People To Reach With Purity Of
Speech
Joseph
Hoover
A
Child of God serving with Pioneer Bible Translators, USA
Published in Global Missiology,
Contemporary Practice, July 2005, www.globalmissiology.net
EMPLOY
ONLY BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY
New
Testament Diction and New Testament Thought
IGNORE
NO BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY
PRESERVE
BIBLICAL TERMS IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT
The
Immediate Context and the Genre of a Semantic Paragraph
Alexander Campbell wrote an article
entitled Purity of Speech (Campbell 1983:312). It proposes a means
for reconciling Christians worldwide. Mr. Campbell did not write,
however, that the application of his proposal would also make a way through the
greatest theological barrier between Christians and Muslims – the doctrine of
the Trinity.
Having proved for the speculative
reader that speaking the same things might not merely be the effect of uniform
thinking but also the cause of it, Mr. Campbell turns to the practical mind and
asserts that speaking the same things is the only way to unite all divisions among
Christians. He goes on to state that Christians will never speak the same
things as long as they continue to:
Later he applies the principles of
pure speech to one of the most important and divisive issues in all of
Christian history -- the relation between Jesus Christ and his Father -- and
shows how it would be impossible to perpetuate the divisions with strict
adherence to these principles.
This article takes up where Campbell
left off. With perhaps more exegetical support, it reveals how discussion
about the relation between Jesus and God is often contaminated. It shows
and how a pure speech would encourage meaningful dialogue between thoughtful
Muslims and Christians.
EMPLOY ONLY BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY
Terms like “Trinity,” “God the Son,”
and “God incarnate” have only lead to unnecessary confusion. Muslims are
confused because Christians claim that Jesus is God and the Son of God at the
same time. The confusion is unnecessary because the proposition “Jesus is
God” is not expressed in the Bible nor can it be justly inferred if
"God" is to be understood in its common English usage.
qeos
and God
Murray J. Harris, in Jesus as God:The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus, speaks to this issue in
several ways. First, though he favors the majority of the English
rendering for John 1:1 “The Word was God”, he qualifies his choice. Harris
points out how closely the scholars who defend this translation paraphrase John
1:1. He concludes:
From this sample of paraphrases it is clear that in the
translation “the Word was God” the term “God” is being used to denote his
nature or essence and not his person. But in normal English usage “God”
is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the
three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, “the Word was God” suggests that
“the Word” and “God” are convertible terms, that the
proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the
Trinity. Therefore few will doubt that this time-honored translation
needs careful exegesis, since it places a distinctive sense upon a common
English word (Harris:68-69).
Secondly, Harris tells us of the
limitations to the use of qeos in reference to Jesus Christ. Says he:
The application to Christ of the
title qeos is
exceedingly rare -- only seven certain, very probable, or probable instances
out of a total of 1,315 NT uses of qeos....In
the seven instances in which qeos refers to Jesus, the usage is
usually (Rom. 9:5 being the only exception) accompanied by a statement in the
immediate context that makes an explicit personal distinction between the Son
and God the Father.[[2]] That is, there is a remarkable
Juxtaposition of statements that imply the substantial oneness of Son and
Father and statements that express a personal distinction between them (Harris
274-275).
Lastly, Harris speaks directly to
the point in a section titled, “Jesus Is God as a theological formulation in
English”. He writes:
Nowhere in the NT do we read that “O Ihsous
estin qeos(O qeos)"...
Certainly, if we use this proposition frequently and without qualification, we
are neglecting the general NT reservation of the term qeos
as a virtual proper name referring to the Father....Another possible difficulty
about the unqualified assertion “Jesus is God” is linguistic. Probably
under the influence of biblical usage, the word “God” in English is used
principally as a proper noun identifying a person, not as a common noun
designating a class...the “person” identified is generally the God of the
Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, or God the Father of Jesus and of the
Christian, or the Godhead (as traditionally understood in Christian theology to
refer to three persons subsisting in one essence). Since, then, the word
“God” may be used only to identify, not to describe, it cannot be used
predicatively without suggesting equivalence or numerical identity but Jesus is
neither the Father nor the Trinity. Unlike Greek (which has articular and anarticular states
of the noun), English has no way of modifying a noun so that inherent qualities
are emphasized; this is the difficulty with translating qeos
hn o logos in John 1:1 by “the Word was God”...it is necessary to
recognize that the meaning attached to “God” in this case, viz., “one who is by
nature divine” is exceptional (Harris:296-297).[3]
New Testament Diction and New
Testament Thought
Harris has demonstrated conclusively
that the proposition “Jesus is God” is not pure NT terminology.
Nevertheless, he writes:
...before “Jesus is God” may be inferred from “the Word was
God” one must assume or establish that in the prologue of the Fourth Gospel the
Word is Jesus and that an ontological statement about a divine person is a
timeless affirmation. That is, the theological proposition “Jesus is God”
introduces an element of systematization which, although true to NT thought,
goes beyond actual NT diction (Harris:298).
