Reply: If the statement "my Lord and my God" was indeed referring to the Father, then there is no need for correction, is there?
John 20:28 reads, O KURIOS MOU KAI O QEOS MOU. The KURIOS/Lord here is in the nominative form, while the vocative form KURIE is used mainly in direct address. Yes, there is such a thing as the "Nominative for the Vocative," but as Edwin Abbott, in his Johannine Grammar puts it:
"The Egyptian Papyri use KURIE freely, but never, so far as alleged, hO KURIOS vocatively. Thus, a great mass of evidence from all extant Greek [shows] that, had the vocative been intended, KURIE would have been employed. This is confirmed by the Latin versions, which have 'dominus.'" 94 sec., 2049
Let us find some of these occurences of the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU (using primarily Brenton's LXX:
Judges 4:18 "And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said to him, Turn aside, my lord, turn aside to me, fear not."
1 Samuel (1 Kings LXX) 25:24 "And she fell before David...even to his feet, and said, On me, my lord, be my wrong"
2 Samuel (2 Kings LXX) 7:18, 19, "And king David came in, and sat before the Lord, and said, Who am I, O Lord, my Lord, and what is my house, that thou hast loved me hitherto? Whereas I was very little before thee, O Lord, my Lord"
see also 2 Samuel 7:20, 22, 25, 28, 29; 14:19, 19; 1 Kings 1:13, 17, and many others.
The question needs to be asked, since the vocative KURIE with the possessive MOU was not uncommon in direct address, it seems odd NOT to employ it at John 20:28. The argument is strong that Jesus was NOT being addressed here, especially as the vocative KURIE was also used in the Gospel of John at 4:11, 15, 19, 49; 5:7; 6:34, 68; 9:36, 38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5, 8, 22; 20:15; 21:15, 16, 20, 21.
[There is another subcategory not usually mentioned, the Nominative of Exclamation, which according to Daniel Wallace, "will not be used in direct address. It is a primitive use of the language where emotion overrides syntax." see Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 59, 60]
Would we even be discussing this if someone else was thus addressed?
Consider 1 Samuel 20:12 "And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel." KJV, Douay, Revised Webster
or "And Jonathan said unto David, O Yahweh Elohim of Israel" (Restored Name KJV).
No one would ever argue that David was God, but if ever there was a movement to think so, this verse would be used as a proof-text.
However, powerful men were indeed addressed as Gods in the Bible:
Exodus 4:16, "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou [Moses] shalt be to him as God."
"It is as if Moses would be a god, or God, to Aaron, giving him the words to say, inspiring him as God would inspire a prophet. The whole process had now been removed one step. Instead of God speaking to Moses and Moses telling the people, Aaron would be the speaker for a while. But God was still going to work through Moses." NET Bible
Exodus 7:1, "And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."
Dake's Annotated Bible here says "Elohim is thus used of men who were to act in God's place before men."
Bullinger adds in his Companion Bible, "Elohim=one appointed by oath. Elohim is thus used of those so given and appointed."
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary states, "Moses was given divine authority over Pharoah"
"he was to act in this business as God's representative, to act and speak in His name and to perform things beyond the ordinary course of nature. The Orientals familiarly say of a man who is eminently great or wise, 'he is a god' among men." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown's Commentary Critical and Explanatory
on the Whole Bible
"I have made thee a god to Pharaoh - That is, my representative in this affair, as magistrates are called gods, because they are God's vicegerents. He was authorized to speak and act in God's name, and endued with a divine power, to do that which is above the ordinary course of nature." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
"The word ‘elohim is used a few times in the Bible for humans (e.g., Pss 45:6; 82:2), and always clearly in the sense of a subordinate to GOD—they are his representatives on earth. The explanation here goes back to 4:16. If Moses is like God in that Aaron is his prophet, then Moses is certainly like God to Pharaoh. Only Moses, then, is able to speak to Pharaoh with such authority, giving him commands." NET Bible
"For that he was "made a god to Pharaoh," means that he was furnished with supreme authority and power, whereby he should cast down the tyrant's pride. Nor did God take away anything from Himself in order to transfer it to Moses; since He so communicates to His servants what is peculiar to Himself as to remain Himself in His completeness. Nay, whenever He seems to resign a part of His glory to His ministers, He only teaches that the virtue and efficacy of His Spirit will be joined with their labors, that they may not be fruitless. Moses, therefore, was a god to Pharaoh; because in him God exerted His power, that he should be superior to the greatness of the king. It is a common figure of the Hebrews, to give the title of God to all things excellent, since He alone reigns over heaven and earth, and exalts or casts down angels, as well as men, according to His will." Calvin's Commentary
"The word Elohim, as the Hebrews remark, whether applied to God, or to men, or to angels, signifies judicial power." -- Grotius in Pol. Syn. (as quoted In Calvin's Commentary)
Note on Exodus 18:15: "As a judge Moses is speaking for God; but as the servant of Yahweh Moses’ words will be God’s words. The psalms would later describe judges as “gods” because they made the right decisions based on God’s Law."
