James Puthuparampi on the Assumption of the Soul of Mary

James Puthuparampi, a Catholic priest (part of the Syro-Malankara rite), wrote a scholary tome on the Mariology of Jacob of Serugh (alt. Serug). On the topic of Jacob's belief in the assumption of the soul of Mary, he wrote that:  

Mary Now in Heaven

 

The resurrection and ascension of our Lord is the foundation of the conception of Mary’s glorious entrance into heaven. There is no biblical evidence concerning the assumption of Mary just as there is no biblical reference to her death. When we go through the homily On the Death and Burial of Mary, we understand Mar Jacob’s conviction that the Virgin who, never for a moment was under the slightest shadow of sin and who “believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord”, was taken to heaven. The Bible being reticent about the assumption, the apocryphal writings were the source for him. Mar Jacob narrates Mary’s assumption like this:

 

The heavenly company performed their “Holy, Holy, Holy,” unto the
glorious soul of this Mother of the Son of God.
Fiery seraphim surrounded the soul of the departed and raised the loud
sound of their joyful shouts.

 

Here he does not use the expression “bodily assumption”, but describes her glorious entry into heaven. Just as at the ascension of Christ, so also when speaking about Mary’s entry into heaven, Mar Jacob puts Psalm 24:7 in the mouth of the angels, standing at the doors of heaven.

 

They shouted and said: “Lift up, O gates, all your heads, because the
Mother of the King seeks to enter the bridal
chamber of light.”

 

When Mary entered into heavenly glory, she became a sign to the poor and the humble that they also will attain in fullness what Christ promised in the Beatitudes (Mt 5:3-10). Christians hope for the resurrection of the dead as St. Paul preached: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruit, then at his coming those who belong to Christ” (1 Cor 15:22-23). This hope was realized in Mary as she entered into heavenly glory. Mary praised the Lord -in the Magnificat for having “exalted those of low degree” (Lk 1:52); and this exaltation became a reality in the fullest sense at her glorious entry, which is a prefigure of our future glory. Mary who experienced death, has now become one who shares in her Son’s role as a giver of new life. (James Puthuparampil, Mariological Thought of Mar Jacob of Serugh (451-521) [MŌRĀN 'ETH'Ō Series 25; Kerala, India: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2005], 337-39)

 

After the sentence, “Here he does not use the expression ‘bodily assumption’, but describes her glorious entry into heaven,” we have the following endnote:

 

When we analyse the Syriac word napsa, the word for the soul, we understand that it signifies more than soul, for in Syriac this word has different meanings such as breath of life, a soul, living person and oneself. (Cf. J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 346-347. B. P. Sony analyses the meaning of soul (napsa) in the study on Mar Jacob’s understanding of creation and anthropology. B. P. Sony, La doctrine de Jacques de Saroug sur la creation et Vanthropologie, 238). Perhaps this term has a greater significance than the soul. So, napsa could refer to Mary herself, not just to the soul. We suggest this because Mar Jacob does not use the word napsa in the following passages, rather he uses expressions such as “Mother of the King” and “Mother of Mercy.” (Ibid., 338 n. 182)

 

Elsewhere, on how the preaching of the bodily assumption of Mary is a late development, the author noted that:

 

It is at a later period that the theme of Mary’s assumption into heaven has come into the preaching of the Fathers. For example, in the 8th century Germanum of Constantinople (+733), Andrew of Crete (+740) and John Damascene (+749) spoke about the Mary’s assumption and her heavenly mediation. (Ibid., 337-38 n. 180)

 

Benjamin Sommer on a Divine Council being Present in Genesis 1:26

  

Some scholars object to the idea that Genesis 1.26 implies a divine council was present at the creation because the idea that God would consult with other divine beings at the creation because the idea that God would consult with other divine beings at the creation conflicts with the major thrust of the creation account in Genesis 1, which is that God created the world by Himself (so Cassuto, Genesis, 55-6). In fact, God is not described as consulting them but simply as informing them of his decision. Indeed, the next verse pointedly states that God crated humanity—and whatever beings God addressed in 1.26 have no role. These verses do not portray any group efforts or deliberation. Verse 26 deliberately emphasizes the contrast to the polytheistic (especially Mesopotamian) creation stories that serve as the backdrop and foil for Genesis 1. By alluding in 1.26 to the motif of group action more acutely than it would have done by leaving out mention of it altogether. (The same logic underlies the reference in 1.21 to God’s creating the התנינים [as opposed to God’s fight with Tanin]; it may also underlie the description in 1.9-10 of God’s creation of הימים [as opposed to a fight with Yam{, and the reference in 1.2 to God’s wind hovering over the impersonal תהום [as opposed to a fight with Tiamat in which winds are wielded against her as a weapon]. For more, Garr, Image, 203-4, points out that in verse 26, God says to the angels, “Let עשׂה a human,” using a less restricted word for creation. But in verse 27 God makes humanity on God’s own—and the verb is ברא now, a verb used exclusively with the subject God in the Hebrew Bible (as noted already by Melammed, “Linguistic,” 1 n. 1). Further, Garr points out that though God says “Let’s make humanity in our image (בצלמנו)” in 26, God makes the humans “in His image (בצלמו)” in 27. (the last point is also made by Bird, “male and Female,” 144 n. 51). (Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009], 269 n. 92)

 

Benjamin Sommer on Genesis 1:26-27 and Divine Embodiment

  

Unlike Ezekiel, the P documents in the Pentateuch do not describe the shape of the kabod, but they do speak of the form and shape (דמות, צלם) of humans in Genesis 1.26-27, 5.1, and 9.6. In the first of these passages we read,

 

God said,
“Let us make humanity (אדם) in our form (בצלמנו), after our shape (כדמותנו),
so that they may rule the fish of the sea, the bird in the sky, the beast,
all the earth and all the creeping things that creep on the earth.”
Then God created humanity in His form;
in the form of God He created him;
male and female He created them.

 

These verses assert that human beings have the same form as God and other heavenly beings. That the shape in question appears not only in God’s body but also in the bodies of other heavenly beings is clear from the first-person plurals of 1.26, in which God speaks to members of the divine court: “Let us make the human in our form and shape.” (here we should recall that there is no “we” of majesty in Hebrew verbs.) As Randall Garr points out, angels or divine beings in the Hebrew Bible are generally conceived as being humanoid in form. (Garr, Image, 53-4) Consequently, the use of the first-personal plural in Genesis 1.26 shows that humans, angels, and God all have the same basic shape. (Incidentally, God’s decision to reach out to other divine beings in this verse was purely rhetorical, nothing more than a polite gesture; in the next verse, God crates humanity by Godself, before the other divine beings can even respond.)

 

The terms used in Genesis 1.26-27, demut and ṣelem, the, pertain specifically to the physical contours of God. This becomes especially clear when one views the terms in their ancient Semitic context. They are used to refer to visible, concreate representations of physical objects, as verses such as 2 Kings 16.10, Ezekiel 23.14-15, 1 Samuel 6.4-5, and 2 Chronicles 4.3 make clear. (Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009], 69)

 

In a related endnote, we read that:

One might object to my assertion that these words in Genesis. 1-26-7 refer to visible, concrete representations of concrete objects by noting that at times כדמות can function essentially as a preposition meaning “like”—e.g., in Isaiah 13.4. In such as case, דמות loses its physical denotation. Nevertheless, the combination of the two words in Genesis 1.26-7 in all likelihood is intended to stress the concrete sense of the more ambiguous דמות. In making this claim, I disagree with Garr, who argues that “the two terms are different. In combination or separately, each nominal phrase expresses and implies a very different characterization of the human race” (Garr, Image, 166). In fact, these terms have a substantial area of overlap: Both can refer to physical representations of a physical object. The noun צלם on its own may refer to a representation that, on a visual level, does not clearly resemble what it represents, and the term דמות may refer to a likeness without as strongly implying the substance of the representation of what is represented; however, both terms often include both physicality and similarity within their semantic fields. By using both terms (both in Genesis 1.26-7 as well as in 5.3), the priestly authors strongly suggest that they intend a meaning located in the substantial overlap of the two semantic fields. Hence the verse graphically points to a conception of God, angels, and humans as physical beings whose physical forms resemble each other.

 

It has also been suggested on the basis of Psalm 39.7 and Psalm 73.20 that צלם can have a nonconcrete or abstract meaning; see, e.g., Garr, 124. This suggestion, however, is specious. In both psalms, the word צלם is in all likelihood a word unrelated to the more common צלם in Hebrew. This less common word means “shadow, dim, apparition” and goes back to the proto-Semitic root tlm. The root (= צלם ₁₁ in Hebrew) is cognate with Arabic ẓalama and the Ugaritic ẓlmt and glmt as well as the roto known in the common Akkadian phrase ṣalmat qaqqadi. It seems to mean “darkness, obscurity.” The more common Hebrew noun (צלם ₁) meaning “image, physical representation,” goes back to the proto-Semitic ṣlm (cognate to the Arabic ṣalama), which apparently meant “chop off, hew.” See HALOT,  the roots צלם ₁ and צלם ₁₁. The noun form the root צלם ₁₁ is much less common in biblical Hebrew. It occurs only in Psalm 39.7 (which is to be rendered, “Indeed, man goes about in obscurity; he mutters sounds devoid of meaning; he collects things without knowing who gathers them”) and perhaps in Psalm 73.20 (where, however, the term may in fact retain its basic meaning of model or form; both possible meanings fit the context). The less common noun does not make sense in Genesis 1.26-7. (Ibid., 224-25 n. 69)

 

Further Reading:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 44: Jerry Grover Addressing Issues Relating to the Golden Plates & Book of Mormon Chronology

 

Episode 44: Jerry Grover Addressing Issues Relating to the Golden Plates & Book of Mormon Chronology

God being "entirely fire" in The Book of Mary's Repose

  

The Apostles Behold God in the Seventh Heaven

 

132) And then we apostles arrived in Paradise, with our companions the apostles, and we greeted them, telling them everything that happened to us. And then our Lord brought us to a white river and he washed us together with Mary. And he led us up to the seventh heaven, where God sits. And we wanted to enter into him, so that we could embrace him, and we were afraid, because [God was] entirely fire. But we saw two seraphim standing, each one having six wings: with two they covered their feet, and with two they flew. And they did not touch the face of God, because [God is] completely perfect: for they could not see the face of God, because [God was] entirely fire. And the other two wings of the seraphim covered their faces, both of them covering. And with two they were suspending the feet of God, lest they make an impression on the eights and on the earth; for at that moment, when his feet touch the earth, [that will be] the time of the world’s consummation. † For [there is] still a little [time?], and they will touch the earth, because from twelve days he comes in twelve except for a little. (“The Book of Mary’s Repose,” in The Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; Apocryphes: Collection De Poche De L’Aelac 17; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2023], 172)

 

The Establishment of Feasts Honoring Mary in the Six Books Apocryphon

 

In the Six Books Apocryphon, we read the following:

The Apostles Establish Three Annual Feasts in Mary’s Honor.

 

(4.11) and when they had prayed, they said, “Let us write everything that we have seen in ‘The Departure of the Blessed One’: ‘In the year three-hundred and forty-five, my Lady Mary went forth from this world. And we the apostles have written that there will be a commemoration of the Blessed one three times in the year, because if people observe the commemoration, they will be preserved from wrath, and peace will reign over all the regions of the earth, and all bad afflictions will be prevented from going forth over the earth and harming it.’” And the apostles ordered that there be a commemoration of the Blessed one in the second Kanun [January], two days after the Nativity, so that by her offerings and prayers, the locusts that hide in the lands will be killed, and seeds that the farmers have borrowed and sown will be blessed. And the fragrance of her offering will ascend and persuade Christ, so that one of the kingdoms will not be stirred and wage war with the others, and the blood of many people be shed [31^a] upon the earth, because when there are wars, heaven and earth are in mourning over people killing each other. And the air is disturbed, and the smell of the air is changed from people’s corpses, as in the days of Noah, so that smell of corpses spreads from end to end of the earth.

(4.12) And the apostles that there be a commemoration of my Lady Mary in the month of Iyar [May], on the fifteenth, on account of the seeds that were sown, and on account of the beard of wheat, so that from them there will be an offering to the Lord and the Blessed one. And the apostles ordered that for the entire month of Iyar, people should draw near to the presence of God with weeping and mourning and prayers.

(4.13) And the apostles ordered that there be a commemoration of my Lady Mary in the month of Ab [August], on the thirteenth, on account of the vine-bearing clusters, and on account of the trees bearing fruit, so that the clouds of hail, which bear stones of wrath, will not come, and the trees and the fruit be broken, and the vines and their clusters be diseased, and those eating them suddenly become ill, and there will be a fearful pestilence on everyone, and it will kill parents in front of children and children in front of parents.

 

Bread Offerings for Mary’s Annual Commemorations.

 

(4.14) And the apostles ordered that there will be a commemoration of the Blessed one [31^b] in these three months, so that people will be delivered from hard afflictions and a plague of wrath will not come upon the earth and its inhabitants. And the apostles ordered that offerings that have been offered to the Blessed one should not remain overnight, but in the evening let flour of the finest wheat flour come to the church and be placed before the altar. And let the priests make the offering and set up censors of incense and light the lights. And let the entire evening service [vespers] be concerning these offerings. And when the service is finished, let everyone pray and ay the prayer of my Lady Mary, the Theotokos, “Comet to us and help the people who call upon you,” and with the priest’ sword of blessing, my Lady Mary comes and blesses these offerings. And when everyone takes his offering and goes to his house, great aid and the blessings of my Lady Mary will enter his dwelling and sustain it forever.

(4.15) And the apostles arose and took censors of incense and drew near to the Lord to ask him that the years and their garlands be blessed. And the apostles prayed and said, “Lord Jesus Christ, hear the voice of our prayers, and bless the garlands of the years that are coming to the world, and bless the twelve months. [32^a] Let Nisan come, bearing the buds of the flowers of blessing, so that it may perfume the altars of the Lord with glorious flowers. Let Iyar come, bearing blessed ears of corn, from which an offering may be made to the Lord. Let Haziran come, bearing tables of newly rubbed corn from the ears, and carrying dishes full of new bread, which the Lord will bless and give to the people. Let Tamuz come, giving thanks for people who sing on the threshing floors, which are full of rejoicing. Let Ab come, giving worship to God, who has blessed and given unripe fruits. Let Ilal come, worshipping and praise Christ, who has blessed the months and years. Let [the first] Teshrin come and its good things, which heard the voice of the farmer who has sown with the plow of the cross. Let [the second] Teshrin come, and its joys with it, fragrant dew that comes from heaven, anointing and blessing the earth and its inhabitants. Let [the first] Kanun come, and its joys with it, thick clouds, and lightning and rain that pours out on the face of the earth. Let [the second] Kanun come, and with it snow and ice, which please the earth. Let Shebat come, bearing on its shoulders good things that give birth to joys. Let Adar come, bearing gifts for the Lord, the best lambs and sheep, giving thanks.”

