Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Very Short Note on Acts 2:36
It's increasingly becoming weirder to me how Jesus was "made Lord" (i.e., Jehovah) if he was already Jehovah in his preexistent life (Acts 2:36). While Incarnation advocates may argue that he emptied himself, thus making glorification by the Father necessary, they still want to claim that nothing was subtracted by the Incarnation--only humanity was assumed with his divinity. So would he not have remained Lord in that case when he became flesh? Why the need to make him Lord after his resurrection? That is, make him YHWH? Makes no sense to me. How can someone who is already Lord (YHWH) be made Lord by another?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Nothing (emphasis: "nothing"!) was taken away from his divinity. So the Lord remained the Lord. But the Lord was "made" the Lord. Good post Edgar. When you corner something like this, in it's simplicity, it becomes self-evident that this theory is truly nothing more than human error superimposed over Scripture.
Thank you, Matt13weedhacker. So many of these Bible verses have been enshrouded with Trinitarian dogma that most people read Trinitarianism into the verses.
Interesting too, how John Gill explains John 1:14 and the Incarnation:
and when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ's works and actions, as Mediator:
In his first volume of The Christian Tradition, Jaroslav Pelikan (pages 155-6) relates that some have read Acts 2:36 as an adoptionist verse. Ps. 2:7 has been invoked for similar reasons.
Not that I buy into adoptionism, but 2:36 seems hard to square with the Incarnation doctrine.
How would you interpret these scriptures? (wanting to know if I'm on the right track)
2 Chronicles 31:8 - obviously both God and his People were served in some sense (would obviously not include full on worshipping)
2 Chronicles 35:3
I'm glad that you brought up these scriptures, and I think you're on the right track. There is a verse in 2 Chronicles 20 that makes a similar point about God and the prophets. On the other hand, while the action is the same, there is an obvious difference between serving God and serving his people although they're interrelated.
For example, even today among Witnesses, we talk about serving Jehovah but at the same time, we're serving people too. But the level/quality of service is different. As the Bible says, if we give to afflicted people, it's like giving to Jehovah.
I sincerely thank you for all your help (Ill say that as many times as I must)
Am I right in saying if the verb is not directed at both objects one would not be in the accusative?
(see my debate with FR)
I agree. See https://www.bibliatodo.com/en/interlinear/2chronicles-31-8?v=WTNT
Post a Comment