When commenting on the Greek of 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6, Clarence T. Craig observes that for the first century writer of Corinthians: “only one is really God, the Father of all, who is the Creator and consummation of all things” (Craig “Interpreter’s” 93-94). Craig further elucidates this point, noting:
Paul chose his prepositions [ex and dia] carefully in order to distinguish between God the Father, who is the ultimate source of creation, and Christ, the Lord, through whom [dia] this activity takes place . . . it is perfectly clear what Paul wants to affirm. Neither Caesar nor Isis is Lord, but only Jesus Christ. When Paul ascribed Lordship to Christ, in contrast to later church dogma, he did not mean that Christ was God. Christ was definitely subordinated to God (93-4).
[ Interestingly, Hans Conzelmann provides evidence that “The Christian use of kurios cannot be derived from the LXX. The reverse is in fact the case” (1969:83-4). His comments suggest that when the early Christians called Jesus “Lord” (kurios), they did not mean that he is God or YHWH. Concerning 1 Cor 8:5-6 and its use of kurios for Jesus Christ and theos for God the Father, see Moffatt 1938:106-08. The same writer adds further testimony to how the first century ecclesia viewed Christ (1938:250-51).]
77 comments:
I *highly* recommend this article by Gaston and Perry, which refutes the notion that at 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul intended to "split the Schema" and place Jesus "within the divine identity" (or words to that effect).
https://brill.com/view/journals/hbth/39/2/article-p176_176.xml?language=en
If you don't want to spend the hefty price tag for the Brill jointly written article by Gaston and Perry, this one by Perry alone covers mostly the same ground:
https://www.academia.edu/25886854/1_Cor_8_6_Monotheistic_Christology
The passage is widely recognized by scholars as Paul’s adaptation of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4): “Hear, O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Paul applies the title “God” (Theos) to the Father and “Lord” (Kyrios) to Jesus Christ, demonstrating a functional unity between the Father and the Son. This redefinition of monotheism as "Christological monotheism" integrates Jesus into the divine identity rather than separating Him from it. Richard Bauckham, for instance, notes that this move was unprecedented in Jewish thought: Paul includes Jesus in the unique divine identity expressed in the Shema. If Paul intended to exclude Jesus from being YHWH, this reinterpretation of the Shema would not make sense.
It is true that Paul uses "ex" (from) for the Father as the ultimate source of creation and "dia" (through) for Christ as the agent of creation. However, this distinction does not subordinate Christ’s nature; rather, it clarifies His unique role within the Godhead. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 echo this theme, emphasizing that all things were made through Christ. If Christ is the agent of all creation, He cannot be a created being Himself. Only God can fulfill the role of Creator in the biblical worldview (see Isaiah 44:24). Thus, Paul’s distinction here upholds the shared divinity of the Father and the Son while emphasizing their distinct roles.
The term "Kyrios" (Lord) in 1 Corinthians 8:6, when applied to Jesus, is not merely a title of respect or authority. In the context of Paul’s Jewish audience, "Kyrios" would evoke its use in the LXX as the standard Greek rendering of the divine name YHWH. Paul consistently applies YHWH passages to Jesus in his writings. For instance, Romans 10:13 cites Joel 2:32, which speaks of calling on the name of YHWH, and applies it to calling on the name of Jesus. Philippians 2:10-11 applies Isaiah 45:23 ("every knee will bow to YHWH") to Jesus. These applications demonstrate that early Christians recognized Jesus as sharing in the identity of YHWH.
Within Trinitarian theology, the Son is functionally subordinate to the Father in terms of role or economy, but not ontologically subordinate in terms of nature. John 5:23 explicitly states that all must honor the Son “just as they honor the Father.” Such honor, which includes worship and obedience, would not be given to a created being within the Jewish monotheistic framework.
Early Christians’ worship practices, which included hymns and prayers directed to Jesus, demonstrate their belief in His divinity (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, Revelation 5:12-13). If Paul and the early Christians did not view Jesus as YHWH, attributing such worship to Him would constitute idolatry.
Conzelmann’s claim that “the Christian use of Kyrios cannot be derived from the LXX” and implies that early Christians did not mean Jesus was YHWH is not definitive. Many other scholars have demonstrated that Paul’s use of "Kyrios" in key texts (e.g., Romans 10:13) does align with its Septuagint usage for YHWH. The wider context of Paul’s writings shows that he incorporates Jesus into the divine identity.
@Sean Kasabuske
Gaston and Perry argue that Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 8:6 is not a specific rewriting of the Shema but merely a generic expression of monotheism. Paul’s use of terms like Theos (God), Kyrios (Lord), and heis (one) mirrors the language of the Shema in Deut. 6:4: “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” In the LXX (LXX), the Shema reads:
• "Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν Κύριος εἷς ἐστιν."
Paul's reformulation in 1 Cor. 8:6 states:
• “...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.”
This deliberate parallelism—using Theos for the Father and Kyrios for Jesus Christ—strongly suggests Paul is engaging with the Shema. He expands its monotheistic confession by including Jesus in the divine identity.
Gaston and Perry attempt to distinguish between "textual" and "conceptual" allusions, arguing that 1 Cor. 8:6 lacks sufficient markers of a textual allusion. However, they underestimate the role of Second Temple Jewish interpretive practices, where theological expansions were often subtle but profound. By applying Kyrios (the term used for YHWH in the LXX) to Jesus, Paul invites his readers to understand Jesus as intrinsic to Israel’s monotheistic confession. Moreover, Gaston and Perry fail to account for how Kyrios functions in Paul’s writings. Throughout his epistles, Paul applies OT texts referring to YHWH to Jesus (e.g., Rom. 10:13, Phil. 2:10-11). This consistent practice underscores the theological continuity of 1 Cor. 8:6 with Paul’s broader Christology.
Gaston and Perry argue that Paul’s distinction between “one God” (the Father) and “one Lord” (Jesus Christ) implies separation rather than inclusion within the divine identity. However, Paul distinguishes the roles of the Father and the Son in creation: the Father is the source (ex ou), and the Son is the agent (di’ hou). However, this distinction does not imply a difference in nature. Instead, it reflects the Trinitarian understanding of God’s unified action in creation. The Father, Son, and Spirit work inseparably, each fulfilling distinct roles while sharing one divine essence. The relational and functional distinctions between Father and Son align with statements like John 1:3 and Heb. 1:2 (“through whom [the Son] He made the world”). These passages affirm that the Son is fully divine and participates in the unique creative work of God.
Gaston and Perry claim that Kyrios in 1 Cor. 8:6 refers to Jesus as "master" rather than identifying Him with YHWH. This assertion ignores the wider Pauline context, where Kyrios frequently carries divine connotations. For example, Rom. 10:13 applies Joel 2:32, which speaks of calling upon the name of YHWH, to calling upon the name of Jesus; Phil. 2:10-11 applies Isa. 45:23 (where every knee bows to YHWH) to Jesus, explicitly identifying Him with the divine prerogatives of YHWH. Paul’s use of Kyrios in 1 Cor. 8:6 is consistent with this pattern, where the title denotes divine authority and identity, not merely a functional role.
In the LXX, Kyrios is used consistently as a substitute for the Tetragrammaton. Paul's Jewish audience, familiar with the LXX, would recognize Kyrios in 1 Cor. 8:6 as invoking YHWH. By applying this title to Jesus, Paul is affirming Jesus' divine identity. While Paul does not quote the Shema verbatim, the parallels are clear. The Shema declares, "YHWH our God, YHWH is one." Paul reformulates this as "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," distributing the divine identity between the Father and the Son without compromising monotheism. As Richard Bauckham and N.T. Wright argue, Paul’s use of Kyrios for Jesus is unprecedented and intentionally places Jesus within the identity of the one God of Israel.
(1/3)
(2/3)
Gaston and Perry argue that including Jesus in the Shema undermines the unity of God’s singleness, thereby disrupting monotheism. But the Shema’s declaration of God’s oneness is not compromised by Paul’s Christology. Within the framework of Trinitarian theology, the Father and Son are not separate gods but distinct persons within the one Godhead. This understanding allows Paul to ascribe divine titles and roles to Jesus without violating the Shema’s affirmation of monotheism. Paul’s Christological monotheism aligns with Second Temple Jewish thought, which emphasized God’s unique identity through His roles as Creator and Sovereign. By describing Jesus as the agent of creation and Lord over all, Paul integrates Him into these defining aspects of YHWH’s identity.
The critique claims that the two clauses in 1 Cor. 8:6—"one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ"—are separate, and only the first clause affirms monotheism. The two clauses are not independent but complementary. The structure mirrors Jewish monotheistic affirmations while incorporating Jesus into the divine identity:
• "From whom are all things" (the Father) aligns with the role of the Creator.
• "Through whom are all things" (the Son) echoes the instrumentality of divine action, as seen in John 1:3 ("through Him all things were made") and Col. 1:16 ("all things were created through Him and for Him").
This dual affirmation reflects a division of roles within the unity of God, not a division of being. The Father and Son share in the work of creation and providence, underscoring their shared divine identity.
They suggest that Paul’s distinction between “God” and “Lord” implies two separate beings. However, their interpretation fails to appreciate the covenantal context of the Shema. In Deut. 6:4, “YHWH is our God” identifies YHWH as both God and Lord of Israel. Paul’s inclusion of Jesus as Kyrios in 1 Cor. 8:6 reflects this covenantal relationship, affirming that Jesus shares in YHWH’s unique identity. Gaston and Perry dismiss the implications of early Christian worship for understanding Paul’s Christology. However, the evidence demonstrates that the early church consistently worshiped Jesus alongside the Father, reflecting their belief in His divine status.
(2/3)
(3/3)
The Shema does indeed emphasize monotheism, but “echad” does not strictly denote an absolute singularity. The term can encompass composite unity, as seen in Gen. 2:24 and Ezek. 37:17 (“make them one stick”). The broader biblical usage of “echad “allows for the unity of distinct persons or entities under a single identity. Paul's reformulation of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6 introduces Jesus as "one Lord" (Kyrios), complementing the "one God, the Father." This does not divide the divine unity but reflects a shared divine identity between the Father and the Son, consistent with a Trinitarian framework.
The critique argues that 1 Cor. 8:6 introduces a second figure (Jesus) alongside God, thus contradicting monotheism. Paul's distinction between the Father and the Son does not violate monotheism but reveals relational distinctions within the one God. The NT consistently presents this relational dynamic: The Father is the source of all things, and the Son is the mediator (John 14:6, Heb. 1:3). This relational distinction is foundational to Trinitarian theology, which maintains the unity of essence and distinction of persons within the Godhead.
The critique reduces Paul's Christology to a "high anthropology," denying any ontological deity for Jesus. Such an interpretation fails to account for the broader Pauline corpus, which consistently affirms Jesus’ deity (Rom. 9:5, Titus 2:13, Col. 2:9), that Jesus is fully divine, not merely exalted as a human.
Paul describes early Christian practices that attribute divine worship to Jesus:
• Phil. 2:9-11: Every knee bows and every tongue confesses Jesus as Lord, echoing Isa. 45:23’s depiction of universal submission to YHWH.
• 1 Cor. 16:22: The Aramaic prayer “Maranatha” (“Our Lord, come”) addresses Jesus as the eschatological Lord.
Such practices would be unthinkable within Jewish monotheism unless Jesus was understood to share in the divine identity. In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul attributes creation and the existence of believers to Jesus, roles reserved for God alone. Similarly, Paul’s broader theology emphasizes Jesus’ role in redemption and judgment (e.g., Rom. 14:9-12, 2 Cor. 5:10), further underscoring His divine authority.
That is exactly how Paul felt and taught.
That is why in video with his discussion with Ehrman, D. Wallace was forced to say for him the only explanation is it wasn't revealed to the Apostle Paul.
As I said before on this blog. Paul said not to change the teaching of Christ.
However the excuse is well we are teaching this way for century... Blah Blah and because we say so we are right. Nonsense!!
Hi Ninc,
I'm so tired I feel like I may fall asleep as I type, so I won't be able to interact much with your response. However, a few points:
About the "split schema" bit, check out the article I linked to from Andrew Perry. It's free, and it has essentially the same info as the expensive one from Brill.
About Bauckham's quirky thesis, check out Dale Tuggy's "On Bauckham's Bargain," where he shows why Bauckham ultimately fails to compel.
If memory serves, a very thoughtful Catholic scholar, Adela Yarbro-Collins, interacts with Bauckham (and Hurtado) in the book she co-authored with her husband, John J. Collins, entitled, "King and Messiah as Son of God." Yarbro-Collins also shows some of the problems with Hurtado's views in a chapter found in "Israel's God and Rebecca's Children." The last time I checked, I think her entire chapter could be viewed for free on Google Books.
Another thoughtful scholar, Paula Fredriksen, interacts with and shows the weaknesses of Bauckham's and Hurtado's claims in her chapter entitled, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?"
See: https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004438088/BP000023.xml
About worship, as you know, in my judgment the historical data require a much more nuanced view than most are comfortable with, and to see why I would recommend that you check out Kenneth Schenck's "A New Perspective On Hebrews." He addresses the question of worship in Ch. 5, I think, and does a nice, thoughtful job of it. Years ago, on his blog, he essentially agreed with James F. McGrath that the true dividing line between worship that could only be given to God and worship that could be given to God's agents (e.g. to the glory of God the Father), was that of ritual sacrifice. As I said in another comment, Jesus never receives ritual sacrifice in the New Testament. Indeed, it would be impossible for him to receive ritual sacrifice, because, in the salvation model enacted by God, he IS the sacrifice offered to God, not the God to whom it is offered.
That's it for now, as my pillow is calling!
“If Paul and the early Christians did not view Jesus as YHWH, attributing such worship to Him would constitute idolatry.” - not if God orders us to bow to him it wouldn’t be considered as such - that was according to the mosaic law
That law is “dead”
My friends, I'm leaving this thread open until the morning. I need sleep too, but I want to post something from an OT scholar tomorrow and it's about the Tetragrammaton.
When was the interpretation of inserting Jesus into the Shema first seen in scholarly work? James White uses it in his debate with Tuggy, and Tuggy claims it isn't a centuries-long teaching, the Church Fathers mention nothing of it. Can someone elucidate this for me?
