Last words in the light of Hebrews 2:9

[Jasmine-FL]

Hi guys,
Forgive my ignorance, I'm no aramaic scholar but i have noticed something quite interesting lately. I recently came across a comment by Paul Younan about "star min Aloha" in Hebrews 2:9, and its relevance to the Nestorian view of G-d. According to Mr. Younan, the phrase above would mean that Jesus died "apart from his divine essence", meaning that only his human essense died, because his divine essence couldn't die since G-d cannot die. It makes a lot of sense to me.

With that in mind, i developed a little theory of my own which i would like to check with you guys: i saw at aramaicnt.org site that the word "shavaktani" could mean either of the following:

* You have admitted me
* You have allowed me
* You have forgiven me
* You have let me alone
* You have let me
* You have permitted me
* You have put me aside
* You have reserved me
* You have sent me out
* You have divorced me
* You have forsaken me
* You have left me

I have seen many here making a case for "why have you spared me?" which would mean that Jesus wanted to die, because the suffering was really intense. While this makes sense, I'd like to show my theory:

If Mr. Younan's observation on Hebrews 2:9 is correct, and the term "Aloha" there is referring to his divine nature, couldn't it very well be that it is the same case in his last sentence? Couldn't it be that THAT was the very moment when His divine nature separated from His mortal one? Because we see that he dies shortly afterwards.

With that in mind, couldn't we "loosely" translate His last words like this?

"My divine essense, my divine essense, why have you separated from me?"

Is this translation possible? Does it make sense?

Please, this is not intented to be a debate on "what the best translation of the last sentence is", I just wanted to know if by any chance the "loose" translation I proposed is possible.

Thanks!

~J~

[Paul Younan]

Hi Jasmine,

While certainly possible (etymologically speaking), we would run into real problems theologically if proposing that Meshikha's Divine Nature ever separated itself from His human nature to the extent that the Subject of the Incarnation became two essential Persons. By definition, that is the heresy that Nestorius was (wrongly) accused of.

That the two Natures had their own properties and attributes is clear enough from scripture, and summarized poetically by Mar Narsai (V cent.) here:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://pw1.netcom.com/~aldawood/narsai.htm">http://pw1.netcom.com/~aldawood/narsai.htm</a><!-- m -->

Especially the part:

The attendants seized Him and bound His hands, as Man;
and He healed the ear that Simon cut off, as God.
He stood in the place of judgement and bore insult, as Man;
and He declared that He is about to come in glory, as God.
He bore His Cross upon His shoulder, as Man;
and He revealed and announced the destruction of Zion, as God.
He was hanged upon the wood and endured the passion, as Man;
and He shook the earth and darkened the sun, as God.

Nails were driven into His body, as Man;
and He opened the graves and quickened the dead, as God.
He cried out upon the Cross 'My God, My God,' as Man;
and promised Paradise to the thief, as God.
His side was pierced with a spear, as Man;
and His nod rent the temple veil, as God.
They embalmed His body and He was buried in the earth, as Man;
and He raised up His temple by His mighty power, as God.


...I think is extremely powerful.

Take care.

[Jasmine-FL]

Hi Jasmine,

While certainly possible (etymologically speaking), we would run into real problems theologically if proposing that Meshikha's Divine Nature ever separated itself from His human nature to the extent that the Subject of the Incarnation became two essential Persons. By definition, that is the heresy that Nestorius was (wrongly) accused of.

Hi Paul,
Couple of questions:
1 - Why does it necessarily create 'two persons'? The divine essense returns to G-d and the human essense is left to die.
2 - What if we take into consideration the fact that he was on the verge of death? A linguistic present tense doesn't necessarily have to be 'this very single moment', right? Especially considering imminent death. He could be referring to, for instance, a continuous action (as he is dying, his divine essense is leaving him), or an immediate, imminent future. Of course I'm talking about western languages, LOL. But wouldn't it be possible in aramaic?

Thanks!
~J~

[Paul Younan]

Hi Jasmine,

1 - Why does it necessarily create 'two persons'? The divine essense returns to G-d and the human essense is left to die.

Well, for one thing His human Nature was resurrected and a question that would be naturally asked is: at what point were the Divine and human natures united again in one Person? (Note that He specifically told Thomas that a spirit does not have flesh and bones as He had.)

2 - What if we take into consideration the fact that he was on the verge of death? A linguistic present tense doesn't necessarily have to be 'this very single moment', right? Especially considering imminent death. He could be referring to, for instance, a continuous action (as he is dying, his divine essense is leaving him), or an immediate, imminent future. Of course I'm talking about western languages, LOL. But wouldn't it be possible in aramaic?

I would be, yes. But I do think, theologically speaking, that the Divine nature never left Him at all, yet at the same time it was not the Divine nature that experienced suffering, or death. The exact formulation of these types of things are, of course, full of conjecture as the topic itself is one of ineffable mystery.

However, for people like myself who follow CoE doctrine, synods have made it very clear that the CoE holds that the Natures were always united in one Person - even though they were not always subject to the same passions or sufferings. For instance:

The heretics, that is, in their stubbornness, venture to ascribe the properties and sufferings of the nature of the manhood of Christ to the nature and qnoma of the Godhead and Essence of the Word, things which occasionally, because of the perfect union which the manhood of Christ had with his Godhead, are ascribed to God economically, but not naturally. (Synod of Mar Yeshu-Yahb, AD 587)

The last phrase there is critical: it allows for the fact that we ocassionally speak of of God "dying" on the Cross for us - not naturally - but economically, because of the perfect union which the manhood had with the Godhood.

At the same time, the declaration forbade any attempt to ascribe suffering and death to the Divine Nature. Again:

On the one hand, Christ, the Son of God, suffered in the flesh, while on the other hand, in the nature of his Godhead, the same Christ the Son of God was beyond sufferings - Jesus Christ, impassible and passible, the Creator of the worlds and the recipient of sufferings, who for us was impoverished though he was rich.

God the Word accepted the insult of sufferings in the temple of his body economically, in a perfect union without separation, though in the nature of his Godhead he did not suffer, as our Life-giver said, "Destroy this temple and after three days I will raise it up."......the Evangelist explained the word of our Savior, saying, "But he spoke concerning the temple of his body." (Yeshu`Yahb I, letter to Ya`qob)

These declarations strike a balance that I think is reasonable, simple and scriptural - of a topic that is anything but straightforward and knowable. Of course, I'm not a theologian. Some things we just have to chalk up to being mysteries. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->