Latest / Reformed Thinking / θεός (Theos): God

Transcript

θεός (Theos): God · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking, the deep dive.
0:02
Great to be here. Today we're we're zeroing in on
0:05
one word, a really massive word actually.
0:08
Theta epsilon over Sigma. Theos, yeah.
0:11
The Greek term we usually translate as God, and it's,
0:15
well, it's central to so much, isn't it?
0:17
But it's meaning isn't static, It really shifts depending on
0:21
who's using it and when. You really does.
0:23
It's almost like a linguistic journey.
0:24
We're tracking our sources. They take us from the, you know,
0:28
the often quite diffuse polytheism of the Greco Roman
0:32
world. Right, lots of gods, lots of
0:33
ideas floating. Around exactly.
0:35
And then we trace it into how the Old Testament translators
0:37
used it, and then finally into the New Testament, where it
0:40
gets, well, very specific, you're exclusive.
0:43
And that contrast, that's really the key, isn't it?
0:45
By seeing what Theos meant before and around the Bible, we
0:49
get a much sharper picture of what the biblical writers meant,
0:52
what they were setting apart. Precisely.
0:54
It helps define the biblical concept by showing us what it
0:57
isn't. So our goal here is to move, you
1:01
know, efficiently but carefully. We want to see how this one
1:04
term, Pharaohs could be used so broadly.
1:08
I mean for basically any divine being, a God, a goddess, even a
1:12
powerful force or of a human ruler.
1:14
Yeah, quite the range. And yet at the same time, how it
1:17
became the unique sole title for the one sovereign God of Israel
1:21
and later of Christianity. It's a history that really shows
1:24
how distinct the scriptural idea was right from the start.
1:27
It does. It wasn't just borrowing a word,
1:29
it was redefining it. So if we start with the basics,
1:32
the sort of definition Pharaoh's generally points to a
1:36
transcendent being. Something beyond the everyday
1:39
human experience. Right as someone or something
1:41
that has a significant impact on human life, maybe through
1:44
unusual control or providing unexpected benefits, it just
1:47
signals divine something outside our sphere.
1:49
And straight off the bat, there's a grammatical point
1:51
that's apparently huge for understanding context.
1:54
The article. Yes, the definite article.
1:57
Whether it's Theta epsilon half Theos with the HA meaning the,
2:02
OR just the data epsilon half of Theos on its own, that makes a
2:06
difference. A massive difference.
2:07
Often having that definite article ho it frequently
2:12
suggests the speaker has a specific deity in mind.
2:15
It's like saying the God. Assuming you know which one.
2:18
It can imply a personal claim or a recognized figure.
2:21
So without the article it's more ambiguous.
2:23
Could be a God or just divinity in a general sense.
2:27
Exactly. That article, or lack of it, is
2:30
a vital clue. And another thing to remember
2:32
right at the start, the theos. The word itself isn't inherently
2:35
male. Oh, it's interesting.
2:36
We tend to thank God. Masculine.
2:38
In the polytheistic world, absolutely not.
2:40
It was used for goddesses too. The book of Acts gives us a
2:43
clear example. Chapter 19, verse 37.
2:46
The goddess Artemis is called text Theta Epsilon Haphilotheos.
2:50
Notice the feminine article. So the Goddess.
2:52
So the word itself was flexible God or Goddess?
2:55
It highlights just how broad the usage was before, you know,
2:59
Jewish and Christian thought really narrowed its focus onto
3:01
the one God. OK, that sets the scene really
3:04
well for looking at that Greco Roman world before the influence
3:08
of the Hebrew Scriptures really took hold through the
3:09
Septuagint. What did the Heos actually mean
3:13
to the average Greek speaker? Was it just like a mental list
3:16
of the Olympians? It was definitely more complex
3:19
than just a roll call of gods. Yes, it was fundamentally
3:22
polytheistic, but the sources described the Greek concept not
3:26
just as many individual gods, but as an ordered totality of
3:30
gods. An ordered totality like a
3:32
system. Sort of, yeah.
3:33
Or a cohesive world of gods. Think of it as an integrated
3:38
network, a divine reality. The term Theos could refer to
3:42
this entire divine realm, not just one specific resident of
3:45
it. So it wasn't about the unity of
3:47
a single personality like in monotheism?
3:49
Not at all. It was about the unity of the
3:51
religious world itself, even with all its different gods and
3:54
goddesses. It expressed a kind of
3:56
overarching divine sphere, despite the multiplicity within
3:58
it. Interesting, and Zeus fits into
4:01
that how he's often seen as the top God.