Unlike Harris, Campbell would
mistrust such “systematization”, especially when it is required as a condition
for Christian fellowship. What goes beyond actual NT diction,
may very likely go beyond NT thought (Campbell 1980:103). In order to
infer that “Jesus is God” (which is not NT diction and would be removed from
one's speech under Campbell’s plea) one must establish that “the Word (in Jn 1:1) is Jesus” (another phrase not found in the NT).
In order to establish that the
“Word” of John 1:1 is Jesus, one must add the concept “person” to the term
“Word” in John 1:1. Harris cites three scholars who hold that “the Word”
was not interchangeable with Jesus of Nazareth, and that the “Word” was
impersonal (Harris:58).[4]
He then takes the opposing view and states that the identification of the
“Word” and Jesus of Nazareth is a necessary inference though he admits it is
not explicitly stated as such. “For,” Harris says, “[John] 1:18 makes the
same three affirmations of Jesus Christ as 1:1 does of the Logos (viz, timeless existence, intimate relationship with God,
and participation in deity) and the themes of the Prologue are developed in the
body of the Gospel in reference to Jesus of Nazareth”
(Harris:58-59). Let us consider John 1:18. “No one has ever
seen God, but God the One and Only, who is [emphasis mine]at the Father’s side, has made him known” (Jn 1:18). One can see the Son’s divinity and present
intimate relationship with the Father as opposed to the word’s past
intimate relationship with the Father. Yet one searches in vain for
Jesus’ so called timeless existence in this verse. It is not there
because the subject is not about the “word’ as it was in the beginning with
God. Rather, v. 18 is about the “divine Word” which, according to John
1:14 “became flesh” (a human person). He (the
divine-word-having-become-flesh) was born in a specific time and place and for
that reason is called, “the only Son who is divine” (Jn
1-18, translation mine)[5]
Harris adds that the “word” in the rest of the prologue is portrayed as
personal (Harris:68-69). This is true, not, however, because the “word”
was personal in the beginning with God, but because in the rest of the prologue
the reference is from the standpoint of the word-having-become-flesh (see vv.
3-5,10-12) that is, of course, a human person.
With the exception of
anthropomorphism as a literary device, the semantic component “person” is
simply not included in the Bible’s references to the “Wisdom of God” or “Power
of God” (or any other divine attribute). In the same way, one should not
make a person out of “the Word” in John 1:1. Simply put, one has no
reason, according to the laws of language, to think that “the divine Word” was
a person until one reads (in Jn 1:14) that it becomes
a person. The Christology of the Prologue is defined in three
stages. In John 1:1, one finds that from eternity the Word (the principle
of thought and communication) was with God. It is divine; that is to say
that God can express Himself. In verse 14 there is a marvelous
advance. This “Word” from God “became flesh” (human). We find out
that the glory of this event is like that of an only son from the father.
In verse 18 the definition of Christ, the Son of God is completed. “The
Word” is no longer mentioned because now it has become a human person.
The term “Father” is now used for "God" and “Son” is employed for the
“Word” which “became flesh”. Though no one has ever seen God, one can
still get to know Him because “the only Son who is divine has made Him known”
(translation mine). God spoke to us of Himself. His word became
human (a kind of translation) so we can understand Him. Jesus is that
human, born with the characteristics of God Himself. It is in this sense
that Jesus is God’s Son.
The prologue in John carefully
defines the meaning of “Son of God” for the rest of the book. The order
is important. One must not read backwards and define “Word” by the “Son”
passages in John and thus unnaturally tack on the semantic component of
personhood to the “Word” in John 1:1. Therefore it is not right to take
passages such as John 17:5 and claim that Jesus was the word and so the Word
was personal in the beginning with God. “And now, Father, glorify me in
your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” (Jn 17:5). In this passage, and others like it,
the Son (the Word as a person) must use personal pronouns because he is
now a person. Jesus (the word made flesh) longs to be with the Father
like he[6]
(the word) was before the incarnation. This is clearly another state --
that which had been carefully explained in the John’s Prologue.[7]
The impersonal divine nature of the
“Word” is taught explicitly in 1 John 1:1-4:
That which was from the beginning which we have heard, which
we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched
-- this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have
seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was
with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have
seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our
fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 Jn 1:1-4)
Here, the neuter pronoun “that
which” is used even though it refers to the masculine “Word of life”. The
same author, speaking explicitly of the same subject goes out of his way to
demonstrate that the impersonal “word of life”, which (not “whom”) was
from the beginning with the Father, appeared to the apostles. That
is, “the word became flesh” -- Jesus Christ, the Son who gives certain
knowledge of the Father. It cannot be fairly proven that the “Word” in
John 1:1 is Jesus and therefore the phrase “Jesus
is God” is not a just systematization of NT thought unless "God" be
understood in a rare sense for the English language.
