Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

John Ronning wrote:

Dear John,

I thought I should let you have the last word and not answer your post
because the subject has become more theology than language. However, after
reading Peter Kirk's post this morning, I realize that our discussion may
engage several list members and be interesting for others. An application
of Hebrew phrases in the NT (not least Revelation which is "very Hebrew")
may perhaps to some extent justify the discussion. If the moderators are of
another opinion, please say it.
>
>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).

The first semester for a Norwegian student consists of a course in
philosophy, where s/he lerns the laws of logic, the difference between
induction and deduction, the fundamentals of the philosophy of science, and
s/he also gets an introduction to the thoughts of the principal
philosophers. Surely an extremely valuable course of one semester!  The
students works a lot with syllogisms and different propositions and the
learn the laws for valid and invalid propositions. Let us look at what you
write above through the eyes of a student of philosophy:

SYLLOGISM (A) IS VALID:

All lions are animals
Elsa is a lion
_______________
Elsa is an animal

SYLLOGISM (B) IS INVALID

All lions are animals
Sue is an animal
_______________
Sue is a lion

SYLLOGISM (C) IS INVALID

All lions have yellow furs
Petra has a yellow fur
_______________
Petra is a lion

YUOR SYLLOGISM (D) IS:

Only YHWH is "the first and the last"
Jesus is said to be "the first and the last"
______________________________
Jesus is YHWH

Syllogism (D) has the same structure as (B) and (C)  and is therefore
invalid. Let us ask our firtgrade student why (A) is valid and (B), (C) and
(D) is not. To get her exam she has to answer somtehing like this:  The
first line in the explanans of (A) is an all-proposition, and it is
therefore not context-dependent. Because the characteristic of Elsa in the
second proposition is identical with (or subsumed under) the *subject* of
the all-proposition, it follows that the explanandum "Elsa is an animal" is
true.

The first line in the explanans of (B) is an all-proposition, and is
therefore not context-dependent. Because the characteristic of Sue in the
second proposition is not indentical with (or subsumed under) the
*subject*, but rather with the nominative predicate, it follows that the
explanandum is invalid. A subject can have an infinite number of nominate
predicates and each one is not all there is to the subject. What is said og
(B) can also be said of (C), and it shows that propositions with "has" can
be handled in the same way as propositions with "is".

Why is D invalid? The first line of explanans has the structure of an
all-proposition as is also the case with (A); (B) and (C). The problem is
that it is only superficially such a structure, because the truth-condition
of the predicate nominative is context-dependent, i.e. it is possible to be
the first and the last in relation to different things. Only YHWH is "the
first and the last" in an absolute sense, because he is eternal. However,
in Revelation 1:17 and 2:8 which you quote, Jesus is portrayed as the first
and the last in connection with the resurrection (cf Colossians 1:18 and
Revelation 1:5). Jesus was not the first one to be resurrected and others
will follow him, but the expression can mean that he was the first one to
be resurrected as a spiritual being receiving immortality, and he is the
last one who was resurrected by God's direct intervention (cf John 5:28,29
where Jesus is given the power to resurrect).  Revelation 1:7 and 2:8
therefore show that the first line in the explanans of (D) is not an
all-proposition, and the verses do not prove that Jesus is YHWH. Regarding
Revealtion 22:13, it is not evident that the Alfa and Omega is Jesus; it
may very well refer to YHWH. If you try to find who is speaking in each
verse in chapters 21 and 22, you will see that the the speaker changes all
the time.

Because the first line of (D) is not an all-proposition, (D) resembles very
much (C) which would be valid with the following restructuring:

(E)

All lions have yellow furs
Petra is a lion
____________________
Petra has yellow fur.


Similarly could (D) become valid by the following restructuring:

(F)

YHWH is the first and the last
Jesus is YHWH
_____________________
Jesus is the first and the last


The explanandum of (F) is valid, but that does not help because this is
what you wanted to prove.




 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.


To prove a point which is contrary to common sense, even paradoxical or
self contradictory demands definite unambiguous proofs. What kind of
material did the bishops have when they sat down in Nicaea (325),
Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451)? If they had passages which
unambiguously said: Jesus is hO QEOS, YHWH is hO QEOS and PNEUMA  hAGION is
ho QEOS, then they would have been forced to conclude that the three were
one God. And if the had passages saying that Jesus is ANQTWPOS/SARC at the
same time as he is QEOS, they would have been forced to conclude that Jesus
was (true) God and (true) man.  In such a case would simple unambiguous
propositions viewed together demand a paradoxical conclusion!  The fact is
that this was not the situation. The bishops did not have plain
propositions demanding a paradoxical conclusion, but the creeds which were
decided rested on compromises, partly infuenced by political reasonings,
rather than on biblical texts.

Let us use the gospel of John as an example.  1:1 tells that ho LOGOS
(Jesus) was QEOS ( not hO QEOS) *in the beginning*, 1:14 says that hO LOGOS
*became* SARC (but not that he continued to be QEOS) at some time after the
beginning.  In John 17:5 Jesus asks his Father to receive the same glory
that he had before the world was made, something which was fulfilled by his
resurrection. I take this to mean that he again became QEOS.  My
requirement (2) above is not fulfilled. Jesus was QEOS, he became man, and
he bacame QEOS again. But there is no passage saying that he was God and
man *at the same time* (or that Jesus or PNEUMA hAGION  at *any* time was
hO QEOS). This is what is paradoxical, and which must be proved with
unambiguous statements, provided that my demands be fulfilled.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo.