Someone has asked me whether Romans 10:13 references Jehovah or does it apply to Jesus, thus identifying him as Jehovah (the Son). The verse is contentious: numerous theologians and Bible commentators take the position that Romans 10:13 is a proof-text for the Trinity doctrine or Deity of Christ. Therefore, I will quote two commentators on this passage:
Joseph Fitzmyer (Romans, page 593): "13. 'For everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' Paul quotes Joel 3:5 (2:32F) according to the LXX, which corresponds to the MT and where sothesetai renders Hebrew yimmalet. In the original context the prophet speaks of the awesome day of the Lord, when deliverance and survival will come to those who invoke Yahweh. Paul applies the title to his Kyrios. In the OT those who 'call upon the name of the Lord' denoted sincere and pious Israelites; in the NT it is transferred to Christians ( 1 Cor 1 :2). Verses 12-13 thus become an eloquent witness to the early church's worship of Christ as Kyrios. The adj. pas with which the quotation begins echoes that introduced by Paul into the quotation in [Romans] 10:11."
James D.G. Dunn (Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, pages 104-105 ): "One striking example is the passage just cited - Romans 10.9-13. The passage concludes by quoting Joel 2.32:29 'for everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Rom. 10.13 ). Now in Joel 2.32 'the Lord' is obviously Yahweh. But equally obviously in Romans 10.9-13 'the Lord' is the Lord confessed with the lips -'Jesus is Lord.' The salvation of which Joel spoke is promised to those who confess Jesus as Lord. He is the Lord upon whose name those who believe in Jesus call. As already pointed out in Chapter 1, the fact that Paul thought of his readership in these terms is confirmed by his description of believers in the opening of his first letter to the Corinthians, as 'all those who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Cor. 1.2). The calling of which Joel spoke is a calling on God to exercise his saving power on behalf of the remnant of Israel. So the fact that Paul refers the same verse to the exalted Jesus presumably means for Paul either that Jesus is Yahweh,30 or, more likely, that Yahweh has bestowed his own unique saving power on the Lord who sits on his right side,31 or that the exalted Jesus is himself the embodiment as well as the executive of that saving power."
Sunday, January 21, 2024
Romans 10:13--Jehovah or Jesus?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Literally the shiliach principle
Rendering the Divine Name in Romans 10:13
https://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ids/v54n1/31.pdf
Thanks, nincsnevem. I've got that paper, and it's scholarly, but the claims and conclusion of the paper is predictable. At any rate, I don't fixate on the reading at Rom. 10:13. Even if curios is the original reading, does that prove Jesus is God?
As Anonymous notes, shaliach could be in play.
Good stuff!
The texts that say “Jesus is lord” in English do not say that in the Greek - they say “ lord Jesus Christ”
Lord can in now say be used to identify Jesus with God ( get over 1 Corin 2:16 for a start)
Unless you want to take the same position as some who say Paul applied the shema to both Christ and God in 1 Corin 8:6 - which is untrue for a start nothing in the context would suggest Paul is quoting the shema and secondly he inverts it..
I could go into more detail later, but I agree that Paul is not invoking or alluding to the shema. However, with the constructions in Greek you mention, it's good to remember that Greek is highly elliptical and with the Jesus kurios constructs, we're dealing with subject-predicate constructions. Hence, the Jesus is Lord translation. But it still does not prove Jesus is Almighty God.
The reason I bring that up is it’s a similar principle to the scripture you cited - would love your thoughts tho- the inversion of the words is a big one imo, I know of no instance where a quote is inverted ( compare John 20:28)
Tho I think shiliach is in play as that one commentator points out, Paul’s context would basically force that conclusion unless you omit context ( which is done selectively anyway)
And I’m just using my trump card for the divine name issue, because no body has been able to actually answer that question yet with a proper answer ( I don’t classify theologically motivated rubbish an answer) Why the variance? If the name wasn’t originally used..
We know that calling on the name of someone requires you to literally say the name.. however The king in psalms is also addressed as God, likely with shiliach in mind - does that make the king God? No but according to philo it could make someone” a god” ( divinity has nothing to do with being a god)
Hey Anonymous, I would like to understand what you're saying a little better about the inversion and quotes. We know that Greek often inverts order and it omits verbs, which have to be supplied by the reader. So, when you cite John 20:28, are you saying that Greek does not invert words when someone is being quoted by a writer where John quotes Jesus, or do you mean when NT writers quote OT books? 1 Cor. 12:3 is quoting/alluding to what someone might say. Thanks.
