Only God (Christ) versus Only God (Father)

Answering a question on Quora: 

Why does the ESV contradict itself in John 1:18 versus John 17:3 (John, contradiction, Christology, Trinity, ESV, hermeneutics)?

The question is a non sequitur. It presumes, without evidence or specificity, that there is a contradiction. There is, in fact, no contradiction.

The first verse is a declarative sentence in the author’s voice:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. John 1:18 (ESV)

The second verse quotes a prayer by Jesus:

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

(The links take you to a page that lists over two dozen translations of the verses. Versions based on the five-century old Received Text, or Byzantine family of ancient manuscripts, have variations of “only-begotten Son” or “one-and-only Son.” The other versions, which include the ESV, are based on the oldest manuscripts, or Critical Text, which have variations on “only-begotten God” or “one-and-only God.”)

Most of the concepts in the two verses do not overlap. The parts that seem to conflict upon a superficial reading are the description of Jesus as the only God in 1:18 and the description of the Father as the only true God in 17:3.

To answer the question, one must understand the translation in 1:18 and how early Christians solved the paradox of three Persons or Personalities being identified as God, yet there eternally being a grand total of exactly one God.

The Quoran educated at the Theocratic Ministry School (i.e., the Watchtower, more commonly know as the Jehovah’s Witnesses) claims falsely that “The ESV dropped (Only Begotten). If you look the verse up in the Interlinear you will see that they dropped those (key) words.” This claim reflects a shocking lack of understanding of Koine Greek, or even of observing what the interlinear text shows.

The meanings of English words change over time; the same is true for Greek. According to qualified Koine Greek scholars, there’s uncertainty over whether monogenes, “onlybegotten,” had come to mean “unique” or “one and only” during the first century. Majority opinion had leaned toward “one and only” for a while, but opinion is swinging back toward “only-begotten.” In my opinion, “only-begotten” makes more sense in the context, but we should accept and live with the uncertainty.

“Only God” in the ESV, then, is an acceptable translation of monogenēs Theos (although it might suffer from under-emphasis of Christ’s uniqueness). The Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that the ESV dropped monogenēs is false.

Readers who resist the misdirection of attention toward monogenēs will notice that the verse calls Jesus, Theos, “God.” So, again, the Watchtower-educated Quoran’s claim that “Clearly because Jesus is not God” contradicts the text.

It’s tempting to go on a tangent showing how a triune God is the only solution to many scriptural claims that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God, yet there is exactly one God. It is sufficient in this context to state that, if the Creator of space-time could use His creative power to exist in space-time as God the Father and God the Son, then “clearly” it is presumptuous to say “Clearly because Jesus is not God.”

So, while there is exactly one Creator, God, recognizing that God could exist within space-time as multiple centers of consciousness or “Persons” allows us to reconcile John 1:18 and 17:3.

“Only God” in 1:18 abbreviates a larger concept born out by reading the entirety of the book, or even the first three verses of the same chapter. The abbreviation has obviously caused confusion because, for a shallow reading, Christ cannot be the “only God” and the Father being the “only true God.” That’s why immediate, book, and New Testament levels of context and digging deeper into the language underlying the translation matter.

One more detail from the larger context is needed. The Author of the New Testament anticipated Modalism and ruled it out. Modalism asserts that the one God is one Person who changes modes (roles and costumes) to give the appearance of being three Persons. For that reason, it uses three titles of God: God (the Father), Lord (Christ the Son), and Spirit (the Holy Spirit).

Thus, depending on context, “only true God” can refer either to the eternal, One-as-Three God or to the temporal Person called the Father. And monogenes Theos (only God, one-and-only God, or only-begotten God) refers specifically to the Person who added a human nature to His spirit nature.

When you understand how the writer meant the language, there is no contradiction, even if the ESV is less verbose than it needs to be to prevent confusion by people who take snippets of scripture out of context.

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Thirty Pieces of Silver

Answering a question on Quora:

When was Jehovah valued at 30 silver pieces (Zechariah 11:12,13)?

(On Quora, Jehovah's (false) Witnesses have denied that Zechariah's prophecy had anything to do with Jesus and Judas. Incredible, considering that the gospel writers explicitly linked Judas's actions to the prophecy (e.g., Matthew 27:9, etc.)! 

Zechariah 11 contains a marvelous passage that compresses messages applying to Zechariah’s day as well as to first-century Judea, Israel, and Messiah Jesus. The answer is that YHWH was valued twice at 30 pieces of silver; first, with Zechariah as His proxy, and later as the incarnate I AM, Jesus of Nazareth.

