Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority
Winer's Grammar, 379 (355))) ἐγένετο or ἐκτίσθη: John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6 (where he is expressly distinguished from the first cause: ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Winer's Grammar, 419 (391))); Colossians 1:16 (Winer's Grammar, the passage cited), cf. Hebrews 1:2 (Philo de cherub. § 35). The instrumental cause and the principal are distinguished in 1"
ReplyDeleteThe argument that the Greek preposition dia ("through") when used of the Logos always denotes "instrumentality by an authority," as suggested by Thayer’s Lexicon and supported by certain grammatical sources like Winer's Grammar, oversimplifies the term's theological and semantic depth. While dia can indeed convey the idea of agency or instrumentality, this interpretation cannot be divorced from the broader context of the passages in which it appears, especially in the writings of John and Paul.
In John 1:3, the statement "all things came into being through (dia) him" does not merely reduce the Logos (Christ) to a passive instrument in creation. The prologue to John's Gospel clearly identifies the Logos as preexistent, divine, and actively involved in creation. John 1:1 affirms that "the Word was God," and this sets the stage for interpreting dia in verse 3. The Logos is not an external tool wielded by the Father but is intrinsically divine and co-equal in essence, participating in creation as the agent through whom the Father acts. This complements the Trinitarian understanding of the unity and cooperation within the Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Spirit act inseparably yet distinctly.
The appeal to 1 Corinthians 8:6 to argue that the Son is "expressly distinguished from the first cause" misunderstands Paul's intent. The verse distinguishes relational roles within creation: the Father as the source (ex hou, "from whom") and the Son as the agent (di' hou, "through whom"). This relational distinction does not imply subordination in essence or nature. Instead, it highlights the unity of purpose and action within the Godhead. The very fact that "all things" are said to come "through" the Son underscores his divine authority and active participation in creation. It would be inconsistent with the broader context of Paul's Christology—such as in Colossians 1:16-17 and Philippians 2:6-11—to suggest that the Son is merely an instrument devoid of divinity.
Colossians 1:16 reinforces this interpretation, stating that "all things were created through (dia) him and for him." The additional phrase "for him" (eis auton) further emphasizes the Son's divine prerogative as the ultimate purpose and goal of creation. This cannot be reconciled with the notion of mere instrumentality, as such language points to the Son’s active and sovereign role in creation—a role that only God can fulfill. The same applies to Hebrews 1:2, which declares that God created the world "through (dia) the Son." The context of Hebrews 1 makes it abundantly clear that the Son is not a subordinate instrument but the "radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being" (Hebrews 1:3). These descriptions affirm the Son’s divine essence and equality with the Father.
The reliance on Winer’s Grammar to distinguish between "instrumental cause" and "principal cause" in these texts does not negate the Son's divinity. Such grammatical distinctions are useful for clarifying relational roles but should not be misapplied to assert a hierarchy of essence. Within Trinitarian theology, distinctions in relational roles (e.g., the Father as the source, the Son as the agent) do not imply inequality. Instead, they reflect the harmonious and unified operation of the divine persons.
Finally, the broader biblical witness resists the reduction of the Son to a mere instrument. John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2-3 consistently present the Son as both distinct in person and fully divine. The term dia when used of the Logos must be understood in light of the Logos' identity as God, not as a created being or subordinate entity. Any interpretation that denies the Son’s equality with the Father misrepresents the theological intent of the New Testament writers and the consistent testimony of Scripture regarding the nature of Christ.
Thayer's is a lexicon they are saying that dia as applied to the Logos likely means instrumentality they are being specific.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing in the context that rules out instrumentality.
If he reflects JEHOVAH's glory then he is certainly inferior to the source of the glory . At 1Corinthians 11:7 it says that man is the image and doxa of JEHOVAH So by your logic man must be JEHOVAH'S equal.
First, the claim that Thayer’s lexicon interprets dia as referring to instrumentality in relation to the Logos needs to be contextualized. While dia can indeed denote instrumentality in some cases, it also frequently conveys agency or participation in a way that does not imply inferiority. Lexicons like Thayer's provide broad definitions that must be understood within the specific context of the passages in which they are used. In the case of John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16, the context emphasizes the active and essential participation of the Logos in creation, not mere passive instrumentality. The Logos is depicted as the one through whom all things were made (dia hou), underscoring His integral and active role in creation, not as a subordinate tool, but as an eternal agent working in unity with the Father.
DeleteRegarding 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul explicitly distinguishes the roles of the Father and the Son without suggesting inferiority. The verse states, "Yet for us, there is one God, the Father, from whom (ex hou) all things came and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom (di’ hou) all things came and through whom we exist." This delineation shows a relational distinction, with the Father as the ultimate source (ex hou) and the Son as the agent (dia hou), but this distinction does not equate to subordination in essence. The cooperative nature of creation reflects the unity of the Godhead, with both Father and Son involved in creation, consistent with Trinitarian theology. To argue that the Logos is merely an instrument ignores the weight of the biblical texts that affirm His divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6).
The comparison to 1 Corinthians 11:7, where man is called the image and glory (doxa) of God, is a false equivalence. In this passage, Paul discusses the hierarchical relationships between men, women, and God in the context of worship practices. The statement that man is the image and glory of God reflects humanity’s unique role as God's representative in creation (Genesis 1:26-27). This does not mean that man possesses divinity or is equal to God; instead, it highlights humanity's role in reflecting God’s attributes within the created order. By contrast, when Christ is described as the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature (Hebrews 1:3), the context explicitly affirms Christ’s divine nature, indicating that He shares fully in the essence and being of God. The radiance (apaugasma) of God’s glory does not suggest inferiority, but rather that Christ manifests and shares in the same divine essence as the Father.
The argument also misunderstands the implications of reflecting glory. For Christ to reflect the Father’s glory does not necessitate inferiority, as the analogy between man and God in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is not parallel to the relationship between the Father and the Son. Christ’s role as the doxa (glory) of the Father must be understood within the broader scriptural witness that affirms His divine identity (e.g., John 10:30, Philippians 2:6). He reflects the Father’s glory precisely because He shares in the same divine essence, not because He is subordinate or created.
Finally, it is essential to address the fundamental misunderstanding underlying this argument: the difference between relational roles and ontological equality. Within Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal in essence, but they have distinct relational roles. The Son’s role as the one through whom (dia hou) creation came into being does not make Him inferior to the Father; rather, it demonstrates the perfect unity and harmony within the Godhead. The Father, as the source, and the Son, as the agent, operate inseparably in the act of creation.
Your a.ssertions your churches assertions are not proofs you need to get that through your thick skull, the fact that you assert it without scriptural precedent is a reason to reject not accept, one simply assert a lone exception and demand that your assertion be accepted
ReplyDelete