Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

John Ronning wrote:
>
>I see no reason to shy away from the conclusion that the NT views Jesus
>as Yhwh.  John 12:41 (after quoting from Isaiah 6) says that Isaiah saw
>Christ's glory - probably a reference to Isaiah's vision of the glory of
>Yhwh.  I would also read "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14) as "Yhwh
>became flesh," based on the targums' practice of rendering Yhwh as "the
>word of the Lord" (especially since the context speaks of him
>tabernacling among his people and manifesting his glory, as Yhwh did
>when both the tabernacle and the temple were dedicated).  Then there is
>Jesus' statement "I have come down from heaven" (John 6:38), which is
>what Yhwh did in the Old Testament (most notably Exod 3:7-8).  You also
>have Rev 1:17 in which the glorified Jesus says "I am the first and the
>last" (which Yhwh says in Isa 41:4 and 48:12) - also Rev 22:13.  Jesus
>is the bridegroom of the Church, whereas in the Old Testament Yhwh is
>the bridegroom of his people.  He is also the divine warrior in
>Revelation 19, as Yhwh is in Isa 59:15b-21 and 63:1-6.  It is Yhwh in
>the Old Testament who says, as Jesus does in the "great commission"
>(Matt 28:18-20) "I will be with you" (the great commission has numerous
>parallels with Yhwh's commission of Joshua (Josh 1:5-9).  Paul says they
>"crucified the Lord of glory," recalling Yhwh's title "king of glory" in
>Psalm 24.  Etc., etc.
>
>Neither is this a NT innovation - Zechariah foresaw a time when
>Israelites would look upon Yhwh, whom they had pierced, and repent
>(12:10), and in Malachi Yhwh speaks of "my messenger" who is "the Lord
>whom you are seeking (ha'adon, elsewhere an alternative for Yhwh)"
>suddenly coming to his temple (3:1), and Isa 9:5/6 speaks of the divine
>child born to the house of David called 'el gibbor (a name of Yhwh in
>Isa 10:21).


Dear John,

I will not continue with a theological discussion, because the list is for
language rather than theology. However, because you accept the important
distinction between semantics and pragmatics in the understanding of verbs,
I would like to suggest that the same priniciple be used when we try to
draw parallels between the OT and NT as well. The fundamental point here is
that the application of the same words to different individuals does not
prove that the two individuals are one and the same individual. This is so
because application of words is "pragmatics" rather than "semantics". Let
me illustrate the point by using two examples.

1) Even when it is "explicitly" said that one individual is another
individual, there need not be any ontological identity:

 Malachi 4:5 prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great
and fear-inspiring day of YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matt 17:12 and
said that "Elijah has already come". Verse 13 tells that the disciples
perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In Matt 11:14 Jesus states
the matter  clearly, "He is Elijah who is to come." There can hardly be a
more direct way to express ontological identity than to say that John the
baptist *is*  Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was
neither the resurrected nor the reincarnated Elijah. But John did the same
work as Elijah under circumstances which were comparable to those of Elijah.

2) Words referring to YHWH in the OT, which are applied to Jesus in the NT
need not prove an ontological identity:

The most interesting prophecy in this context is Psalm 68. The one referred
to in this Psalm is YHWH, a fact which is already stressed in verse 1. The
Psalm tells how God went forth before his people (v 7), women were telling
the good news of victory (v 11), the Almighty One scattered the kings (v
14), YHWH had come from Sinai into the holy place (v17);  he had ascended
on high, had carried away captives, had taken gifts in men (v 18). We are
also told how the enemies had seen God's processions into the holy place (v
24). how the singers went in front, then maidens with tambourines (v 25),
and how the congregated throngs blessed God (v 26).

How did YHWH do all these things? Not by being personally present on earth,
but through a proxy, namely, the king sitting on his throne (1 Chr 29:23),
in this case probably David.  David conquered his enemies, took captives
and then led them in a triumphal procession up to the holy place. But
because David acted as the representative of YHWH, it could be said that
YHWH did all of this.

The Psalm is quoted in Ep 4:8-10 and Paul applies the words about YHWH in
the Psalm to Jesus.  Does this mean that there is an ontological identity
between Jesus and YHWH? Not at all! In both cases two individuals are
affected. In the past, David actually performed the acts but YHWH was given
the honor. In the first century CE Jesus actually performed the work but
YHWH is again given the honor. If Eph 4:8-10 is taken to mean that there is
an ontological identity between Jesus and YHWH, the consequence is that
there should be an ontological identity between David and YHWH as well.
This quote from Psalm 68 only tells us that Jesus acted as YHWH's
representative.  This fact is stated frequently in the NT.-John 7:16, 17;
8: John 12:49, 50; Heb1:1-3; 3:1.

What is written above shows that *no* example where OT words applied to
YHWH, are applied to Jesus in the NT, can be used as proof that Jesus *is*
YHWH. To succeed with such a claim, one must first eliminate all the
possible "pragmatic" reasons for the application of the words to Jesus,
(e.g. that Jesus is not acting as a representative of YHWH etc.) and show
that the only possible interpretation is ontological identity. I have no
problems from a philosophical point of view, of accepting that Jesus is
both God and man and is a part of a trinity. These doctrines are paradoxes,
but because we are no better equipped to understand heavenly things than a
man born blind is to understand what colors are, God *may* be paradoxical.
However, to accept this I make two conditions: 1) Each of the contradictory
propositions must be stated in plain words in the Bible in order for
ordinary people to understand them, and 2) It must be explicitly stated
that both ( or all) propositions hold at the same time.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo.