Is Jesus addressed or described as “god” or “God” (Greek: theos) in the New Testament? Yes. But quite a bit less often than you might think. Theologian Murray Harris wrote a whole book about this, pictured above.
I don’t endorse this as a particularly good book - Harris, like many a theologian, mixes linguistic sophistication and wide theological erudition with philosophical unclarity, argumentative ineptitude, and party spirit. His main concern is to show that titles applied to Christ were meant to assert his “full deity”, contrary to what those dastardly liberal theologians have been out there saying. However, it is a good book. He has detailed discussions of all the main passages - how we ought to resolve textual problems in them, translate and interpret them. It is most definitely worth a read.
His conclusions:
He’s “certain” that theos is applied to Jesus in two verses
Hello boys and girls. I am “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4)
Last time, you traveled back in time, meeting what you thought were a couple of idiotically confused pagans. These people, you think, have the confusing habit of labeling things “god” or “divine” which are not also the unique and perfect creator of the cosmos. You decide to wash all this polytheistic confusion out of your mind, so you pick up your Bible. In it, you read some interesting things about gods.
I am Yahweh your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt… Do not have other gods besides Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
“Hmmm… this doesn’t exactly rule out that there are other gods,” you reflect. Continue Reading »
In this post, I’ll look at some non-Christian and non-Jewish examples. Let’s imagine that you brush up on your Latin, jump into your time-machine, and travel back to 65 CE. You wander into the imperial palace in Rome, and encounter the above grafitti portrait.
“Who is that?” you ask a nearby soldier.
“Why, that’s Nero.”
“Who’s he?” you continue. (You slept through Ancient History 101.)
“Who’s he?” says the soldier, “why, he’s the divine emperor, a living god”. “What?” you retort - “you think that scruffy-beard dude created the heavens and the earth Continue Reading »
What does it mean to say that this dude is a god (or is divine)?
In this series, we first set out an important argument from Christian theology and apologetics about Jesus. In the second installment, we simplified the argument in two ways, and pointed out that to have valid argument, we need to avoid equivocal terms.
It is important now that we push the “pause” button on our christological interests and theological agendas, and think carefully about the terms “god” and “divine”.
I’ve tried to analyze the meaning of “god” and related terms in western languages. (I’m not sure how this compares, e.g. to the Japanese term kami.) What I’ve come up with is this: “X is a god” (or “X is divine”) means “X is a provident being which must be honored”.Continue Reading »
Last time we looked at a famous argument about Jesus. (If you’ve never had a course in logic, or if it’s been a while, you should review the linked definitions there of “valid”, “invalid”, and “sound” before proceeding - this discussion presupposes that you understand their meanings.)
Consider this argument:
1. Michael Jackson is bad.
2. All bad people should be in jail.
3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.
“This is some writing about that which nothing can be written about. Pretty cool, huh?”
I’ve been reading Gregory of Nazianzus lately, his famous Theological Orations (c. 380 CE), wherein he expounds and defends what scholars call the pro-Nicene consensus about the Trinity - a viewpoint which developed in the latter half of the 4th c. by bishops rallying around the new homoousios term.
In the second oration, he hits this theme hard: God’s essence (the divine nature, the Godhead/deity) is unknowable. What does he mean by this? Only that it isn’t completely knowable (by us, in this life)? He does think that, but he’s saying more than that. Continue Reading »
When it comes to apparently contradictory claims in theology, there’s more than one way to Resolve the apparent inconsistency. The more popular way nowadays among Christian philosophers is what I called Rational Reinterpretation. The other way to Resolve? Revision. We’re faced with P, Q, and if P then not-Q. Solution? Simply deny either P or Q (or both). Problem solved.
Unlike Redirectors, Revisers don’t change the subject. Unlike Resisters, they don’t claim we should just “live with the tension”. Unlike practitioners of Restraint, they don’t think we can put off the issue. Like Resolvers through Rational Reinterpretation, they have a solution. But they don’t think tricky, new, more careful formulations are what is called for. Rather, something must go out on the rubbish heap. Revisers are usually accused of arrogance, lack of respect for tradition, biblical ignorance, idolatry of human reason, not being Christians at all, and of hating babies and cute little puppies.
Open theists are Revisers Continue Reading »
Maria Rosa Antognazza teaches at King’s College London, where she also directs the Centre for the History of Philosophical Theology. She has written a highly praised forthcoming intellectual biography of the great Leibniz. After the break is my review of her book pictured above. The review is forthcoming in Religious Studies. Bottom line: Leibniz employs positive and negative mysterian moves, as well as rational reconstruction of the Trinity doctrine, in my view not very convincingly. I’m most bothered by his complacency about Bible interpretation. This is a very well done book, whatever the ultimate verdict is on Leibniz’s views. Continue Reading »
Enthusiastic positive mysterians tend to be complacent traditionalists about Bible interpretation - that is, people who are pretty sure that their Christian group (e.g. Catholicism, Reformed Christianity, or maybe simply small-c catholicism) has got the Bible (generally) right. There is a reason for this.
