9 PERDEBATAN PDT. BUDI ASALI (PENGANUT ALLAH TRITUNGGAL) VS ELLEN KRISTI (PENGANUT UNITARIAN: ALLAH SATU PRIBADI. YESUS BUKAN ALLAH, TETAPI MALAIKAT)

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

9 PERDEBATAN PDT. BUDI ASALI (PENGANUT ALLAH TRITUNGGAL) VS ELLEN KRISTI (PENGANUT UNITARIAN: ALLAH SATU PRIBADI. YESUS BUKAN ALLAH, TETAPI MALAIKAT)

Published by permission. Pengutipan dari artikel ini harus mencantumkan: Dikutip dari http://www.geocities.com/thisisreformedfaith/artikel/unitarian-ellenkristi09.html 1

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: I'm glad I finally can find time to compose my reply. And I must thank you that your questions and arguments have led me to better understanding and wider knowledge about the belief in the true one God, Yahweh, in the Old Testament. Now it is a quite big file, the first time I choose to send it as an attachment so that you can read all the worthy footnotes (just in case you want to cross-check the references). Happy reading! Ellen

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Mengapa judulnya seperti itu? Apakah anda anggap Allah dari Perjanjian Lama berbeda dengan Allah dari Perjanjian Baru? Apakah anda berusaha memisahkan Perjanjian Lama dari Perjanjian Baru? Apakah anda berusaha mengabaikan Perjanjian Baru? Mengapa tidak memberi judul ‘the God of the Bible’? Anda percaya seluruh Alkitab bukan?

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: My response: Your questions are meaningless rhetoric. In no way I try to separate OT from NT. If you read my previous post carefully, you should have understood that I’m focusing to discuss God in the OT because you claim that the OT teaches about a triune God, a claim that is absurd and unhistorical.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Jangan lupa bahwa yang ingin kita bahas adalah perbedaan utama kita yaitu tentang keilahian Kristus dan doktrin Allah Tritunggal. Dan itu, bukan hanya berdasarkan Perjanjian Lama saja, tetapi juga Perjanjian Baru. 2) Juga jangan lupa bahwa saya pernah mengatakan bahwa kita bisa mendapatkan doktrin Allah Tritunggal dari Perjanjian Lama hanya setelah ada Perjanjian Baru dan Perjanjian Lamanya dibaca dengan kaca mata Perjanjian Baru. Jadi, bahkan bisa saya katakan bahwa perdebatan tentang kedua hal tersebut harus didasarkan ‘khususnya pada Perjanjian Baru’. 3) Kita lihat saja apakah nanti anda mengabaikan Perjanjian Baru atau tidak!

2

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Your post: Jadi, apakah merupakan sesuatu yang alkitabiah kalau anda mengabaikan ayat-ayat yang menunjukkan adanya semacam kejamakan dalam diri Allah. Anda artikan bagaimana kata ganti orang bentuk jamak yang digunakan untuk Allah? Anda artikan bagaimana kata sifat, kata benda, dan kata kerja bentuk jamak yang digunakan untuk Allah? Anda mengabaikan semua ini bukan? Dan itu anda sebut sebagai alkitabiah? My response: I’ve previously been suspicious that you are reading OT texts with Trinitarian mind, without consulting your view to those people who are native speakers or more learned of Hebrew language. After reading some more resources, I can prove my suspicion. Let’s see soon after this who is twisting the true, historical meaning of the OT texts. Your post: Menurut saya, pandangan yang alkitabiah adalah pandangan yang memperhatikan semua (betul-betul semua) ayat yang berhubungan dengan hal itu! Dan sayalah yang melakukan hal itu, bukan anda. Anda jelas tidak melakukan hal itu! My response: Stick to your words, sir! Let’s see what the OT texts as a whole really say!

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Scholars yang mana? Yang sesat? Atau yang benar? Dan monotheisme yang bagaimana? Yang mutlak atau yang seperti saya percaya (mengandung kejamakan tertentu)? 2) Of course I will stick to my words. And I will prove it to you, and you will be able to see it, unless you deliberately close your eyes!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: My response: Your twisted sort of monotheism can’t be found in the OT. There is no triune God in the OT texts. Tanggapan Budi Asali: Lagi-lagi penulis yang anda kutip tidak berbicara tentang monotheisme bagaimana yang ia maksudkan. Ingat, bahwa saya juga percaya pada monotheisme, tetapi bukan monotheisme yang mutlak. Monotheisme Israel / Perjanjian Lama memang bertentangan dengan polytheisme dsb, tetapi tidak bertentangan dengan doktrin Allah 3

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tritunggal yang saya percayai malahan menjadi sebagian dari dasarnya, karena tanpa itu saya akan mempercayai Tritheisme.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: My response: You can only believe in a triune God if you deny the strict (you can call it “absolute”, if you insist) monotheism of OT prophets and authors. For them, you are not any better than a polytheist.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Saya tak peduli apa anggapan orang-orang Yahudi itu tentang kepercayaan saya, karena Kitab Suci, dan Yesus sendiri, jelas menganggap mereka sesat. Bukankah lebih baik dianggap sesat oleh orang-orang Yahudi itu tetapi dianggap benar oleh Yesus, dari pada sebaliknya? Dan bukankah Yesus sendiri dimaki orang-orang Yahudi itu sebagai gila, kerasukan setan, penghujat dsb? Dan bukankah Yesus berkata seorang murid tidak lebih dari gurunya dan seorang hamba tidak lebih dari tuannya? Dan ingat, anda belum pernah bisa menjelaskan ayat-ayat saya yang menunjukkan kesesatan orang-orang Yahudi. Pura-pura lupa? Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Now let’s list your “armor” arguments about plural adjectives or verbs or articles about God in OT texts: 1. Genesis 1:26-27 – Because v. 26 uses the word “us” and “our” (Let us; our image), while v. 27 uses the word “his” (his image), these verses then prove that God is one but yet plural. 2. If God is not plural in some kind, why the OT almost always uses Elohim rather than Eloah, its singular root? You argue that Elohim is also used many times in poetic writings, e.g. Ps. 3:2-3, Neh. 9:17. 3. I quote that Elohim contains the same majestic singular meaning like the Hebrew word water (mayim) and sky (shamayim). You argue back: water and sky don’t have their singular form, but Elohim does (Eloah). Why don’t OT authors use Eloah instead of Elohim? 4. Gen. 3:22 – “now the man has become like one of US”. 5. Gen. 20:13 – “When God *commanded* me to wander ...”, the verb used is in plural form. 6. Gen 35:7 – “God had *proclaimed* Himself to him there”, the verb used is in plural form. 4

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) 7. 2Sam 7:23 – “whose God *goes to liberate* them to be His people”, the verb used is in plural form. 8. Ps. 58:12 – “God who *gives justice* in the earth, the verb/participle used is in plural form. 9. Job 35:10 – “God who makes me”, the verb used is in plural form. 10. Jos 24:19 – “he is a *holy* God; he is a *jealous* God”, the adjective “jealous” is in singular form, but “holy” is in plural form. Why? 11. Isa 6:8 (KJV) – “Whom shall *I* send, and who will go for *us*?”, why there is I and us in the same verse. In discussing Hebrew texts of the OT, especially about Elohim and other plurality issues in the OT, I’d like to adhere to this principle: It is important that we CUT THROUGH our own ideas and (a) listen to those knowledgeable in the Hebrew and other Ancient Near Eastern languages, and (b) observe the usage of the word elohim in the Tanakh (OT).

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Dari 2 point yang anda berikan di atas, saya menerima point b, tetapi tidak point a. Mengapa? Karena pasti orang-orang itu akan mempunyai pandangan yang berbedabeda. Lalu yang mana yang betul-betul ‘knowledgeable’? Yang ‘knowledgeable’ menurut anda bisa adalah ‘ignorant’ menurut saya, dan sebaliknya! Juga jangan anggap orang Yahudi sekalipun selalu benar dalam persoalan bahasa Ibrani. Hampir 20 tahun yang lalu saya pernah berkhotbah, dan dalam acara itu hadir 1 perempuan Yahudi (ia masih beribadah di synagogue di Surabaya, dan masih bisa berbicara dalam bahasa Ibrani). Dalam khotbah saya membahas satu kata bahasa Ibrani, dan selesai khotbah, perempuan Yahudi itu mendatangi saya, dan berkata bahwa dalam bahasa Ibrani tidak ada kata seperti itu. Minggu depannya, saya bawakan Kitab Suci (Perjanjian Lama) Ibrani, dan saya tunjukkan kata yang ia katakan tidak ada dalam bahasa Ibrani itu. Ternyata kata itu memang ada, dan ia tidak bisa berkata apa-apa!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: I will quote extensively the booklet written by Lindsey Killian, M.A., Theology Laura Emily Palik, Psy.D. who has done a very deep research about this topic. The statements I want to emphasize will be marked with bold, underlined, or enlarged fonts (or both bold and underlined, or even bold-underlined-and-enlarged!).

5

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: Aneh juga kalau mereka melakukan ‘a very deep research’, tetapi hanya menghasilkan suatu ‘booklet’! Dalam sepanjang jawaban saya di bawah ini, saya tidak membedakan antara anda dan penulis yang anda kutip. Saya menganggap bahwa kepercayaan penulis itu juga adalah kepercayaan anda.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Elohim is the plural form of eloahh (“god, God”) and is closely related to el (“god, God, mighty one”).1 But, if we were to translate elohim the normal way we would translate a plural word, the Bible would teach us that, in the beginning, “Gods” created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Bible would be teaching that more than one Deity created the universe, spoke to Abraham, delivered Israel from bondage and continued dealing with them through many more centuries – because elohim is used throughout the Tanakh for Israel’s deity. Yet, virtually no person who adheres to the messiahship of Jesus would profess that there is more than one God.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Saya juga tidak menganggap ada lebih dari 1 Allah! Yang ada 3 bukan Allahnya tetapi Pribadinya. Anda tak mengerti atau pura-pura tak mengerti? Saya juga percaya bahwa kata ELOHIM memang bisa diterjemahkan sebagai bentuk tunggal.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: So how is it that the plural-form elohim can be used for a single deity? And why do all the translations translate elohim as simply “God” and not “Gods” when it refers to the true Deity (God)? Let us look for some answers. Smith’s Bible Dictionary has this to say on the subject in their article entitled “God”: “The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons [or binity of persons2] in the Godhead 1

E.g., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, pp. 50-52, Koehler, L. & Baumgartner, W. (Eds.), 1953/1958, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill. Cf. BDB-Gesenius (1979), pp. 43-44, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers; Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary to the Old Testament, A. Harkavy, 1914, pp. 24-25, New York: Hebrew Publishing Co. 2 While Christianity predominantly adheres to the idea of there being three persons in one godhead, certain groups (Christian, Jewish, or otherwise) adhere to God being exactly one person, commonly described in anthropomorphic language as the Father; yet other groups adhere to a two-person-in-one-godhead view. “Trinity” describes the former view; “binity,” the latter. Some prefer “triunity;” so, possibly, some may elect to use “biunity.” Others are

6

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) hardly find now supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God [brackets added].3”

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Buku yang anda kutip ini, dan juga orang yang disebut dengan nama ‘Smith’ ini orang dari aliran apa? Unitarianisme? Saksi Yehuwa? Saya rasa mereka pasti orang-orang dari kalangan yang kacau imannya, karena istilah ‘binity’ yang mereka gunakan betul-betul menunjukkan kesintingan mereka! 2) Anda mengatakan ‘hardly find now supporter among scholars’? My teacher in the seminary (Dr. Douglas Kelly) taught me that, and he was an outstanding scholar! Dan juga beberapa buku-buku saya yang ditulis oleh ahli-ahli Theologia terkemuka mengatakan hal yang sama. Nelson Bible Dictionary: “GOD, NAMES OF. Elohim. Elohim is the plural form of El, but it is usually translated in the singular. Some scholars have held that the plural represents an intensified form for the supreme God; others believe it describes the supreme God and His heavenly court of created beings. Still others hold that the plural form refers to the triune God of , who works through Word and Spirit in the creation of the world. All agree that the plural form Elohim does convey the sense of the one supreme being who is the only true God”. Kalau anda membaca kutipan panjang di bagian akhir tulisan saya ini, yang saya kutip dari The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, maka anda akan melihat bahwa penulis dari artikel itu juga menyetujui hal ini. Dan perlu diketahui bahwa The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia mendapatkan materi itu dari B. B. Warfield dalam bukunya ‘Biblical and Theological Studies’, hal 22-dst. Kalau orang seperti Warfield dianggap bukan seorang scholar, maka mungkin dalam dunia ini hanya anda seorang dirilah scholarnya! 3) Kalau bentuk jamak ELOHIM berarti ‘the plural of majesty, or the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God’, apakah pada saat kata ELOHIM digunakan untuk manusia, setan, malaikat, dewa / berhala, dsb, kata itu juga punya arti seperti itu? Jangan loncati pertanyaan ini! Jawab!

uncomfortable using any of these terms to attempt to describe the Bible’s God, saying it’s outside our ability to understand. 3 W. Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Rev. Ed.), F. N. Peloubet & M. A. Peloubet (Eds.), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1948, p. 220.

7

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) 4) Apa dasar Kitab Suci / Perjanjian Lama untuk mengatakan bahwa bentuk jamak ELOHIM berarti ‘the plural of majesty, or the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God’? Dari mana bisa terlihat bahwa bentuk jamak digunakan untuk tujuan seperti itu? Bukankah anda mengatakan ‘(b) observe the usage of the word elohim in the Tanakh (OT)’? 5) Kalau kata ELOHIM artinya seperti itu, lalu pada saat Allah disebut dengan istilah bentuk tunggal ELOAH, apakah itu berarti Allah itu tidak mempunyai majesty, tidak penuh dengan divine strength, dsb??? Lagi-lagi, jawab pertanyaan ini!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia has this to say about elohim: “This word is plural in form, and…it most frequently means “God”….The use of the plural form with singular meaning is not unique to Israel. Similar forms occur in pre-Israelite Babylonian and Canaanite texts in which a worshiper wishes to exalt a particular god above others. This form has been called “plural of majesty” or the “intensive plural” because it implies that all the fullness of deity is concentrated in the one god. Elohim’s being the most common word for God in the OT thus conveys this idea.4”

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Encyclopedia yang sama mengatakan sebagai berikut. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol II: “The plural form have given rise to much discussion, and various explanations have been advanced, ... or even an intimation of the trinity” (= Bentuk jamak ini telah menimbulkan banyak diskusi, dan bermacam-macam penjelasan telah diajukan, ... atau bahkan suatu petunjuk tentang tritunggal) - hal 497. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol II: “Some have also thought that the frequent use of ’Elohim emphasizes that God is not intrinsically monistic but includes within Himself plurality of powers, attributes, and personhood” [= Sebagian orang juga berpikir bahwa penggunaan yang sering dari ELOHIM menekankan bahwa Allah itu pada hakekatnya tidak tunggal

4

C. J. H. Wright, “God, Names of” [OT Names] in G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 2, 1982), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 505. Millard J. Erickson offers two additional thoughts beyond this common interpretation of the plural form (elohim) indicating “majesty or intensity rather than multiplicity within God’s nature”: (a) “The plural form [elohim] is intended to elevate the referent [YHWH] to the status of a general representative of the class;” and (b) “The writer of Genesis intended to preserve his cosmogony [view of creation of the universe] from any trace of polytheistic thought and at the same time to represent the Creator God as the absolute ruler and the only being whose will carries any weight” [brackets added] (Erickson, p. 328, Christian Theology, 1983, Grand Rapids, Baker Books; cf. Theodorus Vriezen, 1958, An Outline of the Old Testament, Oxford: B. Blackwell, p. 179; Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961, p. 187).

8

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) (mutlak) tetapi mencakup dalam diriNya sendiri kejamakan dari kuasakuasa, sifat-sifat, dan kepribadian] - hal 505. Kata-kata ini menunjukkan bahwa kata-kata anda ‘The fanciful idea that it referred to the trinity of persons [or binity of persons5] in the Godhead hardly find now supporter among scholars’ jelas salah. 2) Perhatikan bahwa sekarang orang yang anda kutip itu mengutip dari Encyclopedia, yang memberikan arti yang sudah berbeda dengan arti yang diberikan oleh orang-orang yang dia kutip sebelumnya. Sekarang ada arti “intensive plural” because it implies that all the fullness of deity is concentrated in the one god. Dalam hal ini perlu saya tanyakan beberapa hal ini: a) Kalau sebutan ELOHIM itu digunakan untuk Yesus, seperti dalam Maz 45:7, apakah kata-kata ‘all the fullness of deity’ itu masih berlaku? b) Kalau sebutan ELOHIM itu digunakan untuk manusia, setan, malaikat dsb, apakah kata-kata ‘all the fullness of deity’ itu masih berlaku? c) Kalau Allah / Bapa / YHWH disebut dengan ELOAH / EL, apakah itu menunjukkan Ia tidak mempunyai ‘all the fullness of deity’? d) Mengapa Bapa kadang-kadang disebut ELOHIM dan kadang-kadang ELOAH? Apakah itu berarti kadang-kadang Ia mempunyai ‘all the fullness of deity’ itu dan kadang-kadang tidak? e) Apakah pertanyaan-pertanyaan saya di atas ini juga merupakan ‘meaningless rhetoric’ bagi anda, dan karena itu tidak perlu anda jawab?

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: The trinitarian Charles Ryrie, speaking of Genesis 1:1, says that the plural form of elohim indicates “his plentitude of power and majesty,” further adding: “It refutes polytheism, for the verb that follows is singular.”6 Tanggapan Budi Asali: Saya ingatkan anda, saya bukan polytheist! Karena itu kata-kata Charles Ryrie sama sekali tidak menyerang saya.

5

While Christianity predominantly adheres to the idea of there being three persons in one godhead, certain groups (Christian, Jewish, or otherwise) adhere to God being exactly one person, commonly described in anthropomorphic language as the Father; yet other groups adhere to a two-person-in-one-godhead view. “Trinity” describes the former view; “binity,” the latter. Some prefer “triunity;” so, possibly, some may elect to use “biunity.” Others are uncomfortable using any of these terms to attempt to describe the Bible’s God, saying it’s outside our ability to understand. 6 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Wheaton, IL: Victor Books/Scripture Press, 1986, p. 181.

