Greg Stafford Cross-Ex

John 12:41 and Whether Isaiah Saw Yahweh or the Suffering Servant

Thank you, sir. Mr. Stafford, I believe it is your position that John 1241 does not identify Jesus as Yahweh because you believe John to be referring to Isaiah 53 and the Suffering Servant rather than Isaiah's vision of Yahweh upon his throne.

Is that a correct summary of your position as found on page 176 of your book and I think in your last statement?

It is correct, and I believe that this statement in John 1241 with respect to the glory that Isaiah saw is not a reference to Isaiah 6, but a reference to Isaiah 53, correct?

Okay, if that is the case, could you explain why it is that the septuagint that Isaiah 6 -1 uses all the key terms found in Isaiah 1241 including Idon and Doxa, which means glory, and says the house was filled with his glory.

All terms not found in Isaiah 53. Why then assert John is referring to anything other than Isaiah 6?

Because it is not true that those terms are not found in Isaiah 53. As I mentioned, Isaiah 53 -13 in the Septuagint does use verbal form of Doxa in reference to the glorification of the Messiah. So that is one point that the words are in fact used in Isaiah 53 -13 of the Septuagint, which John not only uses sporadically, but heavily in John 12, and.

Specifically.

In terms...

Was there another part to your question? Yes, specifically I was asking why in light of the fact that the Septuagint Isaiah chapter 6 verse 1 says that I saw the Lord, and it specifically says I saw his glory in the exact same term, and it is a substantive, not a verb there, and in the Septuagint why would you believe that he's quoting from something else when it's very clear.

He's quoting from the Septuagint there? Because he goes on to say that he saw his glory and spoke about him. Where did he speak about him in Isaiah 6? I can't answer your questions during my cross-examination.

Oh, that would be my question, and that would be a basis for...

If you'd like to ask me that question during your section, I'd be happy to do that.

So my point would be then that the term for glory is used in Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6, but that in Isaiah 53 that is where Isaiah speaks about him relative to the glory that is seen.

The Incarnation and the Limits of Divine Nature

In your book, Three Dissertations, page 216, you write also to truly take on the weaknesses and limitations of humanity Christ would have to have given up that which would have prevented him from really owning such human limitations, namely his divine nature intrinsic to which are attributes that cannot coexist with the intrinsic attributes of human nature, and therein lies the great fallacy of the Trinitarian incarnation.

Is that a correct citation? Two questions based on that. First, is it truly your position that Yahweh is incapable of the act of incarnation in the Trinitarian sense, specifically this act resulting in one person with two natures?

And secondly, would not the historic Trinitarian exegesis of the text, which sees the participles Labon and Ganomenos as circumstantial modals, answer the very objection you have raised regarding the voluntary self-humiliation limitation of the incarnate Son who is eternally equal with the Father?

I'm not certain whether or not it's possible for Jehovah to take on or be a part of the incarnation in the classic Trinitarian sense. That would be my answer to the first question. My answer to the second question, I'm not sure what the point is that you're making with respect to the Greek words you use.

Have you ever examined the fact that the participles Labon and Ganomenos explain how it is that the emptying took place? Oh, I see what you're saying.

I don't think that's a problem. The fact that Christ emptied himself by taking the form of a man makes the same point. If you are a man, you are not God. Therefore, you are devoid of that which makes you God, thus a man.

But isn't that just going back to what I just asked, and that is that seemingly it is your assumption that God is incapable of doing this. What if God could? Wouldn't your response be circular?

No, because God is not man. Therefore, if he becomes man, you can't have it. Based on my knowledge of the scriptures and understanding of theology and metaphysics, if one becomes a man, that one is no longer God.

If one is God, one is no longer man.

There are two different categories of being. So from your perspective, then, it is a given that cannot be questioned that God cannot be incarnate. Hence, he cannot both be God and man. That is a fundamental.

Presupposition of your understanding. And based on my limited knowledge of metaphysics and theology, yes.