Fredricksens essay "How High?" On high Christology is great. The point she's making here is extremely important and sometimes ignored by exegetes: divinity comes in degrees.
I will try to take a broader view of the Holy Trinity. In my view, the dogma of the Trinity has a fundamental problem not in its claims (I am basing this on the Catholic definition of Trinitarian dogma) but in its implications. One of the fundamental implications, then, I see in the fact that God, who is one, in his "hypostasis", in God the Son, dies for 3 days. Again, there is not some 1/3 of God dying, because there are not three Gods, but one God. The way out of this dilemma that trinitarian dogma prepares is not easy: Paul, for example, criticizes those who claim that there is no resurrection. He argues that Christ died...so God must have been dead. Presumed death, or only partial death, are all long-rejected heresies... I can surmise that the acceptance of the dogma, was a protective reaction by the Church, against heretics or "barbarians" who saw Jesus as a mere mortal man, a Jew who died and did not understand that he was truly God. But despite their best efforts, ecclesiastical authority prevailed with dogma... My personal solution, is not that the dogma of the Trinity cannot be rationally understood (which is/may well be the answer), but that the dogma of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation, anyway, it is not some fundamental obstacle to salvation...(I understand it in the context of the universality of salvation). On the other hand, critics of antitrinitarianism, then, often draw an equivalence between JWs and antitrinitarianism. But in my view, JWs, have chosen(?) only one of certain schools of thought within (modern) antitrinitarianism. Non-adorative antitrinitarianism is associated in the modern era with, for example, the name Ferenc David ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_D%C3%A1vid ), which again, is probably not the best choice. If in liturgy (public prayers, songs, texts, etc., etc.) they cannot address their wishes, thanksgivings, complaints, etc., to Christ alone; if they cannot thank Christ alone for their salvation and always have to add the addendum that it was due to Jehovah, then this is - in my opinion - a misunderstanding of Christ's role. The implications of a theology of "not-worshipping" Christ can be as problematic as the Trinitarian dogma with the death of God. To give an example: the JWs argue that in the NT, in places of quotations from the OT where the Hebrew text in the OT has YHWH, it should not be the Greek "kyrios", but just YHWH. As for the translation of the NT, they refer to numerous translations of the NT which, according to this idea, translate "kyrios" as YHWH. OK, it's about translations. But they theologically go further, and here's the risk of claiming that there was a deliberate erasure of YHWH from the earliest NT texts and substitution of "kyrios". For this idea, they then refer to some fragments of the LXX, or the patristics with their Iαω, etc.
Despite all the logic of these considerations, where is the problem, where is the risk? First of all: we don't (yet) have any NT text to support this. If I dispute that there was deliberate manipulation of the text at an early stage of the account (but see the temporal and geographical plurality of the texts, which is very uniform), then the rest of the text becomes implausible as well. What if - for example - the text in Mat 24:4 should not read "parusia" but "coming in the flesh (flesh and bone)" (2 John 7)? I ("christologically") believe that kyrios in the NT was intentional. That the writers deliberately, already in the originals, used the "new" term kyrios to emphasize that Jesus became incarnate - in the capacity of μορφη God, the Lord. The bodily coming of Christ, as a man, physically manifested the text Ex 23:20-21 "my name, it is in the midst of him". Christ is the bearer of the name of YHWH. By the resultant process of his being the rock from which they drank in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4), Jesus then declares: all power has been given to me (Matt 28:18). This, of course, does not nullify the position of the Father. The Father is the true God, and Christ is the personified wisdom that was at creation. There was a time when Christ was not. So He has a beginning - to confirm what the Nicene Creed denies:-) Therefore, Christ could say at the same time that "I and the Father are one", just as He said that "the Father is greater than I". From the very beginning He acted as YHWH, in His name, power and glory. That is why wherever there is a "Christological" YHWH, unity was newly(!) emphasized in the NT, and by a new title: kyrios. Removing kyrios and substituting it for YHWH is, in my opinion, a display of disrespect for the Son... And again: whether I read kyrios or Iαω in the NT has no bearing on salvation or reprobation. See the reference to the Samaritan: when the orthodox Jew asks him what to do to gain eternal life, then at the end of the parable, Jesus tells him "Go and do likewise!", or in the question of mercy and gaining eternal life(!), religiosity plays no role.
p.s. the gain of eternal life is merely a precursor to the gain of the right to reign with Christ in heaven...
"One of the fundamental implications, then, I see in the fact that God, who is one, in his "hypostasis", in God the Son, dies for 3 days."
However, according to Catholic doctrine, the Son is not "just" God since his Incarnation, but truly human. Before you start, you should read the Chalcedonian definition, the concept of hypostatic unity. In brief: all these descriptions (born, learned, feared, wept, died, resurrected, ascended, exalted) are understood to his human nature. Jesus did not die on the cross as God, but as a man. (Now, it is a separate issue that JWs also mean by the term "death" quite differently than Catholics: not annihilation, but separation.) Thus the key is Christ's dual nature. This is the absolute mystery, so we will never understand it.
As God, Jesus knew and knows the day of judgment, as a man he did not know.
(By the way, as a man, he could know it, because in the Gospel the "not even the Son" clause appears in a special way: the Son does not know the time, in the sense that his mission does not extend to communicating the time. Jesus' humanity had what is called infused knowledge/scientia infusa. He only knew infallibly as a man what was part of his mission, but at any time he could know anything as God, like Peter's tax money in the fish's stomach. Why? Because in him the Logos replaced the person.)
By the way, the dual nature raises many such questions: Did Jesus die or not die? Since God never dies: As God, Jesus is immortal, as a man he died for sinful humanity.
Did Jesus in his embryonic state know the time of his birth? As an embryo, no, as God, yes.
MYSTERIUM ABSOLUTUM!!!
