Have been digging into this subject a bit more thoroughly, in light of Nincs assertion that the removal of the Tetragram was intentional in the NT and was a theological point the NT authors intended to make regarding Christ's LORDship. (namely, that now Jesus = YHWH).
Found this echoed in the LSB translation. See "Names of God" in its foreword. https://lsbible.org/foreword/
Christ explicitly quotes the LXX of Isa 61:1 at Luke 4:18, 19.
Christ is "made Lord (kyrios)" by another; God, in Acts 2:36. YHWH and Kyrios are distinguished in verse 34, quoting from Ps 110:1.
The NT does not preserve the Tetragrammaton in its MSS, and its consistent replacement with κύριος reflects continuity with the Septuagint tradition rather than a suppression or marginalization of the divine name. The Septuagint translators rendered YHWH as κύριος, reflecting Jewish oral tradition, where “Adonai” was substituted for YHWH to avoid pronouncing the divine name. This practice predated Christianity and was already standard among Greek-speaking Jews. All extant NT MSS use κύριος or θεός in place of YHWH. There is no textual evidence of a transitional phase where the Tetragrammaton appeared in the NT before being replaced. The NT's emphasis on Jesus as κύριος (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23) demonstrates a deliberate identification of Jesus with the God of Israel. This usage affirms continuity with the LXX tradition and does not indicate a suppression of the Tetragrammaton. While the Tetragrammaton may have influenced the theological framework of NT writers indirectly, its direct importance in the text is limited, given the absence of YHWH in the MSS.
While certain phrases like "your name" (e.g., John 17:11-12) may echo OT language about God’s name, they do not definitively refer to the Tetragrammaton. These references are better understood as part of a broader theological discourse rather than specific allusions to YHWH. The NT’s use of “name” often reflects a theological focus on God’s character, authority, and revelation in Christ (e.g., Acts 4:12), rather than a direct reference to the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH naturally influenced early Christian scribes, who adopted κύριος as the standard rendering. This does not imply an “indirect” presence of YHWH but rather reflects the continuity of Jewish reverence for the divine name.
The idea of an “eclipse” of the divine name misrepresents early Christian theology and the textual tradition. Early Christians inherited the Septuagint with κύριος already established as the Greek equivalent for YHWH. There was no “loss of capacity” to detect allusions to the divine name; rather, Christians continued the Jewish tradition of reverence by using κύριος. The Christian scribal practice of abbreviating κύριος (e.g., ΚΣ) and other sacred names demonstrates reverence rather than ignorance or neglect of the divine name. Early Christian theology emphasized Jesus’ identification as κύριος, the Lord of the OT. This was not a result of neglecting the divine name but a theological affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Romans 10:13, quoting Joel 2:32).
The use of κύριος in place of YHWH reflects the Jewish oral substitution of Adonai. Christians, as heirs to the Jewish Scriptures, naturally continued this tradition. The consistent use of κύριος in NT MSS suggests that early Christians saw no need to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, as its reverence was preserved in the established scribal practices. By using κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus, the NT affirms Jesus’ divine identity without undermining the significance of the Tetragrammaton. This theological choice reflects a continuity with Jewish reverence for God’s name, not a departure from it.
The LXX, with its consistent use of κύριος, was a Jewish work that predated Christianity. Christians adopted this tradition without alteration. The early Christian movement arose within a Jewish context, and its textual practices reflect this heritage. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in NT texts is not evidence of an “eclipse” but a continuation of Jewish reverence for God’s name. While the Tetragrammaton is significant in the OT, its absence in NT MSS reflects a deliberate theological choice to emphasize God’s revelation in Jesus as κύριος, not a neglect or suppression of the divine name. Wilkinson’s analysis underestimates the centrality of κύριος in early Christian Christology, where it serves as a bridge between Jewish monotheism and the Christian affirmation of Jesus’ deity.
Edgar, I don't want to sneak the previous conversation in here, and if you'd prefer to omit all but the link, I'll understand, but I didn't get a chance to address something from the previous conversation about the DN in the NT. I'm an old man, and I no longer typically have the energy to stay up until midnight to make sure I can comment before discussions are locked. I get up for work at 3:30AM!
I sensed from the back-and-forth that there may be an assumption that the JW argument includes the assertion that the pre-Christians LXX mss. that contain the divine name in Hebrew characters reflect the "original" method of representing the divine name in Greek writings. I also got the sense that some may assume that if it could be shown that those mss. reflect a later stage in the transmission of the LLX, then the JW view has been refuted. If that is an assumption that some have, then I think it misses the point.
The JW view that the divine name was included in the original NT writings doesn't hang or fall on whether the original LXX had the divine name in Hebrew characters. Indeed, I don't think it did, as I agree with Tov, Skehan, and others that the original form was Iaw, and that *both* the use of Hebrew characters and Kurios came later in the transmission of the LXX.
What the mss. that include the name in Hebrew characters demonstrate is the Jewish obsession -- a healthily obsession, in this case -- with preserving the divine name in the biblical texts, and the Apostles were all Jews.
I'll also say that I find it impossible to take most critics of the NWT's restoration of the divine name in the NT seriously, as most of them seem perfectly happy to tolerate the practice of replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT. People who, when discussing the divine name in Scripture, focus on criticizing the WTS, yet don't give equal time to criticizing Christendom's translators for replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT, are hypocrites. Anyone who thinks that JWs are wrong to use the divine name in the NT under the assumption that this constitutes a restoration, should also think that Christendom's translators are wrong to replace the divine name with surrogates in the OT. Indeed, IF both choices were wrong, then Christendom's translators would be wrong over 6,500 times, whereas the WTS would only be wrong by a fraction of that number.
Sean, that's so true about Brill. At least they're consistent ☺
I grant the possibility that some scribes might have revised practically all/all pre-Christian MSS but I need more evidence before I can accept Pietersma's hypothesis. I have more faith in the correctness of the Goldbach conjecture.
On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS.
"On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS."
I know you realize this, but to ensure that others don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the divine name (YHWH) wasn't in the original LXX writings; rather, I'm saying that it was there, but in the Greek form of Iaw. Do I know this with certainty? Of course not, but Tov and Skehan convinced me that this is the best explanation of the available data.
Sean, thanks for clarifying. I highly respect Tov and live his books and I've read Frank Shaw's book about Iao, but I still have questions about how one arrives at that position in terms of the extant MSS. Don't know if you've read De Troyer, but she argues that the divine name was represented numerous ways in the LXX.
For the record, I'm not a skeptic, but I like material evidence for significant claims.
The presence of the Tetragrammaton in the original NT MSS actually depends heavily on the continuity of Jewish scribal practices from the LXX. If the LXX itself did not consistently include YHWH, the JW claim that NT authors would have followed such a tradition loses credibility. Many scholars argue that κύριος (Lord) was the primary translation of YHWH in the LXX from its inception, reflecting Jewish oral traditions of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH during readings. The claim that ΙΑΩ predates κύριος is speculative and not supported by sufficient MS evidence. While ΙΑΩ appears in isolated and fragmentary MSS like 4Q120, its use was not widespread or consistent. The inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or Hebrew script in some later MSS (e.g., P. Fouad 266) reflects *later revisions* rather than original practices. If the LXX MSS did not universally include YHWH, it is unlikely that NT authors, many of whom directly quote the LXX, would have REintroduced the divine name. This undermines the JW argument that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was included in the NT.
All extant NT MSS uniformly use κύριος or θεός when quoting the OT. There is no evidence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ in the NT text. The NT authors frequently apply κύριος to both God the Father and Jesus, demonstrating their theological conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity. This deliberate use of κύριος undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton was integral to NT writings. The Jewish practice of orally substituting "Adonai" for YHWH naturally carried into Greek translations and the writings of the NT. The use of κύριος reflects a continuation of this tradition rather than a deviation from Jewish reverence for the divine name.
