EXEGESIS ISAIAS 48:11 ¿Con quienes no comparte Dios su gloria?

EXEGESIS ISAIAS 48:11

¿Con quienes no comparte Dios su gloria?

Isaías 48:11 Y lo he hecho por mí, por mí mismo. ¿Cómo puedo permitir que se me profane? ¡No cederé mi gloria a ningún otro! (NVI)

Analicemos el versículo en su contexto. Podemos comenzar preguntándonos ¿Quienes estaban profanándolo?, analicemos a continuación en el mismo libro de Isaías:

10:10-11 Cuando quiera que mi mano haya alcanzado los reinos del dios que nada vale, cuyas imágenes esculpidas son más que las [que están] en Jerusalén y en Samaria, ¹¹ ¿no será que tal como habré hecho a Samaria y a sus dioses que nada valen, aun así haré a Jerusalén y a sus ídolos?’

45:16 Juntos en humillación tendrán que andar los fabricantes de formas [de ídolos].

46:1 Bel se ha doblado, Nebo está agachado; sus ídolos han llegado a ser para las bestias salvajes y para los animales domésticos, las cargas de estos, piezas de equipaje, una carga pesada para los animales cansados.

Sin duda eran aquellos dioses paganos y sus ídolos los cuales eran a quién Dios se dirigía, esto se puede demostrar en un versículo paralelo el cual se expresa casi de la misma manera que el 48:11, nada más que con un dato extra, uno más específico:

Isaías 42:8 Yo soy el Señor, éste es mi Nombre, no cedo mi gloria a nadie ni mi honor a los ídolos (PER)

Notamos que el contexto nos deja claro que a quienes se refería el versículo era a los ídolos y dioses paganos.

¿A quienes más da Dios su gloria?

La respuesta se halla también en el contexto del mismo libro de Isaías, esta vez vamos hasta el cap. 60:1 :

«Habitantes de Jerusalén, ustedes están llenos de esplendor porque la gloria de Dios

brilla sobre ustedes. (TLA)

¡LEVÁNTATE! ¡resplandece, oh Sión! porque ha venido tu luz, y la gloria de Jehová ha nacido sobre ti. (VM)

Isaías deja claro que la gloria de Dios sería compartida por su pueblo. Y este hecho viene sucediendo cada vez que Jehovah ungía un rey para su pueblo, la evidencia bíblica es abundante:

1 Samuel 2:8  Uno que levanta del polvo al de condición humilde; del pozo de cenizas alza a un pobre, para hacer que se sienten con nobles; y un trono de gloria les da como posesión. Porque a Jehová pertenecen los apoyos de la tierra, y sobre ellos coloca la tierra productiva (TNM)

1Re 3:13 Te concedo también aquello que no has pedido, riquezas y gloria, mayores que las de ningun otro rey mientras vivas. (1 Reyes 3:13 NBJ)

Preguntémonos antes de leer los dos siguientes versículos, ¿de quién era la gloria que tenía David y que gloria era el objeto de insulto de las otras naciones?

Y sin embargo, tú, oh Jehová, eres un escudo alrededor de mí, mi gloria y Aquel que levanta mi cabeza  (Salmo 3:3)

Hijos de los hombres, ¿hasta cuándo tiene que ser mi gloria objeto de insulto, [mientras] ustedes siguen amando cosas vacías, [mientras] siguen buscando para hallar una mentira? Sélah. (Salmo 4:2)

Siglos después sería Cristo con quién Dios compartiría su gloria:

Juan 8:54 Respondió Jesús: "Si yo me glorificara a mí mismo, mi gloria no valdría nada; es el Padre el que me glorifica, de quien vosotros decís que es Dios vuestro, (CAB)

Posteriormente sería Cristo mismo el que compartiría esta misma gloria que le dio su Padre y Dios con sus discípulos, esto en concordancia con los versículos vistos anteriormente.

Juan 17:22 Yo les he dado la gloria que tú me diste, para que sean uno como nosotros somos uno: (RV 1960)

CONCLUSION

Dios no compartiría su gloria con ningún ídolo o dios extranjero; pero sí lo haría con su pueblo, sus reyes ungidos, con su hijo y los discípulos de su hijo. Estaríamos descontextualizando el versículo y tergiversándolo si por ejemplo planteásemos que solo hay una persona con quien Dios comparte su gloria o ideas parecidas.

