A reader has asked me to watch a video, then offer some comments on it. My time is tight now. But I did view this video and might have some thoughts prepared by Wednesday. I've heard the argument before that Satan is not the referewnt of 2 Cor 4:4, but it's really God (Jehovah).
Personally, I don't have strong feelings about the issue, but my current position is that Satan is being discussed in this context. Yet I want to weigh and present evidence for what I say. So I post the YT link for now and will let my readers decide if this subject interests them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lu_-JyhAtw
59 comments:
John 12:40
Romans 1:28
Thess 2:11.
Thanks for that Edgar.
2 Thess 2:11 ενεργειαν πλανης
1 Kings 22:19-23
Ezekiel 14:9
Jeremiah 20:7
John 14:30 κοσμου
Eph 2:12 αιωνα του κοσμου τουτου - Eph 3:20 την δυναμιν την ενεργουμενην εν ημιν
Two powers - but who's?
Gills Commentary:-
according to the prince of the power of the air: which is not to be understood of any supposed power the devil has over the air, by divine permission, to raise winds, but of a posse, or body of devils, who have their residence in the air; for it was not only the notion of the Jews (m), that there are noxious and accusing spirits, who fly about "in the air", and that there is no space between the earth and the firmament free, and that the whole is full of a multitude of them; but also it was the opinion of the Chaldeans (n), and of Pythagoras (o), and Plato (p), that the air is full of demons: now there is a prince who is at the head of these, called Beelzebub, the prince of devils, or the lord of a fly, for the devils under him are as so many flies in the air, Matthew 12:24 and by the Jews called (q), , "the prince of spirits"; and is here styled, the Spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; by which spirit is meant, not the lesser devils that are under the prince, nor the spirit of the world which comes from him, and is not of God; but Satan himself, who is a spirit, and an evil, and an unclean one; and who operates powerfully in unbelievers, for they are meant by children of disobedience, or unbelief; just as , "children of faith" (r), in the Jewish dialect, designs believers; and over these Satan has great influence, especially the reprobate part of them; whose minds he blinds, and whose hearts he fills, and puts it into them to do the worst of crimes; and indeed, he has great power over the elect themselves, while in unbelief, and leads them captive at his will; and these may be said in their unregeneracy to walk after him, when they imitate him, and do his lusts, and comply with what he suggests, dictates to them, or tempts them to.
(m) Shaare Ora, fol. 4. 1.((n) Laert. Procem. in Vit. Philos, p. 5. (o) lb. in Vit. Pythagor. p. 587. (p) Apuleius de Deo Socratis, p. 331. (q) T. Hieros. Peah, fol. 21. 2.((r) Zohar in Gen. fol. 21. 2. & 22. 4. & 27. 4. & 28. 2. & 35. 2. & 44. 1.
Baal-Zeebub:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w8AVAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA84&lpg=RA1-PA84&dq=%22lord+of+a+fly%22near+eastern+death+disease&source=bl&ots=wD4AUVVJtN&sig=VMt4_SdWdH_ZiWktvWC7N8J3RG8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMItfHWnfnXxwIVBT0UCh2YFQjm#v=onepage&q=%22lord%20of%20a%20fly%22near%20eastern%20death%20disease&f=false
https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/essential-oils/health-benefits-of-cedar-wood-essential-oil.html
Two fundamental mistakes I see with this video is that he thinks ho theos must refer to Almighty God, and he does not gives sufficient weight to the qualifier "of this age." The word "age" can also be used as a referring term for the ungodly world--the same way that kosmos sometimes functions.
Can you give any examples of aeon where context demands that it must be translated world as opposed to age in NT?
Strongs# 02316: theos: a deity, figuratively, a magistrate. Especially (when used with #3588, the definite article "Ho"): the supreme Divinity; by Hebraism, very God [Almighty God, YHVH the Father of Jesus
Can you site any other exceptions to this statement?
Duncan:
1) I'm not arguing that "aeon" should be translated "world" although it has been rendered that way by NASB, KJV, and ESV. However, my claim is that even if we translate the word as "age" or "system of things," the word can still refer to the ungodly world governed by Satan (humankind alienated from God). See Gal 1:4; Tit 2:12.
