Trinity: Episode IV
If you who haven't been following the comments, you're missing out. In particular, Dale Tuggy paid me the high compliment of linking here from his blog, trinities--a discussion of the same subject, with one exciting difference: Dale knows what he's talking about. Seriously, check it out.
Okay, let's recap. In my last post, I set up the inconsistent tetrad. For easier reference, I'm going to give the claims more mnemonic names:
(GW) Only God is worship-worthy.
(GH) God is not human.
(JH) Jesus is human.
(JW) Jesus is worship-worthy.
Let me quickly recant on one point. I spoke in a couple places as if orthodoxy would constrain us to explanations in which Jesus is identically God. On reflection, I think that probably can't be right, for the reasons in my first post on the subject. If orthodoxy really says "Jesus = God", then orthodoxy is confused. More likely, orthodoxy doesn't really say that--if indeed there is something out there called "orthodoxy" which is saying non-trivial things on the subject.
There's more to be said about the two parthood theories, but I don't get the sense that any of us really likes them that much. If somebody wants to go to bat for one of them or propose a refinement, then by all means.
**
Okay, so. Dale proposes a bold and clean solution to the difficulty: deny GW. But we want to do this in a way that preserves the sense of the first commandment. And there's a pretty neat way to do this.
Key word: context. If I say, "There's only beer in the fridge", I don't mean that beer is strictly the only thing in the fridge--there's air, after all, and beer bottles. The point of my statement is to rule out particular sorts of alternative things you might otherwise think were in the fridge--like cheese, or peanut butter.
Now when scripture says things like "Only worship God", the point is to rule out particular sorts of alternative things you might otherwise worship--other gods. Don't worship Baal. Don't worship Ashoreth. Don't worship Ra. But should you worship Jesus? He isn't one of the Ancient Near East deities, so no problem.
Of course, Dale isn't an ANE deity either. Doesn't mean we get to worship him (though after that argument against Son-modalism, we may be tempted). The doctrine about worship runs a little deeper than that, and we're gonna need to flesh it out.
After a quick perusal through BibleGateway, it looks to me like there are three main categories of things you shouldn't worship.
The first two arguably belong in the same category (the prophets like to talk about "gods of wood and stone"). Maybe the third one belongs in that category too (sun- and moon-gods). But we may want to extend those categories to include earthlier things. Read through Deuteronomy 4.15-20. Does this forbid worshiping animals? Or men and women? It doesn't say, precisely--maybe because that's not the sort of thing people would have thought to do--but my definite sense is that animal-worship is not okay. Any dissenters out there?
If I'm right, then even granting that GW is weakened by context, we still have a problem. Because as I'm reading the text, the weaker version of GW still entails
(HW) Humans are not worship-worthy.
Same dilemma. I admit, though, that HW rings a fair bit hollower than GW, in the light of the New Testament. But if that generalization isn't true, then what is the rule that prohibits us from worshiping Dale? (Or John from worshiping the angel in Revelation 19?)
If Dale's solution does work for worship-worthiness, it still doesn't answer the parallel problems for the other attributes I allege could fill that slot in the argument. But it does present a strategy for answering them. Is God really the numerically unique entity that can forgive sins? Is God really the numerically unique judge of the world, the numerically unique ruler of creation, the numerically unique source of life? Maybe not. (Or maybe Jesus really isn't some of these things.)
Does this make polytheists of us all? I'm not sure how far I'm willing to take the idea that "monotheism is a verbal issue". If Bert thinks that there's more than one all-powerful, all-wise ruler of creation deserving of praise--or at any rate something like that--then I don't think Bert's a monotheist no matter how you cut it. Surely the proclamation that "the LORD is God, there is no other" means more than the trivial claim that "Only the LORD is the LORD"--i.e. anything identical to the LORD is identical to the LORD. I'm not sure exactly how much uniqueness we can give up before we can no longer say truly and non-trivially, "I believe in one god"--but there is a limit, and seems to me worship-worthiness at least runs pretty close to it.
Okay, let's recap. In my last post, I set up the inconsistent tetrad. For easier reference, I'm going to give the claims more mnemonic names:
(GW) Only God is worship-worthy.
(GH) God is not human.
(JH) Jesus is human.
(JW) Jesus is worship-worthy.
Let me quickly recant on one point. I spoke in a couple places as if orthodoxy would constrain us to explanations in which Jesus is identically God. On reflection, I think that probably can't be right, for the reasons in my first post on the subject. If orthodoxy really says "Jesus = God", then orthodoxy is confused. More likely, orthodoxy doesn't really say that--if indeed there is something out there called "orthodoxy" which is saying non-trivial things on the subject.
There's more to be said about the two parthood theories, but I don't get the sense that any of us really likes them that much. If somebody wants to go to bat for one of them or propose a refinement, then by all means.
**
Okay, so. Dale proposes a bold and clean solution to the difficulty: deny GW. But we want to do this in a way that preserves the sense of the first commandment. And there's a pretty neat way to do this.
