I’ve been meaning to get back to Ben for a while, to continue our dialogue on biblical monotheism and related matters. (Previous post.)
In his reply, Ben says,
I gather that Bauckham affirms (in different words) that monotheism involves,
(1) A strict partitioning of reality into divine and not-divine portions; and
(2) The unity of the divine portion of reality, i.e. the divine reality acts as one agent or one unified agency.Dale says that I am thereby affirming the existence of three GODs, where a god is a somewhat divine person and a GOD is a supreme god, or a maximally divine person. This criticism doesn’t really bother me for two reasons. First, Dale seems to reject (1) with his terminology (which I have paraphrased). He seems to regard divinity as a gradient scale. Things can be more or less divine.
Can something be more or less divine? To be divine is just to be a god, just as to be human is to be a human. I claim that there are two distinct concepts of divinity, one less specific, one more.
The less specific one, which I claim is found in all cultures, and which is expressed by many different terms in different languages, is what I call the concept of a god – a self which is much-greater-than-normal-humans, and which can act despite nature’s normal ways (i.e. supernaturally). Might this come in degrees? I don’t see why not. Consider the idea that one angel is greater in knowledge and power than another angel; the first could be said to be “more divine than” the second.
The other concept I label the concept of a GOD. A GOD is by definition also a god. GODhood includes being ultimate – not existing because of anything else, and being the ultimate source of all other things. Because of this, I think that GODhood doesn’t come in degrees. However, for all I know, some properties entailed by GODhood – by being-a-GOD – may be shareable. For example, could not the all-powerful God (who is a GOD, and the only GOD) make someone morally perfect, or all-knowing, or omnipresent? For all I know, yes. But this wouldn’t make that person to some degree a GOD. He’d just wouldn’t be a GOD at all, despite have some feature(s) in common with the one GOD. Being ultimate is necessary to being a GOD.
In sum, if you ask does divinity come in degrees, I will ask you which concept you have in mind. If godhood, then, yes. If GODhood, then no. I think both answers are trivially true, just matters of definition.
To summarize, I’m not bothered by Dale’s concern that I affirm three GODs because all I’m doing is affirming three divine persons who together act as one and exhaust the divine category. If Bauckham’s monotheism is the correct one, then I think I’m moving in the right direction.
On the face of it, the Bible teaches multiple gods, simply by teaching the existence of angels and demons, and the divine council of many OT texts. We can note the OT usage of elohim here, translatable (depending on context) as either God or gods. Of course, later OT books emphasize monotheism, the uniqueness of the god YHWH. He alone created, is provident, is morally perfect – and this is assumed to not be an accident, or something that could fail to be. In my view, though those texts don’t have the conceptual and terminological resources to express it fully, they’re implying that YHWH is a GOD. And a GOD is by definition unique. Note that one way later OT and then NT texts emphasize the uniqueness of YHWH is by (mostly) reserving God-terminology to him. Any gods are brushed off, verbally, as so-called-gods, or less-than-true gods, because, truly, they pale in comparison to YHWH, who is a GOD (which also makes him a god – but not like the rest).
Your “divine portion of reality,” Ben – the portion which consists one at least one god, or at least one GOD? If the latter, then this is clearly occupied by YHWH in the OT, and the Father in the NT (who are, of course, held to be one and the same – this is a key point that perhaps we should discuss further). Monotheism says just one being occupies that portion of reality. If you mean the “divine portion of reality” to be the set of gods, this would include YHWH, but also the risen, exalted, immortal Jesus, and angels. It’s not clear to me that this division would be “strict” as you say. This concept of godhood is somewhat vague, and so will have borderline cases – where things are neither clearly included or excluded by it. Consider the biblical Samson, for example.
The question of who or what is really God could easily be answered either the Father or the Trinity.
Ben, since you’re clear on identity, you know that the Father and the Trinty can’t be identical – by hypothesis the latter is tripersonal and the former is not. Let me ask you then what you make of this:
After Jesus had spoken these words, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son so that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all people, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3, NRSV)
Here, Jesus says to the Father that the latter is “the only true God.” That excludes everyone else, right, including Jesus? It’s the claim that the Father is a true-God, and that for anything whatever, it’s a true-God only if it just is the Father. By the context (Jesus assumes the truth of Isaiah and Deuteronomy) and also by his word “true” we know that he’s affirming the Father to be not merely a god but also a GOD. The point is that in the NT the one God is the Father – but this rules out the one God being the Trinity. (Here’s a related 2012 post.)
