February 6, 2024
Good day! I am writing a series of short reviews of abbreviated COGR video clips. I am looking for input and comments. If it makes it easier, I will gladly supply a Word document so comments can be put in the document, and we can communicate directly. My email address is lattema@icloud.com. I hope you find these reviews helpful.
Transcript:
“I want you to note that it does not say that it’s a revelation of the Trinity. We don’t know the man Jesus Christ until he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. And the angel had talked, came and spoke to Joseph and said, his name would be Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.”
Commentary:
One of the most basic doctrines of God found in the New Testament Scriptures is that God exists as the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is sometimes described utilizing the term Trinity, which does not occur in Scripture. A basic description of the doctrine is that God is one essence existing eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet inseparable, co-equal, and co-eternal, sharing the same divine nature.
The COGR affirms in its literature that it is Trinitarian. However, sermons and teachings by their leaders suggest that that is not entirely true. It is the author’s opinion that the mythology of the COGR is still evolving. Based on statements made throughout the Revelation series, I suspect that at some point, they will have to rethink whether they are Trinitarian. Several recent claims seem to be incompatible with an orthodox understanding of the Trinity.
Here, Ray Tinsman is commenting on the opening of the book of Revelation. He says, “I want you to note that it does not say that it’s a revelation of the Trinity.” This is the first of several places where Jesus is seemingly separated from the Trinity. However, rather than delve into that separation, the focus will be on Ray’s comment and the relevant text. The text reads, Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, translated as “Uncovering of Jesus Christ that gave to him the God to show to the slaves of him what is necessary to become in quickness” or more smoothly “The revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave Him to show His slaves what must quickly take place. [Holman Christian Standard Version].
The grammar of the first three words in the verse (Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is important. While this may seem like it’s “out in the weeds”, it is not. When Ray speaks about the verse he is speaking about the apocalypse as if it is describing Jesus. That is why he calls attention to the fact that it does not say the Trinity. However, I believe Ray has misunderstood the verse. Notice the language. Jesus Christ is in what is referred to as the genitive case, a part of speech. Much discussion has taken place about whether Jesus Christ is a subjective genitive or an objective genitive. The difference between the two is that the subjective genitive would understand that the revelation was something given to Jesus to reveal. If it were an objective genitive, it would be a revelation of Jesus. While there are those who hold both positions, the argument seems better for the subjective genitive, and the vast number of commentators and Bible translators take that approach. That would mean that when we look at the first few words of the book of Revelation, we would understand that the revelation was something that was given to Jesus for him to give to his servants. It would not be a revelation of Jesus.
That would mean that Ray’s comment, designed to drive a wedge between the idea of Jesus in the Trinity and an earthlier Jesus, is based on the objective genitive and is a minority understanding. Additionally, Ray’s statement that “We don’t know the man Jesus Christ until he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.” is misleading. Indeed, we do not know anything of the man Jesus until his birth. However, Jesus has always existed and will always exist. There is no time at which Jesus was not part of the Trinity, and the incarnation did not change that. While it is not entirely clear what Ray is attempting to accomplish, it will become evident in other statements that the group holds a unique understanding of Jesus and the Trinity that sets it apart from orthodox Christian theology.
Leave a comment