Key word: context. If I say, "There's only beer in the fridge", I don't mean that beer is strictly the only thing in the fridge--there's air, after all, and beer bottles. The point of my statement is to rule out particular sorts of alternative things you might otherwise think were in the fridge--like cheese, or peanut butter.
Now when scripture says things like "Only worship God", the point is to rule out particular sorts of alternative things you might otherwise worship--other gods. Don't worship Baal. Don't worship Ashoreth. Don't worship Ra. But should you worship Jesus? He isn't one of the Ancient Near East deities, so no problem.
Of course, Dale isn't an ANE deity either. Doesn't mean we get to worship him (though after that argument against Son-modalism, we may be tempted). The doctrine about worship runs a little deeper than that, and we're gonna need to flesh it out.
After a quick perusal through BibleGateway, it looks to me like there are three main categories of things you shouldn't worship.
- Other gods
- Idols
- Astronomical bodies
The first two arguably belong in the same category (the prophets like to talk about "gods of wood and stone"). Maybe the third one belongs in that category too (sun- and moon-gods). But we may want to extend those categories to include earthlier things. Read through Deuteronomy 4.15-20. Does this forbid worshiping animals? Or men and women? It doesn't say, precisely--maybe because that's not the sort of thing people would have thought to do--but my definite sense is that animal-worship is not okay. Any dissenters out there?
If I'm right, then even granting that GW is weakened by context, we still have a problem. Because as I'm reading the text, the weaker version of GW still entails
(HW) Humans are not worship-worthy.
Same dilemma. I admit, though, that HW rings a fair bit hollower than GW, in the light of the New Testament. But if that generalization isn't true, then what is the rule that prohibits us from worshiping Dale? (Or John from worshiping the angel in Revelation 19?)
If Dale's solution does work for worship-worthiness, it still doesn't answer the parallel problems for the other attributes I allege could fill that slot in the argument. But it does present a strategy for answering them. Is God really the numerically unique entity that can forgive sins? Is God really the numerically unique judge of the world, the numerically unique ruler of creation, the numerically unique source of life? Maybe not. (Or maybe Jesus really isn't some of these things.)
Does this make polytheists of us all? I'm not sure how far I'm willing to take the idea that "monotheism is a verbal issue". If Bert thinks that there's more than one all-powerful, all-wise ruler of creation deserving of praise--or at any rate something like that--then I don't think Bert's a monotheist no matter how you cut it. Surely the proclamation that "the LORD is God, there is no other" means more than the trivial claim that "Only the LORD is the LORD"--i.e. anything identical to the LORD is identical to the LORD. I'm not sure exactly how much uniqueness we can give up before we can no longer say truly and non-trivially, "I believe in one god"--but there is a limit, and seems to me worship-worthiness at least runs pretty close to it.
Posted by Jeff on Thursday, August 03, 2006
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Vynette, You say we should "embrace the Hebrew Jesus of Nazareth presented for us in the New Testament." Yet, in the New Testament, Jesus is clearly worshipped by his various individuals and groups, and he never tells those who worship him that they are wrong to do so. If Jesus was truly presenting himself as a Hebrew prophet and Messiah, rather than a person worthy of worship (ie, God himself), why did he not refuse or rebuke those who worshipped him? He was perfectly capable and willing to rebuke those who got other things wrong, why not this one, that would so clearly contradict Hebrew teachings?
I think you are right that idolotry consists of worshipping the created rather than the creator, but I am not yet convinced that Jesus was entirely created rather than self-existent.
Jeff, I apologize for not participating more in this conversation. I'm absolutely fascinated by what you're saying, but the philosophical forms are still getting in the way of my understanding exactly what you are meaning all the time. I wish I had taken more philosophy!
That said... can you explain GH for me? Does GH entail that God cannot be/become human, and if so, why? How are we defining what it means to be human? You seem to come close to addressing this at a few points in early posts, so maybe I missed something reading them this time around.
Vynette, that doesn't seem quite right. You're right that proskuneô has a wide range of semantic meanings, but that's not the same as having a wide range of meanings within a given culture. If you're a Persian, yes, one may proskunein to any social superior. But if you're a Greek or a Jew, you would only do that to a god. c.f. Alexander's experience with the practice, or its use in Revelation alone.
But that doesn't really seem to be the point. Proskuneô is used in the Gospels very infrequently (Matt. 28:9 is the only instance I'm aware of). I think the case for our Jewish church fathers believing that Jesus was God is more properly built upon Jesus claiming attributes that only God, and no prophet, is supposed to have - such as the right to forgive sins (e.g., Mark 2:7) and eternality (e.g., John 8:58).
yay! comments!
First, in response to Eric's point. Do people worship Jesus? It looks like Eric's search tool was being persnickety, because there are several instances in the gospels when Jesus is the object of proskuneô. Quick run-down:
Matthew 2.1-11 (as Eric points out, this case is not strong evidence, since (a) Jesus is an infant, and (b) the worshipers are probably Persian), 14.33, 28.9, 28.17, Luke 24.52 (also a bit weaker, I guess, since the worship takes place after Jesus has left), John 9.38.