4:03
He often was the monarchical figure, yes, the father figure,
4:06
the kind of chief executive of divine rule.
4:09
But even Zeus was seen as operating within this larger
4:13
order. Totality is at the top of the
4:15
hierarchy, sure, but still part of the system, not necessarily
4:18
the self-sufficient soul creator standing outside at all.
4:21
That framework seeing divinity as a system or a quality rather
4:25
than just a person, That must have opened the door to some
4:27
pretty abstract thinking. It certainly did.
4:29
The meaning stretched really far.
4:32
Theos wasn't just for named deities like Zeus or Apollo.
4:35
It could be applied to impersonal forces, abstract
4:38
concepts, basically anything that seemed to have a power
4:41
beyond the human norm. Like what for instance?
4:44
Well, the sources give a striking example from Plato.
4:47
In his Timaeus he actually refers to the cosmos, the
4:50
ordered universe itself, as God Theos.
4:53
Wow, the universe is God, not just made by God.
4:56
For Plato, in that context, yes. If you see order, beauty,
4:59
structure in the universe, the Greek philosophical mind could
5:02
label that inherent structure or order itself as divine.
5:05
It's a very different way of thinking.
5:07
It really is. What other kinds of abstractions
5:10
got called Pharaohs? The sources mentioned things
5:13
like abstract ideas being personified and given the title
5:17
grief. For example, Lambda dopi ETA the
5:20
Baya could be called a dangerous God.
5:22
Grief is a God because it's powerful and uncontrollable.
5:26
Presumably yes, because it exerts such a disruptive force
5:29
on human life. Or even something positive but
5:32
unexpected like the joy of meeting friends again.
5:34
There's a phrase mentioned Thera epsilon iota alpha a Sigma theos
5:38
garkai to Guinness gang Feliz. Basically, for meeting friends
5:43
is also a God. So any powerful experience or
5:46
reality could potentially qualify.
5:49
It seems that way. The underlying idea appears to
5:51
be that the gods are these fundamental forms or forces of
5:55
reality that humans encounter. We really need to pause on that
5:58
because that points to a fundamental difference, a chasm
6:01
really between that view and the biblical one, the source, and
6:04
highlight this with first John 4.16, God is love.
6:08
Right, that's a foundational statement for Christian
6:10
theology. God, the personal being, is love
6:14
in His essence. But how would a classical Greek
6:17
thinker and likely approach that?
6:19
They'd probably flip it for them.
6:21
The attribute or the force is the divine thing, so they'd be
6:25
much more likely to say love is God.
6:27
I got the OTA epsilon bars of Absalon.
6:30
I got potato epsilon. See that's a thing of second my
6:32
thought. I got both.
6:34
The OS Heston love itself as a powerful force or ideal would be
6:39
considered divine. That shift is huge.
6:42
It moves the focus away from a personal being whose nature is
6:45
love. To love itself as an abstract,
6:48
impersonal quality of reality that qualifies for the label
6:51
God. It's a totally different
6:53
starting point. OK, so if divinity can be an
6:55
abstract concept, or a force, or the cosmos itself, it seems
6:59
logical that really exceptional humans could also blur into that
7:02
category. Exactly.
7:03
That follows from the Greek tendency towards
7:05
anthropomorphism, seeing the gods in human like forms.
7:08
Aristotle apparently even called the gods eternal humans.
7:12
So if the gods look and act somewhat like humans, and
7:15
divinity can be about extraordinary power or benefit,
7:19
well, it's not a huge leap to start calling humans who seem
7:23
extraordinary God. Humans who showed incredible
7:25
leadership or brought peace or were great benefactors.
7:29
Precisely. And this wasn't just, you know,
7:31
flowery language or poetry. It became formalized.
7:34
The title Theos was officially given to human figures.
7:38
Like rulers? Yes, especially outstanding
7:40
rulers or those seen as saviors. Think of figures like Demetrius,
7:43
Olier, CDs, or later the Roman emperors like Caesar.
7:47
They were granted the title Theos.
7:49
It wasn't just flattery, it was seen as recognizing their
7:52
status, their office, maybe even the divine favor or power
7:56
working through them. And this LED directly to the
7:58
ruler cults worshipping the emperor.
8:00
Absolutely. The Hellenistic and Roman ruler
8:02
cults were built on this foundation.
8:03
It became a central part of the political and religious
8:06
landscape. You were expected to acknowledge
8:08
the Emperor as divine as Theos. So let's put ourselves in the
8:12
1st century. If you're a Greek speaker and
8:15
you hear the word Theos, your mental landscape includes Zeus,
8:19
maybe the concept of cosmon order, perhaps a feeling of
8:22
grief, and also the emperor in Rome.
