by Troy Salinger [SOURCE]
In the world of ‘orthodox’ apologetics many passages from the NT are employed as proof texts for the twin doctrines of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. One category of texts that has become especially useful for these apologists is that in which the language of some OT passage about Yahweh is being applied to our Lord Yeshua. The apologist will first show the NT passage which is saying something about Yeshua, either by quoting or alluding to an OT passage, then they will show how the OT passage, in it’s original context, is speaking of Yahweh. They then tell their audience that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from this is that the NT author was letting his readers know by this that we should regard Yeshua as Yahweh himself.
One such passage is 1 Peter 3:15. This passage was part of James White’s case in his recent debate with biblical unitarian Dale Tuggy on the question ‘Is Jesus YHWH?’, and even more recently, it was brought up to me by a trinitarian who commented on one of my blog articles, as a proof that Yeshua is Yahweh. So are they right? Is the real import of this passage that we should equate Yeshua with the God of the OT, Yahweh himself?
Here is the passage and it’s OT counterpart:
1 Peter 3:14-15 – “But even if you should suffer on account of righteousness, you are blessed. Moreover, do not fear their fear, neither be troubled. But sanctify (Gr. hagiasate) in your hearts the Messiah as Lord (Gr. kurios). . .”
Isaiah 8:12-13 (LXX) – “. . . do not fear their fear, neither be troubled. Sanctify (Gr. hagiasate) the Lord (Gr. kurios) himself and he shall be your fear.”
So you can easily see the correlation between the two passages. What is not so obvious and what the apologists capitalize on is the fact that the word “Lord” in Isaiah 8:13, in the Hebrew text, is the name of God, Yahweh. Hence, the Hebrew text says “Sanctify Yahweh himself and he shall be your fear, he shall be your awe-inspiring one.” Then, based on this correlation, the orthodox apologist then concludes that Peter was telling his audience that Yeshua is identical to the one mentioned in Is. 8:13, i.e. Yahweh himself.
Shallow And Faulty Reasoning
This type of exegesis, and the reasoning behind it, appears to be rather shallow, superficial and lacking in the serious reflection that the complexity of the issue requires. I playfully refer to this kind of biblical interpretation as ‘kindergarten exegesis’, because it manifests a level of reasoning you would expect from a child. It also engages in the fallacy of false equivalence. A false equivalence occurs when two entities have something in common and then someone uses that commonality to say that those two entities are the same entity. For example, if Bobby has a red ball and Joey has a red ball, it would be fallacious to conclude that Bobby and Joey are the same entity. It is not at all unreasonable to suppose that both Bobby and Joey could both have a red ball. But what if both Bobby and Joey also had brown hair and green eyes and were both wearing a yellow shirt? Would we now be justified in concluding they are the same individual? No, because they can be two distinct individuals and still have these features in common.
In the same way, that both Yahweh and Yeshua have the title kurios applied to them and that believers are exhorted to sanctify them both, does not necessitate the logical step that they must be the same entity. This is simply faulty reasoning.
Let me illustrate this further with an example from scripture. In the Hebrew bible it is stated that Yahweh gave the law to Israel [1] and it is explicitly referred to as the law of Yahweh [2]. But it is equally true that the Hebrew bible states that Moses gave the law to Israel [3] and it is explicitly referred to as the law of Moses [4]. But it would be foolish to conclude from this that Yahweh and Moses are the same entity, and indeed, no one seems to make that mistake. There is a more reasonable way to explain why both Yahweh and Moses are credited with giving the law to Israel and why it is called both the law of Yahweh and the law of Moses. Yahweh is the ultimate source of the law and Moses is the mediate source. Yahweh gave the law to Moses who, in turn, gave it to Israel [5.]
In the same way, we should not be so shallow in our thinking so as to conclude from the correlation between 1 Pet. 3:15 and Is. 8:13 that Yahweh and Yeshua are the same entity when there is a more reasonable way to explain that correlation.
Context Of Both Passages
Let’s look first at the context of Is. 8:13.
Isaiah was given this prophecy at a time when both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah were in rebellion to Yahweh. There was widespread idolatry in both houses with the leadership of both leading the people into the worship of other gods, though this was only recently true of Judah, but had been true of the northern kingdom for two hundred years.
Verses 1-8 foretell the invasion of Assyria’s armies and the total destruction of the northern kingdom and the partial destruction of the southern kingdom some twenty years later.
Verses 9-10 seem to be saying that Judah was not at that time abandoned by God but that he would still defend it. This is the significance of “Immanuel” in v. 10, to assure Judah that God was with them.
