Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christology in the NT

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tim Gallant" <tim AT rabbisaul.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christology in the NT
  • Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:10:55 -0600


----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Jacks" <cfjacks AT comcast.net>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Approaches to the question of divine-Christology in the NT


Thank you for bringing up this point, which in fact was what Terrien was protesting against as a misreading of those texts, which are to be taken as "monolatrist," not "monotheistic" as others have gotten in the habit of claiming.! My point was not that "exclusive submission to YHWH alone" was not created only in the Hellenistic Era but that it was not until then that the
justification/validation of this practice was not supported by the "monotheistic thesis," based upon the Greek monistic penchant. The exclusive worship of YHWH only for Israel as the result of a "contract" goes back (at least) to the D-Code and Josiah's Reform of 621 BCE. Before then, apparently the worship of YAHW was based upon their understanding that YHWH owned the land upon which they lived, so that the "tithes and offerings" were in effect "land rent" by tenant farmers, an idea we find reappearing in "Second Isaiah" when the sphere/area/arena of "YHWH's reign" was expanded by the understanding that he was not just "Lord Of the Land (of Israel)" but the creator of this world, which becomes the rationale
underneath the hope of the "coming day" when "all peoples" would submit to his authority as they live and worked HIS land.
So yes, we do find in "Second Isaiah" the hope that the day would come in which "all peoples/nations" would submit to Israel's god as their "lord" also, which presumably was the basis for Paul's mission as "the in-gathering of the gentiles." Still,
this isl "monalatry," not "monotheism."

There are two issues here: (1) your leaning upon disputed documentary hypotheses; and (2) your terminology. I cannot enter into the former issue here, but since we are talking about Paul, after all, what really is germane to the discussion is whether Paul's milieu was monotheistic..

So my focus will be upon taking issue with your distinction between monolatry and monotheism. The Hebrew Scriptures (and here it matters not how late or how early) emphasize that one God created all things. Second, as you noted, the latter part of Isaiah (but also multitudes of other passages, such as the enthronement Psalms) calls upon all peoples to turn to Yahweh and be saved, and/or to worship Him alone.

Now, let's consider that. If Yahweh created all things, that means that if other "gods" exist, they are the product of His hands. Meaning, over against Him, they are creatures and He is Creator. Well, that's just what I (and I suspect, most other people) call monotheism - particularly when it is combined with the thought already noted, namely, that worship is to be directed exclusively to Yahweh.

Moreover, when we speak of "gods," we must be careful not to equivocate, which (I fear) often enters this discussion. There are also sorts of terminological issues, since words can be employed in more than one way (e.g. kurie could either mean "sir" or "Lord"). Yes, many first-century Jews held interesting views of created beings who were exalted to some sort of semi-divine status. BUT - that observation no more undermines monotheism than does the fact that the Christian Church has historically held to various articulations of something called "deification" - and never with any sense of obliterating or even smudging the Creator/creature distinction.

This raises other issues with the use of language. Is it possible to call something by a certain label, and yet believe that label does not genuinely apply? Absolutely, and such is common speech, particularly in polemics - and I might add that the mentions of the "gods" of the nations are almost invariably in polemical contexts. After all, even Pilate called Jesus the "King of the Jews," which few think he really took seriously. This is just the way language works.

Paul does the same thing in 1 Cor 8, when he says there are "many gods" but not "for us." Sounds like henotheism if you take this merely at face value. But. . . the way to determine whether a term is used sincerely is by asking what is the overall view of the object in view. And a couple chapters after his apparently henotheistic statement, Paul goes on to make clear his view of these "gods": they are evil spirits (1 Cor 10.18ff), not deities.

Such a way of speaking, I suggest, is exactly what is going on in the Hebrew Scriptures (such as Psalm 96 - if memory serves - making puns on the idea of other gods). Paul is not departing from the Jewish milieu to frame things this way (which we ought to be alerted to by the very fact that his "henotheism" occurs within the context of a quotation/allusion to the Shema).

In conclusion, then, if "monotheism" means that there is only one invisible Being who has power over men, then you are correct: ancient Israel was not monotheistic. But then, neither was the Christian Church. But in that case, we are simply redefining terms into irrelevance, and I see no point of that. What I think is clear is that for both Israel (certainly well before the first century) and Paul, there is only one "real" God, because there is only one Creator and Judge of the world. Any other beings that may be worshipped may be powerful, but they are not gods, and will be subject to judgment just as men are.

tim

Tim Gallant
Pastor, Conrad Christian Reformed Church
http://www.timgallant.org





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page