@Sean Kasabuske
Perry’s thesis often seeks to bifurcate Paul's language into separating the roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ. However, Richard Bauckham counters this interpretation directly by emphasizing that the phrase "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ" is a deliberate reformulation of the Shema, expanding it to include Christ within the divine identity, not as a secondary figure but as an integral part of monotheism. Paul’s intention is not to contrast the Father and Christ but to affirm their unity in divine action. Christ as the agent of creation (δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα) parallels the Father’s role (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα), situating Christ as co-equal in the divine act of creation—a hallmark of divinity. Early Jewish monotheism did not rigidly preclude divine agents from participating in God's unique actions (e.g., Wisdom literature). Bauckham's work solidifies that Paul's inclusion of Jesus into the Shema indicates a radical but consistent Jewish monotheistic redefinition.
Bauckham's position that Christ belongs on the "uncreated" side of the Creator/creation binary directly addresses Fredriksen’s skepticism. Philippians 2:6–11 (which Fredriksen cites) shows that Jesus' pre-existence, incarnation, and exaltation culminate in universal worship "to the glory of God the Father." This worship includes Jesus unequivocally in divine honor, which Second Temple Jews reserved exclusively for Yahweh. While Fredriksen highlights the plurality of divine beings in Greco-Roman and Jewish thought, this does not weaken Paul’s unique claims. In asserting that "for us, there is one God... and one Lord," Paul’s Christology uniquely identifies Jesus with God in a way incompatible with Fredriksen’s interpretation of cultural gradation.
Schenck’s argument misunderstands Pauline theology. Jesus is not the recipient of sacrifices because He is the sacrifice (Hebrews 9:11–14). His role as the offering fulfills the sacrificial system and does not diminish His divine status. Paul explicitly affirms worship directed to Jesus in Philippians 2:10–11, where "every knee shall bow" reflects Isaiah 45:23, a passage originally about Yahweh. This co-opting of YHWH’s unique honor for Christ contradicts Yarbro-Collins’ claim of mere agency.
Tuggy’s critique falters when considering the totality of Paul's argument. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Christ’s role as the agent of creation ("through whom are all things") is not distinct from God’s identity but an integral expression of it. Paul’s language borrows from Jewish Wisdom traditions but elevates Christ beyond those paradigms. Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 complement 1 Corinthians 8:6 by affirming that Christ not only participated in creation but also sustains it (Colossians 1:17). Such roles transcend the boundaries of mere agency.
Paul’s writings, particularly in Philippians 2:6–11 and 1 Corinthians 16:22 ("Marana tha!"), show that the earliest Christians directed prayers to Jesus and invoked His name. These practices reflect a liturgical elevation of Jesus consistent with divine worship. Fredriksen’s point about the lack of temple offerings to Jesus assumes that the absence of evidence equals evidence of absence. Instead, Paul’s Christology demonstrates that worship of Jesus coexisted with Jewish temple practices without contradiction.
The Mosaic Law explicitly reserved worship and divine honors, including bowing and prayer, for Yahweh alone (Exodus 20:3–5; Deuteronomy 6:13–15). If God instructed His people to worship someone other than Himself, this would violate His command to give glory to no other (Isaiah 42:8). Yet, in Philippians 2:9–11, Paul explicitly applies the language of Isaiah 45:23, where every knee bows to Yahweh, to Jesus, demonstrating that Jesus is included in the divine identity. Even if one argues that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding, the early Christians were Jewish and operated within the framework of Jewish monotheism. For them to worship Jesus (Philippians 2:10–11, Revelation 5:12–13) would still constitute idolatry unless they believed Jesus to be fully divine. This is why Paul, a Pharisaic Jew, affirms Jesus’ exalted status as the "one Lord" alongside the "one God" in the reformulated Shema (1 Corinthians 8:6).
The critique that the "insertion of Jesus into the Shema" is a recent scholarly construct or absent in the Church Fathers misunderstands the early development of Christology. The interpretation of Jesus within the Shema is not a "modern invention" but a conclusion drawn from Paul’s explicit language. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul splits the Shema into "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ." This redefinition directly parallels the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) but includes Jesus within Yahweh’s divine identity. Bauckham, Hurtado, and others did not invent this interpretation but highlighted how Paul’s writings reformulate Jewish monotheism. While the Church Fathers did not use modern terminology like "insertion into the Shema," they affirmed Jesus’ deity and inclusion in God’s identity.
Wallace and other scholars affirm that Paul’s Christology is highly developed and foundational for early Christianity. Philippians 2:6–11, written by Paul, explicitly teaches Jesus’ pre-existence, equality with God, and exaltation to receive universal worship. These are not late developments but core to Paul’s understanding of Christ. Even if Wallace suggested a progressive understanding of Christ's deity among the apostles, this does not imply inconsistency or contradiction in Paul’s writings. Instead, it reflects the growing articulation of a profound mystery: how Jesus shares in the divine identity of Yahweh while remaining distinct as the Son.
Paul explicitly states that his teachings are derived from revelation from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11–12). His letters consistently affirm Jesus’ deity (e.g., Romans 9:5, Colossians 1:15–20), the same divinity revealed in Jesus’ earthly ministry through His miracles, claims to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–12), and acceptance of worship (John 20:28, Matthew 28:9). Jesus identified Himself with divine prerogatives, such as being Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28) and existing before Abraham (John 8:58). Paul’s Christology builds upon these claims rather than inventing new ones. The claim that belief in Jesus' deity relies on mere tradition is unfounded, it is is grounded in Scripture, not merely later Church tradition.
Fredriksen downplays Paul’s radical reinterpretation of the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6, where he includes Jesus within the divine identity: “...yet for us there is one God, the Father...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made.” This passage redefines monotheism to include Jesus as Kyrios in the same context that Kyrios was used for YHWH in the LXX. This is not a mere attribution of messianic honor but a theological assertion of divine status. In Phil. 2:6–11 Paul describes Jesus as existing in the "morphē of God", not grasping at equality with God (harpagmos), but humbling himself. This hymn climaxes with the universal worship of Jesus (every knee shall bow), citing Isa. 45:23, a passage referring exclusively to YHWH. Fredriksen’s argument fails to address the theological weight of attributing such worship to Jesus within a Jewish monotheistic framework. Although Fredriksen claims that agency in creation (ascribed to Jesus) does not equate to divinity, Paul’s portrayal of Jesus as the "image of the invisible God" and the one "through whom all things hold together" (Col. 1:15–20) places him on the “uncreated” side of the creator-creature distinction. This distinction is consistent with the Jewish binary understanding of divine and created beings.
Fredriksen conflates Jewish acknowledgment of “divine” agents (e.g., angels, the Memra) with polytheism or henotheism. However, Second Temple Judaism sharply distinguished between God as creator and all other beings. Bauckham and Hurtado have demonstrated that such divine agents were never worshiped or included within God’s unique identity. Paul’s attribution of worship and titles like Kyrios to Jesus transcends the Jewish norms for angelic or intermediary figures. Fredriksen overlooks the distinctive liturgical devotion directed to Jesus in Pauline communities (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:22’s Marana tha, "Our Lord, come!") and the Christological focus of prayers (e.g., Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 12:8). This worship reflects an early binitarian pattern, uncharacteristic of Jewish practices but consistent with emerging Christian theology.
Paul’s high Christology and apocalyptic eschatology are not mutually exclusive. Jesus’ resurrection is both a declaration of his divine identity (Rom. 1:4) and a foretaste of the eschatological hope. Far from diminishing Jesus’ divine status, Paul’s eschatological framework reinforces it, as Christ’s victory over death and cosmic powers (1 Cor. 15:24–28) aligns him with YHWH’s eschatological role in Isaiah. The universal confession of Jesus as Lord at the eschaton (Phil. 2:9–11) underscores his divine status. Paul’s eschatology is not a diversion from high Christology but its ultimate manifestation.
Early Christian texts like the Didache, Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, and John’s Gospel show consistent affirmations of Jesus’ divine status. While theological articulation developed over time, the fundamental belief in Jesus’ divinity is evident in Paul’s writings and the early worship of Jesus. Fredriksen underestimates the impact of Jewish monotheism on shaping the earliest Christology. While gentile converts may not have grasped all nuances of Paul’s scriptural allusions, the Christological claims were accessible through the liturgical and communal practices they experienced.
I believe, I may be wrong: James White and Robert M bowman JR - tho it is absent in JWs defended 2nd and 3rd editions.
I think sometime in the early 2000's
Which I would expect that would be a subject Stafford would cover considering he covers the Shema and echad extensively.
(starstruck I worked out the multiple subjects for Echad v the shema which only has one subject)
note what AT Robertson says (similar to Daniel Wallace & Goodspeed and Moffat(if memory serves)):
"Through whom (δι' ου). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (δια) in the work of creation as we have it in Colossians 1:16; John 1:3."
(full context: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/hebrews-1.html)
"By him (δι' αυτου). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (εξ ου) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (δι' ου)."
(full context: https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html)
Ninc is simply wrong here, this combined with Tetullians view of Isa 44:24 being said by the Father, not the trinity
and Upo being "more forceful" than dia.
and tho Ninc disagrees there were similarity's between Solomon & Moses with Jesus
and i believe Jesus did have to ask God for help in certain miracles & I believe at times Moses didn't
@Ninc,
Just a brief thought before work: I agree with Gaston and Perry, but, even if it were the case that Paul intended to split the Schema, he wouldn't have done so to convey that Jesus is God; rather, he would have done so because the Son is the only means of accessing the one God. Before the end, when all is handed back to God so that he can be all in all, the Son acts as his cosmic power-of-attorney.
Maybe you know the answer to a question that I've wondered about: When did the "split Schema" argument first appear? I'd never heard of it until N.T. Wright came along.
The 'Lord' in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is the same 'Lord' in Corinthians 10:21-22, 26.
This demonstrates Jesus is YHWH.
@FR
I'm afraid that doesn't work, as we know with certainty that Jesus is Lord in a different sense than the Father. Not only does Acts tell us that God ***made*** Jesus Lord (no one makes YHWH be YHWH), but the Pauline and Peterine salutations rule out the surrogation of Lord for YHWH when applied to Jesus, as they speak of:
"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Such a statement would have been so intolerable to ancient Jews and Jewish Christians that had they understood Kurios to be a substitute for the divine name in reference to Jesus, then this would have been like shards of glass swimming around in their brains until blood poured from their ears. Disputes would have arisen that would have been severe enough for us to learn of them, yet Paul addressed no such disputes in his writings, suggesting that the early Jewish Christians simply didn't make the connection that Trinitarians want to make in deference to their theological commitments.
Am I allowed to post youtube links that demonstrate 'Lord' refers to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1:21-22, 26? The information would be quite lengthy for me to write but what is presented in the videos (two of them) is detailed and spot-on.
I will add that you bare confused about "made" in Acts 2:36.It does not mean 'created' for the same Greek word is used in Isaiah 63:14 (LXX) in reference to YHWH.
@Anonymous
The citation of A.T. Robertson and others to argue that Jesus is merely an "intermediate agent" (like an auxiliary tool, or an aid) misunderstands both biblical language and the broader theological context of creation. Heb. 1:2, 1:10, John 1:3, and Col. 1:16 all explicitly affirm Jesus’ active role in creation. The phrase DIA ("through") in these passages does not imply subordination or inferiority but instead emphasizes the Son’s active role in creation as the divine Word (Logos). John 1:1–3 states that all things were made THROUGH the Word, and the Word WAS God. This means Jesus is fully divine, not a mere intermediary or tool used by God. While DIA indicates the Son's role in creation, it does not diminish His divine identity. Paul's language in 1 Cor. 8:6 distinguishes roles within the Godhead but does not suggest inequality. The Father is the source (EX OU), and the Son is the means (DIA OU), yet both are included in the Shema as the "one God" and "one Lord." This reflects the relational distinction within the Trinity, not a hierarchy of divinity. Tertullian's view that Isa. 44:24 refers to the Father, not the Trinity, does not negate the Son’s role in creation. The unity of God in creation is affirmed throughout Scripture, with the NT revealing the relational distinctions within the Godhead, the Father, Son, and Spirit work inseparably in creation, redemption, and sustaining the universe (e.g., Heb. 1:3).
In the context of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Col. 1:16), DIA highlights the active role of the Son in bringing creation into existence. Far from suggesting inferiority, this underscores the Son’s divine authority as the Logos, through whom all things came to be. HYPO is often used to describe subjection or delegation (e.g., Matthew 8:9, referring to being under authority). DIA, however, is theologically significant in creation passages because it emphasizes the Son’s active, divine role in bringing all things into existence. The idea that HYPO is "more forceful" is contextually irrelevant to discussions of creation, as DIA is the proper preposition to describe the Son's participation in creation.
The claim that Moses or Solomon had similarities to Jesus, and that Moses might not have needed God’s help in miracles while Jesus did, is problematic on several levels. While Moses serves as a type of Christ in certain respects (e.g., as a mediator of a covenant), the NT makes clear that Jesus is far superior to Moses (Heb. 3:3–6). Moses performed miracles as a prophet empowered by God, but Jesus performed miracles by His own divine authority, as seen when He calms the storm (Mark 4:39) or forgives sins (Mark 2:5–7). These actions are uniquely divine prerogatives. Solomon’s wisdom and kingship prefigure aspects of Christ, but Jesus Himself states, "Something greater than Solomon is here" (Matt. 12:42). Solomon was a human king gifted with wisdom by God, whereas Jesus is the eternal Word and Wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). The idea that Jesus needed God’s help for certain miracles misunderstands the relationship between the Father and the Son during the Incarnation. In His earthly ministry, Jesus voluntarily operated within the limitations of His human nature (Phil. 2:6–8). This does not imply weakness but rather reflects the humility of the Incarnation. When Jesus prays before miracles (e.g., John 11:41–42), it is to glorify the Father and demonstrate their unity, not because He lacks divine power.
The argument that the Trinity or the deity of Christ is “a later development” ignores the consistent witness of Scripture and early Christian theology. As noted above, the NT consistently presents Jesus as fully divine (e.g., John 1:1, Col. 1:15–20, Heb. 1:3). These passages were written within decades of Jesus’ earthly ministry and reflect the early Christian conviction that Jesus is YHWH incarnate. While terms like "Trinity" were formalized later, the Church Fathers affirmed Jesus’ deity and role in creation from the earliest times.
@Sean Kasabuske
Richard Bauckham and others have argued that Paul’s reformulation of the Shema incorporates Jesus into the unique identity of YHWH. The Shema emphasizes the oneness of God, and Paul’s deliberate use of parallel structure in 1 Cor. 8:6—assigning "one God" to the Father and "one Lord" to Jesus—does not create a dichotomy but redefines Jewish monotheism to include Jesus. This is not merely functional subordination but ontological inclusion. While you suggest that the Son acts as God’s “cosmic power-of-attorney,” this does not diminish his deity. In Second Temple Jewish thought, only God performed certain roles, such as creation (Isa. 44:24). By attributing creation to Christ ("through whom are all things"), Paul affirms Jesus’ participation in YHWH’s unique divine actions, which Second Temple Judaism reserved exclusively for God. While N.T. Wright popularized this terminology, the concept predates him. Early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, recognized the integration of Jesus into divine identity, even if they didn’t use the term “split Shema.” For example, Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho argues that Jesus is the preexistent Word who participated in creation alongside the Father.