As for the shaliach principle, I agree. On 1 Cor. 2:16, the jury is still out for me.
Iv done deeper diggin since then ( any resources for any subject would be appreciated) but if you read here: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html?m=1
You will note there is a parallel in the OT where the order is inverted
“when you cite John 20:28, are you saying that Greek does not invert words when someone is being quoted by a writer where John quotes Jesus, or do you mean when NT writers quote OT books?” - I mean when they quote OT books I know of no direct quote that is inverted ( not a paraphrase or allusation)
I am not saying John 20:28 is a quote however my point remains that if the shema is in view I would think it very unlikely Paul would invert the words
http://chivchalov.blogspot.com/2020/10/name.html
Appreciate the links and I understand what you're saying about inversion. I might look further into this issue one day, but from past studies, I know that quotes in the NT from the OT can get tricky.
See also the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the Yaoel angel, or Metatron from 3 Enoch.
The name of Yahweh can be assigned, and often was, to a subordinate being to represent his acting on God's behalf.
The logic of the argument seems a bit strained, and to me it shows how one's presuppositions can influence one's judgment. It's worth noting the fact that Paul didn't seem to share the modern trinitarian presupposition, and so it's anachronistic to interpret him as though he did.
Setting aside the YHWH texts, whenever we see an OT text about a person or thing applied to Jesus, this is never done to literally identify Jesus as that person or thing. A text that applied to Israel is applied to Jesus, does that mean that Jesus literally a nation? Texts that applied to David and Solomon are applied to Jesus, does that mean that Jesus is David and Solomon? Post-Apostolic Christians like to apply Isa. 9:6 to Jesus, which probably originally applied to Hezekiah. Does anyone think that Jesus is literally Hezekiah? At 11QMelch in the DSS a text that applies to God in the OT is fulfilled by Melchizedek. Does that mean that Melchizedek was thought to be a person of a multi-personal being? I see no evidence of that.
Something like this seems to go on in the mind of the trinitarian, though perhaps subconsciously:
1. Trinity is necessarily true.
2. Verses A, B, C., etc., could be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with or supportive of that doctrine.
3. Since Trinity is necessarily true, the interpretations that are consistent with or supportive of that doctrine must be correct.
4. Verses A, B, C, etc., are strong evidence that the Trinity is true.
Trinity seems to be presuppositional in a sort of Van Til-lian sense. It is brought to the biblical texts and shapes how they are understood by "orthodox" Christians.
~Sean
I think you're on point, Sean. See https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/christological-and-trinitarian-principles-and-rules-for-exegesis/
"Scripture speaks both of what is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and of what is proper to each person, reflecting the conceptual distinction between the divine nature and the divine persons. Biblical reasoning discerns this distinction, upholds it, and contemplates the Holy Trinity in its light. Therefore, read Scripture’s discourse about God in such a way that its twofold discourse—the common and the proper—is recognized and employed, rather than in a way that collapses the two ways into one. In this way, we learn to count persons rather than natures."
Melchizedek’s birthdate and death is never stated in the bible - does that make him God, uncreated - not human?
( I’m obviously exaggerating, you get my point)
Edgar,
Interesting, as that's essentially saying that one should come to Scripture with a proper "orthodox" understanding of Trinity in place and read Scripture through that prism.
Yep, trinitarianism is presuppositional in character. This would mean that it's also non-falsifiable, which typically isn't thought to be a point in favor of a theory.
~Sean
"Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?"
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html
Interesting paper Ninc - however it definitely leaves off one important point if not more
Too my knowledge latuero, the word that actually means worship is never used exclusively of Christ/ logos. It occurs in Rev however context dictates why Christ receives it, not for being God the creator ( or possessor) of all things but because of his sacrifice.
Proskenueo doesn’t always mean full worship in the NT- Mathew 20:20 for starters ( yes that counts)
Here are two interesting articles I came across. Both will need to be translated into English.
*Is it true that the first Christians testified only about Christ?
https://jwapologetica.blogspot.com/2019/09/blog-post_8.html
*Romans 10:13. Is Jehovah Jesus?
https://jwapologetica.blogspot.com/2015/11/1013.html
This had to be translated from Polish to English but it provides interesting information on Romans 10:13.👇🏾
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dP_kMk7BIc6797MrH04vfMWf3JwA4lP_/view?usp=drivesdk
Post a Comment