It's true that this doesn't happen like all the time, and also I note that these references are all in the later gospels. But still, I'd say the evidence taken together strongly indicates that it was held by at least some of the writers of the New Testament that Jesus was a proper object of proskuneô-- and a bit more tenuously, that this belief was grounded in Jesus' own words and behavior. So I'm gonna stand by JW for now.
Now to Vynette's point. Are things besides God proskuneô-worthy? Vynette is quite right that the semantic range of the verb includes cases where the object is creaturely--but that's different from the claim that creatures are proper (appropriate, right) objects of proskuneô.
(Illustration:
(1) It is within the semantic range of the verb "eat" to take Eric as an object, as in "Those hungry people are going to eat Eric."
(2) Eric is a proper object of eating; i.e., it is right and good to eat Eric.
I'd say Claim 1 is true, and Claim 2 is false.)
It's the second kind of claim that we're immediately concerned with, and I think it's a hard case to make here. I'd say Vynette's example of Revelation 19.10 presents the standard position of the early Jewish Christians pretty clearly:
"At this I fell at [the angel's] feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!" ("theô proskunêson")
Looks to me like the angel is not a proper object of proskuneô. Dissent? Consider for comparison Matthew 4.9-10 ("gar kurion ton theon sou proskunêseis..."), and the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Deuteronomy 4, for starters. Vynette, I'm afraid I'm not convinced that the New Testament writers considered creatures to be proskuneô-worthy.
This doesn't solve the intial dilemma, but it's good that people are questioning the evidence that led to it. Thank you.
Patti,
"the philosophical forms are still getting in the way of my understanding"
oh no! that means i've failed! if things are unclear, then please, by all means press the point. the goal here is clarity.
"That said... can you explain GH for me? Does GH entail that God cannot be/become human, and if so, why?"
Well, I can try. You're right that I've left that pretty opaque. Probably this warrants a post of its own. Because you're right, there's possibly something funny going on with tenses there. GH isn't supposed to (directly) entail any modal claims like "God cannot be human", and whatever's going on with the tenses, it's supposed to be consistent between GH and JH. If you want to take this idea further, then let's do it.
"How are we defining what it means to be human?"
I'm not defining "human", because I think we all know what it means. It's that attribute that you, me, and Jesus have which dogs, rocks, and God don't. Is that good enough for our present purposes?
Alan,
Thanks for posting.
I'm afraid I'm having some trouble understanding. Are you saying that Jesus starts out life as part-God, and then through life the God part takes over the rest of him? I guess I just can't see how this makes things any easier. Maybe it would help me if you pointed out which of the four claims (if any) you're denying or re-explaining?
Oh! I nearly forgot to bring this out. I think Vynette has brought to our attention a very good answer to the question I raised in my post, "what is the rule that prohibits us from worshiping Dale?" The passage Vynette pointed out was Romans 1.25--St. Paul's summary of the evil of idolatry is that "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" That sounds to me like a very good replacement for my rule HW:
(CW) Creatures are not worship-worthy.
Then we have an escape-route from the dilemma that looks better and better. The new four propositions are CW, GH, JH, and JW. GH and JH together imply that Jesus is not identically God, and JW and CW together imply that Jesus is not a creature. We still have some metaphysics to explicate (how can something other than God be uncreated?), but so far this does seem like the clearest and most plausible explanation I've seen so far.
The main hurdle to it is accepting that GW is false, strictly speaking, and that it really is intended to express something like CW. And St. Paul's gloss in Romans 1 does suggest this interpretation. Are you with me?
"I'm not defining "human", because I think we all know what it means. It's that attribute that you, me, and Jesus have which dogs, rocks, and God don't. Is that good enough for our present purposes?"
I'm not sure that it is. To a certain extent this has to do more with incarnation than trinity, for me the two are pretty closely tied: to what extent Christ's divinity and his humanity can coexist is going to determine whether we can even think about the trinity. If Christ isn't divine, then why bother thinking about the trinity? Also, how we think about the incarnational paradoxes may have an effect on how we think about trinitarian ones. Or, those are ideas I've always associated.
Take what you've been saying about what has been created. Created-ness to a certain extent is part of the definition of being human; yet clearly at least part of Christ is created--his body. If Christ is God (which is begging the question I'm sure), but also inhabits a created body, is he creature or created? Both? This is what I think led to my question about how we are defining what it means to be human: are we defining it in terms of the soul or the body or a combination or what?
As I write this, I feel like there's something wrong with what I'm saying, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I'll chalk it up to the lateness of the hour until someone else figures it out for me. =)
Just a quick observation from a semantical point of view: If "God is Jesus" sounds odd or unacceptable to people, then very likely the logical form of "Jesus is God" in their mouths does not involve two singular terms connected by an identity predicate. Similar considerations apply to formulations of the Trinity in Greek in the first few centuries of Christianity.
Post a Comment
<< Home