Paul deliberately parallels the structure of the Shema, by assigning “one God” to the Father and “one Lord” to Jesus, Paul is not separating them into separate beings. Instead, he is integrating Jesus into the unique divine identity of YHWH. The term "Lord" (Kyrios), used throughout the LXX to render YHWH, is here applied directly to Jesus. In Second Temple Jewish monotheism, the "one God" of the Shema was absolutely unique, distinguished by His roles as Creator and Sovereign over all creation. By stating that "through [Jesus] are all things and through Him we exist," Paul includes Jesus in the exclusive divine functions of creation and providence. This is consistent with passages like Col. 1:16-17 and John 1:3, which assert Jesus’ pre-existence and role in creating "all things." This reinterpretation is radical, not because Jesus is an intermediary, but because Paul includes Jesus in the divine identity without compromising monotheism. The idea that Jesus is merely an intermediary contradicts Isa. 42:8, where God declares: "I will not give my glory to another." Yet in Phil. 2:9-11, Paul shows that God exalts Jesus to receive universal worship—a form of glory that belongs exclusively to YHWH—"to the glory of God the Father." This demonstrates Jesus’ full inclusion in the divine identity.
The identification of 1 Cor. 8:6 with the Shema is grounded in the text itself, not a later theological construct. Paul’s deliberate parallelism with the Shema is evident in his language. Early Christians did not need to explicitly articulate "split Shema" terminology because the practice of worshiping Jesus as Lord already demonstrated their belief in His inclusion in the divine identity. While the Church Fathers may not use the exact phrase "split Shema," they affirm the unity of the Father and Son in divine essence. The modern term "split Shema" simply highlights what is already implicit in Paul’s writings and early Christian practice.
The argument that Jesus being "made Lord" disqualifies Him as YHWH fails to account for the context of passages like Acts 2:36 and Phil. 2:9-11, which speak of Jesus’ exaltation in His humanity, not a change in His divine nature. When Peter says God "made" Jesus "Lord and Christ," he is not implying that Jesus was elevated to a status he previously lacked. Instead, the resurrection and exaltation declare and manifest the identity Jesus always had. The term "made" (Greek: epoiesen) reflects a public proclamation, not a change in nature or essence. Phil. 2:9-11 supports this, showing that Jesus’ exaltation reveals his preexistent divine status, culminating in universal worship.
(1/2)
(2/2)
So this refers to the Father’s public acknowledgment of Jesus’ divine Lordship and messianic role after the resurrection. This does not mean Jesus became divine at that point, as it relates to His exaltation in His human nature, not His pre-existent divine nature. Jesus is already identified as divine throughout the NT. For example, John 1:1 declares Jesus as the Word who "was God," and Col. 2:9 affirms that "in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily." Phil. 2:6-11 passage demonstrates that Jesus existed "in the morphē of God” before His incarnation and humbled Himself. After His resurrection, He is exalted so that "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." This language echoes Isa. 45:23, where the same worship is directed to YHWH, underscoring that Jesus shares YHWH’s divine identity. The exaltation of Jesus as "Lord" (Acts 2:36) reflects His glorified status after accomplishing redemption, not a denial of His pre-existent deity. In Trinitarian theology, this aligns with the functional subordination of the Son to the Father during His earthly ministry (see John 5:19, 1 Cor. 15:28) while maintaining ontological equality within the Godhead. In Pauline writings, Kyrios is consistently used to designate Jesus in ways that parallel its use for YHWH in the Septuagint. For example:
• Romans 10:13 applies Joel 2:32, "Everyone who calls on the name of YHWH will be saved," to calling on the name of Jesus.
• Phil. 2:10-11 cites Isa. 45:23, where every knee bows to YHWH, and applies it to Jesus.
• 1 Cor. 10:21-22 and 10:26 refer to the "Lord’s table" and the "earth being the Lord’s" (Psalm 24:1), explicitly connecting Jesus to the title and prerogatives of YHWH.
These examples demonstrate that Paul and early Christians understood Jesus as sharing in the identity and worship due to YHWH.
Phrases like "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" emphasize the relational roles within the Trinity. The Father is the "God" of Jesus in the sense that Jesus, in His incarnate state, voluntarily submits to the Father (see John 14:28, Phil. 2:6-8). This language reflects Jesus’ humanity and mission, not a denial of His deity. In His divine nature, Jesus is co-equal with the Father, as seen in John 1:1, John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), and Col. 2:9. The Church Fathers affirmed this distinction: the Father is the "source" within the Godhead, but the Son shares the same divine essence.
Early Jewish Christians, steeped in monotheism, directed worship to Jesus alongside the Father. This is evident in passages like 1 Cor. 16:22 ("Maranatha"), where Jesus is addressed in prayer, and Rev. 5:12-14, where Jesus is worshiped by every creature in heaven and on earth. If early Christians understood Jesus as a mere created being, such worship would have been idolatrous. The absence of controversy about this in the NT indicates that Jesus’ divine status was accepted within the framework of Jewish monotheism. The absence of recorded disputes reflects that early Jewish Christians understood Paul’s use of Kyrios as affirming Jesus’ divine identity, not introducing a new deity. The worship of Jesus (e.g., prayers, hymns, and confessions of His Lordship) reflects an early and widespread recognition of His divine identity. Such practices would have been impossible within Jewish monotheism unless Jesus was understood to share in the divine identity of YHWH. The early Christian invocation "Maranatha" (1 Cor. 16:22) addresses Jesus directly, a practice unthinkable unless Jesus was regarded as divine. Similarly, Stephen’s prayer in Acts 7:59 explicitly petitions Jesus, showing that early Jewish Christians directed worship to him.
Hi Ninc,
I only asked a single, simple question, and it appears that this notion of a "split Schema" first emerged in modern times.
With that said, I disagree about your molding of the data to fit the post-Apostolic overlay of Trinitarianism. Again, that whole interpretative grid just doesn't interest me, and I think it obscures and negates rather than illuminates the biblical data.
@Sean Kasabuske
The concept of the "split Shema" as a formal term may be modern, popularized by scholars like N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, and Gordon Fee. However, the foundational idea that 1 Corinthians 8:6 incorporates Jesus into the divine identity aligns with early Christian thought. So the explicit term "split Shema" may indeed be a modern construct, the concept itself predates modern scholarship. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, for instance, affirmed Jesus’ divine identity and participation in creation alongside the Father, which aligns with the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 as integrating Jesus into the Shema’s monotheistic framework. This understanding arises directly from Paul’s language and structure in the text, not merely from later theological developments.
I understand your hesitance toward the Trinitarian framework, but I would suggest that rather than negating biblical data, it synthesizes the evidence—Paul’s explicit attribution of divine roles to Jesus, his application of YHWH texts to Christ (e.g., Phil. 2:9-11, Rom. 10:13), and the worship of Jesus in a monotheistic context. These elements collectively point toward a redefined monotheism in which Jesus is included within the unique divine identity. Whether one adopts the Trinitarian framework or not, these data cannot be dismissed without leaving significant biblical affirmations unaccounted for.
By the way, the text of the Nicene Creed itself was modeled on 1 Corinthians 8:6. Let’s compare the Pauline text (P) with the Nicene Creed (NC):
P: “…there is but one God, the Father…” [heis Theos ho Patēr]
NC: “…We believe in one God, the Father Almighty…” [Pisteuomen eis hena Theon Patera pantokratora]
P: “…from whom all things came…” [ex hou ta panta]
NC “…Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible…” [poieten ouranou kai ges horaton te panton kai aoraton]
P. “…and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ…” [kai heis Kyrios Iēsous Christos]
NC: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ…” [kai eis hena Kyrion Iesoun Christon]
P: “…through whom all things came…” [di’ hou ta panta]
NC: “…through whom all things were made…” [di’ hou ta panta egeneto]
Based on this, the parallel to the Shema is particularly well-founded :-)
For more on the split Shema and how not to split it, see
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2009/03/splitting-shema-how-not-to-guide.html
https://letthetruthcomeoutblog.wordpress.com/2023/01/12/did-paul-split-the-shem-in-1-cor-86/
I would encourage you to see the doctoral dissertation by Benedict H.M. Kent entitled CLIENT, AGENT AND BROKER: AN ANALYSIS OF SUBORDINATION IN PAUL’S CHRISTOLOGY FROM A GRAECO-ROMAN PERSPECTIVE. I quote from section 7.5.1 of his work:
7.5.1. A split Shema?
The strength of the split Shema theory is that Paul appears to use almost all the words of the Greek form of the Shema.781 Bauckham argues that Paul ‘takes over’ and ‘rearranges’ LXX Deut 6:4, adapting ἡµῶν to the ἡµῖν and ἡµεῖς in 1 Cor 8:6. However, whilst Paul arguably ‘uses up’ all of the content of the Shema, he does not rearrange all of the words: ῎Ακουε, Ισραηλ· κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡµῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν. Paul adds an extra εἷς and elides the Shema’s second invocation of κύριος. One possibility is that God retains his name κύριος but it is signified, rather than glossed, by using πατήρ as a proxy. This would suggest that the second κύριος is extended to Jesus on the basis of a name-bestowal narrative (cf. Phil 2:9-11). Whilst there is no more evidence for this reading than for that of the above scholars, it is an alternative that cautions against drawing the maximal theological implications from the text’s wording.
While it is true that Paul adapts the Shema’s wording rather than directly quoting it, but this strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument for Jesus’ inclusion in YHWH’s identity. Paul’s decision to use HEIS THEOS and HEIS KYRIOS is not a departure from the Shema’s monotheistic affirmation but a deliberate expansion to include Jesus within its framework. By assigning THEOS to the Father and KYRIOS to Christ, Paul maintains the unity of God while reflecting the distinct persons of the Father and the Son. The addition of a second HEIS is theologically significant. It emphasizes the oneness of both the Father and the Son within the unique identity of YHWH, affirming monotheism while allowing for a relational distinction. The omission of the second KYRIOS from the Shema is not a diminishment but a theological clarification. Paul explicitly identifies Jesus as the HEIS KYRIOS, the very title that the LXX consistently uses for YHWH. This is not a downgrading of Jesus’ identity but an exaltation of His divine status within the Shema.
The claim that Jesus’ lordship is derived solely from a name-bestowal misunderstands the context of passages like Phil. 2:9-11 and ignores the broader theological implications of Paul’s Christology. Phil. 2:9-11 does not indicate that Jesus only “becomes” KYRIOS at His exaltation. Instead, it reflects the recognition and public acknowledgment of a lordship that He already possessed. The text explicitly states that God "bestowed on Him the Name that is above every name," which refers to the divine name of YHWH. This bestowal is not a new status but a revelation of Jesus’ preexistent divine identity. Paul’s application of KYRIOS to Jesus consistently aligns with the LXX’s use of the term for YHWH, especially in contexts of worship and divine prerogatives (e.g., Rom. 10:9-13, where KYRIOS applied to Jesus is directly linked to Joel 2:32). The "name-bestowal" interpretation fails to account for the immediate context of 1 Cor. 8:6, where Jesus is described as the agent of creation ("through whom are all things"). This is not a function of a merely exalted human lord but an attribute of YHWH, the Creator (cf. Isa. 44:24, John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17).
Nowhere does Paul suggest that the Father acts as a "proxy" for KYRIOS. Instead, he consistently uses THEOS for the Father and KYRIOS for Jesus, reflecting their distinct roles within the divine identity. The relational distinction does not imply any reduction in Jesus’ divinity or a mere delegation of titles. The argument that KYRIOS is "extended" to Jesus under a "name-bestowal narrative" undermines the clear connection Paul makes between Jesus and YHWH. In Phil. 2:9-11, Jesus is declared KYRIOS, and all creation bows to Him, paralleling the Shema’s affirmation of YHWH’s universal sovereignty. If KYRIOS were merely a delegated title for Jesus, Paul’s audience—steeped in the LXX’s use of KYRIOS for YHWH—would likely have viewed this as blasphemous. Instead, Paul’s application of KYRIOS to Jesus consistently affirms His divine identity (e.g., Rom. 10:13, where Paul applies Joel 2:32 to Christ).
Kent minimizes the intentionality of Paul’s adaptation of the Shema. Far from being accidental or vague, Paul’s wording in 1 Cor. 8:6 is deliberate and theologically precise. By including Jesus in the Shema, Paul affirms the monotheistic framework of Judaism while revealing the relational distinctions within the Godhead. This is not a "split" in the sense of dividing YHWH’s identity but an expansion that incorporates Jesus into the divine oneness. The Shema’s affirmation of YHWH’s identity as Creator and Sustainer is echoed in 1 Cor. 8:6, where both the Father and the Son are described as performing these divine functions. This affirms that Jesus is fully included in the unique identity of YHWH. The parallel structure ("from whom are all things… through whom are all things") reflects a unity of action between the Father and the Son. The Son is not subordinate in essence but functions as the agent of creation, consistent with Jewish monotheism.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is referred to as κύριος (Lord) and θεός (God) in numerous instances, but according to Arians these do not mean anything special, it’s not a big deal, right? They argue that κύριος does not necessarily refer to Adonai, and thus ultimately to Yahweh, and that θεός may also have a more general meaning. But is this really what the apostles meant by using these terms?
In Ancient Greek, to convey "master" or "lord" in non-divine sense while avoiding the connotations of κύριος (kyrios), you could use:
1. δεσπότης (despotes) - This term generally means "master" or "lord" in the sense of a ruler or one with authority over a household or dependents. While it can have hierarchical connotations, it is less tied to divinity in classical contexts.
2. ἄναξ (anax) - This is a poetic or noble term often translated as "lord" or "master." It has heroic or noble associations, especially in Homeric contexts.
3. ἄρχων (archon) - Meaning "ruler" or "chief," this term could be used for someone with authority in a civic or administrative role.
4. ἡγεμών (hēgemṓn): Meaning "leader" or "governor," though it often denoted a political or military leader rather than a personal "lord" or "master."
The best choice depends on the context and the specific nuances you want to convey about the relationship or setting. δεσπότης is probably the closest neutral alternative in most general uses.