Critiquing the NWT does not require addressing the broader question of how the divine name is rendered in modern translations of the OT. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" into the NT text without any MS evidence to support this choice. This practice is not equivalent to the decision by translators to render YHWH as "LORD" in the OT, which is based on centuries of Jewish and Christian tradition. The JW practice constitutes a theological imposition on the text, whereas the use of "LORD" in the OT reflects continuity with Jewish scribal practices. The claim that "Christendom’s translators" are wrong 6,500 times in the OT versus the WTS being wrong only a fraction of that in the NT is irrelevant. The issue is not about numbers but textual fidelity. If there is no MS evidence for YHWH in the NT, any insertion constitutes textual corruption.
According to George Howard:
“What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.”
While scholars like Tov and Skehan suggest that ΙΑΩ *may* represent an early Greek transliteration of YHWH in the OT, this does not support the JW claim at all that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was present in the original NT texts. MSS like 4Q120 use ΙΑΩ, but these are isolated and fragmentary examples and not representative of a broader tradition. The use of ΙΑΩ appears sporadically in sectarian or regional texts, not as a universal standard. The dominant tradition, as evidenced by the majority of LXX MSS and NT quotations, is the use of κύριος. The Tetragrammaton was represented in various ways in the LXX, including ΙΑΩ, Hebrew script, and κύριος. However, the widespread adoption of κύριος in both Jewish and Christian contexts points to its primacy as the standard rendering.
The absence of transitional evidence for the replacement of YHWH with κύριος in NT MSS severely weakens the JW claim. All NT MSS from the 2nd century onward use κύριος or θεός. There are no known MSS or fragments showing YHWH or ΙΑΩ in NT quotations of the OT. If a systematic replacement had occurred, we would expect to find transitional MSS with mixed usage, but no such evidence exists. The claim that scribes systematically removed the divine name from NT MSS requires extraordinary evidence, which is entirely lacking. Such a conspiracy would also contradict the early Christian emphasis on textual fidelity.
The JW insistence on restoring the divine name in the NT reflects a theological agenda that misunderstands early Christology and textual practices. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for both the Father and Christ reflects their belief in Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:13). This theological affirmation makes the JW distinction between YHWH and Jesus untenable. If YHWH had been preserved in the NT, it would create confusion in passages where κύριος is applied to Jesus, undermining the coherence of early Christian theology.
The citation of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18-19 does not undermine the interpretation of Jesus as YHWH but instead reinforces it when understood in its theological context. In this passage, Jesus applies the prophecy of Isaiah directly to Himself, inaugurating His ministry and claiming the fulfillment of the prophecy. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 contains Adonai YHWH ("Lord YHWH"), which the LXX renders as πνεῦμα κυρίου (Spirit of the Lord). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus reads the passage and declares, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21), explicitly identifying Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. By using κύριος (Lord) as the Greek equivalent of YHWH, the NT continues the Septuagint's tradition and affirms that Jesus embodies the divine mission described in Isaiah. Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity. This is consistent with the broader NT portrayal of Jesus as κύριος, the title used for YHWH in the LXX.
Acts 2:36 does not suggest that Jesus became Lord in a way that diminishes His divine identity but rather emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension. The distinction between YHWH and κύριος in this passage does not contradict the NT's identification of Jesus with YHWH. Jesus Christ is fully God *and* fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity also teaches that “the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia). Acts 2:36 must be understood in light of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. “Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, *as man* He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things.” (Catechism of St. Pius X)
So it does not imply that Jesus was not Lord before (cf. Luke 1:43) but that His Lordship is now publicly declared and affirmed by His resurrection (cf. Romans 1:4). Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand,'" demonstrating that the Messiah (Jesus) is invited to share in YHWH's authority. Although He received the title "The Lord" as man as well, but by this His human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory (doxa). So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which He is really not YHWH God, but a man as the Messianic King. The sharing of divine authority affirms, rather than diminishes, Jesus’ divine identity. The NT authors use the title κύριος to emphasize Jesus' divine authority and equality with YHWH. Acts 2:36 reflects the public acknowledgment of this truth following Jesus’ resurrection, not a creation of His Lordship.
The consistent use of κύριος in the NT, both for YHWH and for Jesus, reflects the NT authors’ deliberate theological choice to present Jesus as sharing in the divine identity. This does not involve confusion but rather highlights the continuity between the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. The NT applies κύριος to Jesus in contexts that explicitly identify Him with YHWH, such as Philippians 2:9-11, which declares that "every knee will bow" to Jesus, quoting Isaiah 45:23, a passage about YHWH. Passages like Romans 10:13 also equate Jesus with YHWH by applying Joel 2:32 to Jesus. The NT authors were aware of the theological implications of using κύριος for Jesus. If they did not intend to identify Jesus with YHWH, they would have clarified the distinction to avoid confusion, especially given the Jewish background of their audience.
One short point for now. Psalm 110:1-2 actually says YHWH/Jehovah said to my Lord, that is, David's Lord. Any ancient Jew reading this verse would not have concluded that the second lord was also YHWH. Nor is that the common Jewish way of reading the psalm.
Indeed, but Trinitarians do not interpret the Son here as being addressed as God in the NT application, but as the Davidic Messiah King, that is, as a man. And as a man, He is indeed not God.
This is what I have often argued with Muslim apologists, that Christian theology does not teach that once we have God, and then besides that there is also Jesus, who is also God, and that we pray to Jesus "instead of" God, etc. Anyone who does not understand Chalcedonian Christology will find it unnecessary to delve into Trinitarian theology, because he will be shooting himself in the face with it, cf. straw man. That is why there is a saying that the Theotokos is the refuter of all (Christological) heresies, since whoever understands it correctly, understands what hypostatic unity is, what communicatio idiomatum is. Although of course, if someone doesn't understand communicatio idiomatum, the question is how they can explain biblical passages like Luke 1:43, Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 2:8.
In fact, guided by Thomistic metaphysical logic, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism is the only pure monotheistic view of all religions.
Look at my arguments written to Muslim apologists about the Trinity vs. "Shirk":
Nincsnevem, you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity or Catholic doctrine. Well, I understand it pretty good but disagree with the Trinity.
Some Trinitarians might pretend that it all makes sense and is logical as can be, but I would beg to differ. People disagree with my theology all the time, but I see no need to accuse them all of misunderstanding my beliefs. Some do misunderstand but most just disagree.
"you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity"
That assertion always inspires an expansive yawn, and it's ironic, because the one asserting it unwittingly reveals his own ignorance. As anyone who has followed the work of Dale Tuggy knows, there is no "the" Trinity, which is why he calls his podcast "Trinities" (plural). What we actually have is historical language that is ambiguous and paradoxical, and a variety of very different ways of attempting to parse that language.
In addition to his other writings on the subject, I highly recommend Tuggy's contribution to the recently published volume, "One God, Three Persons, Four Views," published by Cascade books.
Regarding Luke 4:16-21, you stated “ Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity.” Where?
Regarding Acts 2:36 you stated that this passage “emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension”, something we can both agree on, but in one sentence or less, please answer this: according to that same verse, who “made” (ἐποίησεν -aor 3rd Pers sg) him Lord and Christ? What does the verse in question say? Feel free to include verse 34 if context helps. Keep it succinct please.
You also acknowledged that “He received the title "The Lord" as man as well.”, which you take to mean “sharing in the divine glory (doxa).” But this does not equate him to YHWH, as it refers to just his human nature in the Incarnation, am I right? How can he receive this title in his manhood after emptying himself of divine prerogatives as per his kenosis (Phil 2:5-11)?
He was “Lord” as a foetus before his birth as per “communicatio idiomatum” cf Luke 1:43.
In your view, how many uses of “Lord” are there? Does “Lord” = YHWH him all cases?
Just so we can keep it on topic, in OT YHWH texts quoted in the NT do you think it completely inappropriate to even mark these as having contained the divine name in the original Hebrew, say via italics or a footnote? Or should the translation just keep to “(the) Lord”? As there is no ambiguity in any case according to your view, as Christ is Lord(YHWH) in the NT in any case?