If Christians employed only that
terminology found in the Bible as it is found there according to normal
language use, the terms “Jesus is God”, “Trinity”, “God incarnate”, “God the
Son”, etc. would not be a stumbling block for Muslims who are presently the biggest
evangelistic challenge for the holy ones of Christ.
IGNORE NO BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGY
A favorite hymn of the Anglophone
Christian community is Charles Wesley’s And Can It Be. The chorus
has been sung countless times to the Lord Jesus Christ:
Amazing love! How can it be
That Thou my God, should die for me?
How can such a chorus be written and
sung by monotheistic people who believe Jesus and God to be different
persons? The answer is this: Christians use the word “God”
ambiguously. Most of the time it is used as a proper
noun for the person whom Jesus called “Father”. It is sometimes
used as an adjective to describe something of Jesus’ nature.
The unawareness of this ambiguity
accounts for some of the problems in Christian-Muslim dialogue. Consider
this real correspondence between two Christians. In it, the senses of
"God" according the participants are labeled. The number in
parenthesis is a label for the location in the text. The superscript
letter on the left of the word "God" represents the sense Muslims
give to the term. The superscript letter on the right represents the
sense Christians give to it. The letter “p” represents the use of “God”
as a proper noun -- identifying a person. The letter “a” represents the
use of “God” as an adjective describing inherent qualities.
The Brackets identify the participant. [M] stands
for Muslim. [C1] represents the first Christian correspondent and [C2] for the
second Christian correspondent.
My name is _____ and I am a missionary “wannabe”. (1) Godp has opened the door for me to
get signed on to a Muslim mailing list and be invited to defend the
Gospel. I’m apologetically minded, but I’m having great difficulty
explaining the Trinity to them. I knew this would happen around the
Trinity, so I was trying to avoid it, but it’s what they are most eager to
attack. Their arguments generally run something like this: (2) [Muslim]
Jesus is pGoda?
[Christian] Yes
[M] Jesus is circumcised?
[C] Yes
(3) [M] The discarded foreskin is a piece of pGodp
[C] No
[M] If Jesus had to fall on his face and beg and plead to pGodp, how could he be (5) pGoda?
[C2] Well...(6) Goda
is:
[Diagram
#1]
Note that the first Christian
correspondent is unaware of the subtle semantic-grammatical changes in his use
of the word “God” between #s 1&2, 2&3, 4&5. If he were
conscious of them, he would see no difficulty in responding to the questions
posed by his Muslim correspondents. If the Muslim correspondents were
conscious of the ambiguity, they would see no contradiction of reason on this
point and consequently move on to the next relevant thesis. The second
Christian correspondent attempted to clarify the teachings of the
“Trinity”. He creates the ideal environment in which there is no
ambiguity. But in the real world, most people, both Christian and Muslim,
know that the top person of the diagram is most often called “God”.
Perhaps the following diagram is a more accurate illustration of Christian speech
as it actually occurs with the Muslim and Christian understanding of
these Christian terms:
[Diagram
#2]
In the face of this ambiguity and
the problem it poses when communicating with Muslims, it behooves the Christian
community to clarify the terms. I propose that we should continue to use
“God” as a proper name when referring to the one Jesus called “Father”; we
should use “divine” when referring to what is “of God” or “from above”.
Now for the point of this section:
the major English translations have perpetuated this ambiguity by not making a
word level distinction between the concepts of qeos as a generic title and qeos
as a proper noun.[8]
The problem is not that of exegetical differences. Most Evangelical
scholars would agree with Milligan and Moulton regarding the second qeos
of John 1:18 that "[the Son] is himself divine, not in a metaphorical
sense, but possessing all the attributes of true and real divinity” (Harris:101). The difficulty lay in principles of translation
and communication. For example, F.C. Burkitt
paraphrases Thomas’s testimony of John 20:28 this way: “It is Jesus Himself,
and now I recognize Him as divine” (Harris:101).
Murray Harris calls this paraphrase “diluted” preferring the translation “my
God” which he considers more forceful. Yet in his own discussion of the
meaning of qeos in this verse, he says:
Clearly, then, qeos is a title, not a proper name...As
used by a monotheistic Jew in reference to a person who was demonstrably human qeos
will denote oneness with the Father in being...In other words, Thomas’s cry
expresses the substantial divinity of Jesus. Thomas has penetrated beyond
the...appearance of the risen Jesus -- to its implication, viz., the deity of Christ. (Harris:101)
Is this not what Burkitt
said in his paraphrase? Notice that Harris uses Burkitt’s
term which he claimed lacked force. Why? Because Harris must remove
the ambiguity between the “Godp” and the “Goda” of his own preferred translation before he
can explain Thomas’s meaning clearly. Regardless of what Harris overtly
says about “divine” being a “diluted” sense, he intuitively and unconsciously
shows that clarity is more important than force in communication and
translation.[9]
The true meaning is not lost in the major English translations. For the
immediate context always forces the careful reader to distinguish the two
current senses of the English word “God”. Yet the rendering of “divine”
would not merely be consistent with the meaning as shown by the immediate
context but would also communicate clearly the distinction for those readers
who are not so careful!
If translators would use the English
word “divine” in the aforementioned passages and others like them, Christians
who dialogue with Muslims would have a tool that would bring a real advance in
their communication. The term “divine”, in certain contexts, is the best
English translation of qeos. It should not be ignored!
PRESERVE BIBLICAL TERMS IN THEIR PROPER CONTEXT
One cannot overstate the importance
of Campbell’s third principle of pure speech. Language as a whole or in
any of it’s parts exists in
context from which comes it’s meaning. If it is removed from it’s proper context, the meaning
is altered. There are many different levels of context all of which effect the meaning of a given text. Two of these
levels will be considered along with scripture relevant to the relation between
Jesus and God. In each of these examples, I will point out how Christians
may use scriptural terms but change their meanings by changing their contexts.
The result of this transposing is that Muslims may rightly charge Christians
with unintentional polytheism. This error can be avoided with pure
speech.
The Immediate Context and the Genre
of a Semantic Paragraph
It is said that Phil. 2:6-7 refers
to Jesus in his “pre-existent state” as “the second person of the Trinity” or
the “Eternal Son”. The words “Eternal” and “Son” are clearly scriptural
terms but they are never found together in the Bible. Each term has been
removed from it’s own
context, combined with the other term, and surrounded with a new context of the
theologian’s own making. Not only are these terms not found in
Philippians, but the concept as well is foreign to it. Many interpreters
fail to use the immediate context in choosing the proper genre of the semantic
paragraph. Instead, another semantic genre is superimposed and the
message is skewed. Commentators often ascribe a focus of time and space
when explaining this passage. They say things like, “This passage bears reference
to the pre-human existence of Jesus Christ ‘with’ the father”. Yet, one
searches the grammatical structure in vain for time-space sequence
markers. Many readers superimpose a faulty reading of John 1 on Phil.
2:6-7 rather than use the immediate context and its surface grammatical
structure to correctly define the genre of Phil. 2:1-11 itself.
Benefiting from the findings of
cognitive science and especially from the contributions of George Lakoff, John C. Tuggy has given
an interpretive tool that is rooted in innate human cognitive processes.
He calls this tool, “Semantic Paragraph Patterns” and defines it as, “a set of
semantic structures which communicators use to organize messages in a way that
will accomplish the purpose of communication” (Tuggy
1992:46). He gives several cognitive processes that intersect into
particular semantic paragraph patterns. One such process is, “the
communicator’s intended effect on the audience”. There are three basic
effects, one of which is intended in every communication: (1) to effect behavior (2) to effect ideas (3) to effect
emotions. Another cognitive process is the “time and space sequentiality cognition”. There are two choices: (1)
without temporal-spatial focus (2) with temporal-spatial focus. The third
cognitive process is called, “deductive perception”. There are three
perceptions: (1) solutionality (2) causality and (3) volitionality. Characteristic semantic paragraph
patterns are located at each point where the cognitive processes
intersect. Tuggy says:
These categorizations and patterns are not presented as
water-tight concepts, but rather as prototypical concepts. There are
fuzzy areas, extensions, and maybe gradations. However, with this view of
semantic paragraph, we have a solid starting point. Since these patterns
are grounded on our human cognitive ability, we conclude that they are basic to
human communication and its interpretation (Tuggy:66).
.
Consider Phil. 2:5-11 with semantic
paragraph patterns in mind. The discipline that such a tool provides
helps to expose unconscious assumptions we may bring to the text. This
text is embedded within a larger hortatory semantic paragraph pattern (a
detailed discussion of how the two hortatory semantic paragraphs vv. 1-4 and vv
5-11, link to form one large one vv. 1-11 is beyond the scope of this paper).
5touto froneite en umin o kai en Cristw Ihsou 6 os
en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato
to einai isa qew 7 alla eauton ekenwsen morfhn
doulou labwn en omoiwmati
anqrwpwn genomenos kai schmati eureqeis ws
anqrwpos
8 etapeinwsen eauton genomenos uphkoos mecri qanatou qanatou de staurou
9 dio kai o qeos auton uperuywsen kai ecarisato
autw to onoma to uper pan onoma 10 ina en tw onomati Ihsou pan gonu
kamyh epouraniwn kai epigeiwn kai katacqoniwn 11 kai
pasa glwssa exomologhshtai oti kurios
Ihsous Cristos eis doxan qeou patros
The text underlined=Appeal
The text not underlined=Basis
Verbs = bold print
Phil. 2:5-11 is an appeal-basis
hortatory semantic paragraph. It is intended to effect behavior; it lacks
time-space sequentiality; it has causality.
Note the imperative verb that characterizes the appeal in v. 5 and the
indicative aorist verbs marking the basis in vv. 6-11. There is no overt
grammatical marker between the basis and appeal that suggests causality.