But let's not forget one thing! Everything is dual in Jesus, except for the person. The person is purely divine. The consequence of the personal unity realized in Christ is the interchangeability of properties (communicatio idiomatum). In Christ, the two natures are united in such a way that they do not mix, do not change, but retain all their own characteristics. This, and the emphasis on the uniqueness of Jesus, however, leads to another dogma: there is only one person in Christ, namely the divine person, the Word, since it has existed from eternity, it assumed human nature, and not vice versa.
Thus, in Jesus, the Word fulfills the role of the person, because the duality of nature in Jesus did not result in two persons. (This would be a split personality.) The Bible attributes divine and human properties to the same person. The two natures thus exist in one person. This leads to the interchangeability of properties, that is, what I assert about Jesus Christ as God is also true for Christ as man, and vice versa, since the ultimate subject of the properties of the two natures is identical. In this regard, there are four rules:
1. Divine properties can be attributed to Jesus named as a man, and human properties to Christ named as God. 2. It is forbidden to do this with emphasizing duality (reduplicative formaliter) (e.g., the man Christ as a man is omnipresent, or the Word as the Word suffered), or to interchange abstractly named properties (e.g.: The omnipotence lies in the manger). 3. The statements must not be exclusively or negatively formulated (e.g., The Son of God did not suffer, or Jesus is only mortal). 4. Exceptions are what has become customary in liturgical practice or at the level of everyday religiosity understood by everyone (e.g., “Righteousness was condemned to death.”), and thus understandable to everyone. Therefore, from the teaching of the interchangeability of properties, it follows that the same adoration is due to the Son of God as to Jesus the man, and that Christ's humanity is worthy of adoration (worship).
@Nincsnevem I don't think there's any dispute between us. What you are describing is an interpretation of the text, of the Chalcedon Confession, and you end with what has become crucial for me personally: The Trinity of God is a truth hidden in mystery that cannot, even after it is revealed, be interpreted in any rational way. The Chalcedonian Creed, however, also simultaneously "forbids" one to think or teach otherwise. Personally, I have said that if a discussion on the subject of the Trinity ends up being a mystery, then the whole dogma can be called a mystery. The RCC's successful defense against questioning the Trinity (Protestants have been less successful with their "sola scriptura") is the reason for my claim that RCC-dogma is not necessary. Ockaham's razor is beginning to apply: Trinitarianism is a non-forced multiplication of entities😊 So I am inclined to believe that there is a revealed subordination in the Bible: the Father is greater than the Son. The Father has no beginning, the Son has a beginning. But at the same time, the Father has handed everything over to the Son. In the Son, then, is the name of YHWH. Therefore, digressing to JWs-theology: when the kyrios appeared in the LXX (LXX-family of translations) in place of YHWH, and this substitution in translation was made for whatever reason, then Christians took advantage of this "unwitting" prophecy and correctly - in my opinion - claimed that where the name of YHWH was in the OT, then it was necessary to see their kyrios, their Lord, Jesus Christ... To give an example, I think that Thomas and Philip, when they heard the answer from Jesus (John 14:7-9), "He who sees me sees the Father," after the resurrection, Thomas wanted to "rationally" convince himself of the resurrection. To me, he is the prototype of the non-trinitarian. The Jews, immediately after the resurrection, let loose a rumor (Matt 28:15) that they had stolen Christ's body. So, a week later (John 20:26 - the eighth day), after the resurrection, it may not have been clear how it actually happened. So Thomas wanted to find out - he refused to think as he was being prescribed (or in later times would be prescribed). When Thomas was convinced, he knowingly said: "my Lord and my God". This, I believe, is the confession of the anti-Trinitarians: that Thomas, having received proof and rejected from the beginning rumors, obscure reports, or even truths, whether they came from reliable sources or not, then consciously asserted that Christ is Lord and God. The Savior is in the place of God. And this is precisely the confession Paul affirms in Phil 2:6: "He, in the μορφη of God, did not want to usurp that he should be equal with God. "* God the Father has indeed given everything to the Son, which is why - I think - Paul, by alluding to ancient plays about gods fighting each other for primacy, shows that the Son, did not abuse his position to destroy the Father. In Christianity comes an "expanded" offering: we can now address our prayers and worship solely and exclusively to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. But this does not detract from the fact that God the Father, who is himself in secret, also knows what we need when we pray to him or worship him.
**there is an interesting papyrus (SB 1,3924) which, I think, illustrates well the meaning of Paul's words. The edict is dated to 19 AD, and in it Germanicus refuses (what modesty! 😊 ) to be equal to the god ἰσοθέους because he derives his deity θειότητος from his parents and grandmother...
You are misinterpreting the term "mystery" in Catholic theology. Mystery does not mean something irrational (but suprarational), it is not such an obscure concept. Primarily, it means that it is a religious truth that could not be discovered without revelation, using pure reason alone. For example, we can find out that there is one unchanging and eternal God without any kind of revelation, in a logical-philosophical way, as Aristotle did. The Trinity is not the only mystery, so is the Incarnation itself, and there are a plenty of them. The First Vatican Council says:
"The Catholic Church, with one consent, has also ever held and does hold that there is a twofold order of knowledge distinct both in principle and also in object; in principle, because our knowledge in the one is by natural reason, and in the other by divine faith; in object, because, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely revealed, cannot be known. Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God is known by the Gentiles through created things, still, when discoursing of the grace and truth which come by Jesus Christ (John i. 17.), says: 'We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew … but to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.' (1 Cor. ii. 7-9.) And the only-begotten Son himself gives thanks to the Father, because he has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them to little ones (Matt. xi. 25.).
Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeks earnestly, piously, and calmly, attains by a gift from God some, and that a very fruitful, understanding of mysteries; partly from the analogy of those things which it naturally knows, partly from the relations which the mysteries bear to one another and to the last end of man; but reason never becomes capable of apprehending mysteries as it does those truths which constitute its proper object. For the divine mysteries by their own nature so far transcend the created intelligence that, even when delivered by revelation and received by faith, they remain covered with the veil of faith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of darkness, so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life, not yet with God; 'for we walk by faith and not by sight.'
But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind; and God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth..."
"If any one shall say that in divine revelation there are no mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly cultivated reason: let him be anathema."
By the way, it is not the Catholics who excel in arguing against JW theology, but the evangelicals. Catholic apologetics does not focus on JWs, but on Protestantism in general. From a Catholic point of view, JW is also "Protestant", since it follows the Jamnian Jewish and Protestant (short) canon of the OT and rejects the principle of ecclesiastical apostolic continuity and doctrinal tradition. Catholic apologetics primarily focuses to refute these principles, because if you have this, then you have essentially cut off the dragon's head, it is not vital to get into "biblical ping-pong" with regard to individual doctrines.
As for the Trinity specifically, the approach is flawed in that you want to build the pyramid not from its base, but from its top. The Trinity is only the ultimate, crystallized definition, and its approximate description. Don't deal with the Trinity until you have logically traced it back along the same trail as it arose chronologically in church history: the Nicene theology.
The Son was begotten/born of the Father, not created/made. Does the Son have a "beginning"? He has no beginning in time, His beginning (arkhe, principium, principle) is (in) the Father himself. The Son is real/true God, i.e. He has the fullness of the divine essence/substance, not a partially divine demiurge-like entity, somewhere halfway between the one almighty God and the created world. The fact that the Holy Spirit is a person and that it was different from the power/force of God was not a question for the Arians of the 4th century either.
If all this is clarified, only then we can proceed only logically to the question of reconciling the proposition that "there are several persons who can be said to be real God" with the principle that there is only one God. And this is the Trinity.
As for Philippians 2:6, your citation is wrong. "Harpagmos" in the Greek text here is not res rapienda ("did not want to usurp that he should" as you quote, etc.), but "res rapta et retinenda". The text does not speak of any kind of "usurpation", but rather that the Son did not consider/deem the equality with God to be "harpagmos". In other words, he did not consider it a stolen/robbed/abducted thing ("res rapta"). How do you deal with a looted thing, a booty? You want to keep it at all costs ("res retinenda"), as Gollum in LOTR clings to the One Ring ("my precious"). The text denies this miser attitude in Christ and recommends this humble willingness to sacrifice in our attention.
I certainly understand the word mystery in theology as a positive phenomenon�� Without mystery, there is no revelation. Or rather: without mystery, revelation would not be necessary. So, if I am talking about the truth(!) hidden in the mystery that concerns the Trinity, I don't think that is something irrational. There is a certain amount of truth and a certain amount of mystery. I don't know the exact ratio, between truth and mystery - for the RCC it is set by the Magisterium of the Church... I'm not Catholic, so I'm not bound by the dogmas of the RCC. To explain how I came to the RCC doctrine: once upon a time, it's been 20 years or more, I was having discussions with some friends and the Trinity came up as well. The dogma offered itself to me as a surface for an interesting provocation: how and what must be done to prove in a fair discussion (without personal insults and other fouls) that this dogma has internal contradictions in terms of the Bible and the RCC Magisterium. The way I assessed the problem at the time was that against a Catholic, one cannot argue from the Bible alone because he is not in the position of a Protestant (sola Scriptura). I don't remember exactly the details, it's really many years ago and it's not current for me - but at that time I said to myself that if you can't argue directly from the Bible, then the best way is to find some authoritative source, which - if there are contradictions in it - will be the first cube in the domino that will cause the others to fall... at that time I used some writings of Thomas Aquinas (Summa contra Gentiles, etc. ) and precisely his - on close examination - inconsistency in the use of words like: essentia, natura, substantia, "physis", "usia", "hypostasis", etc., ...simply made it possible to find a weak spot. Scholastic reasoning then, paradoxically, became the weakest point from which to argue from the Bible as well: if the Magisterium proved weak, then arguments from the Bible, were the final full stop...
We then even "turned the discussion around" by me starting to defend the Trinity: and indeed - I steadfastly remained on the position between truth and mystery. Any "attack" that was difficult for me to repel, I moved into the realm of the "mystery" of faith... But that time has passed. I realized then that religious disputes are of little importance. For myself(!) I have associated the Trinity with mystery and, above all, the fact that I, myself, do not need it for my salvation. I repeat: I, for my own salvation, do not need it. I do not deny to others, their different view. This attitude is also related to the fact that I understand the universality of salvation as something that, thanks to God's love, transcends human disputes. I admire the Renaissance Italian anti-Trinitarians, as well as their second or third generation Baroque successors. But I also know that many Trinitarians have suffered unjustly for their beliefs. I do not want to and am not a judge of the beliefs of others.
In fact, in Catholic theology, dogmas are always negative definitions, the Magisterium actually never says what to believe, but what heresy is. Dogmas are extreme values, similar to buoys in swimming, which mark the boundaries, but between them there is a wide enough band in which you have to swim.
In fact, this is the role and mission of the Church: to provide frameworks and systems, but not to define everything in detail. However, truth is not a quantitative (majority) issue. God knows very well the weaknesses of human nature (cf. quote from John Chrysostom), therefore he wanted to assure his people that if "disputes arise between brothers", there would be an authority that would not come from himself, but from God, and if He speaks in the name of God, then he surely teaches infallibly. This task is performed by the "organ" of the Catholic Church visible and functioning in human persons, the Magisterium.
Contradiction is never between dogma and the Bible, but rather between a certain INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And looking at the tens of thousands of Christian trends all created after the Protestant Reformation, "sola Scriptura", which sees the Bible practically as a "book thrown out from heaven", which God has given us, but is not guaranteed to be visible, recognizable institution that takes care of its decisive interpretation, does not prove to be a workable method.
And yes, the Catholic Magisterium is exactly like the role of the Supreme Court (constitutional court) in relation to the Constitution. You may have a very smart comment about the meaning of the constitution, but who cares? The Constitution actually contains what the Constitutional Court says it contains.
"inconsistency in the use of words like: essentia, natura, substantia, "physis", "usia", "hypostasis", etc."
This is not an inconsistency, but the fact that the human language and the human mind cannot fully grasp and describe God (because God is infinite), therefore all definitions of God are necessarily approximate, and the terminology is also necessarily imperfect. Therefore, Apophatic theology, which has its own deep truth, is more widespread in Eastern Orthodoxy.
The Magisterium of the Church is not the master/owner of revelation, but its guardian servant, similar to how the entire Church is not the master/owner, but the proclaimer of revelation. If a dispute arises about the revealed nature of a truth of faith, the Holy Spirit, through this service and office, confirms or rejects it due to divine assurance.
The word and promise of the Incarnate Word, revealed by the Holy Spirit, are authentically interpreted by the Church living in the Holy Spirit sent by the Word. This revelation concluded with the apostolic era; what Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit told them as revelation is passed on (paradosis, tradition), living in the Church by the same Holy Spirit. In this, Catholic and Protestant teachings do not differ. Protestants believe that all of it is found exclusively in the Holy Scriptures (sola Scriptura), while Catholics believe it is primarily a living word, a part of which is embodied in the inspired Holy Scriptures.
Although the entirety of revelation is an inexhaustible reality (as ultimately God Himself is the content and mystery of "the" revelation), it is still legitimate to ask how it becomes tangible and what constitutes the strictly apostolic Holy Tradition, and how it can be distinguished from traditions that change over time and space. The revealed Holy Tradition (as part of the Holy Scriptures) is understood by the Catholic faith as those truths about faith and morals passed on and preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit from the apostles, which are necessary for our salvation. These are certainly infallible truths of faith and morals. All of them are implicitly contained in the Holy Scriptures, which, according to our faith, are materially sufficient for their recognition. The entirety of the Holy Tradition is explicitly found in the daily proclamation of the word (kerygma) by the bishops in unity with the pope and in the liturgical life of the Church, which, according to our faith, is formally necessary for the recognition of true faith (orthodoxy) and right action (orthopraxis).
Fredriksen argues that the phrase "morphe theou" should be understood as "a god" rather than "God," implying a lower degree of divinity. In Greek, the phrase "morphe theou" does not require the article ("ho" in Greek) to imply the true God, especially in the context of Jewish monotheism, where the word "theos" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the one true God, not "a god." The absence of the article does not automatically mean that the reference is to a lesser god or a god-like being. Instead, "morphe theou" is best understood as denoting the divine nature or essence, indicating that Jesus possessed the very nature of God, not just a god-like status.
Fredriksen suggests that Paul is distinguishing between degrees of divinity, implying that Jesus is of a lesser divine status compared to God the Father. The context of Philippians 2:6-11 is crucial for understanding Paul's intention. Paul is highlighting the humility of Christ, who, despite possessing the full nature of God ("morphe theou"), chose not to cling to His divine privileges but instead emptied Himself by becoming human. The exaltation in verse 9 is not a promotion from a lesser divinity to a higher one but the recognition of Christ's voluntary humility and obedience. The passage underscores the unity and equality of Jesus with God rather than a hierarchy of divinity. Additionally, the idea of a hierarchy of divinity is foreign to Paul's theology. Paul consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine, co-equal with the Father. For example, in Colossians 2:9, Paul explicitly states that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." This affirms that Jesus is not a lesser divine being but fully embodies the divine nature.
Fredriksen's interpretation implies that Paul is making a distinction between Jesus and God in terms of divinity. The broader Pauline corpus does not support the idea of degrees of divinity or a distinction between "God" and "a god." Paul consistently identifies Jesus with the one true God, as seen in passages like Romans 9:5, where Paul refers to Christ as "God over all, forever praised." The theological implication of Fredriksen's argument would introduce a form of subordinationism, which is inconsistent with Paul's monotheistic framework and his high Christology.
Fredriksen draws attention to the use of "ho theos" (the God) in verse 9 to suggest a distinction between Jesus and God the Father. The use of "ho theos" in verse 9 refers to God the Father in the act of exalting Jesus, but this does not imply that Jesus is not fully divine. In Johannine literature, for instance, Jesus is explicitly called "ho theos" (e.g., John 20:28), showing that the presence or absence of the article does not necessarily imply a difference in divine status. Paul's use of "theos" without the article does not diminish Jesus' divinity but reflects the fluidity of Greek grammar, where the article is not always necessary to convey definiteness or divine identity.
Fredriksen's interpretation that Philippians 2:6 distinguishes Jesus as "a god" rather than "God" does not hold up when considering the linguistic, contextual, and theological evidence. Paul is not introducing a hierarchy of divinity but is affirming the full divinity of Christ, who, though possessing the very nature of God, chose humility and obedience, leading to His exaltation. The traditional understanding of "morphe theou" as referring to Jesus' divine nature, fully consistent with monotheistic theology, remains the most accurate interpretation of the text.
Fredricksens essay "How High?" On high Christology is great. The point she's making here is extremely important and sometimes ignored by exegetes: divinity comes in degrees.
ReplyDeleteI will try to take a broader view of the Holy Trinity. In my view, the dogma of the Trinity has a fundamental problem not in its claims (I am basing this on the Catholic definition of Trinitarian dogma) but in its implications. One of the fundamental implications, then, I see in the fact that God, who is one, in his "hypostasis", in God the Son, dies for 3 days. Again, there is not some 1/3 of God dying, because there are not three Gods, but one God.
