lsayre wrote: ↑Wed Dec 27, 2017 8:26 am
Ben, do you believe that this indicates that the "Two Powers in Heaven" perception is likely the position held by the earliest (perhaps pre captivity) Hebrews?
I am still thinking about all of that, but I
do think we find indications in the Hebrew scriptures that there was, for some (at least), a chief deity named El, who had either a son, Yahweh, or many children, including Yahweh. At some point the
Shema (Deuteronomy 6.4-5) and other passages forced El and Yahweh together as a single deity, but would the former ways have been completely abandoned, especially among those who were not the religious elites? The historical books of the Hebrew scriptures are full of examples (whether historical or not) of the people
not abandoning the old ways.
Paul gives us his own reworked version of the
Shema, if you will, in a sort of poetic form (what follows here derives in no small part from Richard Bauckham):
1 Corinthians 8.5-6: 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
8.6 ἀλλ᾽ ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν,
καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
I am not sure our categories are fully able to express what Paul seems to be saying here. Is he a binitarian, a ditheist? He says that there is only one God. Is he a strict monotheist, then, or at least a henotheist? He says that there is (also) one Lord, who seems to be a different personage.
And notice the prepositions he uses here for God and for Jesus: "God, the Father,
from whom (ἐξ οὗ) are all things, and we exist
for him (εἰς αὐτόν)," and "Jesus Christ,
through whom (δι᾽ οὗ) are all things, and we exist
through him (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ)." Greek and Roman philosophers had a tradition of using prepositions like this to speak of God or of the idea of divinity. For example:
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 4.23: 23 Πᾶν μοι συναρμόζει ὃ σοὶ εὐάρμοστόν ἐστιν, ὦ κόσμε· οὐδέν μοι πρόωρον οὐδὲ ὄψιμον ὃ σοὶ εὔκαιρον. πᾶν μοι καρπὸς ὃ φέρουσιν αἱ σαὶ ὧραι, ὦ φύσις· ἐκ σοῦ πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα, εἰς σὲ πάντα. ἐκεῖνος μέν φησιν· «<ὦ> πόλι φίλη Κέκροπος»· σὺ δὲ οὐκ ἐρεῖς· «ὦ πόλι φίλη Διός»; / 23 Whatsoever thy seasons bear, shall ever by me be esteemed as happy fruit, and increase. O Nature! From thee are all things, in thee all things subsist, and to thee all tend. Could he say of Athens, Thou lovely city of Cecrops; and shalt not thou say of the world, Thou lovely city of God?
Pseudo-Aristotle, On the World 6: 6 It remains now to discuss summarily, as the rest has been discussed, the cause that holds the world together; for in describing the cosmos, if not in detail, at least sufficiently to convey an outline, it would be wrong for us to omit altogether that which is supreme in the cosmos. It is indeed an ancient idea, traditional among all mankind, that all things are from God and are constituted for us through God [ἐκ θεοῦ πάντα καὶ διὰ θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκεν], and nothing is self-sufficient if deprived of his preserving influence.
There is also
Asclepius 34, attributed to Apuleius, which says that
omnia enim ab eo et in ipso et per ipsum ("for all things are from him and in him and through him," referring to God,
deus).
Whereas the philosophers take these prepositional phrases and apply them to a single idea of divinity, Paul seems to split them up between God the Father and Jesus Christ. It is less as if God and Jesus are two different gods, "two powers in heaven," so to speak, and more as if they are two aspects of the
same god, if that makes sense. And yet, in other respects, Paul very clearly calls Jesus the son of God (and God the father of Jesus), as if they were two members of the same pantheon, like Zeus and Ares: father and son.
It really is no wonder that the later Trinitarians wrestled so much with every single little detail of the exact language used to describe these divine relationships. And it is not even as though Paul took what was crystal clear from the Hebrew scriptures and muddied it; there were things which were already a bit confusing in the LXX, for instance:
Isaiah 45.18a, 23, 25: 18a Thus says Yahweh, who made the heaven, this God who created the earth...: 23 "By myself I swear, righteousness shall surely proceed out of my mouth; my words shall not be frustrated, that to me [ἐμοὶ] every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall swear by God [τῷ θεῷ]. .... 25 By the Lord shall they be justified, and in God shall all the seed of the children of Israel be glorified."
This is obviously one of the passages which lies behind the Jesus Hymn in Philippians 2.5-11, and here already we have what seems to be Yahweh, the one speaking, both claiming in verse 18 that he is one person, both God and Lord, but then speaking about God in the third person in verse 23. Paul follows suit while quoting this passage elsewhere:
Romans 14.9-11: 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall give praise to God."
In Philippians 2.10-11, granted, it is Jesus who is receiving both kinds of homage (knees bowing and tongues confessing), but at least the second kind of homage (tongues confessing) is "to the glory of the Father," possibly reflecting this division in Isaiah 45.25 between the Lord receiving the first kind and God receiving the other.
I find it odd (awkward) to believe that the exalted name would be the same as the name prior to exaltation. This because the word exaltation in and of itself seems to imply a higher state of being than that which existed prior to exaltation, as opposed to a restoration of the exact same status as before.
That is rather my sense of it, as well. I think it makes more sense, and the wording of the passage itself seems to suggest, that the name bestowed at the exaltation should be new to the figure receiving it. I am, however, as yet unable to completely rule out the other interpretation in a strict logical sense.