8:25
That's the broad context, yes. Which makes the later Christian
8:28
confession Epsilon Hatsa beta epsilon Hatsuma Haistela, one
8:33
God sound incredibly confrontational.
8:36
Oh, it was deeply confrontational.
8:37
It wasn't just a theological preference.
8:39
It was a direct challenge to the religious and political order of
8:42
the day. To refuse to call Caesar Theos
8:45
was effectively treason in the eyes of the state.
8:48
It denied the very basis of his authority, as they saw it, and.
8:51
How close or distant was this Greek idea of divinity from
8:55
ordinary human life? I seem to remember a quote from
8:58
Plato that really captures a sense of separation.
9:01
Yes, Plato was quite clear about a fundamental divide.
9:03
He wrote the epsilon, epsilon, haflin, whitblen, epsilon
9:08
hasselon, epsilon to epsilon. No bait, which means God does
9:13
not mingle with man. It suggests a basic
9:16
incompatibility, A separation between the divine realm and the
9:20
human one. That really highlights the
9:22
conceptual problem the Greek philosophical tradition would
9:24
have had with something like the incarnation.
9:26
Completely. For them, the ideal path was
9:28
usually seen as humanity striving upwards, trying to
9:32
become more divine through philosophy, virtue,
9:35
contemplation, the idea of the truly divine willingly
9:39
descending and becoming entangled in messy human
9:41
existence. That was difficult, if not
9:44
impossible, for many to conceive.
9:46
OK, that paints a really vivid picture of the Greco Roman
9:49
background, a world where theos could mean many things, often
9:52
abstract or even human, and where the divine was
9:55
fundamentally separate. Now let's make the turn we move
9:57
from that world to the God of Israel.
10:00
How does the Pharaohs get used there?
10:01
This is where the Septuagint becomes so critical.
10:03
That's the Greek translation of the Old Testament, done a few
10:06
centuries before Christ. Right, Jewish scholars
10:08
translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek.
10:10
And when they needed a Greek word for the main Hebrew terms
10:14
for God, primarily Texel, they chose Theta epsilon O varsima.
10:19
They picked that word, the one with all the polytheistic
10:21
baggage. They did, and it seems to have
10:23
been a very deliberate theological move.
10:25
They took this broad, ambiguous Greek term and basically poured
10:29
all the meaning of Yahweh, the one God of Israel, into it.
10:33
They Co opted the word for their own distinct monotheistic
10:36
purposes. So it was like linguistic
10:38
capture, taking the enemy's term and repurposing it.
10:41
You can see it that way. They effectively strip the word
10:44
theos of its common Pagan associations, at least within
10:47
their own usage, and filled it exclusively with the revelation
10:50
of Israel's God. So in the Septuagint, Thales
10:53
comes to mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
10:56
Yes. The Old Testament understanding
10:58
concentrates all divinity into a single, resolute, personal and
11:02
all powerful will. It's inherently exclusive.
11:05
The existence and worship of all other so-called gods is denied
11:08
or condemned. The identity of God is focused
11:11
entirely under this one unique being.
11:14
And we see that focus even in how names are used, like the
11:17
combination Yahweh Teksham, which gets translated into Greek
11:21
usually as curios, Hotheos, the Lord the God.
11:24
Exactly that combination, Lord God, often functions almost like
11:28
an explanation. It explicitly links the personal
11:31
covenant name Yahweh represented by Curios Lord, out of reference
11:35
with the concept of divinity itself.
11:37
Theos translating Elohim, it serves to say this specific Lord
11:42
Yahweh is the one who truly embodies the divine s s the
11:45
creator of all things. It's like a constant reminder
11:48
built into the text. When we say theos, we mean this
11:51
one, not any other. Precisely, it was crucial for
11:54
establishing and maintaining that exclusive identity in a
11:57
Greek speaking world saturated with other ideas about the US.
12:01
OK, let's dig into that Hebrew background a bit more.
12:03
You mentioned textual and Texturalian.
12:05
What's the core idea behind Textual which gets translated as
12:08
Theos? The sources say it's not really
12:11
a name, but more like a title or a general term for divinity.
12:15
That's right, textile seems to be an older, more generic term.
12:18
It's not a proper name. Like Yahweh, it functions as an
12:20
appellative, meaning it designates the category of being
12:23
divinity, and the core quality it seems to communicate is
12:26
something like distinguished strength or fundamental power
12:31
power. Yes.