9

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Dr. Augustus Strong,7 another trinitarian, continues in this vein: “Later investigations seem to prove that the plural for God was used by the Canaanites before the Hebrew occupation. The one Pharaoh is called “my gods” or “my god” indifferently. The word “master” [(adon in Hebrew) often] is plural in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 24:9,51; 39:19; 40:1). The plural gives utterance to the sense of awe. It signifies magnitude or completeness….The Hebrews had many plural forms, where we should use the singular, as “heavens” instead of “heaven,” “waters” instead of “water.” We, too, speak of “news,” “wages”…8” Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Penyebutan khusus ‘the trinitarian’ untuk Charles Ryrie maupun Strong, bagi saya kelihatannya menunjukkan bahwa penulis yang anda kutip ini bukan Trinitarian. Apakah saya benar? 2) Augustus Strong yang sama juga mengatakan kata-kata sebagai berikut. A. H. Strong: “The passages which seem to show that even in the Old Testament there are three who are implicitly recognized as God may be classed under four heads: … (a) The plural noun ELOHIM is employed, and that with a plural verb – a use remarkable, when we consider that the singular EL was also in existence; (b) God uses plural pronouns in speaking of himself” (Systematic Theology, p 317,318). Strong berkata lagi: “The fact that ELOHIM is sometimes used in a narrower sense, as applicable to the Son (Ps. 45:6; cf. Heb 1:8), need not prevent us from believing that the term was originally chosen as an allusion to a certain plurality in the divine nature” (p 318). Mengapa anda / orang yang anda kutip itu tidak mengutip kata-kata ini? Anda / dia hanya mengutip sebagian, yang sesuai pandangannya / anda, dan membuang (dengan sengaja?) bagian lain yang bertentangan dengan pandangannya / anda. Seseorang mengatakan ‘a half truth is a whole lie’! Saya sangat banyak mempelajari tentang Saksi Yehuwa, dan saya tahu bahwa dalam buku-buku mereka, mereka sangat sering melakukan pengutipan sebagian seperti itu, baik dari Encyclopedia, maupun buku-buku yang ditulis oleh orang7

Not James Strong of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Dr. Augustus Strong cited in Alva G. Huffer, Systematic Theology, 1960, Oregon, IL: Restitution Herald, p. 78. (In Hebrew, the words for water/waters [mayim], heaven/heavens [shamayim] and similar words with -ayim endings are called dual-form nouns.) 8

10

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) orang kristen. Saya angap itu merupakan tindakan kurang ajar dari orang-orang itu. Dan kelihatannya orang yang anda kutip juga seperti itu! Sayang saya tidak memiliki buku-buku lain yang anda gunakan. Mungkin anda / orang yang anda kutip juga mengutip dengan cara yang sama seperti anda / dia mengutip Strong dan The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia! 3) Orang yang anda kutip, yang anda katakan mempelajari hal ini secara mendalam, mengutip dari beberapa orang, yang ternyata pandangannya berbeda-beda. Strong mengatakan ‘The plural gives utterance to the sense of awe. It signifies magnitude or completeness’. Ini merupakan arti yang berbeda lagi dengan yang diberikan oleh Smith, Ryrie, dan The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia di atas! Lalu, dari banyak arti-arti itu, yang mana yang benar? Apakah penulis ini tidak memberikan kesimpulan yang mana yang paling benar? Atau ia hanya sekedar menjiplak saja, lalu tak bisa menentukan yang mana yang paling benar? Dan orang yang seperti itu yang anda katakan merupakan orang yang telah melakukan ‘a very deep research’?

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Those who are considered top of their field Hebrew lexicographers, Koehler and Baumgartner, follow with this: “Whereas the singular eloahh was used rather rarely, the plural elohim meaning (several) gods developed to mean a (single) god as the comprehension of divine powers. With the Hebrews this development has been promoted by the fact that monotheism gained ground and Yahve [YHWH] though called with the plural was in reality the only (and thus singular) god or God in all.9”

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) ‘Considered top’ by whom? Orang ini kelihatannya seperti Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa, yang selalu meninggi-ninggikan sumber kutipan, padahal sebetulnya sumber kutipannya adalah orang-orang tolol. 2) Lagi-lagi saya ingatkan anda bahwa saya tidak mempercayai banyak Allah, tetapi satu Allah! Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: More could be quoted, but this gets the main point across. It is clear from the scholars that the word elohim, when used of the true God, does not indicate that God is a plurality of persons.

9

Koehler, L., & Baumgartner, W. (Eds.), 1953/1958, “Eloahh and Elohim” in Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, pp. 50-52, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, p. 52.

11

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Some scholars, not all scholars! 2) Dari tadi tak ada pembicaraan tentang ‘persons’, dan ia tahu-tahu dengan seenaknya ‘jump to this conclusion’! Dan ini anda sebut sebagai orang yang telah melakukan ‘a very deep research’!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Various Grammatical Forms Used with Elohim When Referring to YHWH The verb form used in Hebrew when elohim (signifying the true God) is the subject is instructive. The verbs used with elohim for the true God are virtually always singular in form in the Tanakh. For example, in Genesis 1, where the reader is first introduced to elohim, the creator (God), the Hebrew verb form is always in the third person masculine singular when it says “Elohim created” or “Elohim said” or “Elohim made,” etc.10 Again, as it is used throughout the Tanakh, the verb form used with Elohim is regularly singular. There are a few uses of Elohim referring to Israel’s God using plural verbs (e.g., Gen. 20:13; 35:7; 2 Sam. 7:23; Ps. 58:11[12]), and a few using plural adjectives (e.g., elohim k'doshim – Josh. 24:19; elohim chayyim – Dt. 5:26; 1 Sam. 17:26,36; Jer. 10:10; 23:36; cf. elohim chai – Is. 37:4,17).11 In other words, there are a few instances in which the plural form of elohim takes matching plural verbs or adjectives when it is clear that it is referring to YHWH Elohim. This has led some to speculate – apparently like much of the speculation about the plural-form elohim generated from a desire to see a binity or trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures – that this is some kind of hint at plurality to the God of Israel. Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Mula-mula ia berkata ‘always’ tetapi belakangan ‘regularly’. Bikankah itu saling bertentangan? Mula-mula ia berkata ‘always’, tetapi belakangan mengatakan ada beberapa yang tidak. Itu artinya bukan ‘always’! 2) Dalam tulisan anda yang lalu anda tidak memberikan perkecualian seperti ini. Anda mengatakan selalu digunakan kata kerja, kata sifat, dan bahkan article bentuk tunggal. Sekarang, anda mengutip orang yang mengatakan ‘adanya 10

The Hebrew word order may be relevant here. In Hebrew prose, usually the verb precedes the noun. In Genesis 1:1, before getting to the word Elohim, the reader reads bara (created), the third person masculine singular form, immediately telling the reader that the subject is a single entity. 11 There are a handful of times when Elohim is used in conjunction with first person plural pronouns, which are exclusively used by God in the biblical narratives. Other individuals in the Hebrew Bible never use plural pronouns when referring to the LORD God, YHWH Elohim. This subject of God using the first person plural pronouns of himself on rare occasions will be addressed at a later point in this paper.

12

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) perkecualian’. Apakah itu berarti bahwa anda sekarang mengakui bahwa kata-kata anda yang lalu itu salah? Apalagi tentang article bentuk tunggal? 3) Kalau anda / ia anggap hal itu sebagai ‘speculation’ maka tolong jelaskan mengapa hal itu terjadi. Mengapa bisa digunakan kata kerja dan kata sifat bentuk jamak? Mengapa kalau menunjuk kepada YHWH Elohim digunakan kata-kata bentuk jamak itu? Bukankah YHWH Elohim itu tunggal mutlak (menurut anda)?

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: If anything, this could be argued to be residuals of polytheistic thinking in the biblical texts, for these would be instances of elohim taking plural forms, making it serve as a true plural noun. It would be saying the gods were doing such and such, when supposedly speaking about YHWH! Fortunately, we will discover that this is not the case. Neither vestiges of polytheistic thinking, nor secret coded messages about a mysterious plurality to the one God of Israel (the LORD GOD, YHWH Elohim) are being expressed. Rather, these are likely instances of a linguistic phenomenon called “attraction.”

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Anda / orang yang anda kutip makin lama makin seperti pelawak! ‘Attraction’? Gunanya / tujuannya apa? Apa sebabnya dinamakan demikian? Karena fungsinya untuk menarik perhatian (‘attract’) pembaca? Kalau memang demikian, mengapa bukannya muncul pada text-text yang penting, tetapi malahan pada text-text ‘yang biasa’ saja? Lagi-lagi, tolong jawab pertanyaan ini, dan jangan anggap sebagai ‘meaningless rhetoric’!! Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Basically, in unusual instances of seeming grammatical mismatches in the Bible, a linguistic phenomenon called “attraction” has likely occurred. This phenomenon occurs in many languages, including English. An example in English of linguistic “attraction” – a technical grammatical mismatch – is: “Turn left at the street where there is a carwash and a fast food restaurant.” Due to there being two landmarks, the sentence should have a plural verb. But, “there are a carwash” (even with addition of another landmark), grates on the ear. This type of grammatical error is called “attraction,” where verbs or adjectives or even pronouns are so strongly connected to the form of a nearby noun that proximity overtakes the proper grammatical construction.12 12

American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996), Houghton Mifflin; Sharvit, S. (date unknown), “The Power of ‘Attraction’ in Hebrew Language” in M. Z. Kaddari (Ed.), Studies of Hebrew Linguistics (Jubilee Vol.); Sharvit, S., 1999, “The Power of ‘Attraction’ in Hebrew Language,” pp. 113-132, in Studies in Ancient and Modern Hebrew (Kaddari Jubilee Vol.), Ramat-Gan, Israel. Cf. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, pp. 50-52, Koehler, L. & Baumgartner, W. (Eds.), 1953/1958, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

13

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Anda mengatakan ‘grates the ear’? Whose ear? Saya tahu bahwa orang-orang Amerika sering mengatakan “he don’t”, dan juga menggunakan double negatives seperti “I didn’t see nothing!”. Bagi kita itu aneh dan salah, bagi mereka tidak. Waktu saya belajar bahasa Inggris untuk menghadapi test TOEFL, saya diajar bahwa kata-kata ‘different than’ itu salah, karena seharusnya ‘different from’. Tetapi waktu saya study di USA, saya mendengar banyak orang Amerika menggunakan yang salah itu, dan mereka tidak merasa aneh! 2) Jangan samakan bahasa Inggris dengan bahasa Ibrani. Apa yang ada dalam bahasa Inggris tak bisa dianggap pasti ada dalam bahasa Ibrani, apalagi kedua bahasa ini sama sekali tidak serumpun! 3) Contoh yang anda beri dalam bahasa Inggris itupun sama sekali berbeda / tak ada kemiripannya dengan ayat-ayat yang saya berikan. Baca lagi ayat-ayat yang menggunakan kata-kata bentuk jamak itu, dan bandingkan sendiri. Apakah memang kalau digunakan bentuk tunggal tidak enak di telinga? Sebagai contoh Yes 6:8, dimana digunakan kata ganti orang bentuk tunggal dan jamak dalam satu ayat. Justru penggunaan bentuk jamak itu menjadikan kalimatnya aneh, karena pada awalnya digunakan bentuk tunggal! Demikian juga dengan Yos 24:19, dimana digunakan kata sifat bentuk tunggal dan jamak dalam satu ayat. Anda sengaja menggrupkan serangan-serangan saya menjadi satu, supaya anda bisa membahasnya secara borongan, sehingga tak terlihat betapa menggelikan katakata anda. Coba bahas satu per satu! 4) Biasakan anda memberikan buku tata bahasa yang menjelaskan adanya ‘type of grammatical error’ yang disebut “attraction,” itu? Saya tidak pernah mendengarnya baik pada waktu belajar bahasa Inggris, Ibrani, maupun Yunani!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: So, in connection to the few examples of where Elohim (for Israel’s God) is clearly the subject, though used with plural forms of verbs or adjectives, we now can see that this is an instance where linguistic “attraction” has likely occurred. For instance, even though it literally says this in the Hebrew, we know the Hebrew Bible is not saying that “the gods” caused Abraham to wander from his father’s home (Gen. 20:13), “the gods” revealed themselves to Jacob at the place called El Beth El (Gen. 35:7), “the gods” redeemed Israel (2 Sam. 7:23), or “the gods” judge the earth so that humankind can be pleased that justice prevails (Ps. 58:11[12]). Rather, we can understand that we are reading instances in the Hebrew where linguistic “attraction” has occurred. 14

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Alkitab Ibrani tentu tidak menggunakan kata ‘gods’! Tetapi menggunakan ELOHIM! 2) Lagi-lagi contoh yang anda berikan dalam bahasa Inggris di atas, sama sekali berbeda / tak ada kemiripannya dengan contoh-contoh di sini!! Ini betul-betul penyamaan yang hantam kromo saja! Ini yang anda katakan sebagai orang yang telah melakukan ‘deep research’? You are being more and more absurd!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: There are still other instances where certain Hebrew adjectives refer to Israel’s God using plural forms. A potential for confusion develops because these adjectives translate into nouns in English (e.g., Job 35:10; Ps. 149:2; Ecc. 12:1; Is. 54:5). It is difficult to convey the sense of this in English. These are not expressed in verbs or nouns, but rather by adjectives in Hebrew. The instances are: Job 35:10, which conveys the idea of God (eloahh, singular form) who (are) making humanity (osai, pl. [= plural]); Psalm 149:2, the idea of YHWH who (are) making Israel (osav, pl.); Ecclesiastes 12:1, the idea that we are to remember God (ha-elohim, plural form) who (are) creating us (bor'eikha, pl.); and Isaiah 54:5, the idea that YHWH of hosts (ADONAI ts'vaot[h]), God of the whole earth (elohei khol ha-arets, plural form), who (are) mastering/husbanding Jerusalem (boalaikh, pl.), who (are) making her (osaikh, pl.). When conveyed in this fashion, it is apparent that there are more grammatical oddities here. Yet, Hebrew language scholars who translate the Hebrew text into English are not caught off guard. They translate these into English in singular forms, knowing there is no mysterious thing happening here. Unfortunately, however, the fact that these adjectives translate into English as nouns – “my makers” (Job 35:10); “his makers” (Ps. 149:2); “your creators” (Ecc. 12:1); “your masters/husbands, your makers” (Is. 54:5) – has opened the door to speculation that these texts are really saying the God of Israel is a mysterious plurality of makerscreators. In reality this continues to be a matter of linguistic “attraction” that has become an occasion for mistakes to be made by those looking for hidden hints of plurality to the godhead. Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Lagi-lagi, contoh-contoh ini sama sekali berbeda / tak ada kemiripannya dengan contoh dalam bahasa Inggris yang anda berikan di atas! 2) Kata-kata yang anda cetak dengan huruf tebal itu justru salah. Para penterjemah itu justru melakukan suatu ‘blunder’ dalam penterjemahan, karena mereka tak pernah mengerti / menyadari bahwa dalam kata-kata bentuk jamak itu sebetulnya 15

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) ada sesuatu yang sangat misterius yang tersembunyi, yaitu adanya semacam kejamakan tertentu dalam diri Allah. Karena mereka tak mengerti hal itu maka mereka menterjemahkan ke dalam bentuk tunggal. Seperti dalam kasus Yes 6:8, LAI yang keminter / sok pinter menterjemahkan sebagai bentuk tunggal (‘Aku’), tetapi Kitab Suci Inggris menterjemahkan ‘us’. Lalu siapa yang benar? 3) Apakah anda menganggap bahwa terjemahan bahasa Inggris itu infallible dan inerrant? Yang mana yang seharusnya menjadi standar dalam pengajaran tentang Perjanjian Lama: Kitab Suci bahasa Ibrani atau bahasa Inggris? 4) Lalu, mengapa kata ‘kita’ dalam Kej 1:26 tetap diterjemahkan dalam bentuk jamak? Juga kata ‘us’ dalam Yes 6:8? Mengapa tak dianggap sebagai ‘attraction’ dan diterjemahkan ‘Aku’? Jawab pertanyaan ini, dan jangan anggap sebagai ‘meaningless rhetoric’! 5) Lalu apa standardnya dalam menterjemahkan? Kapan kata-kata bentuk jamak itu dianggap sebagai ‘attraction’ sehingga harus diterjemahkan ke dalam bentuk tunggal, dan kapan dianggap bukan sebagai ‘attraction’ dan tetap diterjemahkan dalam bentuk jamak? Rumus apa yang dipakai, siapa yang membuat rumus itu, dan apa dasarnya? Lagi-lagi jangan loncati pertanyaan-pertanyaan ini, atau menganggapnya sebagai ‘meaningless rhetoric’! Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: There is one other factor that is likely at play in these final unusual texts, something we have already discussed in relation to the use of the word elohim for the true God, the phenomenon called “plural of majesty.” At this point, it is important to note that, not only the word elohim, but also other Hebrew words are used in plural form for single individuals – perhaps most notably adon (discussed further later) – to point out a greatness factor, in those individuals. In the verses just mentioned in this section, the plural forms used for YHWH Elohim communicate the idea that Israel’s God is the great, absolute, complete creator-maker of heaven and earth.13 Tanggapan Budi Asali: Lalu mengapa dalam ayat-ayat tertentu tetap digunakan bentuk tunggal ELOAH? Dalam text-text seperti itu Allah tak dianggap besar? Atau dianggap tak punya ‘majesty’??

13

For a thorough treatment of linguistic attraction and other pertinent subjects of anomalous plurals in the Hebrew texts, see “Elohim: Plural or Singular?” (Part 1), Nehemia Gordon (2003), http://karaitesusa.org/Studies_On/elohim_plural_or_singular_1.htm. Cf. Part 2: http://karaitesusa.org/Studies_On/elohim_plural_or_singular_2.htm; and Part 3: http://karaitesusa.org/Studies_On/elohim_plural_or_singular_3.htm.

