When discussing Revelation 4-5 earlier in this series, I looked backwards and forwards through the book, to get a comprehensive view of this author’s theology and christology.
But I overlooked something, namely this interesting little tidbit, in another throne room scene, in an interlude between some smiting.
And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying “Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations! Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.” (Rev 15: 2-4, ESV, emphasis added)
Song of the Lamb? Why is that there? Elements of the quoted hymn echo famous Old Testament passages in which Moses praises God for his deliverance. It could be that the first part is supposed to be Moses’s song, the second part the Lamb’s song. Or maybe it is one song which belongs to both.
In any case, even though in a previous scene Jesus received worship alongside God, here, although he’s not directly in view, he seems to be on the side of the worshipers. This song, or part of it, is his song, his song sung in praise of Yahweh, the Almighty (a term never used of Jesus, by the way).
Most commenters skate right past this detail. It was drawn to my attention by G.W. Burnap:
Now, if the Lamb were a Person of the Trinity, would he not rather be placed as a person worshipped, instead of a person worshipping? Is not his being left out of Deity, and associated with Moses, sufficient evidence that the writer did not consider him as God in any sense? (Expository Lectures on the Principal Passages of the Scriptures which relate to the Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 138)
This last part is going too far, I would say, and putting too much weight on a little detail. But it is interesting that Jesus is assumed here to be worshiper of the one true God, which of course he was, and is. Burnap does have the big picture right:
Christ is represented [in Revelation] as reigning, but it is only under God, as the supreme Sovereign, and by his power and appointment. (p. 138)
Could it be the Lamb’s song, say, given the the saints to sing, but not one which the Lamb sung? It is possible. But the parallel with Moses suggests otherwise.
Kenny
The Jewish-Christian creed of the Shema states that the One Person of “the LORD” [YHWH] is the only one Who is God. The Trinitarian God is a triune “substance” composed of 3 Persons, “the Father, Son & HS”. This huge gap between the 2 beliefs is hidden with the monicker of “Trinitarian Monotheism” that some have placed about Orthodoxy.
Trinitarianism is not only “inconsistent” with the Shema but just not reflective of what it teaches. God is One Person and His name is YHWH! Period.
Kenny
Sorry to ‘butt in’ here – but it’s the misuse of the ‘Shema’ scriptures which is particularly galling to Unitarians.
One is one!
The context does not allow for ‘multiple entities’.
You mention consistency.- Dale Tuggy gave his reasons for becoming a unitarian, sometime in 2011 and among his reasons were
(i) The Trinity is NOT scriptural
… contrary to what is said, there are NO ‘proof verses’!
(ii) There is NO self-consistent theory of the Trinity which is CONSISTENT with-
(a) The one God of the OT and the NT is none other (same self, same being) than the FATHER.
… God is NOT a substance or nature
(b) The Father is someone other than Jesus.
I too was ‘dragged’ to the same conclusions!
Blessings
John
Xavier, you haven’t answered my main point, to wit, that the Shema is monotheistic, it teaches that there is one God. Since both Trinitarians and Unitarians say that there is one God, the Shema is not either Trinitarian or Unitarian. Now, you might argue that Trinitarianism is inconsistent with the Shema, but if so then it is inconsistent with itself and so there is no need to bring in this text to refute it.
john
If one checks the Koine Greek numerical table you will find the word eis when it comes to the numeral 1 and the Hebrew word <echad which means 1 also.
‘Nuff said! ; )
Hi Kenny
I expect you have noted the preface to Exodus 15 ” Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song TO the Lord”
As you state ,the fact that the two statements are joined by an ‘and’ makes it most unlikely that the second song is sung TO the Lamb.
Blessings
John
Hi Xavier
Kenny has a monumantal task ahead if he wishes to pursuade us that the Shems has trinitarian undertones.
I notice that the Greek word used for ‘one’ in Mark 12 v29 is ‘heis’
The same word is used in other scriptures -e.g. 1 Corinthians 9v24 ” do you not know the runners in a stadium run a race but only one (heis) wins the prize.
Going back into the Hebrew scripture (Deuteronomy 6v4) , the Hebrew word used to describe one is ‘echad’.
Trinitarians perform the usual gymnastics to try to convince us the since ‘echad’ can denote a multiple entity(which is true) — and query why the word ‘yashid’ was not used since it is more specific ” only one ‘, ‘alone’ ‘lonely’
In fact
(i)”Yashid ‘ is NEVER used to describe YHWH
(ii)The one things the Hebrews were certain about was that there is only one God
(iii)As regards ‘echad’ we can tell whether we are looking at a single entity or a multiple entity contextually….as we do in English. No magic here!
Blessings
John
Kenny
Everything since this is one of the set Orthodox texts to teach that we’re dealing with a triune God and not a unipersonal One. What it boils down to is whether or not the Jewish-Christian creed that is the Shema is trinitarian or unitarian.
If you believe Jesus is God by your interpretation of such texts as these, then tell us if you believe the Shema was a trinitarian statement regarding the 3 in 1 God of Israel, YHWH.
Kenny,
Thanks for the comments. Yes, I don’t think the grammar definitively settles it; a genitive can do different things. But as you point out, the parallel somewhat suggests my reading. And look at it this way – Jesus was known for his prayer life, and in a way his whole life was an act of worship – so it should come as no suprise if he, like Moses, has a song to God in this vision?
Xavier, what does that have to do with the immediate question, namely, the interpretation of Rev. 15:2-4 and its relevance to the status of the Son? In any event, the Shema is a statement of monotheism. Trinitarianism is by definition a form of monotheism and, therefore, if Trinitarianism is self-consistent then it is consistent with monotheistic creeds such as the Shema. (Of course, Unitarianism is also a form of monotheism.) Admittedly, Trinitarianism superficially appears not to be self-consistent and attempts to explain away the apparent inconsistency often seem to be radical transformations of the doctrine rather than explications of it. But those sorts of objections are purely internal to Trinitarianism and one need not appeal to texts like the Shema to make them. At any rate, I still don’t see what all of this has to do with the question at hand.
Kenny
Is the Shema a trinitarian or unitarian creed?
Huh. Reading, admittedly, through a (Nicene) Trinitarian lens, I always took ‘of Moses’ to be a subjective genitive (=”the song sung BY Moses”) and ‘of the Lamb’ to be an objective genitive (=”the song sung TO the Lamb”). IF this were the correct interpretation, then it would have big implications about the status of the Lamb. However, now that you mention it, I see that it would be quite odd if exactly the same construction in exactly the same sentence joined by ‘and’ (Gr. kai) had two different meanings like this. Still the fact that the Lamb is engaged in worship of the Father with the congregation needn’t have any anti-Trinitarian implications. It seems to me that we should instead say something about Christ’s status as mediator, that he stands on both the human side and the divine side. (This is just to say that I agree with you that Burnap is overdoing it.)
Dale
Just the parallel between the song of the Lamb and that of the Davidic King in the OT.
Dale, do you believe Ps 45 can rightly be called a “song” to the Davidic King?
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;”
It’s addressing that King (so, the Messiah). So, yes. I’m afraid I don’t see what you’re driving at, Xavier…
Comments are closed.