It is implied from its relation to the larger hortatory paragraph (vv.
1-11). More precisely, it coheres with “the encouragement from being
united with Christ (v.1). The description of Christ Jesus’ attitude (vv.
6-11) is simultaneously the basis for Paul’s whole exhortation (vv. 1-11) and
the second embedded one (vv 5-11). The strong implication is this:
since Christ has made himself nothing, his followers must do likewise.
Put another way, “Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet (the
task of the lowest slave) you also should wash one another’s feet” (Jn 13:14)
6 os
en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew 7 alla
eauton ekenwsen morfhn doulou labwn en omoiwmati anqrwpwn genomenos
kai schmati eureqeis ws anqrwpos
8 etapeinwsen eauton genomenos uphkoos
mecri qanatou qanatou de staurou 9 dio kai o qeos
auton uperuywsen kai
ecarisato
autw to onoma to uper pan onoma 10 ina en tw onomati Ihsou pan
gonu kamyh epouraniwn kai epigeiwn kai katacqoniwn 11
kai pasa glwssa exomologhshtai oti kurios
Ihsous Cristos eis doxan qeou patros
The text underlined=Situation
The text not underlined=Reaction
The bold text=Emphatic Inferential Conjunction Complex
The text with dotted underline=Adverbial “kai” coheres with intensive Middle verb
This basis (vv.6-11) -- sometimes
called, “The Christ Hymn” -- is itself a situation-reaction descriptive
semantic paragraph. It is intended to effect the emotions. For the
first readers were already familiar with the nature of Jesus; neither an
expository nor a narrative paragraph was needed. Moreover, the structure
is poetic. Finally, the adverbial “kai” in v. 9 with the intensive middle
verb suggest emotion (Titrud 1992:213). It has sequentiality, but it is not temporal or spatial. It
is a sequence of status. Knowing himself to be divine, Jesus deliberately
took on the role of servant. Pleased with Jesus’ attitude, God exalted
him so that he (Jesus) should, rather, be served as Lord. Therein lies the causality of this paragraph. This
situation-reaction paragraph is grammatically marked by the emphatic
inferential conjunction complex (dio kai in v 9a)
after the situation (vv. 6-8) and before the reaction (vv. 9-11).
6 os
en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew 7 alla
eauton ekenwsen morfhn doulou labwn
en omoiwmati anqrwpwn genomenos
kai schmati eureqeis ws anqrwpos 8 etapeinwsen eauton
genomenos uphkoos mecri qanatou qanatou de staurou
The text underlined=Sentance #1
The text not underlined=Sentance #2
The empty space between labwn and
en = the asyndeton
This situation is composed of two
coordinating sentences cojoined by an
asyndeton. Kermit Titrud displays a chart of
semantic relationships indicated by “kai” in the NT. In the chart, He
says that the asyndeton indicates a coordinate relation of simultaneity (Titrud:257). This simultaneity partly explains why there is
no sequentiality of space and time here. This
passage refers to Christ who was simultaneously divine and human. It is
not about Christ’s decent from heaven to Earth. The proof of the asyndeton’s
existence will be seen as the sentence boundaries are defined later.
6 os
en morfh qeou uparcwn ouc arpagmon hghsato to einai isa qew 7
[alla] eauton ekenwsen morfhn doulou labwn en omoiwmati anqrwpwn genomenos
kai schmati eureqeis ws anqrwpos 8 etapeinwsen
eauton genomenos uphkoos mecri qanatou qanatou de staurou
The text underline with a single
line=Sentence #1
The text with no single
underline=Sentence #2
The bold text=Active participial phrases
Words with dotted underline=Passive or Middle participles
The words that are double underlined=Aorist active verbs
[The word in brackets]=Contrastive
conjunction
The boundaries of the sentences are
evident. The first sentence (v. 6-7labwn) is a contrastive parallelism
manifested by a contrastive conjunction between two independent clauses.
It starts by an active participial phrase that includes a prepositional phrase
denoting deity and ends with, omitting “en”, the same structure denoting
servant hood. One must not assume that “servant hood” here means a loss
of deity or greatness. Jesus himself teaches that servant hood is,
rather, a test of greatness; “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very
last, and the servant of all” (Mk. 9:35). God, the Father of our Lord
Jesus seems to agree according to Phil. 2:9-11. The second sentence (v. 7en-8)
is distinguished from the first by it’s
passive and middle participles, it’s own aorist active verb, and a change of
focus from divinity to humanity. The punctuation is omitted so that the
text could be examined purely by it’s
own grammatical structure.
