is the subject
of praise here; “the description is revelatory, more than ontological”
(Martin, Colossians and Philemon 57). And the praise is that his
redemptive work (1:14: “in whom we have the redemption”) is entirely
continuous and of a piece with God’s work in creation. It is the same
God who comes to expression in creation and definitively in Christ; “he
who speaks of Christ speaks of God” (Gnilka, Kolosserbrief 61). In
short, there is no dualism here. Quite the contrary: this
is Christology set within Jewish monotheism and predicated on the
Jewish theological axiom that the one God has chosen to reveal himself
in and through his creative power (cf. Hegermann 101: “Dynamic Monism”; Wright, “Poetry” 114: “Christological Monotheism”).
*I ask the
honest reader, does careful language such as “visible expression,”
“representation,” and “copy” naturally communicate the eternal-heavenly
realm—or is such grammar innately descriptive of the Incarnation? I
will simply allow the integrity and privacy of your conscience be the
guide!
*In footnote
1 (quoted immediately below), Dalcour suggests three distinct methods
of agency contingent upon various prepositional constructs. He argues
that the Son of God was the “intermediate agent” of creation in that He
actually “carried out the act for the ultimate Agent,” viz. the Father:
In the New Testament, agency is commonly expressed in three ways: ultimate agency (the ultimate source of the action; the one directly responsible for the action—apo, hupo, para, + the genitive); intermediate agency (that which the ultimate Agent uses to carry out the action—dia + the genitive); and impersonal agency (that which the ultimate Agent uses to perform the action—en, ek + the dative; cf. Wallace, 1996: 431-32). Biblically, then, the Father was the source (ultimate Agent) of creation, the Son being the intermediate Agent in that He carried out the act for the ultimate Agent (cf. ibid, 431). That the Son is the intermediate Agent
of creation does not mean that He was a mere “helper” of sorts, or a
secondary agent of God, but rather, He was the actual Agent of
creation—namely, that which the ultimate Agent (the Father) used to carry out the action—namely, the Creator of all things.
*As is obvious, there’s absolutely no “Biblical” distinction to be made between Dalcour’s superficial intermediate agency versus impersonal
agency, for which he offers zero scriptural support – while feigning
that this distinction is actually “Biblical?” That is, neither a
logical nor a Biblical contrast is to be made between that which is used
to carry out the action (i.e., intermediate agency) versus that which is used to perform the action (i.e., impersonal agency)—these obviously describe one and the same verbal activity.
*Further, Dalcour again demonstrates his eisegesis (masquerading as exegesis) in asserting that God the Father “used” God the Son
to “carry out the act” of creation—then somehow translates this into,
“namely, the [Son is] Creator of all things.” To reemphasize, this is
nothing more than usual Trinitarian theology pawned off as supposed exegesis.
*Stay tuned for more to come!