Finally, in your response, before any statements you make please buttress your replies with “in my opinion”, “my personal view is…” “I believe…” etc. it makes for much nicer reading in this setting, thanks.
Also, I enjoyed your “Shirk” article. Clarity of terminology is key.
I am not claiming that you are ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am perfectly sure that if I were to ask the question, such as:
"What does the doctrine of the Trinity teach?"
"What is hypostatic unity and communicatio idiomatum?"
you would know the correct answer. What I sometimes see, however, is that you do not always automatically combine these with the Trinitarian exegesis of the Scriptures.
For example, the Trinitarian understanding never claimed that Jesus is the Messiah (Davidic king, high priest, prophet, mediator) as God. This would contradict not only the principle of the immutability of God, but also specific biblical statements such as 1 Timothy 2:5, Acts 17:31, Hebrews 5:1. It follows of course that all messianic statements such as the Psalm 110:1-2 you quoted also do not address Jesus as God, but as man, and so it is entirely correct that YHWH here addressed Him as non-YHWH.
In fact, according to the Chalcedonian tenet "inconfusedly" (ἀσυγχύτως), there is no ontological-substantial connection between the man Jesus and God, and conceptually there cannot be. Therefore, the Islamic accusation of "Shirk" is not true. Eutychianism would indeed be "Shirk" and, following the principle of God's immutability, is also a metaphysical impossibility.
These must be interpreted correctly, and it must also be determined if at any time a "communicatio idiomatum" statement is involved. For example: "God was crucified". This is a "communicatio idiomatum" statement, by definition not God as such, who was killed, Trinitarians know exactly that God is immutable and immortal, so this does not state anything about the Godhead. This is understood to mean that the one ("person", suppositum) who was crucified as a man is also God. This is how biblical statements such as Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, or 1 Corinthians 2:8 should be understood.
This follows from the fact that even in everyday speech, when we describe events, we are narrating as that happen to the person, to the subject. For example, we do not say "the mother of my body", but only "my mother", although ontologically it is obvious that I only received my body from my mother. Nor do we say "X's body died", although it is evident that we ontologically state the fact of death only about his body.
Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils and as explained in a more serious dogmatic book, such as this one: https://archive.org/details/the-trinity-and-god-the-creator-garrigou-lagrange-reginald
It's no great feat to "disprove" the Average Joe, who knows only that "three-something and something is one, Jesus is God and also His own Son, and the Fathersonholyspirit-somehing."
You asked: "Where does Jesus integrate Himself into the divine identity?" - The integration is implied by Jesus' self-identification as the fulfillment of Isa. 61:1-2. In the original Hebrew, the passage references "Adonai YHWH." Jesus proclaims that He is the fulfillment of this prophecy, thereby identifying Himself as the agent of YHWH's mission. The audience’s reaction further supports this interpretation: their amazement quickly turns to outrage when they realize the implication—that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the one anointed by God, which carries divine connotations within a Jewish context. The text suggests more than a mere prophet or servant; Jesus explicitly aligns Himself with the divine mission and authority foretold in Isaiah. This integration is consistent with NT theology, where κύριος (Lord) is used to reflect Jesus’ identity as YHWH (cf. Romans 10:13, Phil. 2:9-11).
Acts 2:36 states: "God has made Him both Lord and Christ" You emphasized the verb ἐποίησεν ("made"). This has two aspects:
A) Just as Phil. 2:9 also declares ("God ... gave him the name that is above every other name"), that is, that as a man he received the “name” “Lord”, not in the sense that he ontologically became God (would be a metaphysical impossibility, compromising God's immutability), but that as a man he also shares in the divine glory (doxa), which he renounced in the "kenosis".
B) The other aspect is that "making" here reflects the public recognition and enthronement of Jesus as Lord and Messiah following His resurrection and ascension. Peter explicitly quotes Ps. 110:1 (Acts 2:34): "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand.'" This enthronement language underscores Jesus' exaltation rather than a change in His inherent nature. The verse reflects His glorification in His humanity, not a denial of His preexistent Lordship as God the Son (cf. John 17:5: “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began”).
So Jesus received the title "Lord" in His humanity, “the name” in Phil. 2:9 eventually refers to the divine name itself—YHWH (cf. Isa.45:23). This "bestowal" does not mean that Jesus became God; rather, it publicly declares His divine identity and authority in the context of His incarnate mission. Phil. 2:6-7 shows that Jesus did not cease to be divine during the kenosis; He set aside His divine prerogatives temporarily, but His divine nature remained intact. His exaltation reaffirms His divine authority and glory, now revealed through His human nature.
You asked: “how many uses of “Lord” are there?” - The title "Lord" (κύριος) in the NT is used in various contexts:
1. YHWH (Divine Name): Referring to God, as seen in OT citations like Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32) and Philippians 2:10-11 (Isa. 45:23).
2. Messianic Title: Applied to Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecies (e.g., Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34-36).
2. Honorific Title: Used in polite address or recognition of authority (e.g., John 4:11, where the Samaritan woman calls Jesus "Sir").
In many cases, "Lord" refers to Jesus as YHWH, particularly in contexts quoting OT texts about YHWH. The NT authors deliberately equate Jesus with YHWH in these instances, while also distinguishing His roles in the economy of salvation (e.g., as Messiah and Mediator).
It is not inappropriate to mark OT quotations in the NT where YHWH was used in the original Hebrew. Many translations include footnotes to clarify this. For example, I would support the idea that where the NT contains an OT quote referring to YHWH, the Lord should be written in capital letters (LORD). The NT writers consistently used κύριος to render YHWH, reflecting the LXX tradition and emphasizing Jesus’ divine identity. Retaining "Lord" in translations maintains continuity with the theological intent of the NT authors, who present Jesus as YHWH in passages like Romans 10:13 and Phil. 2:9-11. Including footnotes for clarity is helpful, but substituting "YHWH" for "Lord" in the NT text would disrupt this continuity.
You asked: “So the correct Trinity understanding "as a man Jesus is indeed not God"?”
It depends on how you understand the question. If it means that He ceased to be God (Him being non-God at all) as a result of the Incarnation, then this statement is incorrect. If it means that the human nature He assumed as a result of the Incarnation is not God, and that deity cannot be asserted in any way ontologically-substantially about His human nature, then it is correct.
So the answer depends on understanding the distinction made in Chalcedonian Christology between the two natures of Jesus Christ—divine and human—united in one person (hypostasis). The divine Logos and the man Christ are united and connected by only one thing: the person, the subject (hypostasis, suppositum). So there is no ontological-substantial connection between the two natures, but rather a very unique Creator-creature relation.
Jesus Christ is one Person (the eternal Logos), with two distinct natures: divine and human. As God, Jesus is fully divine, possessing the divine essence and all attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. As man, Jesus is fully human, with a created human nature, including a body and a rational soul.
The human nature of Jesus is not divine. It is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. This is in line with orthodox Christology, which emphasizes that Jesus’ humanity never becomes divine, and His divinity does not diminish or change to accommodate His humanity. The divine and human natures of Christ are united in one Person (the Logos), without confusion, change, division, or separation (inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter). This means that while Jesus’ human nature is not God, the Person of Jesus, who acts and speaks through both natures, is God. The Chalcedonian definition essentially excludes the interpretations that:
1) The human and divine natures are indistinguishable and a kind of peculiar "mix" has been created (Eutychianism). This violates the principle of the simplicity and immutability of God.
2) That the man Christ and the divine Logos can be separated into two separate subjects (Nestorianism). This would essentially claim that there are two different Christs, there is a divine Logos, and in addition there is the man Jesus (two pieces of "I"), and the relationship between these two is only some loose, moral connection, like a relationship of inner friendship, mutual affection.
Therefore, the orthodox view is that in Christ the human and divine natures are (ontologically) distinguishable AND inseparable.
