by badboy 15 Replies latest jw friends
Didier:
I certainly agree that your opinion has merits.
Nonetheless, by Paul using such a prooftext he opens up an OT title that was ascribed to God for application to Christ. A similar kind of application is made in Hebrews 1 and 2 (whoever the author was).
Hence, sidestepping the Trinity debate for a moment, there is at least some confusion about Christ's position as a divine being, that isn't as clear cut as the JWs would like.
thank everyone for your replies!
Badboy.
No that does NOT mean that jesus is God the father.
Sad Emo picked up on your error.
You will find plenty of scriptural evidence which points to the deity of Christ but you won't find anything to support the idea that the Son is the same PERSON as the Father. That indeed is modalism/Sabellianism.
Scripture doesn't support this. The Church doesn't teach or believe this. The Creeds do not say this.
However this is EXACTLY the straw man arguement JWs use to disprove the diety of Christ. They "prove" that Jesus isn't the Father and use that to reject the Deity of Christ.
HALLELUJAH!
filed
A more difficult issue is whether Paul actually reads theology into the Septuagint substitution and equates the "Lord" Jesus with Yahweh, or is simply using the Greek text of Joel as it stands, as a formal proof-text, not caring about the Hebrew Vorlage. I personally incline to the latter view because (1) there is little evidence that Paul was familiar with the Hebrew text, hence aware of the Septuagint substitution of kurios for Yahweh and (2) he never really equates his "Christ Jesus," even as the heavenly "Son of God," with "God" in the strictest sense (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24 etc.). To him kurios works essentially as a title for Christ, not God (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6).
Would Paul tho have needed to look at the Hebrew text? A few verses earlier than Joel 2:32 LXX, Paul would have found such expressions as to onoma kuriou tou theou humón "the name of the Lord your God" (v. 26) and egó kurios ho theos humón kai ouk estin eti plén emou "I am the Lord your God and there is none beside me" (v. 27), and similarly in 3:17 LXX he would have read the "Lord" declare that he is kurios ho theos humón kataskénon en Zión orei hagió "the Lord your God encamping in the holy mountain of Zion". This is somewhat similar to how Paul uses Isaiah 45:23 in reference to Christ in Philippians 2:9-10, despite the presence of ton theon in the LXX version of the verse and the declaration two verses earlier that "I am God and there is no other" (egó eimi ho theos kai ouk estin allos; 45:21).
Of course, Paul could have appropriated the texts in whatever way he saw fit and it is a good point that he usually uses kurios in reference to the Son, not the Father (but cf. Romans 12:19 and 14:11, which compares very well with Philippians 2:10), but I find it a little difficult to accept that he was unaware of the theological import of these scriptures and used them without theological connotations...particularly in light of Philippians 2:10 which implies that in Christ's glorification he was accorded the highest name and status....leaving unexplained how this is to be reconciled with the Father's own status.
Leolaia
A few verses earlier than Joel 2:32 LXX, Paul would have found such expressions as to onoma kuriou tou theou humón "the name of the Lord your God" (v. 26) and egó kurios ho theos humón kai ouk estin eti plén emou "I am the Lord your God and there is none beside me" (v. 27), and similarly in 3:17 LXX he would have read the "Lord" declare that he is kurios ho theos humón kataskénon en Zión orei hagió "the Lord your God encamping in the holy mountain of Zion". This is somewhat similar to how Paul uses Isaiah 45:23 in reference to Christ in Philippians 2:9-10, despite the presence of ton theon in the LXX version of the verse and the declaration two verses earlier that "I am God and there is no other" (egó eimi ho theos kai ouk estin allos; 45:21).
It is quite unlikely that Paul (or other NT writers for that matter) would draw such quotations from a reading of the full text of either Joel or Isaiah, even in the LXX. He too was quoting "verses" either from memory or from testimonia (or from memory of testimonia). So the actual OT context of such excerpts has little bearing, I'm afraid, on his interpretation.
Of course the Septuagint equation of kurios (especially anarthrous) with theos was common knowledge for LXX readers/hearers and it can be found in the NT (especially in LXX-like passages such as Luke 1--2, where the NWT substitution of "Jehovah," although factually wrong, does not alter the meaning). But reviewing the Pauline uses of kurios it strikes me that Paul avoids it. To him the Father is theos and the kurios is Jesus. Against Johannine or post-Pauline literature, or Hebrews, he doesn't toy with the idea of calling the Son theos, and I fail to see any unambiguous instance where he would call the Father kurios. Perhaps in the full quotation of Romans 14:11, but then it is not in a christological argument -- and when it is, in Philippians 2:10, theos leaves way to Ièsous and kurios.