Question: if the apostles wanted to avoid Christ being understood as a divine Lord in the proper sense, and wanted to avoid the YHWH-Adonai association, why didn't they use one of these terms instead of κύριος?
But likewise, the apostles repeatedly call Christ θεός, and instead, numerous expressions would have been available if they wanted to express that he was partly divine, godlike, kind of god:
1. θεῖος (theios): "Divine," "godlike," or "of the gods." Often used adjectivally to describe something extraordinary, inspired, or blessed by the gods, such as divine wisdom (θεῖα σοφία). It does not imply the being is a full deity. This term works well for attributing divine qualities without implying the individual is a full god.
2. ἡμίθεος (hemitheos): "Demigod," literally "half-god. Used for mythological figures, typically heroes or mortals with divine parentage or divine favor. For example, Heracles is referred to as a ἡμίθεος. This explicitly signals a partial divinity or divine favor, emphasizing a lower status than a full deity.
3. ἥρως (hērōs): "Hero," a mortal of exceptional ability, often regarded as semi-divine. Heroes like Achilles or Odysseus were sometimes venerated and associated with divine qualities. While primarily mortal, ἥρως carries connotations of extraordinary, divine-like qualities.
4. θεϊκός / θεϊνός (theïkos / theinos): "Godlike," "pertaining to a god." These adjectival forms emphasize qualities that resemble those of a deity but do not imply full divinity. For example, extraordinary beauty or wisdom could be described as θεϊκή. Flexible for metaphorical or partial divine associations.
5. θεώτερος (theōteros): "More divine." Comparative form, used to imply that someone or something is more divine or godlike than others, but not absolutely divine. It highlights relative, rather than absolute, divinity.
6. δαίμων (daimōn): Originally referred to a spirit or lesser deity, often a personal or local divine force. Associated with a range of supernatural beings, not inherently good or evil. In later usage, particularly in Christian contexts, it took on a negative connotation (as "demon"), but in classical texts, it was more neutral. Suitable for referring to a lower-order divine being or a guiding force without implying supreme authority.
Question: if the apostles really wanted to avoid understanding Christ as God in the absolute, monadic sense, then why didn't they use one of the terms instead of θεός?
@FR
"I will add that you bare confused about 'made' in Acts 2:36.It does not mean 'created' for the same Greek word is used in Isaiah 63:14 (LXX) in reference to YHWH."
That's an invalid form of proof-texting, as it focuses on a single word sans context. Where in Isaiah does it speak of "the God and Father of the Lord" where the "Lord" is YHWH?
Also, no one said that "made" at Acts 2:36 means "created." There is no question that Jesus was "made" Lord in the sense of appointed such by God, and in a subordinate sense. The Pauline and Peterine salutations make this crystal clear, so much so that I think anyone who would deny it merely demonstrates that his/her theological commitments are calling the shots, not the texts.
@Edgar,
Thanks for the reference, Edgar. I would add that even if the divine name were applied to Jesus at Phil. 2, for example, that wouldn't necessarily have to be taken in a manner that challenges JW Christology. As you know, in the Apocalypse of Abraham, an angel is given the name Jaoel (Heb. Yahoel, i.e. Yah EL = YHWH God), and this was done, not to identify the angel as YHWH, but to empower him to act as God's agent. It's worth noting that God Himself is called Jaoel in the same writing, and this is done emphatically:
"...very glorious El, El, El, El, Jaoel!
Thou art He whom my soul hath loved!
Eternal Protector, shining like fire,
Whose voice is like the thunder,
Whose look is like the lightning, all-seeing,
Who receiveth the prayers of such as honour Thee!"
See: https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf
This writing was apparently composed somewhere between 70 and 150 AD.
If memory serves, James F. McGrath has argued this use reflects earlier Jewish traditions respecting the name, a tradition that begins in the OT itself (e.g. see Ex. 23:21).
For those who think they always get the correct answer from AI, caveat emptor!
I Googled:
Is God called Jaoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham?
And Google returned this AI Overview:
"No, God is not called Joel in the Apocalypse of Abraham, but the angel Yahoel is sent to guide Abraham in making a sacrifice on Mount Horeb"
That's half right and half wrong. Yes, Yahoel is the name of an angel who is not God, but it's also a name of God himself. I hope AI does better with other questions, though I have seen it contradict itself as well.
Note that the 144,000 from the Twelve Tribes of Israel have the Tetragrammaton on their foreheads, while the gentiles/nations that follow do not:
[Rev 14:1 NET] [1] Then I looked, and here was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him were one hundred and forty-four thousand, who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
He had gifted Israel with the privilege of bearing his sacred name:
[Exo 6:2-8 NET] [2] God spoke to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD. [3] I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name 'the LORD' I was not known to them. [4] I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they were living as resident foreigners. [5] I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites, whom the Egyptians are enslaving, and I have remembered my covenant. [6] Therefore, tell the Israelites, 'I am the LORD. I will bring you out from your enslavement to the Egyptians, I will rescue you from the hard labor they impose, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. [7] I will take you to myself for a people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from your enslavement to the Egyptians. [8] I will bring you to the land I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob - and I will give it to you as a possession. I am the LORD!'"
The Angel of the LORD also, and more specifically was to bear God's name:
[Exo 23:21 CSB] [21] "Be attentive to him and listen to him. Do not defy him, because he will not forgive your acts of rebellion, for my name is in him.
And in the NT, Paul and the author of Hebrews (who is certainly not Paul) claims that the divine name ("the name which is above every name") was "inherited" by Christ:
[Phl 2:8-11 NASB95] [8] Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. [9] For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, [10] so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11] and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
[Heb 1:1-5 NET] [1] After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, [2] in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. [3] The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. [4] Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs. [5] For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my son! Today I have fathered you"? And in another place he says, "I will be his father and he will be my son."
In this scenario, Christ is LORD, but not God. This is presaged somewhat in the account of Joseph as "acting Pharaoh" in Egypt.
In Paul's view expressed in 1 Corinthians 15, Christ's exaltation to God's right hand had an expiration date... Christ was to reign over God's People only long enough to establish "The Israel of God." Then he would return the role of "Pharaoh" of the idyllic re-united Israel of God, the Twelve Tribes of All Israel, now divinely saved and glorified above all the nations:
[1Co 15:24-28 NET] [24] Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power. [25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy to be eliminated is death. [27] For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says "everything" has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him. [28] And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.
However, when that never happened, other texts were written in Paul's name, such as Ephesians, which claimed that Christ would rule in God's stead forever, but invisibly:
[Eph 1:19-23 NASB95] [19] and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. [These are] in accordance with the working of the strength of His might [20] which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly [places,] [21] far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. [22] And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, [23] which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
This has a clear parallel with the evolution of the Millerites into the Sevent Day Adventists.
Peter Nagel has done work pertaining to the Christian use of kurios for Jesus https://www.academia.edu/33661979/Towards_A_better_first_century_CE_understanding_of_the_term_kyrios_contributions_from_Philo_and_Paul
@Sean Kasabuske
Philippians 2:6-11 explicitly states that Jesus is given "the Name above every name," which is understood in Christian theology to be the divine name, YHWH. The passage culminates in the declaration that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Greek: Kyrios), to the glory of God the Father." The allusion to Isaiah 45:23 is crucial here. Isaiah states that every knee will bow to YHWH alone. By applying this prophecy to Jesus, Paul identifies Jesus as sharing in the divine identity. This goes beyond mere agency or representation; it situates Jesus within the unique prerogatives of God. The term “Kyrios” in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (Septuagint) consistently translates YHWH. Thus, when Jesus is proclaimed as “Kyrios” in this exalted sense, it signifies his divine status, not merely a delegated authority.
The claim that the use of the divine name in the Apocalypse of Abraham suggests a similar agency model for Jesus misrepresents both the context of Philippians and the purpose of the Jewish pseudepigraphon. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the angel Jaoel acts as God's agent, bearing a derivative name that reflects his role as a servant, not as an equal to YHWH. However, Philippians 2 presents Jesus as directly receiving divine worship, which Jewish monotheism reserves exclusively for YHWH (Deuteronomy 6:13; Exodus 20:3-5). The distinction between worship rendered to God and honor given to an agent is maintained throughout Jewish texts, and the worship accorded to Jesus in Philippians 2 is unmistakably divine in nature. Furthermore, while Jaoel is described with elevated attributes, there is no indication that he is co-equal with YHWH or that he shares YHWH's divine essence. In contrast, Philippians 2 explicitly affirms Jesus' pre-existent divine nature: "being in the form of God" (Greek: en morphē Theou hyparchōn), meaning Jesus inherently possessed divine status before his incarnation.
The reference to Exodus 23:21, where an angel is described as bearing God’s name, is not analogous to Jesus’ exaltation in Philippians 2. In Exodus 23:21, the angel acts as a mediator of God's presence but remains distinct from YHWH. The angel is not worshipped, nor is he said to be YHWH himself. Theophanies in the Old Testament often involve angels representing God, but they do not confuse the representative with the deity. In Philippians 2, however, Jesus is not merely bearing God’s name as an agent; he is explicitly exalted as Kyrios and worshipped universally. This is a categorical elevation that cannot be reconciled with a mere agency role.
The argument that Jewish traditions allowed for agents to bear divine titles overlooks the significant divergence in how early Christians and Second Temple Jews approached divine identity. While Second Temple Jewish literature might use elevated language for angels or agents, these beings are never worshipped in the way YHWH is. In contrast, the early Christian worship of Jesus as Lord was unprecedented and revolutionary, requiring a reinterpretation of monotheism to include Jesus within the divine identity. James F. McGrath’s argument does not diminish the unique status ascribed to Jesus in Philippians 2. Instead, it reflects the broader Jewish milieu where agency was understood—but Paul’s Christology clearly transcends this concept by placing Jesus at the center of divine worship.
Revelation is highly symbolic. The 144k represent the fullness of God’s people (12 tribes multiplied by 12k). The reference to “God’s name” on their foreheads symbolizes their total consecration to God (Rev. 14:1), aligning with Rev. 7:3–4, where they are "sealed" by God. This seal indicates divine protection and ownership, not a physical distinction. Rev. 7:9 immediately follows the description of the 144k with a vision of a "great multitude" from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne of God. This demonstrates that Gentiles are included in the redeemed community and share in God’s promises, not excluded or secondary to Israel. “God’s name” symbolizes divine authority and covenant relationship. Its placement on the foreheads of the 144k reflects their spiritual alignment with God. Revelation does not preclude the inclusion of Gentiles in this spiritual identification, as Gentile Christians are also grafted into Israel's promises (Rom. 11:17–24).
“The Name above every name" (Phil. 2:9) is a direct reference to YHWH. Isa. 45:23 declares that every knee shall bow YHWH. Paul applies this passage to Jesus, identifying Him with YHWH. Phil. 2:6-11 asserts Jesus’ equality with God, His voluntary humility, and subsequent exaltation, which reveals His divine nature. Bowing to Jesus and confessing Him as LORD glorifies God the Father, affirming the unity of their divine essence. The "name superior to angels" (Heb. 1:4) refers to Christ’s unique status as the eternal Son, not to a lesser divine nature. Heb. 1:3 explicitly states that Christ is "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being," emphasizing full divinity. The inheritance of the divine name signifies Christ’s unique role as the eternal Word made flesh, not a creature elevated to divinity. Christ’s submission to the Father at the end of time (1 Cor. 15:28) demonstrates the Trinitarian economy, not inequality. The Son, fully divine, works in perfect harmony with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Christ’s reign is eternal (Rev. 11:15), and His "handing over" the kingdom to the Father symbolizes the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan, not the cessation of His kingship. Far from contradicting Paul’s theology, Eph. 1:19–23 complements it. Christ’s eternal kingship is affirmed here as He reigns "far above all rule and authority" (Eph. 1:21) in both the present and the future age. This parallels 1 Cor. 15:25, where Christ must reign until all enemies are subdued.
Paul teaches that in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28; Eph. 2:14–16). The "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) includes all who belong to Christ. Rev. 21:12–14 depicts the New Jerusalem with foundations named for the apostles and gates for the tribes of Israel, signifying the unity of OT and NT believers. Rom. 9:6–8 emphasizes that not all physical descendants of Israel are true Israel, but the children of the promise (both Jew and Gentile) are counted as offspring. Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s spiritual heritage (Rom. 11:17–24), sharing in its blessings as equal members of God’s covenant family. The vision of the 144k and the great multitude represents the entirety of God’s redeemed people. The inclusion of Gentiles is not an afterthought but central to God’s plan of salvation, as prophesied in Isa. 49:6 and fulfilled in Christ (Matt. 28:19–20).
Rev. 11:15 states, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He will reign forever and ever." This affirms Christ’s eternal kingship, in unity with the Father. While Joseph prefigures Christ in many ways, his role as "acting Pharaoh" does not imply that Christ’s reign is temporary or subordinate. Instead, it highlights Christ’s mediatory role as both fully God and fully man. The submission of the Son to the Father in 1 Cor. 15:28 reflects the relational dynamics, not inferiority. The Son’s reign accomplishes the ultimate restoration of creation, culminating in God being "all in all." This does not negate Christ’s eternal divinity or kingship.
Nagel explores the possibility that the term κύριος assigned to Jesus was influenced by Hellenistic culture, but underestimates the strong Jewish monotheistic framework in which the term κύριος was used. Paul's writings consistently recontextualize κύριος in relation to Jesus within the Jewish monotheistic Shema (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6), where "one Lord, Jesus Christ" is placed alongside "one God, the Father." This demonstrates a redefinition of monotheism, not its abandonment. The use of κύριος in Pauline texts aligns with the Septuagint's substitution of YHWH with κύριος, showing continuity with Jewish scripture.
Philo uses κύριος as a functional epithet for God's rulership, while θεός captures God's essence. Nagel sees κύριος as insufficient to encapsulate the full divine essence. However, Paul's theological framework diverges significantly from Philo's philosophical framework. Paul does not subordinate κύριος to θεός but elevates Jesus as κύριος in a way that affirms his divine authority and participation in God's identity (e.g., Phil. 2:9–11). This contrasts with Philo's reluctance to assign κύριος as a primary divine identifier.
Nagel argues that Paul uses κύριος ambiguously, sometimes referring to YHWH and other times to Jesus. However, Paul deliberately uses κύριος to affirm Jesus' divine identity without confusion. For example, in Rom. 10:13, Paul cites Joel 2:32 ("everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved") and applies it directly to Jesus. This shows that Paul sees Jesus as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH, consistent with Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Nagel's argument overlooks Paul's consistent Christological rearticulation of monotheism.
