https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml?fbclid=IwAR0v0lhhj7R6M-K-gZsuTVuTpddYa2AZHnCqntFO1bFWDToRzyrKZBUU4KQ
This article is open access. Thanks to the friends, who tipped me to this article.
Saturday, August 13, 2022
"Another God in the Gospel of John? A Linguistic Analysis of John 1:1 and 1:18" (Alexander Smarius)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
👀
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/31-26.htm
Better, more accurate translation is "with you" or "in you".
Which point are you addressing, Duncan? Thanks.
https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/31-28.htm
אֶת־ וְאָעִ֣ידָה
The words to the Jews (elders in Jerusalem).
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/925/alexander-the-great-as-a-god/
Upon arriving at the temple, Alexander was met by the priest who greeted him in rather poor Greek, stating “O, paidios” meaning “Oh, son of god.” Some believe he meant to say “O, paidion” or “Oh, my son.” Apparently, Alexander seemed pleased with the mispronunciation.
Whew! What an article, and like he said at the end. There needs to be a new arguement to refute what he wrote. I have always understood the verse 1:1 to show that there are 2 Gods. But, that Jesus himself after being raised up said he was going to "my father," " my God." As I always say the father never says my God, the Spirit doesn't say anything at all. Only the Son confesses that he has "my God,". My understanding is that the son says another time and place "My God" at least 4 times at Revelation 3:12.
I do like the point of what John says at the end of his gospel. John 20:31 the Son of God.
I have used the point in the ministry for years that Jesus has a God, but the Father does not, especially Revelation 3:12. But Trinitarians started to reply that Jesus' having a God applies to his humanity, not to his divinity. Or they claim that there is some eternal order within the Trinitarian Godhead that allows for the Son to call the Father, "my God." Trinitarians even understand the phrase "Son of God" differently. So how does anyone ever falsify this doctrine? How is it possible to show Trinitarians the doctrine is false?
Certainly some have changed, but the vast majority will not.
I agree with you on that, but Jesus saying what he said in Revelation 3 is long after he returned to heaven even the one in John is after he is resurrected. I even said that the bible says the God does not die, yet Jesus had to die for our salvation. I guess there must be some type of reasoning on what his condition was while dead. I always tell them that this is not in the bible this word trinity. The theologian whose last name is Hoffman had the nerve to tell me the trinity was a revelation revealed to, to quote him the "RCC". I told him no first century Christian believed in the trinity and I don't have to either.
I have pointed out to them that John 20:17 and Revelation 3:12 were uttered by the resurrected Christ, but many believe that Jesus is the God-man (homo Deus in Latin) and he will always be God and man with these two natures. So a guy told me that the words of Revelation 3:12 apply to the man Jesus but not to the God nature. However, some are just as liable to say that the Son always had a God within the order of divinity. I guess whatever works for them :-)
They also think that he was God and man on the earth, so that as God he did not die, but his human nature (with respect to his human nature), he did die. Or some just argue that Jesus died as the God-man, who is one person anyway. This teaching is called the "hypostatic union."
I've also encountered RCC arguments, etc. I always tell myself "No more Trinity," but then I get involved in these discussions anyway. The doctrine is one of those deeply entrenched things.
I've written a lot about the Incarnation of Christ. Note what a theologian says here, which may help you to understand their thinking a little more:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2008/07/owen-thomas-on-incarnation.html
Philip, I should have typed Deus homo (the God-man) or simul Deus et homo (God and man at the same time).
Edgar, I find it amazing with the thinking they come up with.
But, as you are aware Revelation 3:12 doesn't lend itself to the God-man interpretation. Co-eternal and Co-equal with the father doesn't lend itself to inserting a human into the equation. Adding in the human element is something the father does not have. It would seem to make it that they are not Co-equal. Could it fit into the original trinity formula at stated in the 4th to 5th century? I am left to wonder.
I agree that appealing to the human nature to support their reading of Revelation 3:12 seems weak to me, but they argue that the Word became flesh in the sense that God the Son assumed humanity or added humanity to his divinity as some say. They apply the coequality and coeternity to Christ's divine nature. IMO, they will always try to find a loophole.
The Nicene Creed says the Son of God was begotten, not created, which means he's eternally generated in their eyes; furthermore, it states that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and very God from very God. Compare the Chalcedonian Creed, which affirms that the Son is fully God and fully human. The ancient church made numerous affirmations concerning Christ's supposed deity and humanity.
Thank you Edgar,
Well that was an interesting take. But it definitely says the Christ and it does not say the father or the holy spirit. The element of fully man is added in the Christ or as they say the son. So I now ask is the father fully God and also fully man. Would he have been so before Jesus came to earth. These writers are all trying to do their best to explain it from their point of view. But since the saying is also "Co-Eternal" was he fully God and Fully man before he came to earth. And does this apply to the father as well as the holy spirit? Just my thoughts
You're welcome, Philip, and I appreciate your interaction. Granted, Trinitarians believe that it was only the Son who assumed/added humanity, but they believe he's God the Son, a distinct person from God the Father or God the Holy Spirit--but yet they're all God (i.e., divine). So they do not believe that the Father is fully God and fully man since he's purportedly distinct from the other two persons.
The writers I've read say Christ assumed or added humanity when he "became incarnate" or was made incarnate (God the Son in the flesh). It's complicated to put the Incarnation into temporal language, but I don't think the Son would have been God and human "before" he resided among humans. The closest I've seen anyone come to that position was Karl Barth.
Dogma is that the personal union (hypostatic union) never ceases, it lasts forever. The Nicene Creed, in opposition to the Origenists, quoted the words of the angelic greeting "of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:33). The church fathers also referred to other scriptural locations: "But he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever" (Heb 7:24). "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8).
On the other hand, 1 Timothy 2:5 is particularly problematic for the WTS theology, since they believe that Jesus ceased to be human when he died, and that his resurrection actually means recreation, restoration to be an angel.
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"
So if Jesus ceased to be man, then we no longer have a mediator. Let's say that in the case of JWs, he is not mediator for the rank-and-file members (only for the "anointed" class, thus the inner party), to whom the majority of members belong based on the two-class salvation regime invented in 1935.
The kenosis doesn't mean "putting down" the deity, but taking up the humanity. He did not empty himself of the deity (which is impossible), it means He did not cling to His heavenly glory, but emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant. The eternal existence of the Son and His incarnation are contrasted in a similar way in John 1:14 and Galatians 4:4. Philippians 2:5-10 praises the Son's willingness to sacrifice and His love, with which He embraced the humble human fate and the work of redemption. The text refers to Jesus' three modes of existence: His eternal pre-existence, His earthly life, and His glorification according to his humanity after the resurrection. He did not regard possession of divine glory as something to be clung to as spoils, but He emptied Himself. It cannot not be understood as a renunciation of His deity, but rather that when He took on human nature, he retained His deity, but sought what belongs to true earthly humanity, the form of a servant, and not the glory as the divine person, but he was still fully God, while "hiding" his rank on earth, in the state of self-emptying. His behavior expresses humility, and He continued this throughout His earthly life: He was obedient to the point of death on the cross. He became like us in all things (Romans 8:3), for only in this way could He live a meritorious life, and only in this way could He represent us in His sacrifice. We apply kenosis to the person of the Son, insofar as He accepted the incarnation, but we also apply it to the earthly life of Christ, insofar as He went to the ultimate limit of renunciation. The completeness of kenosis was the acceptance of death. Paul mentions obedience to the point of death to highlight the complete acceptance of the servant's position.
Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother: What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed. With his incarnation, he took on human nature and will no longer put it down. On the other hand, 1 Timothy 2:5 is particularly problematic for the WTS theology, since they believe that Jesus ceased to be human when he died, and that his resurrection actually means recreation, restoration to be an angel, kind of gnostic docetism, cf. Lk 24:31.
It's no what was spirit, converted into flesh, but the Person, i.e who existed as spirit from eternety made flesh, it was not the spirit that became flesh, but the divine person took on human nature alongside his divine nature. This is the principle of hypostatic unity, the person unites the two natures.
I have read the article, and as far as the theological part is concerned, it is not at all convincing. The WTS (and its apologists) repeatedly refer to Psalm 82, where the judges are called "elohim", which literally means "gods". However, they do not address at all how typical this terminology, this designation was during the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament. Just because someone is called "a god" does not necessarily make them God (i.e., equal to God, possessing the fullness of deity, like Christ). This is a logically incomplete conclusion.
After all, if representatives of God can be called "gods", why aren't the apostles or angels called "gods" in the New Testament? Were they not representatives of God? Did Paul accept this (Acts 28:6)?
I believe that this wording found in Psalm 82 should be evaluated based on the logic of poetic hermeneutics in view of the literary characteristics of the book of Psalms, which does not establish such a general category of divinity. Otherwise, why don't the JWs call the members of the Governing Body "gods", saying: but then the judges were called that too?
The fact that it was possible for men so to represent God as to be called "gods" or "divine" in the Old Testament was actually a foreshadowing of the Incarnation. “There lay already in the Law the germ of the truth which Christ announced, the union of God and man.” (Westcott)
In the New Testament, designating the God's angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in one of the Psalms of the Old Testament, and moreover, "Elohim" in Hebrew is a much more general term, which in this case might be better translated as Strength, Mighty One, etc., rather than "God" in proper sense. The word "GOD" in Greek, English, etc., always refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, and no one else. In the case of Jesus, we do not only rely on the application of the word "THEOS" not just once and without any diminutive additions, but also on such attributes (omniscience, timelessness, hearing of prayers, adorableness, etc.) which cannot apply to the created angels.
JWs also refer to John 10:34-35. In that dialogue, Jesus was only highlighting the inconsistency of his accusers: if they could be called such in a certain sense, then so could he how much more? He did not say that his divinity would be just this much. However, JWs are also inconsistent, since the judges are clearly only "elohim" in the sense of "exalted position and power", while in WTS theology, the Son's divinity is not just this, but actually a kind of 'homoiousian' sense divine nature, even if they do not use this terminology.
If you think this passage proves that every reference to Jesus as "GOD" would mean just as much, and just as much, as in the case of angels, then this idea should appear in the pericope. However, there is no mention of this. There is no reference to this detail in the apostolic letters, even though there would have been a great need for such in a polytheistic environment to clarify in what sense Jesus can be called "GOD".
John 10:34-35 lacks the thought that Jesus could only call himself "GOD" in the sense that Psalm 82 called the judges "elohim". The essence of the pericope is that it points out the inconsistency of his accusers, that there was such a use of language in the Old Testament that called human judges "elohim", based on which if they could, then he (who is truly [the only-begotten] Son of God) how much more can be called so. He begins by saying: "If even they...". So his reference was a kind of apologetic bridge, somewhat like Paul spoke to the Greeks about their "unknown god".
Anyway, the apostle Paul sees equality with God in being in the form of God, on the other hand, we know about the angels that they are in a lower form of life than God. Christ has a higher dignity than the angels, according to the beginning of the letter to the Hebrews. So his divine form of life cannot be included in the use of language that occasionally calls angels (and human judges) gods.
In John 10, Jesus gave a parable to his accusers which means: if even they could be called gods (in a certain sense), then how much more the only-begotten Son then? So it's clearly in the text He is God in a superior sense than the judges were called "gods" in the Psalm. In what sense namely then? He does not explain here exactly, but he makes it clear that it is not just in the same sense, but in a higher, superior sense. "Argumentum a fortiori" arguments are regularly used in Jewish law under the name kal va-chomer, literally "mild and severe", the mild case being the one we know about, while trying to infer about the more severe case. The Jews understood this and that's why they wanted to stone him "again" (v39). However, the evangelist understands this exchange of words coming from Christ's mouth: according to him, the two do not differ. Behold, he himself also approves of that interpretation, according to which Jesus, by calling himself the Son of God, made himself equal to God.
The study refers to John 20:17 where Jesus calls the Father "my God" and points out that Jesus said this after his resurrection. A logical step is omitted here, since according to Orthodox Christology, Christ possessed human nature not only until his death, or during his earthly existence, but he did not lay down the human nature he assumed with the Incarnation. Only Watchtower theology asserts that Christ ceased to be human through his death. So the resurrected Jesus, as a man, could continue to call the Father "his God", without this detracting from his real Godhead.
Hence, the study's argument that Thomas's statement in John 20:28 that he said to Jesus (αὐτῷ) "my Lord and my God" was actually addressed to the Father, also collapses. The next verse reveals that Jesus did apply and understand Thomas's words to himself and evaluated the statement as a confession of faith. If one insists on finding parallels, then the words of John 20:28 remind us of the words of Psalm 35:23.
Regarding the apostles, who were convinced of Jesus' deity, they never used the Hebrew words Yahweh or Adonai when politely addressing or mentioning Jesus. The likely explanation for this is that these words reminded them very much of the "invisible name," the one who "dwells in unapproachable light," who no man has seen or can see directly while living on this earth (see Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). However, the most stubborn member of the apostolic body, Apostle Thomas, when overwhelmed by the powerful impression of the resurrected Jesus and enlightened by divine grace, fell at the Master's feet and went so far as to declare Jesus as God in his confession of faith. His words, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), are not mere exclamations of wonder, but the perfect confession of faith, acknowledging that Jesus is the God-man. It's as if he is saying, "You are my Lord, my Messiah, and I believe not only in your resurrection but also in your deity." Cornelius a Lapide correctly summarizes the content of Thomas' confession with the words, "With the words 'my Lord,' he confesses the human nature of Christ, with the words 'my God,' the divine one." For reference, see J. Knabenbauer S.J. Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Joannem (Paris, 1898) p. 574 and other related works.
Some have tried to downplay the true meaning and significance of Thomas' words, arguing that they were not directed at the Savior, but were surprised apostle's exclamations directed at God the Father. As if he were saying, "Oh, my Lord and God, what do I see, what a miracle your power has performed! You have resurrected our Jesus!" This is how Theodorus of Mopsuestia (died 428) and subsequently the Socinians and some other exegetes interpreted Thomas' words. However, setting aside the fact that Theodorus' interpretation was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council (553), this understanding is refuted by: 1. Jesus, because he clearly refers to Thomas's words as a confession of faith (John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed"); 2. The words of Thomas, "He said to him" (John 20:28) and "My Lord" which can only refer to Christ; 3. Therefore, since the expression "My Lord" can only refer to Christ, to whom the apostles referred with this address, the associated "and my God" must necessarily also refer to Christ.
The fact that the word "God" is to be taken in its literal sense here follows also from the fact that John the Evangelist, through the content of his entire book and the communication of Thomas' confession, wanted to show that Jesus indeed led his disciples to the recognition of the truth he expressed at the beginning of his gospel (John 1:6-15), i.e., that Jesus is the God-man who has appeared.
And only with such an understanding of the word "God" used by Thomas can the closing words of the Gospel be in natural harmony with the evangelist's goal, which was nothing else but to prove that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and the Son of God, that is, the God-man, and therefore one must believe in him, because this is the condition of eternal life, which John expresses as follows: "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
In the Hellenistic culture, they called their gods "gods", the Greeks had a bunch of separate words for the category of lesser divinity, for example 'hemitheoi', i.e. demigods. There were many other terms in Greek for mythical beings with divine features, but the name "theos" was used only for their major/proper gods. So John, who wrote in Greek, would have had many other words available than "theos" to describe a lesser category of divinity, which is ontologically inferior to that of the Father, which is attributed to the Son in WTS theology.
In the Jewish culture, the command was "thou shalt have no other gods before me", and there were no minor gods, or lesser divine beings in the Judaism either. So no, the use of this terminology of Psalm 82 was not at all common.
Was hemitheos common parlance in first century greek? Please cite evidence and also see - https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/29574/dissertation.pdf
Post a Comment