16

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Again, if we did not know about this type of linguistic phenomenon in Hebrew (and other languages), we might become prey to all sorts of fanciful thinking. We could be susceptible to the claim that some trinitarians and binitarians offer that, since there are a few examples of plural verbs, plural pronouns, or plural-form adjectives accompanying elohim (when it is referring to the God of Israel rather than to a plurality of gods), then this is evidence embedded in the Hebrew Bible of plurality within the godhead. But this is not so. In fact, there are even other instances in the Hebrew Bible where plural-form nouns are used with pluralform adjectives or pronouns, but context makes it clear that the meaning is still singular.14

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Dari kata-kata di atas ini, khususnya yang saya beri warna merah, kelihatan makin jelas bahwa orang-orang yang anda kutip ini bukan Trinitarian. Apa aliran mereka? Mereka Unitarian / Saksi Yehuwa? 2) Terus terang, kalau tidak ada Perjanjian Baru maka mungkin sekali tak ada yang memperhatikan / mendapatkan kejamakan dalam diri Allah dalam Perjanjian Lama. Tetapi pada saat Perjanjian Baru muncul dan terlihat dengan jelas bahwa Yesus dan Roh Kudus dinyatakan sebagai Allah, maka orang kristen mulai membaca Perjanjian Lama dengan kaca mata Perjanjian Baru, dan lalu mendapatkan hal itu. Sebagai contoh: penggunaan kata YHWH 3x dalam pemberian berkat dalam Bil 6:24-26 dan penyebutan ‘kudus’ 3x dalam Yes 6:3. Pada waktu hanya ada Perjanjian Lama, maka tak ada orang memikirkan 3x itu. Tetapi setelah ada Perjanjian Baru, dan orang tahu bahwa Yesus dan Roh Kudus adalah Allah, maka orang Kristen mulai memikirkan bahwa dalam bilangan 3 tersebut terdapat bayangan dari doktrin Allah Tritunggal dalam Perjanjian Lama! Karena itu pada awal saya mempertanyakan mengapa anda memilih topik ‘the God of the OT’! Dan anda menganggap pertanyaan / serangan saya sebagai ‘meaningless rhetoric’! Itu bukan ‘meaningless’, hanya saja anda tak mengerti artinya, atau pura-pura tak mengerti artinya!!

14

For example, in the Exodus 32:4, proximity of the plural form of elohim (being used to describe the single golden calf-god-idol) drew the writer to use plural forms for the pronoun and verb, even though elohim clearly is being used as a singular noun in this sentence, referring to the single entity of the golden calf-god (idol). More will be said about this in a future section.

17

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Since a prime rule in proper Bible interpretation is to take the overarching clear communication of Scripture for our understanding before looking at and trying to understand seeming exceptions to the pattern, this alone should tell us not to lay stock on a few verses that don’t fit the standard linguistic-grammatical pattern. Learning about the Hebrew language and its grammatical anomalies that parallel those in other languages (including English) will safeguard us from being caught up in speculations and led astray by those who run with theories that neither match the facts of the Bible nor demonstrate understanding of its grammar.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Rumus hermeneutics ini diciptakan oleh siapa? Ini hanya kata-kata licik yang tujuannya mengabaikan ayat-ayat yang tak sesuai dengan pandangan anda! Saya beri satu contoh, dimana keanehan gramatika, jelas memang disengaja, karena ada maksud tertentu. Dalam Yoh 8:58 (KJV): ‘Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am’. Kalau untuk Abraham saja sudah digunakan past tense (‘was’), maka untuk Yesus yang ada ‘before Abraham’ seharusnya sedikitnya juga past tense (‘I was’), atau mungkin lebih tepat ‘past perfect tense’ (‘I had been’). Tetapi ternyata Yesus menggunakan bentuk present EGO EIMI (‘I am’). Mengapa? Hanya anomali gramatika? Tidak! Ia ingin menunjukkan bahwa Ia tidak terbatas waktu, atau bahkan ada di atas waktu. Ia adalah “the eternal ‘I am’”! Ada orang-orang yang bahkan menghubungkan kata-kata Yesus ini dengan kata-kata ‘I am who I am’ dari YHWH. Dan ini menunjukkan bahwa Ia adalah Allah / YHWH sendiri! 2) Seandainya Kitab Suci hanya Perjanjian Lama saja, maka mungkin saya bisa menerima kata-kata anda. Tetapi ada Perjanjian Baru yang jelas menyatakan Yesus dan Roh Kudus sebagai Allah, dan karena itu ‘ayat-ayat perkecualian’ dalam Perjanjian Lama itu tidak boleh diabaikan / dianggap sebagai anomali dsb! Rumus anda mungkin bisa diberlakukan dalam hal-hal lain, tetapi tidak dalam hal ini. Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: In addition to “attraction” as an explanation for these linguistic anomalies found in the Hebrew Bible, it is helpful to know that the Septuagint (LXX; a 3rd or 2nd century B.C.E. Greek translation of the Tanakh) translates these rare occasions 18

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) of accompanying plural verbs or adjectives in reference to YHWH Elohim using singular Greek forms. Thus, the LXX confirms these odd plural forms of verbs or adjectives describing the one true God were understood to have a singular meaning and do not indicate some unusual plurality of the God of Israel when described as elohim.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Saya sebetulnya meragukan bahwa LXX menterjemahkan kata kerja dan kata sifat bentuk jamak ke dalam bentuk tunggal. Mengapa? Karena adanya penafsir yang berkata demikian tentang Kel 32:1. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: “The Hebrew word rendered "gods" is simply the name of God in its plural form, which, when applied to the Divine Being, is commonly accompanied with a verb singular, though sometimes , as here, with a plural. [Jerome adheres to the idea of plurality; and so also the Septuagint, which has: poieeson heemin theous hoi proporeusontai heemoon.]”. 2) Kalau benar bahwa LXX menterjemahkan ke dalam bentuk tunggal, maka perlu dipertanyakan: a) Siapa penterjemah dari LXX? Apakah mereka percaya pada Allah Tritunggal? Jelas tidak, karena doktrin Allah Tritunggal belum muncul saat itu. Jadi, jelas karena ketidak-mengertian mereka, mereka menterjemahkan seperti itu! Dalam mempelajari Perjanjian Lama, standardnya adalah Kitab Suci Ibrani dan bukan Yunani (LXX)! b) Dan bagaimana dengan kata ganti orang bentuk jamak seperti dalam Kej 1:26 dan Yes 6:8? Apakah LXX juga menterjemahkan dalam bentuk tunggal? Tanpa mengechek LXXpun saya yakin bahwa jawabannya adalah ‘tidak’! Kalau tidak, mengapa tidak? 3) Point ini saya berikan sebagai tambahan, setelah saya mendapat informasi dari Pdt. Yakub Tri Handoko M. Th. yang adalah seorang dosen bahasa Yunani dan mempunyai akses ke LXX. Inilah info yang ia berikan tentang ayat-ayat Perjanjian Lama yang menggunakan bentuk jamak untuk Allah, baik kata ganti orang, kata kerja, maupun kata sifat: Kej 1:26 - “Berfirmanlah [sg, eipen] Allah [sg, theos] (ELOHIM): ‘Baiklah Kita menjadikan [pl, poiesomen] manusia menurut gambar dan rupa Kita, supaya

19

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) mereka berkuasa atas ikan-ikan di laut dan burung-burung di udara dan atas ternak dan atas seluruh bumi dan atas segala binatang melata yang merayap di bumi.’”. Kej 3:22 - “Berfirmanlah TUHAN Allah: ‘Sesungguhnya manusia itu telah menjadi seperti salah satu [sg, heis] dari Kita [pl, hemon], tahu tentang yang baik dan yang jahat; maka sekarang jangan sampai ia mengulurkan tangannya dan mengambil pula dari buah pohon kehidupan itu dan memakannya, sehingga ia hidup untuk selama-lamanya.’”. Kej 11:6-7 - “(6) dan Ia berfirman [sg, eipen]: ‘Mereka ini satu bangsa dengan satu bahasa untuk semuanya. Ini barulah permulaan usaha mereka; mulai dari sekarang apapun juga yang mereka rencanakan, tidak ada yang tidak akan dapat terlaksana. (7) Baiklah Kita turun [pl, katabantes] dan mengacaubalaukan [pl, suncheomen] di sana bahasa mereka, sehingga mereka tidak mengerti lagi bahasa masing-masing.’”. Yos 24:19 - “Tetapi Yosua berkata kepada bangsa itu: ‘Tidaklah kamu sanggup beribadah kepada TUHAN, sebab Dialah Allah yang KUDUS [SG, HAGIOS] Dialah Allah yang CEMBURU [SG, ZELOSAS]. Ia tidak akan mengampuni kesalahan dan dosamu”. Dalam bahasa Ibraninya, kata ‘cemburu’ ada dalam bentuk tunggal, TETAPI KATA ‘KUDUS’ ADA DALAM BENTUK JAMAK. Yes 6:8 (KJV): ‘Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send [sg, aposteilo], and who will go for us [dalam LXX “untuk kami” diganti “untuk bangsa ini” [pros ton laon touton]?’. Yesaya mula-mula menuliskan ‘I’ tetapi lalu belakangan menggunakan ‘us’. Kej 20:13a - “Ketika Allah MENYURUH AKU MENGEMBARA [sg, exegagen] keluar dari rumah ayahku, berkatalah aku kepada isteriku: ...”. Kata-kata ‘menyuruh aku mengembara’ dalam bahasa Ibraninya adalah kata kerja bentuk jamak. Kej 35:7 - “Didirikannyalah mezbah di situ, dan dinamainyalah tempat itu ElBetel, karena Allah telah MENYATAKAN diri [sg, hepephane] kepadanya di situ, ketika ia lari terhadap kakaknya”. Kata ‘menyatakan’ dalam bahasa Ibraninya adalah kata kerja bentuk jamak. 2Sam 7:23a - “Dan bangsa manakah di bumi seperti umatMu Israel, yang Allahnya PERGI [sg, hodegesen] membebaskannya menjadi umatNya, ...”. Kata ‘pergi’ dalam bahasa Ibraninya adalah kata kerja bentuk jamak.

20

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Maz 58:12 - “Dan orang akan berkata: ‘Sesungguhnya ada pahala bagi orang benar, sesungguhnya ada Allah yang MEMBERI KEADILAN [sg, krinon; LXX lit. “Allah yang menghakimi”] di bumi.’”. Kata ‘memberi keadilan’ dalam bahasa Ibraninya ada dalam bentuk jamak (sebetulnya ini bukan kata kerja tetapi participle). Ayub 35:10 - “tetapi orang tidak bertanya: Di mana Allah, YANG MEMBUAT AKU [SG, POIESAS], dan yang memberi nyanyian pujian [sg, katatasson] di waktu malam”. Kata-kata ‘yang membuat aku’, dalam bahasa Ibraninya ada dalam bentuk jamak. Catatan: kata-kata yang diberi warna merah merupakan info dari Pdt. Yakub Tri Handoko. Kesimpulan saya: a) Hanya sebagian saja dimana LXX mengubah bentuk jamak menjadi bentuk tunggal, yaitu dalam Yos 24:19 (kata sifat), Kej 20:13a (kata kerja), Kej 35:7 (kata kerja), 2Sam 7:23 (kata kerja), Maz 58:12 (kata kerja), dan Ayub 35:10 (kata kerja. b) Tetapi sebagian yang lain tetap diterjemahkan dalam bentuk jamak oleh LXX, yaitu dalam: • Kej 1:26 - ‘Kita menjadikan’. • Kej 3:22 - ‘Kita’. • Kej 11:7 - ‘Kita turun dan mengacaubalaukan’. Ini menjadi 2 kata kerja bentuk jamak dalam LXX. c) Satu ayat saya yakin LXX melakukan penterjemahan yg salah, yaitu Yes 6:8. Yes 6:8 (KJV): ‘Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send [sg, aposteilo], and who will go for us [dalam LXX “untuk kami” diganti “untuk bangsa ini” [pros ton laon touton]?’. Yesaya mula-mula menuliskan ‘I’ tetapi lalu belakangan menggunakan ‘us’. Kata ‘us’ tidak mungkin menunjuk kepada bangsa Israel. Kalau menunjuk kepada mereka, maka bahasa Ibraninya akan menggunakan ‘them’! Kesimpulan: tak semua kata-kata bentuk jamak dlm Perjanjian Lama bahasa Ibrani diterjemahkan ke dalam bentuk jamak dalam LXX. Jadi, info dari booklet anda itu lagi-lagi hanya setengah kebenaran!

21

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Plural Nouns that Function as Singular In Biblical Hebrew, a noun that is plural in form is not always plural in meaning. For instance, the Hebrew words chayyim (“life”) and panim (“face, presence, countenance”) are plural in form, but almost always singular in meaning. In a significantly smaller number of occasions these two plural-form words are used with plural meaning in the Tanakh. For instance, in Genesis 47:25, the Egyptian people tell Joseph, “You have saved our lives;” and in Ezekiel 10:14, it says the creatures of the heavenly vision each had four faces. In contrast, in most instances where these plural-form words are used in the Tanakh, they are singular in meaning. For instance, in Genesis 23:1 when Sarah died, it says, “The lives of Sarah were 127 years;” and in Genesis 43:31 after Joseph wept to see his brothers, it says Joseph “washed his faces.” In these latter instances, the plural-form nouns (chayyim and panim) are functioning as singular nouns with singular meanings, hence are translated into English in the singular. Similarly, it is not translated, nor would it be properly understood that Abraham “fell on his faces” (Gen. 17:3), or that Hagar fled from before “the faces of her” mistress Sarah (Gen. 16:6). Even though a plural-form noun (panim) is used, Joseph and Abraham and Sarah were not two-faced people, nor did they have multiple personalities! Rather, in these instances, panim is functioning as a singular noun. Context tells us when a plural-form noun is functioning as a singular noun.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Sudah saya katakan bahwa kata-kata chayyim (“life”) dan panim (“face, presence, countenance”) itu tidak mempunyai bentuk tunggal. Jadi, tentu berbeda dengan kata ELOHIM, yang mempunyai bentuk tunggal ELOAH. Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: So, using a plural-form word to describe a single entity does not indicate there is something unusual about that entity. Rather, it is an instance of a plural-form noun functioning as a singular noun. It is the same for describing the LORD as Elohim. It doesn’t mean the LORD (YHWH) is some mysteriously multi-person entity. Another important example of the linguistic peculiarities of Hebrew in this respect is the word, adon (lord, master, or sir).15 It is probably not a coincidence that we have

15 Like Elohim, this is a title denoting someone superior in rank. See our “plurality of majesty” discussion (in the section titled “First Person Plural Pronouns Used by God” and other references in this paper to this concept), which also applies to the plural form of this word when it is used for single individuals.

22

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) another word like elohim that denotes one superior in rank which is expressed in plural form of the word, even though it is describing a single individual.16 Adon is often plural in form, but singular in meaning. For example, it is in plural form when used of Abraham (Gen. 24:9-10), Joseph (Gen. 42:30,33; 44:8), the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1), Elijah (2 Kgs. 2:3,5,16), and an anonymous fierce king that the Egyptians were prophesied to be under the rule of (Is. 19:4, NRSV). But, the linguistic anomaly of a servant having Abraham as “his lords” does not indicate some mysterious plurality to Abraham any more than calling Joseph the “lords of the land,” or the cupbearer and baker calling the Egyptian king “their masters” means there is a mysterious “compound unity” (or “complex unity”) to Joseph or to the Pharaoh. Rather, it is an idiosyncrasy of the Hebrew language and a way to convey greatness. It does not change the fact that Abraham was one singular lord/master, just as Joseph was one singular lord/master, and the Egyptian king was one singular lord/master.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Gen 24:9-10 - “(9) And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter. (10) And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master [were] in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor”. Kata ‘ADONAY’ yang digunakan berbeda. Bandingkan dengan: Gen 19:2 - “And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night”. Lihat kata ‘my lords’ itu dalam bahasa Ibraninya maka terlihat bahwa pembacaannya berbeda (pemberian huruf hidupnya berbeda). Yang satu ADONAY dan yang lain ADONAAY. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (topik ‘God, names of’: “4. 'Adhon, 'Adhonay: An attributive name, which in prehistoric Hebrew had already passed over into a generic name of God, is 'Adhon, 'Adhonay, the latter formed from the former, being the construct plural, 'adhone, with the 1st person ending16

Much more can be said about the various forms of adon; but this will be saved for a future paper.

23

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) ay, which has been lengthened to ay and so retained as characteristic of the proper name and distinguishing it from the possessive "my Lord." The King James Version does not distinguish, but renders both as possessive, "my Lord" <Judg 6:15; 13:8>, and as personal name ; the Revised Version (British and American) also, in , is in doubt, giving "my Lord," possessive, in text and "the Lord" in the margin” (= ). 2) Gen 42:30,33 (KJV) - “(30) The man, [who is] the lord of the land, spake roughly to us, and took us for spies of the country. ... (33) And the man, the lord of the country, said unto us, Hereby shall I know that ye [are] true [men]; leave one of your brethren [here] with me, and take [food for] the famine of your households, and be gone”. Yang ini memang bentuk jamak! Mengapa bisa demikian? Ada penafsir yang berpendapat sebagai berikut: Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (tentang Kej 42:30): “‘The man who is the lord of the land,’ ['ªdoneey (heb 113) haa'aarets (heb 776)]. The word in the plural is used intensitively when only one person is meant (cf. ).” (= ). Saya sendiri tidak terlalu setuju dengan kata-kata dari penafsir ini, karena kalau demikian mengapa dalam Perjanjian Lama hanya ada 5 ayat (Kej 42:30,33 2Raja 2:3,5,16) yang menggunakan bentuk seperti itu? 3) 2Kings 2:3,5,16 (KJV) - “(3) And the sons of the prophets that [were] at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he said, Yea, I know [it]; hold ye your peace. ... (5) And the sons of the prophets that [were] at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he answered, Yea, I know [it]; hold ye your peace. ... (16) And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send”. Yang ini memang juga bentuk jamak. Lalu menurut anda, bagaimana pada saat kata ‘lords’ itu digunakan bukan untuk Allah? Tujuannya juga untuk menunjukkan kebesaran manusia / non Allah itu? 4) Isa 19:4 (KJV) - “And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts”.