"After all, does not Isaiah loudly proclaim that God gives his glory to no other (Isa 42:8; 48:11)? But the same prophet a few verses later expressly says that he gives his glory to Israel, his chosen people (Isa 60:1-2). The others whom the one God will not give his glory are other deities (cf. Exod 20:3; 34:14)." (Jesus Monotheism: Volume 1: Christological Origins: The Emerging Consensus and Beyond, Crispin Fletcher-Louis (DPhil, Oxford) He has held posts at King's College London, and the universities of Durham and Nottingham. He was the founder of Westminster Theological Centre, where he served as the Principal until 2012, pg. 311, 2015)

"for glory belongs to God alone (2:10), which God will share with God's people (11:10,43:7), but not with idols (42:8, 48:11)" (Isaiah: God's Poet of Light, Carol J. Dempsey is professor of biblical studies at the University of Portland, pg. 165, 2009)

"Yet, our texts claim that God may choose to share royal glory, to put it on display in God's people." (Conversations with Scripture: 2 Isaiah, Dr. Stephen L. Cook Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Virginia Theological Seminary, Cap. 6, 2007)

¿Era Orígenes es trinitario? ¿Reflejaba en sus escritos la doctrina de la trinidad?

¿Era Orígenes es trinitario? ¿Reflejaba en sus escritos la doctrina de la trinidad?

Antes de comenzar, a continuación algo que tomar en cuenta al momento de leer de la traducción al Latín de Rufinus de una de las obras de Orígenes más difundidas (el énfais en negrita es agregado por mí):

"And therefore, that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief." (Prologue of Rufinus, ANTE-NICENE FATHERS VOLUME 4. Translated by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.)

Rufinus o Rufino de Aquilea (345-411 E.C. ) fue uno de los traductores mediante el cual tenemos algunos escritos completos de Orígenes, los cuales fueron traducidos al Latín por este. Vale la pena remarcar, que siendo este doctrinalmente trinitario, y como él lo admite en su prólogo, al encontrar pasajes los cuales refuten o contradigan su creencia, este los ‘corregía’ o adulteraba, por lo tanto en la mayoría de los casos se citará de traducciones de los fragmentos existentes del trabajo en la lengua original griega de Orígenes, y no de las traducciones que partieron del Latín del Rufinus, el cual contenía enmendaciones, adulteraciones y adiciones acomodadas a la doctrina del traductor. Aun así los fragmentos existentes son pocos, y no se puede determinar realmente cuanta fue la magnitud de las modificaciones, y en que partes fueron hechos los cambios del traductor a las obras de Origenes.

"But the truth is that no one who had nothing to go upon except the innocent-looking prefaces of Rufinus would have the least conception of the scope of the changes which he made. There are not only long additions and omissions, but mistranslations, some deliberate, some perhaps unconscious, paraphrases in which must be studied in detail before their cumulative effect can be appreciated. After gathering every Greek fragment that can be found there is less than one-sixth of the original work available by which to check Rufinus. Included in this proportion are the most controverted, and therefore the more seriously altered, parts of the work.” (Origen on First Principles, Being Koetchau's Text of the De Principiis Translated into English, Together with an Introduction and Notes by G. W. Butterworth, pg. xivii, 1966)

        ¿Creía Orígenes que Jesucristo (o la Sabiduría, Palabra, Logos) era el mismo Dios que el Padre, u otro dios/Dios?

(ORIGENES Contra Celso, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, LA EDITORIAL CATOLICA S.A., Pg. 366, 1967)

¿Quién es el único  personaje que no es creado para Orígenes?

(On First Principles, Libro I, cap 3, G. W. Butterworth, pg. 51, 2012)

(Origen on First Principles, Volume I, John Behr, pg. 49, 2017)

Orígenes: Diálogo con Heráclides:

