Is Jesus Subordinate To God?

[tabibito]

Latreuo simply means to be in service to.
BDAG - in var. senses, ‘work for pay, be in servitude, render cultic service’
Even if the word meant strictly "to render cultic service", it still would not mean service to God. The word, in each of its 21 NT uses, designates explicitly who is being served: if the word meant service to God or other deities, the indirect object would be tautological.
Moreover, the claim that every occurrence in the Bible refers to cultic service, is incorrect:
Romans 1:25 can by no stretch of the imagination refer to any sort of cultic service - it refers to service to one's own appetites.

[foudroyant]

Koine Greek can be as nuanced as any other language I'm aware of, but focusing on a single word is absurd from a linguistic perspective.

We also see the Lord Jesus in the Book of Revelation treated as God in:
Revelation 1:5-6 - As the recipient of a doxology. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d-Jesus-Christ
Revelation 2:23 - As being omniscient. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...cience)
Revelation 5:6 - As being omniscient. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ience-of-Jesus
Revelation 17:14; 19:16 - As being in equality with God. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-(Greg-Deuble)
Revelation 22:13 - As being the Almighty. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...(The-Almighty)

So John gives ample evidence elsewhere concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus as God.

[foudroyant]

Latreuo simply means to be in service to.
BDAG - in var. senses, ‘work for pay, be in servitude, render cultic service’
Even if the word meant strictly "to render cultic service", it still would not mean service to God. The word, in each of its 21 NT uses, designates explicitly who is being served: if the word meant service to God or other deities, the indirect object would be tautological.
Moreover, the claim that every occurrence in the Bible refers to cultic service, is incorrect:
Romans 1:25 can by no stretch of the imagination refer to any sort of cultic service - it refers to service to one's own appetites.

This is false.

a. The ministry denoted by latreuein is always offered to God (or to heathen gods...R. 1:25...Ac. 7:42) (TDNT 4:62, latreuo, Strathmann).
b. In Biblical Greek always refers to the service of the true God or of heathen deities (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan, copyright 1982, page 371).
c. As used in the New Testament, the word latreuo denotes actions that are always evaluated positively when God is the grammatical object and negatively with reference to any other object (Karen H. Jobes in Moises Silva's "Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics", copyright 1994 revised and expanded edition from 1983, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, page 203).

Your assertion concerning Romans 1:25 is totally wrong. The context has to do with worshiping creatures rather than the Creator.

[tabibito]

Revelation 22:3 The throne (nominative masculine singular) of God (masculine) and of the lamb (neuter) ... (1 throne 2 owners).
and the servants (nominative) of him (genitive masculine) they will serve to/in/? him (dative masculine). Him/the lamb: (to the best of my knowledge) not possible. him/god/throne: (to the best of my knowledge) possible.
Given that "him" is more likely to refer to the preceding nominative than to the genitive, "throne" (to the best of my knowledge) would appear to be the likely candidate for "him". In short that would make it "servants of the (XXthroneXX) crown rendering service to the crown.
Offhand, I can't think of any Koine reference where the genitive continues in play - but my knowledge of the language isn't comprehensive.

[foudroyant]

Have a lexicon to back you up?
If not, any other source?

[robrecht]

We also see the Lord Jesus in the Book of Revelation treated as God in:
Revelation 1:5-6 - As the recipient of a doxology. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d-Jesus-Christ
Revelation 2:23 - As being omniscient. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...cience)
Revelation 5:6 - As being omniscient. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ience-of-Jesus
Revelation 17:14; 19:16 - As being in equality with God. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-(Greg-Deuble)
Revelation 22:13 - As being the Almighty. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...(The-Almighty)

So John gives ample evidence elsewhere concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus as God.

Unfortunately, this does not address the linguistic point that I made. Care to try again?

[foudroyant]

Your source for your linguistic assertion concerning latreuo?

[tabibito]

The context provided for Romans 1:25 is found in Romans 1:24 (their own desires and impurity) and Romans 1:26 (their own passions).
The created thing that they render service to in Romans 1:25 is therefore their own flesh.
I don't think context means what you think it means.

[robrecht]

λατρεύω 1 2 λάτρις
1.to work for hire or pay, to be in servitude, serve, Xen.

2.λ. τινί to be bound or enslaved to, Soph., Eur., etc.; c. acc. pers. to serve, Eur.:—metaph., λατρ. πέτρᾳ, of Prometheus, Aesch.; μόχθοις λατρ. Soph.; λ. νόμοις to obey, Xen.

3.to serve the gods, λ. Φοίβῳ Eur.: c. acc. cogn., πόνον λ. to render them due service, id=Eur.

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

[robrecht]

Your source for your linguistic assertion concerning latreuo?

My statement about linguistics was not specific to λατρεύω. Just common knowledge to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the field.

[The Pixie]

Compare the texts - Which ones say that Christ was a man? Do any of them refer to Christ being a man other than those which refer to the time between his conception and resurrection, or his ascension.
Do any texts exist declaring that he was God prior to his conception? Do any texts exist declaring him to be God after his ascension?
Do any texts exist which declare him to be less than God prior to his conception? after his ascension?
Does the Koine record of Philippians 2:6 show that he became a man and that he was equal to God before that time?
Importantly, does the record of Philippians 2:6 (or any other) ever show that he was equal to the Father?
My own investigations show - He was God (John's "Logos" is the Old Testament "Memra") - he abdicated, becoming in every respect a man - he resumed being God.
Of course, as wide ranging and in depth as my own investigations have been, it remains possible that I have missed something. But - no-one has yet been able to show (except by recourse to church tradition) that Jesus of Nazareth was 100% man and simultaneously 100% God.
The question: "How could he have remained God if he was in no wise different from any man" is insurmountable.
The question: "How could he have been other than God if he was the Logos?" can only be forestalled by declaring that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Logos. Which then begs the question: who then did the Logos become - for the Logos is declared to have become a man?
Major scripture wresting is needed before it can be said that Jesus of Nazareth was anything other than wholly man.
Major scripture wresting is needed before it can be said that Jesus was not God prior to being conceived as a man.
There is some ambiguity with regard to his status post ascension - it is even possible that the 100% God and 100% man might apply ... this piece, I am still investigating. Assuredly, he did resume being God, but .... did he stop being man?

You make some good points. I find your idea that Jesus gave up being God to make rather more sense than the usual claim, given what Jesus says and does; perhaps the conventional wisdom somewhat blinkering my vision.

What I find odd, assuming you are correct, is why Jesus is not mentioned in the OT. Why do you think Jesus was in anyway separate to God prior to being born? Is it possible that God split in two in some sense, one part continuing as God, the other part being born as Jesus (just idle speculation)?

[tabibito]

a. The ministry denoted by latreuein is always offered to God (or to heathen gods...R. 1:25...Ac. 7:42) (TDNT 4:62, latreuo, Strathmann).
b. In Biblical Greek always refers to the service of the true God or of heathen deities

With one exception, latreuo, when the word is used in the New Testament, commonly (XXrefers toXX) nominates a deity as the indirect object of service. I haven't personally checked (yet) whether any of the references show a deity as the direct object of service, so I can't venture an opinion whether the deity is always the indirect object.
I haven't personally checked the LXX usages (yet), so I can't venture an opinion on the usage in the Old Testament.
The language is not "Biblical Greek", but Koine. It was the standardised (dialect independent) trade tongue. Words did not change meaning or application (with scant few exceptions) just because they were used in the Bible. Where words do vary from standard definitions, the connections are clear. εκκλησια, church, is one such word - in standard Koine terms, the word meant a gathering of enfranchised persons (people with the right to vote) to decide on civic/governmental issues. In Biblical terms, the definition of who is entitled to decide on issues changes, but the basic definition of the word is retained.
Another word that has a changed application is apostle - no longer a writ of authority inscribed on parchment, but a writ of authority nonetheless.

[tabibito]

You make some good points. I find your idea that Jesus gave up being God to make rather more sense than the usual claim, given what Jesus says and does; perhaps the conventional wisdom somewhat blinkering my vision.

What I find odd, assuming you are correct, is why Jesus is not mentioned in the OT. Why do you think Jesus was in anyway separate to God prior to being born? Is it possible that God split in two in some sense, one part continuing as God, the other part being born as Jesus (just idle speculation)?

Jesus is very much mentioned in the Targums (the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew scriptures). Or rather, it is easier to find mention of Jesus in the Targums - as the Memra of God. Predominantly, where God is said to interact directly with people in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Targums show the "Memra of God" as interacting. "Memra" corresponds with the Greek philosophers' "Logos" - it is ALMOST a direct translation. (google: Logos Memra) - much the same as "Eden/Paradise".. hence John 1.
God splitting in two isn't a precise enough concept. The analogy of body/soul/spirit can only be taken so far, and the differences are telling. Correspondences are (near as I can tell) Father - Man's spirit, Son - soul, Holy Spirit - body. Differences, a man's body, and soul and spirit are different substances, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the same substance. Body, soul, and spirit are not so nearly discrete individuals as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. BUT, I must hasten to add that these are speculations, and while they do at least make conceptualisation a little easier, they may be wholly inaccurate.

[foudroyant]

λατρεύω 1 2 λάτρις
1.to work for hire or pay, to be in servitude, serve, Xen.

2.λ. τινί to be bound or enslaved to, Soph., Eur., etc.; c. acc. pers. to serve, Eur.:—metaph., λατρ. πέτρᾳ, of Prometheus, Aesch.; μόχθοις λατρ. Soph.; λ. νόμοις to obey, Xen.

3.to serve the gods, λ. Φοίβῳ Eur.: c. acc. cogn., πόνον λ. to render them due service, id=Eur.

Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1889.

Look at all the lexical evidence.

[foudroyant]

Words did not change meaning or application (with scant few exceptions) just because they were used in the Bible.

How they are used in the Bible could be unique. Such is the case with latreuo.