24

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Saya kira ini bisa dijelaskan dengan membedakan ‘cruel lords’ dengan ‘a fierce king’. Atau bahwa ‘a fierce king’ itu hanya salah satu dari ‘cruel lords’ itu. 5) Penjelasan lain yang memungkinkan adalah seperti kata-kata dari penulis yang anda kutip, dimana ia sendiri berkata: ‘Adon is often plural in form, but singular in meaning’. Jadi, kata ADON mirip dengan kata ELOHIM, sekalipun mempunyai bentuk tunggal, teapi bentuk jamaknya sering digunakan dalam arti tunggal. 6) Seluruh Kitab Suci harus diperhitungkan dalam menafsirkan ayat-ayat seperti di atas ini. Kalau kita melihat pada seluruh Kitab Suci, tak ada dasar apapun untuk mengatakan bahwa Yusuf, Abraham, Elia, dan raja dalam Yes 19:4 itu mempunyai kejamakan pribadi. Ini berbeda dengan pada waktu kita menafsirkan ayat-ayat yang menggunakan kata-kata bentuk jamak untuk Allah. Karena kalau kita melihat dalam seluruh Kitab Suci, khususnya dalam Perjanjian Baru, maka terlihat dengan jelas adanya kejamakan pribad dalam diri Allah yang tunggal itu.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Similarly, in Exodus 21:28-36 (which covers various animal mishaps) a single human owner is originally referred to in the singular form of owner-master (baal – verse 28), but thereafter is consistently referred to in the plural forms of owners and masters (b'ala[i]v, adona[i]v – verses 29,32-33,36). The plurality is understood to indicate he is the full owner-master-possessor of the animal, thus fully responsible for it.17 Although words conveying lordship (i.e., mastery over something) frequently are conveyed in the Hebrew in plural form, singular forms of nouns are also used of words rendered in English as lord or master (adon – e.g. Ps. 110:1; Mal. 3:1), husband, owner, or master (baal – e.g., Ex. 22:8[7]), maker (oseh – e.g., Prov. 22:2) and creator (bore – e.g., Is. 40:28; 43:15). This matches the way that both plural and singular forms of “god” are used for a single pagan god and for the God of Israel (of which more will be said later).

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Di sini kejamakan itu digunakan ‘to indicate he is the full owner-master-possessor of the animal, thus fully responsible for it’. Beda lagi artinya dengan kejamakan di atas? (tentang kata ELOHIM). Lalu apa yang menjadi standard dalam menentukan arti dari kata bentuk jamak itu? 2) Mungkin BAAL harus diartikan sama seperti ELOHIM dan ADON tadi.

17

Nehemia Gordon (2003), http://karaites-usa.org/Studies_On/elohim_plural_or_singular_1.htm.

25

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: One final example of linguistic Hebrew anomalies might be where other single individuals are referred to using plural verbs or adjectives. For example, returning to Genesis 23:1 (“Sarah’s lives were 127 years”), the plural verb accompanying the plural noun does not mean Sarah had multiple past lives! All these examples of plural references regarding single individuals do not reveal a hidden truth that these humans have some mysterious plurality of personhood or have been reincarnated to cycle through many lifetimes and hence merit plural references. They are simply anomalies of the Hebrew language that are clearly understood by Hebrew language scholars, translators, and native Hebrew speakers as having singular meanings. Let us not fabricate fanciful new meanings for things well understood by those who know better.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Kata Ibrani yang digunakan dalam Kej 23:1 adalah VAYIHYU, artinya adalah ‘and they were’. Kata ‘were’ tidak berhubungan dengan Sarah (one individual), tetapi berhubungan dengan “Sarah’ lives” (CHAYEY SARAH). Dengan kata lain, subyeknya adalah “Sarah’ lives”, bukan ‘Sarah’. Kata CHAYEY merupakan bentuk construct state dari kata CHAYYIM (life). Sudah jelas harus menggunakan bentuk jamak ‘and they were’, karena CHAYYIM merupakan kata benda bentuk jamak (hanya mempunyai bentuk jamak). Ini bukan hanya terjadi dalam kasus Sarah dalam Kej 23:1 ini, tetapi juga dalam banyak ayat lain, seperti Kej 5:4,5,8,11 dsb. Pada waktu subyeknya betul-betul adalah satu individu (laki-laki), maka kata Ibrani yang digunakan adalah VAYEHI (= and he was), seperti dalam Kej 17:1 Kej 5:3,6,7,9 dan sebagainya. Jadi, kata-kata anda yang anda cetak dengan huruf-huruf yang diperbesar itu, adalah omong kosong! Dari cara ia menggunakan Kej 23:1 itu sebagai contoh, kelihatannya ia sendiri tidak mengerti bahasa Ibrani! Tetapi ia melakukan ‘a very deep research’!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Other Individuals Called Elohim The word elohim is used of the individual false gods of Israel’s surrounding nations. Smith’s Bible Dictionary and the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia have not even a hint of plurality noted regarding any one of these gods: Elohim is used of Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines (Jdgs. 16:23-24; 1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jdgs. 11:24; 1 Kgs. 11:33) likely corresponding to either 26

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) the god Mars or the god Saturn; of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the goddess of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33) likely corresponding to the goddess Venus; of Milcom, another god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:33) likely corresponding to Chemosh and Molech; and of Nisroch, the eagle-headed human-figured god of Assyria (2 Kgs. 19:37).18 When reviewing the pertinent Tanakh passages, note the singular pronouns associated with these gods.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Saya percaya bahwa kata ELOHIM bisa diterjemahkan sebagai bentuk tunggal, dan dalam kasus-kasus dimana kata itu diterapkan kepada dewa, maka itu yang harus dilakukan. 2) Ada perbedaan penggunaan kata ELOHIM untuk Allah dan untuk dewa-dewa. Untuk Allah kadang-kadang disertai kata kerja / kata sifat bentuk jamak, untuk dewa tidak! 3) Kalau ELOHIM memang punya arti seperti anda katakan di atas (menunjukkan divine power / strength dsb), maka pada waktu kata itu digunakan untuk Dagon dsb, apakah artinya tetap berlaku? Kalau anda berkata ‘tidak’, anda tidak konsisten. Kalau anda berkata ‘Ya’, maka dengan demikian Perjanjian Lama meninggikan Dagon, dsb! Lalu mengapa bertentangan dengan banyak ayat Perjanjian Lama yang mengatakan bahwa berhala itu mati, tidak ada apa-apanya dsb?? Contoh: • Ul 4:28 - “Maka di sana kamu akan beribadah kepada allah, buatan tangan manusia, dari kayu dan batu, yang tidak dapat melihat, tidak dapat mendengar, tidak dapat makan dan tidak dapat mencium”. • Maz 115:4-7 - “(4) Berhala-berhala mereka adalah perak dan emas, buatan tangan manusia, (5) mempunyai mulut, tetapi tidak dapat berkata-kata, mempunyai mata, tetapi tidak dapat melihat, (6) mempunyai telinga, tetapi tidak dapat mendengar, mempunyai hidung, tetapi tidak dapat mencium, (7) mempunyai tangan, tetapi tidak dapat meraba-raba, mempunyai kaki, tetapi tidak dapat berjalan, dan tidak dapat memberi suara dengan kerongkongannya”. • Yer 10:5 - “Berhala itu sama seperti orang-orangan di kebun mentimun, tidak dapat berbicara; orang harus mengangkatnya, sebab tidak dapat melangkah.

18 W. Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Rev. Ed.), F. N. Peloubet & M. A. Peloubet (Eds.), Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1948, p. 60, 113, 133, 405, 413-414, 452; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. 1, 1979, pp. 319-320, 640641, 851; Vol. 3, 1986, pp. 354, 401-402, 543), G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

27

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Janganlah takut kepadanya, sebab berhala itu tidak dapat berbuat jahat, dan berbuat baikpun tidak dapat.’”.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: In Ezra’s prayer in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calfgod made by Israel in the wilderness. This last example is another instance where a single entity is referred to with a plural-form noun. Indeed, in the original account of Exodus 32:4, the single golden calf idol is referred to as though it were plural, using a plural-form verb and pronoun: “These [pl., but meaning the single idol] are [pl.] your god(s); who (they) brought [pl.] you out of the land of Egypt.” This, again, can be explained as the linguistic anomaly of “attraction.” It should not be taken to mean a clearly singular entity is mysteriously a plurality. The calf idol is not a so-called compound-unity (or complex-unity). Rather, despite use of plural-form noun with a plural verb and plural pronoun, context makes it clear that a single golden calf idol is being described as a god not as a collection of gods or an unusual singular god with some kind of complexity or plurality to it. Ezra’s words recorded in the book of Nehemiah confirm that the plural forms used in Exodus describing the single golden calf do not indicate some unusual plurality of the idol-god. Specifically, Nehemiah 9:18 recounts the unfortunate post-Exodus incident saying, “They made a golden calf [sing. (= singular)] for themselves, and said, ‘This [sing., meaning the single idol] is [sing.] your elohim, who (he) brought [sing.] you up from Egypt.’” It seems clear that Ezra understood a single idol was being described as a single god in the original Exodus account, despite plural verb and pronoun being used with the plural-form noun elohim in the Exodus version.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Coba perhatikan ayat-ayat ini: • Neh 9:18 - “Bahkan, ketika mereka membuat anak lembu tuangan dan berkata: 'Inilah Allahmu yang menuntun engkau keluar dari Mesir!', dan berbuat nista yang besar”. • Kel 32:4 - “Diterimanyalah itu dari tangan mereka, dibentuknya dengan pahat, dan dibuatnyalah dari padanya anak lembu tuangan. Kemudian berkatalah mereka: ‘Hai Israel, inilah Allahmu, yang telah menuntun engkau keluar dari tanah Mesir!’”. • 1Raja 12:28 - “Sesudah menimbang-nimbang, maka raja membuat dua anak lembu jantan dari emas dan ia berkata kepada mereka: ‘Sudah cukup lamanya kamu pergi ke Yerusalem. Hai Israel, lihatlah sekarang allah-allahmu, yang telah menuntun engkau keluar dari tanah Mesir.’”. Catatan: tetapi dalam kasus Yerobeam ini memang ada 2 anak lembu emas. 28

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

Ada yang aneh dalam ayat-ayat ini: 1) Kata ‘Inilah’ dan ‘menuntun’ dalam Neh 9:18 ada dalam bentuk tunggal, tetapi dalam Kel 32:4 kata-kata itu ada dalam bentuk jamak. Juga kata ‘menuntun’ dalam 1Raja 12:28 ada dalam bentuk jamak. 2) Bagaimana mungkin orang-orang itu mengatakan bahwa anak lembu emas itu yang menuntun mereka keluar dari Mesir? Pada saat mereka dituntun keluar dari Mesir, anak lembu emas itu bahkan belum ada! Jadi, jelas bahwa sekalipun dalam kata-kata itu kelihatannya orang-orang itu menunjuk pada patung anak lembu emas itu, tetapi yang mereka maksudkan sebetulnya adalah YHWH. Patung anak lembu itu hanya wakil dari YHWH! Pandangan ini didukung oleh Kel 32:5b dimana Harun berkata: ‘Besok hari raya bagi TUHAN (YHWH)!’. Barnes’ Notes (tentang Kel 32:4): “In the next verse, Aaron appears to speak of the calf as if it was a representative of Yahweh - ‘Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.’ The Israelites did not, it should be noted, worship a living Mnevis, or Apis, having a proper name, but only the golden type of the animal. The mystical notions connected with the ox by the Egyptian priests may have possessed their minds, and, when expressed in this modified and less gross manner, may have been applied to the LORD, who had really delivered them out of the hand of the Egyptians. Their sin then lay, not in their adopting another god, but in their pretending to worship a visible symbol of Him whom no symbol could represent. The close connection between the calves of Jeroboam and this calf is shown by the repetition of the formula, ‘which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt’”. Adam Clarke (tentang Kel 32:4): “‘These be thy gods, O Israel,’ The whole of this is a most strange and unaccountable transaction. Was it possible that the people could have so soon lost sight of the wonderful manifestations of God upon the mount? Was it possible that Aaron could have imagined that he could make any god that could help them? And yet it does not appear that he ever remonstrated with the people! Possibly he only intended to make them some symbolical representation of the divine power and energy, that might be as evident to them as the pillar of cloud and fire had been, and to which God might attach an always present energy and influence; or in requiring them to sacrifice their ornaments, he might have supposed they would have desisted from urging their request: but all this is mere conjecture, with very little probability to support it. It must however be granted that Aaron does not appear to have even designed a worship that should supersede the worship of the Most High; hence, we find him making proclamation: "Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD (Yahweh)," and we find further that some of the proper rites of the true worship were observed on this occasion, for they brought burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, <Exo. 32:6-7>: hence, it is evident that he intended that the true God should be the

29

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) object of their worship, though he permitted and even encouraged them to offer this worship through an idolatrous medium, the molten calf”. Matthew Henry (tentang Kel 32:4): “Aaron, seeing the people fond of their calf, was willing yet further to humour them, and he built an altar before it, and proclaimed a feast to the honour of it (v. 5), a feast of dedication. Yet he calls it a feast to Jehovah; for, brutish as they were, they did not imagine that this image was itself a god, nor did they design to terminate their adoration in the image, but they made it for a representation of the true God, whom they intended to worship in and through this image; and yet this did not excuse them from gross idolatry”. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (tentang Kel 32:4): “It is inconceivable that they, who but a few weeks before had witnessed such amazing demonstrations of the true God, could have suddenly sunk to such a pitch of infatuation and brutish stupidity as to imagine that human art or hands could make a god that should go before them. ... They meant the calf to be an image - a visible sign or symbol of Yahweh, so that their sin consisted not in a breach of the FIRST but of the SECOND commandment.”. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (tentang Kel 32:6): “‘Aaron made proclamation ... Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD’ - not to Apis or to Osiris, as enshrined in his image, but to Yahweh. This is a remarkable circumstance, strongly confirmatory of the view, that they had not renounced the worship of Yahweh, but in accordance with Egyptian notions, had formed an image with which they had been familiar, to be the visible symbol of the divine presence. Such at least seems to have been the view of Aaron, whose language on any other hypothesis is inexplicable. But whatever he meant, the people regarded it as an idol; and hence, they are severely condemned as guilty of a gross sin in every part of Scripture where allusion is made to the golden calf.”. Kesimpulan: penggunaan bentuk tunggal dan jamak dalam ayat-ayat di atas, disebabkan karena patung lembu emas itu dianggap mewakili YHWH! Ini justru menjadi dasar untuk mengatakan bahwa bagi mereka ada kejamakan tertentu dalam YHWH itu. Jadi, ini justru mengarah pada doktrin Allah Tritunggal, atau menjadi bayangan bagi doktrin Allah Tritunggal. Dengan demikian, senjata anda ini menjadi boomerang, yang balik menyerang anda sendiri.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: We also have individuals other than heathen gods called elohim. Specifically, elohim is also used of single human figures. For example, Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1) and the anointed Israelite king (Ps. 45:6[7]) are each apparently called elohim. Each, of course, is a single individual. In Exodus 4:16, YHWH tells Moses he will be as 30

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) God [elohim] to Aaron; and in Exodus 7:1, YHWH tells Moses, “See, I have made thee a god [elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Moses was just one individual. Psalm 45:6-7[7-8] is especially significant, maybe the most significant passage of all. It refers first to a single individual – the anointed king – “Thy throne, O God [elohim], is for ever and ever.” Thereafter, it refers to his Elohim – another single individual – as the one who anoints the king with the oil of gladness above his fellows (v. 7[8]); it continues, saying the king’s bride is to honor the anointed king as her lord/master (v. 11[12]).19 Later, in the NT, we see this psalm applied to the lord/master Jesus (Heb. 1:8). Looking at this passage in messianic terms, the anointed king Jesus, is elohim; and the Father (the king who needs no anointing – no external authorization or empowerment) is elohim. Jesus is not more than one individual; neither is his father. Though they both are called elohim in this passage, they remain entirely distinct individuals – one is anointed (authorized and empowered) to be king; the other anoints (authorizes and empowers) the king.20 To be clear, we are seeing two different “elohims” here – two separate individuals called elohim – not a single individual (and not a single entity or substance) called elohim that is plural in personhood.

19

Bible scholars tend to believe the king originally described was David or Solomon, and his bride, with messianic application to David’s great future son who would inherit the messianic era throne. There is some question as to whether elohim in verse 6[7] is functioning as an adjective rather than a noun. In that instance, it would be conveying that the throne of the anointed king is Heaven-endorsed. The root verb in v. 11[12], shachah, does not say the wife is to worship her husband as deity! Though it is used to describe worship of deity, this is the verb most commonly used to convey proper deference to human superiors by bowing (e.g., BDB-Gesenius, 1979, p. 1005; Harkavy, 1914, p. 707). It is the word in 1 Chron. 29:20 that speaks of King David being “worshiped” along with YHWH. Though translations obscure this, there are many examples of this word for “worship” being used for humans: Abraham before three visitors (Gen. 18:2) and before the people of the land (Gen. 23:7,12); Lot before two angels (Gen. 19:1); Jacob, his wives, handmaidens, and children before Esau (Gen. 33:37; 43:28); Joseph’s brothers (Gen. 42:6; 43:26) with his parents before Joseph in a dream (Gen. 37:7-9); Joseph before his father Israel (Gen. 48:12); Moses before his father-in-law Jethro (Ex. 18:7); Ruth before Boaz (Ruth 2:10); an Israelite before David before he was king (2 Sam. 1:2); Abigail (1 Sam. 25:23,41), Jonathan’s son (2 Sam. 9:8), Joab (2 Sam. 14:22), Absalom (2 Sam. 14:33), Araunah (2 Sam. 24:20), Bathsheba (1 Kgs. 1:16), Nathan the prophet (1 Kgs. 1:23), Ornan (1 Chron. 21:21), and the woman of Tekoah before King David (2 Sam. 14:4); David before Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41) and before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8); Israelites before seditionist Absalom (2 Sam. 15:5); Saul before Samuel’s apparition (1 Sam. 28:14); Cushi before Joab (2 Sam. 18:21); Adonijah before King Solomon (1 Kgs. 1:53); King Solomon before his queen mother Bathsheba (1 Kgs. 2:19); the prophets’ sons (2 Kgs. 2:15) and Shunammite woman before Elisha (2 Kgs. 4:37); Judah’s officials before King Joash (2 Chron. 24:17). 20 In John 20:28, Thomas exclaimed: “my lord [kurios mou] and my god [theos mou].” Thomas was not making a theological statement turning back the credo of Israel (“Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one,” Dt. 6:4); rather, he realized the resurrection of Jesus attested to his being the human that God anointed to establish God’s kingdom and rule on earth. As with the anointed king in Psalm 45, Thomas rightly called Jesus by titles befitting God’s messiah (anointed), such as “my lord” and “my god.”

