Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Edgar Foster <questioning1 AT yahoo.com>]

Dear B-haverim,

---Lloyd Barre  wrote:
  
>As I stated, I don't know if any other early Christian thinkers
identified Jesus and Yahweh, but I am convinced that our text does,
even in the face of your counter-arguments.<

I have spent the last three or more years of my life extensively
studying the subject of Christology. My conclusion? None of the NT or
OT writers ever viewed the Messiah as Yahweh incarnate. The preeminent
OT scholar John L. Mckenzie agrees with this statement when he writes: 

"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is
God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's
Son" (Mckenzie 188).  

>I am beginning to wonder what the commentary literature has to say on
this. But again, this is B-Hebrew.<

Trying to stay within the parameters of B-Hebrew, it is of interest
what Raymond E. Brown wrote on this very subject.

Brown stated that there are "several possible ways to interpret" John
12:41 (Anchor Bible 29A--486ff). For one, the Targum does in fact say
that Isaiah saw the SHEKINAH of YHWH (Conversely, the MT and LXX do
not). Based on John 1:14, it is therefore possible to conclude that
the Messiah IS to be viewed as the glory of YHWH mentioned in the
Targum. 

Later patristics have given a trinitarian interpretation to Isaiah's
vision, but this is not necessarily an accuarate portrayal of what
Isaiah wrote. Origen of Alexandria evidently viewed one of the Seraphs
in Isa. 6:1ff as the preexistent Word of God:

"Origen is a heretic, true; but what does that take from me who do not
deny that on very many points he is heretical? He has erred concerning
the resurrection of the body, he has erred concerning the condition of
souls, he has erred by supposing it possible that the devil may
repent, and--an error more important than these--he has declared in
his commentary upon
Isaiah that the Seraphim mentioned by the prophet are the divine Son
and the Holy Ghost. If I did not allow that he has erred or if I did
not daily anathematize his errors I should be partaker of his fault.
For while we receive what is good in his writings we must on no
account bind ourselves to accept also what is evil. Still in many
passages he has interpreted the scriptures well, has explained obscure
places in
the prophets, and has brought to light very great mysteries, both in
the old and in the new testament" (The Letters of Jerome).

Whether or not Origen was correct in identifying the Seraphim of Isa.
6 as the Son and the Holy Spirit of God, it is of interest how he
viewed the text. He himself also writes that he was taught by his
_rhetor_ that the Son was one of the Seraphim mentioned in Isaiah 6.
Contrary to the castigations Jerome metes out to Origen, the
Alexandrian is presently regarded as one of the foremost Christian
fathers of antiquity. His comments therefore carry some weight today.

Lastly, Brown mentions the possibility that Isaiah was speaking in a
future sense when he wrote about the glory of YHWH. Maybe he was
referring to the life and ministry of the Messiah who WOULD come in
the future. I.e., maybe John's words have nothing to do with Isaiah's
vision in chapter 6. Possibly John's words refer to the vision Isaiah
was privileged to glimpse futuristically (Cf. Sirach XLVIII:24-25).

Regards,

Edgar Foster
Classics Major
Lenoir-Rhyne College
Hickory, NC

 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com