Nincsnevem insists that Isaiah 44:24 excludes any other being from sharing in the act of cosmos-creating except YHWH; he insists that no creature can share in creating, in part, because YHWH declares that he created "alone" without assistance from anyone else or so it seems. On the other hand, Jehovah's Witnesses maintain that one should not ignore the context of Isaiah 44:24.
Additionally, Paul Blowers documents examples where the Tertullian and the post-Nicenes, qualified Isaiah 44:24 in view of Proverbs 8:22-27 and Blowers demonstrates how they read the Isaianic verse: the pre-Nicenes and post-Nicenes applied Isaiah's words to the Father. At least the Fathers had one thing right. Yet one way I want to question Nincsnevem's line of thinking is by pointing to John 17:3, Matthew 24:36, 1 Timothy 6:16.
As we know, John 17:3 refers to Jesus' Father as the only true God. The adjective "only," which at times is also employed adverbially can normally exclude others from a group or situation in the way that "alone" might, but how do Trinitarians view the expression "only true God" in John 17:3? Do they take it to be exclusionary?
My experience is that they either attempt to include Jesus in the expression "only true God" since the verse concludes with mention of God's Son or they claim that the Father is the only true God in relation to false gods (see BDAG). Hence, they maintain that John 17:3 is not contrasting the Father with his Son or the Holy Spirit. So despite the fact that "only" could be a delimiter or exclude others as in "Johnny is the only student in this class who behaved today," Trinitarians do not construe the word that way in 17:3. How convenient, despite the fact that nothing in the context suggests that Jesus was contrasting false gods with his Father.
On further reflection, I think what Trinitarians claim is that Jesus said his Father is "the only true God," not "only the Father is the true God."
My point is not whether John 17:3 can be understood as Trinitarians propose but it's the fact that "only" doesn't exclude others from being called "true God" according to them. They believe that more than one person is "the only true God" though Jesus addressed his words to the Father and seemed to distinguish the "only true God" from himself (i.e., "and the one whom you sent forth").
What about Matthew 24:36? According to that verse, only the Father knows the day and hour when the end or tribulation will occur. Neither the angels in heaven nor the Son and apparently the Holy Spirit does not know. Well, despite the use of "only" in that passage, Trinitarians assert that the Son probably knows qua Son (i.e., according to his divine nature) and they claim the Holy Spirit knows based on other texts (1 Corinthians 2:10, for example). So for Trinitarians, "only" doesn't always mean "alone of its or their kind; single or solitary."
1 Timothy 6:16 is a contentious verse. Does it apply to the Father or to the Son? Both answers have been given by scholars and Trinitarians, but however we identify the passage's referent, it speaks about one "alone" having immortality. Are we supposed to believe that the Father only has immortality? Maybe the Son is the only immortal being and his Father is not. How will Trinitarians cut the Gordian knot? Historically, they have qualified the word "alone."
For an example in the Hebrew Bible, see Deut. 32:12.
Saturday, September 09, 2023
"Alone" or "Only" (How They're Construed)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Do you think this from the MSG bible captures the flavour?
24 God, your Redeemer, who shaped your life in your mother's womb, says: "I am God. I made all that is. With no help from you I spread out the skies and laid out the earth."
Duncan, while it obviously goes beyond the "literal" meaning, I especially like the last part.
"Saint" Jerome also applies the verse to "idols." I.e., the idols/false gods did not help to create anything.
Isaiah 44:24 is not the only verse I've refered to, see also Isaiah 45:12, 48:13, Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6, Neh 9:6. There is a study on this detail:
https://t.ly/Haod-
The point is that this excludes the participation of someone other (other gods, demiurges, whatever) than YHWH God in creation. This, and a lot of other OT statements were meant to condemn the monolatric-henotistic tendencies (the notion that other deities may exist, and they could be worshipped, just it's forbidden to do so by the Law) that were still lurking at the time, in which not only the existence of other gods than Yahweh, but also no place for alleged demiurges.
"Who was with me?" - a rherotical question in Isaiah 44:24, compare John 1:1-2, when it's stated the the Logos was with God in the beginning.
"See ye that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me" (Deuteronomy 32:39)
"Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me." (Isaiah 44:6)
"Before Me there was no god formed, And there will be none after Me." (Isaiah 43:10)
"Surely God is in you; and there is no one else. There is no other god." (Isaiah 45:14)
How can be the Logos indeed "a god" as the NWT translates John 1:1c, when "there is no other god" at all besides YHWH God?
In the Trinity, the Son is not another God compared to the Father, but one God with him.
John 17:3 - The Father is indeed "the only true God", which is not the same as the JWs read it, ie. that "only the Father is true God alone". The apostle Paul also uses this wording in 1 Cor 8:6. This is therefore not opposed to the deity of Jesus, but to the false deities. In the same way, the fact that Jesus is "the only Lord" does not mean that only Jesus is truly Lord alone, opposed to the Father. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1031.htm#article3
Good example: "there is but one God, the Father ... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 8:6), here just as the Father is not excluded from being Lord, because Jesus is the only Lord, so the Son is not excluded from being one God, so these exclusionary concepts do not exclude other persons from the Godhead, but exclude other deities. This is the syncategorematical sense.
Whether an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term? He considers several Scriptural and liturgical passages – “That they may know thee [i.e. the Father], the only true God.” (Jn 17:3); “No one knows the Son but the Father.” (Mt 11:27); “You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ” (from the Gloria).
Thomas Aquinas explains that all these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures. Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc.
Some terms, on the other hand, are not predicated of the Persons by reason of the Essence, but rather by reason of the relation. Examples of this would be: The Father alone is un-begotten; the Son alone is begotten; the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Finally, in the case of the Son, some terms are predicated not by reason of his divinity (either his divine Nature or his divine relations) but on account of his human nature. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son has died; only the Son will come again.
I think that for Jerome, a demiurge would also belong to the "false god", "idol" category.
On John 17:3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncategorematic_term
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/John%2017:3
Regarding Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32) you may read my notes here: https://justpaste.it/bc9hl
Augustine also gives a good explanation for this: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.iii.xii.html
Im still waiting for an example where someone addresses someone else as "only true" and means to include themselves.
Ninc, you are being very misleading on the rest in more than one way.. I have seen similar from others.
Ill wait for Edgar's reply then follow up if he misses anything I want to say (This is his address to you, not mine)
Anonymous, please comment anytime. I have too many irons in the fire to have an ongoing discussion with Nincsnevem
@Anonymous
John 17 is also called the High Priestly Prayer, since Christ is praying here as high priest to God. And his high priesthood is to be understood by his human nature, and as a man He indeed does not belong to the one God.
But the point here was not that the "alone" here does not exclude other persons from the Godhead.
Once again you omit important information..
https://academic.oup.com/book/9790/chapter-abstract/156997519?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.academia.edu/5132227/Trinity_and_Community_A_Reading_of_John_17
https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/44/2/article-p141_2.xml?language=en
@Duncan
I have read the article, and as far as the theological part is concerned, it is not at all convincing. This is the only publication of the author (as far as I know, by the way, JW). 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 OT, let alone the NT. 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 OT 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 NT, designating the God's angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in one of the Psalms of the OT, 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, to be worshipped (both proskuneo AND latreou, 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".
On the one hand, the apostle 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 "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.
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.
In the Hellenistic culture, they called their gods "gods", the Greeks had a bunch of separates 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 context, the command was "thou shalt have no other gods before me", and there were no minor gods, or lesser divine beings, demiurges in the Judaism either. So no, the use of this terminology of Psalm 82 was not at all common.
Why weren't the apostles called gods?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Fa8Ci6rGs
"Why weren't the apostles called gods?"
(you also ask why the GB aren't called gods)
but that's entirely self evident.. This is not a legit question - but a tactic, that has no bearing on the use of the word "gods" in John 10.
If we look at the evidence presented in the OT for what constitutes being called "god" - it is by divine appointment. (you can look this up)
The GB of the Witnesses is not chosen by God, but by Jesus (correct me if I am wrong, Witnesses)
The apostles were not "direct representatives" of God so could not be called "gods" (slight difference)
Acts 28:6 - its not about whether Paul accepted this, its about what the people thought.
By your line of reasoning for "silence" he did (I see no refutation of this in scripture)
I am yet to find any trinitarian of any denomination agree with your rational - infact most say the opposite.. in this case I would be willing to bet you are leaving something off.
your far to wrapped up in "nature" and "divinity", which the bible does not really stress. That is your downfall, too much philosophical biased interpretation, rather than middle of the road interpretation.
you keep trying to separate the OT from the NT like they are a totally different environment.. However you are just plain wrong here - Hopefully others can provide resources, I see little evidence of this claim being proven as a fact.
(you shouldn't forget they were under the same law)
However your limiting to the just the NT is showing of your motivation, its not an honest endeavour else you would be providing more context as to what you are saying... I know you omit bits of information that do not agree with your stance. (I know of many that refute you completely)
Why are angels referred to as gods? Ill let you answer this.
David (likely) was addressed as "God" specifically with the divine name.
"And when He Himself makes this declaration, He denies not the Son, but says that there is no other God; and the Son is not different from the Father. Indeed, if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead"
" if He had named Him expressly, He would have separated Him, saying in so many words: “Beside me there is none else, except my Son.” In short He would have made His Son actually another, after excepting Him from others."
An interesting find from Tertullian, while like Origen I don't like his philosophical tendencies (and his writings are also clearly tampered with) - he observes like most, the context of such statements is directed solely at false gods and idol makers rather than the Son (or angels, Job 38:7)
for clarity sake: I will say that is 44:24 is at the end of this big paragraph, however it is certainly relevant to the context of my excerpt and I don't think has any bearing on how I quoted the text.
Pope Gregory I: Epistle “Sicut aqua frigida” to the Patriarch of Alexandria (August 600), Concerning Christ's Knowledge (against the Agnoetae)
"...Some time ago, when Abramios of Alexandria came to you, I wrote to express my thoughts on your writings against the Agnoetae heretics, as well as the reason for my delayed response. But the same Abramios, being compelled by necessity, remained in the city of Naples for an extended time, so I now write again on the same subject. Regarding your teaching against the heretics known as the Agnoetae, there was much for us to admire and nothing that displeased us. I had previously written on the same subject to our mutual son, the deacon Anatolius, at great length. Your teaching is entirely in concord with the Latin Fathers, so I was not surprised that the Spirit, though expressed in different languages, was not divided.
Regarding what you said about the fig tree, blessed Augustine speaks in the same sense, saying that when the evangelist adds, "For it was not the season for figs" [Mark 11:13], it is evident that the Lord was seeking fruit from the synagogue, which had the leaves of the law but lacked the fruit of works. It could not be that the Creator of all was unaware that the fig tree had no fruit, which was something that everyone could know since it was not the season for figs.
As for the passage that says, "No one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, nor the angels" [Mark 13:32], your holiness has understood correctly. This should not be interpreted as referring to the Son in His divine headship, but in reference to His body, which we are. Blessed Augustine has used this interpretation in many places (Questions on the Gospels, Book LXXXIII, q. 60; On the Trinity, Book I, ch. 12; and sermons on Psalms 6 and 35). Augustine also provides another explanation, which can be applied to the Son, because Almighty God sometimes speaks in a human way, as He said to Abraham: "Now I know that you fear God" [Genesis 22:12]. Not because God learned something at that moment, but because He revealed to Abraham that he feared God. Just as we speak of a "happy day," not because the day itself is happy, but because it makes us happy, so too the Almighty Son says He does not know the day, which He causes not to be known—not because He is ignorant of it, but because He does not allow it to be known.
This is why it is said that the Father alone knows, because the consubstantial Son, by His nature, which is above the angels, has the capacity to know what they do not. We can further understand this by recognizing that the Only-begotten, having been incarnate and made perfect man for us, in His human nature knows the day and the hour of judgment, but not from His human nature itself. What He knows in His humanity, He knows not from His humanity but through the power of His divinity. For instance, at the wedding in Cana, when His mother said that they had no wine, He responded: "Woman, what is that to me and to you? My hour has not yet come" [John 2:4]. Surely, the Lord of angels was not subject to the hour, for He created time and seasons. But when His mother desired a miracle, He replied: "What is that to me and to you, woman?" as if to say, "The power to work a miracle comes to me from the Father, not from you." He could die through His mother, but He worked miracles through the nature of His Father. This is why, on the cross, as He was dying, He recognized His mother and commended her to the disciple, saying, "Behold your mother" [John 19:27]. He said: "What is that to me and to you, woman? My hour has not yet come" [John 2:4], meaning: I do not recognize you in this miracle, for I do not derive this power from you. When the hour of death comes, I recognize you as mother, for it is from you that I have the power to die.
Thus, the knowledge that Christ did not have from His human nature, which, like the angels, is a creature, He denied having in common with the angels. Therefore, He knows the day and the hour of judgment both as God and man, but only because He is God made man. It is very clear that whoever is not a Nestorian cannot be an Agnoeta. For whoever confesses that the Wisdom of God was incarnate, how can they say that there is anything that the Wisdom of God does not know? It is written: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through Him" [John 1:1-3]. If all things were made through Him, then certainly the day and the hour of judgment were included. Who then would be so foolish as to presume that the Word of the Father made something He does not know? It is also written: "Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands" [John 13:3]. If He was given all things, then surely this includes the day and the hour of judgment. Who, then, would be so foolish as to claim that the Son received something into His hands of which He was unaware?
Regarding the passage where Jesus asks the women about Lazarus: "Where have you laid him?" [John 11:34], we hold the same view as you. For if they deny that the Lord knew where Lazarus had been buried and thus inquired, they will undoubtedly be forced to admit that the Lord did not know where Adam and Eve were hiding after their sin, when He said in the garden, "Adam, where are you?" [Genesis 3:9]. Or when He rebuked Cain, saying, "Where is Abel, your brother?" [Genesis 4:9]. If He did not know, why did He immediately add, "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground"?
...."
"As for the passage that says, "No one knows the day or the hour, not even the Son, nor the angels" [Mark 13:32], your holiness has understood correctly. This should not be interpreted as referring to the Son in His divine headship, but in reference to His body, which we are."
In other words, let's not understand a plain reading of the text because it does not fit in with our authodoxy.
Post a Comment