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)
25 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
Romans 10:9-13 is part of a passage where Paul discusses salvation, confession, and belief in Jesus Christ. He states that if someone confesses "Jesus is Lord" and believes that God raised him from the dead, they will be saved (Rom. 10:9). The term "Lord" here is applied directly to Jesus. Paul then quotes Joel 2:32 (Joel 3:5 in the MT) in Romans 10:13: “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
In Joel, the “Lord” clearly refers to Yahweh (Jehovah). However, Paul applies this passage to Jesus, identifying Him as the "Lord" upon whose name believers are to call for salvation. The context suggests that Paul is not confusing Jesus with Jehovah but is deliberately using the title "Lord" (Kyrios) to show that Jesus shares in the divine authority and power that belong to Yahweh.
Paul's use of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13 is not arbitrary. The New Testament frequently applies Old Testament passages referring to Yahweh to Jesus, reflecting the early Christian belief in Jesus' divinity. This is part of what scholars call "Christological re-reading" of the Hebrew Scriptures, where the divine attributes and titles of Yahweh are applied to Jesus as part of His exaltation.
For example, Philippians 2:9-11 echoes Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares that "to me every knee shall bow." Paul applies this passage to Jesus, stating that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Kyrios), to the glory of God the Father." Here, Paul is not diminishing Yahweh's role but is showing that Jesus shares in the divine authority and honor due to Yahweh.
Joseph Fitzmyer and James D.G. Dunn both highlight that the early Christian community worshiped Jesus as "Kyrios," which was a direct continuation of Jewish reverence for Yahweh. The early Christians, who were primarily Jewish, would not have taken the use of “Kyrios” lightly. For them, the use of this title in relation to Jesus indicated that Jesus was not a mere creature but shared in the divine identity.
James Dunn notes that Paul’s application of Joel 2:32 to Jesus in Romans 10:13 reflects that Jesus is the Lord whom believers must call upon for salvation. This is a strong indication that, in Paul's view, Jesus embodies the saving power of Yahweh and that invoking Jesus' name is tantamount to invoking Yahweh’s name. Dunn further notes that Paul does not merely identify Jesus as Yahweh but also sees Jesus as the one through whom Yahweh's saving power is manifested.
Some argue that when Paul applies passages referring to Yahweh to Jesus, it does not necessarily mean that Paul equated Jesus with Yahweh in identity but rather that Yahweh's saving power operates through Jesus. However, this creates a false dichotomy. In the theology of the New Testament, Jesus is frequently presented as the incarnate Word of God, the divine Son who shares in the nature and identity of God while also being distinct as a person of the Trinity.
For instance, in John 1:1-3, Jesus (the Word) is described as being with God and being God. Similarly, in Hebrews 1:8, Jesus is addressed as God (Theos) by the Father Himself. In such passages, Jesus is not merely functioning as an agent of Yahweh; rather, He participates in the divine nature itself. Paul’s use of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13 reflects this understanding: calling on the name of Jesus is not only acknowledging His role as God's agent but also recognizing His divine identity.
The theological implications of Romans 10:13 are significant. By applying Joel 2:32 to Jesus, Paul does not diminish Yahweh but instead affirms the divine status of Jesus. Paul sees no contradiction in applying Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus because, in his Christology, Jesus is the divine Son, fully participating in the identity and work of Yahweh. This fits within the broader New Testament pattern where Old Testament references to Yahweh are applied to Jesus to affirm His divine nature.
The Watchtower’s interpretation, which insists that "Jehovah" should be inserted in place of “Lord” (Kyrios) in Romans 10:13, misunderstands Paul’s Christology. Paul’s application of this passage to Jesus does not undermine the unique role of Yahweh; instead, it reflects the early Christian belief that Jesus shares in the divine nature and that salvation is found in Him.
Romans 10:13 clearly applies Joel 2:32 to Jesus, identifying Him as the one upon whose name believers must call for salvation. This application is consistent with the New Testament’s teaching that Jesus is the divine Son, sharing in the identity and work of Yahweh. The argument that Paul is merely applying Yahweh’s saving power to Jesus without affirming His divinity is unsustainable in light of the broader New Testament witness. Thus, Romans 10:13 affirms both the deity of Christ and the unity of Jesus with Yahweh in the economy of salvation.
The claim that Greek texts do not say "Jesus is Lord" but rather "Lord Jesus Christ" is true in a technical sense, as many Greek constructions involve the title "Lord" (κύριος) directly preceding the name "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς). For example, Romans 10:9 states: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (κύριον Ἰησοῦν) and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The phrase can be translated as “Lord Jesus,” but the subject-predicate relationship inherent in the Greek phrase effectively means, "Jesus is Lord."
