7

The prophet יְשַׁעְיָ֣הוּ Yeshayahu speaking for God YHVH states אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה ה֣וּא שְׁמִ֑י וּכְבוֹדִי֙ לְאַחֵ֣ר לֹֽא־אֶתֵּ֔ן וּתְהִלָּתִ֖י לַפְּסִילִֽים “I am YHVH, that is My Name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to the graven images.” in [Yeshayahu 42:8]

  • The NKJV maintains an accurate English translation of the Ivrit: “I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.”

Then... the author of John’s Gospel quotes Jesus the Nazarene talking about himself in 3rd-person by stating:

“Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” ( 13:31 Ὅτε ἐξῆλθεν λέγει ὁ Ἰησοῦς Νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ· ) in [John 13:31]

“If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in [Himself], and shall straightway glorify him.” ( 13:32 εἰ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ὁ θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, καὶ εὐθὺς δοξάσει αὐτόν ) in [John 13:32]

How can [Isaiah 42:8] possibly be true, if [John 13:31-32] is true?

  • The contradiction is not because פְּסִילִֽים “graven-images” of Jesus the Nazarene accompany God’s glory in modern worship, but the phrase spoken by Yeshayahu that כְבוֹדִי֙ לְאַחֵ֣ר לֹֽא־אֶתֵּ֔ן “My glory I will not give to another”.

To clarify the [question] : Why would YHVH tell Yeshayahu that He does not give others His glory in [Isaiah 42:8], but Jesus would tell John’s author that God gives Jesus His glory in [John 13:31-32]?

Robert
  • 8,414
  • 2
  • 11
  • 51
חִידָה
  • 8,405
  • 3
  • 15
  • 42
  • 8
    This is perhaps the first time on this site that I've seen someone take the proof texts of the trinity, used to show that Jesus is God, and slap a contradiction tag on it. – Robert Sep 10 '21 at 05:29
  • 3
    a very typical practise it seems - take any text and make it say there is a trinity! Probably explains why someone keeps slapping trinity tags on everything too. – Steve Sep 10 '21 at 05:44
  • This is a quick response, not enough for a full answer. If one realizes that Jesus was the physical incarnation of YHVH himself, that they were two forms of the same being (the "I AM"), there is no issue: the glory that YHVH had, and the glory that Jesus talks about are the same glory, and for the same person. Whenever Jesus referred to "God", he was talking of the "Father", someone that the world didn't even know existed until Jesus revealed his existence. – Ray Butterworth Sep 10 '21 at 13:04
  • @ray what? “someone that the world didn't even know existed until Jesus revealed his existence” The Israelites knew He existed! – Steve Sep 10 '21 at 21:54
  • @steveowen, the Israelites knew about YHVH, the being who later became Jesus. They did not know about the Father. E.g. Matthew 11:27 says "… neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.". Or John 17:25–26, "Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it". Part of Jesus's mission was to reveal the existence of the Father to mankind. – Ray Butterworth Sep 10 '21 at 23:21
  • 1
    @Ray Ray Ray, There are many references to Father (as God) in OT. The 'not knowing' is a reference to not understanding - Jesus' job was to make Him known (to those with eyes to see) 'If you have seem me, you have seen/known the Father. – Steve Sep 11 '21 at 00:03
  • 1
    @steveowen, consider 1Cor 10 "… all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea … And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.". Expressions like "I AM" and "the Rock" are direct references to the YHWH of the Hebrew scriptures. The Greek scriptures apply them to Jesus, not to the Father. Other scriptures refer to Jesus as the actual Creator. – Ray Butterworth Sep 12 '21 at 13:20
  • The rock was Christ. Christ followed no one, not the Israelites, except in time. The rock, like Adam, was a type of him to come. Yes, YHWH is applied to Jesus, not because he is YHWH, but because he perfectly represents God with all God's authority in this new age. – Steve Sep 13 '21 at 08:00
  • The setting of your questions is intriguing.. I’m trying to figure out if you are a believer in Jesus, setting questions to invoke healthy debate and rigorous thought, or a sceptic, clinching the deal on check-mating Jesus… Either way, your knowledge, brilliant mind, thorough understanding of the Law, and leadership skills shine through. As Gentiles, we should welcome your understanding of the Torah and imbibe your insights - but are you for or against Jesus…? –  Apr 29 '22 at 01:25

6 Answers6

12

The question misses the point of glory when God is concerned.

Jesus IS the glory of God!

... the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Cor 4:4

The son is the radiance of God's glory and the representation of His nature Heb 1:3

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 4:6

It is perfectly correct for Jesus to receive glory as the only one next to God - sitting at God's right side. God affirms Jesus' grand status as the exalted and magnified son who He made heir of all things, when He calls the angels to worship him.

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Heb 1:6

When God glorifies Jesus, He (God) glorifies Himself.

Jesus says, “Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. 32If God is glorified in him, God also will glorify him in Himself, and will glorify him immediately. John 3:31

Steve
  • 1
  • 1
  • 15
  • 45
10

This question is really only an apparent contradiction if one begins with the assumption that Jesus is not and never was YHWH of the OT. If this is a contradiction, then there are many more of them - see the appendix below for a larger sample.

The obvious conclusion from this simple survey (in the appendix below) is that the NT teaches that Jesus is YHWH and thus, there is no contradiction between Isa 48:2 and John 13:31, 32.

APPENDIX - Jehovah's Titles applied to Jesus

There is a consistent pattern in the NT that takes many of the titles of Jehovah/YHWH and applies them to Jesus. Here is a sample.

Attribute/title Old Testament YHWH New Testament Jesus
Creator Isa 44:24, 45:18 John 1:3, 10, Col 1:16, 17, Heb 1:2
Savior Isa 43:3, 11, 45:17, 21 Matt 1:21; Acts 4:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:4, 2:13, 3:6; 2 Pet 1:1, 11
I AM Ex 3:13-15; Deut 32:39, Isa 41:4, 43:10, 13, 25, 45:19, 46:4, 48:12, 51:12, 52:6 (LXX) Matt 14:27, Mark 6:50, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70, John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 28, 58, 13:9, 18:5-8
God Deut 4:35, 6:4, 32:39, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6 Matt 1:22, 23; John 1:1, 18, 20:28; Col 2:9, Rom 9:5, Heb 1:8, 9; Tit 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, 1 Tim 3:16; Phil 2:5-8
Rock Isa 44:8; Deut 32:3,4,15; Ps 92:15 1 Cor 10:4; Matt 16:18
Glory Isa 42:8, 48:11 John 17:5, 24
Shepherd Psalm 23:1; Eze 34:11ff John 10:11-16; Heb 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25, 5:4; Rev 7:17
First and Last Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12 Rev 1:17, 18, 2:8, 22:13
Bridegroom Isa 49, 54, Jer 2, Hosea Mark 2:19, Matt 9:15, Luke 5:34, 35
Search Heats and Minds Jer 11:20, 17:10, 1 Sam 16:7 Rev 2:23
Lord of Lords Deut 10:17, Ps 136:3, 26 Rev 17:14, 19:16
Lord of All Deut 10:17, Josh 3:11, 13, Ps 97:5, Zech 4:14, 6:5, Mic 4:13 Acts 10:36, Rom 10:12, Col 1:15
Seven eyes of the LORD Zech 4:10 (& Zech 3:9) Rev 5:6 (Lamb)
Light Ps 27:1, Micah 7:8 John 1:9, 8:12, 9:5, 1 John 1:5-7
Venerable Ex 20:3, 34:14; Deut 8:19; 2 Kings 17:35-38 Matt 2:11, 14:33, 28:9, 17; Luke 4:8; 24:52; John 9:38; Rom 10:9, Heb 1:5, 6, Phil 2:10; Rev 5:6-12

This list could be extended further but it illustrates the point that the NT goes to some extended lengths to suggest that Jesus of the NT is the YHWH (Jehovah) of the OT.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • 3
    I think you have a typo here (you're missing the word "no" before "contradiction"): "and thus, there is contradiction between Isa 48:2 and John 13:31, 32.". I'm basing this assumption on the rest of your answer which seems to say that there's no contradiction (a view I agree with). – bob Sep 10 '21 at 15:07
  • Bickersteth "The Trinity" is where you can find the unabridged list. – lmat - Reinstate Monica Sep 10 '21 at 19:38
  • 2
    @bob - you are absolutely correct - I have now fixed this. Many thanks for point out my silly error. – Dottard Sep 10 '21 at 21:29
  • No problem, happy to help! :) – bob Sep 10 '21 at 21:34
  • So, when Jesus said, 'he was a man who told the truth that he heard from God', he was lying? If he, according to you, is also Yahweh. (John 8:40) – Steve Sep 10 '21 at 23:54
  • @steveowen - He was absolutely truthful!!! Just as he was speaking the truth when He said that the Father is greater than I. This is the truth taught by Phil 2:5-8 that Jesus emptied Himself during the incarnation: He creased to be omnipresent, He depended upon the Father as an example to us. – Dottard Sep 11 '21 at 02:05
  • 1
    So you say, but without scripture to support. God being a man is not a man, no matter how you spin it. And you say he stopped being God, seriously? It’s like Yes Minister. – Steve Sep 11 '21 at 02:45
  • 2
    @steveowen - I did NOT say He stopped being God. He was always God, He just gave up the right and privileges of God during the incarnation. – Dottard Sep 11 '21 at 03:44
  • So he wasn’t omniscient, and he could be tempted and die! Yep, sounds like God to me too. – Steve Sep 11 '21 at 03:55
  • 1
    @steveowen - correct! However, I refuse to engage in this conversation further. He remained omniscient, and omnipotent, but chose not to use these privileges of God according to Phil 2:5-8. I wish you anti-trinitarians would at least find out what trinitarians teach before you create a straw-man argument!! – Dottard Sep 11 '21 at 05:15
  • @steveowen Does the following make sense in any way? 1) We have have a brain - but we also have a mind. Our mind is the image, the hologram, of our brain. It is the glory of our brain. 2) It would seem that the universe is an illusion, a hologram, of a deeper data layer. It is the image of the data layer: it’s glory. But it doesn’t exist without the data layer being there in the first place. 3) We have organs, tissues, that all knit together. But these are the product, the ‘firstborn son’, the glory of our body’s data layer. None of the above ‘glory layers’… –  Apr 29 '22 at 01:09
  • …are anything without the underlying substructure. But the two are, nevertheless, distinct. Jesus (resurrected, reinstated) is described as “the radiance of God’s glory, the exact representation of his being”. I put it to you that this is the relationship between God and Jesus: distinct; yet Jesus grows out of God; emerges, radiant, from God, illustrated by the above examples. Jesus is, in Biblical parlance, taken from the rib of God, and is the glory of God. Jesus and God are distinct - but are “one flesh”; the two are one. –  Apr 29 '22 at 01:10
  • The distinctions between God and Jesus, the separations between the two, magnify and become exaggerated at the incarnation (which you might - I don’t know - not express in those terms). One lands up with a tonne of apparent contradictions. The immortal is now mortal, the infinite is now finite. The Glory of God is now on Earth- how can the glory of God, the expression of his power and majesty, be anywhere NEAR this universe? It would make the whole thing explode like a 13 billion light-year wide gas leak! The degree to which Jesus is stripped of his glory temporarily exaggerates the… –  Apr 29 '22 at 01:46
  • …separation of God and Image of God. Eternity stepped into time. But only for 30-odd years. Should we not guard against defining the immortal in terms of a very fleeting mortal phase..? –  Apr 29 '22 at 01:47
  • @User76451 What incarnation? You are complicating a very basic biblical reality. Jesus is only like God in character - being the image, the form, the representation OF God. That is where the likeness ends. Jesus is nothing like God in any omni. sense. He was a man who died, without sin, and raised to sit next to God as the first of many brothers. He is "one" with God in the same sense that believers are "one" with Jesus - that is the biblical explanation. Obviously, not many like it or agree with it. – Steve Apr 29 '22 at 02:44
  • But surely 'in carna tion' simply means becoming flesh? Is this not what 1 John says? There is a definite sense in John's writings that Jesus was around since the beginning.. So the incarnation represents a stripping of Jesus glory and his power, being the eternal representation of the glory and majesty (including power, surely?) of God.. Having said that though, it's good that we can agree to disagree! :) I guess we had better wrap this up soon, let our chat be migrated to where all good chats go to die..! –  Apr 29 '22 at 09:09
4

How can Isaiah 42:8 possibly be true, if John 13:31-32 is true?

