Penal Theory
No man can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him— Psalm 49:7 NASB
No man – One of the ideas about atonement was formulated at the time of the Reformation. It’s call the Penal Theory of Atonement. Basically, it asserts that Yeshua’s death paid the price required by God for our salvation.[1] Whether or not you were aware that this idea developed after Luther, you have probably interpreted the texts about the nature of the crucifixion as payment in some way of another for our sins. What you might not have known is that this idea was not part of the Early Church Fathers’ way of understanding the atonement and it is not the way Jewish ideas of atonement developed. Part of the reason that the Early Church and Jewish thinkers did not adopt a payment view of the atonement comes from verses like this one in the Psalms. But this psalm basically says that one man cannot redeem another man or give God some kind of payment for another man. If what the psalmist says is true (at least at face value), then Yeshua could not have paid for us. Since a large number of Christians believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was payment, what exactly does this psalm mean in this apparent contradiction?
We can start by noting that the Hebrew verse places the emphasis on a different element of this passage. In Hebrew words are rearranged. It reads: “His brother by any means can redeem no man.” The emphasis is not on the impossibility of substitution but rather on the effect on the supposed recipient, the brother, relative, or countryman. Whatever hope for the other might have been the case with the suggestion of a substitution, that hope is dashed. He can’t be let off the hook by someone else.
The context of this psalm (of the sons of Korah) helps us see why the emphasis is on the potential recipient. This song would be comfortably included in Ecclesiastes. It’s about the folly of thinking that possessions and power will deliver us from God’s judgment. Like Ecclesiastes, it focuses on the fact that everyone will die, that riches will not save you nor will power or fame. The ubiquity of death is certain. Only God can redeem and He will redeem only the upright. In other words, despite the wish to save another from judgment, no man, no matter what his status on earth, is able to rescue another from God’s verdict. The sons of Korah certainly knew this to be historically true. Their ancestor and all those who followed him were swept away in the wilderness. Challenging God’s choice meant extinction, and no one was able to intervene.
The song uses a very strong collection of words to communicate this fact.
lōʾ pādo yipdĕ. The strong negative is followed by two words from the same verbal root, the use of the verb pādâ twice. This is like putting an exclamation point behind the thought. The verb pādâ basically means, “to achieve the transfer of ownership from one to another through payment of a price or an equivalent substitute.”[2] Take note of the comment by William Coker:
The semantic development of pādâ is one of great significance to Christian theology. Originally, it had to do with the payment of a required sum for the transfer of ownership, a commercial term. Exodus and Lev 19:20 speak of the redemption of a slave girl for the purpose of marriage. It is also used to speak of the redemption of a man’s life who is under the sentence of death, as in I Sam 14:45, when Jonathan was redeemed by the people of Israel.
The word was given special religious significance by the Exodus. When God delivered Israel from servitude to Egypt, he did so at the price of the slaughter of all the firstborn in Egypt, man and beast (Ex 4:23; 12:29). Consequently, the event was to be perpetually commemorated in Israel by the consecration of all the firstborn of man and beast to the Lord (Ex 13:12)[3]
Coker’s examples create a real conflict for us. How can the Psalm claim that no man can redeem (pay for) another if Jonathan was redeemed by the people or a slave was redeemed for marriage? Are the sons of Korah wrong? Or are they speaking of a special case, the case of redemption from inevitable death?
Coker adds:
Interestingly enough, only once is pādâ used with reference to redemption from sin (Ps 130:7–8). This remained for the completed revelation of the new covenant. Unfortunately, this emphasis has become so dominant in Christian redemptive theology, there is the tendency to overlook the fact that the NT as well as the OT sees redemption, or salvation, in terms of the total human situation. Even a cursory reading of Luke’s Gospel will catch the reflection of the OT heritage in the concept of salvation..[4]
What do we learn? At least this: the text depends on the context. If all of these examples of the use of pādâ are true, then we will have to find reconciliation from the context, not in the word itself. Time to go to work.
Topical Index: pādâ, redeem, Penal Theory of Atonement, Psalm 49:7
[1]Penal substitution “argues that Christ, by his own sacrificial choice, was punished (penalized) in the place of sinners (substitution), thus satisfying the demands of justice so God can justly forgive the sins. It developed with the Reformed tradition as a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement where the substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution
[2]Coker, W. B. (1999). 1734 פָּדָה. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(electronic ed., p. 716). Chicago: Moody Press.
The following are some good questions from an article I copied from Greg Boyd. He is a theologian and author whom I think thinks.
“If God the father needs someone to “pay the price” for sin, does the Father ever really forgive anyone? Think about it. If you owe me a hundred dollars and I hold you to it unless someone pays me the owed sum, did I really forgive your debt? It seems not, especially since the very concept of forgiveness is about releasing a debt — not collecting it from someone else.”
“If the main thing Jesus came to do was to appease the Father’s wrath by being slain by him for our sin, couldn’t this have been accomplished just as easily when (say) Jesus was a one-year-old boy as when he was a thirty-three year old man? Were Jesus’ life, teachings, healing and deliverance ministry merely a prelude to the one really important thing he did – namely, die?”
“To raise a more controversial question, if it’s true that God’s wrath must be appeased by sacrificing his own Son, then don’t we have to conclude that pagans who have throughout history sacrificed their children to appease the gods’ wrath had the right intuition, even if they expressed it in the wrong way?”
Finally, “To me, these are all serious problems with the Penal Substitution view of the atonement. I do not deny that Jesus died as our substitute or even that it was God’s will to “crush and bruise” him (Isa 53:10). But we don’t need to imagine that the Father vented his wrath against sin on Jesus to make sense of these facts. One can (and I think should) rather see this as the Father offering up his Son to the principalities and powers to be bruised and crushed in our place, for this unsurpassable expression of self-sacrificial love is what was needed to destroy the devil and his works and to thus set humans free, reconciling them to the Father.”
reknew (dot) org (forwardslash) 2015/12/10-problems-with-the-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/
Thinking, would this mean that the receiving of the spirit, and living in accordance to it, would be the conclusion to the purpose God has.? The completed work.?
Michael: I found the article you referenced to be very helpful! A lot of these questions have bothered me personally over the years as well.
In Isaiah 53:10 most translations indicate that God was “pleased”, even “delighted” to CRUSH the servant/Messiah. That always has troubled me…. images of Inquisition torture men in their black outfits preparing to use their various tools come to mind. This seems sadistic to me. Then I noticed that the Septuagint translates this verse differently. The Lord (Yahweh) was pleased to PURGE him from his stroke. For what it is worth Google translate renders the Septuagint Greek into English as CLEAN him of his wound. Both purging and cleaning suggest a positive outcome that seems to be missing with “crush”. God delights in those who are “crushed” in spirit, not because He revels in the crushing but rather the outcome of the humbling process.