When we say, "as a man, Jesus is not God," it means His humanity, considered on its own, is not divine. However the Person (hypostasis, suppositum) of Jesus (the Logos) remains fully God, even while taking on human nature. Jesus’ human actions (e.g., hunger, fatigue, suffering, death) pertain to His human nature, but they are still actions of the divine Person. For example, God died on the cross in His human nature, but not in His divine nature, which is impassible and eternal.
So yes, "as a man, Jesus is not God" in the sense that His humanity is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. However, "as a Person, Jesus is God," since the human nature is united to the divine Person of the Logos. This unity ensures that Christ’s divine identity is not compromised, even as He fully participates in human experience. This nuanced understanding preserves both the full humanity and full divinity of Christ within the framework of the Trinity.
When scholars discovered Greek OT MSS in the 20th century that contained the Tetragrammaton, this was not a shocking revelation. Early Christian writers like Origen and Jerome had already described the existence of such LXX MSS. This indirect evidence provided historical context for the eventual discovery of these MSS. If the NT originally included the Tetragrammaton, we should expect similar indirect evidence. Yet no early Christian source, including those who had access to the earliest NT MSS, ever mentions the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT. The silence of these sources is deafening. The Library of Caesarea Maritima, founded by Pamphilus and expanded by Origen, was the largest Christian library of antiquity. Many, such as Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Jerome studied there. If any MSS of the NT containing the Tetragrammaton existed, they would have been preserved in this library. Yet none of these ever mentions a Tetragrammaton in the NT, even though Jerome documented textual variants in the NT.
The early Christian period was marked by theological disputes, with different factions accusing one another of heresy and Scripture manipulation. If the proto-orthodox Christians had removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT, we would expect their theological opponents to use this as ammunition against them. Yet there is no record of any group accusing the proto-orthodox of such a tampering. Polycarp and other proto-orthodox figures faced accusations from theological opponents like the Gnostics or Marcionites, but no group ever accused them of removing the Tetragrammaton. This was not a point of contention, even during highly charged debates over Christology, Scripture, and ecclesial authority. If the Tetragrammaton was originally part of the NT, its removal would surely have been a significant theological issue.
The JW claim implies that someone had the authority and ability to systematically remove the Tetragrammaton from all NT MSS. However, this is historically implausible. When Caliph Uthman standardized the Qur'an, dissenting textual traditions still survived, and variant readings are documented. By contrast, no evidence exists of dissenting textual traditions in Christianity where the Tetragrammaton was retained in the NT. The process of replacing the Tetragrammaton would have required unprecedented coordination across the diverse and dispersed Christian communities of the Roman Empire, something no single authority in early Christianity could achieve. Christianity was highly decentralized, with regional leaders such as bishops overseeing local churches. There was no mechanism for universally enforcing such a change. The proto-orthodox Christians lacked the power to standardize all MSS, especially when many were in circulation and held by diverse groups, including theological opponents. The lack of both evidence and a plausible historical mechanism for such a widespread alteration further undermines the JW claim.
If early Christians regularly invoked the Tetragrammaton in their worship, we would expect external sources to comment on this. Yet external writers, such as Roman officials or pagan observers, consistently describe Christian worship as centered on Jesus. Pliny the Younger in his letter to Emperor Trajan describes Christian worship as follows: "They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..." Pliny does not mention Christians invoking the Tetragrammaton, even though such a practice would have caused great scandal to Jews. The Alexamenos graffito (c. 2nd century) depicts a Christian figure, with the inscription: "Alexamenos worships [his] God" This graffiti mocks Christian worship but makes no mention that Christians worship some kind of “Yaho.” The absence of any reference to the Tetragrammaton suggests that it was not part of early Christian practice. The consistent testimony of external sources aligns with the internal evidence: early Christians invoked Christ and did not use the Tetragrammaton in their worship.
"Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils"
I wasn't referring to the "average Joe"; I was referring to trinitarian philosophers, many of whom hold VERY different views about how the ambiguous and paradoxical language in the creeds should be interpreted.
You should have realized this by virtue of my mention of Dale Tuggy.
One of the reasons that many people misunderstand the doctrine is because Trinitarians themselves typically use standard methods of argumentation to support it. This tends to obscure the fact that the doctrine is ultimately both presuppositional in character, in a sort of Bahsen-ian sense, and non-falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
Even if Jesus had explicitly said, "I am not God," one can easily imagine the modern committed Trinitarian replying, "Well of course Jesus isn't the Father; that's perfectly compatible with Trinity." If that's not non-falsifiable, then nothing is.
While it is true that some Gnostic groups used ΙΑΩ, this evidence does not support the idea that mainstream Early Christian communities adopted it. As noted by Origen and Irenaeus, Gnostic groups often borrowed names and terms from both biblical and non-biblical sources. The use of ΙΑΩ by Gnostics reflects their syncretistic theology rather than the practice of orthodox Christians. There is no textual evidence from first-century Christian MSS that ΙΑΩ was used in place of κύριος. The examples cited by Hylton, such as references to ΙΑΩ in Gnostic baptismal formulas, reflect heterodox practices, not the mainstream Christian tradition. The use of κύριος in NT MSS and early Christian liturgy is consistent and widespread. The nomina sacra for κύριος (ΚΣ) and θεός (ΘΣ) in early Christian MSS highlight the reverence with which these terms were treated. The absence of ΙΑΩ in these MSS underscores its marginality. If ΙΑΩ had been widely used in early Christian communities, we would expect to see transitional MSS or debates about its replacement with κύριος. However, no such evidence exists.
Jewish tradition consistently substituted "Adonai" for YHWH in oral recitation. The use of κύριος in the LXX reflects this practice. As such, the adoption of κύριος in Christian texts aligns with Jewish norms. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or transliterations like ΙΑΩ in certain Greek MSS reflects a reversion to Hebrew forms, likely motivated by sectarian or liturgical concerns. These efforts are distinct from the original translation philosophy of the LXX.
The evidence for the use of ΙΑΩ comes primarily from Gnostic texts and practices, which diverged significantly from orthodox Christian theology and liturgy. For example, the baptismal formula cited by Hylton reflects a Gnostic reinterpretation of Christian rites. Hylton’s claim that Acts 2:21 originally used ΙΑΩ instead of κύριος lacks MS support. All extant NT MSS consistently use κύριος in citations of Joel 2:32, demonstrating the early Christian alignment with the LXX tradition.
25 comments:
Have been digging into this subject a bit more thoroughly, in light of Nincs assertion that the removal of the Tetragram was intentional in the NT and was a theological point the NT authors intended to make regarding Christ's LORDship. (namely, that now Jesus = YHWH).
Found this echoed in the LSB translation. See "Names of God" in its foreword.
https://lsbible.org/foreword/
Christ explicitly quotes the LXX of Isa 61:1 at Luke 4:18, 19.
Christ is "made Lord (kyrios)" by another; God, in Acts 2:36.
YHWH and Kyrios are distinguished in verse 34, quoting from Ps 110:1.
The NT does not preserve the Tetragrammaton in its MSS, and its consistent replacement with κύριος reflects continuity with the Septuagint tradition rather than a suppression or marginalization of the divine name. The Septuagint translators rendered YHWH as κύριος, reflecting Jewish oral tradition, where “Adonai” was substituted for YHWH to avoid pronouncing the divine name. This practice predated Christianity and was already standard among Greek-speaking Jews. All extant NT MSS use κύριος or θεός in place of YHWH. There is no textual evidence of a transitional phase where the Tetragrammaton appeared in the NT before being replaced. The NT's emphasis on Jesus as κύριος (e.g., Philippians 2:11, quoting Isaiah 45:23) demonstrates a deliberate identification of Jesus with the God of Israel. This usage affirms continuity with the LXX tradition and does not indicate a suppression of the Tetragrammaton. While the Tetragrammaton may have influenced the theological framework of NT writers indirectly, its direct importance in the text is limited, given the absence of YHWH in the MSS.
