I was planning a post on this for a long time but held back as I expected a big discussion to follow which I didnt (and still dont) have time for.
This post is mainly in response to several posts on Michael Whitenton’s blog, who upon reviewing James McGrath’s The Only True God came to some interesting conclusions.
Interestingly enough he has talked about two passages that have influenced me in the past a lot as well.
The first one being:
1 Cor 3:21-23 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
and the second:
1 Cor 8:5-6 “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
Let me start with the second passage:
As you can see I highlighted what I think is important, there is one God = the Father and one Lord = Jesus Christ, in this phrasing it seems implausible that Lord stands for the Divine Name of God, Y/H/V/H, that would just not fit, rather it seems that by distinguishing between the Father and Jesus Christ, the term Lord refers to the hebrew אדון which can be translated by for example “master”.
This too would fit much more within Judaism where it is blasphemous to equate a human being with the God of Israel. I know many dont care much about what Judaism considers blasphemous as its only informative but in no wise authorative. In some sense theres traces of this attitude already within the NT but not to the extent of today or even the 2nd century where Ignatius writes in his epistle to the Romans: “according to the love of Jesus Christ our God”
Although exclusive devotion to one rabbi over against other rabbi’s may be looked upon suspiciously by some branches in Judaism, in Hasidic Judaism it is very common to elevate a particular rabbi and elevate him above other rabbi’s. The Lubavitcher Rebbe is an example but there have been many others as well.
In that sense I think Chabadniks could say there is only one God, our Father, and one Rebbe, Schneerson without compromising their strict monotheism. The idea however of saying there is only one God, the Father, and one Y/H/V/H, Schneerson or whatever rabbi would never occur in a Torah observant Jew’s mind. Which I believe Paul was to some extent too.
I know some will, based on a superficial reading of Hasidic texts, argue that Chabadniks believe the Rebbe to be God, but mainstream understanding within Chabad-Lubavitch and certainly within larger Judaism repeals this notion.
The ending of the verse is also open to more than one interpretation:
“…through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”
One explanation would be to see this in the way that Jesus has divine prerogatives and this then is seen as an indication of his divinity. I would rather argue that this should be read in a sense of: “on account of”.
Which is similar to the statement in Berachot 17b:
“The whole world is sustained by Chanina my son…”
Which in some way leads noone to believe that Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was divine. As it is simply an expression of Gods appreciation for his merits, a biblical example of this are the 10 righteous persons in Sodom that lead God to turn away from pouring out his wrath. In a sense the people in Sodom were alive on account of their merit.
For some this may be too much creativity and go against the plain sense but I think its important to consider alternative readings.
Feel free to offer alternatives of problems you see with my reading…
Shalom Daniel,
The first and most glaring problem I see in your reading is that you are not giving other Passages in Paul’s epistles, or the Gospel equal weights and measures.
The second, it seems to me that you are more concerned with what the Rabbis have to say, than with the words of the apostolic writers.
Since you mentioned Sodom, maybe a detailed reading of Gen. 18 can help in understanding the divinity of Yeshua.
Blessings
Dan
This is a topic where it is impossible to simply give all verses equal weight. This is because there are verses that on the surface quite clearly say Yeshua is man, and there are verses that on the surface quite clearly say that he is not. On either side, you have to make leaps concerning whats figurative, and what’s literal.
If it was as cut and dried as people seem to think, the church never would have had to develop a three-in-one-in-three theology.
Much to the pain of many around me, I’ve been leaning toward the Yeshua is not God side of the fence. It is possible that this is simply a result of poor understanding on my part, but it feels like a plainer understanding of scripture to me.
What seems important to me for this issue is to recognize two things.
1. Even if scripture clearly says that Yeshua is God (a point I’m not in agreement with) I don’t see anywhere where it says his divinity is what you must believe in to be saved.
2. Those that believe in his divinity, are not breaking the commandments, as they still only believe in one God, who has manifest Himself to us in multiple ways.
Please correct me where I am wrong.
Jonboze, I appreciate your honest comment and your two clear points. May I give here just one verse concerning your first point and also the honest question of Daniel, from the gospel of John which affected me when I was in doubt about the divinity of Yeshua. It was Thomas, after Yeshua showed His wounds and revealed himself, who answered: “My Lord AND MY GOD.” (John20:28). I agree, it’s just one saying, but it gave me some rest. It’s a mystery. Paul didn’t see the ultimate power and beauty far above mankind of (the ascended) Yeshua until his conversion. Then he was blind for tree days and thereafter he began to preach that Yeshua was the Messiah and the son of God. That He is THE son of God, for me there’s no doubt. Yeshua is THE rabbi, the restored Adam.(Rom.5:14) It began with one human being and it will end with One. And we are one in Him and He is one with God. But anyway, I don’t know what Paul would say to me if I could ask him about the divinity of Yeshua. I certainly confess that I would be blind to, when Yeshua reveal his power and beauty unto me. I think I would say with Isaiah: “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts.”(Is.6:5)
Shalom to all!