12:32
Textile defines a being that is fundamentally different from
12:35
humankind. The contrast is often made
12:38
textile versus God versus man. Just like textiles contrasted
12:41
with textfesh, textile represents a level or type of
12:44
power that humans simply do not possess and cannot master.
12:47
So the defining characteristic isn't location, like being up
12:52
there, but nature, a difference in kind marked by this inherent
12:56
power. Exactly.
12:57
It seems to tap into a very basic, almost primal sense of
13:01
piety, the recognition of forces in the world that are beyond
13:05
human control or understanding. But critically, in the Old
13:09
Testament context, this power isn't just a blind force.
13:12
It's the power of Yahweh, who is personal, who makes covenants,
13:16
who acts morally. So the raw concept of power gets
13:19
personalized and moralized in Yahweh.
13:21
Yes, the focus isn't on God's metaphysical being in an
13:25
abstract philosophical sense, but on the manner of God, how he
13:28
acts, his character. The sources mentioned the phrase
13:31
text of the living God. This points to a God who is
13:34
active, dynamic, intervening, acting on behalf of his people.
13:38
A God who does things. That's central to the Old
13:41
Testament picture. He's known by his mighty acts.
13:44
OK, if the definition of God revolves around this active,
13:48
powerful will, this unique being who acts it makes the Old
13:52
Testament narrative of Israel's struggle with idolatry make more
13:56
sense. They weren't just choosing
13:58
between abstract ideas. Not at all.
14:00
It was a very real dynamic struggle.
14:02
The surrounding nations had their gods, Kimosh falls above,
14:04
and so on, And the Old Testament often portrays these not as mere
14:07
illusions, but as real forces, real powers that could genuinely
14:11
tempt Israel away from Yahweh. They represented alternative
14:15
allegiances, alternative sources of power or blessing.
14:18
So the establishment of monotheism wasn't just an
14:20
intellectual exercise like winning a philosophical debate.
14:23
Far from it. It was forged in the heat of
14:25
that struggle primarily through the passionate witness of the
14:28
prophets, figures like Jeremiah or Second Isaiah.
14:32
They can constantly hammered home the message of Yahweh's
14:34
absolute uniqueness, His sovereign independence from all
14:37
other powers. How did they make that case?
14:39
Based on experience and revelation, they pointed to
14:43
God's commanding will revealed in the law, His mighty acts in
14:46
Israel's history like the Exodus, and fundamentally, his
14:50
role as the sole Creator of everything.
14:52
That creative power demonstrated His absolute authority, and that
14:56
he wasn't just one God among many tangled up in the world's
15:00
affairs, He stood apart from and above his creation.
15:03
That profound sense of God's uniqueness and sovereignty LED
15:07
eventually to a real carefulness about using His personal name,
15:10
Yahweh the Tetragrammaton. Yes.
15:12
In later Judaism, particularly after the exile, they developed
15:15
a very strong reluctance to pronounce the sacred name YHWH.
15:19
This was driven by a deep reverence and a desire to
15:22
strictly obey the third commandment, not taking the
15:24
Lord's name in vain. So how did they talk about God
15:27
in everyday conversation or when reading scripture aloud if they
15:30
avoided the name? They developed substitutes,
15:33
circle locutions, ways of speaking around the name without
15:36
actually saying it. These became common practice.
15:39
What were some of these substitutes and what do they
15:42
tell us? Probably the most common one was
15:45
text Hashem. Yeah yeah, which literally just
15:48
means the name. Yeah.
15:49
By using this placeholder, they acknowledge the uniqueness and
15:52
sanctity of the actual name without uttering it.
15:55
It paradoxically highlighted the name significance by avoiding
15:59
it. Clever.
16:00
Were there others? Yes.
16:02
A couple of others mentioned in the sources are particularly
16:04
revealing. 1 is Tex Tommy Aim, which means heaven.
16:09
Using heaven to refer to God, yes.
16:11
This emphasizes God's transcendence, His rule from
16:14
above. It defines him by his exalted
16:17
domain, distinct from the earthly realm.
16:20
You see echoes of this, of course, in the New Testament
16:22
phrase Kingdom of Heaven, especially in Matthew's Gospel.
16:25
Right. And the other one you mentioned
16:27
text mashem. Text mashem.
16:29
That means the place. This one's a bit more abstract.
16:32
The place? How does that work?
16:33
The name for God. It seems to get a God's
16:35
omnipresence. While he's transcendent heaven,
16:39
he's also mysteriously present everywhere.