While certain phrases like "your name" (e.g., John 17:11-12) may echo OT language about God’s name, they do not definitively refer to the Tetragrammaton. These references are better understood as part of a broader theological discourse rather than specific allusions to YHWH. The NT’s use of “name” often reflects a theological focus on God’s character, authority, and revelation in Christ (e.g., Acts 4:12), rather than a direct reference to the Tetragrammaton. The Jewish avoidance of pronouncing YHWH naturally influenced early Christian scribes, who adopted κύριος as the standard rendering. This does not imply an “indirect” presence of YHWH but rather reflects the continuity of Jewish reverence for the divine name.
The idea of an “eclipse” of the divine name misrepresents early Christian theology and the textual tradition. Early Christians inherited the Septuagint with κύριος already established as the Greek equivalent for YHWH. There was no “loss of capacity” to detect allusions to the divine name; rather, Christians continued the Jewish tradition of reverence by using κύριος. The Christian scribal practice of abbreviating κύριος (e.g., ΚΣ) and other sacred names demonstrates reverence rather than ignorance or neglect of the divine name. Early Christian theology emphasized Jesus’ identification as κύριος, the Lord of the OT. This was not a result of neglecting the divine name but a theological affirmation of Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Romans 10:13, quoting Joel 2:32).
The use of κύριος in place of YHWH reflects the Jewish oral substitution of Adonai. Christians, as heirs to the Jewish Scriptures, naturally continued this tradition. The consistent use of κύριος in NT MSS suggests that early Christians saw no need to reintroduce the Tetragrammaton, as its reverence was preserved in the established scribal practices. By using κύριος for both YHWH and Jesus, the NT affirms Jesus’ divine identity without undermining the significance of the Tetragrammaton. This theological choice reflects a continuity with Jewish reverence for God’s name, not a departure from it.
The LXX, with its consistent use of κύριος, was a Jewish work that predated Christianity. Christians adopted this tradition without alteration. The early Christian movement arose within a Jewish context, and its textual practices reflect this heritage. The absence of the Tetragrammaton in NT texts is not evidence of an “eclipse” but a continuation of Jewish reverence for God’s name. While the Tetragrammaton is significant in the OT, its absence in NT MSS reflects a deliberate theological choice to emphasize God’s revelation in Jesus as κύριος, not a neglect or suppression of the divine name. Wilkinson’s analysis underestimates the centrality of κύριος in early Christian Christology, where it serves as a bridge between Jewish monotheism and the Christian affirmation of Jesus’ deity.
Thanks for the reference! As is customary for Brill, it's expensive:
https://brill.com/display/title/26914?rskey=ws4zaY&result=4
Edgar, I don't want to sneak the previous conversation in here, and if you'd prefer to omit all but the link, I'll understand, but I didn't get a chance to address something from the previous conversation about the DN in the NT. I'm an old man, and I no longer typically have the energy to stay up until midnight to make sure I can comment before discussions are locked. I get up for work at 3:30AM!
I sensed from the back-and-forth that there may be an assumption that the JW argument includes the assertion that the pre-Christians LXX mss. that contain the divine name in Hebrew characters reflect the "original" method of representing the divine name in Greek writings. I also got the sense that some may assume that if it could be shown that those mss. reflect a later stage in the transmission of the LLX, then the JW view has been refuted. If that is an assumption that some have, then I think it misses the point.
The JW view that the divine name was included in the original NT writings doesn't hang or fall on whether the original LXX had the divine name in Hebrew characters. Indeed, I don't think it did, as I agree with Tov, Skehan, and others that the original form was Iaw, and that *both* the use of Hebrew characters and Kurios came later in the transmission of the LXX.
What the mss. that include the name in Hebrew characters demonstrate is the Jewish obsession -- a healthily obsession, in this case -- with preserving the divine name in the biblical texts, and the Apostles were all Jews.
I'll also say that I find it impossible to take most critics of the NWT's restoration of the divine name in the NT seriously, as most of them seem perfectly happy to tolerate the practice of replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT. People who, when discussing the divine name in Scripture, focus on criticizing the WTS, yet don't give equal time to criticizing Christendom's translators for replacing the divine name with surrogates in the OT, are hypocrites. Anyone who thinks that JWs are wrong to use the divine name in the NT under the assumption that this constitutes a restoration, should also think that Christendom's translators are wrong to replace the divine name with surrogates in the OT. Indeed, IF both choices were wrong, then Christendom's translators would be wrong over 6,500 times, whereas the WTS would only be wrong by a fraction of that number.
Sean, that's so true about Brill. At least they're consistent ☺
I grant the possibility that some scribes might have revised practically all/all pre-Christian MSS but I need more evidence before I can accept Pietersma's hypothesis. I have more faith in the correctness of the Goldbach conjecture.
On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS.
"On the other hand, I agree that the JW position does not stand or fall on whether YHWH originally appeared in the LXX MSS."
I know you realize this, but to ensure that others don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that the divine name (YHWH) wasn't in the original LXX writings; rather, I'm saying that it was there, but in the Greek form of Iaw. Do I know this with certainty? Of course not, but Tov and Skehan convinced me that this is the best explanation of the available data.
Terence, thanks for posting that info and link.
Sean, thanks for clarifying. I highly respect Tov and live his books and I've read Frank Shaw's book about Iao, but I still have questions about how one arrives at that position in terms of the extant MSS. Don't know if you've read De Troyer, but she argues that the divine name was represented numerous ways in the LXX.
For the record, I'm not a skeptic, but I like material evidence for significant claims.
The presence of the Tetragrammaton in the original NT MSS actually depends heavily on the continuity of Jewish scribal practices from the LXX. If the LXX itself did not consistently include YHWH, the JW claim that NT authors would have followed such a tradition loses credibility. Many scholars argue that κύριος (Lord) was the primary translation of YHWH in the LXX from its inception, reflecting Jewish oral traditions of substituting "Adonai" for YHWH during readings. The claim that ΙΑΩ predates κύριος is speculative and not supported by sufficient MS evidence. While ΙΑΩ appears in isolated and fragmentary MSS like 4Q120, its use was not widespread or consistent. The inclusion of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or Hebrew script in some later MSS (e.g., P. Fouad 266) reflects *later revisions* rather than original practices. If the LXX MSS did not universally include YHWH, it is unlikely that NT authors, many of whom directly quote the LXX, would have REintroduced the divine name. This undermines the JW argument that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was included in the NT.
All extant NT MSS uniformly use κύριος or θεός when quoting the OT. There is no evidence of YHWH or ΙΑΩ in the NT text. The NT authors frequently apply κύριος to both God the Father and Jesus, demonstrating their theological conviction that Jesus shares in the divine identity. This deliberate use of κύριος undermines the claim that the Tetragrammaton was integral to NT writings. The Jewish practice of orally substituting "Adonai" for YHWH naturally carried into Greek translations and the writings of the NT. The use of κύριος reflects a continuation of this tradition rather than a deviation from Jewish reverence for the divine name.
Critiquing the NWT does not require addressing the broader question of how the divine name is rendered in modern translations of the OT. The NWT inserts "Jehovah" into the NT text without any MS evidence to support this choice. This practice is not equivalent to the decision by translators to render YHWH as "LORD" in the OT, which is based on centuries of Jewish and Christian tradition. The JW practice constitutes a theological imposition on the text, whereas the use of "LORD" in the OT reflects continuity with Jewish scribal practices. The claim that "Christendom’s translators" are wrong 6,500 times in the OT versus the WTS being wrong only a fraction of that in the NT is irrelevant. The issue is not about numbers but textual fidelity. If there is no MS evidence for YHWH in the NT, any insertion constitutes textual corruption.
According to George Howard:
“What I tried to show was that there is evidence that the Septuagint Bibles used by the writers of the New Testament contained the Hebrew Tetragrammaton. I argued that it is reasonable to assume that the NT writers, when quoting from the Septuagint, retained the Tetragrammaton in the quotations. This does not support the JW’s insertion of "Jehovah" in every place they want. To do this is to remove the NT from its original "theological climate." My opinion of the New World Translation (based on limited exposure) is that it is odd. I suspect that it is a Translation designed to support JW theology. Finally, my theory about the Tetragrammaton is just that, a theory. Some of my colleagues disagree with me (for example Albert Pietersma). Theories like mine are important to be set forth so that others can investigate their probability and implications. Until they are proven (and mine has not been proven) they should not be used as a surety for belief.”
(1/2)
(2/2)
While scholars like Tov and Skehan suggest that ΙΑΩ *may* represent an early Greek transliteration of YHWH in the OT, this does not support the JW claim at all that YHWH or ΙΑΩ was present in the original NT texts. MSS like 4Q120 use ΙΑΩ, but these are isolated and fragmentary examples and not representative of a broader tradition. The use of ΙΑΩ appears sporadically in sectarian or regional texts, not as a universal standard. The dominant tradition, as evidenced by the majority of LXX MSS and NT quotations, is the use of κύριος. The Tetragrammaton was represented in various ways in the LXX, including ΙΑΩ, Hebrew script, and κύριος. However, the widespread adoption of κύριος in both Jewish and Christian contexts points to its primacy as the standard rendering.
The absence of transitional evidence for the replacement of YHWH with κύριος in NT MSS severely weakens the JW claim. All NT MSS from the 2nd century onward use κύριος or θεός. There are no known MSS or fragments showing YHWH or ΙΑΩ in NT quotations of the OT. If a systematic replacement had occurred, we would expect to find transitional MSS with mixed usage, but no such evidence exists. The claim that scribes systematically removed the divine name from NT MSS requires extraordinary evidence, which is entirely lacking. Such a conspiracy would also contradict the early Christian emphasis on textual fidelity.
The JW insistence on restoring the divine name in the NT reflects a theological agenda that misunderstands early Christology and textual practices. The NT authors’ use of κύριος for both the Father and Christ reflects their belief in Jesus’ divine identity (e.g., Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:13). This theological affirmation makes the JW distinction between YHWH and Jesus untenable. If YHWH had been preserved in the NT, it would create confusion in passages where κύριος is applied to Jesus, undermining the coherence of early Christian theology.
@Terence
The citation of Isaiah 61:1 in Luke 4:18-19 does not undermine the interpretation of Jesus as YHWH but instead reinforces it when understood in its theological context. In this passage, Jesus applies the prophecy of Isaiah directly to Himself, inaugurating His ministry and claiming the fulfillment of the prophecy. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 61:1 contains Adonai YHWH ("Lord YHWH"), which the LXX renders as πνεῦμα κυρίου (Spirit of the Lord). In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus reads the passage and declares, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21), explicitly identifying Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. By using κύριος (Lord) as the Greek equivalent of YHWH, the NT continues the Septuagint's tradition and affirms that Jesus embodies the divine mission described in Isaiah. Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity. This is consistent with the broader NT portrayal of Jesus as κύριος, the title used for YHWH in the LXX.
Acts 2:36 does not suggest that Jesus became Lord in a way that diminishes His divine identity but rather emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension. The distinction between YHWH and κύριος in this passage does not contradict the NT's identification of Jesus with YHWH. Jesus Christ is fully God *and* fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity also teaches that “the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia). Acts 2:36 must be understood in light of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation. “Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, *as man* He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things.” (Catechism of St. Pius X)
So it does not imply that Jesus was not Lord before (cf. Luke 1:43) but that His Lordship is now publicly declared and affirmed by His resurrection (cf. Romans 1:4). Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34: "The Lord said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand,'" demonstrating that the Messiah (Jesus) is invited to share in YHWH's authority. Although He received the title "The Lord" as man as well, but by this His human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory (doxa). So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which He is really not YHWH God, but a man as the Messianic King. The sharing of divine authority affirms, rather than diminishes, Jesus’ divine identity. The NT authors use the title κύριος to emphasize Jesus' divine authority and equality with YHWH. Acts 2:36 reflects the public acknowledgment of this truth following Jesus’ resurrection, not a creation of His Lordship.
The consistent use of κύριος in the NT, both for YHWH and for Jesus, reflects the NT authors’ deliberate theological choice to present Jesus as sharing in the divine identity. This does not involve confusion but rather highlights the continuity between the God of Israel and Jesus Christ. The NT applies κύριος to Jesus in contexts that explicitly identify Him with YHWH, such as Philippians 2:9-11, which declares that "every knee will bow" to Jesus, quoting Isaiah 45:23, a passage about YHWH. Passages like Romans 10:13 also equate Jesus with YHWH by applying Joel 2:32 to Jesus. The NT authors were aware of the theological implications of using κύριος for Jesus. If they did not intend to identify Jesus with YHWH, they would have clarified the distinction to avoid confusion, especially given the Jewish background of their audience.
One short point for now. Psalm 110:1-2 actually says YHWH/Jehovah said to my Lord, that is, David's Lord. Any ancient Jew reading this verse would not have concluded that the second lord was also YHWH. Nor is that the common Jewish way of reading the psalm.
Indeed, but Trinitarians do not interpret the Son here as being addressed as God in the NT application, but as the Davidic Messiah King, that is, as a man. And as a man, He is indeed not God.
This is what I have often argued with Muslim apologists, that Christian theology does not teach that once we have God, and then besides that there is also Jesus, who is also God, and that we pray to Jesus "instead of" God, etc. Anyone who does not understand Chalcedonian Christology will find it unnecessary to delve into Trinitarian theology, because he will be shooting himself in the face with it, cf. straw man. That is why there is a saying that the Theotokos is the refuter of all (Christological) heresies, since whoever understands it correctly, understands what hypostatic unity is, what communicatio idiomatum is. Although of course, if someone doesn't understand communicatio idiomatum, the question is how they can explain biblical passages like Luke 1:43, Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 2:8.
In fact, guided by Thomistic metaphysical logic, Chalcedonian Trinitarianism is the only pure monotheistic view of all religions.
Look at my arguments written to Muslim apologists about the Trinity vs. "Shirk":
https://justpaste.it/i4aj3
Nincsnevem, you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity or Catholic doctrine. Well, I understand it pretty good but disagree with the Trinity.
Some Trinitarians might pretend that it all makes sense and is logical as can be, but I would beg to differ. People disagree with my theology all the time, but I see no need to accuse them all of misunderstanding my beliefs. Some do misunderstand but most just disagree.
So the correct Trinity understanding "as a man Jesus is indeed not God"?
"you often say that people misunderstand the Trinity"
That assertion always inspires an expansive yawn, and it's ironic, because the one asserting it unwittingly reveals his own ignorance. As anyone who has followed the work of Dale Tuggy knows, there is no "the" Trinity, which is why he calls his podcast "Trinities" (plural). What we actually have is historical language that is ambiguous and paradoxical, and a variety of very different ways of attempting to parse that language.
In addition to his other writings on the subject, I highly recommend Tuggy's contribution to the recently published volume, "One God, Three Persons, Four Views," published by Cascade books.
@Nincs
Regarding Luke 4:16-21, you stated “ Jesus' self-application of this passage, with its reference to the Lord, does not distinguish Him from YHWH but integrates Him into the divine identity.”
Where?
Regarding Acts 2:36 you stated that this passage “emphasizes His exaltation and recognition as Lord following His resurrection and ascension”, something we can both agree on, but in one sentence or less, please answer this: according to that same verse, who “made” (ἐποίησεν -aor 3rd Pers sg) him Lord and Christ? What does the verse in question say? Feel free to include verse 34 if context helps. Keep it succinct please.
You also acknowledged that “He received the title "The Lord" as man as well.”, which you take to mean “sharing in the divine glory (doxa).” But this does not equate him to YHWH, as it refers to just his human nature in the Incarnation, am I right? How can he receive this title in his manhood after emptying himself of divine prerogatives as per his kenosis (Phil 2:5-11)?