There is no contradiction, you are just misreading John 13:31-32. because such translations are not very clear-- they are literal translations. Below I have given some contemporary translations. In the verse, you quoted I inserted the words [Judas] and,[ connection] which are both implied in the original languages. The Amplified Bible has "through" and CEB has "will bring glory to God"

Jesus is glory to God -- by being faithful to the end.

Now, with Jesus’ faithfulness to death and his subsequent glorious resurrection by God’s power, still greater honor, and glory were being brought to God’s name.

John 17:1 New English Translation

Jesus Prays for the Father to Glorify Him

17 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he looked upward[a] to heaven[b] and said, “Father, the time[c] has come. Glorify your Son, so that your[d] Son may glorify you—

“John 13:31-32 "Therefore, when he [ Judas] was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in [connection] with him.” ( 13:31 Ὅτε ἐξῆλθεν λέγει ὁ Ἰησοῦς Νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ· )

Isaiah 42:8 ASV

8 I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

Other translations.

Contemporary English Version

After Judas had gone, Jesus said: Now the Son of Man will be given glory, and he will bring glory to God.

Good News Translation

After Judas had left, Jesus said, "Now the Son of Man's glory is revealed; now God's glory is revealed through him.

GOD'S WORD® Translation

When Judas was gone, Jesus said, "The Son of Man is now glorified, and because of him God is glorified.

John 13:31-32 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition

31 When he had left, Jesus said, Now is the Son of Man glorified! [Now He has achieved His glory, His honor, His exaltation!] And God has been glorified through and in Him.

Ozzie Ozzie
  • 13,836
  • 4
  • 42
  • 83
  • 2
    I'm not sure this is a translation issue; I think OP's issue is with the Son of Man being glorified, which several of the less literal translations still have. But it's not a contradiction if Jesus is God (which He is). – bob Sep 10 '21 at 15:12
  • bob ; i agree,some translations are better than others;“the Son of Man.” In the Gospel accounts the expression is found nearly 80 times, applying in every case to Jesus Christ, being used by him to refer to himself. (Mt 8:20; 9:6; 10:23) The occurrences outside the Gospel accounts are at Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6; and Revelation 1:13; 14:14. – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 10 '21 at 17:39
  • bob :Jesus’ application of this expression to himself clearly showed that God’s Son was now indeed a human, having ‘become flesh’ (John 1:14), having ‘come to be out of a woman’ through his conception and birth to the Jewish virgin Mary. (Gal. 4:4; Luke 1:34-36) Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother.​ Also Compare 1John 4:2, 3; 2John 7. – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 10 '21 at 17:40
  • @OzzieOzzie What definition of "incarnation" are you using, if becoming a 'son of mankind' through his human mother doesn't fit that definition? Perhaps your definition is suggested by your other statements, but I'm requesting an explicit definition. – LarsH Sep 12 '21 at 12:08
  • LarsH: IN Christendom the bridge between God and man is called “Incarnation.” The sense of the word “incarnation” is that God took upon himself the nature of man in the person of Jesus Christ. He thereby became a God-man, this paganism. The Bible reveals that Jesus is God’s Son and as such he was not and is not God. Jesus himself said: “I am God’s Son.” To Mary the angel Gabriel said: “What is born will be called holy, God’s Son.” Nothing is said of a God-man or a man-God. Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called a “God-man” or “God incarnate.” – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 12 '21 at 18:45
  • Such assumptions are strictly human illusions tainted with paganism, John 10:36; Luke 1:34, 35; 2:21. – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 12 '21 at 18:46
  • Now I understand what your point of view is. – LarsH Sep 13 '21 at 01:10
  • I'm curious, given that "the Word became flesh" as you partially quoted from John 1:14, what do you think Jesus was before he was born? (It also seems that the process of becoming flesh is literally what incarnation means, even if you don't believe he was ever God; but that's more of a question of terminology.) – LarsH Sep 13 '21 at 01:16
  • LarsH ; Jesus : The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God. Incarnation: The sense of the word “incarnation” is that God took upon himself the nature of man in the person of Jesus Christ. He thereby became a God-man. – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 13 '21 at 14:46
  • LarsH : Prior to Jesus’ birth on earth, angels had appeared on this planet in human form, apparently materializing suitable bodies for the occasion, then dematerializing them after completing such assignments. (Gen. 19:1-3; Judges 6:20-22; 13:15-20) They thus remained spirit creatures, merely employing a physical body temporarily. – Ozzie Ozzie Sep 13 '21 at 14:48
2

John's gospel is pretty clear that Christ, or the Davar of God, or Word, is God, and that Jesus is the Word made flesh, and therefore Jesus' glory is God's glory.