2) Greek literature is filled with exceptions to what Strong's states--Jn 20:28 is also a debatable example which might constitute an exception. But we don't just have ho theos in 2 Cor 4:4: it's qualified by tou aionou, which most naturally goes with ho theos. See Phil 3:19 for an exception.
I could dispute these points further but I will only point out that Greek literature is not the same as Hebrew literature written in Greek & Phil 3:19 is specifically telling you the object of service - κοιλια (Proverbs 23:20, 21).
Duncan,
Not all by literacy was written in Hebrew. Furthermore, the belly is called ho theos in 3:19, so that verse is an exception to what Strong's says.
Edgar,
I do not even see this as an exception to the rule since it is clear that belly replaces YHWH. The implication is clear and self contained but in light of 1 Tim 1:17 makes this much more ambiguous as does the first 3 scriptures I quoted.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0bUDhfPOEbMC&pg=PT98&lpg=PT98&dq=phil+3:19+%22ho+theos%22&source=bl&ots=qknh5eP3WM&sig=gbbm2Q9ogPoJ4tZBWmAzLicF7QI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMIpKKD0MHnxwIVkQjbCh3qoAne#v=onepage&q=phil%203%3A19%20%22ho%20theos%22&f=false
If this is the only argument/justification available then it is extremely tenuous.
Appealing to oral traditions in Hebrew is opening a very large can of worms heading in many disparate directions.
Phil 3:19 - "The use of the word "god" would imply that their base desires are taken by them as their highest calling and thus to be pursued without restraint."
I see that many arguments for Satan gravitate around 2 Corinthians referring also to belial.
H1100
בּליּעל
belı̂ya‛al
BDB Definition:
1) worthlessness
1a) worthless, good for nothing, unprofitable, base fellow
1b) wicked
1c) ruin, destruction (construct)
but this is not the whole story.
H1168
בּעל
ba‛al
BDB Definition:
Baal = “lord”
1) supreme male divinity of the Phoenicians or Canaanites (noun proper masculine)
2) a Reubenite (noun proper masculine)
3) the son of Jehiel and grandfather of Saul (noun proper masculine)
4) a town of Simeon, probably identical to Baalath-beer (noun proper locative)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: the same as H1167
Same Word by TWOT Number: 262a
BDB says NOTHING about "lord of trees" or "lord of wood" & I think the verse is saying something more specific in relation to the following verse 2 cor 6:16 - ειδωλων.
Should be, not all new testament literature was written in Hebrew
Hebrew literature written in Greek. Written by Jews & Hellenized Jews. This does not change the point I am trying to make. Greeks had many candidates for ho theos - Jews had just one.
In 2 Corinthians 4:4, it's not simply ho theos, but includes tou aionou. Big difference. I also mentioned John 20:28 which could be referencing a deity other than YHWH.
Using the line of reasoning above, why not say that ha Satan is replacing YHWH in 2 Corinthians 4:4.
Because that is not what it actually says, as you stated - tou aionou. John 20:28 - the lord of me and the god of me - two individuals.
Going from memory is not always a good thing. I should have written tou aionos; however, the point stands that ho theos is qualified by the apostle in 2 Cor 4:4. He doesn't simply write ho theos, but rather ho theos tou aionos toutou. 1 Timn 1:17 is not exactly parallel to 2 Cor 4:4.
Two individuals don't have to be mentioned in order for a writer to replace YHWH as ho theos with ha Satan. He/she could make that literary choice without mentioning two persons.
The point I'm trying to make about John 20:28 is that Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians have explained the verse as a reference to Christ: they say that he is ho theos, not YHWH. The verse has also been applied to the Father, but both titles (God and Lord) normally are applied to one person (not two). I have to wonder why Thomas would have split up his address in that way while speaking to Jesus.
An interesting text to compare might be Acts 19:37, τὴν θεὸν ἡμῶν.
https://youtu.be/-akFdi8bm3I
I'll watch the video, Duncan, but even Witnesses and other non-Trinitarians are inclined to understand John 20:28 as a reference to one person: Jesus. If it does refer to one person, who is not almighty God then it would constitute an exception to the reasoning that ho theos must refer to YHWH. I would also recommend the book "Jesus As God" for a thorough discussion of Jn 20:28.