He was “Lord” as a foetus before his birth as per “communicatio idiomatum” cf Luke 1:43.
In your view, how many uses of “Lord” are there? Does “Lord” = YHWH him all cases?
Just so we can keep it on topic, in OT YHWH texts quoted in the NT do you think it completely inappropriate to even mark these as having contained the divine name in the original Hebrew, say via italics or a footnote? Or should the translation just keep to “(the) Lord”? As there is no ambiguity in any case according to your view, as Christ is Lord(YHWH) in the NT in any case?
Finally, in your response, before any statements you make please buttress your replies with “in my opinion”, “my personal view is…” “I believe…” etc. it makes for much nicer reading in this setting, thanks.
Also, I enjoyed your “Shirk” article. Clarity of terminology is key.
@Edgar Foster
I am not claiming that you are ignorant of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am perfectly sure that if I were to ask the question, such as:
"What does the doctrine of the Trinity teach?"
"What is hypostatic unity and communicatio idiomatum?"
you would know the correct answer. What I sometimes see, however, is that you do not always automatically combine these with the Trinitarian exegesis of the Scriptures.
For example, the Trinitarian understanding never claimed that Jesus is the Messiah (Davidic king, high priest, prophet, mediator) as God. This would contradict not only the principle of the immutability of God, but also specific biblical statements such as 1 Timothy 2:5, Acts 17:31, Hebrews 5:1. It follows of course that all messianic statements such as the Psalm 110:1-2 you quoted also do not address Jesus as God, but as man, and so it is entirely correct that YHWH here addressed Him as non-YHWH.
In fact, according to the Chalcedonian tenet "inconfusedly" (ἀσυγχύτως), there is no ontological-substantial connection between the man Jesus and God, and conceptually there cannot be. Therefore, the Islamic accusation of "Shirk" is not true. Eutychianism would indeed be "Shirk" and, following the principle of God's immutability, is also a metaphysical impossibility.
These must be interpreted correctly, and it must also be determined if at any time a "communicatio idiomatum" statement is involved. For example: "God was crucified". This is a "communicatio idiomatum" statement, by definition not God as such, who was killed, Trinitarians know exactly that God is immutable and immortal, so this does not state anything about the Godhead. This is understood to mean that the one ("person", suppositum) who was crucified as a man is also God. This is how biblical statements such as Acts 3:15, Acts 20:28, or 1 Corinthians 2:8 should be understood.
This follows from the fact that even in everyday speech, when we describe events, we are narrating as that happen to the person, to the subject. For example, we do not say "the mother of my body", but only "my mother", although ontologically it is obvious that I only received my body from my mother. Nor do we say "X's body died", although it is evident that we ontologically state the fact of death only about his body.
@Sean Kasabuske
Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils and as explained in a more serious dogmatic book, such as this one: https://archive.org/details/the-trinity-and-god-the-creator-garrigou-lagrange-reginald
It's no great feat to "disprove" the Average Joe, who knows only that "three-something and something is one, Jesus is God and also His own Son, and the Fathersonholyspirit-somehing."
@Terence
First of all, thank you for reading my article.
You asked: "Where does Jesus integrate Himself into the divine identity?" - The integration is implied by Jesus' self-identification as the fulfillment of Isa. 61:1-2. In the original Hebrew, the passage references "Adonai YHWH." Jesus proclaims that He is the fulfillment of this prophecy, thereby identifying Himself as the agent of YHWH's mission. The audience’s reaction further supports this interpretation: their amazement quickly turns to outrage when they realize the implication—that Jesus claims to be the Messiah, the one anointed by God, which carries divine connotations within a Jewish context. The text suggests more than a mere prophet or servant; Jesus explicitly aligns Himself with the divine mission and authority foretold in Isaiah. This integration is consistent with NT theology, where κύριος (Lord) is used to reflect Jesus’ identity as YHWH (cf. Romans 10:13, Phil. 2:9-11).
Acts 2:36 states: "God has made Him both Lord and Christ" You emphasized the verb ἐποίησεν ("made"). This has two aspects:
A) Just as Phil. 2:9 also declares ("God ... gave him the name that is above every other name"), that is, that as a man he received the “name” “Lord”, not in the sense that he ontologically became God (would be a metaphysical impossibility, compromising God's immutability), but that as a man he also shares in the divine glory (doxa), which he renounced in the "kenosis".
B) The other aspect is that "making" here reflects the public recognition and enthronement of Jesus as Lord and Messiah following His resurrection and ascension. Peter explicitly quotes Ps. 110:1 (Acts 2:34): "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand.'" This enthronement language underscores Jesus' exaltation rather than a change in His inherent nature. The verse reflects His glorification in His humanity, not a denial of His preexistent Lordship as God the Son (cf. John 17:5: “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began”).
So Jesus received the title "Lord" in His humanity, “the name” in Phil. 2:9 eventually refers to the divine name itself—YHWH (cf. Isa.45:23). This "bestowal" does not mean that Jesus became God; rather, it publicly declares His divine identity and authority in the context of His incarnate mission. Phil. 2:6-7 shows that Jesus did not cease to be divine during the kenosis; He set aside His divine prerogatives temporarily, but His divine nature remained intact. His exaltation reaffirms His divine authority and glory, now revealed through His human nature.
You asked: “how many uses of “Lord” are there?” - The title "Lord" (κύριος) in the NT is used in various contexts:
1. YHWH (Divine Name): Referring to God, as seen in OT citations like Romans 10:13 (Joel 2:32) and Philippians 2:10-11 (Isa. 45:23).
2. Messianic Title: Applied to Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecies (e.g., Psalm 110:1, Acts 2:34-36).
2. Honorific Title: Used in polite address or recognition of authority (e.g., John 4:11, where the Samaritan woman calls Jesus "Sir").
In many cases, "Lord" refers to Jesus as YHWH, particularly in contexts quoting OT texts about YHWH. The NT authors deliberately equate Jesus with YHWH in these instances, while also distinguishing His roles in the economy of salvation (e.g., as Messiah and Mediator).
It is not inappropriate to mark OT quotations in the NT where YHWH was used in the original Hebrew. Many translations include footnotes to clarify this. For example, I would support the idea that where the NT contains an OT quote referring to YHWH, the Lord should be written in capital letters (LORD). The NT writers consistently used κύριος to render YHWH, reflecting the LXX tradition and emphasizing Jesus’ divine identity. Retaining "Lord" in translations maintains continuity with the theological intent of the NT authors, who present Jesus as YHWH in passages like Romans 10:13 and Phil. 2:9-11. Including footnotes for clarity is helpful, but substituting "YHWH" for "Lord" in the NT text would disrupt this continuity.
@Philip Fletcher
You asked: “So the correct Trinity understanding "as a man Jesus is indeed not God"?”
It depends on how you understand the question. If it means that He ceased to be God (Him being non-God at all) as a result of the Incarnation, then this statement is incorrect. If it means that the human nature He assumed as a result of the Incarnation is not God, and that deity cannot be asserted in any way ontologically-substantially about His human nature, then it is correct.
So the answer depends on understanding the distinction made in Chalcedonian Christology between the two natures of Jesus Christ—divine and human—united in one person (hypostasis). The divine Logos and the man Christ are united and connected by only one thing: the person, the subject (hypostasis, suppositum). So there is no ontological-substantial connection between the two natures, but rather a very unique Creator-creature relation.
Jesus Christ is one Person (the eternal Logos), with two distinct natures: divine and human. As God, Jesus is fully divine, possessing the divine essence and all attributes of God: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc. As man, Jesus is fully human, with a created human nature, including a body and a rational soul.