Verses 11-13 are less clear as to their meaning, but it appears that Yahweh is warning Isaiah and his family and/or disciples (the verbs are plural) to not follow the way of the people, nor to fear either the Assyrian army or the idolatrous Israelites, but to sanctify Yahweh, i.e. set Yahweh apart from all of the other gods to be their God alone, and to fear and be in awe of him alone, for then he would be for them a sanctuary.
Verses 14-15 are saying that Yahweh himself would, at that time, be to both houses of Israel a stone causing men to trip and a rock that makes them stumble, and a trap and snare for the people of Jerusalem. Indeed, many at that time would stumble and fall and be caught in the snare. Yahweh was a stone of stumbling in the sense that the people of Israel were being confronted with the ultimate choice to either serve Yahweh alone as God or to continue to serve other gods.
Now let’s look at the context of 1 Pet. 3:15.
The main theme of the letter of 1 Peter is about how to respond to unjust suffering.[6] The suffering that the recipients of the letter (probably an early circular letter sent out to Jewish believers in various cities across the Roman world) were enduring does not appear to be an official persecution by the Roman government, but rather from their fellow Jews, for being followers of Yeshua, and from their pagan neighbors, which, as Jews, they had always faced. This persecution seems to have not yet gone beyond that of mocking, insults, false accusations and ostracization. [7]
As Peter is encouraging the believers to good behavior in Messiah (3:8-13), it occurs to him that even if they are eager to do good they might still suffer insults and slander. It is then that the words of Is. 8:12 come to his mind and he uses those words to encourage them to not be afraid (1 Peter 3:14).
Now it is evident that the context in which Peter uses these words from Isaiah is a different context from which they were originally used by Isaiah, though there is some similarity between the two circumstances. In Isaiah, the words “do not fear what they fear, neither should you be troubled” are spoken by Yahweh to Isaiah and the faithful worshippers of Yahweh to encourage them, either in light of the impending invasion of Assyria or because of the threats of their fellow unfaithful Israelites against them. It is important to understand that Peter is simply using these words as fitting to the then occurring situation, not quoting Is. 8:12 as if the words of Isaiah were actually a prophecy about the future circumstances being experienced by the believers in Yeshua in his own day.
1 Peter 3:15 As Midrash
Peter, having just alluded to the wording of Is. 8:12, sees the words of 8:13 as also fitting to their present circumstances and so uses them, again, not as to say that how he is applying the words is the same way Isaiah applied them, and certainly not to say that the original words of Isaiah were about Yeshua. What we have here is a typical Jewish practice of applying scripture passages to new situations, at a later time, and sometimes even to persons other than to whom the original meaning applied. In Jewish interpretation of scripture, both ancient and modern, there are different levels of meaning that can be drawn from a passage. The literal, straightforward, historical, grammatical meaning is referred to as peshat. Another level of interpretation, called midrash, went beyond the historical, literal meaning. One form of midrash sought to apply the words of a passage to a new and different context than the original, giving significance and meaning to some recent event. Often, such midrashic interpretations would be used to apply passages to the coming Messiah, though the original context did not seem to be about the Messiah. This also allowed for more homiletical value to be found in ancient scriptures that seemed to have little relevance to much later generations.
That this method of applying scripture was used by the NT authors is evident. Some examples in the NT include Matt. 1:22-23; Mat 2:15; Mat 2:17-18; Mat 10:35; John. 2:17; John 13:18; John 15:25; Rom. 10:18; Romans 11:9-10; Ephesians. 4:8. In each of these passages some verse of scripture from the Hebrew bible is being applied to Yeshua or to something surrounding the events of Yeshua’s birth, life, ministry and death, yet the peshat of each of those verses is about something or someone else.
One of the clearest examples is Matt 2:15, where after telling of the escape to Egypt of Yeshua and his parents, he says that this was to fulfill what Yahweh said through the prophet Hosea, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Yet when you read Hosea 11:1 it is evident that this originally referred to the people of Israel (designated by God as “my son”) being brought out of Egypt, not the Messiah. Matthew is ignoring the peshat in order to apply the passage to the new situation involving the Messiah. Another clear example is Rom. 10:18, in which Paul quotes Ps. 19:4. The peshat of Ps. 19:4 speaks of the creative works of God in the heavens metaphorically having a voice by which they declare the glory of God to the whole world. Yet Paul ignores the original meaning in order to apply the passage to the voice of those who have gone out proclaiming the good news of Messiah. I have to believe that Peter is doing this same sort of thing in 1 Pet. 3:15. [8]
Meaning Of Sanctify Christ As Lord
Peter did not allude to Is. 8:13 to say that Yahweh and Yeshua are the same entity, but to say that believers in Yeshua should sanctify Yeshua in their hearts as Lord in the face of persecution, just like the faithful worshippers of Yahweh were called upon to sanctify Yahweh as the one they were to fear in Isaiah’s day.
Having just used the words of Isa 8:12 as fitting for the then present situation, he employs the words of Isa 8:13 as also being apt. Just as the Israelites in Isaiah’s day had to make a decision to regard Yahweh as the only true God and fear him alone, not giving way to the fear of man, likewise, in Peter’s day, the Israelite believers in Yeshua were faced with a decision in the midst of persecution and ostracization from their Jewish communities and pagan neighbors – would they give way to fear and renounce their faith in God’s appointed Messiah or would they sanctify Messiah as Lord in their hearts, pledging their undying devotion and allegiance to him as God’s chosen ruler.
To sanctify something means to set it apart from others in it’s category, so that it has a special significance and purpose beyond that of the others.
Thus to sanctify Yahweh is to set him apart from all other gods and to worship and serve him alone as God. To sanctify the Messiah as Lord in your heart is to regard Yeshua as the supreme human ruler appointed by God, to whom allegiance is due above that of all other human lords, whether it be governors, high priest, Sanhedrin, kings or Roman emperor.
While believers could have other lords to whom they should submit, Christ is to be their preeminent Lord. In practical terms this would mean that when any other human lord demands of them to speak or act in anyway contrary to the will their supreme Lord, the Messiah, then they must be disobeyed, regardless of the consequences that may ensue. As human lords are concerned, it is to Messiah alone that believers owe their ultimate allegiance.
It is also possible to sanctify others besides Yahweh and Yeshua in one’s heart. A man can sanctify his wife in his heart, setting her apart from all other women as the only one to whom he will be devoted in body and soul. Of course, a woman can sanctify her husband in the same way.
Yeshua As Kurios
But what of the claim that Peter is directly calling Yeshua Yahweh by applying the Greek word kurios to him? Since kurios is also used in the Greek version of Isa. 8:13 where the Hebrew has Yahweh, isn’t this proof that Peter thought Yeshua was the Yahweh of Is. 8:13? In other words, is Peter telling believers to sanctify the Messiah as Yahweh in their hearts?
The answer is no.
What really irritates me though, is that the apologists who promote this claim have to know that the Greek word kurios is not a translation of the name Yahweh but, rather, a substitution for the divine name, used out of reverence, yet they still argue as if kurios just means Yahweh when applied to Yeshua in the NT. This seems to be somewhat dishonest on their part. I assume they usually don’t mention this fact because it would militate against their position.
The fact of the matter is that the word kurios is used in a number of ways in the LXX and the NT, and as a substitution for the name Yahweh is only one of those ways.
Kurios is used as a polite address to a male stranger, [9] of owners of slaves (usually translated as master),[10] as a title of respect to one of superior rank, [11] such as a disciple to a teacher, a wife to her husband, children to their father, a subject to a king, and as homage given to God’s prophets. It is also used once in the NT of the Roman Emperor. [12]
In the gospel accounts Yeshua is addressed as “kurios” by many people who came to him seeking healing, as well as by his disciples, especially the twelve apostles, but this is for different reasons than why he is called Lord in the epistles and in Acts. In the gospels the title is mainly used as a term of respect and homage in accordance with Yeshua’s role as a teacher/rabbi and as a prophet. The title is also used infrequently in the gospels as a way of showing homage and recognition of Yeshua as the chosen son of David, i.e. the Messiah. [13]
The book of Acts and the apostolic epistles reflect an expansion of the last mentioned usage of the title for Yeshua. Having freely laid down his life for man’s redemption, God raised him from the dead, the first immortal man, and exalted him to the highest status over all created beings, who must now bow in submission to him as God’s anointed one, acknowledging his as Lord, i.e. supreme ruler of God’s creation. [14] As Lord, Yeshua is the human being who has been given preeminence and authority over all others. It becomes evident from the NT data that when the title kurios is applied to Yeshua in the epistles it is not being used as a substitute for the divine name Yahweh.
Therefore, we can conclude that 1 Pet. 3:15 is not saying that Yeshua is Yahweh by calling him kurios.
We can also see that this is not what Peter meant by observing the internal integrity of the letter. There is only one other time in the letter where kurios is applied to Yeshua, at 1 Pter 1:3, which reads, “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” First, we note that if kurios here was denoting the divine name Yahweh, we would in effect have the phrase “our Yahweh Jesus Christ.” Is this really what people like James White want to say? The phrase would be odd on two levels.