(4.16) Thus the apostles prayed and said, “Yea Lord God, who sent his Son [32^b] to us to save the world from error, let your blessing be upon the earth and its inhabitants when and offering is made to my Lady Mary, the Theotokos.” Then the voice of the apostles’ prayer ascended to heaven. And the Lord Jesus Christ came to them on a luminous cloud and spoke with them and said to them, “Be strong and take courage, and be valiant and do not be afraid. Everything that you seek will be given, and everything that you cry out will be heard, and your wish will be constantly with your father in heaven.” Then the apostles bowed their heads and were blessed by the Lord Jesus Christ. (“The Six Books Apocryphon,” in The Dormition and Assumption of the Virgin Mary [trans. Stephen J. Shoemaker; Apocryphes: Collection De Poche De L’Aelac 17; Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2023], 221-23)

 

Commenting on the Six Books Apocryphon, as well as the above text, Shoemaker noted the following

 

Like the Book of Mary’s Repose, the earliest direct witnesses to the Six Books Apocryphon are in Syriac, where the text survives intact in two manuscripts from the sixth century and in three fragmentary manuscripts—one quite substantial—from the later fifth century. The two complete early manuscripts preface this Dormition apocryphon with the Protoevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, whereby producing, in effect, a sort of proto-“Life” of the Virgin Mary. Since the text was originally written in Greek, the existence of several Syriac versions by the later fifth century indicates a much earlier composition, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the text and its traditions most likely belong to the previous century, as other evident confirms more directly. . . . Theologically, the Six Books Apocryphon is quite orthodox, particularly in comparison with the Book of Mary’s Repose. Moreover, its Marian piety is significantly more advanced, showing a remarkably developed devotion to the Virgin. Numerous miracles are assigned to the power of Mary’s prayers, and she is able to work miracles throughout the world. Several of these miracles involve Marian apparitions, and in some cases she is seemingly able to bilocate. While the Book of Mary’s Repose draws a focus on Mary’s intercession only during her visit the places of punishment, the Six Books Apocryphon repeatedly invokes the unique efficacy of her petitions. Nevertheless, it is not enough to seek her prayers, but these must be joined to regular liturgical commemorations and offerings in her honor, to be observed on three different occasions during the year. The rituals enjoined by the Six Books Apocryphon for these occasions involve offerings of bread in Mary’s honor, in a fashion strikingly similar to the practices of the “Kollyridians” as described by Epiphanius of Salamis (Pan. 78-79). The correspondence of these rituals with Epiphanius’ account is too remarkable to be mere coincidence, and it seems clear that he somehow knew traditions from the apocryphon as he was writing in the middle of the fourth century. (Ibid., 30-31, 34, emphasis in bold added)

 

P. Craig Bresych on the Problems with the Mainstream Understanding of the Trinity

Note: The author of the book, P. Craig Bresych is not a member of any non-Trinitarian group; as far as I can ascertain, he is a mainstream Protestant.

 

The Trinity is more than just a belief in the existence of a triad of three things: Father, Son and Spirit of God. Christadelphians believe in the existence of the Father, and in the existence of the Son, and the existence of the outworking power or presence of God referred to as the Holy Spirit. These are simply three things—a triad. The historical doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond a simple collection of three things. It involves a complex and confusing theory which posits that each of these three things are “persons” and that each of the three “Persons” are each fully God, each being internal and coequal with the other “persons,” and yet comprising only one God. If this isn’t confusing enough, by the end of this chapter we’ll also discover that “persons” in this traditional formula does not actually mean “person.” (P. Craig Bresych, Are the Christadelphians a Cult? [Dorset, U.K.: New Covenant Press, 2022], 76 n. 2)

 

Can Someone Please Define a “Person”?

 

Trinitarians have been accustomed, for many centuries, to describe the trinitarian “Godhead” with the use of the word person. For example, theologian and Trinitarian apologist Roger E. Olson writes:

 

First, what is the doctrine of the Trinity? Without getting into waters too deep, let’s define it ecumenically and very generally. It is that God is one God eternally existing inseparably and equally as three “persons” (hypostases). But we must immediately qualify that by saying that “person” here, in this doctrine, does not mean what “person” means in everyday American English. [. . . ] We must explain that when we say three “persons,” we do not mean “person” in the common, American cultural individualistic sense. What we do mean is not clear. (Roger E. Olson, “How Important is the Doctrine of the Trinity?”)

 

His lack of clarity is mot evident when an inventory is taken of the numerous ways in which Trinitarian theologians have tried to explain what a person is in the traditional Trinitarian formulaic context. “Just as there is nothing more humorous than philosophers trying to define humor, so there is nothing more confusing than theologians trying to clear up the confusions of the Trinity.” (Leonard I. Sweet, New Life in the Spirit [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982], p. 33) And when it comes to the meaning of the word “person,” the endless babel of opinions would be humorous if it were not so grievous.

 

For example, after a pastor initially explains to the unlearned man in the pew that the Trinity is the union of three “person” in a single Godhead, one who is more expert on the topic comes along and “clarifies” that the term “person” is misleading and that the Trinity should be understood as consisting of three distinctions, followed by another expert who proclaims it rather to be of three diversities, only to be interrupted by another teacher of mysteries explaining the Trinity to consist of a single being of three inseparable inter-personalities, who is trailed by another who teaches that God consists of three intelligent substances, while another says: three distinct cogitations, three distinct entities, or three distinct natures. But others prefer the “persons” to be three subsistent relations (sometimes referred to external relations, or internal relations, take your pick), and yet others say: three differences, three forms, three infinite minds, three hypostatic characters, three existences, three centers of consciousness, three active self-consciousnesses, three parts, three modes or aspects of being or existence, three functions, three special faces, three realities, or three “movements of life and love.” A few are bold enough to identify the “persons” as three individuals, or three agents, without realizing how close this is to tritheism. And finally, a few expositors with a straight face will step forward to clarity that the Trinity is actually a single being that consists of three “somewhats” or three “whos.” But wait, there’s more! The grandest of all explanations for how we should properly understand a “person” of the Trinity has been saved for last:

 

A person in an impenetrable and divine mystery of a being, which is a substance possessing either aseity, or at least inseity, the essence of which is not only a supposit, but also a rational subsistence which makes it possible for it to lead a self-conscious and free existence as a self-standing, self-possessing and autonomous center of attribution; it is incommunicable, indestructible, and unique in its individuality, and in its positive transcendental relationship to being, to the ground of all being, to existence, and to becoming. (Petro Borys Tereshkowych Bilaniuk, Theology and Economy of the Holy Spirit [Rome: Center for Indian and Inter-Religious Studies, 1980], p. 31)

 

I am not making this stuff up! This, sadly, is what these teachers call “explaining.”

 

Despite all these varying opinions found within arcane books of systematic theology, never does the man in the pew come to learn from his instructors what I jus shared: that according to the theologians and doctors of orthodoxy, the word persons in the definition of the “one God in three persons” doesn’t actually mean persons as you and I commonly understand the word!

 

Adding to all the confusion is the fact that there are Trinitarian scholars who refer to “God” (Yahweh) as a person, which leaves us with a formula where God exists as “three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in one person (God),” instead of the typical text-book definition of the Trinity as “three persons in one essence” or “three persons in one being” as most orthodox theologians would put forward. At least one scholar recognized the conundrum and tried to solve it by “clarifying” that:

 

The word “person” does not have the same meaning in the two sentences which follow:

·       God is three persons.

·       God is a person. (Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction [Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2017], p. 178)

 

Such a solution, however, simply compounds the confusion, for the last thing the average Christian needs is an additional definition for the word person in this convoluted discussion about God.

 

When so many opinions are presented among Trinitarians themselves respecting their own doctrine, it only seems fair that the Christadelphians be permitted to entertain an opinion of their own, yet very different from all the rest, and that is, that the Trinity itself consists of error. (Ibid., 118-20)

 

 

Unity Does Not Imply Ontological Equality

 

One of the most common “go to” proof-texts utilized by Trinitarians is from John 10:30, where Jesus states, “I and my Father are one.” But the unity expressed in this verse was not one of essence or substance, but of purposes. There are many ways in which two or more persons can be said to be one without experiencing unity in an ontological sense. One example is marriage, where a man and a woman become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Another example can be found in John 17:11, where Jesus prayed for oneness among his disciples “as we are one,” that is, just as the Father and Son are “one.” Yet just as the unity among the followers of Jesus was not a unity of essence, but rather of purpose, so was the oneness of Jesus spoke of between himself and the Father in John 10:30. Moreover, since 10:29 unequivocally states that “my Father is greater than all,” which Jesus repeats in John 14:28, there should be no occasion for Trinitarians to claim that some divine nature can be found in these texts. And yet many have claimed such, and still do.

 

Going as far back as the second century, early Church fathers, with the exception of Origen, took John 10:30 as teaching the ontological equality between the Father and the Son. Yet during the Reformation period, both Philip Melanchthon and John Calvin, who were staunch defenders of the Trinity, questioned whether this text could be appropriated as a proof of the deity of Jesus. These Protestant reformers understood the “oneness” spoken of in John 10:30 as a oneness of purpose and will. Calvin went so far as to harshly criticize the Church fathers for their exegetical overreach, stating: “The ancients made a wrong use of the passage to prove that Christ is hommousios, of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance [In the Godhead] but about the agreement which he has with the Father [. . . ].” (P. Craig Bresych, Are the Christadelphians a Cult? [Dorset, U.K.: New Covenant Press, 2022], 92-93)

 

 

My God, My God, My God, My God!

 

John 20:28 is not the only place where we can find the words “my God” and Jesus in close proximity to one another. For example, when Jesus was hanging on the cross: “about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’” (Matthew 27:46, RSV). In addition to revealing the deep agony and sense of despair experienced by Jesus in his final hours, his words “my God, my God” confirm an easy to overlook truth: Jesus had a God.

 

This simple truth—that there was  God over him whom he worshiped and served, and whom he referred to in John 17;3 as “the only true God”_-this truth was reaffirmed by Jesus after his resurrection. Prior to ascending to this God, Jesus stated, “Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17, NRSV).

 

This very same reference to “My God” (i.e., the God of Jesus) can be found upon Jesus’ lips even after he ascended into heaven, and even after he was “exalted at the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33). In Revelation 3:12, the exalted Son for a total of four times uses these very same words, “My God,” to affirm that he still has a God over him:

 

He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. (Revelation 3:12, RSV). (P. Craig Bresych, Are the Christadelphians a Cult? [Dorset, U.K.: New Covenant Press, 2022], 95-96)

 

On the close proximity of the Messiah and “my God”:

 

A noteworthy variant where the two ideas are found together is Psalm 89:20-27: “I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him [. . . .] He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’” A strong case can be made that the “David” being referred to in this passage has a dual application, first to the patriarch David, Israel’s anointed king, but ultimately to the greater son of David, the Messiah Jesus. In this second application, the prophet who is speaking of things to come, proclaims that he (the Messiah, though not yet born) has a God over him: “ . . . my Father, my God . . .” (Ibid., 95 n. 25)

 

On Rev 3:12:

 

This statement by Jesus raises some uncomfortable yet necessary questions for Trinitarians: If God is a Trinity, consisting of three coequal “persons,” Then why is it that Jesus always identifies the Father with this one God? Why does Jesus never refer to the Holy Spirit as God? Was Jesus ascending only to one of the three “persons” in the “Godhead”? Why didn’t Jesus say, “I am ascending to my Father, and your Father, and to the Holy Spirit . . . ?” Why is it that the Holy Spirit is always absent in NT passages where Jesus interacts with and refers to God, e.g., when Jesus prays to the Father? Why does Jesus never pray to the Holy Spirit? Why are worshipers exhorted to worship the Father at the exclusion of the remaining coequal “Persons” of the “Godhead” (John 14:23)? Why are we instructed to pray to the Father alone, if all three “persons” of the Trinity are coequal (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:12)? (Ibid., 96 n. 26)