Phil. 2:6-11 will fit beautifully in
the total context of Jesus physical presence in Israel two millenniums
ago. In John 13:1-11 we find the Jesus of Phil. 2 “who, though he was in
the form of God, did not regard equality with God [divinity] as something to be
exploited but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave (NRSV). Jesus
did this while in Jerusalem! We also learn from John 13 that, “The Father
had put all things under his [Jesus’] power” (Jn
13:3). This phrase echoes the God of Phil 2 who, “exulted him to the
highest place and gave him the name that is above every name”. The Father
did this, according to John before Jesus ascended or even died! In John
12:20-28, we see the Jesus of Phil 2 who, “being made in human likeness and
being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to
death -- even death on a cross!” One must not assume that “obedience to death”
means a loss of divinity for Jesus. He was “obedient to death” in Gathsemene before he died. Moreover the death of the
word-made-flesh (Jesus) is part of what God wanted to say -- a portion of His
speech. Jesus is simultaneously divine and human.
Therefore Phil 2:6 does not
necessarily speak of the “personal pre-existence” of Jesus. It is not in
an expository or a narrative paragraph. It is in a descriptive one.
It is about Jesus’ attitude and God’s response. This third principle of
pure speech is a safe-guard against juxtaposing Biblical terms which must
result in a loss of Biblical meaning.
Jane Schaberg,
as she begins her dissertation on Matthew 28:19b, warns us of some
complications that enter the discussion. One complication arises when one
assumes that unity implies equality as some do when this verse is read “I and
the Father are one” (Jn 10:30). This
complication is understood and resolved when one is careful enough to look at
the near context “The Father is greater than I” (Jn
14:28) and realize that, “Unity may be considered by some NT writers quite
apart from the question of equality (Schaberg
1982:8). Another complication arises when one assumes that there was “an
awareness on the part of the NT writers of the ‘problem’ of the relation of
Jesus, God and Spirit” (Schaberg:8). Schaberg answers this complication by writing:
The flexibility of Jewish monotheism in the Greco-Roman
period, however, indicates that we are in danger of formulating the ‘problem’
anachronistically. Furthermore, attempts to read NT material in terms of
answers to such a problem may result in blocking our perceptions of more
authentic origins of the material (Schaberg:8)
It then behooves the Christian to
read the scriptures with regard to it’s
own context. Consider Schaberg’s work of
exposing for us the remote context of Matt. 28:19b.
Schaberg begins by classifying texts and defining terms.
“Triadic” texts are those texts in which the figures of God, Jesus, and Spirit appear
coordinately under whatever title. “Trinitarian” texts are those in
which, it is said, one can detect personality of the “Spirit” therein and an
indication of unity. It is said that these texts may have laid a
foundation for the development of TRINITARIAN text -- not at all part of
Biblical material. TRINITARIAN texts are often formed with philosophical
terms not found in the NT and explicitly proclaim a tri-personal co-equal God (Schaberg 1982).
Schaberg, after rejecting the theory that triadic texts have slowly
evolved from monadic ones and that Matt. 28:19b is a later insertion by
Gentiles, explains the text’s origin as follows:
It is possible that a Jewish formula or thought pattern lies
behind Matt. 28:19b, as behind several of the other Trinitarian and triadic
texts...the pressure of a triadic Jewish pattern, along with the pressures of
reflection on the “new life” of Jesus, would make it more likely that a
Christian liturgical or blessing formula could take triadic form quickly and
even at a comparatively pre-reflective stage. This would not require one
to assume, as Kelly does, that the “conception of the threefold manifestation
of the Godhead was embedded deeply in Christian thinking from the start”...One
would assume, rather, that some other meaning and significance was intended and
more obvious to the early framers of the tradition.
The triad of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit very
likely is a development of the Danielic triad [Daniel
7], Ancient of Days, one like a son of man and angels. The particular
titles in Matt. 28:19b are found together elsewhere in the NT only in Luke
10:21-22 (cf. Jn 3:34-35), which may also be an
allusion to Dan. 7:14 LXX...Rev. 1:4-5 blesses the seven churches in epistolary
style with grace and peace “from him who is and who was and who is to come and
from the seven spirits before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful
witness, the first-born from the dead and the ruler of kings on Earth.
Luke 9:26 speaks of the Son of Man coming “in his glory and the glory of the
Father and of the holy angels (Schaberg:322).
Schaberg develops her proposal saying that the triadic phrase is a “shorthand for the eschatological theophony”
of Dan. 7. According to Schaberg, the phrase
brought the image of the heavenly court for those who were acquainted with the
symbolic connection between the mountain and the throne. The Son has been
presented at the throne of the Father. “Both the power of the heavenly
world and the power that brings one into the heavenly world may be captured in
the phase ‘the Holy Spirit’”. She cannot determine whether the angels or
the impersonal exousia (supernatural power) of Dan. 7 is symbolized as “the Holy
Spirit”, though she leans toward the latter view. The answer to this
question helps one to determine if this text may or may not be considered
“Trinitarian” (Schaberg 1982).
Finally Dr. Schaberg
classifies the triadic phrase:
While I do not find Matthew’s
understanding of the triadic phrase in 28:19b to be “Trinitarian” in the
sense in which I have defined this term, I can safely say that Matthew’s
conception of God and of the Holy Spirit is centered in the revelation of and
by Jesus of Nazareth. The conception of Jesus in this Gospel, on the
other hand, is centered in the belief that his source and destiny are one: in
God and through the Holy Spirit (Schaberg:322).