16:42
He encompasses all space without being confined by it, so
16:46
referring to him as the place acknowledges his imminence, his
16:50
presence throughout creation. So these weren't just random
16:52
words, they were chosen to reflect specific aspects of
16:55
God's character, His unique name, His transcendence, His
16:58
omnipresence, all out of profound reverence.
17:00
Exactly. It was piety driving linguistic
17:03
innovation. It allowed devout Jews to speak
17:06
of the Sovereign Lord without violating what they saw as the
17:09
sanctity of His revealed name. OK, that brings us right to the
17:12
threshold of the New Testament. The word thaos is now loaded
17:16
with all this history, the Septuagint usage, the Hebrew
17:19
concepts of L and Elohim, the reverence surrounding the name.
17:22
But then Jesus arrives, and while he uses Thaos, he
17:25
introduces something even more central to his message.
17:27
Yes, fatherhood Alpha Toto Rawl. This is arguably the most
17:32
distinctive aspect of Jesus's teaching about God.
17:35
He used the foul, certainly, but his characteristic, most
17:39
frequent designation for God was Father.
17:42
And this wasn't just like the Old Testament sometimes
17:44
referring to God as Father to Israel.
17:46
It seems to go much deeper. Jesus uses Father with an
17:50
intimacy, A familiarity, and a frequency that was really new.
17:54
It spoke of a unique relationship of access, trust,
17:58
and obedience. It defined His mission and the
18:01
relationship He offered His followers with God.
18:03
But this new intimacy, this fatherhood, it didn't erase the
18:06
absolute uniqueness and sovereignty of God, did it?
18:10
Jesus still upheld strict monotheism.
18:12
Absolutely. The foundation remained.
18:14
The epsilon had iota Epsilon Hado the one God.
18:18
Think about the story of the rich young ruler in Mark 10.
18:21
He comes to Jesus and says good teacher.
18:24
And Jesus pushes back. He does.
18:25
He replies. Omicron epsilon epsilon epsilon
18:28
epsilon. Hado Barsigamon epsilon epsilon.
18:30
No one. No one is good except one God.
18:34
He immediately redirects the ultimate attribution of goodness
18:37
away from himself and towards God alone, reaffirming that
18:40
fundamental monotheistic boundary.
18:42
So the Shima here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord, is one
18:47
that bedrock confession from Deuteronomy carried right over
18:50
into early Christianity. Completely.
18:52
It was inherited wholesale. Jesus quoted himself as the
18:56
greatest commandment. It was the non negotiable
18:59
starting point. Paul deals with this too, right?
19:01
He has to navigate the reality of Greco Roman polytheism all
19:04
around his converts. He does very directly in First
19:07
Corinthians 8. He acknowledges that yes, in the
19:09
Pagan world there are so-called gods, plenty of them in heaven
19:13
and on earth. Lord's many in God's many.
19:16
He grants their existence in popular belief at least.
19:19
He acknowledges the claim, yes, but then he draws the sharpest
19:22
possible line for believers, Epsilon Zambellandtherenta
19:25
Lambda line, now the lame Deppsalon Tamblyn at pixelon
19:28
intensity. Yet for us there is one God,
19:31
full stop. That for us is doing a lot of
19:34
work there. It's defining the community's
19:36
allegiance it. Is it's not just stating A
19:38
theological fact, it's a declaration of identity and
19:41
loyalty in that world. Saying one God wasn't just an
19:44
opinion, it was choosing sides. And it had very real, practical
19:49
implications for how believers lived in that Roman culture.
19:52
Oh, immensely so. Confessing the One God wasn't
19:55
something you just did on Sunday, so to speak.
19:57
It was a constant act of discernment and resistance.
20:00
Resistance to what? Resistance to worshipping the
20:03
other gods that demanded allegiance that included
20:06
economic pressures. The worship of Mammon wealth.
20:10
Paul even talks about people whose God is their belly,
20:12
meaning they live only for physical gratification.
20:15
Right Philippians 3.19. And of course the big ones
20:20
refusing to participate in idol worship, which was pervasive,
20:23
and critically refusing to participate in the emperor cult,
20:26
which was the state religion. Saying Jesus is Lord inherently
20:29
meant, Caesar is not. So confessing one God shaped
20:32
your entire life, your economics, your ethics, your
20:34
politics. It had to It defined you against
20:36
the prevailing culture. It was a task that required
20:39
constant vigilance and practice. OK, now we arrive at perhaps the
20:42
most complex part of this development.
