Thanks to our friend Alvin Kimel for linking my post Jesus, God, and an inconsistent triad.
Check out his post and the ensuing discussion here.
Unfortunately, the fact that I’m a unitarian seems to distract him from the actual purpose of the post. He says,
In this article he hopes to persuade us that the classical trinitarian doctrine is logically absurd.
No. That is not the point. I don’t claim that “the classical trinitarian doctrine” is committed to all three of those claims. In truth, I don’t think there is any one doctrine, any one set of determinate claims which mainstream Christians have always believed, or always believed since 381.
What there are, are standard formulas, sentences, which people interpret in various ways. Some of those ways do seem self-consistent to me, and others not. And others are simply not intelligible enough to seem either self-consistent or self-contradictory.
What my blog post was, was not an objection, but rather an invitation to trinitarians to sharpen their views by running them up against the blade of an obviously inconsistent triad of claims. The point is only this question: why do you deny, and why? The invitation is to consider how much reason one has to believe each claim. The weakest link, it would seem, should go. Analytic theologians, be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, usually deny N or I. Interestingly, never D, that I can think of.
As I write this, not one of the commenters on Fr. Kimel’s blog post really replies. One quotes a passage by Richard Bauckham, while another rants against the “kind of cold “pragmatism”” that he imagines he sees in my post. Others gas their offense at the very idea of a Christian being a unitarian. “We don’t need no stinkin’ blade” seems to be the feeling.
Happily, Aiden himself does reply – although he first seems to insinuate that there’s something idiosyncratic about my idea that these three can’t all be true. (“One cannot affirm all three statements, insists Tuggy, without contradiction.”) But this is just standard logic, as taught in colleges; I won’t bore everyone with the proofs.
About the inconsistent triad,
D: Jesus and God have differed.
N: Jesus and God are numerically one.
I: If any X and Y have ever differed, then they are not numerically one.
He’s not sure he wants to affirm D, because he thinks God is timeless, in the strictest sense. Now, I think a Christian ought to affirm D, on the basis of NT information like this: at a certain time, as Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, he didn’t want to die on the cross, but God did want Jesus to die on the cross. There’s a qualitative difference: at one time, one wants something which the other doesn’t want. D is true. But if we want to insist on traditional divine timelessness, I think we can just work with a different triad:
D*: Jesus and God differ.
N*: Jesus and God are numerically one.
I*: If any X and Y differ, then they are not numerically one.
All the verbs underlined here I mean to be in the timeless tense. Should a Christian who believes in divine timelessness affirm D*? I think so. Eternally, God does something which in the temporal realm results in people hearing “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” Jesus, if you like, in his eternal, divine nature, does not do this. Ergo, D*. I don’t think the difference in verb tense is going to matter for N* or I*. I* will, like I, be self-evident – something one knows to be true as soon as one has a good understanding of it.
Alvin asks,
…why should I prescind from the dogmatic faith of the Church when interpreting your first two statements? Or to phrase it differently, why should I adopt your hermeneutical rules for reading the Bible?
These are red herrings, distractions, irrelevant to this discussion. No one is asking you to be disloyal to catholic tradition. You are most welcome to consult that tradition in deciding which to deny.
The question is: do you see the need to deny one of this second triad? If so, which do you deny? But he moves on to consider N:
On to statement #2: “Jesus and God are numerically one.” If this means that Jesus and God are one hypostasis, then the statement is clearly false—but who believes otherwise? The developed trinitarian faith is clear: Jesus (the Son) and God (the Father) are two distinct hypostases. It also goes on to assert that Jesus and God are numerically one in one precise sense: they both equally possess the divine nature.
Now, I was expecting him to say at the end that “they are one God.” This would suggest a commitment to relative identity theory, the idea that things can be one F but different Gs, where F and G are sortal concepts or predicates. But saying that “they both equally possess the divine nature” – sorry, but until you say more about a “nature” here is, this does clearly imply that they are numerically one. “Numerically one” here means identity, the relation logicians represent with =. So it’s not clear that you really do affirm N. Unless you want to claim (see 2.1.2 here) that there can be numerical identity which is not =. (This, for entirely non-theological reasons, most philosophers consider to be a wacky move…)
Happily, he agrees to affirm I. (And so, I assume, I* too.) But then he concludes,
So there you have it, Dale. A trinitarian Christian can easily affirm each of the above statements. The triad is not inconsistent.
No – big mistake. By reading I as involving =, but not reading N as involving = (identity), you’re just not “seeing” the inconsistency. But it is blatantly clear. Just ready any two of the three out loud, and look at the remaining one – it has to be false, right, assuming the two you just read? Do this three times, for all the combinations, and you’ve done a sort of informal proof of the inconsistency of the set. We should not waste time disagreeing about that, when we could be talking theology. Seriously – do it now, out loud.
He now veers off into what he imagines I would object re: the Bible or biblical interpretation. But those issues are not relevant what we’re talking about here.
Once you “see” the obvious inconsistency of our set, you will realize that it will not be reasonable to accept all three, even if a majority Christian tradition has done so. (Mind you, I don’t say that it has!)
Alvin, given that you so readily grant I (thus I*) and that you should accept D*, I humbly suggest that you should deny N (and N*).
If you do that, then about this matter, you and I agree! On the matter of denying N (and N*), we would be on the same side against many American evangelicals, who seem to think that affirming N is the main point of Christianity.
Friend, I think you should not say,
“Unless one presupposes that the doctrine of the Trinity is false, the above three statements can certainly be affirmed as true.”
Again, this is a mistake, and demonstrably so. You think you’re affirming N, but in fact you have only affirmed that Father and Son are divine-nature-sharers. That appears to be consistent with denying N – unless you mean a divine nature to be a particular property… But I leave it to you to say more about what you mean a “nature” to be.
“You think you’re affirming N, but in fact you have only affirmed that Father and Son are divine-nature-sharers.”
But they are the same immutable being which must be numerically identical with itself.
Pingback: Paul Anchor against the Unitarians on Hebrews 1 and Psalm 45 v 6 | Badmanna's Blog
Pingback: God and the Triviality of Numerical Oneness | Orthodox Magazine Orthodox Magazine
Dale, I apparently misunderstood the intent of your triad. Here’s my reply: https://goo.gl/bFSAfA.
Pingback: God and the Triviality of Numerical Oneness | Eclectic Orthodoxy
If Jesus and God (the Father) differ, but share in the same “divine nature,” wouldn’t that make them separate entities, different gods? Just as two humans can differ and still have the same basic human nature? I’m not sure this whole “different persons, same nature, one God” idea is at all coherent.
Daniel, the fourth and fifth century orthodox Fathers developed the doctrine of the Trinity precisely to deny any suggestion of polytheism. Take a look, for example, at St Gregory of Nyssa’s tract “To Ablabius.” Here is my commentary on the work: https://goo.gl/tPS2yQ.
Dale,
I would like to apologize for my cantankerous post. I came across a bit too aggressive and judgmental. Although we might disagree on aspects of the topic, that doesn’t preclude intellectual fellowship!
Cheers, Dave
Dale, I’ve been toying with the idea that a self-conscious mind entails a plurality: in order to be conscious of itself, there must be another self that is able to observe it. If this is correct (admittedly a big if), then might it offer some light in understanding the relationship of the Father and the Son?
Absurd = 1: ridiculously unreasonable, unsound, or incongruous
Incongruous = strange because of not agreeing with what is usual or expected
I think that many would say that the Trinity doctrine, rightly understood, qualifies under those definitions, wouldn’t you? So while it wasn’t your argument to say this, would you agree that one certainly could do so? Of course, the question of “which Trinity” would come into the picture, but the one at least partially described in the Catholic Encyclopedia is incongruous at the very least, as far as I can see.
Hi Sean,
I seem to remember a post on the subject of the insertion in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The latter proposes a ‘Relative Identity’ solution to the problem of ‘consistency’
It is difficult to posit an analogy of a trinity based on relative identity – although some have proposed one involving conjoined triplets.
I think that it was Mario who ‘poured cold water’ over this analogy by asking the question “which one created the others, which one was sent, which one was created by spiration, and which one calls the other ‘the only true God’.?.
All attack s on numerical identity fail, and the mind just cannot ‘get round’ something based on relative identity’
When logic fails Trinitarians revert to “Well it’s just a mystery to be sure”!
John
John
Hi John,
Just to clarify, I was referring to this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I’ve quoted before:
“The theory of relations also indicates the solution to the difficulty now most frequently proposed by anti-Trinitarians. It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. Neither person nor mind is self-consciousness; though a person must needs possess self-consciousness, and consciousness attests the existence of mind (see PERSONALITY).”
The next part separated for emphasis:
“Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence. It is impossible to establish that, in regard of the infinite mind, such a supposition involves a contradiction.”
Found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
To repeat what I said the last time this came up, not only does this sound like hallucinogenic-drug induced gobbledygook to me, but it also seems to show just how much modalism and Trinitarianism have in common. The closest analogy I can think of for what is being proposed here is a person with a multiple personality disorder, the most famous examples of which are probably Sybil Dorsett and Frankie Murdoch.
So, the Catholic encyclopedia is promoting as God one who is a sort of divine Sybil. Years ago, as I began to seriously contemplate the arguments put forth by Trinitarians, I came to realize that if one were to accept as true all of the statements they make, then God would have to be analogous to either, (1) a man with multiple personality disorder where the multiple personalities would have to be intrinsic (i.e. owned by nature) rather than trauma induced, or (2) a man with three brains, where one brain is functiono-inherently dominant (yes, I made up a word). The above author’s comments seem to lean toward #1.
When this realization originally came to me, I wondered when the promoters of such strange ideas lost their Bibles, as such ideas certainly seem incongruous in relation to that collection of writings.
Sean,
Amen to that!
The Doctrine of the Trinity makes no sense and is incongruous with scriptures -properly interpreted!
God Bless
John
Yes but God speaks to God in Hebrews 1:
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
If this God is unitarian then he is speaking to a non-existent being that he calls God! Hardly a solid base for a rational belief system!
The same words (“Thy throne, O God”) were originally applied to an earthly king, and no one, as far as we know, thought that this meant that the earthly king was himself the God of the universe.
Ps. 45:6: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”
The object of this statement in verse 6 cannot be the earthly king. God is already addressed and defined in verse 2 by name as the one who has blessed the king:
2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever.
The Psalmist cannot therefore switch the referent of the word God to David or whoever in verse 6 without committing idolatry. He would be identifying the God of verse 2 and verse 6 with each other when, according to you, one is a human king and the other is God.
In my view verse 6 is a spontaneous expression of praise to the eternal King whose kingdom is from everlasting to everlasting. It fits in the context because it serves to contrast the earthly with the heavenly King who is the God of the earthly king.
That’s not how most expositors understand the verse, which is typically understood as a reference to an earthly king. For example, the Netbible, which is the product of Trinitarian translators like Dan Wallace, offers the following in its footnote to this verse:
“sn O God. The king is clearly the addressee here, as in vv. 2-5 and 7-9. Rather than taking the statement at face value, many prefer to emend the text because the concept of deifying the earthly king is foreign to ancient Israelite thinking (cf. NEB “your throne is like God’s throne, eternal”). However, it is preferable to retain the text and take this statement as another instance of the royal hyperbole that permeates the royal psalms. Because the Davidic king is God’s vice-regent on earth, the psalmist addresses him as if he were God incarnate. God energizes the king for battle and accomplishes justice through him. A similar use of hyperbole appears in Isa 9:6, where the ideal Davidic king of the eschaton is given the title “Mighty God” (see the note on this phrase there).”
See: http://enetbible.com/net/psa45_notes.htm#4519
But in Hebrews 1 we don’t have the context of an ancient Israelite psalmist addressing his king.
What we have in Hebrews is an author who applied a text in which an earthly king was originally addressed as “O God” to Jesus. As conservative theologian Vincent Taylor pointed out over 50 years ago:
“A single passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews may be mentioned, but it supplies no ground at all for the supposition that the author thought and spoke of Christ as God. The passage is a quotation from Ps 45 7 – 8 in He I 8-9 which is applied to Christ, to show His superiority to the angels…The Psalm is Messianic and the divine name is carried over with the rest of the quotation. Like Paul and John the writer frequently uses the name ‘the Son’, and he does so in introducing this very quotation. He has no intention of suggesting that Jesus is God. (Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?, The Expository Times, 73, No. 4, Jan 1962), p. 117
Using this text to try and get around the problem I mentioned won’t go very far. Jesus is there called “God” representationally, just as the king in the Psalms was. As I’ve pointed out many times, it is not at all surprising to find divine titles applied to Jesus. Indeed, in light of the application of such titles to agents of God during the biblical period, and the contexts in which such applications were deemed appropriate, it would be quite surprising to find divine titles NOT applied to Jesus.
Sean
You are quite correct.
The NT translation is based on the Septuagint translation, which mis-quotes the original Hebrew.