“Origen said: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?
Heracl.: I do. That is what I also believe.
Orig.: Christ Jesus who was in the form of God, being other than the God in whose form he existed, was he God before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: He was God before.
Orig.: Was he God before he came into the body or not?
Heracl.: Yes, he was.
Orig.: Was he God distinct from this God in whose form he existed?
Heracl.: Obviously he was distinct from another being and, since he was in the form of him who created all things, he was distinct from him.
Orig.: Is it true then that there was a God, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two Gods, while in another there is one God?
Heracl.: What you say is evident. But we affirm that God is the almighty, God without beginning, without end, containing all things and not contained by anything; and that his Word is the Son of the living God, God and man, through whom all things were made, God according to the spirit, man inasmuch as he was born of Mary.
Orig.: You do not appear to have answered my question. Explain what you mean. For perhaps I failed to follow you. Is the Father God?
Heracl.: Assuredly.
Orig.: Is the Son distinct from the Father?
Heracl.: Of course. How can he be Son if he is also Father?
Orig.: While being distinct from the Father is the Son himself also God?
Heracl.: He himself is also God.
Orig.: And do two Gods become a unity?
Heracl.: Yes.
Orig.: Do we confess two Gods?
Heracl.: Yes. The power is one.
Orig.: But as our brethren take offence at the statement that there are two Gods, we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are two and in what sense the two are one God. Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are one. And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are one. Our present task is not to broach a problematic subject only to pass it by and deal cursorily with the matter, but for the sake of the simple folk to chew up, so to speak, the meat, and little by little to instill the doctrine in the ears of our hearers. . . . Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture? Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: "For the two shall be one flesh." Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh. Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: "For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit." Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are "no longer two but one flesh," and the righteous man and Christ are "one spirit." So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Saviour and Lord is not one flesh, nor one spirit, but something higher than flesh and spirit, namely, one God. The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is flesh. The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is spirit. But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honorable than these —God. That is why we understand in this sense "I and the Father are one." When we pray, because of the one party let us preserve the duality, because of the other party let us hold to the unity. In this way we avoid falling into the opinion of those who have been separated from the Church and turned to the illusory notion of monarchy, who abolish the Son as distinct from the Father and virtually abolish the Father also. Nor do we fall into the other blasphemous doctrine which denies the deity of Christ. What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: "Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me," and "I am and there is no God but me"? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe . . . in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus' saying, "I and my Father are one." (https://sites.google.com/site/demontortoise2000/Home/origen_dialog_with_heracleides)

"In the same way, therefore, I consider that in the case of the Savior it would be right to say that he is an image of God's goodness, but not goodness itself. And perhaps also the Son, while being good, is yet not good purely and simply. And just as he is the image of the invisible God, and in virtue of this is himself  God, and yet is not he of whom Christ himself says, 'that they may know thee, the only true God'; so he is the image of goodness, and yet not, as the Father is, good without qualification." (Origen on First Principles, Being Koetchau's Text of the De Principiis Translated into English, Together with an Introduction and Notes by G. W. Butterworth, pg. 27, 1966)

¿Orígenes oraba en un sentido trinitario?, o ¿solo oraba al Padre?

Planteamiento trinitario sobre la oración:
"We pray to Christ... Because of the perichoresis (mutual indwelling), each member of the Trinity is fully present in the being and acts of the others. A prayer to Christ is also a prayer to the Father and vice versa." (God the Almighty: Power, Wisdom, Holiness, Love, Donald G. Bloesch, Theological Seminary in Dubuque, pg. 193, 2005)

Orígenes en la oración:
“Yet if we are offer thanksgiving to men who are saints, how much more should we give thanks to Christ, who has under the Father’s will conferred so many benefactions upon us? Yes and intercede with Him as did Stephen when he said, “Lord, set not this sin against them.” In imitation of the father of the lunatic we shall say, “I request, Lord, have mercy” either on my son, or myself, or as the case may be. But if we accept prayer in its full meaning, we may not ever pray to any begotten being, not even to Christ himself, but only to the God and Father of All to whom our Savior both prayed himself, as we have already instanced, and teaches us to pray. For when He has heard one say. “Teach you us to pray,.” He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father saying, “Our Father in heaven,.” and so on. For if, as is shown elsewhere, the Son is other than the Father in being and essence, prayer is to be made either to the Son and not the Father or to both or to the Father alone. That prayer to the Son and not the Father is most out of place and only to be suggested in defiance of manifest truth, one and all will admit. In prayer to both it is plain that we should have to offer our claims in plural form, and in our prayers say, “Grant you both, Bless you both, Supply you both, Save you both,.” or the like, which is self-evidently wrong and also incapable of being shown by anyone to stand in the scriptures as spoken by any. It remains, accordingly, to pray to God alone, the Father of All, not however apart from the High Priest who has been appointed by the Father with swearing of an oath, according to the words He hath sworn and shall not repent, “You art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” In thanksgiving to God, therefore, during their prayers, saints acknowledge His favors through Christ Jesus.”  (Origen on Prayer, chapter X,  pg.  25, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/origen/prayer.html)

¿Padre, hijo y espíritu santo, son iguales en poder?