Nagel concludes that the terms κύριος and Χριστός are subordinate to θεός in Paul’s writings, suggesting that Jesus is distinct from the monotheistic Hebrew deity. But this interpretation misrepresents Paul's theology. While Paul maintains a functional distinction between God the Father and Jesus as κύριος, he emphasizes their unity in essence and purpose. For instance, Phil. 2:6–11 portrays Jesus as pre-existent and equal to God but voluntarily humbling himself. Similarly, 1 Cor. 8:6 integrates Jesus into the Shema, identifying him as the agent of creation, a role reserved for YHWH. In Rom. 14:11 (citing Isa. 45:23), Paul attributes to Jesus the universal submission owed to YHWH, further supported by Phil. 2:10–11, where "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue confess" Jesus as κύριος. This unambiguously associates Jesus with YHWH's identity and authority, rejecting the subordinationist theology.
Nagel recognizes the tension between Hellenistic and Jewish uses of κύριος but emphasizes a Hellenistic framework for Paul. The Jewish background of Paul's use of κύριος is crucial. Paul’s citations from the LXX demonstrate a deliberate alignment with Jewish scripture, where κύριος replaces the Tetragrammaton. For example, in Rom. 10:9–13, Paul integrates Jesus into the divine role of salvation, using κύριος to affirm his divine identity.
If the apostles intended to avoid portraying Jesus as fully divine (YHWH) or equating him with God in the absolute sense, they had alternative Greek terms available for "Lord" and "God" that would have conveyed a lesser, non-divine status. For "Lord," terms like δεσπότης (master), ἄναξ (noble lord), or ἡγεμών (leader) could have been used instead of κύριος, which had strong connotations of divinity and was often used in the LXX to translate YHWH. For "God," they could have used terms like θεῖος (godlike), ἡμίθεος (demigod), or θεώτερος (more divine) to describe Jesus as semi-divine rather than fully God. However, the apostles consistently use κύριος and θεός to refer to Jesus, indicating their deliberate intention to present him as fully divine, equal to YHWH, and not merely a lesser deity or semi-divine figure. This refutes claims that these terms are insignificant or do not carry divine weight. The apostles' word choices, rooted in Jewish monotheism, affirm that Jesus is both Lord and God in the ultimate, absolute sense.
@Sean Kasabuske
The Greek word ποιέω (poieō) in Acts 2:36, translated as "made," does not imply creation or origination. Instead, it conveys the idea of appointing or declaring in context. This is consistent with the Septuagint's use of the term in Isaiah 63:14 to describe YHWH’s actions, which do not suggest creation but affirmation or designation. In the context of Acts 2:36, "made" refers to the Father’s public DECLARATION of Jesus as "Lord and Christ" through the Resurrection and Ascension. Jesus’ Lordship and Messiahship were always intrinsic to His divine identity, but they were definitively revealed to humanity through these salvific events. This aligns with Romans 1:4, where Paul states that Jesus was "DECLARED (horízō) to be the Son of God with power ... by the resurrection from the dead."
The title "Lord" (Kyrios) is crucial for understanding the divinity of Christ. Throughout the Septuagint, Kyrios is used to translate the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), indicating the divine name of God. Peter’s attribution of this title to Jesus in Acts 2:36 identifies Him as sharing in the divine identity of YHWH. This is further supported by Peter’s earlier citation of Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34–35, where David refers to the Messiah as "my Lord" (Adoni in Hebrew), an honorific title pointing to a divine relationship. Moreover, the New Testament repeatedly affirms Jesus’ preexistent Lordship:
• In Luke 2:11, the angel announces, "A Savior has been born to you; He is Christ the Lord."
• In John 8:58, Jesus declares, "Before Abraham was, I am," directly invoking the divine name from Exodus 3:14.
• In Philippians 2:9–11, Paul teaches that God exalted Jesus and gave Him "the name above every name," so that every knee should bow to Jesus, identifying Him as the divine Kyrios.
Thus, Jesus’ Lordship predates the Resurrection but was manifested and affirmed through it.
"Christ" (Christos) means "Anointed One" and is synonymous with "Messiah." Jesus was always the Christ, as demonstrated by His baptism, where the Father declared, "This is my beloved Son" (Matthew 3:17), and His ministry, which fulfilled Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah 61:1–2; Luke 4:18–21). Acts 2:36 does not suggest Jesus became the Christ at the Resurrection. Instead, the Resurrection served as divine confirmation of His messianic identity and mission. As Peter proclaims earlier in Acts 2:31, the Resurrection fulfilled God’s promise to David that one of his descendants would sit on his throne forever (Psalm 16:10–11).
The claim that Acts 2:36 indicates subordination misunderstands the nature of the Incarnation. In His human nature, Jesus was obedient to the Father (Philippians 2:6–8), but this obedience does not diminish His divine nature. Jesus is fully God and fully man, united in the hypostatic union. The subordination implied in Acts 2:36 pertains to Jesus’ role in salvation history, not His ontological status., Jesus’ exaltation as Lord and Christ reveals His mission as the Mediator and Savior, fully consistent with His eternal divine identity.
Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 emphasizes the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah’s death, resurrection, and exaltation. By DECLARING Jesus as "Lord and Christ," Peter challenges his audience to recognize the crucified and risen Jesus as the divine Messiah foretold by David. The sermon’s climax, Acts 2:36, does not undermine Jesus’ deity but rather invites the Jewish audience to acknowledge Him as the divine Lord and promised Christ. The subsequent call to repentance (Acts 2:38) underscores the necessity of faith in Jesus for salvation.
Everyone, this thread will close at 12 am EST on Sunday night. Despite the definitive way that Nincsnevem puts things, things are not quite so ironclad. Even scholars who are Trinitarian have admitted that the "name" in Philippians might not be YHWH or kurios. Secondly, bending the knee foes necessarily mean worship. In the Bible, men sometimes render similar acts to angels. Paul Rainbow has done nice work on this subject.
Nincsnevem, you also say people who disagree with you misunderstand this and that, but someone can perfectly understand your theology, yet still just disagree. Have you ever thought of that possibility ☺
If the "name" in Philippians 2:7 is neither YHVW nor kurios, what would the name above every name be? There are "many lords" but for the holy ones of God there is only one YHVH: Christ, the temporary (I Corinthians 15) or permanent (Ephesians) acting YHVH. That was Paul's point.
At this time, I can't access the studies that I have in mind, but could share them later. But one could look at the name (onoma) as representing superior authority that has been given to Jesus. It doesn't have to be a personal name.
It isn't a personal name, but rather a "covenant name." It was demonstrably assignable, since the moniker is sported by God's messenger. He is said to "obtain" the handle, "inherit" the handle and it was "given" because he was deemed faithful unto death.
My time is limited now, but I agree with mist of what you state. However, YHWH is a personal name or theonym. It seems that others can bear the name as agents qua agents or Metatron is called the lesser YHWH, but the tetra has been called God's nomen proprium.
@Edgar Foster, I won't quibble about the semantics of "name" vs "nomen proprium" even though I disagree. IE: Not a hill I want to die on.
@Ninc
You said:
"The Greek word ποιέω (poieō) in Acts 2:36, translated as 'made,' does not imply creation or origination. Instead, it conveys the idea of appointing or declaring in context"
I know. Did you miss my response to FR?
He misconstrued my argument and said that "made" doesn't mean "created," and I replied:
"Also, no one said that 'made' at Acts 2:36 means 'created.' There is no question that Jesus was 'made' Lord in the sense of appointed such by God"
In your attempt to correct me, you affirmed my point! ;-)
@Anonymous
"If the 'name' in Philippians 2:7 is neither YHVW nor kurios, what would the name above every name be?"
A number of scholars have suggested that Jesus is the name Paul had in mind, which is possible (the Greek doesn't rule it out), and that would be consistent with the very next clause, which says "that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow..."
That seems almost unavoidable just based on the logical flow of verses 9 and 10.
For the record, nor does the Hebrew word, "Bara."
Let's look at the rest of the sentence and see who they confess Jesus (ie: "Josh") to be:
[Phl 2:8-11 NET] [8] He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross! [9] As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, [10] so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow - in heaven and on earth and under the earth - [11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
And please see also:
[Act 2:36 NKJV] [36] "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
I concede that "Jesus" might be the name above every name in view of context and Acts 4:11-12, but I think Gerald Hawthorne (Word Biblical Commentary) lays out the various possibilities for what onoma could mean in Phil. 2:9-11. See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/12/onoma-in-philippians-29-11-moulton.html
The phrase "the Name above every name" in Phil. 2:9 refers not to Jesus' earthly name (which was already given at his incarnation) but to his divine status and authority as Lord. Paul is drawing directly from Isa. 45:23, where YHWH declares:
• "To me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance."
Paul applies this prophecy to Jesus, indicating that Jesus shares in the divine identity of YHWH. The term “onoma” (name) in Greek, especially in the LXX and the NT, often conveys the character, authority, or reputation of the person. While some scholars might argue that "Jesus" is the name referenced in Phil. 2:9-10, this interpretation neglects the deeper theological implications. Jesus' exaltation does not merely reassert his human name but reveals his divine lordship (Kyrios). Hebrews 1:4 confirms that Jesus "inherited a name more excellent than the angels," emphasizing his superiority and divine status. Phil. 2:11 says, "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Kyrios)" Kyrios was the Greek term used in the LXX to translate the Tetragrammaton. This confession elevates Jesus to divine status, not merely recognizing his authority but acknowledging his participation in the identity of YHWH.
The "name" is not simply symbolic of rank or temporarily delegated authority but is intrinsically tied to his divine identity as Lord, shared with the Father (John 10:30). Early Church Fathers, such as Gregory of Nazianzus and Athanasius, consistently interpreted Phil. 2:9-11 as affirming Christ's deity and preexistence.
The claim that bending the knee does not necessarily indicate worship is misleading in the context of Phil. 2:10. In biblical usage, bending the knee (kamptō to gony) often signifies worship (e.g., Ps. 95:6, Matt. 2:11). The act of kneeling here, applied universally ("in heaven, on earth, and under the earth"), mirrors the homage due to God alone in Isa. 45:23. While angels may occasionally receive gestures of honor, they explicitly reject worship (Rev. 22:8-9). Christ, however, receives worship (Matt. 28:9, John 20:28). Jesus is not a stand-in for YHWH but fully participates in the divine essence. Eph. 1:20-23 emphasizes that Christ's exaltation places him above all powers as the eternal head of the Church, not as a temporary agent but as co-eternal with the Father.
Acts 2:36 does not imply that Jesus was not previously Lord but affirms his exaltation as the risen Messiah. His Lordship (Kyrios) was eternally his as the preexistent Son of God, but it is now revealed to humanity in his resurrected and glorified state.
The patristic writings affirm Christ’s divine identity in Phil. 2 Athanasius interpreted Christ's exaltation as a Rev. of what he always possessed in his divine nature, not a new acquisition. Gregory of Nazianzus Saw the passage as a proclamation of Christ's dual nature—humility in his humanity, exaltation in his deity. Cyril of Alexandria stated that "the name above every name" signifies the divine title of Lord (Kyrios), affirming his equality with the Father.
1/2
@Ninc,
The allusion to Isa. 45:23 doesn't require one to conclude that Jesus is being identified as YHWH ontologically at Phil. 2.
Firstly, we've already established that Jesus is Lord in a different sense from the Father, and this is *clearly* demonstrated by the Pauline and Peterine salutations, which speak of "the God and Father of our Lord." YHWH doesn't have a God or Father.
Secondly, if you read the entire chapter of Isaiah 45, you'll find that it's clearly Messianic. Not only is Cyrus called Messiah, but he is given a name that symbolizes his authorization/empowerment (sound familiar?). That's why Paul used a text from that chapter in reference to Jesus in Phil. 2.
Thirdly, if we set YHWH texts aside for a moment and focus on other texts that are applied to Jesus (either directly or by allusion) that originally applied to someone else in the OT period, we find that is typically not done to identify Jesus as that OT person.
When a text that applied to Solomon is applied to Jesus via allusion (e.g. Heb. 1; 2 Sam. 7:14), or when a text that applied to David is applied to Jesus via allusion (Heb. 1; Ps. 2:7), we know that this was not done to literally identify Jesus as Solomon or David.
As far as I'm aware, the only possible exception to this would be when an OT text is applied to Jesus in the NT that originally applied to the preexistent Son in the OT.
Therefore, when a YHWH text is applied to Jesus, we know that this was not done to literally identify Jesus as YHWH.
2/2
@Ninc,
Why would such an application be made, then? Clearly, it would be to identify Jesus as God's cosmic power of attorney, who would rule in God's behalf until the time comes to hand back all power and authority so that God can be all and all (1 Cor. 15:28). You see, Jesus' exaltation made him the only mediator between God and humans, so that he would function as though he were God to us.
The conferring of the name Jaoel to an angel in the Apocalypse of Abraham shows us that in Jewish thought this was done as a sign of authorization and empowerment, and it is authorization and empowerment that is in view at Phil. 2, not ontology or placing of the Son "within the identify of God." The Jews and early Jewish Christians didn't think along the lines of placing Jesus "within the divine identity," so to suggest that Paul is doing that at Phil. 2 is anachronistic. If you conflate Paul's thought with Bauckham's thought, then you'll misunderstand Paul.
BTW, in the Dead Sea Scroll, Melchizedek is presented as the God of Psalm 82, and in the Psalm that God is YHWH Himself. Yet Melchizedek wasn't God, but was acting as God's agent. Also, on most reconstructions of 11QMelch, Melchizedek is said to be "your God" in a context in which the antecedent of "your" is the faithful Jewish community. I think it's worth pointing out that this writing was kept in the library at Qumran, which was probably owned by the hyper-pious Essenes, not some ancient counterpart of modern liberal theologians.
@Sean Kasabuske
Calling the Father "the God of our Lord" reflects Jesus' incarnational role as both fully human and fully divine (Phil. 2:6-8, John 1:14). In his humanity, Jesus worships the Father as God (John 20:17), yet this does not diminish his divine nature (Col. 2:9). Phrases like "the God and Father of our Lord" emphasize the incarnational relationship: Jesus, as the incarnate Son, took on human nature (Phil. 2:7). This subordination pertains to His human nature and mission, not to His eternal divine essence. The Son’s role as mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and intercessor is an expression of His incarnate mission, not an indication of ontological inferiority. This criticism would only refute the deity of such an imaginary Christ whose humanity would not be acknowledged at the same time.