20:44
How does the New Testament maintain this strict one God
20:47
framework while also speaking about Jesus Christ in ways that
20:51
seem, well, divine? This is the theological core,
20:55
isn't it? The New Testament writers are
20:57
absolutely committed to monotheism.
20:59
God the Father is supreme. Yet they need to articulate the
21:03
unique, unprecedented status and work of Jesus.
21:06
He's not just another prophet. He's not just a great teacher.
21:09
No. He's presented as God's ultimate
21:12
agent, the Son, the one through whom God creates or redeems, and
21:16
this unique role leads them, in certain key places to apply the
21:20
title Theos directly to Christ himself.
21:23
Which must have been a massive step given everything we've
21:26
discussed about reserving Theos for the one God of Israel.
21:29
It was enormous and it seems driven by the reality of who
21:32
Jesus was and what he did. They weren't starting with a
21:35
theory, they were explaining an event, a person.
21:39
Let's look at the specific passages the sources highlight.
21:42
These are really crucial texts for understanding how the early
21:45
church thought about Jesus. Where do we start?
21:48
John's Gospel chapter one verse one is unavoidable.
21:51
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
21:54
the Word was. The word was God EPS Theta
21:57
epsilon A Lambda hada of versigma.
21:59
Exactly, it places Christ's identity right at the beginning
22:03
with God and explicitly states his nature is Theo's.
22:07
That's a profound claim about his pre existence and divinity.
22:10
OK. What's another key moment?
22:11
Think about Thomas after the resurrection.
22:14
Jesus appears. Thomas sees the wounds.
22:17
Doubting Thomas. Right, and when he finally
22:19
believes, what does he exclaim? John 20 point 2A8.
22:22
My Lord and my God, Sigma epsilon obvious Sigma Y otha the
22:30
VAR Sigma epsilon of A. Veal He applies both titles Lord
22:36
Curious, the substitute for Yahweh and God Theos directly to
22:40
the risen Jesus, and Jesus accepts this confession.
22:43
It's presented as the culmination of recognizing who
22:46
Jesus truly is. That's incredibly direct.
22:48
Are there other places where Paul seems to do this?
22:51
Romans 9.5 is a really significant 1, though sometimes
22:54
debated grammatically, Paul is talking about the privileges of
22:56
Israel, and he culminates with Christ's coming.
22:59
How does the verse go? He says, and from them,
23:02
according to the flesh is the Christ, who is God over all,
23:06
blessed forever, Amen. The phrase is that the Theta
23:11
epsilon hatta or gamma it's Athena al Theta ordina epsilon
23:15
hatva var Sigma that. God over all, blessed forever.
23:22
That sounds like language usually reserved for the Father.
23:25
It absolutely is appearing in a doxology.
23:28
A formal expression of praise makes it even stronger, while
23:31
some interpretations punctuated differently.
23:33
The most natural reading, many scholars argue, applies that
23:36
high description directly to Christ.
23:38
So we have John's prologue, Thomas's confession, this
23:41
doxology in Romans. It seems the New Testament
23:44
writers felt compelled by Jesus's identity and work to use
23:47
the ultimate title, Theos, for him.
23:50
It seems to be the logical outcome of his unique role if
23:54
he's the Creator. As Colossians one says the judge
23:57
of all as acts in Paul State, the one who forgives sins, the
24:01
one who receives worship. These are functions belonging
24:03
only to the sovereign Theos of the Old Testament.
24:06
Applying the title reflects the reality of the functions he
24:09
performs. Yet they still maintain the
24:12
Father's primacy. How does that work?
24:14
Yes, the Father is consistently presented as the ultimate
24:17
source, the one who sends the Son.
24:20
They're still in order, but the Son fully shares the divine
24:23
nature and performs divine work. The confession remains epsilon
24:27
hataliot of our Sigma One God, but this one God is now
24:30
understood as Father and Son. Christ is the full expression,
24:34
the Revealer, the agent of the Father.
24:36
This idea of fullness seems captured in another concept
24:39
mentioned the Theta epsilon Hatala of our Sigma theolis, the
24:43
Godhead dwelling in Christ. Where does that come from?
24:45
That's primarily from Colossians chapter 2, verse 9.
24:48
Paul writes that in him Christ, the whole fullness of deity
24:50
dwells bodily. The word for deity there is the
24:53
Theta epsilon hot, the Tao of our theotontos, the genitive
24:57
form of theotos, and the word for fullness is the day P Lambda
25:01
hateta Omega MU alpha pluroma, the.