A second point to consider is what if anything Jesus accomplished for HIMSELF in the ugly death on the cross. I suggest that Jesus dwelt in a mortal body subject to sin all of his life (Otherwise the notion that he was tempted makes no sense). He could have “blown it” right up until the time of his death on the cross. Fortunately for all of us, including himself, he did NOT blow it. So in the resurrection he received a new immortal body incapable of sin or succumbing to temptation in any way. His “flesh” was crucified spiritually as well as literally. We also join him in that death of flesh in order to experience new life and immortal transformation as well. Oh and by the way Jesus gets promoted to the highest office in the universe, sitting at the right hand of God. This is an expression of power and authority. You can study the story of Joseph in Egypt. Pharaoh promotes Joseph to his right hand as well, and grants him total executive authority over everything in the country…. as a reward for his faithfulness and loyalty.
Finally, I know I am almost alone in thinking that Abraham actually misunderstood God’s commandment to sacrifice Isaac as a “burnt offering”. The Hebrew term is “olah” which simply means an “ascending offering”. Some Jewish commentary describes how God informs Abraham that He NEVER said to kill the boy, rather to “bring him up”….olah! Abraham assumed that since the pagans killed their children and since in the sacrificial system animals were killed and burned, then that is what God wanted. God Himself clearly states in Jeremiah that He considers human sacrifice an “abomination”. Oh, except when He plans to kill His own son?… I don’t think so! The religious leadership of the day killed Jesus. They stood in the place of Abraham and actually killed the son of promise/Messiah.
Through the death of Jesus we are indeed saved… but not FROM DEATH, rather we are saved OUT OF DEATH. The consequence of our sin is death… and we all will die, sooner or later. But thanks to God we enjoy the promise of resurrection after death, thanks to the sacrifice of Yeshua the Messiah!!
Another thinking thinker adds their thoughts into the think tank. Thanks HSB. Food for thought.
HSB,
Thanks for bringing this to light. I had no idea the LXX and the MT were so different here. Though some words have changed since ca. 2BC, of course, the Google rendering aligns with the LXX in that the verb can be either “purge” or “cleanse”. The Google is, essentially, the way I’d translate it:
And the LORD will[/desires to?] cleanse Him from/of his wound
This is very different than the Hebrew MT. The LEH Greek-English lexicon, the primary one consulted for the LXX, has the following note, which you may find of interest:
Yet even the first (primary) verb seems to be different: delights (MT) seems stronger than will, or even desires.
In an online exchange with an RCC adherent, she claimed that LXX was superior to MT—because the NT quotes from the OT use the LXX more than the MT—and for this reason, the OT in RCC Bibles was translated from the LXX. However, in this case that’s not true, for I checked the ol’ Douay-Rheims and the NAB(RE) versions, and they reflect the MT.
I should add the following to clarify the above (which I didn’t know before I posted the comment, as I couldn’t then find the key). In the “-דכא (Aram.) for MT דכא” above, the initial hyphen indicates that the translator of the LXX probably read or wished to read the Aramaic instead of the Hebrew, thus accounting for the different translation of the LXX for this verb. That should clear things up.
To destroy the devil. This is one if the biggest lies that all believers have been subjected to. The snake in Genesis is not HaSatan. How many lives have been negatively affected by this thinking? An ex many things (Baptist/Messianic/even believer) shared a few chapters of a book he was writing on the subject which opened my eyes to the truth. The first chapter or so made a lot of sense. Life changing. Rabbi David Fohrman talks about the snake. There are other articles as well from a Jewish perspective. I remember Skip mentioned the history briefly in Guardian Angel.
But God will redeem my soul from the power* of Sheol, for He will receive me. – Psalm 49:15 (NASB)
*or hand
Perhaps a man who is also God can redeem mankind? In both 49:7 (LXX 48:8) and 49:15 (LXX 48:16) we find the word lytroō, and in the Biblia Hebraica in both verses is yip̱deh (49:8, 49:18).
To make this connection more obvious, please see the following from the previous TW in this vein Apostolic By-lines (2) (skipmoen dot com/2019/05/apostolic-by-lines-2/); I’ve transliterated the Greek (in brackets):
Lytron is the noun form of the verb lytroō.
Sorry, the above may be confusing, in that the Hebrew I used is the qal imperfect form (yip̱deh) found in both verses, but the root is pādâ, as in this current TW.
This TW states: “One of the ideas about atonement was formulated at the time of the Reformation.” Perhaps ONE idea was formulated, but Scripture seems to indicate that it was part of God’s Plan from the very beginning.
The earliest example of a blood covering was in the Garden when God, Himself provided the animal skins to cover Adam and Eve. Animals had to be sacrificed to get those skins. In the desert, it was animal sacrifice and the High Priest, Aaron acting as intercessor in the Holy of Holies. Adonai has always required blood atonement to cover sins. Why…because blood represents LIFE. Something very precious to Him. We underestimate, (or don’t fully understand) its value. But, pagan sacrifices were not acceptable to Him for obvious reasons that shouldn’t require an explanation. Scriptures are replete with examples.
Isaiah 53 is full of atonement prophesies. 53:5: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities…by his wounds we are healed.” 53:17: but…”no weapon forged against you will prevail and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD.”
This TW quotes Psalm 49:7 “No man can, by any means, redeem his brother or give to God a ransom for him.” And then Skip states…”David basically says that one man cannot redeem another man or give God some kind of payment for another man. If what David says is true (at least at face value), then Yeshua could not have paid for us. Since a large number of Christians believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was payment, what exactly does David mean in this apparent contradiction?”
This TW is written with the paradigm that Yeshua was “JUST” a man, but the majority of believers around the world including many theologians, scholars, professors believe He is divine, was created before the foundation of the earth, is our High Priest, Prophet and King. A large number of Christians believe Yeshua’s death was our atonement and Scripture seems to back it up. It’s important to look at the overall message of Scripture, not just a verse or two. The overwhelming teaching is that atonement is part of the deal. That said, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m underestimating the importance of repentance and teshuva. I firmly believe that God requires BOTH.
While the majority of Christian believers have accepted the Trinity as dogma, that was not always the case, as any history of the idea will confirm. At one point before Chalcedon, 50% of the Church did not accept the Trinitarian view. How it became the standard in the Latin Church is a story of bloodshed and horror. The point here is that BEFORE the 2nd century, Yeshua’s status as divine wasn’t part of the thinking of believers (at least not divine as WE understand it today). Making him the divine sacrifice is reading our theory back into the text. If that were not the case, then Jews would also interpret these verses as indications of a divine sacrifice, which, of course, they do not. Every idea has a history. It is often quite important to know the history before using the idea from one century to interpret thoughts from another century.
I’m sure you’re aware of the powerful arguments in defense of the Trinity. I also know that you’re choosing to stick with your paradigm and I know that I’m sticking with mine. All of your TWs to the contrary haven’t persuaded me. You said, “At one point before Chalcedon, 50% of the Church did not accept the Trinitarian view.” How about the other 50%? Perhaps we won’t know the right answer until we stand before the King.
The “other 50%” won the argument with treachery, kidnapping, murder, media propaganda, mob violence, burning entire congregations alive in their churches, and other similar means. Now, it’s possible, of course, that the doctrine is correct BUT if it took these kinds of actions to “convince” the Church to adopt it, and it stands in total opposition to first century Jewish orthodoxy, that should make you wonder. Would God need to kill off those who disagreed in order to make sure He got the right answer? And, of course, there are lots of contemporary theologians who do not accept this doctrine. I have maintained that the issue is NOT the text. It is the paradigm. Read a couple of books on the development of the Trinity in history. See what you think after that. I’m not here to convince you either, but it’s hard to accept an idea that required the murder of many in order to hold sway.
As for Jews being blinded, well, you’ll need to speak with Moshe Kempinski about that.
“The “other 50%” won the argument with treachery, kidnapping, murder, media propaganda, mob violence, burning entire congregations alive in their churches, and other similar means.”
Sadly, over the years, humans have mastered the art of defending their faith (or other beliefs) in very ungodly ways. I doubt seriously that God ordained the above behaviors.
Yes, I an quite sure He did not.
Yes, Trinitarianism was strong-armed, but this in and of itself does not nullify its validity. Its main competition was Arianism, and even this doctrine affirmed the Deity of the Son, though in some sense diminished from the Father. According to this position, the Logos (God the Son) was begotten, and thus inferior to the Father (“there was a time when the Son was not”), while Christ (the Son of God) was begotten in time. The main difference between the two was expressed by the Greek words homoousios (“same substance/essence”) and homoiousios (“similar substance/essence”)—one iota. The reason I present this is that BOTH affirmed the Deity of the Son, a position you do not hold. That’s your prerogative, of course, but if you were being completely objective, you would simultaneously reject Arianism in favor of the view you hold. Correspondingly, this, in effect, would make the issues surrounding Constantine moot.
There were two other lesser adopted ideologies around this time: Semi-arianism and Anomoeanism. Neither had much of a following and neither were considered at Nicaea, i.e. by Constantine.
My LAST comment on this. I hold none of the Christian versions of “son of God” as a divine being. With regard to this issue, I’m with my Jewish friends. Messiah is a man, anointed, raised to the status of divine (like many others in the first century) and unique in his calling and fulfillment of his mission. Human through and through, but now viewed quite differently. The only real difference between me and my fellow Jewish followers of YHVH is that I think (so far) that the Messiah already came (although I can certainly appreciate the fact that when he came he did NOT fulfill the expectations of the Jews – and for that reason a return had to be postulated). But once again I will say, IT IS NOT THE TEXT THAT IS THE ISSUE. It is the doctrinal bias brought to the text. If you choose to read it as Trinitarian, even if you are an early Church father, you will find what you are looking for, because of the ambiguity inherent in the text. But enough of this. It gets us nowhere. It has been argued for 2000 years with no real resolution. It’s time to put it aside permanently and move on with things that actually matter to living. In the end, after we are all dead, maybe then it will be resolved, but for now I don’t see that it makes any real difference at all, unless you want to claim that you can’t be saved unless you’re a Trinitarian, and if that’s really the case, then I suppose I don’t really need that kind of God anyway.
So, as far as I am concerned, this thread is closed.
As a former RCC I drank the Kool-Aid theology hook line and sinker until I decided that maybe there was something to the Reformation. There WAS but it was not all a pretty sight. In due course I learned that I could be swapping the devil for the deep blue sea. Constantine’s council in 325 CE was an autocratic political manoeuvre that the RCC bought into disguised as theology, no more, no less, and I couldn’t buy it. The RCC had autocratic theological control for 1200 years until Gutenburg. But how much is a Protestant mainline church REALLY different?
Yeshua would not recognize or understand a Mass, communion and sermon in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome or St. Paul’s Cathedral in London or Washington any more than Gautama would recognize his teaching or understand the worship of Buddha in a monastery.
Tell me what I am left with if you can other than my Messianic teaching and my ONE AND ONLY GOD?
Scripture also makes it clear that God hardened the hearts of the Jewish people as a consequence of their repeated sins and disobedience. That’s why it’s such a priority to take the good news to the Jew first. God is waiting for them to recognize their Messiah.
I might suggest the history “When Jesus Became God,” and also “The Jewish Gospels” by Daniel Boyarin. Both very informative, and neither are doctrinal axe-grinders. They really helped me on my journey
To this you may add, How Jesus Became God, and now Paula Fredriksen’s When Christians Were Jews. Oh, and The Jesus Wars.
Penal Theory. July 11, 2019
Have you read the book ‘The Tyranny of the Trinity’ by P.R. Lackey? There used to be an article written by Barbara Buzzard (21st Century Reformation) about the book that was good. I probably would never have heard of you if it hadn’t been for 21st Century Reformation and your talk on the history of the formation of the belief in the Trinity.
It led me to Guardian Angel. If only I had known the truth on the subject 28 years ago! Putting men on some kind of imaginary pedestal at any time is dangerous but especially now with the epidemic of mental issues, detected or undetected.
Most if not all Christians go into a seriously sad cognitive dissonance mode if they hear any idea that goes against what has been drilled into them. Even people who were not brought up in a church (Catholic or Protestant) eventually react in the same way. They cannot handle it and think you must not be a real believer.
A woman in Australia who wrote a book about divorce won’t support Skip because of this. She says that Jesus is fully man and fully God. In the post on fb, I then asked her where Jesus was now.
She said ‘At the right hand of the Father’. I also asked her if God could die. Haven’t seen a response. Not sure if the post is still there. Just like the typical lies believed by many regarding the roles of Adam and Eve and the ideas about divorce, this is just another example of an idea accepted that just doesn’t make any sense. I think confusion is the culprit.
Rubenstein recommended Constantine’s Sword. Have you read the book of watched it? If so, what’s your opinion of it?
I have read it. Good to see how much theology was influenced by an emperor
I think it’s a good idea to do a word study on the Hebrew word for hardening before trying to apply one’s own understanding to what a Jew might have meant by it in the past.