First, because to speak of Yeshua as “our Yahweh Jesus Christ” is simply an absurdity.
Second, the name Yahweh never appears in the Hebrew bible with a possessive pronoun. To say “our Yahweh” is as indefensible as saying “our Abraham” or “our Moses”. In the Hebrew bible Yahweh just is the personal name of the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In this letter the one whom Peter regards as that God is the Father. This is demonstrated by the fact that Peter uses the word theos (God), with or without the definite article, only of the Father in this letter. Peter also equates theos with Yahweh at vv.23-25 where he speaks of the gospel message as both the word of theos, in v. 23, and the word of kurios (without the article), in v. 25. The use of this stand-alone kurios without the article is indeed intended to denote the divine name and is set in apposition to theos, who in this letter can only refer to the Father.
Another reason the phrase “our Yahweh Jesus Christ” is just untenable is that, based on Peter’s equation of theos and Yahweh, verse 3 would in effect be saying, “Praise be to Yahweh, the God and Father of our Yahweh Jesus Christ,” which, again, would be an utter absurdity.
One last thing to consider is that not only does the LXX use the anarthrous kurios as a substitute for Yahweh but it also uses ho theos as a substitute for Yahweh and does so twice in Isaiah 8:17-18. Now, if Peter knows that the divine name is denoted by the use of ho theos in Isiaiah 8:17-18 and in his letter he only ever uses ho theos to refer to the Father, then why should we assume he thinks that kurios in Isaiah. 8:13, which is denoting the divine name, refers to Yeshua?
We should, rather, interpret Peter more charitably and assume he is not contradicting himself.
Recap
So we have seen that the popular apologetic interpretation of 1 Peter 3:15 used by James White and others fails for the following reasons:
It is derived by shallow and faulty reasoning, which fails to take into consideration the complexities of the matter.
It ignores the context of this passage as well as that of Is. 8:13.
It fails to recognize the prevalent Jewish method of interpretation which would later become known as midrash.
It fails to account for the different uses of kurios in both the LXX and the NT.
It fails to consider the internal integrity of the letter of 1 Peter.
Endnotes
[1] Deut. 6:20-25; 2 Kings 17:34; Ps. 78:4-5; Dan. 9:10. ↩︎
[2] 2 Kings 10:31; 1 Chron. 16:40; 2 Chron. 12:1; Ezra 7:10; Ps. 1:2; Is. 5:4. ↩︎
[3] Deut. 4:44-45; 33:4; Josh. 1:7; 22:5; 2 Kings 21:8. ↩︎
[4] Josh. 8:31-32; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 2 Chron. 30:16; Ezra 3:2; Dan. 9:11-13; Mal. 4:4. ↩︎
[5] Ex. 24:3-4; 1 Chron. 22:13; Ezra 7:6; Neh. 8:1; 10:28. ↩︎
[6] 1:6-7; 2:19-23; 3:13-17; 4:1-4, 12-19; 5:8-10. ↩︎
[7] See 2:12, 23; 3:9, 16; 4:4, 14. ↩︎
Peter also does a similar thing in 2:8 where he applies Is. 8:14, which in it’s original context referred to Yahweh, to Yeshua. In Isaiah’s day, Yahweh was a stone of stumbling to those Israelites who wanted to worship other gods, but in Peter’s day Yeshua the Messiah was a stone of stumbling for those Jews who did not recieve him as their king. The words are applied to two different referents in two different contexts. ↩︎
[9] Gen. 19:2(LXX); 24:18(LXX); John 4:11, 15, 19; 5:7; 9:36; 12:21; 20:15; Acts 16:30; Rev. 7:14. ↩︎
[10] Gen. 24:48(LXX); Matt. 10:24-25; 24:45-50; Eph. 6:5, 9; Col. 3:22; 4:1. ↩︎
[11] Gen. 31:35(LXX); 42:10; Ex. 32:22; Num. 11:28; 12:11; Josh. 5:14; Judg. 4:18; Ruth 2:13; 1 Sam. 1;15, 26; 24:8; 25:25-31; 2 Sam. 3:21; 1 Kings 18:7; Matt 27:62-63; 1 Pet. 3:6. ↩︎
[12] Acts 25:26. ↩︎
[13] For a thorough examination of how the title Lord is used for Yeshua in the gospels see this article The Lordship of Jesus the Messiah. ↩︎
[14] See Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36; 10:39-42; Rom. 14:9; Phil. 2:8-11; Col. 1:18; Rev. 3:14.