As the footnotes to Hebrews 1 in the NAB bible say “it is important to the authors Christology , that in verses 10-12, an OT passage (Psalm 102) addressed TO GOD, is re-addressed TO CHRIST.
We see the same problem in the case of Hebrews 1v8 – see Psalm 45v7 where the verse has been re-addressed to Christ ( v7 .”but of the Son…”)
In any other field of scholarship this type of error would have been declared unacceptable – but here we are challenging long held beliefs. It seems that Trinitarians will go to any lengths to see what they want to see!
God Bless
John
“What we have in Hebrews is an author who applied a text in which an earthly king was originally addressed as “O God” to Jesus.”
That is obviously the interpretation that you, as a Unitarian, have to go with. We should, however let the text interpret the text. This leads us I believe to the opposite conclusion that David is not the one that the first seven verses are describing.
2 Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips:
This is not true of any sinful human being regardless of his office or station.
5 Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee.
The referent of the text is fighting against the king’s enemies by firing his arrows against them therefore he cannot be the king himself.
These verses clearly show that the person referred to as God in verse 6 is not the human king.
“That is obviously the interpretation that you, as a Unitarian, have to go with.”
No, it’s the interpretation that most grammarians and commentators go with, including Dan Wallace. In case you weren’t aware, as a member of Dallas Theological Seminary, he’s staunchly Trinitarian:
http://www.dts.edu/about/faculty/dwallace/
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
BTW, Vincent Taylor was also staunchly Trinitarian:
“Trinitarian relationships are the presupposition and background of the revelation of God in history and in Scripture. Since the New Testament has trinitarian implications, it is as a divine Person within the love of a unity of Persons that the Son of God must be conceived. Only on this theological basis will justice be done to His Person.” (The Person of Christ), p. 258
There doesn’t seem to be any real question about the fact that the person being addressed is the king. The primary question I found when I researched this verse is, “What’s being said to the king?”
Some, for grammatical and contextual reasons, have felt that “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God” is the correct translation. However, even in this case “thy” is in reference to the king. If this rendering is correct then this verse is not relevant to the issue you’re struggling with. If the majority view is correct then both the earthly king and the Son are referred to as “O God”. I have no problem accepting the predominant view in this case.
” I have no problem accepting the majority view in this case.”
I never go with it. Scholars mean nothing to me. I analyse the text with my own mind with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Hi Paul
Have you ever considered the full ramifications of Psalm 45 ?
Verse 7 ” Your throne O god (lower case)
Verse 8 ‘therefore God, your God has anointed you”
note the comma -second use of God is by way of re-inforcement! God is Christ’s God per John 20v17.
Verse 10 “Daughters of kings are your lovely wives…”
(NAB Bible). The KJV says ‘honourable ladies”
Can anyone really suggest that these verses are referring to the Christ?
Blessings
John
An earthly throne of a human king is not forever. This is another reason why the earthly king is not the referent, or not the primary referent. He is just an indicator or pointer to the ultimate referent.
In it’s original context verse 7 rules out that the God of verse 6 is a human being because it is the king’s God.
Otherwise I hope someone was there to tell them which is the upper case and which was the lower case god? Otherwise I am certain they would have been confused, as unitarians? What if they didn’t have upper and lower case in those days?
Yes, God the Father is the God of the Son through his human nature. I don’t have a problem with that. I would have a problem worshipping a deified man but that’s your problem not mine.
The KJV doesn’t use the word wives:
9Kings’ daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
Why is the daughter of David and the daughters of other kings so important if this Psalm is primarily about him?
I am not claiming that these verses don’t apply to David in any sense.
17I will make thy name to be remembered in all generations: therefore shall the people praise thee for ever and ever.
I am sure that I will not be praising David in heaven. He is just a sinful man saved by the grace of God.
Paul
You don’t seem to have picked up the fact that Hebrews 1v7 is not a fair translation of Psalm 45 v 8.
As the footnotes to the NAB Bible state, comments originally addressed to YHWH are readdressed to Christ.
To be blunt, the Septuagint got it wrong (and not for the first time)
I would suggest that you are not familiar with the ‘praise language’ with which Kings were addressed in ancient times. At coronation Kings of the Davidic line were crowned king, ordained priest and made Gods adoptive son- and lavished with epithets such as ‘may he live forever’ . It’s not to be taken literally -of course.
Blessings
John
Hi John,
While the Hebrew may permit other renderings, I think it also permits one in which the king is called “God”, as the LXX translators understood it. J.W Rogerson and J.W. McKay offer insight on the matter:
“Yet another line of interpretation renders the Hebrew ‘your throne, O God, is eternal’, the king being addressed as God. This is the translation in all the ancient versions, but it may have been influenced by the messianic interpretation of the Psalm. If the king is addressed as God, this does not mean that the king was regarded as divine in ancient Israel. The king was ‘adopted’ as the son of God (Ps. 2:7) and stood in special relation to him as king of the chosen people; but he was never regarded as divine.” (Psalms 1-50, from The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible), p. 215
I agree with you completely, however, about the “praise language” with which kings were addressed in ancient times. I don’t think that’s even a controversial point, and so I’m a bit surprised to see Paul struggling with it. Then again, I’m often surprised to see Unitarians struggling with the application of divine titles to Jesus, in light of the flexible application of such titles in the biblical period. I trust that we all learn from these exchanges.
Sean,
“I agree with you completely, however, about the “praise language” with
which kings were addressed in ancient times. I don’t think that’s even a
controversial point, and so I’m a bit surprised to see Paul struggling
with it.”
You have no proof whatsoever that this language was ever applied to any king. This is pure speculation. You paint a picture of God which is totally false and out of sync with the rest of the OT, namely that God that has no jealousy for the glory of his name. The idea that God and the King would both be happy with this praise is absurd to me. The only example of this we have is in the NT and God quickly put Herod to death for not giving him the glory:
Acts 12 21 And upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them.
22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
23 And
immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God
the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.
may ( the true ) God bless you
“You have no proof whatsoever that this language was ever applied to any king. This is pure speculation.”
Actually, John’s point about hyperbolic praise language used in reference to ancient kings is so well attested that it’s taken for granted by scholars and historians. It’s not a point of debate by informed exegetes.
Even the editors of the NET Bible, which is the product of DTS folks (some of the most committed Trinitarians on the planet) recognized this, as is demonstrated by the footnote to Psalm 45:6. Furthermore, you can’t argue that they have a “low” view of Scripture:
“We believe that ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,’ by which we understand the whole Bible is inspired in the sense that holy men of God ‘were moved by the Holy Spirit’ to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of the writings—historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical—as appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error. We believe that all the Scriptures center about the Lord Jesus Christ in His person and work in His first and second coming, and hence that no portion, even of the Old Testament, is properly read, or understood, until it leads to Him. We also believe that all the Scriptures were designed for our practical instruction (Mark 12:26, 36; 13:11; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 1:16; 17:2–3; 18:28; 26:22–23; 28:23; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 2:13; 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21).”
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
~Sean
“An earthly throne of a human king is not forever. This is another reason
why the earthly king is not the referent, or not the primary referent.
He is just an indicator or pointer to the ultimate referent.”
The verse isn’t referring to a literal chair called a “throne” and saying that *it* will last forever; it’s referring to the ruler-ship the throne signifies. Israelite kings represented God’s ruler-ship on earth. It is God’s rulership through the king that is in view here, and that “throne” will last forever.
“I never go with it. Scholars mean nothing to me. I analyse the text with my own mind with the help of the Holy Spirit.”
You don’t think the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary relied on the Holy Spirit?
So if your appendix were going to burst and you needed it removed, would you attempt the surgery yourself, or would you defer to the professionals in the field who have the proven expertise to perform such surgeries successfully?
If you were falsely charged with murder, would you attempt to represent yourself, our would you hire someone who has demonstrated the expertise necessary to navigate the complexities of the law and thereby win cases?
Paul,
I agree with you that the context of Psalms 45 is not significant to the interpretation of Hebrews 1:8-10. However, I don’t think the context of Hebrews suggests that “God” (Hebrews 1:8) and “Lord” (Hebrews 1:10) were referring to Jesus Christ either.
First, the writer of Hebrews indicated that “the works of Your hands” (Hebrews 1:10) was referring to what was created by God the Father and given to the exalted son, Jesus (Hebrews 2:7). It is “the God” who subjects His creation to the son in “the world to come” (Hebrews 2:4-5).
Second, the term “O God” in Hebrews 1:8 is literally “the God” (O QEOS) which is specifically used throughout the context to refer only to God the Father (Hebrews 1:1, 6, 9; Hebrews 2:4). Moreover, the writer already indicated that Jesus “sat down” on God the Father’s throne (Hebrews 1:3). See also Revelation 3:21.
Paul
Hebrews 1 v 10 is based on Psalm 102 and is based on the Septuagint- which misquotes the Tanakh.
The Tanakh shows that it was YHWH who established the heavens and the earth. Protestant Bibles show God addressing the Lord and crediting him with the creation. Trinitarians then conclude that “The Lord” is Christ!
The footnotes to the NAB Bible get it right.!
As usual, Trinitarians have created a confusion. !
God Bless
John
“Hebrews 1 v 10 is based on Psalm 102 and is based on the Septuagint- which misquotes the Tanakh.”
Are you suggesting that ancient Trinitarians have so botched the Scriptures that have come down to us that they can’t be trusted? I don’t think that’s a necessary conclusion. I have no problem allowing that Psalm 102 is applied to Jesus, because the reason is clearly NOT to identify him as YHWH, just as the application of other Psalms to Jesus was clearly not meant to identify him as any of the ancient Israelite kings.
The author of Hebrews applied the Psalm to Jesus because he wanted to make the point that the post resurrection Jesus was now immortal and his “years shall have no end” (KJV). This isn’t a king who’s going to die and thereby potentially allow his kingdom to be subject to future misrule by some unrighteous successor. Verse 25 from the Psalm was simply carried over with verses 26 and 27 because it was needed to avoid suggesting that Jesus’ “partners/fellows” would die.
Notice what happens when you omit verse 25:
“8 [B]ut of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. [snip Ps 102:25] 11 They shall perish; but thou continuest: And they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a mantle shalt thou roll them up, As a garment, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, And thy years shall not fail.”
Notice that when you omit verse 25, then the words AUTOI APOLOUNTAI (“they will parish”) in verse 11 of Heb 1 naturally refers to Christ’s “fellows”. These “fellows” are likely one of two groups of individuals, i.e. the holy angels (probable, as they are the only “fellows” in context) or Christians who would reign with Christ in his kingdom. Verse 11 can’t apply to either of those groups, as the holy angels and Christian co-rulers won’t “parish”. So the author retained verse 25 from the Psalm so that the “They” in verse 11 of Heb 1 refers to the heavens and earth that would pass away and be replaced by the “new heavens and new earth” (Matt 24:35; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1).
I can’t see any reason why Unitarians should have a problem with this interpretation. However, as someone who accepts the real personal preexistence of the one who became Jesus the Messiah, I would say that Psalm 25 can appropriately be applied to Jesus for another reason: He was the ‘Wisdom’ or ‘LOGOS’ through whom God created the original heavens and the original earth.
Sean,
Excellent comment on the use of Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1.
Thanks, Rivers:-) BTW, I think that the last point I man can apply regardless of one’s view of preexistence. One could say that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s creative ‘Wisdom’ or ‘LOGOS’ making an application of Ps. 102:25 to him appropriate.
Hi Sean,
I guess that the difference between us is that you are a bible literalist -while I see Hebrews 1 as pure typology.
After the preamble the objective of the chapter is to demonstrate that the resurrected Christ is now ‘higher than the angels’
There really is nothing more than that!
Attempts to try and ‘tease out’ each and every word only takes us into the camps of the ‘brand managers’ who would try to convince us that their brand is better.
We simply do not have enough information about the scriptures and what the authors intended to say, Certainty is an illusion.
Blessings
John
Hi John,
I wouldn’t refer to myself as a “biblical literalist”, as I see poetic and metaphorical language all over the place in Scripture. I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but that doesn’t make me a literalist.
As for your “pure typology” argument, even if that were true I don’t see how it would negate the importance of seeking an interpretation that is sensitive to what an author would or wouldn’t be inclined to say. I don’t think you can say that “This is pure typology so there’s no need to do the hard work of exegesis.”
~Sean
Hi Sean
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
After Desideratus Erasmus finished translating the Bible for the second or third time he is said to have remarked ‘we have no certainty on these matters’
– as a result he urged readers to define as little as possible so that good men could find common ground.
Blessings
John
You have to take a low view of inspiration and manipulate the text to make your argument so I am not convinced.
Revelation 22 v And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out
of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
You’re simply mistaken, I’m afraid, as there’s nothing at all “low” about my view of inspiration. I think you just don’t like the implications of where the exegesis leads, and are therefore trying to find some reason, regardless how flaccid, to avoid it.
Comments are closed.