25:04
Pluroma the complete fullness. It's an incredibly strong
25:08
statement. It means the totality of the
25:10
divine nature. Everything that makes God, God,
25:12
all the Knights, his attributes, power, essence, resides fully in
25:17
Christ. And Paul adds the shocker, It
25:20
dwells in him bodily. Sigma Omega MU alpha Tau yota
25:23
capahat Omega varsiques. Bodily, That brings us right
25:26
back to Plato's God does not mingle with man.
25:29
Paul is saying the exact opposite.
25:31
The entire fullness of divinity has taken up residence in a
25:34
human body. It's the ultimate rebuttal to
25:36
that Greek philosophical distance.
25:38
It's not just an aspect of God or a representation, but the
25:41
fullness of the Godhead concentrated in the historical
25:44
person of Jesus Christ. Wow, OK, so faced with this
25:47
reality, one God, yet the Father's God, the Son is God.
25:51
How did the early Christians begin to articulate this before
25:54
the formal doctrine of the Trinity developed later?
25:56
They relied on describing the relationships.
25:58
You see this developing early on.
26:00
Lots of twofold formulas, God and Lord, Father and Son.
26:05
These pairing show up frequently, especially in Paul's
26:07
Greetings and Blessings. Like grace to you and peace from
26:11
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
26:13
Exactly that kind of pairing establishes both the unity and
26:16
the distinction. Then, especially perhaps in
26:19
context related to worship or baptism, you start seeing
26:22
threefold formulas emerge. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
26:26
Yes, the clearest examples are probably the Great Commission in
26:29
Matthew 28.1, team baptizing them in the name of the Father
26:33
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the benediction at
26:35
the end of 2nd Corinthians 13.13.
26:38
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and
26:40
the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
26:42
So these formulas describe the lived experience of God as
26:45
Father, Son, and Spirit working together for salvation.
26:49
Precisely, they describe the functional relationships, the
26:52
distinct ways the one God interacts with his people.
26:55
They lay the groundwork. The New Testament writers
26:58
consistently speak of these indissoluble relationships, but
27:01
they don't yet use the specific term Trinity or articulated as a
27:06
fully developed systematic dogma like the later creeds would.
27:10
The focus is on the unified work of Father, Son and Spirit in the
27:13
economy of salvation centered on Christ as the revelation of
27:17
Theos. OK, let's try to pull some
27:19
threads together, reflecting on this whole journey of the word
27:22
Theos. Perhaps the most fundamental
27:24
shift from the Greco Roman philosophical idea to the
27:26
Biblical 1 is the emphasis on personality.
27:30
Absolutely. That seems to be a chord
27:31
distinction. The God of the Bible, the Theos
27:33
of the New Testament, is fundamentally personal.
27:35
Not an abstract idea, not an impersonal force, not the cosmos
27:39
itself. No, this is a God who wills, who
27:41
speaks, who hears, who loves, who acts in history.
27:45
It stands in stark contrast to the often abstract, distant idea
27:50
of God found in much Greek philosophy.
27:52
And the ultimate proof, the clearest picture of this
27:54
personal nature is revealed as the sources say Megopita aoda
27:59
Sigma taua O haddock in the face of Christ it.
28:01
Was has a face, metaphorically speaking.
28:03
We see who he is by looking at Jesus.
28:06
That's the claim, and this personal nature is why the New
28:09
Testament is filled, just absolutely filled with accounts
28:12
for prayer, real living communication.
28:15
Right people talking to God, expecting to be heard.
28:18
Yes, the very possibility of prayer, especially the intimate
28:22
address Jesus taught his disciples textment to Alpha
28:24
Father, testifies to this belief in a personal God who listens
28:27
and responds. He's not just a principal, He's
28:30
a person whose sovereign will governs all things, but who
28:32
engages with his creation. And the core of his character,
28:35
his personality, is revealed as love.
28:38
That statement in first John Dullavala, Zegma Gamma do alpha
28:43
gamma to God is love. It's not just that God acts
28:47
lovingly sometimes. It's that his very being, His
28:51
will, His work, his disposition towards us is love.
28:55
He defines what love is. Which again flips the Greek idea
28:59
love isn't a God, the personal God is love.
29:02
Exactly. It makes love relational,
29:04
purposeful, originating from the will of the Creator.
29:07
Now this personal God is also transcendent.
29:10
He stands apart from the world he made.
29:12
How does this contrast with the Greek view?
29:14
Well, while some Greek philosophy certainly spoke of
29:17
transcendence, there was also that strong tendency we saw,
29:20
like in Plato's Timaeus, to see God or divinity as somehow
29:24
intertwined with or embodied in the cosmos itself.
