10 parts in the series so far… but how many points?
Our god-talk is very tight – we use “God” as a name, or as a title which can apply, we tend to assume, to only one thing. But in parts 4 and 5 I point out that ancient pagans called emperors gods, and (perhaps more surprisingly) in the Old Testament, without irony or sarcasm, people, human ghosts, kings, and other divinely used men such as prophets are called “gods”. This helps us carefully read an often misinterpreted passage in John chapter 10, where some of Jesus’ enemies accuse him of “claiming to be God”.
In part 6, I looked at the issue of NT passages where Jesus is called “God” (“god”, “divine”), giving a mini-review of a book which is just about those. There are some such passages, although fewer than you might suppose. We can infer that the writers held Christ to be a provident being who must be honored. And so, premise 1 of the argument for the deity of Christ is supported by those passages.
Or at least: that premise is supported if it means no more than just stated. The God of Israel, of course, is also a provident being who must be honored. So are these two gods or one?
In parts 7 and 8, I looked at the famous Shema passage, which is so often quoted as support for monotheism. It turns out that according to recent scholarship, it was not in fact an expression of monotheism. But this is a sidetrack, as there are other OT passages which stoutly affirm the uniqueness of YHWH, and in some sense his sole divinity.
In part 9 I asked, what is “monotheism” anyway? Superficially, it’s the claim that there’s one divine being, one god. But what’s a divine being/god? If it’s what my analysis says, there there are few real monotheists as just defined, and most Jews, Muslims, and Christians won’t be monotheists! I suggested that monotheism paradigmatically involves these claims: (1) our god is the one high god, and (2) some other things thought to be gods are in fact false gods. Note that this allows one to consistently say this: Religion R is monotheistic yet R holds there are many gods. Monotheism, then, would be, typically, a sort of exclusivist polytheism! Though this grates on the ears, I think it is true. Those are rare who think there’s really only one provident being which must be honored. Most theists allow the existence of angels, but those would be gods. It wouldn’t follow that we should honor them in the way that we honor God, or the one we might refer to as “the one true God”. But that raises this issue: What is worship? Maybe there are many beings we should honor, but only one we should worship.
Enter part 10: there’s another familiar argument for Jesus being divine. Only God is rightly worshiped, and Jesus is. Now Jesus is indeed worshiped or honored in certain NT passages, with no hint than any idolatry is being committed. I argue that, although it may be polemically convenient, we need a concept of “worship” on which it is not analytically true that only God is worshiped. Jesus is worshiped in the NT, and yet he portrayed as having some features not had by God. Hence, it must be proper to worship something other than God.
Now why isn’t this idolatry? Good question. Some define idolatry as worshiping something other than God. I’m not sure that’s the best understanding of what the sin of idolatry is. If I were going to continue this series, I’d chew on this problem. I’m going to pass for now. Certain early modern philosopher-theologians discussed this extensively – maybe I’ll discuss it via there discussions at some future date.
For now, the vague and negative point is this: biblical arguments for the divinity or godhood of Jesus are trickier than they look! Keeping in mind the actual usage of terms current at the time, one can’t infer that Jesus is divine or that he is God because he’s rightly honored, or because he is described or addressed as “god/God”. It’s no good reading our linguistic practices back into these texts.
Scott – I think you’re asking the right question about John 1:1. Again – some of the discussions I’ve seen basically say – take the members of the Trinity (and if you like, add in God/The Trinity as well) and then try to make sense of what the terms or names refer to in John 1. So, e.g. “In the beginning was the Word (Son) and the Word (Son) was with God (the Father) and the Word was God (the Father). That doesn’t work so well, so we keep trying… readings where the referent of a term quickly “jump around” from one item to another, are, it seems, to be avoided, all things considered.
As to what you say is the common medieval take on “God sent Jesus”, it goes pretty hard against the grain of the NT to say that Jesus sent himself – he’s pretty clear about being sent by the Father. To say that “God” is ambiguous there… what would that help?
During mid-night Mass last night was read John 1.1-18. I spent several minutes thinking about the referent of ‘God’ in ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God[1], and the Word was God[2]’. Is the referent, and the meaning, of God[1] the exact same as God[2]? I think a course in Peter Abelard would be very interesting on this topic. I’ve been reading about him lately and have been intrigued — especially b/c much of his (and Anselm’s) [Trinitarian] logic is ALL OVER THE PLACE in Henry of Ghent’s Trinitarian theology. If I were writing two dissertations, I’d definitely say something about Anselm and Abelard; but as it stands, they shall be in the footnote-cave.
Indeed– at least for the medieval boys that I read — saying that ‘God sent Jesus’ needs to be analyzed in a particular way. To get to the point here, the question is whether the name ‘God’ in this context signifies a divine person in a determinate way (i.e. the Father), or a divine person in an indeterminate way (e.g., Father, and/or the Son, and/or the Holy Spirit). My medieval friends, at least ones I’ve read, would say that ‘God’ here indeterminately signifies a divine person (it could be any one or all divine persons).
Hi Scott,
Exegesis of John 1 is no simple task. But first let’s remember that theologians often fudge this issue by talking of Jesus being “identified with” God – deliberately leaving that ambiguous between numerical identity, some lesser sort of sameness, or simply being somehow closely associated with. I take it that identifying the two is out of the question, as some things are true of one, but not the other. (e.g. being sent by God)
If you grant that point, then the passage can still be read as consistent with various Trinity theories – orthodox, borderline, and heretical.
The most important question about this whole chapter, in my view, is whether the logos/word of 1:1 is meant to be the same person as Jesus Christ. Most translations push you to a firm “Yes” answer, but when you see past the translation issues, and read this in conjunction with Proverbs 8, you start to see how the logos might be meant as a divine attribute, which is, late in history, expressed in the life and person of Jesus. On this sort of reading, Jesus isn’t directly mentioned until v. 14. I’ve read some very sophisticated people making this case – some day I’ll two a series or two on this.
Hmm- well, what do make of John 1.1-15? Jesus is identified with ‘the god’; the God that the jews worshipped. In this case, Jesus is identified with _this_ god; and then most of what is said about the god the jews worshipped, also would be true of Jesus, no?
Comments are closed.