Theological Suicide

Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”   That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.   For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Romans 11:19-21 ESV

Neither will he spare you – We have read these verses for years, but I wonder if we ever understood them. Yes, we congratulate ourselves for being the “wild branches.” We are grafted in (by God’s grace, of course). And we go on to conclude that those poor, unbelieving Jews are now suffering under some kind of spiritual drought because they don’t acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah. Even if we’re not “Messianic,” we still think that Paul’s glorious statement of inclusion applied to us! We are the blessed ones.

But step back a minute and ask yourself, “What does Paul mean when he writes, ‘stand fast through faith’?” Hopefully we have learned something about Paul’s conception of “faith” in these years of investigation. Now we understand that Paul was a fully Torah-observant Jew, committed to strict monotheism, devoted to the Jewish way of living and completely dedicated to Yeshua as the promised Jewish Messiah. If we have learned this about Paul, then the answer to our question should be something like this: Faith is not a noun. It is a verb that describes a life totally pledged to living according to God’s instructions. That means our doctrines and our practice must represent what God revealed in his prophets Moses and Yeshua. That means, just for clarity’s sake, we no longer espouse those ideas that have crept into Christianity from Greek or pagan roots. That means we reject the notion that God is not interested in “law” (Torah) and has replaced this way of life with “grace.” That means we recognize the Trinitarian dogma is in complete opposition to the monotheism of first century Jews despite the fact that all the earliest believers in the Messiah were Jews. That means we stop separating over the miniscule details of alternate exegesis and pursue unity, that great theme of Pauline literature, as best we can. That means we act before we exegete. That means our lives conform to the characteristics found in Exodus 34:6-7.

Why do we treat “faith” in this supposedly radical way? (It is radical only because it isn’t aligned with Christian dogma). Because of these words: oude sou pheisetai (“neither will he spare you”). Did you get that? If faith isn’t about doctrinal purity, if faith is about acting according to the instructions given by God through Moses (and Yeshua proclaims that it is), then who do you suppose will be broken off in the end? Do you think that those who profess “faith” but deny the fundamental proclamation of Deuteronomy 6:4 will survive? Do you imagine those who believe themselves grafted in but refuse to be nourished by the Jewish root will be welcomed? Can you convince yourself that the adoption of Greek thinking by the Church guarantees your salvation simply because you have been told it does? Can you continue to pretend that Paul was a Christian like you? Good luck with that. No one is saved by committing theological suicide.

Topical Index: oude sou pheisetai, neither will he spare you, Romans 11:19-21

Subscribe
Notify of
24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jerry and Lisa

Shame and curious. There were at least 4 comments posted in response to this particular, strong, challenging, and controversial Today’s Word post, and then, somehow, for some reason, they were all just wiped out, deleted, gone…..and with no explanation.

Mark Randall

Yes, that may be true. The hosting service we use transferred everything to a new SSD (solid state drive) server. The website was actually down for about 3 total hours over the last day. It’s quite possible that comments were somehow lost in that process. Maybe those that commented will be so kind to repost them.

Rest assure though, comments are never deleted. Sometimes things just happen. Sorry for the inconvenience.

George Kraemer

I think I said something along the lines of……….”I am a huge admirer of Paul when he is properly understood in totality and in the manner of his day. Has everyone halted the exegesis and seen the light on the hill by understanding Matthew 5:14-17 or has the ship been abandoned to dogma and doctrine?”

The space between the letters (of the SDD thingy) I guess.

Craig

I’d mentioned in an earlier comment about the meaning of lords in 1 Cor 8:5 being important in understanding Paul’s statement about “one God, the Father” and the paralleled “one Lord, Jesus Christ” in 8:6. One must keep in mind that at least some (most?) of the Corinthian converts were non-Jews or Hellenistic Jews. In the mystery cults, “lords” was the usual title for “gods” (Lord Sarapis, e.g.).

Paul B

One must also keep in mind, as Daniel Gruber in his work Copernicus and the Jews has noted, that the apostolic writers were not necessarily using conversational koine Greek, but Jewish-LXX Greek.

Craig

Certainly, there are many times YHVH is translated ho theos (“God”) in the LXX, and many times YHVH Elohim is translated kyrios ho theos (“Lord God”). But, note that YHVH is rendered ho kyrios (“Lord”) in Gen 4:3, yet in the very next verse (4:4) YHVH is ho theos (“God”). Que curioso, no? It seems to me that, with respect to YHVH, the terms “Lord” and “God” were at times interchangeable in the Septuagint. Is that what Paul is getting at in 1 Cor 8:5-6?

robert lafoy

Something to consider Craig. In verse 3, Cain is doing the sacrifice “too” YHVH as his “Lord”. In verse 4, it’s actually YHWH that shows up as “The God” and analyzes the sacrifices. Perhaps the “translators” were giving more than a word for word and were attempting to capture the “relational aspect” apparent in the Hebrew. Note that the shema plays that out as well. The Lord (our God, as our Lord) The Lord (that Lord of us) is one. In short it attempts to show a distinction in representation of office.

Laurita Hayes

Thank you Robert. I wish I knew what you know. You bless me a lot!

Craig

To be sure that I’m following you, when humans related to YHWH (and vice versa?) in some fashion, then the LXX would render it “LORD”, but when YHWH is used in narrative it is translated “God”. Is that correct?

Robert lafoy

It’s just an observation, shoting from the hip of sorts. I was looking for the commonality in the translation and it’s kinda what “pops” up. I don’t have access to the LXX so I’m not able to pursue it but in the 2 points you brought up it seems to apply. I know that the comment regarding Romans 11 is a different issue but it also has the same format. But yes, it would seem that, at least in these 2 or 3 instances, that the term God (theos) is used as a term for The God (YHVH) as God, whereas Lord (kurios) is used of Him in reference to Him being our Lord. (Master whom we serve) perhaps you have the capability to search out whether this is consistent or not, I’m not geared up for that. Let me know please.

robert lafoy

BTW, you’ll notice that the difference in the translation in the account of Cain sacrificing is that when it’s translated “Lord” in verse 3, YHWH has a lamed in front of it. (simplest translation is “to or according to YHWH). In verse 4 its just YHWH as a “personage” (?) (not sure how else to express that)

robert lafoy

So, I found an online interlinear version of the LXX. In Genesis 2 vss. 7 and 8, in the Hebrew, it’s YHWH Elohim who formed man and in vs. 8 it’s also YHWH Elohim who “planted” a garden. Same title in the Hebrew. In the LXX vs. 7 is rendered ho theos (the god) (in the capacity of creating, man) in vs. 8, it’s translated as kurios ho theos. (lord god) in the capacity of “planting” a garden. (being the “master” of the garden, not as creator) IF, the new testament follows that form, the kurios (lord) of 1 cor. 8:6 is the one who is head or master over. That’s consistent with the declaration that He is the head of the body and is also consistent with what follows in, “the all things are through (di) Him and we (by) di, through Him”. As mediator and Lord, He makes the decisions of what’s needed and what’s given as well as our position in Messiah as through Him.

Craig

I don’t have much time at present to do even a cursory study, but I did look in Isaiah, specifically 40:3, which has two occurrences of YHWH, the first of which is rendered “LORD” (kyrios), the second “God” (ho theos). It seems to me like each immediate context is a reference to the same basic thing, one paraphrasing the other: make a path for YHWH. And this very verse is paraphrased by the Baptist in Mark 1:3 in reference to Yeshua.

Laurita Hayes

So, Craig, could that perhaps then have been understood by the Baptist’s audience as “making way” for both Creator and Master? This conversation is fascinating me.

Craig

Laurita,

I don’t think so, as Mark only uses one of the “LORD”s there (and, to correct myself: it was the narrator paraphrasing Isaiah in reference to the Baptist, who will “make straight paths” for the LORD, i.e. Yeshua). Also, I don’t see the ‘Creator’ aspect in the context of Isaiah 40:3 in either of the YHWH occurrences, the second of which is “God” (ho theos) in the LXX.

As an aside: I received notification of your response to my much earlier comment (@ January 25, 2018 7:59 am) well after the fact, and I haven’t had time to adequately ponder it in order to respond.

Craig

OK, scratch that!! There’s only one occurrence of YHWH, which is translated LORD in the LXX; the second occurrence in Is 40:3 is Elohim, which is rendered “God” in the LXX. I should know better than to multi-task…

Sorry for the confusion.

Laurita Hayes

Adjusting accordingly. Thank you again.