29:27
The God of the Bible is clearly distinct from his creation.
29:29
He is Dalan vabaida OV epsilon, the world.
29:32
The sources say above it, yes, but defined dynamically, not
29:35
just spatially. He's defined as the ruler Capito
29:39
Freyota Ismo the King's begun a beta alpha Sigma iota by Sigma
29:42
Serius. The King Beta Alpha Sigma Iota
29:44
Lambda F Epsilon Basilius. He's the sovereign Lord over
29:48
heaven and earth. But the world isn't always
29:50
smoothly following his rule, is it?
29:53
The sources mentioned conflict. Right.
29:55
While he is sovereign Lord of heaven and earth, the New
29:58
Testament often portrays the world, meaning the fallen human
30:00
system, perhaps under spiritual opposition, as being in
30:03
rebellion against God's rule. It's a place of conflict, a
30:07
sphere where God's will is often resisted.
30:09
So creation itself is good, but the world system can be
30:12
antagonistic to God. That seems to be the tension,
30:15
and into this tension, this conflict zone, comes the Christ
30:18
event. The sources describe it
30:20
dramatically as the decisive encounter, the explosion where
30:23
the heavenly realm decisively invades the earthly realm.
30:26
An invasion that increases the tension but guarantees the
30:29
outcome. Yes, it heightens the conflict,
30:32
but ensures the ultimate victory of God's Kingdom, God's rule.
30:35
And belief in this transcendent, sovereign God who acts
30:38
decisively in Christ? That must have had huge
30:42
implications for how people viewed fate or destiny.
30:45
Oh, absolutely transformative. The ancient world, especially
30:48
the Greek world, was often overshadowed by a sense of
30:50
inescapable fate. Epsilon hadiota Alfa Romo
30:54
Epsilon or MU O hyota, A predetermined destiny that ruled
30:58
gods and humans alike. You couldn't escape your fate.
31:01
That was the prevailing dread for many, but the New Testament
31:04
essentially blows that concept apart.
31:06
It proclaims a God who is sovereign over fate.
31:09
There's no destiny, no power, no circumstance that has ultimate
31:13
meaning or control in the face of a living God.
31:16
So instead of being subject to fate, believers are subject to
31:19
God's sovereign, loving will. Yes, and because He is sovereign
31:23
and good, the promise is one of hope and possibility.
31:26
As Jesus said, with man it is impossible, but not with God,
31:29
for all things are possible with God.
31:31
Mark 10.27 That completely replaces cosmic anxiety with
31:35
confidence in God's ultimate power and purpose.
31:38
OK, so let's try to wrap this up.
31:40
We've seen the word theos travel from this broad, ambiguous term
31:44
in the Greco Roman world, meaning anything from Zeus to
31:47
the cosmos to the Emperor, and get completely redefined by
31:50
scripture. It's intentionally stripped of
31:52
that Pagan ambiguity. Yes, yes, it's emptied of
31:54
notions of impersonal forces or deified humans.
31:57
And it's filled, saturated really, with the revelation of
32:01
Yahweh, a unique, personal speaking, acting God, sovereign,
32:05
transcendent, yet intimately involved with his creation.
32:09
A God who's very essence is revealed as love, whose will is
32:13
active, and whose ultimate self disclosure comes in Jesus
32:16
Christ. The ancient philosophers looked
32:18
for Theos in eternal ideas, abstract principles, maintaining
32:22
that necessary separation between the divine and the
32:24
human. They sought divinity in order in
32:27
detachment, assuming God wouldn't or couldn't truly
32:30
mingle with humanity. And yet the bombshell of the New
32:33
Testament is the declaration that the Lambda Hatada Epsilon
32:37
Exelon Ophena Hat to Tower Epsilon, the entire fullness of
32:41
the Godhead, took up residence bodily in Jesus Christ.
32:44
Establishing that very historical encounter, that
32:47
mingling that the Greek thinkers thought impossible.
32:50
God entering the human story in the most direct way imaginable.
32:54
So here's a final thought for you, our listeners to ponder.
32:57
Considering that vast difference, the philosophical
33:00
God who keeps his distance versus the biblical God who
33:04
draws near in Christ, what does it really mean for your life
33:08
right now, today? Yeah.
33:09
What difference does it make that God chose to bridge that
33:12
chasm himself, that he resolved the tension between heaven and
33:15
earth not by remaining separate, but through the incarnation?
33:18
What does it mean that the fullness of God willingly
33:20
entered the conflict zone, the battleground of this world in
33:23
the person of Jesus? How does that change things?