What I do not understand is the reasoning based on Jesus lack of expected response or rebuke. Do you think that Jesus would have allowed Thomas to call him THE god and let it pass?!?! Even in his elevated position - keep in mind Luke 18:18, 19. John is leading to this point with all that Jesus has to say about seeing him is seeing the father (in action).
It just does not seem to ring true & the grammar is clear and an "exception" to a rule always rings alarm bells.
I do not want to argue this, but to me something smells just plain wrong.
Acts 19:37 is in no way an argument taken in light of the situation & compared with 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 - was he speaking as a Jew or a Greek ?
That's just the point. I'm not arguing that Thomas called Jesus "the God" in an unqualified sense. It's possible that he qualified the expression by adding "of me" in Greek. So maybe it's not referring to Jesus as "the God" without qualification. Rather, Jesus is being identified as a god like the angels and judges in the OT.
On Acts 19:37, the point is that we have the definite article with the noun for a divinity. The noun is not anarthrous there. Paul was like many other Jews of the time: a Jew exposed to hellenistic ideas and a Greek milieu. But Paul is not writing or speaking anyway in Acts 19:37.
I have read Acts 19 again - The city recorder was speaking but again, Greek or Jew?
You are still ignoring grammar & I would still expect Jesus to rebuke this type of comment if taken personally.
From what information I can glean regarding roman language of the era - the only person that would be called "ho theos" would have been caesar from about 60CE on. Many men would have been called theos without the article - like pontius pilate.
Someone here also makes this observation:-
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/2001-03/4682.html
"θεοι εστε"
The city recorder was likely Greek, and Luke writes in Greek. I don't see how I'm ignoring grammar.
If Thomas was just identifying Jesus as elohim/theos in the common Jewish sense, then there was no need for rebuke.
The grammar relates to john 20:28.
How can the identification be in the common sense with the definite article.
I don't want to keep going round and round on this one. The onus is on you to show that the definite article is "common" to period Jewish literature & that the break from the 6th rule is warranted or we can just leave it here.
Is there any examples of "ho theos" in the LXX that do not refer to YHWH? I cannot find an easy way to pick them out at the moment.
Strelan, Rick - Luke the Priest - the Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel - Was Luke a Jew or Gentile? Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., May 1, 2013, pages 102-110.
What I'm trying to say about John 20:28 and 2 Cor 4:4 is that we don't simply have ho theos, but there are qualifiers appened to the noun phrase in each case. For 2 Cor 4:4, it's not simply "the God," but "the God/god of this age." John 20:28 also has Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου. μου qualifies the nominative construction for "the God" and "the Lord." To show that we're not necessarily talking about two persons in John 20:28, see Ps 34:23 (LXX), which is a prayer to YHWH:
ὁ Θεός μου καὶ ὁ Κύριός μου
See also what Sharp himself said about John 20:28; he did not think it refers to two persons. See https://books.google.com/books?id=eax_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT66&dq=granville+sharp+john+20:28&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMIr4fcsc_qxwIVhKCACh1OKQVr#v=onepage&q=granville%20sharp%20john%2020%3A28&f=false
See page 66.
As for ho theos and the LXX, I think ho theos always references YHWH.
Regardless of whther Luke was a Jew or Gentile--I think he was a Jew--he still wrote in Greek.
Edgar,
Rules of this kind are not invented, they are discovered and sharps excuses for circumventing it in one instance IMO are not dictated by the context as there is a perfectly acceptable alternative to his interpretation which he ignores due to his assumptions of how John 1:1 should be understood like a crescendo from Theos to ho Theos.
I am fully aware that luke wrote his text in greek. But his background and origin are important as to how his terms should be understood. There is no generic cultural understanding of phrases, of this I am aware.
34:23 in reversed order without definite article even though it is referring to YHWH.
As for God of this age we have a king of the ages, YHWH. So what specifically connects this term to ha satan? Something not mentioned yet, something not circular in reasoning? Something outside of John?
Duncan,
Sharp considered it a rule and others have been convinced, for the most part, but not all scholars concur with the so-called "rule." Even if the rule is legitimate, that doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.