The reason is that if you’re trying to reason your way towards the correct interpretation of some passage, rather than rest on the laurels of hoary precedent, then it looks like a show-stopper if your proposed interpretation seems self-contradictory (positive mysterianism), or unintelligible (negative mysterianism). Continue Reading »
To readers who are recent PhDs in Philosophy, or who are finishing said PhD this academic year: here’s a great opportunity for you: the Young Philosophers Lecture Series.
A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation is an anonymous tract, published in 1693 as the lead-off tract in this famous collection (the successor to this one). Although it is anonymous, I’m fairly sure that it’s by Anglican minister Stephen Nye (d. 1719), author of the most important tracts in both volumes, which are unitarian salvos in a fascinating controversy about the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation that raged in London, circa 1689-1698.
Nye has a lot to say on these subjects, and important part of which is his view that Mysterian defenses of apparently contradictory Christian doctrines are unreasonable.
“When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.” Ex. 31:18
Once upon a time, there was a smallish branch of Christians, now nearly forgotten to history, called the Fingerites, inhabitants of Obscurantia (formerly part of the Roman Empire). Although they put their point in the loveliest Latin terminology, their reading of the above verse amounted to this: God, though entirely bodiless through this time, inscribed Moses’s tablet with his (God’s) finger. They were opposed by a neighboring sect in Obscurantia, which historians now dub the Schmingerites. They considered their brethren the Fingerites to be naive literalists.
If you defend a problematic doctrine as a Mystery, you’re asserting that it to some degree lacks what I call “understandable” content. “Understandable” content is a proposition (thought, claim) that positively seems consistent to you. A claim may fail to be understandable for one of two reasons. Continue Reading »
Following up on the previous post - the word “trinitarian” may be an adjective or a noun. The Oxford English Dictionary lists four adjective meanings: (here’s my editing of relevant parts of their entry, emphasis added)
2. Theol. Relating to the Trinity; holding the doctrine of the Trinity (opp. to Unitarian). In early use, Trinitarian heretic, one holding heretical views as to the Trinity:
1656 BLOUNT Glossogr., Trinitarian hereticks, otherwise New Arians are those that deny the blessed Trinity, and all distinction of the Divine persons.
3. Forming a trinity; consisting of or involving three in one; triple, threefold.
Thanks to reader Mike K. for this hilarious link. They beat me to the punch - I’ve been sitting on a post for some time on this exact theme. (Stay tuned.)
I posted a comment asking about this bit:
It’s interesting to note that the English term “Trinitarian” was first used, in the 16th and 17th centuries, as a pejorative description of anti-trinitarians; the heretics were dubbed “Trinitarians”! Then, by the early 18th century, anti-trinitarianism had become so pervasive that orthodox writers were now described as “Trinitarians.”
Is the first part of that true? (I’ve not run across it… but I’ve not read all that much 16th c. stuff relating to the Trinity.) Any trinities readers know?
The review is after the fold. Sorry - it’s written more for philosophy profs than for a general audience. I’ll expand on some of my objections to mysterianism later in this series. Continue Reading »
We now move one the fourth R - what I call Mysterian Resistance (or Mysterianism). The Resistor is resisting the pressure to resolve the apparent contradiction, i.e. changing one of the apparently contradictory beliefs. Unlike the Redirector, the Resister doesn’t ignore the apparent inconsistency. And unlike the Resolver, he doesn’t think there’s a reasonable way to make the apparent contradiction go away. So the Resistor resists - he makes his stand - he comes up with a rationale for keeping his apparently contradictory beliefs.
I’ve lately been reading a book (at a student’s request) …a piece of bad Christian fiction called “The Shack” by William P. Young. … it might interest you in light of your trinitarian research. The persons of the Trinity make an appearance in the story: God the Father as a large black woman, God the Son as middle-Eastern carpenter (go figure!), and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman. I’m certain that there’s heresy lurking nearby.
Just thought I’d pass it along. It is apparently gaining some popularity among some segments of the evangelical subculture - hence, my student’s request that I read it. (link and emphases added)
I can’t speak to the book’s artistic merits, but I’ll trust my friend on that. As to theological merits, heresy or not, there’s certainly social trinitarianism lurking nearby! Who would’ve guessed the Divine Society was so “diverse”? At least they let Jesus remain male… And it arguably beats the gay men’s chorus.
According to this much read review, this society is also maximally egalitarian (see the Trinity section of the review).
What does it mean to say that this dude is a god (or is divine)?
Who would’ve guessed the Divine Society was so “diverse”? At least they let Jesus remain male… And it arguably beats the 