First we have to point out an ambiguity in verse 13’s translation. Some translators attribute to the LORD (in Hebrew, YHWH), within the quotation marks, “Throw it to the potter, this magnificent price at which they valued me.” So the LORD is saying that they valued Him at thirty pieces of silver.

Tangent: Thirty pieces was an insultingly low wage, so “magnificent” is actually sarcastic. Let that sink in: God used sarcasm when people earned it.

Other translators include only “Throw it to the potter,” so that the valuation applies to Zechariah. However, as God’s prophet, Zechariah represented God, so the price that the owners of the flocks placed on Zechariah’s prophetic and shepherding work also represented a price placed on God.

So, either way you place the quotation marks, the price was placed on YHWH.

Anyone blessed by the Holy Spirit with New Testament-based hindsight can see that the passage contains prophecies about Jesus of Nazareth, Judas.

YHWH translates as “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He used Jewish terminology to claim to be YHWH in the flesh. The New Testament confirms the claim in numerous ways. For example, Jesus forgave sins (Matthew 9:2–8), which only God can do. Jesus claimed to share God’s glory, which YHWH said He will not share (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11), and claimed to do so before God created the world (John 17:5). And God the Son created the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)), which God did Himself (Job 38:4, Jeremiah 10:12, Amos 4:13). Such claims leave anti-trinitarians with huge problems.

So when the priests paid Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus, they put the bounty on YHWH that was prophesied by Zechariah (Matthew 26:15).

Those in denial about the scripture’s teachings about the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh are quick to skip over other prophetic language in Zechariah 11. For example:

• Throughout the chapter, Zechariah performs the role of a shepherd who cares for the sheep, particularly the weak, diseased, and wounded. The antitype is Jesus, the Good Shepherd (John 10).
• Verse 10 signifies the severing of God’s blessings on Judea and Israel after they refused to repent of murdering God the Son. This was a recurring them in Jesus’s teachings (for example, the parable of wicked tenants, Matthew 21:33–46), and it was fulfilled in waves starting with general Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in 67 AD.
• Verse 13 parallels Judas throwing the thirty pieces of silver in the temple AND the priests using the money to buy the potter’s land in Judas’s name (Matthew 27:3–10).
• Verse 14 signifies the division between Judea in the south and Israel in the north. In New Testament times, that corresponded roughly to the geographical boundaries separating Judea from Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Syro-Phoenicia. Today, much of the division remains, although Israel has taken back (more or less) Syro-Phoenicia and half of Galilee.

With so many details of Zechariah’s prophecy fulfilled in the gospels, saying that verses 12 and 13 have nothing to do with Jesus and Judas takes wishful thinking and bad teaching of an organization that qualifies under 1 John 4:3

[E]very spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

Note:

1. Some may become distracted by an apparent contradiction between Matthew, who says the prophecy was made by Jeremiah, and the fact that it's written in Zechariah. A number of explanations have been proposed, including the possibility that Matthew simply had a brain fart. The most sensible to me is that Zechariah was part of the "Book of the Prophets." Jeremiah was the first book in the Book of the Prophets, so Jeremiah may have been a synecdoche, a name for the whole. Thus, Zechariah was a section of what was colloquially known as “Jeremiah.” If so, then the “contradiction” is resolved.
   
   
2. In Colossians 1, Jesus is said to be the firstborn over (not firstborn before) all creation and the firstborn from the dead. Firstborn does not always mean first one born. A number of examples can be cited in the Old Testament when later-born sons bore the title of firstborn. Rather, firstborn often means pre-eminent one, particularly when followed by the preposition over. This contrasts against firstborn from the dead, wherein Jesus actually was the first to resurrect with a glorified body; this, only figuratively, being a birth.

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due. 

Contradicting Quotations in the Bible

Commenting on an answer to a question on Quora:

Phantom Contradictions in the Bible

This was hard for my formerly fundamental KJV-Only Baptist self to admit. But as I read the gospels in harmony format, I have to concede that the gospel writers were more like NIV translators than like Berean Literal Bible translators.

Anybody who picks on the exact wording of quotes in the Bible is applying grammatical rules that do not seem to have existed anywhere when the Bible was written.

I have seen passages that disagree in inconsequential ways. For example, in parallel accounts, Matthew has Jesus saying “kingdom of heaven” whereas other gospel writers have Him saying “kingdom of God.”

(You may have to open the graphic in a separate window to make it large enough to read.)

Whether it is the kingdom of God’s heaven or the kingdom of heaven’s God makes no difference.

Other examples happen when one writer says Jesus spoke a sentence one way and another writer says says Jesus used the same phrases but in an opposite order.

However, the sense of the quotes are always the same. Reportedly, that was adequate by the standards of the day. Before the 1500s, quotes were merely indicated by multi-use marks in the margins; and I couldn’t find any reference to that practice before the third century. Quotation marks that set off direct quotes weren’t invented until the 1500’s. Clear rules for distinguishing between direct, word-for-word quotation and indirect, paraphrased quotation seem to have come even more recently.

And I have never seen a substantial contradiction.

People who see “contradictions” invariably have jumped to that conclusion. They want contradictions to exist. They are willing to ignore not only logical explanations, but also the logical rule that, if a discrepancy can be rationalized, then persisting in calling it a contradiction crosses into intellectual dishonesty.

Copyrights 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, and please give credit where credit is due.

Bible Contradictions About Eating Pagan Sacrifices

Answering a question on Quora:

Does 1 Corinthians 10:18-22 contradict 1 Corinthians 8:4-13?

The two passages reveal overlapping principles in different contexts. They do not contradict.

Before continuing, follow the first rule of Bible interpretation: Never read a Bible verse; read it in context.

• 1 Corinthians 8 NASB
• 1 Corinthians 10 NASB

Note that if you continue reading after 10:22, the meaning of that passage becomes clearer. So always read at least one previous paragraph, the current passage, and one following paragraph when somebody gives you a passage to read. Preferably more.

As a brand new Christian I drove a girl named Wanda home from a youth activity. I offered to turn on the radio to fill the silence. I would have put it on the station that played “adult” music of the 50s and 60s. It was tamer than “easy listening” is today. But she said “No, I don’t listen to that kind of music.” I looked up to her, so for a long time, I listened only to classical or Christian music.

However, she did something that created cognitive dissonance for me. We happened to attend the same Grad Night at Disneyland. When I saw her a few days later, she expressed delight about the Olivia Newton-John concert, which I had avoided. She had set my standards high and then undermined them.

That incident gnawed at my conscience. After a few years, I started listening to instrumental rock. Gradually, that bar lowered to classic rock, and then only restriction was a matter of taste. After somebody has set a high standard for you, it doesn’t take much of a poor example to erode that standard until you drop it altogether. 

In the Hellenic culture of the ancient Greeks and under Roman rule, much of the food was presented as sacrifices in the pagan temples and then sold in the market places. In some places it was difficult to find food that had not been dedicated to idols. Additionally, on some occasions, traditions such as civic ceremonies required eating in the temples. This posed a practical problem for new Christians who feared that eating such food would bring a curse on them. It also posed a problem for recent converts from the pagan religions who might be tempted to return to worshiping idols.

Many of the Corinthian believers used to be worshipers of the Hellenist or Roman gods. In their minds, eating sacrificed foods, especially in the temples, meant sharing in the sacrifices. That would tempt them to return to their previous pagan cultures. So the passage in Chapter 10 begins by warning young or weak Christians not to take part in pagan sacrifices, especially in any ceremonies that constitute worship of the pagan gods. Then the chapter goes on to teach something for more mature Christians….

Both chapters state that any dedication to the idols holds no actual effect. In chapter 8, the apostle wrote that sacrificed food “will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat” because “we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.” So not only did the sacrifice not do anything, but even the temple and idol had no power of their own.

Chapter 10 agrees, saying, “What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? Rather [meaning “no”]…. All things are lawful, but not all things edify” (10:19–20,23b).

Since the sacrifice of food to an idol does nothing to the food, both passages allow eating such food. A Christian even had the freedom to eat it in the temple. However, both passages command that out of love, the strong Christian with this freedom should abstain from eating such food if it will cause somebody to stumble.

Chapter 8 focuses on avoiding offending weaker Christians who would be upset to see Christians they looked up to eating in temples. Such weaker Christians might see that as an endorsement of the pagan religion and return to it. Chapter 10 teaches a parallel principle but instead focuses on avoiding offending unbelievers.

The principle taught in both is that it does not matter that I know the sacrifice has no effect; if the other person believes the sacrifice has power, then I must set aside my right so they do not stumble.

Can you see how the prime principle is loving others? Can you think of other issues that might have similar applications? Imagine how much better society would be if we all were willing to give up our rights for the sakes of others.

Copyright 2020 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please don't offend me by forgetting to give credit where credit is due.