ReplyDeleteThe way out of this dilemma that trinitarian dogma prepares is not easy: Paul, for example, criticizes those who claim that there is no resurrection. He argues that Christ died...so God must have been dead. Presumed death, or only partial death, are all long-rejected heresies...
I can surmise that the acceptance of the dogma, was a protective reaction by the Church, against heretics or "barbarians" who saw Jesus as a mere mortal man, a Jew who died and did not understand that he was truly God. But despite their best efforts, ecclesiastical authority prevailed with dogma...
My personal solution, is not that the dogma of the Trinity cannot be rationally understood (which is/may well be the answer), but that the dogma of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation, anyway, it is not some fundamental obstacle to salvation...(I understand it in the context of the universality of salvation).
On the other hand, critics of antitrinitarianism, then, often draw an equivalence between JWs and antitrinitarianism. But in my view, JWs, have chosen(?) only one of certain schools of thought within (modern) antitrinitarianism. Non-adorative antitrinitarianism is associated in the modern era with, for example, the name Ferenc David ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_D%C3%A1vid ), which again, is probably not the best choice.
If in liturgy (public prayers, songs, texts, etc., etc.) they cannot address their wishes, thanksgivings, complaints, etc., to Christ alone; if they cannot thank Christ alone for their salvation and always have to add the addendum that it was due to Jehovah, then this is - in my opinion - a misunderstanding of Christ's role. The implications of a theology of "not-worshipping" Christ can be as problematic as the Trinitarian dogma with the death of God. To give an example: the JWs argue that in the NT, in places of quotations from the OT where the Hebrew text in the OT has YHWH, it should not be the Greek "kyrios", but just YHWH. As for the translation of the NT, they refer to numerous translations of the NT which, according to this idea, translate "kyrios" as YHWH. OK, it's about translations. But they theologically go further, and here's the risk of claiming that there was a deliberate erasure of YHWH from the earliest NT texts and substitution of "kyrios". For this idea, they then refer to some fragments of the LXX, or the patristics with their Iαω, etc.
Despite all the logic of these considerations, where is the problem, where is the risk? First of all: we don't (yet) have any NT text to support this. If I dispute that there was deliberate manipulation of the text at an early stage of the account (but see the temporal and geographical plurality of the texts, which is very uniform), then the rest of the text becomes implausible as well. What if - for example - the text in Mat 24:4 should not read "parusia" but "coming in the flesh (flesh and bone)" (2 John 7)?
ReplyDeleteI ("christologically") believe that kyrios in the NT was intentional. That the writers deliberately, already in the originals, used the "new" term kyrios to emphasize that Jesus became incarnate - in the capacity of μορφη God, the Lord. The bodily coming of Christ, as a man, physically manifested the text Ex 23:20-21 "my name, it is in the midst of him". Christ is the bearer of the name of YHWH. By the resultant process of his being the rock from which they drank in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4), Jesus then declares: all power has been given to me (Matt 28:18).
This, of course, does not nullify the position of the Father. The Father is the true God, and Christ is the personified wisdom that was at creation. There was a time when Christ was not. So He has a beginning - to confirm what the Nicene Creed denies:-)
Therefore, Christ could say at the same time that "I and the Father are one", just as He said that "the Father is greater than I". From the very beginning He acted as YHWH, in His name, power and glory. That is why wherever there is a "Christological" YHWH, unity was newly(!) emphasized in the NT, and by a new title: kyrios. Removing kyrios and substituting it for YHWH is, in my opinion, a display of disrespect for the Son... And again: whether I read kyrios or Iαω in the NT has no bearing on salvation or reprobation. See the reference to the Samaritan: when the orthodox Jew asks him what to do to gain eternal life, then at the end of the parable, Jesus tells him "Go and do likewise!", or in the question of mercy and gaining eternal life(!), religiosity plays no role.
p.s. the gain of eternal life is merely a precursor to the gain of the right to reign with Christ in heaven...
@Boris
ReplyDelete"One of the fundamental implications, then, I see in the fact that God, who is one, in his "hypostasis", in God the Son, dies for 3 days."
However, according to Catholic doctrine, the Son is not "just" God since his Incarnation, but truly human. Before you start, you should read the Chalcedonian definition, the concept of hypostatic unity. In brief: all these descriptions (born, learned, feared, wept, died, resurrected, ascended, exalted) are understood to his human nature. Jesus did not die on the cross as God, but as a man. (Now, it is a separate issue that JWs also mean by the term "death" quite differently than Catholics: not annihilation, but separation.) Thus the key is Christ's dual nature. This is the absolute mystery, so we will never understand it.
As God, Jesus knew and knows the day of judgment, as a man he did not know.
(By the way, as a man, he could know it, because in the Gospel the "not even the Son" clause appears in a special way: the Son does not know the time, in the sense that his mission does not extend to communicating the time. Jesus' humanity had what is called infused knowledge/scientia infusa. He only knew infallibly as a man what was part of his mission, but at any time he could know anything as God, like Peter's tax money in the fish's stomach. Why? Because in him the Logos replaced the person.)
By the way, the dual nature raises many such questions:
Did Jesus die or not die? Since God never dies:
As God, Jesus is immortal, as a man he died for sinful humanity.
Did Jesus in his embryonic state know the time of his birth?
As an embryo, no, as God, yes.
MYSTERIUM ABSOLUTUM!!!
But let's not forget one thing! Everything is dual in Jesus, except for the person. The person is purely divine. The consequence of the personal unity realized in Christ is the interchangeability of properties (communicatio idiomatum). In Christ, the two natures are united in such a way that they do not mix, do not change, but retain all their own characteristics. This, and the emphasis on the uniqueness of Jesus, however, leads to another dogma: there is only one person in Christ, namely the divine person, the Word, since it has existed from eternity, it assumed human nature, and not vice versa.