It's not just Sharp's view of Jn 1:1 that tilts the interpretation in favor of one person in 20:28. Thomas said the words to Jesus (καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ). Why would Thomas address Jesus by calling him (Jesus) "Lord" and referring to God the Father as his "God" (καὶ ὁ Θεός μου). That makes less sense to me than understanding the words as a reference to one person, Jesus himself.
See also Rev. 4:11, where Jehovah is addressed in a similar manner: Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν . . ."
Definitely not more than one person in that account. Compare John 13:13.
Luke may have been Jewish, and I too want to respect culture's influence on language use; but speech cannot be divorced from a natural language system. In order to write standard Greek, Luke had to use syntax in conformity with Greek practice of the time or else his writing would have been non-standard.
Ps. 34:23 is in reverse order, but it's syntactically parallel to John 20:28. I don't know what you mean about the definite article since it is the same in terms of the structure: ὁ Θεός μου καὶ ὁ Κύριός μου . . .("the God of me and the Lord of me")
The terminology "age" which can be used like kosmos connects Satan to the term in 2 Cor 4:4. I don't see how that's circular in view of Eph 2:1-3. Why didn't Paul just write ho theos without the qualifier? It's "this age" (demonstrative) in 2 Cor 4:4, not just "the age" or "the ages."
See http://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/01/kermit-titrud-on-granville-sharp-rule.html
"Why would Thomas address Jesus by calling him (Jesus) "Lord" and referring to God the Father as his "God" " - I must say that I am quite surprised that you would be asking this question.
1 Corinthians 8:6
lxx - 1 Kings 1:37, 43, 47
Contrast with lxx Deut 8:6
Ephesians 1:17
Phil 2:9-11 (incidentally - how do you view the term ονομα - as a label or as actions (character)?)
1 chronicles 29:20, 23
So how many lords & how many gods?
Try asking an orthodox Jew today to say "god" & then tell me that the surrounding culture encroaches & affects the language. Some traditions were more powerful than the Greek vernacular especially if growing up you went to the temple to listen to the Torah being read in Hebrew or less probably but not impossible in Greek (LXX).
The writing IS non standard Just as the LXX was non standard & here in lies the confusion that vermes has been pointing too in all of his books. (you already know what he had to say about "son of god" because you have posted it).
As for psalms 34:23 you are correct I misread, but I still ask the question - how many gods and how many lords?
As for your post of Titrud when the local context is not so clear we have to look further - again how many lords & how many gods?
Not sure what you point is about John 13:13 ?
At the very least, there is no need to understand John 20:28 of two persons anymore than we interpret Ps 34:23 that way. The point of Jn 13:13 is that we have a similar construct with article-noun and article-noun, but both terms (Lord and Teacher) refer to the same person. The same thing can be said for Rev 4:11: only one person is addressed there, not two.
Sorry, but the verses in Kings are not parallel to Jn 20:28. In those passages, we do not have someone addressing someone in the way that Thomas talks to JEsus in 20:28. More later.
we need context & construction and now I understand you reference to Joh 13:13
υμεις φωνειτε με ο διδασκαλος και ο κυριος και καλως λεγετε ειμι γαρ
But I think it is still irrelevant - demonstrate anywhere in scripture where his disciple call Jesus the rabbi (teacher) & the owner (lord) at the same time?
Matthew 26:25
Mark 9:5
John 1:38
The king verses do not have to be parallel - this is all about Thomas addressing Jesus as "the god" as opposed to the lord.
ABP Mat 8:19 And having come forward, one scribe said to him, Teacher....
Mat Mat 8:21 And another of his disciples said to him, O Lord....
ABP Joh 13:13 You call me, The teacher, and, The Lord; and well you speak, for I am.
Note the positions of the commas.
(Bishops) Ye call me Maister, and Lorde, and ye say well, for so am I.
(Geneva) Ye call me Master, and Lorde, and ye say well: for so am I.
Duncan,
Deut 8:6 (LXX) is not a grammatical/syntactical paralle to Jn 20:28. With all due respect, I'm not sure how Eph 1:17 is supposed to uphold the idea that 20:28 is speaking about one person. The nomnative forms in that passage are describing one divine being: the Father.
