ETS Report Part 2
Gods and Angels
Posted
Saturday, November 26, 2005
by
Charlie Trimm
There were two papers at ETS (the national meeting of the Evangelical
Theological Society) that were especially thought provoking. They had
to do with what an
Elohim is, and the results were far-reaching. Besides that, the title was fun.
Elohim Have Fallen and Can't Get Up: How the Gods of the Old Testament Turned into the Angels of the Early Church - Ronn Johnson
Understanding Divine Plurality: Why the Earliest Church Applied the Title
theos to both Jesus and Yahweh - Ronn Johnson
The main thesis of the papers is that
elohim has three referances in the OT.
Elohim can refer to a class of beings that we call spirit beings, or to the Creator God (
the spirit
being), or to angels (spirit beings). Or perhaps we can call the class
divine beings. He sees the word used as opposed to
adam (man)
in Numbers 23:19, Job 33:12, Psalm 56:11, Proverbs 3:4, Ezekiel 28:9,
Daniel 2:11, and Hosea 11:9. He says that the plural of Elohim does not
hint at the Trinity, and as a matter of fact he sees no hint of the
Trinity at all in the OT.
The command in the Ten Commandments to not put other gods before YHWH
is not an empty command. God himself speaks of other gods in Exodus
12:12, 20:3-4, 34:14, Judges 6:10, and Psalm 82:6, among other places.
One of the ways he shows that angels are
elohim is
to take the texts that traditionally show a Christophany and say that
they instead actually refer to an angel who is referred as an
elohim, such as Genesis 32 (Jacob) and Judges 13 (Manoah). In the referance to the Jacob story in Hosea 12, the
elohim is referred to as a
mal'ak. Also there, when he returns, he names the place Bethel, but the verb
appeared is in the plural, which means that it refers to the angels, not to God.
But then in the time between OT and NT, people get hesitant about calling other spirit beings besides God
elohim or
theos, so
theos is being reserved only for God. Psalm 8:6 in the LXX is a good example, which is quoted in Hebrews.
He also gets unhappy with translating
mal'akim
in the OT with angel, a Greek loanword. He says that the concept of
angel has not been invented yet, so we should translate the word not
with angel, but with gods or spirit being or divine being.
The second paper applies this thought to the NT and
monotheism. He says that monotheism does not so much strictly refer to
existence (YHWH is the only god in existence), but to who should be
worshipped. "It would have been interesting, I suspect, to hear the
taunt coming from one child to another on the ANE playground: 'My
elohim can beat up your
elohim.' The Israelite child would have been taught to say, 'But my
elohim created your
elohim!'"
"If I were playing a round of golf with Tiger Woods, you could either
say there were two golfers on the course or one golfer (and one
hacker). It is a matter of comparison." "the doctrine should be stated
in terms of comparison, not existence. We need to emphasize how Yahweh
was presented in the OT as a unique
elohim among other, real
elohim."
"I recommend that Trinitarian doctrine can survive without speaking of
a 'oneness' between the traditional 'members of the godhead.' True, the
phraseology of John 10:30 speaks of the special, unique relationship
between Jesus and Yahweh. But Jesus also believed that the kind of
oneness which he shared with the father was meant to be shared
Christian-to-Christian.We would do better to emphasize, as Scripture
does, the special relationship Jesus has with the Father, especially as
prophesied in such texts as Daniel 7:13-14."
The next topic is discussing
theos and Jesus.
Theos is often used with an appellative, which he says is not simply to add data but to describe which god they were talking about.
Theos is also used to describe Satan (2 Cor 4:4). The result of this is that simply showing a verse that call Jesus a
theos is
not sufficient to prove his divinity: all it does is identify him as a
divine being. In the Q & A time, he went so far as to say that God
in John 1:1 should be a little g. He still defended the deity of
Christ, but he found it in the rest of John 1:1-18, instead of just in
John 1:1 by itself. "We are aiming too low - and not mirroring the
emphasis in the NT - if we simply argue for Jesus being
theos. He is, as John said, a unique theos.
So what do y'all think? I'm not convinced yet, but maybe someday I will be.
to add comments