Also as a Jew myself I find it interesting the prevailing idea in Christianity that Jesus is God and that the exception of him according to your understanding is the prerequisite too an eternal life in the world to come ( even though nowhere in the Tanakh is this stated . It’s actually
Logically nonsensical in its doctrine .
Have any of you considered what you are actually saying ? Please Humor me for a moment, I mean no offense, let me walk you through your own logic .
Not any one of you personally, but Christian doctrine in general .
You say Jesus is God and that if anyone does not believe in him they are bond for Hell, you say he is the same as the God of the Old Testament as well .
So by default the Jews have been believing in God ( who apparently is Jesus and the God of the Old Testament at the same time ) for thousands of years before and thousands of years after the actual creation of Christianity so even if they never as a Jew knew anything about Jesus, we Torah observant Jews are already serving him and believing in him by default and have been forever …. because according to Christianity they are one and the same peoples .
We have always believed YHVH to be our messiah / savior/ and King .
In fact he commanded us saying that he alone is our savior, and there is no one else , and that we should not attach another’s face to his . ( literally what it says in Hebrew ) SHEMA Yisrael!
So if Jesus is God as you believe, we have never rejected your God , but if by rejecting your Jesus we have somehow rejected God … then you have separated Jesus from God and we are dealing with two separate entities…. … and you have created another God and we are commanded not to believe in that creation. The same goes for being filled with the Holy Spirit as a prerequisite to salvation… seeing as the trinity is a 3 in one God . If true “, we already have the Holy Spirit and we again; by believing in the one have them “all “ who are actually “one”, so we have always believed .. OR…
they are not the same God as YHVH and they are separated and “WE “ can not! by Gods own words worship or have anything to do with these other Elohim. .
YHVH says he will also test us to see if we will go after other Gods, to see if we will listen to all that he commanded for us and to see if our heart is for him or another .
I find it odd , that you think we need to recognize our messiah . Do you even understand what that word means ?
God called the pagan king Cyrus in the Bible his messiah . I think Jews as well as Christianity has over stated the importance of the word which has morphed in meaning and concept through out history .. starting with the Talmudic ideas and sadly grafting into Christianity and from there into the highly edited and altered writings of the New Testament by the reinvented pagan corporation calling itself the Church of Rome
Formally known as the Roman Empire.
The truth of the matter is, all messiahs did one thing and will do one thing . They will return the people to the Torah to the instructions of YHVH his tree of life . Sometimes it’ll be by a pagan king who drives us to our knees to cry out in repentance ( teshuvah a turning back ,mind, body, heart/soul to Gods walked out instructions) or it will be by deliverance as in Joseph, Moses, David, etc.. or all of the above so that we return or continue in his ways .
We see in the book of Ezekiel a return to Torah, temple, and obedience… and this is the messianic age, or I think you call it the millennial Kingdom, when God shows up as ruler and set up his kingdom in Jerusalem . And the messiah offers sacrifices for sin again and he has children and they have children who continue in the lineage of a messianic priesthood .
If Jesus was the final sin sacrifice.. why is he still offering sacrifice at the new temple for himself and the sin Of the people ? And apparently he has kids.
Anyways the point of the messiah is returning the people to Torah by deliverance
Or teshuvah or both .
And guess what …. we don’t have to wait for him … we can return today.
Sure It’s a plus to have a messiah, but the Torah is the messiah so We don’t have to wait . I think your apostle John kind of attempt to explain that. We just have to believe in God , show that we believe by obeying him and salvation is ours . In fact your Jesus said the exact same thing .
Mathew 19:16
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.( Torah )
And YHVH said it before him that He ( YHVH) is our salvation …. and the only salvation ever .
Isaiah 43:11
I, yes I, am the LORD, and there is no other Savior
The message is always the same … over and over , I am your God , return to me obey my instructions (Torah) … walk out Torah … and live !
Jeremiah 3:22
Return, you backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come to you; for you are the LORD our God. return. Hosea 6:1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. Hosea 14:1,4 O Israel, return unto the LORD thy God; for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity
The verses are endless really,
The point is :
We just have to return. He is wonderful , faithful and just , to forgive us of our sins .
Hosea 6:6
6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings.
It was never about sacrifice in the way the Greek mind thinks, YHVH said he has no need for blood , that word in hebrew is (korban)
What it really means is closeness ..sharing) the word sacrifice in English is terrible in its limited meaning via translation .
God wants us to share in a closeness with him by knowing him and obeying him and sharing with him the best we have just as he has given us the best ( that is to say we exist we are alive) it’s beautiful !
Anyways, a few things to think about and consider. Shalom,
Yom tov!
Yosef, I really like your reply, it turns the Greek logic upside down and in doing so deals effectively with the weakness of the “implied” doctrine of the Trinity IMHO. For me this has been the most destructive doctrine possible that has led to so much divisiveness instead of what should be the opposite. It was established by Constantine (the not so Great) for pragmatic purposes when the Roman Empire was approaching collapse due to the endless greed of the Roman proletariat.
“Europe went back to monarchy and through monarchy assisted by organized Christianity, it sought to achieve peace, righteousness, happiness and world order for close upon 18 centuries….. There existed no class from which the teachers could be drawn……as the teaching organization of Christianity, with its creeds and catechisms….presently supplied.” The Outline of History. H.G.Wells.
Well done, let us hear more often from you!
Thank you, George K. It is refreshing to hear someone knowledgeable in the history of the creation of the religious doctrine of Christianity. I believe if more people ( Jew and the Nations ) had this understanding as well as a understanding of Jewish history, , rabbinical and historical. The good, the bad, and the ugly.
We would find we have more in common, than we have uncommon.
Unity and healing would be more easily attained.
Shalom.
Josef, if you haven’t already done so, I can highly recommend Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations (Radical Traditions) Paperback or Kindle by Michael Wyschogrod.
One reviewer says, “This collection of essays by Wyschogrod is essential reading for anyone interested in Judaism, but is particularly important for Christians. The essays cover a wide range of topics, though they (in the words of editor Kendall Soulen) orbit “a single center of gravity: God’s free yet irrevocable love for the people Israel, and in connection with Israel, for the world as a whole” (p. 6). Wyschogrod’s writing is clear and engaging, while his arguments are exciting and persuasive.”
THANK YOU, officially, for offering some clear evidence about the Jewish view. I am so glad you decided to post this. Your argument about the logical inconsistency of claiming 3 in 1 ontologically and still treating Jesus (Yeshua) as a separate “god” is at the heart of the long and bloody war within the Church in the 4th and 5th centuries (see “The Jesus Wars”). There is little doubt that the bishops and the emperors forced the doctrine of two-natures necessary for the Trinity upon the rest of the believing world, and in the process removed themselves from any hope of reconciliation with Judaism (deliberately). It’s just HISTORY, and therefore impossible to deny. The rest is all paradigmatic theology, as you have so clearly articulated.
Thank you Skip M, I am very thankful you allowed me to post a comment and that it was received. Often an intelligent intellectual exchange is simply not available.
What I wrote to George K , I would humbly apply to you as well .
It is refreshing and encouraging to see studious individuals applying context , content, language and history to one’s beliefs and understanding, to see unbiased seekers of truth. I am a self proclaimed book worm, so I will be reading your suggestion concerning the Sefer ( “the Jesus wars”).
I have been a student for many years of religion and it’s conceptional histories.
I look forward to learning knew things.
As a great Rabbi once said , “where ever wisdom can be heard …….. sit and listen”.
Shalom,
Todah Rabah
If, “NO progress will ever be made from the texts”, where else do we get an answer? Well, here is another Jewish view.
As this blog knows, different aspects of this issue get complicated so I will limit this to the proper understanding of Deuteronomy 6:4 as given by Michael Wschogrod in his book, recommended by George. (Wyschogrod was a lifelong lecturer and professor of philosophy and religion. He was a Modern Orthodox Jew and a renowned scholar of Jewish studies and very active in Jewish affairs in NYC and internationally.)
First, it was a surprise to me that although he didn’t support the Trinity concept, neither did he do it any harm. He said, properly understood, the oneness of God uncovers the very center of the Jewish encounter with God. Improperly understood, it turns the oneness of God into a metaphysical Absolute that has very little to do with Israel’s relationship to God.
Deut 6:4 is not asserting that there is no multiplicity in the being of God because these assertions come out of a metaphysical frame of mind that is completely foreign to the Bible. What it does assert is that the Jewish people are loyal to and recognize as God, only YHWH, and no other God. It is really an expression of loyalty and of everlasting obligation to serve Him and no one else.
We can see how this has become clear in newer and more properly translated revisions of Deut 6:4
JPS 1917 HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE.
JPS 1985 Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.
We must also understand the context. In chapter 5, Moses gives, and exhorts the people to obey God’s commandments, but he already fears the people will not keep them and so bring disaster on themselves. It is in this context that Deut 6:4 is spoken and to be understood.
But in what manner is the fear that they will be disobedient? It is that YHWH will not be their only God. Their loyalty might become divided. (Think Solomon.) They will not likely forget YHWH completely but the fear is, He will not be their only God. They will also serve “the gods of the people that are around you” (6:14). And this, YHWH will not tolerate because He is a “jealous” (6:15) God who will not share His people with any other, one, two, three, or more gods all of whom they wish to appease. You either worship Me completely, says YHWH, or you do not worship Me at all.
That is why the immediate next verse is “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might,” so that there is nothing left with which to worship any other God, and to any degree.
Secondly, my Universalist bent was happy to see this,
The heart of rabbinic prayer is the recitation of Deuteronomy 6:4 with the so-called Eighteen Benedictions. The most interesting of them being said on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. The Rosh Hashanah “Amidah” (standing prayer) is built on three themes. The one of particular interest to us is the one dealing with the kingship ship of God. It quotes Deut 6:4 and it focuses its complete attention on the future unification of humankind under the one God. It reads:
“We hope therefore, Lord our God, soon to behold thy majestic glory, when the abominations shall be removed from the earth, and the false gods exterminated; when the world shall be perfected under the reign of the Almighty, and all mankind will call upon thy name, and all the wicked of the earth will turn to thee. May all the inhabitants of the world realize and know that to thee every knee must bend, every tongue must vow allegiance.”
There is no rabbinic text which expresses more clearly the hope that, in time, all humankind will worship the one true God. But for further evidence of the rabbinic understanding, we need only turn to the Mishnah: R. Joshua b. Korha who said:
“Why was the section of “Hear” [Deut. 6:4] placed before that of “And it shall come to pass” [Deut.11:13]? So that one should first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven and then take upon himself the yoke of the commandments.”
Throughout the Talmud, the recitation of the Shema is referred to as “the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of heaven.” This expression would be quite inappropriate if Deut 6:4 were read as a metaphysical statement. Instead, it is read as a declaration of total loyalty and obedience.
This ultimately tends to lead to the corollary belief that He is the only god who should be worshiped by anyone.
JPS 1917 Zechariah 14:9: “And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall the Lord be one, and his name one.”
JPS 1985 Zechariah 14:19: “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one LORD with one name.”
These two verses – Deut 6:4 and Zech 14:9 – are connected by the word echad. In both instances, the word has the same meaning. God is echad when he alone is king, when he alone is worshiped. This is a problem for Metaphysicians. How can God and his name become one? Either God always was one or he is not one, but how can anything, particularly God, become come one?
But these questions do not arise if the verse is properly understood. Echad here means “the only one.” If other Gods are worshiped, then God is not the only one, and if God alone is worshiped then he is the only one. In this sense, God can become the only one if at first YHWH and other gods are worshiped and then only YHWH is worshiped, not only by Israel but by all of humanity. The issue is not metaphysical. The hope is that God will become the only one worshiped anywhere in the world.
Taken together, these two verses prompt three conclusions. 1. Israel has only one God, YHWH. 2. Eventually, all nations will have only one God, YHWH. 3. If the God worshiped by Israel is destined to become the God of all, then some kind of educational task seems to devolve on Israel.
So, in spite of all the difficulties Christian trinitarian teaching poses for Judaism, the absence of the theme of conflict among the persons of the Trinity, maintains trinitarianism as just a problem for, rather than a complete break with, Judaism.
I am familiar with Wyschogrod’s work, in fact, you might have been the one to inspire me to read it. And, yes, he tries to make some room for Trinitarian ideas. But in the end, I believe, he fails because the Trinitarian concept is ontological and the attachment of the two natures of Christ make its ontological implications strictly illogical. Of course, that’s one of the reasons enlisted to support it, that is, it is absurd so therefore it must be from God. Quite a lot of mileage can be made with this kind of thinking. Wyschogrod did his best not to draw a hard line in the sand, but then consider his view of Torah abandonment by the Trinitarian Church and I think you see the other side of the argument.
This book is still a work in progress for Dan. I encouraged him to read it to the end before commenting but ….. that’s ok.
I look forward to hearing from you both when the opportunity arises somewhere down the road on MW’s conclusion.
As I mentioned earlier, there are many strong arguments on both sides…books, debates, classes, lectures, different interpretations of Scripture. Both sides defend their positions with powerful arguments. I’m beginning to believe it’s a debate that will never be settled this side of eternity. We should all be willing to take a look at the arguments on BOTH sides.