Phil. 2:9-11 explicitly identifies Jesus as sharing in the divine name and Lordship of YHWH. Paul quotes Isa. 45:23, where YHWH declares, "To me, every knee will bow," applying it directly to Jesus (Phil. 2:10). This universal act of homage is worship, which only God can receive without committing idolatry (Matthew 4:10; Rev. 22:8-9). The passage in Isa. 45 is a declaration of YHWH's unparalleled sovereignty and exclusivity as the only true God (Isa. 45:5, 18, 21). By applying this text to Jesus in Phil. 2:10–11, Paul is not merely likening Jesus to YHWH’s agent but directly attributing to Him the worship and allegiance due to YHWH alone. This worship is not contingent upon delegated authority but is intrinsically tied to Jesus’ divine identity, as shown by the universal scope ("in heaven, on earth, and under the earth"). The term “Kyrios,” used in Phil. 2:11 to describe Jesus, is the same term used in the LXX to translate the Tetragrammaton. This usage explicitly connects Jesus to the divine identity of YHWH, as recognized by Paul’s Jewish audience. Jesus being confessed as "Lord" in the same breath as Isa. 45:23 strongly implies ontological equality with YHWH, not merely functional representation.
While Cyrus is described as God’s anointed in Isa. 45, the parallels with Christ's exaltation are limited. Cyrus was a temporal figure empowered by God to deliver Israel physically. In contrast, Christ is the eschatological fulfillment of Isa. 45:23, receiving universal worship that is exclusive to YHWH. Paul’s use of Isa. 45 does not merely draw a typological connection but redefines the Shema (Deut.6:4) to include Jesus within YHWH's divine identity. Cyrus is not said to receive "the name above every name," a designation uniquely applied to Jesus in Phil. 2:9. This "name" is a direct reference to YHWH's divine name and authority, shared with Christ (John 17:11-12). While Isa. 45 references Cyrus as a messianic figure (Isa. 45:1), Paul’s use of Isa. 45:23 in Phil. 2 transcends this. Cyrus’ role as a God-appointed deliverer in no way parallels the cosmic scope of Jesus’ exaltation. Cyrus is called God’s "anointed" (messiah) in a functional sense, as he facilitates Israel’s physical deliverance. Jesus, however, fulfills the ultimate messianic role as the Savior of humanity and the Lord of all creation. Unlike Cyrus, who never receives divine worship, Jesus is explicitly the object of universal worship in Phil. 2:10–11.
Jewish monotheism during the Second Temple period allowed for the concept of divine agency but also for complex divine identities. Figures like the Angel of the LORD (Ex. 3:2–6), the Word (Memra in Aramaic Targums), and Wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31) were understood as manifestations or aspects of YHWH’s identity. Early Jewish Christians recognized Jesus as the culmination of these divine manifestations, fully embodying YHWH’s nature. The examples of Melchizedek or angelic beings in Jewish literature acting as God’s agents do not equate to Paul’s depiction of Jesus. Unlike Melchizedek, Jesus receives worship (Matt. 28:9, John 20:28), is directly equated with YHWH (Phil. 2:9–11, John 8:58), and is explicitly described as "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being" (Heb. 1:3).
Jesus’ exaltation is not a promotion or a new status but the unveiling of His eternal divine nature. Paul emphasizes that Jesus "emptied Himself" (Phil. 2:7), taking on human form, and His exaltation (v. 9) restores the recognition of the glory He already possessed as God (cf. John 17:5). The "name" given to Jesus is not merely a title but the divine name itself. This interpretation is consistent with the use of “Kyrios” as the equivalent of YHWH in the LXX. Jesus’ exaltation reveals that He shares in the unique identity of YHWH, affirming His full deity.
Texts about Solomon or David applied to Jesus point to typological fulfillment, whereas YHWH texts affirm divine identity. Isa. 45:23 is a declaration of monotheistic worship exclusive to YHWH. By applying this text to Jesus, Paul does not merely identify him as a type or agent but as sharing in YHWH's divine identity (Phil. 2:10-11). The exaltation described in Phil. 2:9-11 explicitly results in every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is "Lord" (Kyrios), fulfilling Isa. 45:23. This confession would be idolatrous if Jesus were not fully divine.
The "cosmic power of attorney" view diminishes the full scope of Paul’s argument. In Jewish monotheism, YHWH's name, glory, and worship are uniquely divine attributes (Isa. 42:8). For Jesus to receive these unambiguously places him within the divine identity, not merely as an agent. Jesus’ role as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) is rooted in his unique nature as fully God and fully man. His divine identity qualifies him to bridge the infinite gap between God and humanity (Heb. 9:15, John 14:6). An agent acting "as though he were God" lacks the ontological foundation to mediate effectively.
Bauckham and Hurtado have demonstrated that early Jewish Christians did place Jesus within the divine identity by including him in worship practices exclusive to YHWH (e.g., Rev. 5:13, 1 Corinthians 8:6). Phil. 2:9-11 aligns with 1 Corinthians 8:6, where Paul reinterprets the Shema to include "one Lord, Jesus Christ." This does not replace YHWH but reveals Jesus as co-equal with the Father.
Melchizedek’s portrayal in the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelch) as a divine agent does not equate him with YHWH. Unlike Melchizedek, Jesus is worshiped universally (Phil. 2:10-11). Paul explicitly identifies him as the one to whom every knee bows, fulfilling a prophecy about YHWH (Isa. 45:23). Heb. 7:3 identifies Melchizedek as a type prefiguring Christ, not as an ontological equal to God.
@Ninc,
I read your responses and one of my oft-used sayings comes to mind: Saying so doesn't make it so.
Melchizedek had a YHWH text applied to him in the sense that YHWH was the God at Ps. 82 who judges the gods, and Melchizedek is the one who judges the gods as God, yet he isn't actually God-YHWH. Moreover, as I pointed out, Melchizedek is referred to as "your God" in a context in which the antecedent of "your" is the faithful Jewish community. Since ancient Jews could conceive of Melchizedek as their God collectively, then it naturally fallows that any individual member of that community could have referred to Melchizedek as "my God." Remind you of another Trinity "proof-text"?
This conversation makes for much more pleasant reading sans ad hominem and straw manning. Thank you both @ Sean @ Nincsnevem.
Not to go too far into another tangent, but I feel it is relevant to mention:
As traditional so called catholic Orthodoxy holds to a different soteriological framework, YHWH texts fulfilled in Jesus such as at Phil 2:9 and elsewhere will never align theologically.
God came in the flesh in the incarnation to save humanity in the catholic view.
The so-called “Arian” Jehovah’s Witness theology aligns with the their soteriology, which hinges on the ransom of an obedient, subordinate yet perfect creature with free will. Jehovah’s Witnesses can never subscribe to the trinitarian theology read back into such Jesus=YHWH fulfilment texts because God would in effect be paying his own ransom price, which isn’t true obedience in light of the Adversary’s charge in Genesis 3, Job 1 & 2, Rev 12:10.
Charles Russell and his associates even called such analysis of the Bible “the ransom test”. If the soteriological scales were not balanced, all subsequent doctrines were to be rejected in the Bible Student worldview.
@Sean Kasabuske
What I see is that you dismiss everything, labeling all citations as "prooftexting" that could disprove your theology, and from my perspective it seems that JWs are building their entire doctrine system on a few oneliner “jolly joker” verses (John 14:28, Ecclesiastes 9:5, Romans 6:7, etc.) as trump cards, using them with a “knight jump” method instead of proper exegesis.
Ps. 82 addresses the unjust judges of Israel, calling them “Elohim” because they exercised divinely ordained authority. However, the psalm critiques their corruption and announces their mortality: "Nevertheless, you will die like men" (Ps. 82:7). The term "gods" here is metaphorical and reflects their role as representatives of divine justice, not literal divinity. While Melchizedek is a typological figure for Christ (Heb. 7), his priesthood is rooted in its unique, eternal typology, not in him being called "your God." Nowhere does Scripture explicitly call Melchizedek "your God." The assertion conflates Melchizedek's priestly role with YHWH's unique divine identity, which is never attributed to Melchizedek. The invocation of Ps. 82 in John 10:34–36 serves as a defense of Jesus’ unique identity as the Son of God. Unlike the judges in Ps. 82 or Melchizedek, Jesus is not merely an agent or representative of divine authority. Instead, He is ontologically divine, as evidenced by His explicit sharing in the divine name and prerogatives (John 10:30, Phil. 2:9–11). The subordination of the judges and Melchizedek is not comparable to the exaltation of Christ as “Kyrios,” a title used for YHWH in the LXX.
Your argument mischaracterizes the typological nature of Melchizedek’s portrayal in Scripture. While Melchizedek is presented as a Christ-like figure in Heb. 7, this does not imply that he shares YHWH’s divine identity. Instead, Melchizedek serves as a type—a foreshadowing of Christ in certain roles or characteristics—without equating him ontologically with God. Heb. 7:3 states that Melchizedek is "without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life," but it is clear that this is figurative language meant to highlight his typological function. This description points to the symbolic absence of a recorded lineage in Scripture, which contrasts with the detailed genealogies of Levitical priests, and foreshadows Christ’s eternal priesthood, not Melchizedek’s divinity. The DSS (e.g., 11QMelch) indeed depict Melchizedek in an exalted, quasi-divine role, but this reflects Jewish apocalyptic imagination rather than a biblical assertion of his divinity. Nowhere in the canonical Scriptures is Melchizedek worshipped, nor is he described as sharing YHWH’s unique attributes, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, or eternal existence independent of creation.
Scripture differentiates Jesus by showing that He is the rightful recipient of worship, which is reserved for God alone. Jesus fulfills and surpasses all typological figures, including Melchizedek, by being ontologically divine. The NT writers consistently identify Jesus with YHWH’s divine identity in ways that go far beyond typology. In Phil. 2:10–11 Paul applies Isa. 45:23 to Jesus, where every knee bows to YHWH. This universal worship, directed at Jesus, is not merely functional or representative—it is a direct acknowledgment of His divine identity. In Rev. 5:13–14: Jesus is worshiped alongside the Father, explicitly in a heavenly context. Unlike the judges or Melchizedek, who were "gods" metaphorically and in limited contexts, Jesus receives worship due to YHWH. If Jesus were not truly God, receiving worship alongside the Father would be idolatrous (Matt. 4:10). The NT’s consistent attribution of worship to Jesus, coupled with OT texts affirming YHWH’s exclusivity (Isa. 42:8), confirms His full divinity.
(1/2)
(2/2)
The JW interpretation of Ps. 82 misrepresents its purpose in John 10:34–36. Jesus cites Ps. 82 to highlight the inconsistency of accusing Him of blasphemy. If human judges could be metaphorically called "gods," HOW MUCH MORE is it appropriate for Jesus, who is sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim to be the Son of God? In John 10:30–38 Jesus does not argue for equality with YHWH based on Ps. 82 alone. Instead, He appeals to His works as evidence of His unity with the Father: "The Father is in Me, and I in the Father" (v. 38, badly mistranslated in the NWT). This mutual indwelling (perichoresis) goes beyond agency or typology and affirms Christ’s consubstantiality with the Father. The claim that Jesus "makes Himself God" (John 10:33) is not refuted by Jesus but contextualized. He accepts divine titles because His identity as the Son of God is intrinsic to His nature, not merely conferred by a divine commission like the judges in Ps. 82.
You claim that Melchizedek could be called "my God" by ancient Jews, just as Jesus is called "my God" (e.g., John 20:28). However, this assertion is unsupported by any biblical or historical evidence. Melchizedek, as a priest-king, may symbolically reflect aspects of divine authority, but he is never explicitly or implicitly described as receiving worship or being called "my God." Thomas’ confession to Jesus—"My Lord and my God"—cannot be equated with any hypothetical attribution of divinity to Melchizedek. The context of John’s Gospel makes clear that Thomas is recognizing Jesus’ ontological unity with YHWH, as demonstrated throughout John’s high Christology (e.g., John 1:1, 8:58, 10:30). The worship of Jesus in Phil. 2:10–11 is cosmic and universal: "Every knee should bow… every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." Such universal homage is reserved for YHWH alone in Jewish monotheism (cf. Isa. 45:23). In contrast, Melchizedek’s role is localized and symbolic, confined to his earthly priesthood.
The claim that Melchizedek was perceived as “your God” based on some apocryphal texts by ancient Jews is speculative and irrelevant to the argument concerning Jesus’ divinity. Melchizedek is never said to receive the divine name or the universal worship of all creation. His priesthood points to Christ but does not establish him as an ontological equal to God. The objection conflates the concept of divine agency with divine identity. While God appoints agents (e.g., angels, prophets, Melchizedek) to carry out His purposes, these agents are never included in His unique divine identity: Melchizedek, like Moses or the Angel of the LORD, functions as a representative of God but does not possess the divine essence. These agents act "in the name of" YHWH but remain distinct from Him.
Phil. 2:6 explicitly states that Jesus existed "in the MORPHE of God" and "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped." The exaltation in Phil. 2:9 does not grant Jesus a new divine status but reveals His preexistent glory (cf. John 17:5). Jesus’ "emptying" and subsequent exaltation highlight His humility and mission, not a transition from non-divinity to divinity. The "cosmic power of attorney" view collapses under scrutiny because it cannot account for the divine worship and attributes consistently ascribed to Jesus in the NT.
Your argument conflates holiness and deity, asserting that human figures can be "gods" through divine commissioning or sanctification. While holiness denotes being set apart, divinity entails an ontological identity as God. Jesus’ sanctification (John 10:36) does not equate Him to the judges in Ps. 82. His holiness stems from His intrinsic divine nature (cf. Heb. 7:26), which qualifies Him to sanctify others (John 17:19). Jesus’ sanctification and mission are rooted in His divine identity, not a mere conferred role. His holiness and sinlessness are intrinsic attributes of His divine-human nature, further demonstrated by His ability to grant eternal life (John 10:28).
Dear Ninbcnevem, I'm going to work on other things todayy, but I wanted to make a reply to something you've said more than once:
"The NT writers consistently identify Jesus with YHWH’s divine identity in ways that go far beyond typology. In Phil. 2:10–11 Paul applies Isa. 45:23 to Jesus, where every knee bows to YHWH. This universal worship, directed at Jesus, is not merely functional or representative—it is a direct acknowledgment of His divine identity. In Rev. 5:13–14: Jesus is worshiped alongside the Father, explicitly in a heavenly context. Unlike the judges or Melchizedek, who were 'gods' metaphorically and in limited contexts, Jesus receives worship due to YHWH. If Jesus were not truly God, receiving worship alongside the Father would be idolatrous (Matt. 4:10). The NT’s consistent attribution of worship to Jesus, coupled with OT texts affirming YHWH’s exclusivity (Isa. 42:8), confirms His full divinity."
How do you know with absolute certainty that the application of Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus shows that he is fully God and conbnsubstantial with the Father? You can't get that from the Philipppians verse alone and besides, who ultimately gets the glory in Philippians 2:9-11? Compare Revelation 4:9-11. You also claim that Jesus is worshiped in Revelation 511-14, but the verse says nothing of the kind.
After noting that the Christusbild constructed of the Lamb in Rev. 5:13-14 "almost approaches deity," P.M. Casey provides these enlightening comments:
"This is almost heavenly worship, but it does not have to be perceived as such. Here, as always, the lamb is carefully distinguished from God, and he is not said to be divine. He does have other exalted functions. It is as a lamb that Jesus is victorious over the kings of the earth (17.14), and he shepherds the victorious martyrs (7.17) . . . Yet God is precisely what this figure is not, and this illustrates the social nature of the restraining factor of monotheism" (P.M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, page 142).
Some textual variants (as found in the TR) actually read ZWNTI EIS TOUS AIWNAS TWN AIWNWN in Rev. 5:14, thereby pointing to the Father as the rightful object of reverence, devotion, adoration and praise. Even if this is a scribal addition, it is solidly based on texts such as Rev. 4:9-11; 10:6; 15:7. See also Rev. 11:15-17; 15:4; 19:4.
See also https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/did-the-first-christians-worship-jesus-james-d-g-dunn/1111363931
@Ninc,
You keep repeating assertions that I've already addressed as though I've never addressed them, and that makes dialogue with you frustrating. Instead of offering a full response, I'm just going to offer a few closing observations:
Psalm 82 - My view is in harmony with Mike Heiser in that I take the "gods" who judged unjustly to be the members of a Divine Council of heavenly gods. I don't promote this view in the congregation because I don't want to stumble anyone, and I could be wrong. However, since you addressed the view that the "gods" are were human judges, you were talking past me without realizing it.
Melchizedek - You said that my argument mischaracterizes the typological nature of Melchizedek's portrayal in Scripture. That is incorrect, because I haven't commented on Melchizedek's portrayal in Scripture. I offered observations that reveal what sorts of language ancient Jews could employ when speaking about agents of God, and noted that they even applied a YHWH text to Melchizedek yet didn't equate him with YHWH ontologically.
Worship - Rather than repeating what I've said, I'll just note that you ignored what I said even though you were replying to me. You just reasserted your view.
Philippians 2 - Again, you've simply ignored what I've said about the account and reasserted your view.
If I don't get back here again before the blog is locked, let me repeat that I wish you all the best!
Take care,
~Sean
@Edgar Foster
• Isa. 45:23 states: "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance."
• In Phil. 2:9-11, Paul explicitly applies this prophecy to Jesus: "At the name of Jesus, every knee should bow... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..."
The act of “every knee bowing” and “every tongue confessing” is a form of worship in the Jewish monotheistic framework, which reserves such acts exclusively for YHWH (Isa. 42:8). If Jesus were not YHWH, such worship would be idolatrous. The Greek term Kyrios (Lord) is used in the LXX as the translation of the Tetragrammaton . Paul’s Jewish audience would understand that applying this term to Jesus identifies Him with YHWH. The worship of Jesus in no way detracts from the Father’s glory but rather fulfills it. This reflects the unity within the Godhead, where the Son’s exaltation magnifies the Father’s divine plan (cf. John 5:23). Your reference to Rev. 4:9-11 does not contradict this. While the Father is the ultimate source of all glory, the Son shares in this glory as part of the divine identity (John 17:5). The unity of the Father and Son ensures that worship directed to Jesus also honors the Father.
You dispute the worship of Jesus in Rev. 5:13-14, asserting that the Lamb is distinct from God and not worshiped as divine. Every creature in creation offers worship jointly to the one who sits on the throne (the Father) and to the Lamb (Jesus). The Lamb receives the same praise and honor as the One on the throne, the phrase "blessing, honor, glory, and power" echoes doxologies (hymns of praise) traditionally reserved for God alone (cf. Rev. 4:9–11), and “every creature” (so is the Lamb one of them?!) in heaven and earth joins in this worship of both God and the Lamb. This parallels the universal worship described in Phil. 2:10-11, reinforcing the connection between Jesus and YHWH. The Lamb is explicitly included in the worship offered. If Jesus were not divine, this would constitute idolatry. The parallelism in the text shows that the Lamb is co-equal with the Father in receiving worship. While Casey argues that the Lamb is carefully distinguished from God, this interpretation fails to account for the broader theological context of Revelation. The Lamb is not merely "approaching deity"; He is portrayed as sharing in the divine prerogatives of worship, authority, and eternal reign (Rev. 22:1-3).
(1/1)
(2/2)
The claim that Jesus is "carefully distinguished from God" (as per P.M. Casey) is true in the sense that the Lamb and the One on the throne are distinct persons. This reflects the Trinitarian understanding of God as one essence in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, the Lamb is included in the divine worship directed to the Father, demonstrating that Jesus shares in divine glory and nature. Rev. 5:13 explicitly links the Lamb to the One seated on the throne, placing them together as the object of universal adoration. This inclusion would violate the monotheistic principle unless the Lamb is understood as fully divine. The broader context of Rev. supports the worship of Jesus:
• Rev. 1:17–18 – Jesus identifies Himself as "the First and the Last," a title used for Yahweh in Isa. 44:6.
• Rev. 7:10 – Salvation is attributed "to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
• Rev. 22:3–4 – The Lamb shares the singular "throne of God and of the Lamb," and His servants worship Him directly.
The imagery in Rev. 5 echoes Dan. 7:13-14, where the "Son of Man" (a divine figure) is given everlasting dominion and worship by all nations. Jesus explicitly applies this passage to Himself (Mark 14:61–62). The worship of the Lamb in Rev. fulfills this prophetic vision.
You cite textual variants such as zwnti eis tous aionas ton aionon (“lives forever and ever”) to suggest that only the Father is the rightful object of worship. However, Even if this phrase were original, it does not exclude the Lamb from worship. The context of Rev. 5:13-14 shows that worship is jointly directed to the Father and the Lamb. The overwhelming manuscript evidence and the broader context of Rev. affirm the Lamb’s inclusion in divine worship. Rev. 5 is part of a consistent theme throughout the NT, where Jesus is worshiped alongside the Father (e.g., Rev. 7:9-12, John 20:28). While some manuscripts include this phrase, others do not. Even if this phrase refers explicitly to the Father, it does not diminish the worship rendered to the Lamb. The Lamb is clearly ascribed honor, glory, and praise in the same breath as the Father. The unity of worship to God and the Lamb reflects their shared divinity, consistent with Trinitarian theology.
All in all, Rev. 5 portrays the Lamb receiving the same universal worship as God the Father. The ascription of honor, glory, and power to both God and the Lamb (Rev. 5:13) reflects their unity in divinity. In the Jewish monotheistic context of Revelation, such worship cannot be directed toward a non-divine figure without violating monotheism. Early Jewish Christians, including Paul, redefined monotheism to include Jesus within the identity of YHWH. Scholars like Bauckham and Hurtado have demonstrated that Jesus was worshiped as divine in the earliest Christian communities, as evidenced by hymns, prayers, and doxologies directed to Him (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:22, Phil. 2:9-11, Rev. 5). While Second Temple Judaism was strictly monotheistic, it also included concepts of divine agency and complex divine identities, such as the Angel of the LORD, Wisdom, and the Word (Logos). Early Christians saw Jesus as the fulfillment of these manifestations, fully embodying YHWH’s nature.
Nincsnevem, if time permitted, I would challenge almost everything you've set forth here, but I will simply quote the rest of Philippians 2:9-11, to which you'll likely have a reply:
"and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father" (NIV).
You say that "tongue confessing" is an act of worship in the Jewish monotheistic context. Sorry, but I'm the kind of person who needs "convincing proofs" (Acts 1:3). What's the scriptural basis for such a claim? Isaiah 42:8 does not mention tongue confessing and Revelation 5:11-14 does not say the Lamb was worshiped. One might infer that, but it's not a natural reading of Revelation 5:14.
@Sean Kasabuske
1. Psalm 82
Your interpretation aligns with Heiser's view that the "gods" in Psalm 82 are members of “a divine council,” distinct from the human judges' interpretation. While this interpretation is intriguing (btw. this view is not called monotheism, but henotheism), it does not negate the broader point regarding Jesus’ claim to divinity in John 10:34–36. Jesus cites Psalm 82 strategically to challenge the inconsistency of His accusers, not to suggest He belongs to the category of beings criticized in the psalm.
In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one." This statement provokes the charge of blasphemy because His audience understands Him to be claiming equality with God (John 10:33). When Jesus invokes Psalm 82, He argues A FORTIORI: if even beings called "gods" in a lesser sense (whether divine council members or human judges) could bear that title, THEN HOW MUCH MORE is it appropriate for Him, sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim to be the Son of God. His defense reinforces, rather than diminishes, His divine identity.
Moreover, your view of Psalm 82 as referring to a divine council highlights the hierarchical distinction between YHWH and any subordinate members of such a council. Jesus transcends this hierarchy by sharing in YHWH's unique identity, as evidenced by His receiving worship (Phil. 2:10–11; Rev. 5:13) and bearing the divine name (Phil. 2:9).
2. Melchizedek
While it’s true that Melchizedek is exalted in some apocryphal Jewish texts (e.g., 11QMelch from the DSS), no text attributes to him the divine identity unique to YHWH. Hebrews 7:3 emphasizes Melchizedek’s TYPOLOGICAL role, stating he is “without father or mother” and “without genealogy,” but this language is symbolic, pointing to his role as a Christ-like figure without recorded lineage, not to his ontological nature. Melchizedek serves as a TYPE of Christ’s eternal priesthood (Heb. 7:15–17), but Scripture never attributes to him the divine prerogatives that Paul assigns to Jesus in Philippians 2:9–11.
The application of YHWH texts to Melchizedek in non-canonical Jewish literature does not undermine Jesus' divinity. These attributions reflect Jewish typological thinking rather than an elevation of Melchizedek to the status of YHWH. In contrast, the NT consistently and explicitly places Jesus within YHWH's unique identity. For instance:
• Jesus is worshiped universally (Phil. 2:10–11; Rev. 5:13).
• He is identified as the Creator (John 1:3; Col. 1:16–17).
• He is the ultimate judge of humanity (John 5:22–23).
Unlike Melchizedek, who is a shadow of Christ, Jesus is the fulfillment and embodiment of YHWH’s divine identity.
3. Worship
You assert that I ignored your points about worship. On the contrary, I addressed the NT's consistent portrayal of Jesus as the rightful recipient of worship. This worship is not contingent or delegated but intrinsic to His divine nature.
• Phil. 2:10–11 applies Isa. 45:23—a passage about exclusive worship of YHWH—to Jesus. This universal worship is incompatible with Second Temple Jewish monotheism unless Jesus is included in YHWH’s divine identity.
• Rev. 5:13–14 shows Jesus and the Father being worshiped together, with no distinction in the type or quality of worship offered. Such worship would be idolatrous if Jesus were not truly God.
Your objection conflates functional roles with ontological identity. While agents like angels or Melchizedek may act on God’s behalf, they are never worshiped as YHWH. The NT’s attribution of worship to Jesus categorically distinguishes Him from mere agents or intermediaries.
4. Philippians 2
You claim I ignored your interpretation of Philippians 2, but this is incorrect. I explicitly addressed the Christological implications of this passage:
• Paul states that Jesus existed in the "morphe" of God (Phil. 2:6). This term denotes His divine nature, not a mere external appearance. Or if it does, then "morphe" also means the same in v7 as well, and then we are docetists.
• Jesus’ "emptying" (kenosis) involves taking on human nature, not relinquishing His deity (Phil. 2:7). His exaltation in Phil. 2:9–11 reveals His true identity, culminating in universal acknowledgment of His Lordship.
• The phrase “name above every name” (Phil. 2:9) connects directly to YHWH’s name, as indicated by the use of “Kyrios” (Lord) in the LXX to translate the Tetragrammaton.
Your interpretation reduces Jesus’ exaltation to a functional role, ignoring the ontological implications of receiving YHWH’s name, glory, and worship. This diminishes the cosmic scope of Paul’s argument and fails to account for the consistent portrayal of Jesus as co-equal with the Father in the NT.
https://www.postost.net/2018/08/every-knee-shall-bow-question-about-jesus-god
@Edgar Foster
You quoted Phil. 2:9–11, emphasizing that every tongue will confess Jesus as Lord "to the glory of God the Father." This does not diminish Christ's divinity but rather situates it within a Trinitarian framework, highlights the unity between the Father and the Son in the Godhead. In Trinitarian theology, the Son’s glorification brings glory to the Father, as they share the same divine nature (John 17:1-5). The Father’s exaltation of the Son demonstrates their ontological equality. Paul's language in Phil. 2 intentionally echoes the Shema, Israel’s foundational confession of monotheism, and Isa. 45:23, where YHWH declares, "To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance." Paul applies this act of universal homage—reserved for YHWH—to Jesus, thereby including Jesus within the identity of YHWH. The act of "confessing" (exomologeō) in a Jewish monotheistic context, as in Phil. 2:11, is indeed an act of worship, especially when linked with "bowing the knee" (kamptō gonu). In Isa. 45:23, these acts signify submission and worship directed to YHWH alone. By attributing them to Jesus, Paul redefines monotheism to include Jesus within the divine identity without undermining the glory of the Father.
Paul’s application of this passage to Jesus shows that the honor due to YHWH is given to Jesus. The title “Kyrios” in a Jewish monotheistic context signifies divine sovereignty. Therefore, the act of confessing Jesus as “Kyrios” mirrors the worship reserved for YHWH. Isa. 45:23’s language ("every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear") is cultic and refers to acts of worship and allegiance to God. Paul uses this exact language for Jesus, indicating that the early Christians understood such confession as an acknowledgment of divine lordship. This is further evidenced in Revelation 5:13-14, where every creature ascribes praise and honor to both the Lamb and the One on the throne.
Your assertion that Rev. 5:11–14 does not explicitly say the Lamb was worshiped misrepresents the text. Rev. 5:13 records, "To Him who sits on the throne, *AND* to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" This doxology explicitly includes the Lamb alongside the One on the throne in the same act of universal praise. The worship offered is directed to both, not to the Father alone, showing a shared divine status. The Lamb is explicitly included alongside the One on the throne in receiving universal adoration. The parallelism between the worship of the Lamb and the One seated on the throne indicates their shared divinity. Moreover, Rev. 5:14 states, "And the elders fell down and worshiped." While you argue that this might only refer to God, the context places the Lamb alongside the Father as the object of this worship. If Jesus were not divine, such worship would indeed constitute idolatry according to Jewish monotheism, as worship is reserved for God alone (Deut. 6:13; Isa. 42:8).
Worship in Scripture is not merely about acknowledging someone's role but about ascribing divine worth. The worship of Jesus in Rev. 5 is not limited to his sacrificial work but encompasses his identity as the Lamb "who was slain" and is now "worthy" to receive "power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing" (Rev. 5:12). These attributes are divine prerogatives, ascribed to YHWH throughout Scripture (e.g., Ps. 145:13, Dan. 7:14).
(1/2)
(2/2)
The suggestion that the Lamb is worshiped solely because of his obedience and sacrifice also fails to address Rev. 22:3, where the singular "throne of God and of the Lamb" and the worship of both confirm their shared divine identity. Worship in a Jewish monotheistic context, which Revelation reflects, is due only to God (Deut. 6:13). If the Lamb were not fully divine, the universal worship described in Rev. 5 would constitute idolatry. To argue that God "endorsed" such worship while maintaining Jesus is not divine undermines the strict monotheism of Scripture. The worship given to the Lamb is not contingent solely on His redemptive work (v. 9), but also on His divine identity. Rev. 5:6 portrays the Lamb as having "seven horns and seven eyes," symbolic of omnipotence and omniscience—attributes of deity. The Lamb’s role as the sacrificial redeemer does not exclude His divinity but complements it.
Sean’s argument that the Lamb’s mortality disqualifies him from deity misunderstands the incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity, as well as the hypostatic union, holds that Jesus, as the eternal Son of God, took on human nature without ceasing to be divine (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6–8). While his human nature experienced death, his divine nature remained unchanged and immortal (1 Tim. 6:16). Jesus has two natures: divine and human (Phil. 2:6-8, John 1:14). As God, He is immortal; as man, He was able to die. The death of Jesus does not diminish His divinity but demonstrates the mystery of the Incarnation, where the divine Son willingly took on human mortality. The notion that Jesus is merely the "obedient mortal" undermines the redemptive significance of His work. Only God could atone for humanity’s sins, as the debt owed was infinite (Isa. 43:11; Col. 1:19-20). Jesus’ divine identity ensures the efficacy of His sacrificial death. The Incarnation does not imply that God’s divine nature ceased to exist or was subject to death. Instead, Jesus’ human nature experienced death, while His divine nature remained fully intact.
Thus, it is not contradictory to say that Jesus, as the Lamb, is worshiped for his sacrificial work while also affirming his divine nature. His death was made possible by his assuming humanity, not by a diminishment of his divinity. The Lamb is not only the sacrifice but also the exalted divine figure who shares the Father’s throne and receives universal worship. Rev. 7:10 attributes salvation to "our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb," indicating a shared role in divine sovereignty and redemptive work. The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as both the sacrifice and the object of worship (e.g., John 20:28, Hebrews 1:6). This dual role does not undermine his divinity but rather affirms his unique identity as the God-man who redeems and reigns.
The Lamb is not merely presented as the sacrifice but as the recipient of worship. Revelation 5:13-14 unambiguously ascribes glory, honor, and power to the Lamb, a treatment reserved for God alone. The Lamb’s role as the sacrifice does not negate His divinity. In the Old Testament, sacrificial language is often associated with God’s salvific actions (e.g., Isa. 53). Jesus fulfills this typology, not as a mere mortal but as the incarnate Word. As Bauckham and Hurtado have demonstrated, early Christians included Jesus in worship practices—prayer (Acts 7:59), hymns (Phil. 2:6-11), and doxologies (2 Pet. 3:18). These acts go beyond venerating an agent and affirm Jesus’ inclusion in the divine identity.
@Edgar Foster
While Κύριος was indeed used in the LXX as a substitute for “Adonai,” its application to Jesus in Phil. 2 explicitly draws on Isa. 45:23, where YHWH declares, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess.” This passage does not merely refer to authority but to the worship and allegiance due to YHWH alone. For Paul to apply this to Jesus is a deliberate act of placing Jesus within the divine identity, particularly in a Jewish monotheistic context where worship is reserved for God alone. The title Κύριος is more than functional in the NT. It encapsulates Jesus’ divine identity, as seen in other passages like Rom. 10:9-13, where calling upon the Κύριος (Jesus) for salvation parallels Joel 2:32, which refers to calling on the name of YHWH. Thus, Κύριος in Phil. 2 is not merely a title of delegated authority but an affirmation of divine identity.
Phil. 2:9–11 explicitly places Jesus in the role of the one to whom "every knee will bow" and "every tongue confess," a role reserved exclusively for YHWH in Isa. 45:23. This is not merely a case of delegated authority but a statement about Jesus' divine identity. The passage declares that Jesus is exalted and given "the name above every name"—a clear reference to the divine name (YHWH). The Greek phrase "ἐξομολογήσεται πᾶσα γλῶσσα" (every tongue confess) echoes Isaiah's proclamation of universal allegiance to YHWH. In Jewish monotheism, the worship and allegiance due to YHWH alone cannot be shared or delegated. The fact that Paul applies this prophecy to Jesus implies that Jesus shares in YHWH's divine identity, not merely that he acts as an agent. Moreover, the phrase "to the glory of God the Father" does not subordinate Jesus but demonstrates that the worship of Jesus as Lord is consistent with the worship of YHWH. Far from diminishing Jesus' divinity, this highlights the unity within the Godhead.
The "name above every name" refers to more than a title of authority; it points to the divine identity. In the LXX, the term Κύριος is used as a stand-in for YHWH. Therefore, calling Jesus "Lord" in this context carries divine implications, particularly when linked to Isa. 45, where "Lord" refers to YHWH. The argument dismisses the connection to YHWH by likening Jesus' lordship to delegated authority. However, this overlooks the fact that divine worship is directed toward Jesus in Phil. 2:10. The NT consistently affirms that Jesus receives the same worship and honor due to YHWH (e.g., John 5:23, Rev. 5:13). If Paul intended only to convey delegated authority, he would not have used language that directly parallels Isaiah’s exclusive claims about YHWH. This alignment reinforces the identification of Jesus with the God of Israel.
The “name above every name” cannot simply be Κύριος as a title of authority. In the context of Phil. 2, this phrase implies the unparalleled uniqueness of Jesus’ identity. When Paul writes that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,” he references Isa. 45:23, where such universal submission is directed to YHWH. Paul is not presenting a new divine figure but including Jesus in the unique divine identity of YHWH. The notion that the “name above every name” was granted to Jesus (Phil. 2:9) does not undermine his divinity but reflects the Incarnation. As the eternal Son, Jesus possessed divine glory (John 17:5), but in his humanity, he was “given” the public acknowledgment of this glory through his exaltation after his redemptive work (Hebrews 2:9-10).
While Jesus' authority is bestowed upon him (Phil. 2:9), this does not preclude his divine nature. The incarnation narrative emphasizes that Jesus willingly "emptied himself" (Phil. 2:7), taking on the form of a servant while remaining fully divine. His exaltation is not a promotion from human to divine status but a public recognition of his divine identity and mission.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Heb. 1:3–4 describes Jesus as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of his nature," who "upholds the universe by the word of his power." This is not the description of a mere human exalted to a divine role but of one who is intrinsically divine. The bestowal of authority in the resurrection and ascension (e.g., Matt. 28:18, Eph. 1:20–23) reflects Jesus’ fulfillment of his redemptive mission, not a transition from a lower to a higher status.
Jesus’ authority is not merely delegated but intrinsic to his divine nature. Matt. 28:18 records Jesus declaring, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” This echoes Daniel 7:13-14, where the “Son of Man” is given dominion and worship by all peoples. The worship of the “Son of Man” in Daniel is significant because it parallels the worship of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible, indicating shared divinity. The delegation of authority does not preclude divine identity. The Trinitarian understanding accounts for Jesus receiving authority in his incarnate role while still fully participating in the divine nature. This is consistent with John 1:1-3, which affirms Jesus’ preexistence and divinity.
The analogy to 1 Chron. 29:20, where both YHWH and the king receive obeisance, fails to account for the unique context of Phil. 2:10–11. The worship described in Phil. is universal and cosmic, involving every being "in heaven and on earth and under the earth." This level of worship transcends anything offered to a human king in the OT and is reserved solely for the divine. Additionally, Rev. 5:13–14 depicts Jesus receiving worship alongside God the Father from "every creature." The distinction between YHWH and human kings in the OT is maintained precisely because no human king receives worship from all creation.
Perriman’s argument conflates Jesus’ role as the incarnate Son with his divine nature. In the Incarnation, Jesus voluntarily emptied himself (kenosis, Phil. 2:7) and took on the form of a servant. His exaltation is the Father’s acknowledgment of his redemptive work and an affirmation of his divine identity (John 17:5). The language of “receiving authority” reflects Jesus’ unique role in the economy of salvation, not an ontological subordination. Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son as the “radiance of God’s glory” and the one who sustains all things. Such descriptions affirm his intrinsic divinity.
The argument claims that Jesus' lordship is consistent with Jewish monotheism only as delegated authority. However, Paul's Jewish monotheism is redefined in light of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. Jesus is included within the divine identity of YHWH, as seen in passages like 1 Cor. 8:6, which reformulates the Shema: "For us there is one God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ." This inclusion does not divide the divine identity but reveals its complexity. Bauckham's "divine identity" framework is compelling because it aligns with Paul's rearticulation of Jewish monotheism around Jesus. Rejecting this framework requires ignoring the theological weight of Paul's language and its implications.
While OT kings and prophets were honored as representatives of God, they were never worshiped as divine. In contrast, Jesus is worshiped alongside the Father in Rev. 5:13-14 and Phil. 2:10-11. The universal scope of worship in these passages goes beyond what was acceptable for any created being in Jewish monotheism. The NT consistently ascribes divine attributes and worship to Jesus. Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Hebrews 1:6 states, “Let all God’s angels worship him,” quoting Deut. 32:43 (LXX), where such worship is directed to YHWH.
The use of Isa. 45 in Rom. 14:11 underscores Paul's consistent application of YHWH's prerogatives to Jesus. While the passage mentions standing before the judgment seat of God, it also affirms Jesus' lordship over both the living and the dead (Rom. 14:9). This demonstrates a unified relationship between the Father and the Son in their sovereign rule.
@Terence
The JW theology hinges on the idea that a perfect creature (Jesus, in their view, as Michael the Archangel) could provide a ransom for humanity. This premise drastically undervalues the gravity of sin. Sin, in its essence, is not merely a violation of God’s laws but a radical rupture in the relationship between humanity and God (cf. Isa. 59:2, Rom. 3:23). This rupture is infinite because it is an offense against an infinite God. A finite being, no matter how perfect, cannot repair this breach. Only God, who is infinite, can offer an infinite atonement. This is why God the Son became incarnate. Phil. 2:6-11 reveals that Christ, who "did not count equality with God something to be grasped," humbled Himself to take on human nature and obediently died on the Cross. This act of self-giving love is not God "paying Himself," but God stepping into His creation to restore it from within, a point beautifully captured in the doctrine of the “felix culpa.”
The Incarnation was not merely a response to sin but part of God’s eternal plan to unite creation to Himself. The Exsultet, the hymn sung during the Easter Vigil, praises the Fall of Adam as a "happy fault" (felix culpa), because it occasioned the Incarnation of Christ, through whom humanity is brought into an even greater union with God than Adam ever experienced. The Incarnation reveals the depths of God’s love. By becoming man, God dignifies human nature and opens the way for humanity not only to be redeemed but to share in the divine life (2 Peter 1:4). This divine condescension demonstrates God’s justice and mercy: justice in that sin is truly atoned for, and mercy in that the atonement is entirely God’s initiative, given freely out of love (John 3:16, Eph. 2:8-9). In the JWs’ theology, which sees Jesus as merely a created being, diminishes the profound mystery of the Incarnation. If Jesus were not God, the ransom would be inadequate, as no creature could restore the infinite breach caused by sin.
JWs frequently cite texts like Job 1-2, Gen. 3, and Rev. 12:10 to suggest that God’s sovereignty NEEDED to be vindicated against Satan’s accusations. However, this framework implies a dualistic struggle between God and Satan, as if God’s sovereignty were ever in question. At the core of the JWs’ theodicy, God is effectively a supernatural Marty McFly playing a cosmic chicken game with the world just because Satan challenged him.
(1/2)
(2/2)
Catholic theology rejects this dualism entirely. God is omnipotent and sovereign, and His actions are never contingent upon Satan’s accusations or challenges. Instead, the story of redemption is about God’s initiative to restore humanity, not as a reaction to Satan’s rebellion but as a fulfillment of His eternal plan. In Gen. 3:15, God promises a Redeemer who will crush the serpent’s head, prefiguring Christ’s victory over sin and death. This victory is not a mere legal transaction but a cosmic renewal of all creation (Rom. 8:19-21).
JWs assert that Jesus’ sacrifice merely restores what Adam lost—perfect human life in an earthly paradise. This view, however, fails to grasp the transformative power of Christ’s redemption. The NT repeatedly emphasizes that Christ does far more than restore; He elevates humanity. Through His death and resurrection, believers are not merely returned to Edenic innocence but are made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), adopted as children of God (Rom. 8:15-17), and united with Christ in His glory (Col. 3:4). The JWs’ focus on Christ as a "CORRESPONDING ransom" (NWT) for Adam’s sin reduces the Incarnation to a mere corrective measure, ignoring the fullness of God’s salvific plan. As Paul writes in Rom. 5:15-17, the grace given through Christ surpasses the trespass of Adam. Salvation is not merely the restoration of what was lost but the elevation of humanity to eternal communion with God.
Catholic theology offers a coherent soteriological framework that fully accounts for the depth of sin and the necessity of God’s direct intervention. The Trinity is not a contradiction but the ultimate expression of God’s nature as love (1 John 4:8). Only a Trinitarian God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—can fully accomplish the work of creation, redemption, and sanctification. JW theology, by denying Christ’s deity, limits the scope of salvation and misunderstands the radical transformation offered through Christ. The Catholic view, grounded in Scripture and tradition, affirms that the Incarnation and the Cross are not merely about restoring what was lost but about drawing humanity into the very life of God—a mystery so profound that it can only be described as a “felix culpa.”
Thread now closed.
Post a Comment