Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: I AM THAT I AM and John 8:58 - Rolf, Ron

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: I AM THAT I AM and John 8:58 - Rolf, Ron
  • Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:28:17 +0200



Peter Kirk wrote:


>As we are looking for examples of how New Testament writers identified
>Jesus with YHWH, surely this is clear in Romans 9:9 "That if you
>confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,'... you will be saved", in
>the context of the quotation in verse 13 from Joel 3:5 (Eng. 2:32)
>"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved". In the
>Joel passage the Lord is clearly YHWH. So this comes as close as you
>could get to saying "Jesus is YHWH", and that it is central to the
>Christian proclamation. Philippians 2:9-11 must also identify Jesus
>with YHWH - what else is "the name that is above every name" than
>YHWH? But in both passages Jesus is also distinguished from God. Does
>this mean that Paul did not identify YHWH with God? I wonder. Did
>anyone else have such thoughts at that, or any other period?
>
>Suppose someone in one of Paul's churches had confessed with his mouth
>"Jesus is Lord" and later turned round and said "All I meant was,
>Jesus is the agent of the Lord". What do you think would have been the
>reaction to this of Paul who wrote Galatians 1:8-9?


Dear Peter,

There is strong evidence (which I have published elsewhere) that the noun
KURIOS found in the NT translates two different Hebrew (or less likely
Aramaic) words. Take for instance John 21:7 where John says regarding
Jesus "It is the Lord (hO KURIOS)". In Matt 4:7 we also find hO KURIOS in
this quote from the OT: "You must not put hO KURIOS your God to the test."
If John had used the same Hebrew or Aramaic word in 21:7 as Jesus used in
Matt 4:7 utter confusion would have been the result. If Peter had said "It
is )A:DONFY (=hO KURIOS) ", and )A:DONFY was the normal substitute for
YHWH, he could rightly have been construed to mean "It is YHWH" . So, in
all the instances where KURIOS is used adressing or referring to Jesus
(most likely also in the instances where KURIOS is used together with the
word "Jesus") another Hebrew word than A:DONFY was spoken or was in the
minds of the Hebrew authors . (Both he modern Hebrew version (on Gramcord)
and Delitsch' version in BH has H)DWN in John 21:7 and YHWH in Mattew 4:7.)

The versions also give credence to the "confusion" argument. In Syriac the
normal reference to God is MARYA ("the Lord"), and this is the word we find
in the Peshitta of Matt 4;7. In John 21:4, however, we find MARAN ("our
Lord") both places where the Greek text has hO KURIOS, and this can not be
construed to refer to God. In Ethiopic (Ge´ez) the normal designation for
God is 'EGZI'ABHER ("the Lord of the land"), and we find this word in Matt
4:7. In John 21:4 we find 'EGZI'ENA´ ("our lord") both places. In the
Arabic manuscript Sinai 69 from the 11th century CE we find RABBAKA
WA-ILAHAKA ("your Lord and your God") in Matt 4:7 but RABBUNA ("our Lord")
the first place in John 21:7 and AL-RABB ("the Lord") the second place.
Therefore, there is not evident what is behind the word KURIOS when it is
used in the NT, but the context must decide.

As you correctly observe, Romans 10:13 is a quote from Joel 3:5 where YHWH
is used. I think YHWH is referred to in Romans 10:13 and not Jesus, but
that KURIOS in vv 9 and 12 refers to Jesus. In verse 16 is YHWH again
referred to. Therefore,tThese verses do not prove that Jesus is YHWH. There
is nothing strange of such a reference to two different individuals in the
same context. Just study the pastoral epistles and 1. Peter and see how the
two are referred to by the same or synonym words.

Philippians 2:9-11 does not identify Jesus with YHWH. Note that God
according to verse 9 "highly exalted him" (hUPERUPXOW) and "as an act of
grace" (CARIZOMAI) gave him a name above all (or all other) names. The
reaction of the creatures to this should be "to the glory of God the
Father". It is the superior who can highly exalt another person and as an
act of grace offer something to this person. I agree with your last
paragraph: To say that "Jesus is Lord" means that "Jesus is the agent of
God" is not adequate. But after the exclamation: "Jesus is Lord" your
imagined Christian could say: What I mean is that " God has made him both
Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and he was declared God's son according to
the spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4). This
means that he is the king appointed by God and the savior of mankind.



Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo

























Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page