The OT and inter-testamental
literature is an important source for discovering the remote context of a NT
passage. Schaberg’s work is a good example of
someone considering the remote context of Matt. 28:19b which influences the
thoughts of its original readers. For many Christians who work among
Muslims the triadic phrase is seen only through the anachronistic lense of a third century problem. It is evident how
the principles of pure speech -- in particular, a consideration of the remote
context -- would break down some of the barrier against productive
Muslim-Christian communication.
An exhaustive treatment of all the
texts that may be brought to bear on the relation between Jesus and God has not
been attempted. Yet, Campbell's principles have been given as hints
toward correcting all the kinds of interpretive errors on this issue. Now
the principles of pure speech shall be applied to teaching the Jesus way among
Muslims. The doctrine of the Trinity may be the greatest theological
barrier between Christians and Muslims. It is not taught explicitly in
the scriptures. It is explicitly condemned in the Qur’an (Surah 5:73). This situation poses no problem for the
Christian who adheres strictly to the principles of pure speech. He must
cast off the language of Trinitarian theology. He must use the
terminology of Jesus and the twelve. Once committed to pure speech, the
Christian will find that he can present the Good News of Jesus without
requiring the Muslim to change his or her concept of God’s unity.
Consider, for example, the Muslim
view of the relation between the Qur’an and Allah and the strict Biblical
teaching of the relation between the Word and God. The term Qur’an is
Arabic for “utterance”. It is not unlike the Greek “logos”
for “word” or “speech”. Just as “the Word was with God” (Jn 1:1), so also, it is said, that the Qur’an was with
Allah. For Surah 27:6 says, “As to thee, the
Qur’an is bestowed upon thee from the presence of One
who is Wise and all-Knowing”. Muslims believe that the Qur’an is divine
because it is said to have come from Allah. John states, “the word was divine” (my translation) for the same reason.
Christians who adhere strictly to pure speech may not insert personality to the
word at this point; it is a divine attribute like the Qur’an is said to be for
Muslims. The Christian of pure speech, therefore, does not contradict the
Islamic understanding of Allah’s unity. Both Muslim and Christians with
purity of speech understand God to be one person with many attributes.
Now concerning Jesus, John says,
“The Word was made flesh”. Allah is said to have said, “Verily, We have
made this Qur’an easy, in thy tongue, in order that they may give heed” (Surah 44:58). Are not both instances some kind of
divine accommodation for communicating well with human beings? One is a
human person (Jesus) who speaks a language (Aramaic).[10]
The other is a language (Arabic) spoken by a human person (Mohammed).
Both then, are said to be divine revelation, albeit of differing forms.
The idea of a personal incarnation is not outside of Islamic thought
. In Surah 19:17 Allah is said to have sent an
Angel to Mary and “he appeared before her as a man in all respects”. In Surah 2:117 it reads, “To Him is due the primal origin of
the heavens and the earth: when He decreeth a matter,
He saith to it ‘be’ and it is”. The incarnation
of the word neither violates the Islamic doctrine of unity nor is it
inconceivable within the Qur’anic worldview.
If Alexander Campbell’s principles
have been applied fairly to this issue, a way of breaking down the great
theological barrier is at hand. Perhaps now one
can, with Biblical accuracy, explain to Muslims the relation between Jesus and
God without a hint of Trinitarianism.
Christians may explain the relation between Jesus and God by comparing it with
the Islamic view of the relation between the Qur’an and Allah. For the
relations are of the same kind. Both Jesus and the Qur’an are said to be
divine (from God) but neither is God. To obey Jesus is to obey God.
To disobey the Qur’an is, according to Muslims, to disobey Allah.
The Christian expression “Son of
God” is a grave offense for Muslims. Surah
19:35 says, “It is not fitting to the majesty of Allah that He should begat a
son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a
matter, He only says to it ‘be’ and it is”. Yet, the term “Son” is
irreplaceable for those who would be pure in NT speech. How does one
communicate to Muslims the relation between Jesus and God in these terms?
Again one may use a concept already contained in the Qur’an and which bears the
same relation -- the “Mother of the book” (Surahs
3:7, 13:39, and 43:3-4). The last reference reads, “We have made it a
Qur’an in Arabic that ye may be able to understand and learn wisdom. And
verily, it is the Mother of the book, in Our presence,
high in dignity, full of wisdom”. ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali makes the
following comment on this verse:
The Mother of the Book, the Foundation of Revelation, the
Preserved Tablet, is the core or essence of Revelation, the original principle
or fountainhead of Allah’s Eternal and Universal Law. From this
fountainhead are derived all streams of knowledge and wisdom, that flows
through time and feed the intelligence of created minds. The Mother of
the Book is in Allah’s own presence, and its dignity and wisdom are more than
all we can think of in the spiritual world (Abdullah 1992:1264).