31

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Lagi-lagi saya tekankan bahwa saya tidak menyangkal bahwa ELOHIM bisa diartikan sebagai bentuk tunggal. Juga bahwa ELOHIM bisa ditujukan kepada non Allah. Anda menulis semua ini seakan-akan saya menyangkal hal-hal itu. 2) Penjelasan tentang penyebutan Musa sebagai Allah / ELOHIM. Kel 4:16 - “Ia harus berbicara bagimu kepada bangsa itu, dengan demikian ia akan menjadi penyambung lidahmu dan engkau akan menjadi seperti Allah baginya”. Kel 7:1 - “Berfirmanlah TUHAN kepada Musa: ‘Lihat, Aku mengangkat engkau sebagai Allah bagi Firaun, dan Harun, abangmu, akan menjadi nabimu”. Memang dalam ayat-ayat ini kata ELOHIM digunakan untuk Musa, tetapi jangan baca ayat sepotong-sepotong. Perhatikan bagian yang saya beri garis bawah ganda! Kata ‘baginya’ (bagi Harun) dalam Kel 4:16, dan kata-kata ‘bagi Firaun’ dalam Kel 7:1. Ini jelas membatasi kata ELOHIM bagi Musa itu, dan menunjukkan bahwa ia bukan Allah dalam arti kata yang sebenarnya. Pada waktu kata ‘Allah’ digunakan untuk yang bukan Allah, Kitab Suci selalu secara jelas menunjukkan bahwa yang dimaksud bukan betul-betul Allah! Selain Kel 4:16 dan Kel 7:1 yang sudah saya jelaskan di atas, masih banyak contohcontoh lain di bawah ini: a. Kel 12:12 - “Sebab pada malam ini Aku akan menjalani tanah Mesir, dan semua anak sulung, dari anak manusia sampai anak binatang, akan Kubunuh, dan kepada semua allah (ELOHEY = gods of / allah-allah dari) di Mesir akan Kujatuhkan hukuman, Akulah, TUHAN”. Jelas bahwa kata ‘allah’ di sini tidak menunjuk kepada Allah yang sejati, karena dikatakan bahwa Allah yang sejati itu akan menghukum ‘semua allah’ ini. Jadi di sini kata itu menunjuk kepada dewa-dewa sembahan Mesir, yang sering berupa binatang, khususnya sapi. Pada saat Tuhan menghukum Mesir dengan membunuh semua anak sulung, maka anak binatang (dewa / allah mereka) juga ikut dibunuh / dihukum. b. Kel 20:3 - “Jangan ada padamu allah (ELOHIM) lain di hadapanKu”. Adanya kata-kata ‘lain’ dan ‘di hadapanKu’, membuat ayat ini jelas menunjukkan bahwa yang dimaksud dengan ‘allah’ bukanlah Allah yang sebenarnya. Selain dalam ayat ini, dalam banyak ayat-ayat lain, kata ‘allah’ digunakan untuk menunjuk kepada dewa / berhala dari bangsa-bangsa kafir, dan kontextnya selalu menunjukkan secara jelas bahwa yang dimaksud bukanlah Allah yang sesungguhnya, tetapi hanya dewa / berhala yang dalam Kitab Suci dikatakan tidak mempunyai existensi (1Kor 8:4-6).

32

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) c. Hak 5:8 - “Ketika orang memilih allah (ELOHIM) baru, maka terjadilah perang di pintu gerbang. Sesungguhnya, perisai ataupun tombak tidak terlihat di antara empat puluh ribu orang di Israel”. Kata-kata dari ayat ini yang mengatakan bahwa ‘orang memilih allah baru’, sudah menunjukkan bahwa kata ‘allah’ ini tidak digunakan dalam arti yang sebenarnya. Jadi ayat ini menunjukkan bahwa orang-orang Israel memilih dewa / berhala baru (sambil meninggalkan YAHWEH), dan sebagai akibatnya terjadilah bencana seperti perang dan sebagainya. d. 1Sam 28:13b: “Perempuan itu menjawab Saul: ‘Aku melihat sesuatu yang ilahi (ELOHIM) muncul dari dalam bumi.’”. KJV: ‘gods’ (= allah-allah). RSV/NWT: ‘a god’ (= suatu allah). NIV: ‘a spirit’ (= suatu roh). NASB: ‘a divine being’ (= suatu makhluk yang ilahi). Kata Ibrani yang dipakai adalah ELOHIM. Ada 2 penafsiran tentang bagian ini: • Kata ELOHIM menunjuk kepada penampilan yang supranatural / gaib. • Kata ELOHIM digunakan karena ‘arwah’ itu boleh dikatakan merupakan allah dari si dukun yang memanggilnya. Tidak peduli mana arti yang benar, yang jelas ayat itu sendiri secara menyolok menunjukkan bahwa yang dimaksud dengan ELOHIM di sini bukanlah Allah yang sesungguhnya. e. Maz 82:1-8 - “(1) Mazmur Asaf. Allah berdiri dalam sidang ilahi, di antara para allah (Ibrani: ELOHIM) Ia menghakimi: (2) ‘Berapa lama lagi kamu menghakimi dengan lalim dan memihak kepada orang fasik? Sela (3) Berilah keadilan kepada orang yang lemah dan kepada anak yatim, belalah hak orang sengsara dan orang yang kekurangan! (4) Luputkanlah orang yang lemah dan yang miskin, lepaskanlah mereka dari tangan orang fasik!’ (5) Mereka tidak tahu dan tidak mengerti apa-apa, dalam kegelapan mereka berjalan; goyanglah segala dasar bumi. (6) Aku sendiri telah berfirman: ‘Kamu adalah allah (Ibrani: ELOHIM), dan anak-anak Yang Mahatinggi kamu sekalian. - (7) Namun seperti manusia kamu akan mati dan seperti salah seorang pembesar kamu akan tewas.’ (8) Bangunlah ya Allah, hakimilah bumi, sebab Engkaulah yang memiliki segala bangsa”. Yang disebut ELOHIM (‘allah-allah’) dalam ay 1 dan ay 6 itu jelas adalah hakim-hakim yang lalim / tidak adil pada saat itu. Sekalipun mereka disebut ‘allah-allah’ (ELOHIM), tetapi mereka jelas bukan Allah dalam arti yang sesungguhnya, dan itu terlihat dari: • mereka ini bukan satu orang tetapi sekelompok orang, sehingga tidak mungkin mereka adalah Allah semua, karena akan menimbulkan polytheisme. • mereka dihakimi oleh Allah (ay 1). 33

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) •

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

mereka menghakimi dengan tidak adil (ay 2-4), dan hidup dalam kegelapan (ay 5). • mereka akan mati sebagai manusia (ay 7). Maz 95:3 - “Sebab TUHAN adalah Allah yang besar, dan Raja yang besar mengatasi segala allah (ELOHIM)”. Dalam ayat ini yang disebut ‘allah’ (ELOHIM) juga adalah sekelompok orang. Ada yang menganggap mereka ini sebagai dewa-dewa, dan ada juga yang menganggap mereka ini sebagai malaikat-malaikat. Bahwa mereka ini sekelompok, bukan tunggal, dan bahwa TUHAN dikatakan mengatasi mereka semua, jelas menunjukkan bahwa pada saat kata ‘allah’ (ELOHIM) diterapkan kepada mereka, kata itu tidak digunakan dalam arti yang sebenarnya. Maz 96:4-5 - “Sebab TUHAN maha besar dan terpuji sangat, Ia lebih dahsyat dari pada segala allah (ELOHIM). Sebab segala allah (ELOHIM) bangsabangsa adalah hampa, tetapi Tuhanlah yang menjadikan langit”. Ayat ini dengan jelas menunjukkan bahwa yang disebut ‘allah’ di sini adalah berhala-berhala / dewa-dewa. Maz 138:1 - “Aku hendak bersyukur kepadaMu dengan segenap hatiku, di hadapan para allah (ELOHIM) aku akan bermazmur bagiMu”. Calvin menganggap bahwa kata ELOHIM di sini menunjuk atau kepada malaikat-malaikat atau kepada raja-raja; Calvin lebih condong pada arti pertama. Siapapun yang disebut sebagai ELOHIM di sini, jelas sekali bahwa mereka bukanlah Allah dalam arti sesungguhnya, karena dalam ayat ini Allah yang sesungguhnya disebut ‘Mu’, kepada siapa Daud bersyukur dan bermazmur. 1Kor 8:5-6 - “(5) Sebab sungguhpun ada apa yang disebut ‘allah’ (THEOI = gods / allah-allah), baik di sorga, maupun di bumi - dan memang benar ada banyak ‘allah’ (THEOI) dan banyak ‘tuhan’ yang demikian - (6) namun bagi kita hanya ada satu Allah saja, yaitu Bapa, yang dari padaNya berasal segala sesuatu dan yang untuk Dia kita hidup, dan satu Tuhan saja, yaitu Yesus Kristus, yang olehNya segala sesuatu telah dijadikan dan yang karena Dia kita hidup”. Apakah yang disebut dengan ‘allah’ dalam ay 5 itu, malaikat atau berhala, tidak jadi soal. Yang jelas kata-kata tambahan dalam ay 6nya menunjukkan bahwa ‘allah’ dalam ay 5 itu bukan betul-betul Allah. Kis 12:22 - “Dan rakyatnya bersorak membalasnya: ‘Ini suara allah (THEOU) dan bukan suara manusia!’”. Jelas bahwa ini tidak menunjuk kepada Allah yang benar, karena kata-kata ini ditujukan kepada Herodes. 2Kor 4:4 - “yaitu orang-orang yang tidak percaya, yang pikirannya telah dibutakan oleh ilah zaman ini, sehingga mereka tidak melihat cahaya Injil tentang kemuliaan Kristus, yang adalah gambaran Allah”.

34

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Kata Yunani yang diterjemahkan ‘ilah’ di sini adalah HO THEOS (= the God / sang Allah)! Jelas bahwa di sini kata itu tidak menunjuk kepada Allah yang sejati, tetapi menunjuk kepada setan. l. 2Tes 2:4 - “yaitu lawan yang meninggikan diri di atas segala yang disebut atau yang disembah sebagai Allah (THEON). Bahkan ia duduk di Bait Allah dan mau menyatakan diri sebagai Allah (TOU THEOU)”. Kontext menunjukkan bahwa ini sama sekali tidak menunjuk kepada Allah yang sebenarnya, tetapi mungkin ini menunjuk kepada Antikristus. Jadi, dengan banyak contoh (dari Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru) saya sudah menunjukkan bahwa kalau kata ‘Allah’ digunakan untuk menunjuk kepada yang bukan Allah, maka selalu diberi penjelasan yang secara jelas menunjukkan bahwa yang dimaksud bukanlah Allah yang sejati. Tetapi pada waktu kata ‘Allah’ digunakan untuk Yesus, Kitab Suci tidak memberi petunjuk apapun bahwa kata itu digunakan bukan dalam arti yang sesungguhnya, tetapi sebaliknya bahkan memberikan keterangan yang menunjukkan bahwa Ia memang adalah Allah yang sejati. A. H. Strong: “It is sometimes objected that the ascription of the name ‘God’ to Christ proves nothing as to his absolute deity, since angels and even human judges are called gods, as representing God’s authority and executing his will. But we reply that, while it is true that the name is sometimes so applied, it is always with adjuncts and in connections which leaves no doubt of its figurative and secondary meaning. When, however, the name is applied to Christ, it is, on the contrary, with adjuncts and in connections which leaves no doubt that it signifies absolute Godhead” (= Kadang-kadang diajukan keberatan yang mengatakan bahwa pemberian nama ‘Allah’ kepada Kristus tidak membuktikan apa-apa berkenaan dengan keilahianNya yang mutlak, karena malaikat-malaikat dan bahkan hakim-hakim manusia disebut allah-allah, karena mewakili otoritas Allah dan melaksanakan kehendakNya. Tetapi kami menjawab bahwa sekalipun memang benar bahwa nama itu kadang-kadang diterapkan seperti itu, itu selalu disertai dengan tambahan / keterangan dan dalam hubungan yang membuang semua keragu-raguan tentang arti kiasan dan arti sekundernya. Tetapi pada waktu nama itu diterapkan kepada Kristus, sebaliknya itu disertai dengan tambahan / keterangan dan dalam hubungan yang membuang semua keragu-raguan bahwa itu menunjukkan keAllahan yang mutlak) - ‘Systematic Theology’, hal 307. Contoh: • Yoh 1:1c, yang mengatakan bahwa ‘Firman (Yesus) itu adalah Allah’, didahului oleh kata-kata ‘Pada mulanya adalah Firman’, yang menunjukkan kekekalan dari Firman itu, dan lalu dilanjutkan dengan Yoh 1:3, yang menunjukkan bahwa Firman / Yesus itu adalah Pencipta segala sesuatu! 35

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) •

Ro 9:5, yang menyatakan Yesus sebagai Allah, juga menambahkan bahwa Ia ada di atas sesuatu, dan harus dipuji selama-lamanya. • Ibr 1:8, selain menyebut Anak sebagai Allah, juga mengatakan bahwa Ia mempunyai takhta yang kekal, dan masih disusul lagi oleh Ibr 1:10-12 yang menyatakan Anak sebagai Tuhan, dan sebagai Pencipta, yang kekal dan yang tidak pernah berubah. • Wah 1:8, selain menyebut Yesus sebagai ‘Tuhan Allah’, juga menyebutNya dengan sebutan ‘Yang Mahakuasa’ dan ‘Alfa dan Omega’. Bahwa Wah 1:8 ini bicara tentang Yahudi bukan tentang Bapa, terlihat dari kontext. Wah 1:7 jelas bicara tentang Yesus, dan demikian juga dalam Wah 1:9-20 rasul Yohanes mendapat penglihatan tentang Yesus! 3) Sekalipun ada pro dan kontra dalam persoalan ini, tetapi saya berpendapat bahwa Maz 45:7 tidak menunjuk kepada siapapun selain Yesus! Kalau untuk raja (Salomo atau raja manapun selain Yesus), bagaimana tahtanya bisa kekal? Jamieson, Fausset & Brown: “Solomon, the type, suggests much of the imagery, but the inapplicability of the rest to him (as the warlike character of the King, Ps. 45:3-5) shows that Messiah alone is the ultimate reference. Heb. 1:7-9 decides this. Only on the view that the marriage is that of King Messiah, the antitype of warlike David and of peaceful Solomon, to Israel and His Church, can the admission of an Epithalamium into the Canon be accounted for. Moreover, He is described as divine (Ps. 45:6-7)”. 4) Sekarang, saya akan membahas kata-kata anda yang saya beri warna merah. Untuk jelasnya saya kutip ulang di bawah ini. Anda mengatakan: “Though they both are called elohim in this passage, they remain entirely distinct individuals – one is anointed (authorized and empowered) to be king; the other anoints (authorizes and empowers) the king.21 To be clear, we are seeing two different “elohims” here – two separate individuals called elohim – not a single individual (and not a single entity or substance) called elohim that is plural in personhood”. Tanggapan Budi Asali: Anda betul-betul menggelikan. Kami mempercayai Yesus sebagai sungguhsungguh Allah dan sungguh-sungguh manusia. Ada bagian-bagian yang menekankan keilahianNya dan ada bagian-bagian yang menekankan kemanusiaaNya. Dan kedua hal ini sering muncul dalam 1 ayat, misalnya: 21

In John 20:28, Thomas exclaimed: “my lord [kurios mou] and my god [theos mou].” Thomas was not making a theological statement turning back the credo of Israel (“Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one,” Dt. 6:4); rather, he realized the resurrection of Jesus attested to his being the human that God anointed to establish God’s kingdom and rule on earth. As with the anointed king in Psalm 45, Thomas rightly called Jesus by titles befitting God’s messiah (anointed), such as “my lord” and “my god.”

36

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) • Yes 9:5 - “Sebab seorang anak telah lahir untuk kita, seorang putera telah diberikan untuk kita; lambang pemerintahan ada di atas bahunya, dan namanya disebutkan orang: Penasihat Ajaib, Allah yang Perkasa, Bapa yang Kekal, Raja Damai”. • Yes 23:5-6 - “(5) Sesungguhnya, waktunya akan datang, demikianlah firman TUHAN, bahwa Aku akan menumbuhkan Tunas adil bagi Daud. Ia akan memerintah sebagai raja yang bijaksana dan akan melakukan keadilan dan kebenaran di negeri. (6) Dalam zamannya Yehuda akan dibebaskan, dan Israel akan hidup dengan tenteram; dan inilah namanya yang diberikan orang kepadanya: TUHAN--keadilan kita”. • Mikha 5:1 - “Tetapi engkau, hai Betlehem Efrata, hai yang terkecil di antara kaum-kaum Yehuda, dari padamu akan bangkit bagiKu seorang yang akan memerintah Israel, yang permulaannya sudah sejak purbakala, sejak dahulu kala”. • Yes 7:14 - “Sebab itu Tuhan sendirilah yang akan memberikan kepadamu suatu pertanda: Sesungguhnya, seorang perempuan muda mengandung dan akan melahirkan seorang anak laki-laki, dan ia akan menamakan Dia Imanuel”. • Maz 45:7-18 - “ (7) Takhtamu kepunyaan (ya) Allah, tetap untuk seterusnya dan selamanya, dan tongkat kerajaanmu adalah tongkat kebenaran. (8) Engkau mencintai keadilan dan membenci kefasikan; sebab itu Allah, Allahmu, telah mengurapi engkau dengan minyak sebagai tanda kesukaan, melebihi temanteman sekutumu”. Catatan: Yang warna merah menunjukkan keilahian, yang biru menunjukkan kemanusiaan Yesus. Jadi, dalam kasus Maz 45, yang diurapi adalah manusia Yesus! Biarpun kita tidak bisa memisahkan Yesus sebagai Allah dan sebagai manusia, tetapi kita bisa membedakannya! Dan sebagai manusia, itu jelas bukan ELOHIM! Juga kalau anda katakan ‘they remain entirely distinct individuals’, maka anda memasukkan pandangan anda ke dalam pandangan kami. Bagi kami, Yesus dan Bapa memang adalah 2 pribadi, tetapi bukan 2 pribadi yang terpisah total. Memang Mereka adalah 2 pribadi, tetapi satu hakekat, dan karena itu Mereka tidak terpisah total! If you say that ‘we are seeing two different “elohims” here’, then you need glasses, or thicker ones!! Tentang kata-kata ‘two separate individuals called elohim – not a single individual (and not a single entity or substance) called elohim that is plural in personhood’ akan saya bahas di bawah ini (dalam pembahasan kata-kata anda di bawah ini).