Craig

It may be more beneficial to take an extended passage with various usages to get a feel for whether or not a distinction can be made between the translation of LORD (kyrios) and God (ho theos). For convenience here, I’ll just use either “LORD” or “God” instead of the Greek, since it seems that the former never is preceded by the article, while the latter always is. I’ve selected Isaiah 39:5-40:31. The reader should be able to follow this in an English translation—for the most part, hopefully.

39:5 = LORD sabaōth [from Hebrew YHWH ṣᵉḇāʾôṯ:]
39:6 = God
39:8 = LORD
40:2 = LORD
40:3 = LORD (2nd “God” is from Elohim)
40:5 = LORD; LORD*
40:7 = God
40:10 = Lord LORD [from ʾᵃḏōnāy YHWH]
40:13 = LORD (see my comment below @ January 25, 2018 7:59 am)
40:27 = God
40:28 = God; God [from Hebrew ʾᵉlōhê ʿôlām yhwh]
40:31 = God

*The LXX in 40:5 contains a clause not found in the Hebrew, which, in English, is ‘the salvation of God’. That clause precedes the final clause “For the mouth of the LORD has spoken”.

Craig

Even more curious is the Shema (Deut 6:4) itself in the LXX:

Kyrios ho theos hēmōn Kyrios heis estin
Lord (the) God our, Lord one is
The Lord our God, the Lord is one

The bold corresponds, respectively, to the Hebrew YHVH Elohim and YHVH.

Craig

Paul’s doxology in Romans 11:33-36 provides another interesting point of contact here. Verse 33 speaks of “God”, then 34 changes the referent to “Lord”. Verse 34 is a very close direct quotation of LXX Isaiah 40:13 [closer than the Hebrew, which uses ruach, while the LXX uses nous, “mind”], with YHVH in the Hebrew corresponding to kyrios, “Lord”, in the LXX. Verse 35 is an allusion to Job 41:11 and 35:17, and the original referents (by larger contexts) in the Hebrew are, of course, YHVH, while the Greek in Romans substitutes pronouns, which would lead us back to “Lord” as the antecedent.

Essentially, to simplify, all the subject references in the Tanakh are YHVH, though Paul uses “God” in the beginning of his doxology, “Lord” when he cites Isaiah 40:13 (in the LXX), then substitutes pronouns instead of repeating the noun when he alludes to Job 41:11; 35:17. With this background, the interesting part, in view of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 8:6, is the conclusion of this particular doxology:

For from Him and through Him and to [or for = eis in Grk] Him are all things.

Note that in the Corinthians passage “one God, the Father” is the subject for “from Him” and “to[/for] Him”, while “one Lord, Jesus Christ” is the subject for “through Him”, yet in the Romans passage the referent is the same (“God” or “Lord”) for “all things”.

I’m glad I decided to embark on this particular study, as it sure seems that both ‘persons’ and roles are blurred here, does it not?

Laurita Hayes

That’s how I have read it, too, Craig, although without the excellent knowledge of the Greek and also the Hebrew to draw from. Thank you for confirming the ‘spirit’ of the passage to me.

I privately am thinking (and that thinking can change) that the usage may be blurred because it is describing an action (the beingness of “all things”) that is being carried out in one continuous action, or function. Because it is one function, the Functioner(s) is/are presented as a unity/One, much as Robert was describing (as a corollary example of the opposite picture) Elohim as being a (I think I am paraphrasing him correctly) singular term describing multiple functions.. I think I see the opposite of that going on here.

If what Skip says is true, that God is a verb, then He is a Function that emanates a Form. Or Forms? Sometimes? (We don’t know if the Father has a form or not; all we have been told is that we can’t see a form.) What I think I am traveling on these days is that the function is going to determine the form(s) that the action takes. I know that messes with our Greek certainty of forms determining functions, but that is where I am today. So far. Still without good language to describe what I am thinking though. Really sorry, still, about that.

Craig

I find the overlapping of roles of interest, but the overlap of persons is the most fascinating part.

I just don’t know about the form/function thing, so I’ll have to withhold comment on it.

Craig

Regarding the question “Do you think that those who profess ‘faith’ but deny the fundamental proclamation of Deuteronomy 6:4 will survive?”, a proper understanding of Trinitarianism in no way violates the Shema. Yes, indeed, the LORD our God is one.