Finally, you seem to assume that it is important to affirm the deity of Christ. I have observed that this is a core concern of present-day evangelicalism. It is, of course, one with deep catholic roots. This is normally understood, I think, to be his essential GOD-hood, his having a divine nature in addition to his human nature. I will end then by asking: what if Jesus is not divine in that sense? What bad consequences would logically follow from that, were it to be true?
Dale
Thanks for your useful response on the subject of ‘universals’!
I find this aspect very repetitive when talking to Trinitarians.
How often does one hear ‘ instead of talking about how things differ, should we not be talking about
what they have in common’
This approach may be useful in resolving political or industrial disputes, but can prove quite hopeless in other areas!
(I suspect that this ‘ploy’ is aimed at getting one away from talking about ‘identity’.)
Consider the following –
What is
(i) Human
(ii) Found at fires
(iii) Is prepared to take calculated risks ?
The answer could be an arsonist , or a fireman!
Trinitarians tell me that I am ‘spoiling their game’- after all they are having such fun –
and aren’t they so clever with their philosophical musings?
Like insane people their ‘constructs’ have become reality for them.
Their only resort is to declare the whole thing to be a ‘mystery”
The problem is that these people are not ‘mad’ – they are mere men trying to entrap human souls in their spheres of influence.
Every Blessing
John
It’d probably be best for me to punt on this one: http://www.iep.utm.edu/universa/
Plato was the initiator of belief in universals, which he called “forms” or (confusingly) “ideas”. Interestingly, probably most philosophers now believe in them. Also, interestingly, the catholic tradition committed itself to this sort of theory, by positing such things as the universals divinity and humanity.
Hi Dale
That was most interesting!
At a risk of appearing really ‘dumb’ , could you please explain the concept of ‘universals’ and how they are affected by Platonist thinking.
Sorry to be so ‘pedestrian’ !
Every Blessing
John
Hey Ben,
I’ve discussed it in a paper which is in process (I’ll post when it’s published) and also in a paper that’s not ready for prime time. If you email me, I’ll send you a draft some time this week. I’m looking for comments on it.
Hey John,
“As I understand it, ‘divine’ means something like ‘of God’”
I would say that the word has a primary usage – which means the quality (property) of being a god. And then there are secondary usages – basically, being somehow related to one of those.
So God, since he’s a god, is divine in the primary sense. But we also talk of divine truth, divine scriptures, divine attributes – because those are in various ways related to him.
About God being the “source of divinity” – yes, surely. People will understand this differently, though, depending on whether or not they believe in universals. For the Plato-inspired church fathers, it seemed obvious that there are universals. So God is, or is closely related to the universal divinity. But Jesus and believers have to “participate in” or “imitate” this divinity – it has to, in a derivative way, manifest in us, to a lesser degree. These are, in my view, obscure claims. If you don’t believe in universals, then we just have a concept of divine which applies to things or not, depending on how they are. Of necessity, the concept applies to God. It applies to others – to Jesus, and to us – because of what God has done. He’s brought us into being, and in different ways, has made us like himself. Jesus is the spitting image of God, says the Gospel of John, so he’s most like God. We are gradually be changed into beings who are similar to God – now, mainly in moral ways. But we will be made immortal too, after the resurrection. So on this way of understanding properties and property-terms generally (including divinity) – usually called “nominalism” – there is no universal entity *divinity* which we must “participate in.” God’s divinity is just his being such that our concept of divinity applies to him.
Of course, as I’ve argued, there are really two such concepts – the concept of being a god and that of being a GOD, the latter requiring much more.
I hope that helps!
All
I’m a bit confused about comments made above about the word ‘divine’
As I understand it, ‘divine’ means something like ‘of God’
“Divine is a ‘nature’ and not an identity.
The source of divinity is the Lord God Almighty
The divine nature has been inherited by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Believers are said to be ‘partakers’ of the divine nature,
BUT IN THE END the SOURCE of divinity is always The Lord God Almighty ‘ Himself’
Am I ‘on track’ here ?
Blessings
John
Dale, have you published your definitions of the terms “godhood” and “GODhood” anywhere yet? It would be helpful to have something to cite because I think they are helpful terms.
All the best,
Pingback: Dale Tuggy, binary divinity, godhood, and GODhood | Cognitive Resonance
No hurry – I know a lot of complex issues are raised here.
Pingback: Early Jewish Christian Christology
Thanks for the reply Dale. Some interesting points here. I’ll write a response as soon as I get the chance. Take care,
Comments are closed.