So you see, men who were given authority, could be called "God." John is using a way of speaking at verse 20:28 that qualifies QEOS by the use of MOU. Therefore, Jesus is QEOS to Thomas in a relative sense as the Father is QEOS to Jesus (John 20:17; cf. Ex 4:16, 7:1 where Moses is God to Pharaoh and Aaron).
Exodus 21:6, "then his master shall bring him unto God ["judges" New International Version]"
"Others have made a stronger case that it refers to judges who acted on behalf of God; see C. Gordon, “<yhla in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” JBL 54 (1935): 134-44; and A. E. Draffkorn, “Ilani/Elohim,” JBL 76 (1957): 216-24." NET Bible
Exodus 22:8, " If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God ["judges" New International Version], to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbor's goods."
"gods--a word which is several times in this chapter rendered "judges" or magistrates." Jamieson, Fausset, Brown's Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Dake's Annotated Bible, says regarding the judges at Ex. 22:8: "Heb. ha-elohim, the gods. Here it stands for men who represent God in judgment and executing justice according to his own law given to Moses. Such men represent Him and acts in His stead, according to Rom.13:1-6. This meaning should be given to the term *judges* in [Ex] 18:15-19; 21:6; 22:8; Cp. Ps 82:1, 6; Jn 10:34-36.
"Here again the word used is “the gods,” meaning the judges who made the assessments and decisions. In addition to the bibliography listed earlier, see J. R. Vannoy, “The Use of the Word ha’elohim in Exodus 21:6 and 22:7,8,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Allis (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974), 225-41." NET Bible
Exodus 22:28: New American Bible "You shall not revile God, nor curse a prince of your people."
New Berkeley Version "Heap no abuse upon judges and do not curse a ruler of your people."
NAB Footnote: or perhaps "the gods," in the sense of "the judges," as the parallel with a prince of your people suggests.
NBV Footnote: Again the name Elohim is used, which usually stands for God, but balanced, Hebrew fashion, with "rulers" in the next clause, it must denote judges as it did previously.
"The word ‘elohim is “gods” or “God.” If taken as the simple plural, it could refer to the human judges, as it has in the section of laws; this would match the parallelism in the verse. If it was taken to refer to God, then the idea of cursing God would be more along the line of blasphemy. Jacob says that the word refers to functioning judges, and that would indirectly mean God, for they represented the religious authority, and the prince the civil authority (p. 708)." NET Bible
"That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even men could be called 'gods', without according them this status in the strict sense. [Ps. Clem. Recogn. ii, 42]" The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 140 by Martin Werner
1 Samuel 2:25 "If one man sin against another, God shall judge him" ASV
"If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him" KJV
Psalm 45:6, "Thy throne [King Solomon], O God ["the Messianic king", Brown Driver &Briggs], is for ever and ever: A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
The NASB Zondervan Study Bible (see also NIV Study Bible) has this footnote:
"O God. Probably the king's throne is called God's throne because he is God's appointed regent. But it is also possible that the king himself is addressed as "god." The Davidic king (the LORD's anointed 2 Sam. 19:21), because of his special relationship with God, was called at his enthronement the 'son' of God (see 2:7; 2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chr 28:6; cf. 89:27). In this psalm, which praises the king and especially extols his 'splendor and majesty' (v. 3), it is not unthinkable that he was called 'god' as a title of honor (cf. Is 9:6). Such a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb 1:8,9). (The pharoahs of Egypt were sometimes addressed as 'my god' by their vassal kings in Canaan, as evidenced by the Amarna letters...Such was the language used with respect to kings (see note 21:4). It here gains added significance in the light of God's covenant with David (see 89:4, 29, 36; 132:12; 2 Sam 7:16). In Christ the Son of David, it is fulfilled."
The New American Bible reads here in the footnote:
"The king in courtly language, is called 'god,' i.e., more than human, representing God to the people."
The Interpreters Bible comments:
"In the ancient world kings were commonly accorded divine titles as viceregents of deity or as belonging to a superhuman class."
The NET Bible states:
"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). Ancient Near Eastern art and literature picture gods training kings for battle, bestowing special weapons, and intervening in battle. According to Egyptian propaganda, the Hittites described Rameses II as follows: “No man is he who is among us, It is Seth great-of-strength, Baal in person; Not deeds of man are these his doings, They are of one who is unique” (see M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2:67). Ps 45:6 and Isa. 9:6 probably envision a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic king in full battle regalia. When the king’s enemies oppose him on the battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself."
To The Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, pp.20-21, follows this line if thought:
"Psalm 45 was a poem addressed to a king, not to God.The king, whom God had blessed, was urged to gird on his sword in glory and ride victoriously (Ps.45:3-4). His enemies were destined to fall before his sharp arrows (Ps.45:5). In the Psalm the king was also addressed with reference to his throne and his scepter, but the words could be understood as addressed to God. Since the author of Hebrews wanted to use this royal Psalm, he had to deal with this difficulty in some way, just as commentators do today. He seems to have handled the problem by speaking in reference to the Son, just as he had spoken in reference to the angels (1:7) just before. Then, in reference to the Son he spoke of God's throne and the Son's kingdom. Next, in the following verse, he continued to deal with the Son in direct address as indicated by the Psalm quotation. It seems more likely that the author of Hebrews sensed a difficulty here than he intentionally confused the Son with God. For the author, the Son was the first-born,the apostle of God,the reflection of God's glory, and the stamp of his nature(1:3,6), but he was not God himself."
The Oxford Bible Commentary, on p. 380 states:
"The text is in disorder in a number of places, hence the different renderings by modern Eng. versions, The meaning of v. 6 has been hotly debated. The most natural way of taking the Hebrew is as NRSV, with the king addressed as God. Because this would be unique in the OT (although the future king of Isa 9:6 is called 'mighty god'), alternative ways of interpreting the Hebrew have been sought. The NRSV marg. is one possibility, another is 'Your throne is everlasting like that of God'."
B.F. Wescott acknowledged (see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews"), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly King (probably Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice but to conclude that Solomon was also God Almighty.
Psalm 58:1 "Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?" King James
"Do you indeed speak righteousness, O gods? Do you judge uprightly, O sons of men?" New American Standard
Psalm 82:1, "God standeth in the congregation of God; He judgeth among the gods."
Check out the cross-references of the following Bibles, as they point between Psalm 82:1 and the human judges in Exodus:
The Interpreters Bible Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9; 1 Sam 2:25
New American Standard Bible-Zondervan Study Bible Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28
NASB Reference Edition Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28
Dake's Annotated Study Bible KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 7:1; 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "Heb. elohim, Gods. It is used of earthly judges who represent him.")
New International Version Study Bible ftn, Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8
Companion Bible KJV Psalm 82:1>Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 28 (with footnote, "gods, Elohim: used of earthly judges as representing Him...Hence Moses is so spoken.")
What does all this mean for John 20:28?
"Thomas, unlike Judas, had come to recognize the one who was to be the "God" of the Coming Age, replacing Satan, the "God" of this present age (2 Cor. 4:4). Thomas had not suddenly arrived at a revolutionary new belief that Jesus was "very God of very God." There was nothing in the Old Testament concerning Jesus' Messiahship which predicted that an eternal immortal being was to become a human person as the promised King of Israel. Nevertheless the human king could on rare occasions be addressed as "God" as in Psalm 45:6, where he is also given the title "lord" (v. 11). Both "Lord" and "God" are Messianic titles, and appropriately used by John who wrote his whole book to convince us to believe that Jesus was the Messiah (John 20:3 1).
Reality struck home to the skeptic Thomas when he recognized that it was the resurrected Jesus through whom God was going to restore the fortunes of Israel. Thus Jesus became "God" to Thomas in a way parallel to the sense in which Moses had enjoyed the status of "God" in the presence of Pharaoh: "The Lord [had] said to Moses, 'See, I make you God to Pharaoh"' (Exod. 7: 1). These titles of high honor bestowed on God's human instruments did not infringe upon the strict monotheism of the Old Testament." The Doctrine of the Trinity, Anthony Buzzard, p. 86
Additonally:
"But let me give another view. Karl Rahner, the eminent Roman Catholic theologian considers that there are reliable applications of "theos" to Christ in six texts (Romans ix.5f; John i.1,18,xx.28; 1 John v.20; and Titus ii.13). Rahner, however, immediately goes on the say that in none of these instances is "theos" used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as "ho Theos", that is, the Supreme God.
Now obviously the very few New Testament passages-possibly only one-which without question call Jesus "God" outright do not exhaust the linguistic evidence. Notwithstanding, and in comparison with the frequency with which this form of christological confession is still required in the christian churches, is not it's rarity in the New Testament surprising? Would it, in fact, be unfair to press the point with the following query? If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as "God", is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable? JESUS AS "THEOS" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT G.H.BOOBYER (THE JOHN RYLANDS BULLETIN.VOL50.1967/8)
No comments:
Post a Comment