Greek is indeed a highly flexible language that can often omit explicit verbs, which the reader must infer from context. In passages such as Romans 10:9, the grammatical construction makes it clear that Paul is asserting the Lordship of Jesus. This usage is consistent with Paul's broader theology, which identifies Jesus as the Lord (Kyrios) whom Christians confess and worship.
Thus, the phrase "Jesus is Lord" in translation is entirely justified based on the Greek construction. The notion that this translation does not “prove” that Jesus is Almighty God is not a linguistic issue but a theological one. The interpretation of these passages, as identifying Jesus with Yahweh (Jehovah), depends on the broader context of Pauline theology and the way the New Testament applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus.
The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) is a central declaration of Jewish monotheism: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." Some scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, have argued that Paul is deliberately reworking the Shema in 1 Corinthians 8:6 to include both the Father and Jesus within the identity of the one God of Israel. In this verse, Paul writes: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."
The objection claims that Paul is not invoking the Shema and that Paul inverts the structure, thus undermining any allusion to it. However, many scholars argue that Paul’s intention is to integrate Jesus into the divine identity by associating Him with the "one Lord" of the Shema. The structure does not need to be a verbatim repetition for it to be an intentional reference. In fact, Paul’s use of “one God” and “one Lord” in parallel shows that he is bringing Jesus into the divine framework established by Jewish monotheism. The “inversion” is not an issue, as Paul is not merely quoting the Shema but reinterpreting it in light of Christ's identity as the exalted Lord.
The context of 1 Corinthians 8 is also important. Paul contrasts the many so-called gods and lords in the pagan world with the true God and the true Lord. In doing so, he affirms monotheism while identifying Jesus with the unique Lordship that belongs to God. This strongly suggests that Paul saw Jesus as fully participating in the divine identity, not as a subordinate agent but as the divine Son who shares in God’s creative and redemptive work.
The objection claims that when Old Testament passages are applied to Jesus, they do not literally identify Jesus with the original subject (such as Yahweh) but are instead typological applications. For example, texts about Israel or David are applied to Jesus without implying that Jesus is literally Israel or David.
However, this line of argument does not fully account for the way the New Testament uniquely applies passages about Yahweh to Jesus. Take Romans 10:13, which quotes Joel 2:32: “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved.” Paul applies this verse directly to Jesus, indicating that calling on Jesus' name is the means of salvation. This is not a mere typological application but a significant identification of Jesus with the Lord (Yahweh) of the Old Testament.
Similarly, passages like Philippians 2:9-11, which echo Isaiah 45:23 ("To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance"), apply to Jesus what was originally spoken of Yahweh. In these contexts, the New Testament writers are not simply using Jesus as a typological fulfillment of Old Testament figures; they are recognizing Jesus as sharing in the divine identity and status of Yahweh.
The objection mentions the shaliach principle, the Jewish concept of agency, where an agent (shaliach) acts on behalf of the one who sent him. This concept is often used to argue that Jesus is merely God's agent and not God Himself.
While the shaliach principle is relevant in certain contexts (e.g., Jesus is sent by the Father), the New Testament presents Jesus as more than a mere agent. Jesus is depicted as possessing divine attributes, receiving worship, and performing works that only God can do (e.g., forgiving sins, raising the dead, etc.). The New Testament writers consistently ascribe to Jesus titles, roles, and honors that in a Jewish context would only be appropriate for Yahweh.
For instance, in John 20:28, Thomas addresses the risen Jesus as "My Lord and my God" (ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). This declaration goes beyond the shaliach principle and identifies Jesus directly with God.
The final point raised concerns the use of the divine name (Yahweh) in the Old Testament and its supposed absence in the New Testament. The argument suggests that if the divine name was originally used in the New Testament, it was later removed and replaced with "Lord" (Kyrios).
However, there is no manuscript evidence to support the claim that the divine name (YHWH) was ever used in the New Testament writings. All extant New Testament manuscripts use Kyrios (Lord) in passages that quote the Old Testament references to Yahweh. This consistent usage of Kyrios reflects the early Christian understanding that Jesus is the Kyrios (Lord) who shares in the divine name and authority.
Furthermore, the early Christian practice of calling upon the name of Jesus, as seen in Romans 10:13 and other passages, reflects the belief that Jesus bears the divine name in His role as the exalted Lord.
Post a Comment