Dare I say that 1 Chron 29:20 does not constitute a direct parallel of Jn 20:28 either? :) Neither does 1 Chron 29:23.
In Phil 2:9-11, I understand onoma to reference a title of office of the Lord Jesus.
I don't believe that Luke-Acts is non-standard Greek, and it's highly debatable whether the LXX is. It may be translation Greek (the LXX), but that doesn't necessarily mean it is non-standard Greek.
Paul wrote, even though there be gods many and lords many. 1 Cor 8:5-6.
I've shown clear instances in scripture where two titles are addressed to the same person although each noun/title has an article, and I've posted Ps 34:23 (LXX) and Rev 4:10-11 as two more examples of someone being addressed (YHWH) as Lord or God, yet we only have one person under consideration rather than two. Why we now want to interpret Thomas as addressing Jesus, but calling Jehovah "God"{ (ho theos mou) but Jesus "Lord" (ho kurios mou) seems a stretch IMO. It's an unnecessary move; it ignores how elohim/theos is used elsewhere, and I don't think it gives weight to examples that are syntactically parallel to Jn 20:28. Where in scripture--there might be an example--does someone address another person, and call that person by one title, but then address God with elohim/ho theos?
In John 13:13, there is no doubt that Christ is the master (teacher) and Lord under consideration. He said, you call "me" . . .
Whether there's an example of any disciple ever referring to him that way seems not all that relevant.
I'll let the passages about the king slide, but I still don't understand how they lend weight to the overall argument you're trying to make.
Thanks,
Edgar
there were and are gods many and lords many - again irrelevant and the scripture is self explanatory from the Jewish perspective.
in John 13:13 both titles do refer to Jesus but not at the same time & i think you already know what i am getting at and from the outset in genesis we have yhwh elohim long before any other combinations you care to suggest.
I cite 13:13 because it's grammatically parallel to 20:28. At any rate, the verse from Psalms and the one from Revelation are addressing one person at the same time, yet using two different nouns with the definite article in the process. Even if Genesis uses YHWH Elohim, it's still not being employed vocativally like we find in John 20:28 along with words addressed to a referent, namely, Jesus. Remember, Thomas said "to him" (Jesus) . . .
He didn't just say Lord and God, but spoke those words to the Lord. The context is also concerning Thomas putting faith in the resurrected Christ.
My point is that nothing in the Jewish context prevents Thomas from calling Jesus "my Lord and my God." Judaism recognized subordinate divine beings and used elohim at times for certain humans and referred to angels as such without compromising monotheism.
Regarding Revelation 4 - see 22:1 & 3:21 Hebrews 1:5,8.
Revelation 7:17
Regarding Psalms:-
"In this regard, you have to bear in mind that in the GNT the nominative ὁ κύριός is never used vocativally (unlike ὁ θεός). Had κύριός preceded θεός in this LXX verse, no doubt we would have seen κύριε μου καὶ ὁ θεός. So this example from Psalms is rather deceptive IMHO and also quite the false analogy."
1 Chronicles 29:20-23
I'm getting ready to leave my office and travel on the road, but I don't think the claim about ho kurios is correct. I also don't understand how rearranging the syntax of the psalm would make a difference. lastly, psalm 34:23 is a parallel to john 20:28.
When the comment states that in the GNT: "the nominative ὁ κύριός is never used vocativally (unlike ὁ θεός)," I'm not sure if the meaning is that ὁ κύριός is not used as a nominative for a vocative or if the vocatival form of ὁ κύριός is never used. The second meaning is manifestly false. I'm inclined to believe that the first understanding of the statement is also be false.
See Mt 7:21-23; 8:2; 11:25; Revelation 4:11.
http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=61150&sid=d79fd2bb8ae1f2b4a5b9039beb24fa67&start=40
As I've said in another post, Jn 20:28 could be an exclamation rather than addressed to Jesus, but we also have to contend with the fact that Thomas not only said these words to Jesus ("to him"), but replied to the Lord as well; furthermore, the nominative for a vocative seems to be an established usage in ancient Greek. So we can't rule out the words being addressed to Christ.
Post a Comment