And equally important…ask for the Holy Spirit’s guidance as we seek the Truth!!
Yes, ma’am. Thanks
Excellent, excellent Yosef! Agree completely with you. After leaving the church, 10 years ago & seeking YHVH, this explanation from you is exactly what we have finally found is true. The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob has always been our Saviour & will always continue to be, Shalom
Josef,
You bring up valid concerns and arguments, and I can in some measure understand your position. Let me see if I can explain some of the seeming disparities between Judaism and Christianity with respect to God that you bring forth.
In the Gospel of Mark, the writer cites a portion of Malachi 3:1, followed by Isaiah 40:3 (with some emendations) in Mark 1:2-3. Below is the Greek, which seems pretty faithful to the Hebrew (besides the noted changes), given my very limited knowledge of Hebrew:
Of course, there is difference between “You” in the above citation and “Me” in the Hebrew of Malachi, but this is apparently to conjoin it with the Isaiah prophecy in this context and to make it known that the prophecy is being fulfilled (at that time). In other words, the point Mark is making here is the messenger was now here (at the time of his writing) in the person of John the Baptist, and he was heralding “the LORD”, aka YHWH as per the Hebrew of Isa. 40:3, which, in the ensuing context of Mark, is revealed to be Yeshua haMashiach. In the LXX, YHWH is consistently rendered the Greek KYRIOS, LORD, and this is consistent with NT citations of the “OT”/Tanakh in this regard.
You state, “We have always believed YHVH to be our messiah / savior/ and King.” YES! Absolutely! This is precisely what the Gospel writer is conveying above. In the NT, Yeshua is YHWH and God the Father is YHWH. This is similar to what Dr. Michael Brown is conveying in the YouTube video Judi Baldwin cites below (@July 14, 2019 7:52 am), in which he illustrates various examples in the Tanakh of YHWH making Himself known as YHWH in human form (Genesis 18, e.g.). Certainly, this didn’t indicate that YHWH was no longer on His throne! The point is that there is continuity between the Tanakh and the NT with respect to Deity.
You wrote, So if Jesus is God as you believe, we have never rejected your God , but if by rejecting your Jesus we have somehow rejected God … then you have separated Jesus from God and we are dealing with two separate entities…. … and you have created another God and we are commanded not to believe in that creation.
I perceive the problem with this reasoning is that it places spatial limitations upon YHWH in some sense. Isn’t God’s Spirit everywhere?
I don’t know how to put this more delicately. According to the Gospels of the NT, including Yeshua’s own words in those books, a rejection of Yeshua/Jesus is a rejection of Messiah, which is tantamount to a rejection of YHWH, since Jesus/Yeshua is Messiah/YHWH. Now there are those who understand Yeshua as YHWH’s representative agent, i.e. shaliaḥ, but even this falls short of what to me seems to be revealed in both the Tanakh and the NT.
You also wrote: I think it’s a good idea to do a word study on the Hebrew word for hardening before trying to apply one’s own understanding to what a Jew might have meant by it in the past.
I won’t presuppose to know what first century Hebrew understanding of “hardening” might mean, so I offer David Stern’s translation of Romans chapter 11:
Biblegateway dot com/passage/?search=romans+11&version=CJB
In the above Paul/Shaul references Elijah’s plea regarding his persecution, with God’s [YHWH’s] answer. The writer continues by citing Isaiah 29:10 and Psalm 69:22-23, among other things. Stern chooses the word “stonelike” instead of “hardening,” and uses “dullness” in his quotation of Isaiah 29:10. The crux of the passage is verse 15: For if their [Israel] casting Yeshua aside means reconciliation for the world [Gentiles], what will their accepting him mean? It will be life from the dead!
Paul continues on, including citing portions of Isaiah and Deuteronomy.
Shalom!
There are a number of quotes stating that the the Jews are ‘blinded’ to the ‘Gospel’ and that their eyes have ‘scales’ on them.
I do not believe that at all. They are very learned and very well aquainted with ‘their’ Bible. It’s insulting to make such a statement. The only place where you find this type of comment is in the New Testament.
The Jews have a completely different opinion of their Messiah and we should respect that opinion. Who are we to tell them, these ‘Men of the Book’ that they have missed the Messiah. You had better check what the Jews are looking for in their Messiah. They use God’s Word, the Torah, as their guide.
Have we?
Hi Jacqualine,
If you’re interested, below is a link to a 28 min. teaching by Dr. Michael Brown entitled, “Theological Objections: The Trinity, God is One, not three.” In it, Dr. Brown explains the Messianic Jewish understanding of Echad and the complex and triune nature of our God. I think we can all agree that we certainly serve a complex God. Perhaps that’s why we all struggle so much trying to figure Him out.
Forgot the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEKuLP0xFNQ
Dr Michael Brown is not a Rabbi, he is a ‘converted’ Jew & I have watched a number of his YouTube clips, thank you Judi.
I like Brown’s statement “God is complex in His unity”, but I think he may be able to refine it: “God is complex in his unicity“.
Perhaps there is a legal aspect to this. When the people of Israel received the 10 Words at Mt, Sinai, they were entering into a legally binding covenant with God. A marriage contract. The only way to break a binding, everlasting covenant, is that one of the parties must die. God Himself had to come in the flesh, as Yeshua, to legally break the covenant. He died Himself, as a sacrifice, so we would be free from the previous marriage, and eligible to receive His inheritance—as well as all the benefits that are in His “will”. Then we were available to enter into a new marriage and better covenant with Him- an eternal covenant.
There is a difference between a contract and a covenant in that a contract pertains to an exchange of ‘things’ whereas a covenant pertains to an exchange of ‘lives’. What God offers and performs in covenant relationship with mankind is exchange our rule of our lives (which ends in death) for His rule in us by His life (which is eternal). And both are binding.
I’ve counted the cost…and I’m in.
WordPress reformatted some of the citation by Coker and made it all but unintelligible. The proper citation should be like this:
Interestingly enough, only once is pādâ used with reference to redemption from sin (Ps 130:7–8). This remained for the completed revelation of the new covenant. Unfortunately, this emphasis has become so dominant in Christian redemptive theology, there is the tendency to overlook the fact that the NT as well as the OT sees redemption, or salvation, in terms of the total human situation. Even a cursory reading of Luke’s Gospel will catch the reflection of the OT heritage in the concept of salvation.
Would there be any writings of Polycarp at all to be found? Isolated to this subject.? Wasn’t he the one who also discipled John.?