Jos
Dan
I try to read Paul in his Jewish context and not through the eyes of the Gospel of John or Nicea, my conclusion may look deviant to you, but you should try it once;)
To understand Paul’s context Im indeed concerned with what the Rabbi’s have said as in the end he originated from that community.
Im quite familiar with Gen 18 and find Rashi’s explanation to be satisfactory, if you are interested check it out here.
Jon
You are very right that it isn’t possible to make a statistical analysis and base your judgement on that.
I think there are hardly any verses that clearly say Yeshua is Hashem, and that most verses that attribute to him any specialty are able to be classified under principal agent kind of stuff but don’t need to be seen as indicating divinity.
The problem is that people feel they have to choose between a ‘mere’ man or the eternal Son, and I think theres another option. Especially when you see the parallels Paul draws between Adam and Jesus, you see he assigns him as principal being, the most elevated human being ever. The person through whom God reconciles the world to him. But human in the end.
But this is difficult to grapple with as we are not used to having this option, I also realize this and see that since I have let gone of the idea of Yeshua being God, he somehow takes less an important place in life than before.
In that sense I think I understand how we got to the divinity. For the early Christians he was so important, constantly they would refer to him and sing about him, and whenever they would greet, it would be God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord, these were in some way inseparable in a way that is unparalleled I think. And I think overtime – by what and how I dont know – the distinction started to vanish.
Maybe the King of Israel or Moses had such a place with the people, where the people didn’t think they could choose between Moses or God as Moses was the principal extension of God. But well he just seems to lose some of his significance as he is now closer to the mere man than the Eternal Son.
Coming to your first point:
‘Real’ Trinitarian theology is so complex philosophically that I don’t think God could ever base one’s salvation on understanding it, but then again, whom I to say on what God bases his judgement. He in the end is the sole Judge and does not owe me any explanation. I do however think that its more the sincerity that will be looked at. For example my present understanding was and is mainly based on a desire to get to know God better.
As for your second point: according to what standards aren’t they breaking the – or a – commandment? According to Jewish law, worshipping a human being, and considering him to be fully equal with God, would fall under idolatry, although for non-Jews I think this falls under syncretism (if I remember correct its called Shituf) and is allowed.
Well it has become a long comment, thanks for stopping by and btw your blog is awfully silent;)
Jos
Nice comment:) looking forward to having some coffee in the DE corner soon:P
There is so much in your comment that I would like to address, but I don’t have much time. Just yesterday a good friend of mine couldn’t see past the idea that Yeshua would be “merely” a man. I would hardly call Hashem’s chosen messiah merely a man.
“As for your second point: according to what standards aren’t they breaking the – or a – commandment? According to Jewish law, worshipping a human being, and considering him to be fully equal with God, would fall under idolatry, although for non-Jews I think this falls under syncretism (if I remember correct its called Shituf) and is allowed.”
Christianity sees Yeshua as an aspect or manifestation (forgive me, I’m not fluent in the proper trinitarian language) of the one God, and not as a separate human being who is fully equal to Hashem. In this way it seems like this is something a little different from worshiping other gods.
Thank you for putting so much thought into your reply. I am still learning, and would hate to be a source of misinformation.
Daniel,
Not to get into a theological discussion (unless of course you would like to), I will recommand Tim Hegg’s :”The Letter Writer,” for a fresh look and understanding of Paul’s background, including his Christology.
As for Rashi, it is quite enlighting, his glaring omission of the scribes changes in verse 22. I wonder why?
Blessings
Dan
Sorry, Rashi does show the scribes correction, but fails to explain it.
Just some thoughts…
I think you too quickly dismiss the possibility that kurios in 1Cor 8:6 does not stand for the Divine Name. Many scholars, and I would agree, see this phrase as a reference to the Shema itself. A “Pauline” shema. It is also alluded to in 8:4.
And in context, this makes sense. Paul is admonishing the Corinthians in regards to idolatry. In rejecting false idols, Paul asserts a distinctly Jewish monotheism. And yet for him he cannot speak of God the Father without speaking of Yeshua. Distinct, but in unity.
And given the functions Paul attaches to Yeshua (through whom are all things and through whom we exist), I think Paul is clearly placing him on the side of Creator, not creation.
And again given the context of idolatry, what would be the point of Paul saying, “There’s one God, and one lord/rebbe Yeshua the Messiah?” Paul’s not arguing that his rabbi is better than yours, he showing the Corinthians that One God trumps dead idols. In my opinion, he also puts Yeshua in the Deity category. That they are distinguished from each other poses no problem for me, since I am not a modalist.
Hi Seth,
I think its problematic to assert that lord in 1 Cor 8:6 stands for the divine name, and I find McGrath’s comment to this enlightening:
As for the fact that Paul cannot speak of God the Father without speaking of Yeshua, this does not need to imply that Yeshua is God as well, in this case I think you could consider the possibility that Paul thought of Yeshua as God’s principal agent, and in that sense inseparable of the One God.
As for the creator/creation divide, I havent read Bauckham’s work yet but a mere reading of Philo’s logos leads me to think that there was more ambiguity in 2nd Temple Judaism over this line than Bauckham grants it.
With blessings,
Daniel