37

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: These applications of the descriptor elohim to humans indicate that those called by that name/descriptor are persons who exercise governing authority that derives from God, who is the source of all power (authority).22 Hence, the additional meanings of elohim in Hebrew lexicons are “mighty one(s), godlike one(s), judges,” and “angels,” meaning those who stand for (i.e., represent) God to others.23 The unmistakable conclusion in all this is that, in Biblical Hebrew, plural nouns in general and elohim in particular do not always have plural meanings. In the case of the word elohim, in fact, it would appear we should almost always understand it as singular in meaning, unless the context indicates that “gods” are being referred to. Finally, it also needs to be stated most emphatically that elohim either refers to more than one god, or to some kind of majestic way of referring to one god (whether Israel’s God or another god). There is no third option where elohim refers to some mysterious plurality in one deity (God). Even if well-intentioned, it is a fantasy inspired by a desire to see the historical Christian conception of God within the Tanakh.24 It has absolutely no linguistic basis. Anyone who so insists is simply not schooled in the Hebrew language. Excursus: First Person Plural Pronouns Used by God

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Serangan anda di sini saya kira mirip sekali dengan serangan dari Saksi Yehuwa. Dalam persoalan ini, buku ‘Haruskah anda percaya kepada Tritunggal?’ memberikan suatu serangan yang bagus, yang saya kutip di bawah ini: “‘ELOHIM’ bukan berarti ‘pribadi-pribadi’, melainkan ‘allah-allah’. Jadi mereka yang berkukuh bahwa kata ini menyatakan suatu Tritunggal menjadikan diri sendiri politeis, penyembah lebih dari satu Allah. Mengapa? Karena ini berarti ada tiga allah dalam Tritunggal” (hal 13). Untuk menjawab serangan ini saya menjelaskan sebagai berikut: 1. ELOHIM tidak boleh diartikan ‘Allah-Allah’, karena ini akan bertentangan dengan ayat-ayat yang menggunakan ELOAH. Sedangkan ELOAH tidak boleh diartikan ‘Allah yang satu secara mutlak’, karena akan bertentangan dengan ayat22

Groups of humans in rulership positions are also called elohim (e.g., Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9[7-8]; cf. Ps. 82). E.g., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, pp. 50-52, Koehler, L. & Baumgartner, W. (Eds.), 1953/1958, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill; cf. BDB-Gesenius, 1979, pp. 43-44, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub.; Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary to the Old Testament, A. Harkavy, 1914, pp. 24-25, New York: Hebrew Publishing Co. 24 And, it has become an unfortunate fiction being presented as truth that is passed down from one faithful devotee to another too often without persons asking whether the basic information that they so greatly cherish, champion, and defend is accurate. 23

38

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) ayat yang menggunakan ELOHIM. Jadi untuk mengharmoniskan ayat-ayat yang menggunakan ELOAH dengan ayat-ayat yang menggunakan ELOHIM, haruslah diartikan bahwa Allah itu tunggal dalam hakekatNya, tetapi jamak dalam pribadiNya. 2. Allah itu begitu besar, ajaib, dan ada diluar jangkauan akal manusia. Karena itu jelaslah bahwa tidak ada bahasa manusia (termasuk bahasa Ibrani), yang bisa menggambarkan Allah dengan sempurna. Tata bahasa dan kata-kata dari bahasa Ibrani (atau bahasa lain apapun) tidak bisa menggambarkan bahwa Allah itu satu hakekat tetapi tiga pribadi. 3. Disamping itu, Kitab Suci bukanlah suatu buku Systematic Theology, dan karena itu tidak menuliskan doktrin-doktrin yang ada di dalamnya dengan rumus-rumus theologia, tetapi sebaliknya, mengajar dengan menggunakan cerita sejarah, syair, surat-surat, dan sebagainya. Kalau Kitab Suci selalu menggunakan kata bentuk tunggal ELOAH, maka akan menunjuk kepada Allah yang tunggal secara mutlak. Sedangkan kalau Kitab Suci selalu menggunakan kata bentuk jamak ELOHIM, maka akan menunjuk kepada banyak Allah. Karena itu maka dalam ayat-ayat tertentu Kitab Suci menggunakan ELOAH dan dalam ayat-ayat lain Kitab Suci menggunakan ELOHIM.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Though plural pronouns are never used by any of God’s people when recorded as speaking with or about God, the proposed plurality of YHWH Elohim usually includes mention of four Tanakh passages with first person plural statements made by God. It should immediately be noted, however, that although the declarations are made in the plural, the actions are done using the singular pronoun and verb: “Let us make human[ity] in our image….and Elohim (he) created [sing.] a human in his [sing.] image” (Gen. 1:26-27);25 “the human has become like one of us….therefore YHWH Elohim (he) sent [sing.] him out from the garden” (Gen. 3:22-23); “come let us go down….so YHWH (he) scattered [sing.] them” (Gen. 11:7-8); and “who will go for us? And [YHWH] he said [sing.], ‘Go tell this people…’” (Is. 6:8-9).26 So, what do we make of this interesting juxtaposition of the one God with the first person plural pronouns? 25 The question is: When God determined to create the human species, who or what was present for God to address, and why? Renowned Middle Ages scholar, Rabbi Moses Nachmanides proposed that this was God making a grand declaration to the earth (metaphorically, of course) from which God would take material to create the first human (cited in A. G. Fruchtenbaum, Messianic Christology, 1998, Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, p. 106). This fits with the idea we have with us today of “Mother Earth,” only in the sense of God taking dust from the earth to create the human form and blowing life’s breath into it to make a living being (Gen. 2:7). “Earth” is used to create the human species and “heaven” is the source of life (Midrash Rabbah, Gen. 8:11); God addresses heaven and earth in the decision to create humankind (U. Marcus, 11-01-02, Lesson 9 – Jn. 20:28 & Gen. 1:26, AdonaiEchad). 26 Isaiah 41:22-23,26 may have plural God self-references, that definitely are followed by singular self-references, when God acts.

39

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

A first cause to consider in why God uses first person plural pronouns in these few instances is the basic concept in language that an individual uses these pronouns when including someone other than himself or herself. The first thought is that God is including someone besides himself when God uses these pronouns. Hence, even if a plural-God were speaking, that God would be referring to someone else in addition to himself. In this way of thinking, perhaps God is addressing the heavenly host, which appears to be near God at the time of earth’s creation (Job 38:4-7), perhaps at the expulsion from Eden (Gen. 3:22-24), and definitely in Isaiah’s vision (Is. 6:1-3).27 The idea is not that heaven’s host was necessarily involved in all the actions God mentions in the four “us” passages, but that God was condescending to his heavenly court – with God making a kingly decree of a decision to act addressing the heavenly court populated The New Bible and Cambridge by the recently-created heavenly hosts.28 commentaries propose the heavenly host is being referred to in these passages; Expositor’s and Interpreter’s Bible commentaries suggest it as a possibility; and New Interpreter’s Bible specifies it is God speaking to his divine (angelic) council.29

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Ini bukan Allah-Allah yang bicara kepada Allah yang lain lagi. Tetapi satu pribadi ilahi yang bicara kepada pribadi ilahi yang lain. 2) Saya ingin menyoroti kata-kata anda ini “In this way of thinking, perhaps God is addressing the heavenly host, which appears to be near God at the time of earth’s creation (Job 38:4-7), perhaps at the expulsion from Eden (Gen. 3:22-24), and definitely in Isaiah’s vision (Is. 6:1-3)”. Kalau adanya ayat-ayat seperti Ayub 38:4-7 Kej 3:22-24 dan Yes 6:1-3, yang menunjukkan adanya malaikat-malaikat di dekat Allah, menyebabkan anda menyimpulkan bahwa dalam Kej 1:26 Allah bicara kepada malaikat-malaikat itu, lalu mengapa dari ayat-ayat seperti Ayub 1:6 dan 1Raja 22:19-23, yang 27

In 1 Kings 22:19-22, the heavenly host is described as standing to the left and right of Heaven’s throne, with God speaking to the complement, asking who would go for God on an earthly mission. 28 E.g., Philo, Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger, Gispen, Day, and Westermann, cited in G. J. Wenham, 1987, in Hubbard, D. A. & Barker, G. W. (Eds.), World Bible Commentary: Genesis 1-15; Waco, TX: Word Books, p. 27. Cf. Note for Genesis 1:26 in NIV Study Bible, 1985, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, p. 7: “God speaks as the CreatorKing, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Is. 6:8; see also 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer. 23:18).” 29 D. Guthrie, J. A. Motyer, A. M. Stibbs, & D. J. Wiseman (1953/1986), New Bible Commentary (3rd Ed., Rev.) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, R. Davidson (Ed.), 1973, New York: Cambridge University Press; Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Vol. 2), F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), 1996, Grand Rapids: Zondervan; Interpreter’s Bible, 1976, Nashville: Abingdon; T. E. Fretheim in L. E. Keck (Ed.), New Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 1), 1994, Nashville: Abingdon.

40

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) menunjukkan adanya setan / Iblis di dekat Allah, anda tidak menyimpulkan bahwa dalam Kej 1:26 itu Allah bicara kepada setan? 3) Kalau Allah mengatakan ‘Let us make ...’ kepada malaikat-malaikat, tetapi itu lalu diartikan bahwa ‘The idea is not that heaven’s host was necessarily involved’, maka itu betul-betul penafsiran yang seenaknya sendiri! Kalau Ia mengatakan kata-kata itu kepada malaikat-malaikat, maka harus diartikan bahwa para malaikat-malaikat itu betul-betul diajak mencipta. Kalau tidak, itu berarti anda menganggap bahwa Allah bicara secara ‘abang2 lambe’, dan itu merupakan penghujatan! Tetapi kalau Allah betul-betul mengajak malaikat-malaikat untuk mencipta, ini tidak mungkin, karena itu akan menjadikan malaikat-malaikat sebagai ‘Co Creators’. Jangan lupa akan adanya ayat-ayat yang menunjukkan bahwa Bapa mencipta segala sesuatu seorang diri! Yes 44:24 - “Beginilah firman TUHAN, Penebusmu, yang membentuk engkau sejak dari kandungan; ‘Akulah TUHAN, yang menjadikan segala sesuatu, yang seorang diri membentangkan langit, yang menghamparkan bumi - siapakah yang mendampingi Aku?”. Ayub 9:4a,8 - “(4a) Allah itu bijak dan kuat, ... (8) yang seorang diri membentangkan langit, dan melangkah di atas gelombang-gelombang laut”. Maz 136:1-9 - “(1) Bersyukurlah kepada TUHAN, sebab Ia baik! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (2) Bersyukurlah kepada Allah segala allah! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (3) Bersyukurlah kepada Tuhan segala tuhan! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (4) Kepada Dia yang seorang diri melakukan keajaiban-keajaiban besar! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (5) Kepada Dia yang menjadikan langit dengan kebijaksanaan! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (6) Kepada Dia yang menghamparkan bumi di atas air! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (7) Kepada Dia yang menjadikan benda-benda penerang yang besar; bahwasanya untuk selamalamanya kasih setiaNya. (8) Matahari untuk menguasai siang; bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya. (9) Bulan dan bintang-bintang untuk menguasai malam! Bahwasanya untuk selama-lamanya kasih setiaNya”. Catatan: keajaiban-keajaiban besar itu lalu diperinci dalam ay 5-dst, yang menunjuk pada penciptaan segala sesuatu! Jadi, Allah menciptakan segala sesuatu sendirian! Tanpa bantuan malaikat / siapapun yang lain. Jadi, tidak mungkin ada co-creators!

41

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Ayat-ayat ini juga menghancurkan pandangan unitarian / Saksi Yehuwa yang mengatakan bahwa Allah menciptakan Yesus sebagai ciptaan pertama dan lalu melalui Yesus menciptakan segala sesuatu yang lain. Bagi kristen yang mempercayai Allah Tritunggal, ayat ini tidak jadi problem, karena sekalipun Yesus dan Roh Kudus juga adalah pencipta, tetapi Mereka satu hakekat dengan Bapa, sehingga kata-kata ‘seorang diri’ dalam ayat itu tidak menjadi problem. Tetapi bagi Unitarian / Saksi Yehuwa ayat ini menjadi problem, karena kalau mereka mengatakan bahwa Allah menciptakan alam semesta melalui Yesus, berarti Allah tidak seorang diri menciptakannya, karena dalam theologia mereka Allah dan Yesus adalah 2 pribadi yang terpisah secara total! 4) Juga jangan lupa adanya kata ‘our image’ dalam Kej 1:26, yang akan harus diartikan bahwa manusia dicipta menurut gambar dan rupa malaikat, seandainya kata-kata itu memang diucapkan oleh Allah kepada para malaikat! 5) Mari kita perhatikan Kej 1:26-27 sekali lagi, dan lalu melihat komentar dari beberapa penafsir! Kej 1:26-27 - “(26) Berfirmanlah Allah: ‘Baiklah Kita menjadikan manusia menurut gambar dan rupa Kita, supaya mereka berkuasa atas ikan-ikan di laut dan burung-burung di udara dan atas ternak dan atas seluruh bumi dan atas segala binatang melata yang merayap di bumi.’ (27) Maka Allah menciptakan manusia itu menurut gambarNya, menurut gambar Allah diciptakanNya dia; laki-laki dan perempuan diciptakanNya mereka”. Calvin (tentang Kej 1:26): “Hitherto God has been introduced simply as commanding; now, when he approaches the most excellent of all his works, he enters into consultation. ... But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? ... Others, who deem themselves more acute, but are double infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead” - hal 91-92. 42

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (tentang Kej 1:26): “... He said, ‘Let us make man.’ This form of expression, which seems to indicate deliberation, as well as mutual consultation, is not to be explained either by the peculiarity of the idiom referred to on ['Elohiym (heb 430)] - for ‘us’ is joined here to a plural verb; or by the use of the pluralis majestatis, because this lofty style, in which earthly potentates commonly speak of themselves, was as yet unknown. Nor is the difficulty removed by supposing that God was addressing himself to the angelic hosts, because the hypothesis that they accompanied Him as counselors, or that their agency was employed, is contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. Still less admissible is the method of solution proposed by Tuch, that the words are a soliloquy, as if, after one consideration and formation of his purpose, the Creator spoke out His thoughts! The only proper and consistent explanation is, that this passage, which stands at the very commencement of revelation, contains an obscure intimation of the great mystery of the Godhead, which was clearly made known by the subsequent and sublime discoveries of the Gospel”. Barnes’ Notes (tentang Kej 1:26-27): “Verse 26,27. Here we evidently enter upon a higher scale of being. This is indicated by the counsel or common resolve to create, which is now for the first time introduced into the narrative. When the Creator says, ‘Let us make man,’ he calls attention to the work as one of preeminent importance. At the same time he sets it before himself as a thing undertaken with deliberate purpose. Moreover, in the former mandates of creation his words had regard to the thing itself that was summoned into being; as, ‘Let there be light;’ or to some preexistent object that was physically connected with the new creature; as, ‘Let the land bring forth grass.’ But now the language of the fiat of creation ascends to the Creator himself: ‘Let us make man.’ This intimates that the new being in its higher nature is associated not so much with any part of creation as with the Eternal Uncreated himself. The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, ‘I have dreamed a dream’ (Gen. 41:15). Nebuchadnezzar, ‘I have dreamed’ (Dan. 2:3). Darius the Mede, ‘I make a decree’ (Dan. 6:26). Cyrus, ‘The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth’ (Ezra 1:2). Darius, ‘I make a decree’ (Ezra 5:8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression ‘let us make’ is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, ‘our image, our likeness,’ when transferred into the third person of narrative, become ‘his image, the image of God,’ and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of 43

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, ‘let us make.’ Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being”. Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Another explanation of the plural pronouns – and something we have already discussed in reference to the plural-form nouns used for the true God in the Tanakh – is what is called “plurality of majesty” or “plurality of intensity.”30 God is referring to himself,31 not in the sense of another divine being in the godhead, but in the sense of self-reflection (also called internal dialogue, intrapersonal-relationship, intrapsychic-relationship): God’s ability to be in relationship to self via selfreflection/-deliberation is why a member of God’s image-bearing human species is able to be in relationship to self and self-reflect.32

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Anda menganggap Allah itu gila sehingga bicara sendiri? Kalaupun Ia bicara sendiri, Ia tidak akan menggunakan kata ganti orang bentuk jamak ‘KITA’!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: In context of the portrait of God as judge and great king over the whole earth (judge – Gen. 18:25; Jdgs. 11:27; king – Ps. 47:2[3],7[8]), this idea of God referring to self in the plural also indicates God’s majesty, with God using what we refer to as the “royal we,” which historically is used in formal addresses in settings such as a royal court. In these contexts, it is not uncommon to switch between plural and singular self-reference (e.g., Is. 6:8 – “Whom shall I send; who shall go for us?”). In this instance – using metaphor of a king involving his royal court in the hearing of the deliberation – God makes royal proclamation (Amos 3:7; cf. Job 15:8; Ps. 89:7[8]; 107:32; Jer. 23:18-23; Ezek. 13:9) or God commissions emissaries as

30 E.g., Keil, Dillman, and Driver, cited in Wenham, 1987, p. 28; C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, 1869/1989, Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the OT (Vol. 1), J. Martins (Trans.), Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, pp. 62. See above, “Defining Elohim” section where this concept is used of the word elohim itself. 31 E.g., Joüon cited in Wenham, 1987, p. 28. Some call these plurals of self-exhortation, encouraging self to act, like David expressed in 2 Samuel 24:14 (U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1944/1961, pp. 55-56; cf. Schmidt, Westermann, Steck, Gross, and Dion, cited in Wenham, p. 28). 32 Palik, L. E., 2001, “Image of God” and Object Relations Theory of Human Development, Ann Arbor: ProQuest, p. 222; cf. Vanderploeg, R. D., 1981, “Imago Dei as Foundational to Therapy,” Journal of Psychology and Theology, 9(4), pp. 299-304; White, S. A., “Imago Dei and Object Relations Theory,” Journal of Psychology and Theology, 12(4), pp. 286-293.

44

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) agents sent to represent God’s interests on the missions for which they are commissioned (1 Kgs. 22:19-23).

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Perhatikan kata-kata anda yang saya beri warna merah itu. Anda rupanya sudah kehabisan argumentasi sehingga terpaksa ngawur tak karuan. Kej 1;26, Kej 3:22, Kej 11:7, maupun Yes 6:8, semuanya bukanlah proklamasi! 3 ayat yang pertama merupakan suatu ajakan! Dan ayat terakhir merupakan pertanyaan / tantangan untuk mau melayani!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: In the Bible, there are instances where humans refer to themselves in the plural, particularly in a formal setting, such as a royal court.33 A parallel example of a human king using the “royal we” may be Ezra 4:18: “The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly been read before me.” Note that the letter was definitely sent to the king, no one else (Ezra 4:7-8,18). It would not be seriously disputed that those kings had absolute authority – nothing “shared” with anyone else. The king is simply referring to self in the plural due to grandeur of his lordship, his kingly status.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Ini nonsense! Raja itu, dalam kedudukannya, menjadi wakil dari seluruh rakyatnya. Jadi, bisa dimengerti kalau surat itu ditujukan kepada ‘us’! Tetapi memang surat itu dibacakan hanya di depan ‘me’. Ini sangat berbeda dengan ayat-ayat yang menggunakan ‘kita’ dan ‘us’!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Daniel, addressing the royal court in formal fashion, says, “we shall interpret” the king’s dream (Dan. 2:36), referring to himself as sole interpreter; according to the context (vv. 24-36), no other person was brought before the king to interpret (cf. also 5:17). It appears Bildad referred to himself as “we,” asking about being considered a stupid animal (Job 18:3). In 2 Chronicles 18:5, King Ahab asked his prophets, “shall we go to the highlands…for war, or shall I hold back?” In both phrases he is referring to himself, for the prophets respond saying, “[you] go up [sing.]; and God will deliver into the hands of the king.”

33 Westerners have a ready example of British royalty, with a king or queen still sometimes referring to himself or herself in the plural (which is how we come to think of this as the “royal we”); so we certainly know it is not prohibitive for a language to have such usages of plural self-references.

45

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Kasus Dan 2:36. Jamieson, Fausset & Brown (tentang Dan 2:36): “‘We’ - Daniel and his three friends”. Dan saya berpendapat kontext mendukung tafsiran ini, karena Dan 2:16-19 berbunyi sebagai berikut: “(16) Maka Daniel menghadap raja dan meminta kepadanya, supaya ia diberi waktu untuk memberitahukan makna itu kepada raja. (17) Kemudian pulanglah Daniel dan memberitahukan hal itu kepada Hananya, Misael dan Azarya, teman-temannya, (18) dengan maksud supaya MEREKA memohon kasih sayang kepada Allah semesta langit mengenai rahasia itu, supaya Daniel dan teman-temannya jangan dilenyapkan bersama-sama orang-orang bijaksana yang lain di Babel. (19) Maka rahasia itu disingkapkan kepada Daniel dalam suatu penglihatan malam. Lalu Daniel memuji Allah semesta langit”. Bukan hanya Daniel, tetapi juga teman-temannya berdoa mengenai hal itu. Karena itu tidak aneh, kalau ia lalu berkata ‘we’ dalam ay 36nya! Barnes’ Notes (tentang Dan 2:36): “Daniel here speaks in his own name, and in the name of his companions. Hence, he says, ‘we will tell the interpretation.’ It was in answer to their united supplications (Dan. 2:18), that this meaning of the vision had been made known to him; and it would not only have been a violation of the rules of modesty, but an unjust assumption, if Daniel had claimed the whole credit of the revelation to himself. Though he was the only one who addressed the king, yet he seems to have desired that it might be understood that he was not alone in the honor which God had conferred, and that he wished that his companions should be had in just remembrance. Compare Dan. 2:49.”. Dan 2:49 menunjukkan bahwa teman-teman Daniel juga diberi penghargaan, bukan Danielnya sendiri saja! Dan 2:49 - “Atas permintaan Daniel, raja menyerahkan pemerintahan wilayah Babel itu kepada Sadrakh, Mesakh dan Abednego, sedang Daniel sendiri tinggal di istana raja”. 2) Kasus Bildad dalam Ayub 18:3 - “Mengapa kami dianggap binatang? Mengapa kami bodoh dalam pandanganmu?”. Anda mengatakan bahwa “It appears Bildad referred to himself as ‘we,’”. Saya sama sekali tak setuju. Saya anggap ia berbicara atas nama semua temantemannya. Perhatikan dan bandingkan dengan ayat-ayat lain dalam kitab Ayub dimana teman-teman Ayub menggunakan kata ‘kami’: • Ayub 5:27 - Sesungguhnya, semuanya itu telah kami selidiki, memang demikianlah adanya; dengarkanlah dan camkanlah itu!" • Ayub 9:33 - Tidak ada wasit di antara kami, yang dapat memegang kami berdua! 46

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) • Ayub 15:9 - Apakah yang kauketahui, yang tidak kami ketahui? Apakah yang kaumengerti, yang tidak terang bagi kami? • Ayub 15:10 - Di antara kami juga ada orang yang beruban dan yang lanjut umurnya, yang lebih tua umurnya dari pada ayahmu. • Ayub 17:16 - Keduanya akan tenggelam ke dasar dunia orang mati, apabila kami bersama-sama turun ke dalam debu." • Ayub 18:2 - "Bilakah engkau habis bicara? Sadarilah, baru kami akan bicara. • Ayub 32:13 - Jangan berkata sekarang: Kami sudah mendapatkan hikmat; hanya Allah yang dapat mengalahkan dia, bukan manusia. • Ayub 34:37 - Karena ia menambahkan dosanya dengan pelanggaran, ia mengepalkan tangan di antara kami dan banyak bicara terhadap Allah." • Ayub 37:19 - Beritahukanlah kepada kami apa yang harus kami katakan kepada-Nya: tak ada yang dapat kami paparkan oleh karena kegelapan. Apakah dalam semua ayat ini juga orang yang berbicara “referred to himself as ‘we,’”? 3) Kasus Ahab dalam 2Taw 18:3-5 - “(3) Berkatalah Ahab, raja Israel, kepada Yosafat, raja Yehuda: "Maukah engkau pergi ke Ramot-Gilead bersama-sama aku?" Jawabnya kepadanya: "Kita sama-sama, aku dan engkau, rakyatmu dan rakyatku, aku akan bersama-sama engkau di dalam perang." (4) Tetapi Yosafat berkata kepada raja Israel: "Baiklah tanyakan dahulu firman TUHAN." (5) Lalu raja Israel mengumpulkan para nabi, empat ratus orang banyaknya, kemudian bertanyalah ia kepada mereka: "Apakah kami boleh pergi berperang melawan Ramot-Gilead atau aku membatalkannya?" Jawab mereka: "Majulah! Allah akan menyerahkannya ke dalam tangan raja.’”. Anda berkata “In 2 Chronicles 18:5, King Ahab asked his prophets, “shall we go to the highlands…for war, or shall I hold back?” In both phrases he is referring to himself, for the prophets respond saying, “[you] go up [sing.]; and God will deliver into the hands of the king”. You are being ridiculous! Kontext menunjukkan bahwa ia mau pergi berperang bersama dengan Yosafat, raja Yehuda. Jadi kata ‘we’ pasti menunjuk kepada mereka berdua. Lalu mengapa ia mengatakan ‘atau aku membatalkannya’? Karena kelihatannya, mau perang atau tidak, keputusannya ada di tangannya dia. Karena apa? Karena dialah yang mengajak untuk perang (ay 3). Tentang jawaban nabi-nabi palsu dalam ay 5b itu, jelas mereka mengarahkannya kepada Ahab, karena ia adalah tuan mereka, dan ia yang bertanya.

47

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: In all other instances, singular pronouns are used to refer to YHWH Elohim. Indeed, in all but the rare instances we have covered in this excursus, the 2500 references to YHWH as elohim use singular pronouns and verbs. It is not needful to enumerate the vast amount of Scriptures where singular pronouns – I, me, mine, my; thou, thee, thine, thy (antiquated second person singular pronoun); he, his and him – are used of YHWH.34 As we read and study our Bibles, let us simply keep our eyes open to how often this occurs. With these facts in mind, do we really think God wants us to view him as more than one entity based on a few texts?

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Why not? Pada saat anda mengatakan ‘a few texts’, terlihat sekali bahwa anda mempunyai pandangan yang sangat merendahkan terhadap Firman Tuhan. Biarpun hanya satu ayat, itu adalah Firman Tuhan, dan karena itu tidak boleh diabaikan / diremehkan! Bdk Yak 2:10 - “Sebab barangsiapa menuruti seluruh hukum itu, tetapi mengabaikan satu bagian dari padanya, ia bersalah terhadap seluruhnya”. Amsal 13:13 - “Siapa meremehkan firman, ia akan menanggung akibatnya, tetapi siapa taat kepada perintah, akan menerima balasan”. Mat 5:19 - “Karena itu siapa yang meniadakan salah satu perintah hukum Taurat sekalipun yang paling kecil, dan mengajarkannya demikian kepada orang lain, ia akan menduduki tempat yang paling rendah di dalam Kerajaan Sorga; tetapi siapa yang melakukan dan mengajarkan segala perintah-perintah hukum Taurat, ia akan menduduki tempat yang tinggi di dalam Kerajaan Sorga”. Ada banyak sekali ayat yang mengatakan bahwa semua manusia berdosa, dan hanya sedikit ayat yang mengecualikan Yesus. Anda mau mengabaikan ‘these few texts’ dan mengatakan bahwa Yesus juga adalah manusia berdosa? Ada banyak sekali ayat maupun contoh bahwa semua manusia harus mati / mengalami kematian. Lalu bagaimana dengan kasus Henokh dan Elia? Harus dianggap sebagai ‘a few texts’ yang harus / boleh diabaikan?

34

Two emphatic examples of singular pronouns and verbs used for YHWH Elohim: (a) 1 Kings 18:39 – ADONAI hu HaElohim ADONAI hu HaElohim = “YHWH, he is God [Elohim]; YHWH, he is God [Elohim]” and (b) 2 Samuel 7:28 – Adonai ELOHIM attah hu HaElohim = “Lord YHWH, you [sing.] are he, the God [Elohim].”

48

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Pada umumnya orang mati akan mati terus. Sampai-sampai dikatakan sebagai berikut dalam Maz 88:11 - “Apakah Kaulakukan keajaiban bagi orang-orang mati? Masakan arwah bangkit untuk bersyukur kepadaMu? Sela”. Tetapi ternyata ada ayat-ayat yang menunjukkan orang mati yang dibangkitkan. Apakah ini harus dianggap sebagai ‘a few texts’ yang harus / boleh diabaikan? Banyak ayat yang melarang perceraian, tetapi Mat 5:32 dan Mat 19:9 mengijinkannya kalau terjadi perzinahan. Apakah kedua ayat ini harus dianggap sebagai ‘a few texts’ yang boleh / harus diabaikan? Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Though many accept the “us” passages as condescension to the heavenly court, “plurality of majesty” seems to be the most common view taken by scholars today to describe the handful of occurrences where God uses the first person plural pronoun to refer to himself.35 Indeed, trinitarian linguistic scholars today concede that the use of first person plural pronouns in these rare instances cannot validly be used to support the idea of a plurality of godhead (also conceding that neither the use of plural verbs and adjectives for God nor the plural form of elohim can be used to support the idea of a plural godhead).36 Given that the Tanakh communicates that God acted completely alone in creation (Gen. 1:27;37 2:7; 5:1-2; Is. 44:24; 45:9-12; cf. 40:13-14), plurality of majesty seems to be the view that recommends itself most. Though the issue of the proposed involvement of Jesus in the act of creation is not the main thrust of this paper (addressed in Appendix B), it is worth noting that no NT author ever uses Genesis 1:26 as a proof-text for such an idea. The notion that this verse indicates such a thing developed after the time period of the writing of the New Testament, and so seems to be a purely post-apostolic church development. Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Apa ada bukti yang otentik bahwa kata-kata “‘plurality of majesty’ seems to be the most common view taken by scholars today to describe the handful of 35

And of course most of these scholars are trinitarian, holding a view of Jesus preexisting and doing the work of creation as full deity. 36 E.g., Wenham, G. J., 1987, in D. A. Hubbard & G. W. Barker, Eds., World Bible Commentary: Genesis 1-15; Waco, TX: Word Books, p. 27: “Christians have traditionally seen [Gen. 1:26] as adumbrating [i.e., partially and guardedly disclosing, indistinctly foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author” [brackets added]. Cf. L. Koehler & W. Baumgartner (Eds.), 1953/1958, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, pp. 50-52, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill; BDB-Gesenius (1979), pp. 43-44, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub.; Students’ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary to the Old Testament, A. Harkavy, 1914, pp. 24-25, New York: Hebrew Publishing Co. 37 Note: While in this verse man is spoken of as singular then plural (referring to man and woman), pronouns for God stay singular.

49

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) occurrences where God uses the first person plural pronoun to refer to himself”??? Atau hanya dinyatakan tanpa bukti? Yang saya tahu, adalah pandangan tentang hal ini sangat bervariasi. 2) Juga, apakah ada bukti bahwa “trinitarian linguistic scholars today concede that the use of first person plural pronouns in these rare instances cannot validly be used to support the idea of a plurality of godhead (also conceding that neither the use of plural verbs and adjectives for God nor the plural form of elohim can be used to support the idea of a plural godhead)”. Atau hal ini dinyatakan begitu saja tanpa bukti. Yang jelas pada waktu saya melihat Kej 1:26 dalam buku-buku tafsiran saya, saya melihat bahwa justru mayoritas penafsir menghubungkan kata ‘kita’ itu dengan doktrin Allah Tritunggal! Beberapa di antaranya sudah saya berikan di atas. 3) Apa ada dasar Kitab Suci yang kuat untuk mengatakan bahwa “the Tanakh communicates that God acted completely alone in creation”?? Anda / penulis yang anda kutip memang memberikan sederetan ayat, tetapi itu hanya ayat yang dipilihpilih seenaknya sendiri. Bagaimana dengan Pengkhotbah 12:1 yang menggunakan kata ‘creator’ dalam bentuk jamak? Bagaimana dengan ayat-ayat yang menunjukkan bahwa Roh Kudus juga adalah Pencipta? Contoh: • Ayub 33:4 - “Roh Allah telah membuat aku, dan nafas Yang Mahakuasa membuat aku hidup”. • Maz 8:4 - “Jika aku melihat langitMu, buatan jariMu, bulan dan bintangbintang yang Kautempatkan”. Dengan membandingkan Luk 11:20 dengan ayat paralelnya, yaitu Mat 12:28, kita bisa menarik kesimpulan bahwa ‘jari Allah’ itu adalah ‘Roh Allah’ / ‘Roh Kudus’. Luk 11:20 - “Tetapi jika Aku mengusir setan dengan kuasa Allah, maka sesungguhnya Kerajaan Allah sudah datang kepadamu”. KJV: ‘with the finger of God’ (= dengan jari Allah). RSV/NIV/NASB: ‘by the finger of God’ (= oleh jari Allah). Mat 12:28 - “Tetapi jika Aku mengusir setan dengan kuasa Roh Allah, maka sesungguhnya Kerajaan Allah sudah datang kepadamu”. Kata ‘kuasa’ yang saya coret itu seharusnya tidak ada. • Ayub 26:13 - “Oleh nafasNya langit menjadi cerah, tanganNya menembus ular yang tangkas”. Kata yang diterjemahkan ‘nafas’ di sini adalah RUAKH, dan karena itu KJV menterjemahkan ‘spirit’ (= roh). KJV: ‘By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens’ (= Oleh RohNya Ia telah menghias langit).