You know , I have always taken issue with this idea that the New Testament claims its title clearly from one sentence in the Tanak and boldly proclaims it’s fulfillment of prophesy being completed by a man on a spike .
It’s clear in Yirmiyahu 31-
That then “ New covenant “ is exactly the same as the old, only rather than being written on stone or parchment it is written upon our hearts in such away that everyone one will know all of it from birth to death, from young to old and no one will have to teach each other the laws ( no one will be able to corrupt them or give their own interpretation and all will be without excuse for what they do or don’t do with it )
30Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, and I will form a covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a new covenant. להִנֵּ֛ה יָמִ֥ים בָּאִ֖ים נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֑ה וְכָֽרַתִּ֗י אֶת־בֵּ֧ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְאֶת־בֵּ֥ית יְהוּדָ֖ה בְּרִ֥ית חֲדָשָֽׁה:
31Not like the covenant that I formed with their forefathers on the day I took them by the hand to take them out of the land of Egypt, that they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, says the Lord. לאלֹ֣א כַבְּרִ֗ית אֲשֶׁ֚ר כָּרַ֙תִּי֙ אֶת־אֲבוֹתָ֔ם בְּיוֹם֙ הֶֽחֱזִיקִ֣י בְיָדָ֔ם לְהֽוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֖רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲשֶׁר־הֵ֜מָּה הֵפֵ֣רוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֗י וְאָֽנֹכִ֛י בָּעַ֥לְתִּי בָ֖ם נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה:
32For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people. לבכִּ֣י זֹ֣את הַבְּרִ֡ית אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶכְרֹת֩ אֶת־בֵּ֨ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל אַֽחֲרֵ֨י הַיָּמִ֚ים הָהֵם֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה נָתַ֚תִּי אֶת־תּֽוֹרָתִי֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔ם וְעַל־לִבָּ֖ם אֶכְתֳּבֶ֑נָּה וְהָיִ֚יתִי לָהֶם֙ לֵֽאלֹהִ֔ים וְהֵ֖מָּה יִֽהְיוּ־לִ֥י לְעָֽם:
33And no longer shall one teach his neighbor or [shall] one [teach] his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know Me from their smallest to their greatest, says the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will no longer remember. לגוְלֹ֧א יְלַמְּד֣וּ ע֗וֹד אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵ֜הוּ וְאִ֚ישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר דְּע֖וּ אֶת־יְהֹוָ֑ה כִּֽי־כוּלָּם֩ יֵֽדְע֨וּ אוֹתִ֜י לְמִקְּטַנָּ֚ם וְעַד־גְּדוֹלָם֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה כִּ֚י אֶסְלַח֙ לַֽעֲוֹנָ֔ם וּלְחַטָּאתָ֖ם לֹ֥א אֶזְכָּר־עֽוֹד:
34So said the Lord, Who gives the sun to illuminate by day, the laws of the moon and the stars to illuminate at night, Who stirs up the sea and its waves roar, the Lord of Hosts is His name. לדכֹּ֣ה | אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה נֹתֵ֥ן שֶׁ֙מֶשׁ֙ לְא֣וֹר יוֹמָ֔ם חֻקֹּ֛ת יָרֵ֥חַ וְכֽוֹכָבִ֖ים לְא֣וֹר לָ֑יְלָה רֹגַ֚ע הַיָּם֙ וַיֶּֽהֱמ֣וּ גַלָּ֔יו יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָא֖וֹת שְׁמֽוֹ:
35If these laws depart from before Me, says the Lord, so will the seed of Israel cease being a nation before Me for all time. להאִם־יָמֻ֜שׁוּ הַֽחֻקִּ֥ים הָאֵ֛לֶּה מִלְּפָנַ֖י נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֑ה גַּם֩ זֶ֨רַע יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל יִשְׁבְּת֗וּ מִֽהְי֥וֹת גּ֛וֹי לְפָנַ֖י כָּל־הַיָּמִֽים:
36So said the Lord: If the heavens above will be measured and the foundations of the earth below will be fathomed, I too will reject all the seed of Israel because of all they did, says the Lord. לוכֹּ֣ה | אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה אִם־יִמַּ֚דּוּ שָׁמַ֙יִם֙ מִלְמַ֔עְלָה וְיֵחָֽקְר֥וּ מֽוֹסְדֵי־אֶ֖רֶץ לְמָ֑טָּה גַּם־
The new covenant is exactly the same as the old only down loaded directly into our DNA and mind
Our לֵב
I’m not sure about you but , I still have to teach my neighbor as well as myself and iv been at this for 41 years . I am a Jew who has stumbled upon your page and as a Orthodox Jew, I have many questions . As far as I can see, I have never meet a Christian who proclaims Jesus and suddenly knows and keeps all of the Torah .
In fact I see the opposite. I see a justification for not keeping it while proclaiming that this idea in and of its self is the new covenant. I believe it was the persona “Paul” in your text who claims Yirmiyahu 31:31 to being completely fulfilled by excepting Yeshua as your God and savior . Yet the moment this takes place only replacement theology seems to enter into the hearts of new believers and certainly most Christians have no understanding of the Torah or desire to learn rather they discard it in favor of a Marcionite /pauline religion .
Jeremiah 31:31 in your bible has never been fulfilled by anyone as of yet . To claim such or to attach it to the title of a collection of edited 2nd century writings should put one in fear .
Either it was written by false prophets and uneducated Hebrews , or it was edited by the like and in either case doesn’t stand up to the Torah or Tanakh . It has become suspect and for that reason It should be treated as commentary rather than scripture . To be honest it’s just another Talmud with its own oral Torah that does biblical gymnastics to justify its control system just as the 2 century Rabbis put to pen in their oral laws .
Perhaps, you can help me understand this.
Please understand I mean no disrespect, it seems to me you grasp all these points and struggle to convey it to your readers in a way that causes them to search a thing out for themselves . I see your desire to return people to the Torah as the unit of measure all scripture must be tested against rather than blindly and stubbornly trusting the theology and doctrine one might have inherited .
Anyways I actually really appreciate your understanding of the Hebrew text and enjoy your articles , I don’t always agree but am pleasantly surprised more often than not at your understanding of the Hebrew language.
I apologize, I have to correct a previous statement . I should not have used the words “false prophets” concerning the writings and claiming that a new covenant has taken place or that the prophesy in Jeremiah 31:31 has been fulfilled.
I can not emphatically in all fairness state that anyone had said concerning this issue; “ Thus Saith YHVH; this “IS” the new covenant etc … “
It’s seems to me, to be more of a strong conviction of one individual , or individuals ( editors) of the Christian writings .
That has become in understanding to most of Christendom by application as if it was the very word of YHVH.
