Dale wrote:
Sir Anthony, thanks for stopping by!
Yes, this is a crucial issue. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul says for us Christians there is but one God and one Lord. Readers like Bauckham know that it is impossible to tow the line that there’s no quantifying here, but only simple predication. (i.e. calling the Father “one-God” and calling Jesus “one-Lord”. No, it’s counting. But he concludes that surely something is a God if and only if it is a Lord, and vice-versa. Perhaps part of the idea here is that Paul has mentioned gods and lords in expounding his previous comment about many “so-called gods.”
But your point is that kurios needn’t be a title for YHWH – a point which is obvious from its varied usage in the NT; sometimes it seems to mean no more than “Sir” or “Master.” But it is all the more obvious in Ps 110:1, when translated into Greek. They used kurios for both the divine name, as well as for this adoni who gets exalted – originally the king, in messianic application, Jesus. And this was for them a central text, as you point out; I think you’re right – this is part of the reason why “Lord” came to be the common way to refer to the exalted Jesus in the NT.
I think more needs to be said about “God” and “Lord” in 1 Cor. If memory serves, Bauckham ignores something pointed out by many other commenters, namely that there was a common pagan distinction, none too clear perhaps, between “gods” and “lords.”
Yet another illustration, redundant I know, that Tuggy hasn’t a clue when it comes to basic exegesis. Just for starters, the text which underlies 1 Cor 8:6 isn’t Ps 110:1, but Deut 6:4.
Therefore, that’s the controlling text. That’s what governs the semantic force of “Lord” and “God” in 1 Cor 8:6.
Radio dialogue on the issue of Jesus' Deity between James White and Anthony Buzzard on Premier Christian Radio
ReplyDelete(AUDIO)
http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={8D308942-5CE3-4BB8-9039-B8653F819D33}
Deity of the Messiah debate between Dr. James White and Dr. Michael L. Brown versus Sir Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Good
(VIDEO)
1st of 21 videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L15VqpH-KYs
Links to all 21 videos found here:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=36428&forum=36&9
ReplyDeleteJust for starters, the text which underlies 1 Cor 8:6 isn’t Ps 110:1, but Deut 6:4.
I've heard or read this claim from many sources, but I guess I don't have access to the commentaries that show the connection. Anyone know a resource online that can clearly demonstrate that connection? Or recommend the commentaries that do so?
Here's an online source:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Richard_Bauckham.pdf
Commentators include Fitzmyer, Garland, Thiselton, Ciampa/Rosner.
Monographs include Dunn (Christology in the Making), Fee (Pauline Christology), Hurtado (One God, One Lord); Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, Beale/Carson, eds.
Steve, thanks for the link and recommendations. :-)) I've just finished reading that Richard Bauckham article. I'll just say that the arguments makes help reassure me of Trinitarianism, but I can understand how a Unitarian would consider Bauckham's arguments as weak.
ReplyDeleteUnitarians have a tendency to appeal to extra-Biblical sources when it builds their case. Yet in critiquing Bauckham's article, they probably would chide him for being overly dependent on extra-Biblical sources in order to incrementally build his case.
Concerning the passage of 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Bauckham admits "...the fully decisive way in which he has here included Jesus in the Jewish definition of the unique identity of the one God can be appreciated only in the light of the account of Jewish monotheism that we offered in the first section of this paper."
But I suspect that Unitarians would consider the first section as question-begging. As well as inappropriately using passages that aren't clearly referring to Christ as the subject.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am reposting this from the other thread just in case Tuggy doesn't misses it.
ReplyDeleteI want to turn Tuggy's argument against his beliefs. He said:
Of course, if Jesus were YHWH himself, or were equally divine, he wouldn't need to have such authority granted to him by another.
Tuggy's claim proves too much, since it ends up proving that YHWH himself can't be YHWH either! Note the following passage:
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage." Deuteronomy 32:8-9
YHWH's ALLOTTED inheritance is Jacob/Israel? Allotted by whom?
Here is another:
"Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!" Psalm 82:8
YHWH shall arise to inherit the nations? Really? I thought YHWH already owns everything? How can he, therefore, inherit or be allotted anything?
In fact, is Tuggy aware that liberal, critical scholars use Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 to prove that the Israelites initially believed that YHWH was one of the sons of El, and therefore a subordinate deity? These critics argue that it was only later in Israelite history that YHWH and El became submerged into each other. Case in point: http://religionatthemargins.com/2011/07/the-most-heiser-yahweh-and-elyon-in-psalm-82-and-deuteronomy-32/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thomstark+%28thomstark%29
Now if Tuggy has no problem with YHWH disincarnate inheriting or receiving things, then why in the world would he have a problem with YHWH incarnate being appointed or receiving an inheritance?
If YHWH disincarnate can still be the only true God despite receiving or inheriting [from] his own creation, then why can't Jesus be the only true God even though he has been appointed by his Father as Heir of all things?
Can't Jesus receive back what he voluntarily set aside after having humbled himself for a season by taking on the status of a slave in order to accomplish the redemption of God's people? If not, why not?
Steve, of course I agree that in some sense Deut 6:4 is in view there. That affects nothing I said. This is a sad cheap shot.
ReplyDeleteHere's a public service announcement for triabloguers.
:-)
Dale said...
ReplyDelete"Steve, of course I agree that in some sense Deut 6:4 is in view there."
That's like predicting Tuesday's weather on Wednesday: "It's going to rain yesterday!"
Kinda belated.
Buzzard posts a comment claiming that Ps 110:1 underlies 1 Cor 8:6. You post a comment in which you agree with his analysis. I point out your elementary blunder. Then, after the fact, you say that "in some sense" you agreed with me all along. Right. Sure.
"That affects nothing I said."
Of course it does. Buzzard's analysis, which you rubber-stamped, was based on Ps 110:1 using a word other than Yahweh.
"This is a sad cheap shot."
You need to learn how to be honest with yourself–and others.
Nice. You jump to a conclusion and hurl an accusation, and the other guy is at fault for not saying everything up front. Yeah, quite an "elementary blunder" on my part. What was I thinking!?
ReplyDelete"underlies"
Steve, others don't agree with your assumption that some one OT text "controls" the reading of that 1 Cor passage. Buzzard points out not one other text (zoinks - wrong one!!!! you object) but rather to a whole pattern of usage of "kurios," yes much influenced by Ps 110:1.