John 1.1-14 (LEB)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [...]And the Word became flesh and took up residence among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the one and only from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Robert
  • 8,414
  • 2
  • 11
  • 51
  • I deleted the comments because they weren't respectful and it looks like this little dialog had reached its natural conclusion. So don't start it again. – curiousdannii Sep 11 '21 at 01:16
  • @curiousdannii obviously it was you! the comments were related to the question more than a lot of comments or even answers. My comments referred to why it would be difficult to answer question based on some important factors. I was informed that I I'm incorrect and invited to be correct, it was not a dialog. Again as previously, if your delete my comments, so should be deleting a lot more. I appreciate you don't like my answers because they go against trinity - but I feel your abusing your position. – another theory Sep 13 '21 at 08:32
  • If you think I'm abusing my position, please go to [Meta] to make your case, or contact SE staff using the link at the bottom of the page. – curiousdannii Sep 13 '21 at 13:06
  • I appreciate you cleaning this up @curiousdannii. I shouldn't have mode those comments and they added nothing to the site. – Robert Sep 13 '21 at 17:34
2

Why would YHVH tell Yeshayahu that He does not give others His glory in [Isaiah 42:8], but Jesus would tell John’s author that God gives Jesus His glory in [John 13:31-32]?

Well, because Jesus doesn't actually say that "God gives Jesus His [God's] glory" in John 13:31-32.

John 13:31-32

31 When he had gone out, Jesus said,
“Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and glorify him at once.

All Jesus is saying is:

  1. The time has come for Jesus to be glorified.
  2. God is glorified in (through/by/because of) Jesus.
  3. If God is glorified in (through/by/because of) Jesus, God will (in response) glorify Jesus in (under/within the covenantal subordinated relationship with) him [God] right away.

Quite simply, John 13:31-32 does not say that God gives Jesus God's glory that is exclusive to God. Mutual glorification is not the same as equal glorification. Therefore, there is no contradiction presented.

Austin
  • 3,913
  • 2
  • 14
  • 31
2

By "another" Isaiah means another deity. This interpretation is corroborated by referring to carved images further in the sentence.

As stated by Jesus in J 10,30, Jesus isn't another God, he's one and the same God, which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

EDIT

As requested by commenters, I expand my answer with what's desirable, namely, if I understand correctly, referencing some secondary source with discussion related to the question. (In the short initial part I referenced the Bible twice, but that's a primary source.)

The well-researched and well-referenced article Servant Song (in Polish) states as a commonly held hypothesis that Iz 42,8-9 aren't a part of the First Servant Song but rather they continue the thought from the passage Iz 41,21-29. Which is about God challenging pagan deities and their statues to show their autonomous power or even give him any advice. Therefore it makes sense to interpret it in the same vein.

ByteEater
  • 121
  • 3
  • 2
    Welcome to the site, ByteEater. You may like to take the 'Tour' to see how this site differs from most other Q & A sites. You have given such a succinct answer, most people won't 'get it', but I do! In order to make others pause and consider your point, further explanation is needed, for what is obvious to you and me is not obvious to some others! Try backing up your claim with other scriptures or explanatory notes, and see if you can make others think, instead of just giving a couple of bald statements. I look forward to reading more from you in future. – Anne Sep 12 '21 at 15:37
  • Here is the link to the Biblical Hermeneutics Tour: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/tour – Lesley Sep 12 '21 at 15:59
  • 1
    While many will agree with your answer here, could you provide some evidence and references to support you assertions? – Dottard Sep 12 '21 at 22:24
  • 1
    Thanks for the nice welcome. I've made an edit hopefully fulfilling what you asked for. – ByteEater Sep 13 '21 at 07:40