Thus, in Jesus, the Word fulfills the role of the person, because the duality of nature in Jesus did not result in two persons. (This would be a split personality.) The Bible attributes divine and human properties to the same person. The two natures thus exist in one person. This leads to the interchangeability of properties, that is, what I assert about Jesus Christ as God is also true for Christ as man, and vice versa, since the ultimate subject of the properties of the two natures is identical.
In this regard, there are four rules:
1. Divine properties can be attributed to Jesus named as a man, and human properties to Christ named as God.
2. It is forbidden to do this with emphasizing duality (reduplicative formaliter) (e.g., the man Christ as a man is omnipresent, or the Word as the Word suffered), or to interchange abstractly named properties (e.g.: The omnipotence lies in the manger).
3. The statements must not be exclusively or negatively formulated (e.g., The Son of God did not suffer, or Jesus is only mortal).
4. Exceptions are what has become customary in liturgical practice or at the level of everyday religiosity understood by everyone (e.g., “Righteousness was condemned to death.”), and thus understandable to everyone. Therefore, from the teaching of the interchangeability of properties, it follows that the same adoration is due to the Son of God as to Jesus the man, and that Christ's humanity is worthy of adoration (worship).
As for Paula Fredriksen's quote, she at least practically recognizes that "harpagmos" here is not "res rapienda" but "res rapta et retinenda" ;)
ReplyDelete@Nincsnevem
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's any dispute between us. What you are describing is an interpretation of the text, of the Chalcedon Confession, and you end with what has become crucial for me personally: The Trinity of God is a truth hidden in mystery that cannot, even after it is revealed, be interpreted in any rational way. The Chalcedonian Creed, however, also simultaneously "forbids" one to think or teach otherwise.
Personally, I have said that if a discussion on the subject of the Trinity ends up being a mystery, then the whole dogma can be called a mystery. The RCC's successful defense against questioning the Trinity (Protestants have been less successful with their "sola scriptura") is the reason for my claim that RCC-dogma is not necessary. Ockaham's razor is beginning to apply: Trinitarianism is a non-forced multiplication of entities😊
So I am inclined to believe that there is a revealed subordination in the Bible: the Father is greater than the Son. The Father has no beginning, the Son has a beginning. But at the same time, the Father has handed everything over to the Son. In the Son, then, is the name of YHWH. Therefore, digressing to JWs-theology: when the kyrios appeared in the LXX (LXX-family of translations) in place of YHWH, and this substitution in translation was made for whatever reason, then Christians took advantage of this "unwitting" prophecy and correctly - in my opinion - claimed that where the name of YHWH was in the OT, then it was necessary to see their kyrios, their Lord, Jesus Christ...
To give an example, I think that Thomas and Philip, when they heard the answer from Jesus (John 14:7-9), "He who sees me sees the Father," after the resurrection, Thomas wanted to "rationally" convince himself of the resurrection. To me, he is the prototype of the non-trinitarian. The Jews, immediately after the resurrection, let loose a rumor (Matt 28:15) that they had stolen Christ's body. So, a week later (John 20:26 - the eighth day), after the resurrection, it may not have been clear how it actually happened. So Thomas wanted to find out - he refused to think as he was being prescribed (or in later times would be prescribed). When Thomas was convinced, he knowingly said: "my Lord and my God".
This, I believe, is the confession of the anti-Trinitarians: that Thomas, having received proof and rejected from the beginning rumors, obscure reports, or even truths, whether they came from reliable sources or not, then consciously asserted that Christ is Lord and God. The Savior is in the place of God. And this is precisely the confession Paul affirms in Phil 2:6: "He, in the μορφη of God, did not want to usurp that he should be equal with God. "* God the Father has indeed given everything to the Son, which is why - I think - Paul, by alluding to ancient plays about gods fighting each other for primacy, shows that the Son, did not abuse his position to destroy the Father. In Christianity comes an "expanded" offering: we can now address our prayers and worship solely and exclusively to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. But this does not detract from the fact that God the Father, who is himself in secret, also knows what we need when we pray to him or worship him.
**there is an interesting papyrus (SB 1,3924) which, I think, illustrates well the meaning of Paul's words. The edict is dated to 19 AD, and in it Germanicus refuses (what modesty! 😊 ) to be equal to the god ἰσοθέους because he derives his deity θειότητος from his parents and grandmother...
@Boris
ReplyDeleteYou are misinterpreting the term "mystery" in Catholic theology. Mystery does not mean something irrational (but suprarational), it is not such an obscure concept. Primarily, it means that it is a religious truth that could not be discovered without revelation, using pure reason alone. For example, we can find out that there is one unchanging and eternal God without any kind of revelation, in a logical-philosophical way, as Aristotle did. The Trinity is not the only mystery, so is the Incarnation itself, and there are a plenty of them. The First Vatican Council says:
"The Catholic Church, with one consent, has also ever held and does hold that there is a twofold order of knowledge distinct both in principle and also in object; in principle, because our knowledge in the one is by natural reason, and in the other by divine faith; in object, because, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed to our belief mysteries hidden in God, which, unless divinely revealed, cannot be known. Wherefore, the Apostle, who testifies that God is known by the Gentiles through created things, still, when discoursing of the grace and truth which come by Jesus Christ (John i. 17.), says: 'We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world unto our glory; which none of the princes of this world knew … but to us God hath revealed them by his Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.' (1 Cor. ii. 7-9.) And the only-begotten Son himself gives thanks to the Father, because he has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and has revealed them to little ones (Matt. xi. 25.).
Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeks earnestly, piously, and calmly, attains by a gift from God some, and that a very fruitful, understanding of mysteries; partly from the analogy of those things which it naturally knows, partly from the relations which the mysteries bear to one another and to the last end of man; but reason never becomes capable of apprehending mysteries as it does those truths which constitute its proper object. For the divine mysteries by their own nature so far transcend the created intelligence that, even when delivered by revelation and received by faith, they remain covered with the veil of faith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree of darkness, so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life, not yet with God; 'for we walk by faith and not by sight.'
But although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind; and God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth..."
"If any one shall say that in divine revelation there are no mysteries, truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly cultivated reason: let him be anathema."
By the way, it is not the Catholics who excel in arguing against JW theology, but the evangelicals. Catholic apologetics does not focus on JWs, but on Protestantism in general. From a Catholic point of view, JW is also "Protestant", since it follows the Jamnian Jewish and Protestant (short) canon of the OT and rejects the principle of ecclesiastical apostolic continuity and doctrinal tradition. Catholic apologetics primarily focuses to refute these principles, because if you have this, then you have essentially cut off the dragon's head, it is not vital to get into "biblical ping-pong" with regard to individual doctrines.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Trinity specifically, the approach is flawed in that you want to build the pyramid not from its base, but from its top. The Trinity is only the ultimate, crystallized definition, and its approximate description. Don't deal with the Trinity until you have logically traced it back along the same trail as it arose chronologically in church history: the Nicene theology.
The Son was begotten/born of the Father, not created/made. Does the Son have a "beginning"? He has no beginning in time, His beginning (arkhe, principium, principle) is (in) the Father himself. The Son is real/true God, i.e. He has the fullness of the divine essence/substance, not a partially divine demiurge-like entity, somewhere halfway between the one almighty God and the created world. The fact that the Holy Spirit is a person and that it was different from the power/force of God was not a question for the Arians of the 4th century either.
If all this is clarified, only then we can proceed only logically to the question of reconciling the proposition that "there are several persons who can be said to be real God" with the principle that there is only one God. And this is the Trinity.
As for Philippians 2:6, your citation is wrong. "Harpagmos" in the Greek text here is not res rapienda ("did not want to usurp that he should" as you quote, etc.), but "res rapta et retinenda". The text does not speak of any kind of "usurpation", but rather that the Son did not consider/deem the equality with God to be "harpagmos". In other words, he did not consider it a stolen/robbed/abducted thing ("res rapta"). How do you deal with a looted thing, a booty? You want to keep it at all costs ("res retinenda"), as Gollum in LOTR clings to the One Ring ("my precious"). The text denies this miser attitude in Christ and recommends this humble willingness to sacrifice in our attention.
It looks like my preferred rendering of μορφῇ Θεοῦ is catching on:-)
ReplyDelete@Nincsnevem
ReplyDeleteI certainly understand the word mystery in theology as a positive phenomenon�� Without mystery, there is no revelation. Or rather: without mystery, revelation would not be necessary. So, if I am talking about the truth(!) hidden in the mystery that concerns the Trinity, I don't think that is something irrational. There is a certain amount of truth and a certain amount of mystery. I don't know the exact ratio, between truth and mystery - for the RCC it is set by the Magisterium of the Church...
I'm not Catholic, so I'm not bound by the dogmas of the RCC. To explain how I came to the RCC doctrine: once upon a time, it's been 20 years or more, I was having discussions with some friends and the Trinity came up as well. The dogma offered itself to me as a surface for an interesting provocation: how and what must be done to prove in a fair discussion (without personal insults and other fouls) that this dogma has internal contradictions in terms of the Bible and the RCC Magisterium. The way I assessed the problem at the time was that against a Catholic, one cannot argue from the Bible alone because he is not in the position of a Protestant (sola Scriptura).
I don't remember exactly the details, it's really many years ago and it's not current for me - but at that time I said to myself that if you can't argue directly from the Bible, then the best way is to find some authoritative source, which - if there are contradictions in it - will be the first cube in the domino that will cause the others to fall... at that time I used some writings of Thomas Aquinas (Summa contra Gentiles, etc. ) and precisely his - on close examination - inconsistency in the use of words like: essentia, natura, substantia, "physis", "usia", "hypostasis", etc., ...simply made it possible to find a weak spot. Scholastic reasoning then, paradoxically, became the weakest point from which to argue from the Bible as well: if the Magisterium proved weak, then arguments from the Bible, were the final full stop...
We then even "turned the discussion around" by me starting to defend the Trinity: and indeed - I steadfastly remained on the position between truth and mystery. Any "attack" that was difficult for me to repel, I moved into the realm of the "mystery" of faith...
But that time has passed. I realized then that religious disputes are of little importance. For myself(!) I have associated the Trinity with mystery and, above all, the fact that I, myself, do not need it for my salvation. I repeat: I, for my own salvation, do not need it. I do not deny to others, their different view. This attitude is also related to the fact that I understand the universality of salvation as something that, thanks to God's love, transcends human disputes. I admire the Renaissance Italian anti-Trinitarians, as well as their second or third generation Baroque successors. But I also know that many Trinitarians have suffered unjustly for their beliefs. I do not want to and am not a judge of the beliefs of others.
@Boris
ReplyDeleteIn fact, in Catholic theology, dogmas are always negative definitions, the Magisterium actually never says what to believe, but what heresy is. Dogmas are extreme values, similar to buoys in swimming, which mark the boundaries, but between them there is a wide enough band in which you have to swim.
In fact, this is the role and mission of the Church: to provide frameworks and systems, but not to define everything in detail. However, truth is not a quantitative (majority) issue. God knows very well the weaknesses of human nature (cf. quote from John Chrysostom), therefore he wanted to assure his people that if "disputes arise between brothers", there would be an authority that would not come from himself, but from God, and if He speaks in the name of God, then he surely teaches infallibly. This task is performed by the "organ" of the Catholic Church visible and functioning in human persons, the Magisterium.
Contradiction is never between dogma and the Bible, but rather between a certain INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And looking at the tens of thousands of Christian trends all created after the Protestant Reformation, "sola Scriptura", which sees the Bible practically as a "book thrown out from heaven", which God has given us, but is not guaranteed to be visible, recognizable institution that takes care of its decisive interpretation, does not prove to be a workable method.
And yes, the Catholic Magisterium is exactly like the role of the Supreme Court (constitutional court) in relation to the Constitution. You may have a very smart comment about the meaning of the constitution, but who cares? The Constitution actually contains what the Constitutional Court says it contains.
"inconsistency in the use of words like: essentia, natura, substantia, "physis", "usia", "hypostasis", etc."
This is not an inconsistency, but the fact that the human language and the human mind cannot fully grasp and describe God (because God is infinite), therefore all definitions of God are necessarily approximate, and the terminology is also necessarily imperfect. Therefore, Apophatic theology, which has its own deep truth, is more widespread in Eastern Orthodoxy.
The Magisterium of the Church is not the master/owner of revelation, but its guardian servant, similar to how the entire Church is not the master/owner, but the proclaimer of revelation. If a dispute arises about the revealed nature of a truth of faith, the Holy Spirit, through this service and office, confirms or rejects it due to divine assurance.
ReplyDeleteThe word and promise of the Incarnate Word, revealed by the Holy Spirit, are authentically interpreted by the Church living in the Holy Spirit sent by the Word. This revelation concluded with the apostolic era; what Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit told them as revelation is passed on (paradosis, tradition), living in the Church by the same Holy Spirit. In this, Catholic and Protestant teachings do not differ. Protestants believe that all of it is found exclusively in the Holy Scriptures (sola Scriptura), while Catholics believe it is primarily a living word, a part of which is embodied in the inspired Holy Scriptures.
Although the entirety of revelation is an inexhaustible reality (as ultimately God Himself is the content and mystery of "the" revelation), it is still legitimate to ask how it becomes tangible and what constitutes the strictly apostolic Holy Tradition, and how it can be distinguished from traditions that change over time and space. The revealed Holy Tradition (as part of the Holy Scriptures) is understood by the Catholic faith as those truths about faith and morals passed on and preserved in the Church by the Holy Spirit from the apostles, which are necessary for our salvation. These are certainly infallible truths of faith and morals. All of them are implicitly contained in the Holy Scriptures, which, according to our faith, are materially sufficient for their recognition. The entirety of the Holy Tradition is explicitly found in the daily proclamation of the word (kerygma) by the bishops in unity with the pope and in the liturgical life of the Church, which, according to our faith, is formally necessary for the recognition of true faith (orthodoxy) and right action (orthopraxis).
Fredriksen argues that the phrase "morphe theou" should be understood as "a god" rather than "God," implying a lower degree of divinity. In Greek, the phrase "morphe theou" does not require the article ("ho" in Greek) to imply the true God, especially in the context of Jewish monotheism, where the word "theos" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the one true God, not "a god." The absence of the article does not automatically mean that the reference is to a lesser god or a god-like being. Instead, "morphe theou" is best understood as denoting the divine nature or essence, indicating that Jesus possessed the very nature of God, not just a god-like status.
ReplyDeleteFredriksen suggests that Paul is distinguishing between degrees of divinity, implying that Jesus is of a lesser divine status compared to God the Father. The context of Philippians 2:6-11 is crucial for understanding Paul's intention. Paul is highlighting the humility of Christ, who, despite possessing the full nature of God ("morphe theou"), chose not to cling to His divine privileges but instead emptied Himself by becoming human. The exaltation in verse 9 is not a promotion from a lesser divinity to a higher one but the recognition of Christ's voluntary humility and obedience. The passage underscores the unity and equality of Jesus with God rather than a hierarchy of divinity. Additionally, the idea of a hierarchy of divinity is foreign to Paul's theology. Paul consistently portrays Jesus as fully divine, co-equal with the Father. For example, in Colossians 2:9, Paul explicitly states that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." This affirms that Jesus is not a lesser divine being but fully embodies the divine nature.
Fredriksen's interpretation implies that Paul is making a distinction between Jesus and God in terms of divinity. The broader Pauline corpus does not support the idea of degrees of divinity or a distinction between "God" and "a god." Paul consistently identifies Jesus with the one true God, as seen in passages like Romans 9:5, where Paul refers to Christ as "God over all, forever praised." The theological implication of Fredriksen's argument would introduce a form of subordinationism, which is inconsistent with Paul's monotheistic framework and his high Christology.
Fredriksen draws attention to the use of "ho theos" (the God) in verse 9 to suggest a distinction between Jesus and God the Father. The use of "ho theos" in verse 9 refers to God the Father in the act of exalting Jesus, but this does not imply that Jesus is not fully divine. In Johannine literature, for instance, Jesus is explicitly called "ho theos" (e.g., John 20:28), showing that the presence or absence of the article does not necessarily imply a difference in divine status. Paul's use of "theos" without the article does not diminish Jesus' divinity but reflects the fluidity of Greek grammar, where the article is not always necessary to convey definiteness or divine identity.
Fredriksen's interpretation that Philippians 2:6 distinguishes Jesus as "a god" rather than "God" does not hold up when considering the linguistic, contextual, and theological evidence. Paul is not introducing a hierarchy of divinity but is affirming the full divinity of Christ, who, though possessing the very nature of God, chose humility and obedience, leading to His exaltation. The traditional understanding of "morphe theou" as referring to Jesus' divine nature, fully consistent with monotheistic theology, remains the most accurate interpretation of the text.
Wulfila's (mis)translation of Philippians 2:6
ReplyDeletehttps://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110192858.1.208/pdf
http://www.wulfila.be/gothic/browse/token/?ID=T55060
He translated "isa" (equal) as "galeiko", which mean similar...