Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:


> 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.
>

Dear Rolf,

Wouldn't you agree that a recurring theme of the 'ANI HU' passages I
mentioned from Deuteronomy and Isaiah is that what is said of Yhwh in
these passages can only be said of Yhwh?  No other god led Israel out of
Egypt (Deut 32:12, 39), no other god can decree much less predict the
future (Isa 44:6-8), no other god can even speak up on his own behalf. 
It is Yhwh alone who has determined Israel's past or future (whether
blessed or filled with calamaties).  Certainly no other god (much less
man) can say "I am the first and the last" (Isa 41:4; 44:6; 48:12).

If (A) three times in Isaiah Yhwh says what no one else can say "I am
the first and the last," and (B) three times in Revelation (1:17; 2:8;
22:13) Jesus says "I am the first and the last" (note by the way that
the equivalent "I am the alpha and the omega" is spoken by Jesus and
"the Lord God, . . . the Almighty" Rev 1:8; 22:13), then I think one
must be perhaps overly trained in philosophy to avoid (C) according to
the book of Revelation, Jesus is Yhwh (especially when this is not an
isolated example).

I don't think your analogy of Elijah/John the Baptist explains any of
the evidence I cited since there are many men, but only one God, Yhwh,
and you did not show how you would apply the analogy to those cases, but
instead chose a
different example which I did not (and would not) use as evidence.

> 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.
>

I don't agree that Ps 68:18 applies to David and I don't think Paul
would have made the application he did if he thought it applied
originally to David.  It seems more likely Paul sees the verse as a
description of Yhwh's activity in the exodus/conquest, since "He
ascended on high" Paul takes to imply that before he ascended, he must
have descended, which Yhwh (not David) did "in person" for Israel's
redemption (he says "I have come down" at the burning bush, also note
the pillar of fire and cloud, his visible appearance on Mt. Sinai,
etc.).  I think then that as the synoptic gospels use exodus and
conquest typology in recounting Christ's ministry beginning at his
baptism, Paul applies the same typology to Yhwh's ultimate "coming
down," i.e. his incarnation - he descended to "the depths of the earth"
(which is figurative for the womb in Ps 139:15).  But, overall, the
interpretation of the Psalm is debatable at many points (and the
grammar/syntax obscure) so I would not cite it to prove my point.

> 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, what is lacking from John 1:1-18 that you require?  Perhaps it
easier for the "ordinary man" to see than it is for the highly educated.


Ron Rhoades wrote:
>As an example to support Rolf's statement we have prophecies that are
>originally applied to Jesus in OT but then reapplied to Christians in
>the NT. This does not mean he is Jehovah any more than Christians are
>Christ: cf. Ac. 13:47 with Isa.42:6; 49:6.

I don't see any logical connection between these two sentences or any
relavance to the present discussion.

>So a Bible writer could quote from a passage that originally applied to
>one person and then apply it to another person because they have
>characteristics or actions in common. Yet they are not the same, and the
>surrounding context of the original quote may have nothing to do with
>the way the quote is reapplied to the second person.

Similar or same mistake as Rolf.  How does your reasoning lead to the
conclusion that someone else besides Yhwh could say "I am the first and
the last" when the OT makes it clear that Yhwh is the only one who can
say that?

You also wrote:

>The following quote is pertinent:

>"Hebrew's author saw the lines, *'You are my son...,'* actually written
>of King David (Psalms 2:7), and *'I will be a father to him...,'*
>written of King Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14), as messianic and therefore
>applicable to Jesus. He made Jesus, alone of all men, outrank the
>angels. But he also, as his reference to Yahweh's *many sons* made
>clear, saw Jesus' special sonship as unique only in degree." - William
>Harwood, *Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus*

This is a non sequitur - it does not follow from the fact that the
davidic kings (or God's people in general) are called "son" that "Jesus'
special sonship" is "unique only in degree."  Harwood's opinion is also
irrelevant to the present discussion since I have not argued that the
title "son" identifies Christ as Yhwh.

Concerning Ps 68:18/19 and Eph 4:8, you quoted:
>There is some support in the Targum for Paul's misquotation. The ruler
>doesn't keep all the spoils but redistributes them to all his people.
>... SR Driver, /Sermons on the O.T./, 1892, pp 197f, writes "St Paul is
>not here following the genuine text of the Psalm, but is in all
>probability guided by an old Jewish interpretation with which he was
>familiar, and which, instead of /received gifts among men/, paraphrased
>/gave gifts to men/. The Targum on the Psalms renders: 'Thou ascendedst
>up to the firmament, O prophet Moses, thou tookest captives captive,
>thou didst teach the words of the Law, thou gavest them as gifts to the
>children of men'.". JA Robinson, quoting the foregoing in /St Paul's
>Epistle to the Ephesians/, reprint, James Clark, London, ND, p 180,
>adds: "The Peshito Syriac likewise has: 'Thou didst ascend on high and
>lead captivity captive, and didst give gifts to the sons of men'."

The idea of "taking and distributing" for the verb LQX may have an
analogy in Gen 24:22 (cf. v. 47) and 2 Sam 13:13 where LQX means "take
(and put)," and Gen 18:5 (where "let me take" has "and give to you"
implied) and fits with the idea of exodus/conquest as a theme of Ps
68:18/19 he took (spoil from the Egyptians and Canaanites) and
distributed among men (Israelites).

Regards,

John Ronning