The “weak” at Corinth still perceive these [gods] as real powers, or at least as genuine sources of corruption, pollution, or compromise, and Paul insists that “the strong” take account of this. Indeed, in 10:14-22 he seems to endorse the view of the weak that sharing in a cultic meal devoted to an idol is tantamount to a return to idolatry involving “sacrifice to demonic powers” and “co-partnership with demonic forces” (10:20). Thus Barrett, Fee, NIV, and JB place “gods” and “lords” in quotation marks within the clause. Paul states that certainly existentially, but probably also in terms of actual ontological structural forces of evil, there are genuine powers that still shape certain people’s lives, although they are certainly not “gods” (for there is no God but one), and no “lords” in any rightful sense.120
Monday, January 18, 2021
Anthony Thiselton Remarks on 1 Corinthians 8:5 (Page 632)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hi Edgar,
If one denies the existence of other gods, then how does one deal with verses in the OT in which Jehovah declares himself greater than all the other gods? Such texts seem misleading at best if other gods don't exist. As I've said many times, even my cats are greater than a god who doesn't exist;-)
~Kas
Hi Kas,
Good question. How does one worship a nonexistent being? People once revered Zeus as a deity, but does Zeus exist? Even the Bible indicates that money is a god and Philippians says some people's God is their belly. Satan is also called a god, so how can we deny the existence of other gods? As the WT states, there is only one true God, only one most perfect being. Other so-called God's are either images of the true God or they're false gods.
Yes, there are angels, who are images of God, and people do worship images, money, mythical beings, etc. However, Galatians 4:8 puts things in perspective.
I look at John 17:3 a little differently than most in that I don't think that "true" is necessarily used there in the sense of "true vs false", nor do I necessarily think that "archetype" is in view, though perhaps it is in a certain sense.
My understanding of the text flows from ancient Jewish religious practice in light of Israel's relationship with their covenant God. In ancient Judaism, God was conceived of primarily in relational categories. When ancient Jews thought about how God was their God and the only God, they were thinking in terms of him as the one with absolute power and authority over all things, and of their relationship to him as his covenant people. They weren’t thinking of him as “The only one who is ontologically divine as to his essence”; that sort of thinking came later, as apologists traveled along the twisted and unfortunate road to Nicaea and Chalcedon, which was traversed during the patristic period.
So when Jesus referred to his Father as “the only true God”, he was saying that only the Father has absolute power and authority over the all things. There’s no contradiction, then, in saying that “a god” (someone with derived power and authority) was with “God” (the only one with absolute power and authority), or that the supernatural beings were "gods" in a real sense.
I understand that many will disagree with me, though, and I'm used to that.
~Kas
Dale Tuggy wrote a helpful paper about counting gods. As he notes, there's a lot to sort out when we use terms like "divine" or "God/god" and so forth, but I have no problem with viewing angels as real gods in the sense of their being supernatural/superhuman and they belong to the class of elohim. Angels are divine just like anointed Christians share in the divine nature. On the other hand, is there not something that makes God, God? Is it just his absolute power and authority or is there something about his essential attributes? While I reject Nicaea and Chalcedon, I can't help but think Anselm was somewhat right about what makes God, the most perfect being or that being than which a greater cannot be conceived. Gordon Fee also makes an interesting remark about 1 Cor. 8:5-6 in his Corinthians commentary. Time may escape me this afternoon, but maybe I will post it one day :-)
Yes, I agree that God has essential attributes, and there's certainly nothing wrong with contemplating such things. However, my point is that when we do so, we're not thinking in the categories of the ancient Jews. Thus, if we want to understand John 17:3 and other texts, we need to put on our ancient Jewish hat, not our Anselm cap;-)
Hi my friend, you know I respect you and I'm not a full-blown Anselmian, but do you think the ancient Jews rejected the idea of essential divine attributes? For instance, would an ancient Jew living in 1st century Palestine have found it a stretch to affirm God's essential omniscience or omnipotence? What about aseity? Granted, a 1st century Jew might not have used that term, but if you said "self-existence" or necessary existence, might not the Jew have possibly affirmed this attribute for God? :-)
Getting back to John 17:3, I agree that we need to look at the passage from an ancient Jewish perspective, and I also believe that modern lexicography/philology can shed light on the verse.
Hello again Edgar,
It's not that the Jews rejected the idea of essential divine attributes, it's just that such considerations weren't part of their conceptual apparatus, or their vocabulary. They could no more have rejected such considerations then they could have opined on the dangers of the Internet.
Again, I'm not criticizing those who find value in contemplating God in light of such later considerations, and I'm not even denying that there is value in doing so. All I'm saying that if we want to properly understand what the writers of the OT and NT were saying, then use of such considerations is anachronistic. Thus, doing so could easily and perhaps even likely lead us astray.
You might find this post by the late Larry Hurtado interesting:
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/chronology-and-ontology/
Yb,
~Kas
Shame on me, as I forgot to mention that I respect you too, old friend:-) I wouldn't be a follower of your blog if I didn't!
~Kas
Hi Edgar,
I also forgot to mention that either definition of "true" will work under my view, i.e. 'true vs. false' or 'archetypal'. What matters most is how the ancient Jews conceptualized "God".
~Kas
It's all right about the friend thing, Kas, I assumed you still felt that way. Thanks for also following the blog :)
I'm between classes now, so I'll offer a brief thought. While most Jews may not have thought in terms of divine attributes like Aquinas or Anselm did, the distinction between essential and accidental attributes is quite old: Aristotle explicitly outlined the difference over 2,000 years ago. These ideas then spread because of Alexander's Hellenistic project, and we witness this phenomenon in Philo of Alexandria. But regardless of those developments, I don't think a Jew would have seen it as problematic to believe in God's essential wisdom or knowledge. Well, I've got to run. Thanks for the Hurtado info as well. Best!
Post a Comment