"The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being." De la versión en Griego, esta parte es omitida intencionalmente por Rufino en su traducción al Latín, Libro I, Cap 3  (Origen on First Principles, Being Koetchau's Text of the De Principiis Translated into English, Together with an Introduction and Notes by G. W. Butterworth, pg. 34,35, 1966)

"Following the same reasoning we believe that everything whatever except the Father and God of the Universe is created." (Origen on First Principles, Being Koetchau's Text of the De Principiis Translated into English, Together with an Introduction and Notes by G. W. Butterworth, pg. 31, 1966)

Según Justiniano: "'that he (i.e. Origen) called the Holy Spirit a created being, as well as the Son, and included them in the number of the other created beings; and accordingly he terms them "ministering creatures".'" (Mansi IX, 528)

“We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. “ ((Book 2, Chapter 6, “Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John,” Translated by Allan Menzies. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.)

¿Para Origenes, era Cristo creador?

Punto de vista trinitario:

“Como vimos en el capítulo anterior, Cristo es nuestro creador” (Cristo Nuestra Vida, David F. Burt, 13 años de Pastor Evangélico,  pg. 59, 2006)

“Christ is creator as the Father is Creator” (An Introduction to Roman Catholicism, Enrique Fiesta, John Davidson ,pg. 7, 2015)

 

Contraste:

 

“And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages, showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the through whom belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father?” (Commentary on the Gospel of John, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 9. Edited by Allan Menzies Book II, chapter 6)

Sobre el espíritu santo:

"Y el Apóstol Pablo dice en la Epístola a los Hebreos: "Al final de los días nos habló en Su Hijo, a quien hizo heredero de todas las cosas, 'por quien' también hizo las edades", mostrándonos que Dios hizo los siglos por medio de su Hijo, el "a través del cual" pertenecía, cuando se estaban haciendo los siglos, al Unigénito. Así, si todas las cosas fueron hechas, como también en este pasaje, a través del Logos, entonces no fueron hechas por el Logos, sino por uno más fuerte y más grande que Él. ¿Y quién más podría ser éste sino el Padre? Ahora bien, si, como hemos visto, todas las cosas fueron hechas por medio de Él, tenemos que preguntarnos si también el Espíritu Santo fue hecho por medio de Él. Me parece que aquellos que sostienen que el Espíritu Santo fue creado, y que también admiten que "todas las cosas fueron hechas por medio de Él", deben necesariamente suponer que el Espíritu Santo fue hecho por medio del Logos, siendo el Logos, en consecuencia, más antiguo que Él. Y quien se resiste a permitir que el Espíritu Santo haya sido hecho por medio de Cristo debe, si admite la verdad de las afirmaciones de este Evangelio, suponer que el Espíritu es increado. Hay un tercer recurso además de estos dos (el de dejar que el Espíritu haya sido hecho por la Palabra, y el de considerarlo como increado), a saber, afirmar que el Espíritu Santo no tiene esencia propia más allá del Padre y del Hijo. Pero pensándolo mejor, quizás uno pueda ver la razón para considerar que el Hijo es el segundo después del Padre, siendo Él lo mismo que el Padre, mientras que manifiestamente se hace una distinción entre el Espíritu y el Hijo en el pasaje, Mateo 12:32 "Todo aquel que hablare una palabra contra el Hijo del Hombre, le será perdonado, pero cualquiera que blasfemare contra el Espíritu Santo, no tendrá perdón, ni en este mundo ni en el venidero”. Consideramos, pues, que hay tres hipóstasis, el Padre y el Hijo y el Espíritu Santo; y al mismo tiempo no creemos que haya nada increado sino el Padre. Nosotros, por tanto, como los más piadosos y los más verdaderos camino, admitimos que todas las cosas fueron hechas por el Logos, y que el Espíritu Santo es el más excelente y el primero en el orden de todo lo que fue hecho por el Padre a través de Cristo. Y esta, quizás, es la razón por la que no se dice que el Espíritu sea el propio Hijo de Dios. El Unigénito solo es por naturaleza y desde el principio Hijo, y el Espíritu Santo parece tener necesidad del Hijo, para ministrarle su esencia, a fin de capacitarlo no solo para existir, sino para ser sabio y razonable, y justo, y todo lo que debemos pensar de Él como ser."

Comentario de Orígenes al evangelio de Juan, libro II, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

Hoy me di un tiempito y subí este artículo que aun esta en desarrollo, no quería dejarlo guardado sin ser útil, por lo tanto decidí publicarlo tal como está, con el tiempo espero completarlo (realmente tengo poco tiempo para hacerlo), gracias por su paciencia y espero que les sea útil, saludos :).