The human nature of Jesus is not divine. It is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. This is in line with orthodox Christology, which emphasizes that Jesus’ humanity never becomes divine, and His divinity does not diminish or change to accommodate His humanity. The divine and human natures of Christ are united in one Person (the Logos), without confusion, change, division, or separation (inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter). This means that while Jesus’ human nature is not God, the Person of Jesus, who acts and speaks through both natures, is God. The Chalcedonian definition essentially excludes the interpretations that:
1) The human and divine natures are indistinguishable and a kind of peculiar "mix" has been created (Eutychianism). This violates the principle of the simplicity and immutability of God.
2) That the man Christ and the divine Logos can be separated into two separate subjects (Nestorianism). This would essentially claim that there are two different Christs, there is a divine Logos, and in addition there is the man Jesus (two pieces of "I"), and the relationship between these two is only some loose, moral connection, like a relationship of inner friendship, mutual affection.
Therefore, the orthodox view is that in Christ the human and divine natures are (ontologically) distinguishable AND inseparable.
When we say, "as a man, Jesus is not God," it means His humanity, considered on its own, is not divine. However the Person (hypostasis, suppositum) of Jesus (the Logos) remains fully God, even while taking on human nature. Jesus’ human actions (e.g., hunger, fatigue, suffering, death) pertain to His human nature, but they are still actions of the divine Person. For example, God died on the cross in His human nature, but not in His divine nature, which is impassible and eternal.
So yes, "as a man, Jesus is not God" in the sense that His humanity is created, finite, and distinct from His divine nature. However, "as a Person, Jesus is God," since the human nature is united to the divine Person of the Logos. This unity ensures that Christ’s divine identity is not compromised, even as He fully participates in human experience. This nuanced understanding preserves both the full humanity and full divinity of Christ within the framework of the Trinity.
Cool study:
https://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_4_Special_Issue_February_2013/9.pdf
When scholars discovered Greek OT MSS in the 20th century that contained the Tetragrammaton, this was not a shocking revelation. Early Christian writers like Origen and Jerome had already described the existence of such LXX MSS. This indirect evidence provided historical context for the eventual discovery of these MSS. If the NT originally included the Tetragrammaton, we should expect similar indirect evidence. Yet no early Christian source, including those who had access to the earliest NT MSS, ever mentions the presence of the Tetragrammaton in the NT. The silence of these sources is deafening. The Library of Caesarea Maritima, founded by Pamphilus and expanded by Origen, was the largest Christian library of antiquity. Many, such as Gregory Nazianzus, Basil the Great, and Jerome studied there. If any MSS of the NT containing the Tetragrammaton existed, they would have been preserved in this library. Yet none of these ever mentions a Tetragrammaton in the NT, even though Jerome documented textual variants in the NT.
The early Christian period was marked by theological disputes, with different factions accusing one another of heresy and Scripture manipulation. If the proto-orthodox Christians had removed the Tetragrammaton from the NT, we would expect their theological opponents to use this as ammunition against them. Yet there is no record of any group accusing the proto-orthodox of such a tampering. Polycarp and other proto-orthodox figures faced accusations from theological opponents like the Gnostics or Marcionites, but no group ever accused them of removing the Tetragrammaton. This was not a point of contention, even during highly charged debates over Christology, Scripture, and ecclesial authority. If the Tetragrammaton was originally part of the NT, its removal would surely have been a significant theological issue.
The JW claim implies that someone had the authority and ability to systematically remove the Tetragrammaton from all NT MSS. However, this is historically implausible. When Caliph Uthman standardized the Qur'an, dissenting textual traditions still survived, and variant readings are documented. By contrast, no evidence exists of dissenting textual traditions in Christianity where the Tetragrammaton was retained in the NT. The process of replacing the Tetragrammaton would have required unprecedented coordination across the diverse and dispersed Christian communities of the Roman Empire, something no single authority in early Christianity could achieve. Christianity was highly decentralized, with regional leaders such as bishops overseeing local churches. There was no mechanism for universally enforcing such a change. The proto-orthodox Christians lacked the power to standardize all MSS, especially when many were in circulation and held by diverse groups, including theological opponents. The lack of both evidence and a plausible historical mechanism for such a widespread alteration further undermines the JW claim.
If early Christians regularly invoked the Tetragrammaton in their worship, we would expect external sources to comment on this. Yet external writers, such as Roman officials or pagan observers, consistently describe Christian worship as centered on Jesus. Pliny the Younger in his letter to Emperor Trajan describes Christian worship as follows: "They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god..." Pliny does not mention Christians invoking the Tetragrammaton, even though such a practice would have caused great scandal to Jews. The Alexamenos graffito (c. 2nd century) depicts a Christian figure, with the inscription: "Alexamenos worships [his] God" This graffiti mocks Christian worship but makes no mention that Christians worship some kind of “Yaho.” The absence of any reference to the Tetragrammaton suggests that it was not part of early Christian practice. The consistent testimony of external sources aligns with the internal evidence: early Christians invoked Christ and did not use the Tetragrammaton in their worship.
Again, I'm only going to allow rebuttals to Nincsnevem in this thread now. It will be open until Sunday night. Thank you.
@Nincs,
"Of course there are many different views, but if you want to argue with the Trinity, it would be fairer not to argue with what the Average Joe believes or knows about it, but rather with the Trinity as defined by the ecumenical councils"
I wasn't referring to the "average Joe"; I was referring to trinitarian philosophers, many of whom hold VERY different views about how the ambiguous and paradoxical language in the creeds should be interpreted.
You should have realized this by virtue of my mention of Dale Tuggy.
The academically informed should see:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
I would recommend that lay folks start with this:
https://tinyurl.com/583dd82m
One of the reasons that many people misunderstand the doctrine is because Trinitarians themselves typically use standard methods of argumentation to support it. This tends to obscure the fact that the doctrine is ultimately both presuppositional in character, in a sort of Bahsen-ian sense, and non-falsifiable in the Popperian sense.
Even if Jesus had explicitly said, "I am not God," one can easily imagine the modern committed Trinitarian replying, "Well of course Jesus isn't the Father; that's perfectly compatible with Trinity." If that's not non-falsifiable, then nothing is.
While it is true that some Gnostic groups used ΙΑΩ, this evidence does not support the idea that mainstream Early Christian communities adopted it. As noted by Origen and Irenaeus, Gnostic groups often borrowed names and terms from both biblical and non-biblical sources. The use of ΙΑΩ by Gnostics reflects their syncretistic theology rather than the practice of orthodox Christians. There is no textual evidence from first-century Christian MSS that ΙΑΩ was used in place of κύριος. The examples cited by Hylton, such as references to ΙΑΩ in Gnostic baptismal formulas, reflect heterodox practices, not the mainstream Christian tradition. The use of κύριος in NT MSS and early Christian liturgy is consistent and widespread. The nomina sacra for κύριος (ΚΣ) and θεός (ΘΣ) in early Christian MSS highlight the reverence with which these terms were treated. The absence of ΙΑΩ in these MSS underscores its marginality. If ΙΑΩ had been widely used in early Christian communities, we would expect to see transitional MSS or debates about its replacement with κύριος. However, no such evidence exists.
Jewish tradition consistently substituted "Adonai" for YHWH in oral recitation. The use of κύριος in the LXX reflects this practice. As such, the adoption of κύριος in Christian texts aligns with Jewish norms. The appearance of the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew or transliterations like ΙΑΩ in certain Greek MSS reflects a reversion to Hebrew forms, likely motivated by sectarian or liturgical concerns. These efforts are distinct from the original translation philosophy of the LXX.
The evidence for the use of ΙΑΩ comes primarily from Gnostic texts and practices, which diverged significantly from orthodox Christian theology and liturgy. For example, the baptismal formula cited by Hylton reflects a Gnostic reinterpretation of Christian rites. Hylton’s claim that Acts 2:21 originally used ΙΑΩ instead of κύριος lacks MS support. All extant NT MSS consistently use κύριος in citations of Joel 2:32, demonstrating the early Christian alignment with the LXX tradition.
Nincsnevem, I approved your last post. Any other posts to this thread are for rebuttals of your position only or responses about the subject matter.
Post a Comment