There seems to be a triad here of
Allah, the Mother of the Book, and the Qur’an. An implication of the
idea, “Mother of the Book in Our [Allah’s] presence” is that Allah himself is
the Father of the Book. He is its source. In this sense it can be
said that Allah has a “child” -- the Qur’an. This does not mean, of
course, that Allah performed a sexual act and begat a book for a son. It
merely means that the Qur’an is said to be from Allah; it is divine. In
the same way, the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship
of Jesus are not at all a result of sexual relations between God and
Mary. It means simply that Jesus is from God; Jesus is divine. The
Bible and the Qur’an agree on the way Jesus was conceived. The angel says
to Mary in Luke, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most
High will overshadow you” (1:35). Surah 21:91
says, “And remember her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our
Spirit, and we made her and her son a sign for all peoples”. Both take
the Spirit of God to mean His power -- His spoken command acting. The
word that was with God in the beginning became flesh (a human person). So
He willed; so it was! It profanes no Islamic ideal. It is in that sense
that Jesus is the Son of God.
The plea for a pure speech is not
something about which Christians who hold the divine authority of the Bible can
rightly disagree. For what believer would intentionally choose their own
terms over those sanctioned by Him who is True?
Is there any follower who purposely ignores words authorized by the chief
Shepherd? How can any holy one deliberately rip out of context teaching
ordained by God? Therefore, it is assumed that once these principles are
presented and considered there will be agreement on them.
Friend of truth, apply
these principles more rigorously than ever. Theologies may, for now,
differ, but what does that matter? No true doctrine can be threatened by
using only Bible terms in their Biblical contexts. There is
nothing to fear, only tainted speech to lose, and a mighty barrier, which cuts
off a billion people from seriously considering God’s Good News, to
cross. Grace to you. And to the wise God be glory through Jesus
Christ! Amen.
Campbell, Alexander.
1980 The
Christian System. Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1839. Reprint, Bethany, VA.
1983 Purity of
Speech. The Christian Baptist 4 (March 1827):312. Reprint,
Joplin MO: College Press Publishing company
(page references are to the reprint edition).
Harris, Murray J.
1992 Jesus As
God: The New Testament use of Theos in reference to
Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House.
Tuggy, John C.
1992 Semantic Paragraph Patterns: a
fundamental Communication Concept and Interpretive Tool. Linguistics and New
Testament Interpretation: Essays
on Discourse Analysis (ed. David Allen Black; Nashville: Broadman,).
Titrud, Kermit.
1992 The Function of kai
in the Greek New Testament. Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation:
Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed. David Allen Black; Nashville: Broadman,).
Schaberg, Jane.
1982 The Father, The
Son And The Holy Spirit: The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28:19b.
Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Abdullah, Yusuf ‘Ali.
1992 The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. (Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corporation) commentary 1264.
All citation of the Qur’an are from this English
version.
[1] These
principles assume that the best cultural-linguistic research has already been
applied to the Biblical text in the original language and that the translation
in the receptor language be as faithful as possible for that generation.
[2] Unlike
Harris but with KJV, LB, PME, RSV, TEV, NEB, this author understands "qeos" to refer to the Father in
Romans 9:5. So, it is very significant that Harris notes it as the only
exception to an important NT distinction.
[3] I render
John 1:1, “The word was divine” thus avoiding the confusion in English. I
also believe “the word” to be impersonal. Therefore, I would correct
Harris’ conclusion. What is often translated “God” in this case means “that
which is by nature divine”.
[4] J.A.T.
Robinson, Schoonenburg, and Dunn are the scholars
cited.
[5] The anarticular qeos signifies
divine essence.
[6] Here, the
problem is illustrated in my text. “He” denotes person but I must use an
impersonal pronoun. Yet it does not accord in gender with “Jesus”. The
incarnation of the word is a unique event. The English language has no
pronoun one can use to refer to oneself as a pre-person.
[7] Jesus
knows of that other state, perhaps not because he as himself remembered it, but
because he as a person may have learned it from the Father (see Jn 5:20). This is speculation, however. I
employ it only to show that Jesus’ statement need not be from memory and would
not therefore prove personal pre-existence.
[8] A
distinction in the Greek is often made at the noun phrase level with the
article. In these cases the distinction should be made at the same level
or closest one possible. When this distinction lies in the immediate
context only (as in Jn 20:28) a word level
distinction in English is still advised to avoid confusion.
[9] I see no
reason why one cannot have both clarity and force. What may be lacking
connotatively may be added graphically with bold print.
[10] The
divine word becomes a human person, not a divine person. This is how the
divinity of Jesus is maintained while admitting only one divine person from all
eternity -- God.
All English Biblical References are
from the NIV unless otherwise noted
All Greek New Testament References
are from the Third Edition of the UBS text edited by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black,
Carlo M. martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren.