Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
Comfort (paraklesis)
In a world that is in so much turmoil today, who can say they need no comfort. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus in almost an eschatological sense exclaimed," Happy are those that mourn, since they will be comforted."Mt5.4
Comfort translates the Greek word paraklesis which carries not only a sense of consoling but also help or encouragement.2 Cor. 1.3 Paul alludes to this, "Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God."
It is of interest that in these few short verses from verse 3 through verse 7, comfort (paraklesis) is mentioned 10 times, which indicates the importance of this subject to Paul.
Isaiah speaks of Divine comfort in Isaiah 57.18. It alludes to the fact that 'true comfort', can come only from Jehovah. Going back to 2Cor.1.3 "He is the God of all comfort". True consolation of the heart comes from God alone, in comparison of all others.
Apart from God, man, nation, and world are without comfort, for they cannot really open the way eschatologically to mans sinful state. The Psalmist records for us in Psalm 127.1 "Unless Jehovah himself builds the house, It is to no avail that the builders have worked hard on it.
That is why when Isaiah speaks of comfort from God, it is spoken of as, true comfort ( paraklesis alethinen). I looked this verse up in several translations. Not one suggest such a rendering, though Kittels Unabridged Dictionary of Greek words pg 789 vol.5. suggest this rendering. So I looked it up in the LXX and there it was, "paraklesis alethinen." (true comfort) From God alone can such comfort come.
Romans 15.4 speaks of comfort from the Scriptures (paraklesis ton graphon) This refers us back to the ultimate source of all comfort (2 Cor.1.3) Jehovah.
He is the only one who can give us, 'everlasting comfort'. "Moreover, may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and gave everlasting comfort and good hope by means of undeserved kindness." 2 Thess. 2.16,17 He assures us of comfort forever or everlastingly.
He comforts in our tribulations. 2Cor.1.4. Jesus said: In the world you are having tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world."
Revelation 21.3,-5
"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent*+ of God is with mankind, and he will reside*+ with them, and they will be his peoples.+ And God himself will be with them.+ 4 And he will wipe out every tear+ from their eyes, and death will be no more,+ neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.+ The former things have passed away.”+
Addendum
Metaphorically Jehovah is likened to a Shepherd who loves his sheep. "Like a shepherd he will shepherd his own drove. With his Arm he will collect together the lambs; and in his bosom (a close and loving relationship) he will carry them." Isaiah 40.11
And note 40.1 "Comfort, comfort my people." Then he lets us know his immutable abilities and unsurpassing strengths. "Who has measured the waters in the mere hollow of his hand, and taken the proportions of the heavens themselves with a mere span and included in a measure the dust of the earth, or weighed with an indicator the mountains, and the hills in the scales? Who has taken the proportions of the spirit of Jehovah, and who as his man of counsel can make him know anything?
With whom did he consult together that one might make him understand, or who teaches him in the path of justice, or teaches him knowledge, or makes him know the very way of real understanding?"
Isaiah 40.12-14.
Comfort translates the Greek word paraklesis which carries not only a sense of consoling but also help or encouragement.2 Cor. 1.3 Paul alludes to this, "Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ, the Father of tender mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those in any sort of tribulation through the comfort with which we ourselves are being comforted by God."
It is of interest that in these few short verses from verse 3 through verse 7, comfort (paraklesis) is mentioned 10 times, which indicates the importance of this subject to Paul.
Isaiah speaks of Divine comfort in Isaiah 57.18. It alludes to the fact that 'true comfort', can come only from Jehovah. Going back to 2Cor.1.3 "He is the God of all comfort". True consolation of the heart comes from God alone, in comparison of all others.
Apart from God, man, nation, and world are without comfort, for they cannot really open the way eschatologically to mans sinful state. The Psalmist records for us in Psalm 127.1 "Unless Jehovah himself builds the house, It is to no avail that the builders have worked hard on it.
That is why when Isaiah speaks of comfort from God, it is spoken of as, true comfort ( paraklesis alethinen). I looked this verse up in several translations. Not one suggest such a rendering, though Kittels Unabridged Dictionary of Greek words pg 789 vol.5. suggest this rendering. So I looked it up in the LXX and there it was, "paraklesis alethinen." (true comfort) From God alone can such comfort come.
Romans 15.4 speaks of comfort from the Scriptures (paraklesis ton graphon) This refers us back to the ultimate source of all comfort (2 Cor.1.3) Jehovah.
He is the only one who can give us, 'everlasting comfort'. "Moreover, may our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and gave everlasting comfort and good hope by means of undeserved kindness." 2 Thess. 2.16,17 He assures us of comfort forever or everlastingly.
He comforts in our tribulations. 2Cor.1.4. Jesus said: In the world you are having tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world."
Revelation 21.3,-5
"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent*+ of God is with mankind, and he will reside*+ with them, and they will be his peoples.+ And God himself will be with them.+ 4 And he will wipe out every tear+ from their eyes, and death will be no more,+ neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.+ The former things have passed away.”+
5 And the One seated on the throne+ said: “Look! I am making all things new.”+ Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true."
See also Psalms 118
Isaiah 40.1,11-14
Ps 55.6-8
Addendum
Metaphorically Jehovah is likened to a Shepherd who loves his sheep. "Like a shepherd he will shepherd his own drove. With his Arm he will collect together the lambs; and in his bosom (a close and loving relationship) he will carry them." Isaiah 40.11
And note 40.1 "Comfort, comfort my people." Then he lets us know his immutable abilities and unsurpassing strengths. "Who has measured the waters in the mere hollow of his hand, and taken the proportions of the heavens themselves with a mere span and included in a measure the dust of the earth, or weighed with an indicator the mountains, and the hills in the scales? Who has taken the proportions of the spirit of Jehovah, and who as his man of counsel can make him know anything?
With whom did he consult together that one might make him understand, or who teaches him in the path of justice, or teaches him knowledge, or makes him know the very way of real understanding?"
Isaiah 40.12-14.
Psalm
Will lodge under the shadow of the Almighty.+
3 For he will rescue you from the trap of the birdcatcher,
From the destructive pestilence.
Nor the arrow that flies by day,+
6 Nor the pestilence that stalks in the gloom,
Nor the destruction that ravages at midday.
7 A thousand will fall at your side
And ten thousand at your right hand,
But to you it will not come near.+
9 Because you said: “Jehovah is my refuge,”
And no plague will come near your tent.
13 On the young lion and the cobra you will tread;
You will trample underfoot the maned lion and the big snake.+
I will be with him in distress.+
I will rescue him and glorify him.
Psalm
2 That is why we will not fear, though the earth undergoes change,
Though the mountains topple into the depths of the sea,+
Though the mountains rock on account of its turbulence. (Selah)
The holy grand tabernacle of the Most High.
God will come to its aid at the break of dawn.+
6 The nations were in an uproar, the kingdoms were overthrown;
He raised his voice, and the earth melted.+
8 Come and witness the activities of Jehovah,
How he has done astonishing things on the earth.
He breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
He burns the military wagons* with fire.
10 “Give in and know that I am God.
Friday, March 6, 2020
What Trinitarian scholars admit
Trinitarian scholars & theologians
The following opinions represent Trinitarian scholarship from a wide range of denominations and eras:- Shirley C. Guthrie Jr., Presbyterian theologian, Columbia Theological Seminary
- “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word “trinity” itself nor such language as ‘one-in-three’, ‘three-in-one’, one ‘essence’ (or “substance”), and three ‘persons’ is biblical language.”
(Guthrie, Shirley C. Christian Doctrine. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. p. 76-77.) - Charles C. Ryrie, Evangelical scholar
- "But many doctrines are accepted by evangelicals as being clearly taught in the Scripture for which there are no proof texts. The doctrine of the Trinity furnishes the best example of this. It is fair to say that the Bible does not clearly teach the doctrine of the Trinity… [This] proves the fallacy of concluding that if something is not proof texted in the Bible we cannot clearly teach the results… If that were so, I could never teach the doctrine of the Trinity or the deity of Christ or the deity of the Holy Spirit.”
(Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999. p.89-90.) - Millard J. Erickson, Baptist Scholar, Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary"It is claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity is a very important, crucial, and even basic doctrine. If that is indeed the case, should it not be somewhere more clearly, directly, and explicitly stated in the Bible? If this is the doctrine that especially constitutes Christianity’s uniqueness, as over against unitarian monotheism on the one hand, and polytheism on the other hand, how can it be only implied in the biblical revelation? In response to the complaint that a number of portions of the Bible are ambiguous or unclear, we often hear a statement something like, ‘It is the peripheral matters that are hazy or which there seem to be conflicting biblical materials. The core beliefs are clearly and unequivocally revealed.’ This argument would appear to fail us with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, however. For here is a seemingly crucial matter where the Scriptures do not speak loudly and clearly. Little direct response can be made to this charge. It is unlikely that any text of Scripture can be shown to teach the doctrine of the Trinity in a clear, direct, and unmistakable fashion."
(Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Michigan: Baker Pub Group, 1995. p.108-109.)
“In the final analysis, the Trinity is incomprehensible.”
(Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, Second Edition, 1999. p. 363.)
"This doctrine in many ways presents strange paradoxes... It is a widely disputed doctrine, which has provoked discussion throughout all the centuries of the church’s existence. It is held by many with great vehemence and vigor. These advocates are certain they believe the doctrine, and consider it crucial to the Christian faith. Yet many are unsure of the exact meaning of their belief. It was the very first doctrine dealt with systematically by the church, yet is still one of the most misunderstood and disputed doctrines. Further, it is not clear or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom (a self evident truth) of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the Scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church."
(Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Michigan: Baker Pub Group, 1995. p 11-12.) - Graham Greene, Catholic scholar“Our opponents sometimes claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not explicitly stated in Scripture... But the Protestant churches have themselves accepted such dogmas as the Trinity, for which there is no such precise authority in the Gospels.”
(Greene, Graham. "Assumption of Mary." Life Magazine. 30 October 1950. 51.) - Douglas McCready, Trinitarian scholar"New Testament scholars disagree whether the N.T. directly calls Jesus as God because of the difficulty such language would create for early Christians with a Jewish background. It is important to note that every passage that identifies Jesus as “theos” can be translated other ways or has variants that read differently."
(McCready, Douglas. He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith. Downer’s Grove: IL: IVP Academic, 2005. p. 51.)
"In biblical Judaism the term “messiah” did not necessarily carry any connotation of divine status, and Jews of Jesus’ day were not expecting their messiah to be other than human… While some have used the title Son of God to denote Jesus’ deity, neither the Judaism nor the paganism of Jesus’ day understood the title in this way. Neither did the early church."
(McCready, Douglas. He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith. Downer’s Grove: IL: IVP Academic, 2005. p. 51, 55, 56.) - Emil Brunner, influential Protestant scholar“Certainly, it cannot be denied that not only the word “Trinity,” but even the explicit idea of the Trinity is absent from the apostolic witness to the faith…"
(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p. 205.)
“When we turn to the problem of the doctrine of the Trinity we are confronted by a peculiarly contradictory situation. On the one hand, the history of Christian theology and of dogma teaches us to regard the dogma of the Trinity as the distinctive element of the Christian idea of God, that which distinguishes it from the Idea of God in Judaism and in Islam, and indeed, in all forms of rational Theism, Judaism, Islam and Rational Theism are Unitarian. On the other hand, we must honestly admit that the doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the early Christian – New Testament – message.”
(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p. 205.)
“[The Trinity was] a conception at which the [Early Church] age had not yet arrived”
(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p. 467.)
"The ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity, established by the dogma of the ancient Church, is not a Biblical kerygma (preaching)..."
(Brunner, Emil. Dogmatics, Vol. 1. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949. p.206) - New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 (Thomas Carson)“[The doctrine of the Trinity] is not directly and immediately in the Word of God.”
(Carson, Thomas. “Trinity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition. Farmington Hills: Gale, 2003. Volume XIV, p. 304)
“Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
(Carson, Thomas. “Trinity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition. Farmington Hills: Gale, 2003. Volume XIV, p. 299.)
"It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and the theological elaboration of the Mystery of the Trinity… Historians of dogma and systematic theologians [recognize] that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought… it was the product of three centuries of development."
(Carson, Thomas. “Trinity,” The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition. Farmington Hills: Gale, 2003. Volume XIV, p.295.) - Cardinal Stanislau Hosius, Catholic Bishop“We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture.”
(Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVI) - Bruce Metzger, influential Protestant scholar"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon [ . . . ] While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do."
(Metzger, Bruce, Michael Coogan. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford University Press, 1993. Accessed Online May 9th, 2013. - W.R. Matthews, Anglican theologian“It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity formed no part of the original message."
(Matthews, W.R. God in Christian Experience. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2010 (1930). p. 180.)
“St. Paul did not know it, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed… [it] formed no part of the original message.”
(Matthews, W.R. God in Christian Experience. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2010 (1930). p. 180.) - A.T. Hanson, Protestant Professor of Theology, University of Hull"No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously held by any writer of the NT. It was in fact slowly worked out in the course of the first few centuries…"
(Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Image of the Invisible God. London: SCM Press, 1982. p.87.) - Ray Pritchard, Evangelical apologist“I admit that no one fully understands it.”
(Pritchard, Ray. “God in Three Persons: A Doctrine We Barely Understand,” Keep Believing Ministries. Accessed online. 31 December 2014. - James Strong, Bible Scholar and author of Strong's Concordance"Towards the end of the 1st century, and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. These brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platonic ideas and phraseology."
(Strong, James, John McClintock. Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. New York: Harper, 1891. Vol. 10, "Trinity," p. 553.) - Christopher B. Kaiser, Reformed scholar, Western Theological Seminary“The Church’s doctrine of the Trinity would seem to be the farthest thing from [Jesus’ and the writers of the New Testament’s] minds, and today’s reader may well wonder if it is even helpful to refer to such a dogma in order to grasp the theology of the New Testament. When the church speaks of the doctrine of the Trinity, it refers to the specific belief that God exists eternally in three distinct ‘persons’ who are equal in deity and one in substance. In this form the doctrine is not found anywhere in the New Testament; it was not so clearly articulated until the late fourth century AD.”
(Kaiser, Christopher B. The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001. p. 27.) - John L. McKenzie, Catholic scholar
- "The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."(McKenzie, John L. Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Touchstone, 1995. p. 899)
- Cyril C. Richardson, Protestant The"The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. That belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief."“One of the sources of the confusion in Trinitarian theology is that the doctrine arose when this sense of the development of thought in the New Testament was lacking. Texts were torn from their contexts and misused to no small degree, and certain symbols were canonized without a full understanding of their original meaning. They were introduced into later theological schemes, not because they really fitted, but because they could not be questioned. Much of the defense of the Trinity as a ‘revealed’ doctrine, is really an evasion of the objections that can be brought against it.”
(Richardson, Cyril C. The Doctrine of the Trinity: A Clarification of What it Attempts to Express. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1958. p. 16.) - Charles Peter Wagner, Evangelical professor, Fuller University“We today believe in the Trinity not because of direct biblical revelation but because of majority votes in certain councils—in other words, by extra-biblical revelation.”
(Wagner, Peter C. “But That’s Not in the Word!” Charisma Magazine, 2 June 2014. Accessed Online. 19 December 2014. - Edmund J. Fortman, Catholic scholar“[The doctrine of the Trinity] is a museum piece with little or no relevance to the problems of contemporary life.”
(Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972.)
"The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view....The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power."
(Fortman, Edmund J. The Triune God. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1972. p. 6, 15.) - Charles Bigg, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford“We are not to suppose that the apostles identified Christ with Jehovah; there were passages which made this impossible, for instance Psalm 110:1, Malachi 3:1.″
(Charles Bigg, D.D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford, in International Critical Commentary on Peter and Jude, T&T Clark, 1910, p. 99). - Frederic William Farrar, Chaplain to the Queen of England, Trinity College at Cambridge“The first teachers of Christianity were never charged by the Jews (who unquestionably believed in the strict unity of God), with introducing any new theory of the Godhead. Many foolish and false charges were made against Christ; but this was never alleged against him or any of his disciples. When this doctrine of three persons in one God was introduced into the Church, by new converts to Christianity, it caused immense excitement for many years. Referring to this, Mosheim writes, under the forth century, “The subject of this fatal controversy, which kindled such deplorable divisions throughout the Christian world, was the doctrine of the Three Persons in the Godhead; a doctrine which in the three preceding centuries had happily escaped the vain curiosity of human researches, and had been left undefined and undetermined by any particular set of ideas.” Would there not have been some similar commotion among the Jewish people in the time of Christ, if such a view of the Godhead had been offered to their notice, and if they had been told that without belief in this they “would perish everlastingly”?”
(Farrar, Frederic William. Early Days of Christianity, vol. I. Boston, Massachusetts: DeWolfe, Fiske & Company, 1882. p. 55.) - Saint Augustine, Fourth century theologian“if you deny it you will lose your salvation, but if you try to understand it you will lose your mind!"
(attributed) (Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downer’s Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999. p. 261.) - Roger E. Olson, Evangelical scholar“It is understandable that the importance placed on this doctrine is perplexing to many lay Christians and students. Nowhere is it clearly and unequivocally stated in Scripture. How can it be so important if it is not explicitly stated in Scripture?”
(Olson, Roger E., Christopher Hall. The Trinity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. p.1.)
“The doctrine of the Trinity developed gradually after the completion of the N. T. in the heat of controversy. The full-blown doctrine of the Trinity was spelled out in the fourth century at two great ecumenical councils: Nicaea (324 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD).”
(Olson, Roger E., Christopher Hall. The Trinity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. p.2.)
“I affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is not “gospel.” Nor is it part of the gospel we preach. It is a human construct and a defensive one.”
(Olson, Roger E. “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?” Patheos.com. 29 April, 2013. Accessed online. 12 January 12, 2015.
“It is a clumsy doctrine, no matter how it’s expressed.”
(Olson, Roger E. “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?” Patheos.com. 29 April, 2013. Accessed online. 12 January 12, 2015.
“For numerous Christian theologians past and present, the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial, essential, indispensable to a robust and healthy Christian view of God. The problem is, of course, that many, perhaps most, Christians have little or not understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. And they couldn’t care less.”
(Olson, Roger E. “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?” Patheos.com. 29 April, 2013. Accessed online. 12 January 12, 2015.
other Encyclopedias, dictionaries and NOTEWORTHY sources
The following opinions reflect a wide range of secular authorities on history & respected Christian scholarship from non-Trinitarian traditions:- Alvan Lamson, Church historian"[The doctrine] is not found in any document or relic belonging to the church of the first three centuries…Letters, art, usage, theology, worship, creed, hymn, chant, doxology, ascription, commemorative rite, and festive observances… are, as regards this doctrine, an absolute blank.”
(Lamson, Alvan. The Church of the First Three Centuries. Toronto: University of Tornoto Libraries, 1875. p.466-467.)
"The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity… derives no support from the language of Justin, and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and… holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in one, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact."
(Lamson, Alvan. The Church of the First Three Centuries. Boston: Horace B. Fuller, 1869. p. 56-57.) - William Barclay, Professor of Divinity & Biblical Criticism, University of Glasgow“But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which of two possible translations is to be accepted.”
(Barclay, William. Jesus As They Saw Him: New Testament Interpretations of Jesus. Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1983. p. 21)
“Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus with God.”
(Barclay, William. A Spiritual Autobiography. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977. p. 50.)
"It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God. Time and time again we see Jesus unhesitatingly and unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting the will of God for himself. Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus and God. He said: `He who has seen me has seen God.' There are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God's omniscience in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know.”
(Barclay, William. The Mind of Jesus. Harper & Rowe, 1961. p. 56.) - New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
- “The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are of an equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the church doctrine of the Trinity (Karl Barth, CD 1, 1 437)….
That God and Christ belong together and that they are distinct, are equally stressed, with the precedence in every case due to God, the Father, who stands above Christ… There is no strict dogmatic assertion… All this underlines the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church.”
(J. Schneider, Ph. D, Prof. of Theology in Berlin.)
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Two Natures of Christ: And the reluctance to believe it.
It is usually answered in circles of logic as:
what philosophers often call “Leibniz’s Law” (not to be confused with this, which sometimes is also call Leibniz’s Law.) The more proper name for it is “the indiscernibility of identicals”. It says,
For any x and y, they are identical (x=y) only if whatever is true of one is true of the other.
This principle seems obviously true, and it seems to be necessarily true – something which is true, and couldn’t conceivably be false. Moreover, all people implicitly recognize it to true.
OK – the above is mostly common sense, just spelled out with unusual precision. Of course, everything is itself, and not something else. And of course, nothing can differ from itself. So what is the payoff, when it comes to the issue of the Trinity?
Many Christians go around saying things like “Jesus is God“, “Jesus just is God”, or “Jesus is God himself”, etc. And the Father? “He’s God too, of course.” Now, what is being said here? If they’re saying that j=g, and f=g, then it follows (by Leibniz’s Law, or by the transitivity and symmetricality of =) that f=j and that j=f – that Jesus just is the Father, and vice-versa. But if that is so, then “Jesus”, “God”, and “the Father” are three co-referring names – those “three” entities are in fact identical. And thus, whatever is true of one, will be true of the others as well. So we get:
Here are some additional reasons I cannot comply to such a two natures approach.
DOCTRINE OF THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.
“The Hypothesis of two natures in Christ supposes an infinite nature with all its essential attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, incapable of change or suffering, was indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ, with a finite nature, possessing all its properties, as weakness, imperfect knowledge, liability to sorrow, pain, and death, so that the two natures remain forever distinct, each retaining unaltered all its appropriate attributes.”
The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which claims the merit of having ascertained and settled the doctrine of the incarnation, describes the doctrine of the Two Natures thus: “Jesus Christ is truly God and man, perfect in both natures, consubstantial with the Father with respect to his divinity, and consubstantial with us with respect to his humanity; the two natures, the divine and human, are indissolubly united in him without confusion or change, each retaining all its former attributes, yet so united as to form one person.”
Dr. Barrow on the subject says, “the two natures, the divine and human, were united without any confusion or commixture.—The same person never ceased to be both God and man; not even then, when our Lord as man did undergo death—the union between God and man persisting, when the union between human body and soul was dissolved.”
The Church of England, like the Catholic church, says:
“The Son—took man's nature—so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.”
Professor Stewart, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, “He must, as it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent, and still a feeble man and of imperfect knowledge.”
Now this doctrine is to be rejected, because, like that of the Trinity, it is essentially incredible. It is not a mystery, but as palpable a contradiction as can be stated. By the nature of any person or being, is always meant his essential qualities. If Christ possess a Divine and Human nature, he must possess the essential qualities of God and the distinctive qualities of man. But these qualities are totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are etermity, independence, immutability, exemption from pain, sorrow and death, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. But the qualities of MAN are derived existence, dependence, mutability, susceptibility of pain, sorrow and death, comparative weakness and ignorance, and locomotivity. To assert, therefore, that the same mind possesses both a Human and a Divine nature, is to assert that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both mutable and immutable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and unsusceptible of it, both able to do all things and unable, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of some things and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them, both in all places and only in one place at the same time. Now if this doctrine is not an absurdity, I know not how to conceive of or describe an absurdity. It is a doctrine “which councils and parliaments may decree, but which miracles cannot prove.” It is not pretended that any passage of Scripture expressly asserts the doctrine of the Two Natures. Like that of the Trinity, it is a mere inference from the premises laid down by Trinitarians. I know of no allusion in the Bible to the doctrine of the Two Natures, either with or without modification.
But an objection of a graver character lies against the doctrine of the Two Natures. It implicates the moral character of the Holy Jesus; it impeaches his veracity; and exposes him to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood. These are weighty charges; and we cannot endure, for a moment, a hypothesis which throws suspicion of dishonesty upon our blessed Saviour.
Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus can of himself do every thing that God can do. Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus is as great as the Father. To one unacquainted with the use that is made of the doctrine of the Two Natures, these assertions appear to be palpable contradictions. He cannot perceive how the assertions of Jesus, and those of Trinitarians, can both be true. But here comes in the doctrine of the Two Natures to reconcile the apparent contradictions. “Jesus is both God and man,” says the Trinitarian. “And though as man, he can do nothing of himself, yet as God, he can do every thing. Though as man, he is not his Father's equal, yet as God, he is equal with the Father in substance, and power, and glory.” But if he is God, can he say in truth, that he can do nothing of himself ' What, can God do nothing of himself! If he is God, can he say in truth, My Father is greater than I? What, is the Father greater than God! For a man to assert that he eannot do what he is conscious that he can do, is to say what is not true. For what a man can do, in any way, or by any means, he can certainly do. Suppose a man should be required to subscribe his name to a written instrument; and that he should refuse to do it, saying, “I cannot write. I cannot wield the pen. I never learned to write.” Suppose it should be known that this man could write;
that an explanation should be demanded; and that he should say, he only meant that he could not write with his left hand, though he could use the pen with his right hand as well as any man. Would not such a man subject himself to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood?
The disciples came to Jesus with these questions: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” After some explanation and caution, Jesus answered thus: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the FATHER only.” The Trinitarian says, the Son knew perfectly both the day and the hour. Here the doctrine of the Two Natures is again employed to solve the difficulty. “Jesus being God as well as man,” says the Trinitarian, “he must have known the day and hour as God, though he did not know it as man. When he said he did not know the day and hour, he spoke of his human nature only.” But is this satisfactory? The disciples came to Jesus not to inquire into any distinctions in his nature, but to obtain information of a different kind. Now if Jesus had two natures, the one omniscient, and the other “of imperfect knowledge,” would he not consider the questions addressed to the nature that knew, rather than the nature that did not know, the subject about which the disciples came to inquire? Most certainly. Yet Jesus not only said that the Son did not know, but that the Father only knew. All other persons, besides the Father, whether they be persons in the Trinity or out of it, are excluded from the knowledge of the day and hour.
Let us suppose that a murder is committed in the city of Boston, at noon, by some person or persons unknown— that suspicion fastens upon an innocent man, who, at the time of the murder, was in New York — and that he is charged with the crime, apprehended, and brought to trial. The prisoner summons in his defence a witness, who saw him in New York, about noon, the same day the murder was committed in Boston. This witness, being under oath, is asked, “Did you see the prisoner in New York on that day?” The witness answers, “I did not.” This being the only witness for the defendant, he is convicted, and hanged. After the execution, this witness confesses that he did see the man that was hanged, in New York, on the day and hour specified at the trial. Being required to answer for himself, he says, under oath, that his left eye was defective; only his right eye was sound. And when he testified in court that he did not see the prisoner, he meant that he did not see him with his defective eye; but he saw him distinctly with his sound eye. Now, I ask, would not all honest men consider such a witness perjured? The only difference I can see, between the conduct of such a witness, and that which the doctrine of the Two Natures imputes to Jesus, is, that what Jesus said was not said under the solemnity of an oath. Knowledge is the eye of the mind. Jesus is said to have two capacities of knowledge—his divine and his human nature. The one is strong and piercing, knowing all things. The other is weak and defective, being ignorant of many things. As such an one, he says, in regard to the time of a certain event, he does not know the day nor the hour. He makes no exception of one of his capacities of knowledge; but says, absolutely, he does not know the time. No one knows but the Father. Yet the doctrine of the Two Natures supposes that Jesus did know the day and hour; and that when he said he did not know, he spoke only of his capacity of knowledge which is weak and defective.
Another objection to the doctrine of the Two Natures is, that it renders it impossible to understand or believe any thing that Jesus says of himself. The terms I, me, myself, mine own self, always denote one person, an individual; they include the whole person, all that constitutes him a person. In this sense they were unquestionably used by Christ. When he said, I, me, myself, he could not have meant a part of himself. He could not have meant that part of himself which is infinitely less than another part of himself. If it be admitted that Jesus did not mean himself, his whole self, all that constituted his proper personality, there is no assertion he ever made but what may be contradicted. One has only to say, “This he did as man, it is not true of him as God, therefore it is not true; and this he did as God, it is not true of him as man, therefore it is not true.” In this way, every assertion he ever made of himself, may be contradicted. In this way, we may deny his birth, his crucifixion, his death, and his resurrection, because these were true of him only as man, not as God. If, instead of saying, “My Father is greater than I,” he had said, “I am not so great as my Father, I am not equal with the Father, I am not God, I am not equal with God,” we have only to say, “This he spoke as man, hence it is not true,” in order to set his testimony, concerning himself aside. Now can a doctrine be admitted, which renders his plainest sayings unintelligible, and makes it absolutely impossible for him to deny that he is God, if he had a mind to do so?
That Trinitarians see and condemn this kind of sophistry, when employed about other matters, may be seen by the following quotation. “See Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon on Matt. 10:16, speaking of the equivocations of Popish Priests, whose common answer, when examined about what they know by confession, is, that they know it not; which they think to vindicate from the charge of lying by saying, that in confession, the Priest knows matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to know them, meaning as a man. But, says the Doctor, this is absurd; because to say he does not know, is as much as to say he doth not any way know. Now if this be good against the Papists, as no doubt it is, then sure it is so in the present case. Therefore when Christ says he knows not the day of judgment, it is as much as to say he does not any way know it, and consequently, it is a vain shift to say, it was as man only. We must beware lest we bring the Holy Jesus under such a reproach for equivocation, as the Romish Priests lie under; and make the Jesuits themselves think they have a good title to that name, by imitating herein his example, according to this interpretation.”
The doctrine of the Two Natures throws obscurity over the sacred pages, and renders passages which are sufficiently plain, quite unintelligible. Take, for example, Heb. 1:1,2: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Admitting that this passage relates to the creation of the natural world, what does the word Son denote according to the doctrine of the Two Natures? Does it denote the divine, or the human nature? Or does it comprehend both natures? Son cannot mean the divine nature, because God cannot be appointed heir of all things, inasmuch as he is the original proprietor and independent owner of all things. Son cannot mean the human nature, because the worlds were created thousands of years before the human nature existed. Son cannot denote both natures, because that would involve both the difficulties just stated; and render the passage more unintelligible and contradictory than either of the other expositions. Thus, by applying the hypothesis of the Two Natures, this perfectly clear and easy text becomes totally unintelligible.
Take another example: St. Paul says, “we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”—Rom. 14:10. Then Christ must be God omniscient, says the Trinitarian; and, to support his position, reasons thus: “Is it possible for any being, not omniscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, be present everywhere, and know what is transacted, and penetrate the recesses of the human heart, and remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads, so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation, and not be omnipresent and omniscient?—Can omniscience be imparted?”. This argument may be abridged, thus: “He, by whom the world is to be judged, must be omniscient. But omniscience cannot be imparted; therefore Christ must be omniscient. And he who is omniscient is God; therefore Christ is God.” Before a man can reason in this manmer, it seems to me, that he must have closed his eyes upon the account which the Scriptures give of the judgment. Whatever men may imagine, St. Paul assures us that “God will judge the world by a MAN (not a God) whom HE hath APPOINTED.” Jesus assures us that the “FATHER hath committed all judgment unto the SON.” St. Peter assures us that “Jesus Christ was ORDAINED of God to be the judge of quick and dead.” God cannot be judge by appointment, or ordination; neither can all judgment be committed to him. “He (Jesus) does indeed act as judge by delegated authority,” says the Trinitarian, “but to act as judge is one thing, to be qualified for the office is another. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge, omnipresence and omniscience only can qualify him for that station.” Jesus explains the subject quite differently. He assures us that God qualified him “for that station,” as well as constituted him judge. After speaking of the office of raising the dead and judging the world, by virtue of his commission received from the Father, Jesus says, “the Father hath given him AUTHORITY to execute judgment also, because he is the SON of MAN"—(not because he is God.) And to make his meaning still plainer, immediately after speaking of the resurrection, he adds, “I can of mine own self do nothing: As I HEAR, I judge.” Now if this account of the judgment be admitted as correct—and it must be, I think, unless the testimony of him who is the faithful and true witness can be impeached—what difficulty does the subject involve to require the hypothesis of the Two Natures? If the judge is guided in all his decisions by the Father, who has given him a commandment what he should say and what he should speak; and if he JUDGES only as he HEARS, where is the necessity of omnipresence and ommiscience, to qualify him for that station? Again, if the judge is God omnipresent and omniscicnt, how can he say, “of mine own self I can do nothing: As I hear, I judge.” Can God do nothing without the Father's assistance? Must God hear, before he can judge Once more: The Father hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the SON. To which nature, I would ask the Trinitarian, is the judgment committed? If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the divine nature, then Jesus, As GOD, is dependent on the Father for his commission. This probably, will not be admitted. If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the human nature, then Jesus exercises the highest functions of judge, As MAN only; and the Cmnipresent, omniscient judge, entirely disappears. This, probably, will hardly be admitted. I see no possibility of freeing the subject from these difficulties, but by abandoming the supposition of the Two Natures. Thus the doctrine of the Two Natures creates difficulties where there were none, and then fails to remove them.
We object to the doctrine of the Two Natures, because it would, if admitted, deprive us of the comforts and advantages arising from the example of Christ's prayers and sufferings. In commenting on the secret morning prayer of Jesus, (Mark 1:35) Dr. Adam Clark, in his great zeal for the doctrine of the Two Natures, says—“Not that he needed any thing, for in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; but that he might be a pattern to us.” If the learned Doctor be correct, Jesus must have asked his heavenly Father for innumerable blessings which he did not need, that he might be a pattern to us. But how can we imitate such a pattern without praying for such things as we do not need? If Jesus is God, he must have prayed to himself. But of what benefit to us can such an example be? What comfort or instruction can be derived from contemplating the prayers of Jesus, if every prayer he offered was addressed to himself, and he was so independent that he needed nothing? “Being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Was all this only to set us an example? What sympathy can we feel with the sufferer, if he needed nothing he prayed for? Prayer is an expression of dependence and want. If a person who needs nothing prays, is it not mere pretence?—is it not hypocrisy?
Finally, the doctrine of the Two Natures defeats its own end. To illustrate this, let us consider it in connection with the doctrine of the atonement as held by Trinitarians. It is argued that sin is an infinite evil; that it deserves an infinite punishment; and, consequently, the atonement must be infinite, But no finite being can make an infinite atonement. But Jesus, being both God and man, is qualified to make an infinite atonement by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But all Trinitarians, so far as my knowledge extends, hold that Jesus died as man, not as God. Nothing bled and died but the human nature. The victim, the offering, the sacrifice, was not the divine, but the human nature of Christ, the mere man. This was presented or offered, not to the human, but to the divine nature of Christ, the Supreme God. Thus the infinite atonement entirely disappears. A mere man endures the cross, sheds his blood, and dies an atoning sacrifice to the infinite God. In relation to the doctrine of the atonement, a belief in the proper Deity of Christ has not the least advantage over a belief in his simple humanity.
Trinitarians, in the multiplicity of their inventions, have devised the notion that Jesus Christ, although but a single person, subsists in two distinct natures, the one human and the other divine—the one verily man, and the other truly and essentially God. Hence he is frequently denominated the God-man—a word coined in the mint of Trinitarian theology to express the absolute Godhead and real manhood supposed to be combined in Christ.
This distinction is found to be necessary in supporting the contradictory, yet popular notion of a triune God. If, without making such distinction, it is contended that Jesus Christ is the real, substantial, and self-existent Deity; the monstrous absurdity is involved, that God —the omnipotent Jehovah—actually bled and died upon an ignominious cross! This however is so manifestly absurd and shocking that no rational man can, for a moment, believe it. And to cover this glaring absurdity the Trinitarian contends that Christ possesses two distinct natures, human and divine; and that he suffered and died only in his human nature.
The distinction is found also to be very convenient in explaining certain passages of scripture which plainly show the inferiority of Christ, and which, of course, disprove the position that he is the absolute and sovereign God. Jesus, for instance, declares that “the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” “I can,” says he, “of mine own self do nothing. (John V, 19, 30.) These assertions the Trinitarian contends are made in reference to his human nature. In his human nature he can do nothing of himself—nothing unless he is assisted by the supreme God who constitutes his divine nature. The same exposition is given of Christs declaration, “My Father is greater than I.” On this Dr. A. Clark remarks—“It certainly requires very little argument and no sophistry to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the Godhead of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his divine and his human nature. Of the former, he says, “I and my father are one;” and of the latter, he states with the same truth, “My Father is greater than I.” See Com. on John xiv, 28. This, it must be acknowledged, is a very plausible manner of avoiding the difficulties of the Trinitarian system; but before receiving the doctrine it might be well to examine the soundness of the argument.
The argument is founded on the supposition that the “man Christ Jesus” subsists in two different natures. On this then we remark, that the name, Jesus Christ, and the pronouns used to represent that name, are significant of one person—the one distinct perfect identical person of Jesus Christ. This must be admitted by all, by those who do and those who do not, believe in the Triune solecism. Now if the person, Jesus Christ, is constituted of two distinct natures, the union of both must be essential to the perfection of his person, and both therefore are included in the names applied to signify the person. Or if not, if this union is not essential to the person, if the person is complete and entire in one nature, for instance, in the human nature; then the addition of the divine nature would make the person of Christ more than complete. And if his divine nature is a complete person without his human nature, then there must be two Christs; for each nature—the human and divine, constitutes, separately, a distinct perfect person called Christ, and, in the passages already mentioned, he spake of his human nature, then his divine nature is not Christ.— but if the divine and human nature must be combined in order to make one perfect Christ, then both natures are invariably included in the term. Whenever therefore Jesus speaks of himself, or was spoken of by others, he alludes to his double nature; if indeed he possesses such a double nature. When he says, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” and, “My Father is greater than I,” he makes one affirmative concerning both his divine and human nature; and consequently acknowledges the superiority of his Father. And Trinitarians may turn which way they please. If they say that, in these instances, he speaks solely of his human nature, they deny that the divine nature is essential to the identity of his person—they deny indeed that the divine nature forms any part of Jesus Christ. And if they say his divine and human nature are both
referred to, they must admit that he declares himself inferior to his Father. This double nature will hardly admit of being resolved into mystery. Christ is Christ, whether he subsists in one, two, or an hundred natures; and as many natures as it requires to constitute one Christ, are invariably conveyed by the name applied to him. Christ is Christ indeed whereever he is mentioned in the scriptures. One nature, or one half of him, is not spoken of at one time, and the other half at another time; and each half designated by the name that signifies the whole Christ. But whatever, is affirmed or denied of him is affirmed or denied of the real bona fide identical person, Jesus Christ. R. O. W.
The Hypostatic Union - an Enormous Tax on Human Credulity By William Ellery Channing
[Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.]~Wikipedia
See also Difficulties with the Trinity Doctrine by Alvin Lamson 1828
We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.
According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain that this is to make Christ two beings. To denominate him one person, one being, and yet to suppose him made up of two minds infinitely different from each other, is to abuse and confound language, and to throw darkness over all our conceptions of intelligent natures. According to the common doctrine, each of these two minds in Christ has its own consciousness, its own will, its own perceptions. They have, in fact, no common properties. The divine mind feels none of the wants and sorrows of the human, and the human is infinitely removed from the perfection and happiness of the divine. Can you conceive of two beings in the universe more distinct? We have always thought that one person was constituted and distinguished by one consciousness. The doctrine that one and the same person should have two consciousnesses, two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each other, this we think an enormous tax on human credulity.
We say that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so remote from all the previous conceptions of men, be indeed a part, and an essential part, of revelation, it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our brethren to point to some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said to be composed of two minds infinitely different, yet constituting one person. We find none. Other Christians, indeed, tell us that this doctrine is necessary to the harmony of the Scriptures, that some texts ascribe to Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties, and that to reconcile these we must suppose two minds, to which these properties may be referred. In other words, for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult passages, which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly, explain, we must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult, and involving gross absurdity. We are to find our way out of a labyrinth by a clue which conducts us into mazes infinitely more inextricable.
Surely, if Jesus Christ felt that he consisted of two minds, and that this was a leading feature of his religion, his phraseology respecting himself would have been coloured by this peculiarity. The universal language of men is framed upon the idea that one person is one person, is one mind, and one soul; and when the multitude heard this language from the lips of Jesus, they must have taken it in its usual sense, and must have referred to a single soul all which he spoke, unless expressly instructed to interpret it differently. But where do we find this instruction? Where do you meet, in the New Testament, the phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian books, and which necessarily grows from the doctrine of two natures in Jesus? Where does this divine teacher say, "This I speak as God, and this as man; this is true only of my human mind, this only of my divine?"' Where do we find in the Epistles a trace of this strange phraseology? Nowhere. It was not needed in that day. It was demanded by the errors of a later age.
what philosophers often call “Leibniz’s Law” (not to be confused with this, which sometimes is also call Leibniz’s Law.) The more proper name for it is “the indiscernibility of identicals”. It says,
For any x and y, they are identical (x=y) only if whatever is true of one is true of the other.
This principle seems obviously true, and it seems to be necessarily true – something which is true, and couldn’t conceivably be false. Moreover, all people implicitly recognize it to true.
- Suppose you just met a new friend, Chelsea. She tells you that her dad used to have an important job, that he likes the ladies, loves McDonalds french fries, and speaks with an Arkansas accent. You say to yourself, “I wonder if her dad is Bill Clinton?” Then, you find out that her Dad is four foot nine, and has never been taller. Well, you can be sure that her dad and Clinton are not identical. Why? It follows from what you know (based on her testimony) plus Leibniz’s Law.
- Again, suppose you’re on a jury, trying to decide whether or not the defendent Joe Blow is really the Boston Strangler. If you’re certain that the Boston Strangler has a size 9 shoe, and that Joe Blow is a size 13, then “if the shoe does not fit, you must acquit”. Why? If j and b differ with respect to anything at all (including, of course, shoe size), then it is false that j=b.
OK – the above is mostly common sense, just spelled out with unusual precision. Of course, everything is itself, and not something else. And of course, nothing can differ from itself. So what is the payoff, when it comes to the issue of the Trinity?
Many Christians go around saying things like “Jesus is God“, “Jesus just is God”, or “Jesus is God himself”, etc. And the Father? “He’s God too, of course.” Now, what is being said here? If they’re saying that j=g, and f=g, then it follows (by Leibniz’s Law, or by the transitivity and symmetricality of =) that f=j and that j=f – that Jesus just is the Father, and vice-versa. But if that is so, then “Jesus”, “God”, and “the Father” are three co-referring names – those “three” entities are in fact identical. And thus, whatever is true of one, will be true of the others as well. So we get:
- The Father was born of Mary, and was later crucified.
- Jesus sent his only Son into the world, to redeem humankind.
- There are three persons within the Father.
- Jesus is a Trinity.
Here are some additional reasons I cannot comply to such a two natures approach.
DOCTRINE OF THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.
“The Hypothesis of two natures in Christ supposes an infinite nature with all its essential attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, incapable of change or suffering, was indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ, with a finite nature, possessing all its properties, as weakness, imperfect knowledge, liability to sorrow, pain, and death, so that the two natures remain forever distinct, each retaining unaltered all its appropriate attributes.”
The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which claims the merit of having ascertained and settled the doctrine of the incarnation, describes the doctrine of the Two Natures thus: “Jesus Christ is truly God and man, perfect in both natures, consubstantial with the Father with respect to his divinity, and consubstantial with us with respect to his humanity; the two natures, the divine and human, are indissolubly united in him without confusion or change, each retaining all its former attributes, yet so united as to form one person.”
Dr. Barrow on the subject says, “the two natures, the divine and human, were united without any confusion or commixture.—The same person never ceased to be both God and man; not even then, when our Lord as man did undergo death—the union between God and man persisting, when the union between human body and soul was dissolved.”
The Church of England, like the Catholic church, says:
“The Son—took man's nature—so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.”
Professor Stewart, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, “He must, as it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent, and still a feeble man and of imperfect knowledge.”
Now this doctrine is to be rejected, because, like that of the Trinity, it is essentially incredible. It is not a mystery, but as palpable a contradiction as can be stated. By the nature of any person or being, is always meant his essential qualities. If Christ possess a Divine and Human nature, he must possess the essential qualities of God and the distinctive qualities of man. But these qualities are totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are etermity, independence, immutability, exemption from pain, sorrow and death, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. But the qualities of MAN are derived existence, dependence, mutability, susceptibility of pain, sorrow and death, comparative weakness and ignorance, and locomotivity. To assert, therefore, that the same mind possesses both a Human and a Divine nature, is to assert that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both mutable and immutable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and unsusceptible of it, both able to do all things and unable, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of some things and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them, both in all places and only in one place at the same time. Now if this doctrine is not an absurdity, I know not how to conceive of or describe an absurdity. It is a doctrine “which councils and parliaments may decree, but which miracles cannot prove.” It is not pretended that any passage of Scripture expressly asserts the doctrine of the Two Natures. Like that of the Trinity, it is a mere inference from the premises laid down by Trinitarians. I know of no allusion in the Bible to the doctrine of the Two Natures, either with or without modification.
But an objection of a graver character lies against the doctrine of the Two Natures. It implicates the moral character of the Holy Jesus; it impeaches his veracity; and exposes him to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood. These are weighty charges; and we cannot endure, for a moment, a hypothesis which throws suspicion of dishonesty upon our blessed Saviour.
Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus can of himself do every thing that God can do. Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus is as great as the Father. To one unacquainted with the use that is made of the doctrine of the Two Natures, these assertions appear to be palpable contradictions. He cannot perceive how the assertions of Jesus, and those of Trinitarians, can both be true. But here comes in the doctrine of the Two Natures to reconcile the apparent contradictions. “Jesus is both God and man,” says the Trinitarian. “And though as man, he can do nothing of himself, yet as God, he can do every thing. Though as man, he is not his Father's equal, yet as God, he is equal with the Father in substance, and power, and glory.” But if he is God, can he say in truth, that he can do nothing of himself ' What, can God do nothing of himself! If he is God, can he say in truth, My Father is greater than I? What, is the Father greater than God! For a man to assert that he eannot do what he is conscious that he can do, is to say what is not true. For what a man can do, in any way, or by any means, he can certainly do. Suppose a man should be required to subscribe his name to a written instrument; and that he should refuse to do it, saying, “I cannot write. I cannot wield the pen. I never learned to write.” Suppose it should be known that this man could write;
that an explanation should be demanded; and that he should say, he only meant that he could not write with his left hand, though he could use the pen with his right hand as well as any man. Would not such a man subject himself to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood?
The disciples came to Jesus with these questions: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” After some explanation and caution, Jesus answered thus: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the FATHER only.” The Trinitarian says, the Son knew perfectly both the day and the hour. Here the doctrine of the Two Natures is again employed to solve the difficulty. “Jesus being God as well as man,” says the Trinitarian, “he must have known the day and hour as God, though he did not know it as man. When he said he did not know the day and hour, he spoke of his human nature only.” But is this satisfactory? The disciples came to Jesus not to inquire into any distinctions in his nature, but to obtain information of a different kind. Now if Jesus had two natures, the one omniscient, and the other “of imperfect knowledge,” would he not consider the questions addressed to the nature that knew, rather than the nature that did not know, the subject about which the disciples came to inquire? Most certainly. Yet Jesus not only said that the Son did not know, but that the Father only knew. All other persons, besides the Father, whether they be persons in the Trinity or out of it, are excluded from the knowledge of the day and hour.
Let us suppose that a murder is committed in the city of Boston, at noon, by some person or persons unknown— that suspicion fastens upon an innocent man, who, at the time of the murder, was in New York — and that he is charged with the crime, apprehended, and brought to trial. The prisoner summons in his defence a witness, who saw him in New York, about noon, the same day the murder was committed in Boston. This witness, being under oath, is asked, “Did you see the prisoner in New York on that day?” The witness answers, “I did not.” This being the only witness for the defendant, he is convicted, and hanged. After the execution, this witness confesses that he did see the man that was hanged, in New York, on the day and hour specified at the trial. Being required to answer for himself, he says, under oath, that his left eye was defective; only his right eye was sound. And when he testified in court that he did not see the prisoner, he meant that he did not see him with his defective eye; but he saw him distinctly with his sound eye. Now, I ask, would not all honest men consider such a witness perjured? The only difference I can see, between the conduct of such a witness, and that which the doctrine of the Two Natures imputes to Jesus, is, that what Jesus said was not said under the solemnity of an oath. Knowledge is the eye of the mind. Jesus is said to have two capacities of knowledge—his divine and his human nature. The one is strong and piercing, knowing all things. The other is weak and defective, being ignorant of many things. As such an one, he says, in regard to the time of a certain event, he does not know the day nor the hour. He makes no exception of one of his capacities of knowledge; but says, absolutely, he does not know the time. No one knows but the Father. Yet the doctrine of the Two Natures supposes that Jesus did know the day and hour; and that when he said he did not know, he spoke only of his capacity of knowledge which is weak and defective.
Another objection to the doctrine of the Two Natures is, that it renders it impossible to understand or believe any thing that Jesus says of himself. The terms I, me, myself, mine own self, always denote one person, an individual; they include the whole person, all that constitutes him a person. In this sense they were unquestionably used by Christ. When he said, I, me, myself, he could not have meant a part of himself. He could not have meant that part of himself which is infinitely less than another part of himself. If it be admitted that Jesus did not mean himself, his whole self, all that constituted his proper personality, there is no assertion he ever made but what may be contradicted. One has only to say, “This he did as man, it is not true of him as God, therefore it is not true; and this he did as God, it is not true of him as man, therefore it is not true.” In this way, every assertion he ever made of himself, may be contradicted. In this way, we may deny his birth, his crucifixion, his death, and his resurrection, because these were true of him only as man, not as God. If, instead of saying, “My Father is greater than I,” he had said, “I am not so great as my Father, I am not equal with the Father, I am not God, I am not equal with God,” we have only to say, “This he spoke as man, hence it is not true,” in order to set his testimony, concerning himself aside. Now can a doctrine be admitted, which renders his plainest sayings unintelligible, and makes it absolutely impossible for him to deny that he is God, if he had a mind to do so?
That Trinitarians see and condemn this kind of sophistry, when employed about other matters, may be seen by the following quotation. “See Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon on Matt. 10:16, speaking of the equivocations of Popish Priests, whose common answer, when examined about what they know by confession, is, that they know it not; which they think to vindicate from the charge of lying by saying, that in confession, the Priest knows matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to know them, meaning as a man. But, says the Doctor, this is absurd; because to say he does not know, is as much as to say he doth not any way know. Now if this be good against the Papists, as no doubt it is, then sure it is so in the present case. Therefore when Christ says he knows not the day of judgment, it is as much as to say he does not any way know it, and consequently, it is a vain shift to say, it was as man only. We must beware lest we bring the Holy Jesus under such a reproach for equivocation, as the Romish Priests lie under; and make the Jesuits themselves think they have a good title to that name, by imitating herein his example, according to this interpretation.”
The doctrine of the Two Natures throws obscurity over the sacred pages, and renders passages which are sufficiently plain, quite unintelligible. Take, for example, Heb. 1:1,2: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Admitting that this passage relates to the creation of the natural world, what does the word Son denote according to the doctrine of the Two Natures? Does it denote the divine, or the human nature? Or does it comprehend both natures? Son cannot mean the divine nature, because God cannot be appointed heir of all things, inasmuch as he is the original proprietor and independent owner of all things. Son cannot mean the human nature, because the worlds were created thousands of years before the human nature existed. Son cannot denote both natures, because that would involve both the difficulties just stated; and render the passage more unintelligible and contradictory than either of the other expositions. Thus, by applying the hypothesis of the Two Natures, this perfectly clear and easy text becomes totally unintelligible.
Take another example: St. Paul says, “we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”—Rom. 14:10. Then Christ must be God omniscient, says the Trinitarian; and, to support his position, reasons thus: “Is it possible for any being, not omniscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, be present everywhere, and know what is transacted, and penetrate the recesses of the human heart, and remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads, so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation, and not be omnipresent and omniscient?—Can omniscience be imparted?”. This argument may be abridged, thus: “He, by whom the world is to be judged, must be omniscient. But omniscience cannot be imparted; therefore Christ must be omniscient. And he who is omniscient is God; therefore Christ is God.” Before a man can reason in this manmer, it seems to me, that he must have closed his eyes upon the account which the Scriptures give of the judgment. Whatever men may imagine, St. Paul assures us that “God will judge the world by a MAN (not a God) whom HE hath APPOINTED.” Jesus assures us that the “FATHER hath committed all judgment unto the SON.” St. Peter assures us that “Jesus Christ was ORDAINED of God to be the judge of quick and dead.” God cannot be judge by appointment, or ordination; neither can all judgment be committed to him. “He (Jesus) does indeed act as judge by delegated authority,” says the Trinitarian, “but to act as judge is one thing, to be qualified for the office is another. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge, omnipresence and omniscience only can qualify him for that station.” Jesus explains the subject quite differently. He assures us that God qualified him “for that station,” as well as constituted him judge. After speaking of the office of raising the dead and judging the world, by virtue of his commission received from the Father, Jesus says, “the Father hath given him AUTHORITY to execute judgment also, because he is the SON of MAN"—(not because he is God.) And to make his meaning still plainer, immediately after speaking of the resurrection, he adds, “I can of mine own self do nothing: As I HEAR, I judge.” Now if this account of the judgment be admitted as correct—and it must be, I think, unless the testimony of him who is the faithful and true witness can be impeached—what difficulty does the subject involve to require the hypothesis of the Two Natures? If the judge is guided in all his decisions by the Father, who has given him a commandment what he should say and what he should speak; and if he JUDGES only as he HEARS, where is the necessity of omnipresence and ommiscience, to qualify him for that station? Again, if the judge is God omnipresent and omniscicnt, how can he say, “of mine own self I can do nothing: As I hear, I judge.” Can God do nothing without the Father's assistance? Must God hear, before he can judge Once more: The Father hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the SON. To which nature, I would ask the Trinitarian, is the judgment committed? If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the divine nature, then Jesus, As GOD, is dependent on the Father for his commission. This probably, will not be admitted. If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the human nature, then Jesus exercises the highest functions of judge, As MAN only; and the Cmnipresent, omniscient judge, entirely disappears. This, probably, will hardly be admitted. I see no possibility of freeing the subject from these difficulties, but by abandoming the supposition of the Two Natures. Thus the doctrine of the Two Natures creates difficulties where there were none, and then fails to remove them.
We object to the doctrine of the Two Natures, because it would, if admitted, deprive us of the comforts and advantages arising from the example of Christ's prayers and sufferings. In commenting on the secret morning prayer of Jesus, (Mark 1:35) Dr. Adam Clark, in his great zeal for the doctrine of the Two Natures, says—“Not that he needed any thing, for in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; but that he might be a pattern to us.” If the learned Doctor be correct, Jesus must have asked his heavenly Father for innumerable blessings which he did not need, that he might be a pattern to us. But how can we imitate such a pattern without praying for such things as we do not need? If Jesus is God, he must have prayed to himself. But of what benefit to us can such an example be? What comfort or instruction can be derived from contemplating the prayers of Jesus, if every prayer he offered was addressed to himself, and he was so independent that he needed nothing? “Being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Was all this only to set us an example? What sympathy can we feel with the sufferer, if he needed nothing he prayed for? Prayer is an expression of dependence and want. If a person who needs nothing prays, is it not mere pretence?—is it not hypocrisy?
Finally, the doctrine of the Two Natures defeats its own end. To illustrate this, let us consider it in connection with the doctrine of the atonement as held by Trinitarians. It is argued that sin is an infinite evil; that it deserves an infinite punishment; and, consequently, the atonement must be infinite, But no finite being can make an infinite atonement. But Jesus, being both God and man, is qualified to make an infinite atonement by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But all Trinitarians, so far as my knowledge extends, hold that Jesus died as man, not as God. Nothing bled and died but the human nature. The victim, the offering, the sacrifice, was not the divine, but the human nature of Christ, the mere man. This was presented or offered, not to the human, but to the divine nature of Christ, the Supreme God. Thus the infinite atonement entirely disappears. A mere man endures the cross, sheds his blood, and dies an atoning sacrifice to the infinite God. In relation to the doctrine of the atonement, a belief in the proper Deity of Christ has not the least advantage over a belief in his simple humanity.
Trinitarians, in the multiplicity of their inventions, have devised the notion that Jesus Christ, although but a single person, subsists in two distinct natures, the one human and the other divine—the one verily man, and the other truly and essentially God. Hence he is frequently denominated the God-man—a word coined in the mint of Trinitarian theology to express the absolute Godhead and real manhood supposed to be combined in Christ.
This distinction is found to be necessary in supporting the contradictory, yet popular notion of a triune God. If, without making such distinction, it is contended that Jesus Christ is the real, substantial, and self-existent Deity; the monstrous absurdity is involved, that God —the omnipotent Jehovah—actually bled and died upon an ignominious cross! This however is so manifestly absurd and shocking that no rational man can, for a moment, believe it. And to cover this glaring absurdity the Trinitarian contends that Christ possesses two distinct natures, human and divine; and that he suffered and died only in his human nature.
The distinction is found also to be very convenient in explaining certain passages of scripture which plainly show the inferiority of Christ, and which, of course, disprove the position that he is the absolute and sovereign God. Jesus, for instance, declares that “the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” “I can,” says he, “of mine own self do nothing. (John V, 19, 30.) These assertions the Trinitarian contends are made in reference to his human nature. In his human nature he can do nothing of himself—nothing unless he is assisted by the supreme God who constitutes his divine nature. The same exposition is given of Christs declaration, “My Father is greater than I.” On this Dr. A. Clark remarks—“It certainly requires very little argument and no sophistry to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the Godhead of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his divine and his human nature. Of the former, he says, “I and my father are one;” and of the latter, he states with the same truth, “My Father is greater than I.” See Com. on John xiv, 28. This, it must be acknowledged, is a very plausible manner of avoiding the difficulties of the Trinitarian system; but before receiving the doctrine it might be well to examine the soundness of the argument.
The argument is founded on the supposition that the “man Christ Jesus” subsists in two different natures. On this then we remark, that the name, Jesus Christ, and the pronouns used to represent that name, are significant of one person—the one distinct perfect identical person of Jesus Christ. This must be admitted by all, by those who do and those who do not, believe in the Triune solecism. Now if the person, Jesus Christ, is constituted of two distinct natures, the union of both must be essential to the perfection of his person, and both therefore are included in the names applied to signify the person. Or if not, if this union is not essential to the person, if the person is complete and entire in one nature, for instance, in the human nature; then the addition of the divine nature would make the person of Christ more than complete. And if his divine nature is a complete person without his human nature, then there must be two Christs; for each nature—the human and divine, constitutes, separately, a distinct perfect person called Christ, and, in the passages already mentioned, he spake of his human nature, then his divine nature is not Christ.— but if the divine and human nature must be combined in order to make one perfect Christ, then both natures are invariably included in the term. Whenever therefore Jesus speaks of himself, or was spoken of by others, he alludes to his double nature; if indeed he possesses such a double nature. When he says, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” and, “My Father is greater than I,” he makes one affirmative concerning both his divine and human nature; and consequently acknowledges the superiority of his Father. And Trinitarians may turn which way they please. If they say that, in these instances, he speaks solely of his human nature, they deny that the divine nature is essential to the identity of his person—they deny indeed that the divine nature forms any part of Jesus Christ. And if they say his divine and human nature are both
referred to, they must admit that he declares himself inferior to his Father. This double nature will hardly admit of being resolved into mystery. Christ is Christ, whether he subsists in one, two, or an hundred natures; and as many natures as it requires to constitute one Christ, are invariably conveyed by the name applied to him. Christ is Christ indeed whereever he is mentioned in the scriptures. One nature, or one half of him, is not spoken of at one time, and the other half at another time; and each half designated by the name that signifies the whole Christ. But whatever, is affirmed or denied of him is affirmed or denied of the real bona fide identical person, Jesus Christ. R. O. W.
The Hypostatic Union - an Enormous Tax on Human Credulity By William Ellery Channing
[Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.]~Wikipedia
See also Difficulties with the Trinity Doctrine by Alvin Lamson 1828
We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.
According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain that this is to make Christ two beings. To denominate him one person, one being, and yet to suppose him made up of two minds infinitely different from each other, is to abuse and confound language, and to throw darkness over all our conceptions of intelligent natures. According to the common doctrine, each of these two minds in Christ has its own consciousness, its own will, its own perceptions. They have, in fact, no common properties. The divine mind feels none of the wants and sorrows of the human, and the human is infinitely removed from the perfection and happiness of the divine. Can you conceive of two beings in the universe more distinct? We have always thought that one person was constituted and distinguished by one consciousness. The doctrine that one and the same person should have two consciousnesses, two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each other, this we think an enormous tax on human credulity.
We say that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so remote from all the previous conceptions of men, be indeed a part, and an essential part, of revelation, it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our brethren to point to some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said to be composed of two minds infinitely different, yet constituting one person. We find none. Other Christians, indeed, tell us that this doctrine is necessary to the harmony of the Scriptures, that some texts ascribe to Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties, and that to reconcile these we must suppose two minds, to which these properties may be referred. In other words, for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult passages, which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly, explain, we must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult, and involving gross absurdity. We are to find our way out of a labyrinth by a clue which conducts us into mazes infinitely more inextricable.
Surely, if Jesus Christ felt that he consisted of two minds, and that this was a leading feature of his religion, his phraseology respecting himself would have been coloured by this peculiarity. The universal language of men is framed upon the idea that one person is one person, is one mind, and one soul; and when the multitude heard this language from the lips of Jesus, they must have taken it in its usual sense, and must have referred to a single soul all which he spoke, unless expressly instructed to interpret it differently. But where do we find this instruction? Where do you meet, in the New Testament, the phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian books, and which necessarily grows from the doctrine of two natures in Jesus? Where does this divine teacher say, "This I speak as God, and this as man; this is true only of my human mind, this only of my divine?"' Where do we find in the Epistles a trace of this strange phraseology? Nowhere. It was not needed in that day. It was demanded by the errors of a later age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Thanks for your comments. In my opinion, the issue is between Jehovah and the translators of the Tanach and other translations that do not use the Divine name. After all, we did not put the Name in the Hebrew text. Jehovah did! To use surrogates such as Adonai or Hashem is certainly a misrepresentation of the text. I ran across this gentleman one day reading the Hebrew text (Stuttgartensia I assume)at a local coffee shop. And I asked him to read Deut.6.4.The famous Shema. And of course he read Adonai in place of Jehovah. I expressed to him that he is not reading the God given text as it was inspired. He was a bit surprised by my insistence. I think he realized my point after a few more text. As to Pharaoh, he did not know Jehovah at all (Ex.5.2) but he soon did. Ex.7.5 Ex.7.17 Yadah anihu YHWH Ex9.16 Here's my point that of course you know. No one has the right to remove it. There is no other name or title that comes close to it's usage. Hardly any other word that appears so frequently in the Hebrew text. I know I'm rambling. One night I had an Adventist friend over and his Pastor, and to make this point I said blind fold me,turn me round and round, and You open my Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia any where, and there is the name.
We're on the same page regarding how we view use of the divine name, and I appreciate your zeal for the divine name. I'm sure you also know that the practice of using surrogates for YHWH goes back to antiquity. It's rooted in a misreading of Exod 20:7 and Leviticus 24:16. But I've found that Dutch Calvinists, of all people, have traditionally had no problem with employing Jehovah as the personal name for God. And while I don't think Yahweh is likely to be the right reconstruction of YHWH, I give some credit to Rotherham (I believe) who at least saw the need to use YHWH in his Bible.
There is evidence of a j sound in Hebrew but no evidence for it in this or other Hebrew names.
If we say it is the traditional spelling in English, is it the traditional pronunciation?
I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that God's name in Hebrew is pronounced with a J. To my understanding, Jehovah's Witnesses don't teach that God's name is pronounced with a J in Hebrew--that is the way it's said in English.
The publications of Witnesses also say we don't know how God's name was pronounced by ancient Jews. The exact pronunciation has been lost.
Fulfilled then will be the words of Zechariah 14:9: “In that day Jehovah will prove to be one, and his name one.” Jehovah alone will be worshiped as the one true God. In “that day” of Jehovah’s Kingdom by the “Prince of Peace,” God will reveal the exact pronunciation of his name. Then there will be just one pronunciation of that holy name by everybody on earth. His name will be one.
I am also looking at Tyndale's rendering of Hebrew names.
Duncan, see https://www.dictionary.com/e/j/
Compare the Latin word, iam.