One shouldn’t confuse the misunderstandings of some for the beliefs of all.
So good Yosef! You’ve explained it perfectly! Shalom
It struck me…painfully and deeply…that in a sense all “firstborn” who remain in ‘Adam’ and are subsequently and ultimately ‘set apart’ ‘unto destruction’ are in a similar position as were the Egyptian firstborn who were slaughtered for the redemption of the Israelites. All the more reason to ensure that my words and actions…indeed my life…does accurately bear testimony to the work of God, who is the Creator and Judge of all mankind.
In this comment I will address a few things mentioned above.
No Trinitarian Christian views Jesus as “a separate ‘god.’” Though there are many NT texts claimed by some Christians to prove the Deity of Christ, there are very few that can legitimately be used to support the claim. I think John 20:28 is the clearest example grammatically and contextually. In Murray J. Harris’ exhaustive and measured book Jesus As God, the author addresses a number of these verses, while fairly engaging various types of criticism/objections to the ‘Jesus as God’ stance. As regards this verse, in his conclusion to his “The Grammatical Problem” section he deems Thomas’ words “an exclamatory address, an exclamation specifically directed to Jesus as its subject and recipient” (p 111). This is what the dative singular pronoun autō̧ (said to him) signifies in this context, for he was directly responding to Jesus in 20:27. Explaining its meaning in context Harris writes:
Truly, the only way to dismiss this evidence is to claim the pericope is not historical, which has its own difficulties (Harris addresses this, as well).
In my somewhat limited search, the earliest example I could find of an extra-Biblical work asserting ‘Jesus is God’ is found in Ignatius of Antioch’s Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. While there are works attributed to Ignatius that were later found to be spurious, this is not one of them. Date of composition is ca. 108AD. Here is the text:
Here we have three accusative direct objects of the verb in a row, all in apposition (though hymas, you [plural], is an accusative direct object of ‘Jesus Christ, God, the one who provides such wisdom’). Of course, one may just a priori dismiss its historicity. In any case, this is one of not a few texts claiming Jesus’ Deity well before the later Trinitarian debates during Constantine’s reign. In fact, the Deity of Jesus was assumed before the Deity of the Holy Spirit was established. The later ‘two-natures’ doctrine at Chalcedon (451AD) was a means by which to attempt to make metaphysical sense of the theanthropos, God-man.
Polycarp was a disciple of John, not the other way around. There is one letter attributed to him (which, in the form extant, appears more likely to be a composite of two different letters, composed at different times): The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. English translations can be found online.
I will add only this, and for Yosef also. It is my considered opinion that NO progress will ever be made regarding the issue of the Trinity FROM THE TEXTS THEMSELVES. Obviously, Christian exegetes vary widely on the interpretation of the texts and Jewish scholars do as well. The issue is NOT the text, no matter how many you or anyone else attempts to marshall to prove a point. The issue is the PARADIGM, the assumptions used to interpret the texts. On this it is necessary to read extensively the history of the development of the doctrine and the history of its opposition, which, but the way, did NOT cease in 450AD. Questions like: “Jewish believers in the first century seem to be fully Torah observant. How is that possible if they embraced a Trinitarian Godhead?” and “Since there is no explicit text endorsing the Trinity and there are innumerable texts asserting the absolute unity of YHVH, where did the idea of the Trinity arise?” We can follow these with investigation like Paula Fredriksen’s book on first century apocalyptic, and the collection in “The Ways that Never Parted.” But let’s stop with the proof-text stuff. It gets us nowhere and only provides something like Fredriksen’s observation:
“The more you talk and convince others that you are right despite all evidence to the contrary, the better, the more validated, you feel. The initial prophecy—disconfirmed but never discredited, retrieved and revived through reinterpretation—can thus continue to survive.”
and
“How you see is what you get.”
Which came first, the texts known as the New Testament or the doctrine known as the Trinity derived from these writings? The answer is obvious. Unless one dismisses the historicity and/or the dating of the NT, the actual texts came first. Thus, the Trinitarian doctrine came from these texts. Of course, one can make the claim that ‘trinities of gods’ were known around this same time in paganism, and that these ideas were imposed on the Scriptures paradigmatically, but that belies the development of the doctrine, which shows that Jesus was deemed Deity (at least as early as the 2nd century) well before the Holy Spirit was.
You do realize Fredriksen’s words can be used from either side of this issue, don’t you?
I’ll address this question you pose: “Since there is no explicit text endorsing the Trinity and there are innumerable texts asserting the absolute unity of YHVH, where did the idea of the Trinity arise?” The Trinity doctrine fully supports the absolute unity of YHWH–the two are not mutually exclusive in Christian thought. Though there are no explicit texts such as “the Trinity is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, there is quite enough evidence to support it within the NT, with Jesus’ words in the Upper Room discourse coming the closest, specifically, John 14:26 (“But the paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my [Jesus’] name”) and 15:26 (“When the paraclete, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who goes out from the Father, that one will testify about me [Jesus]”). If the Holy Spirit is understood to be God the Father’s Spirit, then how can Jesus send this Spirit if he’s merely a man, or even some suprahuman entity between Deity and humanity? And why does the earlier verse state that the Father will send the Holy Spirit/paraclete, while the latter verse states that Jesus Himself will send Him/it?
And, I should point out that, by definition, “proof-texting” is taking sentences/verses/sections out of context to make a distorted point (eisegesis, the opposite of exegesis). I did nothing of the kind with John 20:28, for I pointed out that, in context, Thomas was directly responding to Jesus’ words in 20:27, indicated by his use of the dative “to Him”. One may disagree with my exegesis, but it is then incumbent on the detractor to illustrate how it’s not correct. Yet, even Stern’s CJB has essentially the same verbiage for this verse.
Exegesis–drawing from the text–is best done by assessing not only the immediate context but its larger context, which should include the entire work, in this case, John’s Gospel. Even if one dismisses John 1:1, 1:14, and 1:18 in full context as indicative of Jesus’ Deity, one must wrestle with the clear words of Jesus in 2:19, in which He makes the astounding claim He will raise [active voice] Himself (‘the temple’) in three days [cf. the active indicative verbs in 10:17-18]. Can a mere man do that?
Craig, you state ‘Which came first, the texts known as the New Testament or the doctrine known as the Trinity derived from these writings?’ – actually you’re incorrect, the Torah came first. This is the infallible Word of YHVH – the first 5 books which was given to the children of Israel at Mt Sinai….the rest is commentary and opinion.
Regarding your assertion on ‘commentary’, that is just your opinion.
As for the “texts”, in the context of the conversation here between Skip and I we are referring to the NT texts.