50

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tetapi lagi-lagi, saya tak keberatan kalau dikatakan bahwa ‘God acted completely alone in creation’! Karena sekalipun Yesus dan Roh Kudus juga ikut mencipta, Mereka hanya mempunyai 1 hakekat, sehingga tidak bisa dikatakan ada 3 Allah yang bekerja sama dalam penciptaan. Jadi, Yes 44:24 tidak dilanggar. Yes 44:24 - “Beginilah firman TUHAN, Penebusmu, yang membentuk engkau sejak dari kandungan; ‘Akulah TUHAN, yang menjadikan segala sesuatu, yang seorang diri membentangkan langit, yang menghamparkan bumi--siapakah yang mendampingi Aku?”. Sebaliknya, bagaimana anda menjelaskan ayat ini dari sudut pandangan Unitarian, yang menganggap Yesus sebagai alat melalui siapa Bapa menciptakan segala sesuatu? Padahal dalam kepercayaan Unitarian Yesus dan Bapa adalah 2 pribadi yang terpisah total (2 pribadi dengan 2 hakekat)! 4) Sekarang saya akan membahas paragraf terakhir anda dalam bagian di atas. Anda mengatakan: “Though the issue of the proposed involvement of Jesus in the act of creation is not the main thrust of this paper (addressed in Appendix B), it is worth noting that no NT author ever uses Genesis 1:26 as a proof-text for such an idea. The notion that this verse indicates such a thing developed after the time period of the writing of the New Testament, and so seems to be a purely post-apostolic church development.” Paragraf terakhir anda merupakan sesuatu yang tak berdasar. Juga merupakan ‘argument from silence’. Kalau tak ada penulis Perjanjian Baru yang menggunakan Kej 1:26 untuk hal itu, tetapi mereka menyatakan terang-terangan bahwa Yesus juga adalah Pencipta (seperti dalam Yoh 1:3,10 Ibr 1:2,10 Kol 1:16), maka apakah ini tetap tidak menunjukkan Yesus sebagai Pencipta? Saya juga tidak melihat adanya penulis Perjanjian Baru atau bahkan Perjanjian Lama yang menggunakan Kej 1:26 untuk menunjukkan bahwa Roh Kudus ikut menciptakan manusia. Tetapi kalau dalam Ayub 33:4 dikatakan demikian, haruskah kita tidak mempercayainya? Ayub 33:4 - “Roh Allah telah membuat aku, dan nafas Yang Mahakuasa membuat aku hidup”. Dengan cara yang sama kita bisa berbicara tentang Kej 1:1-dst. Saya kira juga tak ada penulis lain yang menggunakan text ini untuk menunjukkan bahwa Yesus dan Roh Kudus ikut dalam penciptaan. Tetapi banyak ayat menunjukkan hal itu dengan cara lain. Kesimpulan: jangan membuat rumus sendiri tentang dengan cara bagaimana penulis Perjanjian Baru atau Perjanjian Lama harus menyatakan ajarannya! Siapakah anda sehingga berhak membuat rumus untuk Allah? Allah mempunyai 51

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) kedaulatan untuk melakukan hal itu. Dan para penulis Perjanjian Baru maupun Perjanjian Lama mempunyai caranya sendiri! Dan anda tak berhak mengatur mereka.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Singular Forms of “God” Used of YHWH Another fact that needs to be stated is that, in the Hebrew Bible, by no means is the title for YHWH as “God” always the plural-form Elohim. If one has a Hebrew concordance, these facts are easily found. Here are three key examples: 1. The Hebrew title El – translated “God (god)” or “mighty one” – is singular and used to refer to YHWH. For example, Malachai 2:10 – “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?” (Cf. Gen. 14:18; Ex. 34:6; Num. 24:4; 1 Sam. 2:3.) 2. The Hebrew title Eloahh – translated “God (god)” – is singular and also used to refer to YHWH. For example, Deuteronomy 32:15 – “Jeshurun [i.e., Israel] forsook God who made him, and scorned the Rock of his salvation;” and Isaiah 44:8 – “Is there a God besides me? Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.” (Cf. Neh. 9:17; Job 3:4, used many times in Job; Ps. 50:22; 114:7; 139:19; Prov. 30:5.) 3. The Aramaic title Elahh – translated as “God (god)” – is also singular and used to refer to YHWH. For example, Daniel 2:28; 6:26[27] – “Men fear and tremble before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, steadfast forever; his kingdom shall not be destroyed, his dominion shall be to the end;” and Ezra 5:2 – “Then [they] began to build the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and the prophets of God were with them, helping them.” (Cf. 43 uses in Ezra; 35 uses in Daniel.) The list goes on for each of these, especially for El, with hundreds of usages of that singular noun as a title to describe Israel’s God, YHWH. Perhaps some would reply that YHWH is referred to in the singular when only one member of the godhead is being indicated. But, do we actually think that, when people referred to God using both the singular and the plural, they thought they were addressing sometimes one, and sometimes two or more individuals? Are we to imagine in Genesis 28:3-4 that Isaac had in mind first one, then two or more individuals when he was blessing Jacob because he first uses El and then Elohim? Did Elihu think on first two, and then one individual as God in Job 34:9-10 (Elohim, then El)?

52

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Anda pikir saya menganggap ada berapa YHWH? Saya anggap cuma ada satu! Bapa adalah YHWH. Yesus juga (Yer 23:5-6), dan Roh Kudus juga, karena ini terlihat dari perbandingan ayat-ayat yang digunakan tentang YHWH dan lalu diterapkan kepada Roh Kudus. Contoh: a) Bandingkan Ibr 3:7-11 dengan Maz 95:7b-11 dan Kel 17:1-7. Ibr 3:7-11 - “(7) Sebab itu, seperti yang dikatakan Roh Kudus: ‘Pada hari ini, jika kamu mendengar suaraNya, (8) janganlah keraskan hatimu seperti dalam kegeraman pada waktu pencobaan di padang gurun, (9) di mana nenek moyangmu mencobai Aku dengan jalan menguji Aku, sekalipun mereka melihat perbuatan-perbuatanKu, empat puluh tahun lamanya. (10) Itulah sebabnya Aku murka kepada angkatan itu, dan berkata: Selalu mereka sesat hati, dan mereka tidak mengenal jalanKu, (11) sehingga Aku bersumpah dalam murkaKu: Mereka takkan masuk ke tempat perhentianKu’”. Karena kata-kata dalam Ibr 3:7-11 ini merupakan kata-kata Roh Kudus, maka kata-kata ‘mencobai Aku’ berarti ‘mencobai Roh Kudus’. Sekarang mari kita melihat Maz 95:7b-11, yang hampir-hampir identik dengan Ibr 3:7-11 di atas. Maz 95:7b-11 - “(7b) Pada hari ini, sekiranya kamu mendengar suaraNya! (8) Janganlah keraskan hatimu seperti di Meriba, seperti pada hari di Masa di padang gurun, (9) pada waktu nenek moyangmu mencobai Aku, menguji Aku, padahal mereka melihat perbuatanKu. (10) Empat puluh tahun Aku jemu kepada angkatan itu, maka kataKu: ‘Mereka suatu bangsa yang sesat hati, dan mereka itu tidak mengenal jalanKu.’ (11) Sebab itu Aku bersumpah dalam murkaKu: ‘Mereka takkan masuk ke tempat perhentianKu.’”. Sekalipun kedua text di atas hampir identik, tetapi dalam Maz 95:7b-11 itu ada tambahan informasi yang tidak diberikan dalam Ibr 3:7-11, yaitu bahwa peristiwa itu terjadi di Masa dan Meriba. Dan peristiwa di Masa dan Meriba itu diceritakan dalam Kel 17:1-7. Sekarang perhatikan Kel 17:7 yang berbunyi: “Dinamailah tempat itu Masa dan Meriba, oleh karena orang Israel telah bertengkar dan oleh karena mereka telah mencobai TUHAN dengan mengatakan: ‘Adakah TUHAN di tengahtengah kita atau tidak?’”. Jadi di sini dipakai istilah ‘mencobai TUHAN (YAHWEH)’, padahal tadi dalam Ibr 3:7-11 dikatakan bahwa mereka ‘mencobai Roh Kudus’. Ini menunjukkan bahwa Roh Kudus itu adalah TUHAN / YAHWEH! b) Bandingkan Ibr 10:15-17 dengan Yer 31:33-34. Ibr 10:15-17 - “(15) Dan tentang hal itu Roh Kudus juga memberi kesaksian kepada kita, (16) sebab setelah Ia berfirman: ‘Inilah perjanjian yang akan Kuadakan dengan mereka sesudah waktu itu,’ Ia berfirman pula: ‘Aku akan 53

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) menaruh hukumKu di dalam hati mereka dan menuliskannya dalam akal budi mereka, (17) dan Aku tidak lagi mengingat dosa-dosa dan kesalahan mereka.’”. Yer 31:33-34 - “(33) Tetapi beginilah perjanjian yang Kuadakan dengan kaum Israel sesudah waktu itu, demikianlah firman TUHAN: Aku akan menaruh TauratKu dalam batin mereka dan menuliskannya dalam hati mereka, maka Aku akan menjadi Allah mereka dan mereka akan menjadi umatKu. (34) Dan tidak usah lagi orang mengajar sesamanya atau mengajar saudaranya dengan mengatakan: Kenallah TUHAN! Sebab mereka semua, besar kecil, akan mengenal Aku, demikianlah firman TUHAN, sebab Aku akan mengampuni kesalahan mereka dan tidak lagi mengingat dosa mereka”. Jelas terlihat bahwa Ibr 10:16-17 merupakan kutipan sebagian (tidak seluruhnya) dari Yer 31:33,34. Tetapi dalam Yer 31 dikatakan bahwa kata-kata itu diucapkan oleh TUHAN / YAHWEH (perhatikan kata-kata ‘firman TUHAN’ dalam Yer 31:31,32c,34b). Sedangkan dalam Ibr 10:15-17 dikatakan bahwa itu merupakan ‘kesaksian / firman Roh Kudus’ (Ibr 10:15b,16b). Disamping itu, dalam Yer 31 itu, yang mengadakan perjanjian, yang menaruh Taurat dalam batin umatNya, dan yang mengampuni / tidak mengingat dosa umatNya, adalah TUHAN / YAHWEH sendiri. Sedangkan dalam Ibr 10:15-17, yang mengadakan perjanjian, yang menaruh hukum dalam hati, dan yang mengampuni / tidak mengingat dosa, adalah Roh Kudus. Semua ini menunjukkan bahwa Roh Kudus adalah TUHAN / YAHWEH sendiri! c) Yes 40:13-14 - “(13) Siapa yang dapat mengatur Roh TUHAN atau memberi petunjuk kepadaNya sebagai penasihat? (14) Kepada siapa TUHAN meminta nasihat untuk mendapat pengertian, dan siapa yang mengajar TUHAN untuk menjalankan keadilan, atau siapa mengajar Dia pengetahuan dan memberi Dia petunjuk supaya Ia bertindak dengan pengertian?”. Dengan membandingkan Yes 40:13 dengan Yes 40:14 maka bisa kita simpulkan bahwa ‘Roh TUHAN’ dalam Yes 40:13 itu adalah ‘TUHAN’ / YAHWEH dalam Yes 40:14. d) Yes 63:7-14 - “(7) Aku hendak menyebut-nyebut perbuatan kasih setia TUHAN, perbuatan TUHAN yang masyhur, sesuai dengan segala yang dilakukan TUHAN kepada kita, dan kebajikan yang besar kepada kaum Israel yang dilakukanNya kepada mereka sesuai dengan kasih sayangNya dan sesuai dengan kasih setiaNya yang besar. (8) Bukankah Ia berfirman: ‘Sungguh, merekalah umatKu, anak-anak yang tidak akan berlaku curang,’ maka Ia menjadi Juruselamat mereka (9) dalam segala kesesakan mereka. Bukan seorang duta atau utusan, melainkan Ia sendirilah yang menyelamatkan mereka; Dialah yang menebus mereka dalam kasihNya dan belas kasihanNya. Ia mengangkat dan menggendong mereka selama zaman dahulu kala. (10) Tetapi mereka memberontak dan mendukakan Roh KudusNya; maka Ia berubah menjadi musuh mereka, dan Ia sendiri berperang melawan mereka. 54

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) (11) Lalu teringatlah mereka kepada zaman dahulu kala, zaman Musa, hambaNya itu: Di manakah Dia yang membawa mereka naik dari laut bersama-sama dengan penggembala kambing dombaNya? Di manakah Dia yang menaruh Roh KudusNya dalam hati mereka; (12) yang dengan tanganNya yang agung menyertai Musa di sebelah kanan; yang membelah air di depan mereka untuk membuat nama abadi bagiNya; (13) yang menuntun mereka melintasi samudera raya seperti kuda melintasi padang gurun? Mereka tidak pernah tersandung, (14) seperti ternak yang turun ke dalam lembah. Roh TUHAN membawa mereka ke tempat perhentian. Demikianlah Engkau memimpin umatMu untuk membuat nama yang agung bagiMu”. Mulai ay 7 subyek pembicaraan adalah ‘TUHAN’ / YAHWEH, dan mulai ay 10-14, pada satu sisi terjadi semacam pencampur-adukan istilah ‘Roh Kudus’, ‘Roh TUHAN’, dan ‘TUHAN’ / YAHWEH sendiri, karena semua digambarkan memimpin bangsa Israel, tetapi pada sisi lain, istilah ‘Roh KudusNya’, dan ‘Roh TUHAN’ kelihatannya juga membedakan ‘Roh Kudus’ itu dengan ‘TUHAN’ / YAHWEH. Ini bukan kontradiksi. Ditinjau dari sudut hakekat, Allah Tritunggal hanya mempunyai satu hakekat, tetapi ditinjau dari sudut pribadi, Allah Tritunggal terdiri dari 3 pribadi yang berbeda (distinct). Tetapi sekalipun demikian kami tidak mempercayai ada 3 YHWH. Kami mempercayai hanya ada 1 YHWH! Alasannya? Karena Bapa, Anak, dan Roh Kudus hanya mempunyai satu hakekat! 2) Kej 28:3-4 - “(3) Moga-moga Allah (EL) Yang Mahakuasa memberkati engkau, membuat engkau beranak cucu dan membuat engkau menjadi banyak, sehingga engkau menjadi sekumpulan bangsa-bangsa. (4) Moga-moga Ia memberikan kepadamu berkat yang untuk Abraham, kepadamu serta kepada keturunanmu, sehingga engkau memiliki negeri ini yang kaudiami sebagai orang asing, yang telah diberikan Allah (ELOHIM) kepada Abraham.’”. ELOHIM tak harus berarti jamak; bisa tunggal. Jadi, lalu dimana problemnya? Juga Ayub 34:9-10 sama saja penjelasannya.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: There are a number of passages where YHWH is referred to in both plural and singular forms in the same phrase. Inserting the Hebrew words for God, in Genesis 46:3, God says, “I am El, the Elohim of thy father.” Singular, then plural – unequivocally referring to the same individual. Exodus 15:2 reads, in part, “He is my El, and I will prepare him a habitation; my father’s Elohim, and I will exalt him.” Deuteronomy 4:24 reads, “For the LORD your Elohim is a consuming fire, a jealous El.” Psalm 7:11[12] reads, “Elohim is a righteous judge and an El who has

55

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) indignation every day.” Isaiah 45:14 reads, “Surely El is with you and there is none else, no other Elohim.” Again, there are undoubtedly many more such examples.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Sama seperti di atas.

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: So, if some are imagining that God must be regarded as a plural entity because God is referred to in a plural form, then why should it not also be that God must be regarded as a solely singular entity because God is referred to in singular forms? We now know that, in Hebrew, some plural-form nouns also function as singular nouns. (This is not unlike English: “I saw one deer, then I saw four deer.” Context tells us when “deer” is referring to one animal or to more than one.) If we did not understand this element of the Hebrew language, we might conclude that we should say “God” (El, Eloahh, Elahh) did certain things and “Gods” (Elohim) did certain things, thereby creating a multiplicity of “Gods” for Israel. Even then, however, we would not be able to say a single-entity God did certain things and a plural-entity God (compound-unity/complex-unity) did other things. This option is simply not available. We could be left with a contradiction, if it were not for the many examples of plural forms with singular meanings in the Hebrew language (along with the concept of “plural of majesty”) that explain the Tanakh’s usage of the plural form of Elohim for the true God. Fortunately, if we commit ourselves to serious study, checking all we are being taught to be certain it is accurate according to the same Scriptures the Bereans would have been consulting (Tanakh), then clarity is available (cf. Acts 17:11). We need to maintain this clarity when winds of doctrines attempt to blow confusion our direction.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Orang-orang Yahudi Berea itu hidup pada jaman dimana Perjanjian Baru belum ada. Seandainya suadh ada Perjanjian Baru, mereka pasti akan menggunakan seluruh Kitab Suci (Perjanjian Lama + Perjanjian Baru), bukan seperti anda yang takut menggunakan Perjanjian Baru!

56

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Excursus: Implications of Singular Forms of “God”: YHWH, Father of Jesus Do not the Tanakh references (covered in the section “Singular Forms of ‘God’ Used of YHWH”) using the singular form to refer to the one true God as sole creator and maker and identifying God as “father” who has none beside him (e.g., Is. 63:16; cf. Is. 64:8; Mal. 2:1038) – confirm that the Tanakh writers understood Israel’s God as a singular God who created all? It appears clear: Their understanding – in Genesis and throughout the Hebrew Bible when referring to Israel’s God – is that elohim serves as a singular noun. They believed there was one true God who is one person, “the Father,” which is exactly what Jesus taught us: “Father….eternal life is this, to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus, the messiah (anointed), whom you sent” (Jn. 17:1,3). It is simply standard biblical scholarship that the creator God of the Hebrew Scriptures is the “father of” Jesus. For example, theologian Hans Schwarz, speaking of the continuity between the Tanakh and New Testament, says, “Y[-]hw[-]h, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Old Testament, is the father of Jesus of Nazareth.”39 The late, eminent, 20th century systematic theologian Hendrikus Berkhof, speaking of a sin-touched world made by a good creator, says, “We insist that this world of sin, of suffering and death, is created by the Father of Jesus Christ.”40

Tanggapan Budi Asali: Bapa memang pencipta, tetapi Yesus juga! Saya sudah memberi ayatnya, hanya anda tak pedulikan. Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Why don’t we simply accept Jesus’ own testimony in these matters? Beyond saying that his father and God – whom he also said was our father and God (Jn. 20:17) – was the only true God, he also said that a day would come when all true worshipers would worship the Father, in spirit and truth, because God is spirit (Jn. 4:20-24) – showing that, for Jesus, “God” and “the Father” are synonymous terms for the only true Deity. 38 Some might argue that “Do we not all have one father? Has not one God created us?” means that all humans have a single human father and a single heavenly creator, or that the Jewish people have one father, Abraham and one God, YHWH. But, the fact that, earlier in Malachi 2:6, YHWH makes a self-reference as father and master, points toward the conclusion that this is most likely another of many instances in the Tanakh of Hebrew parallelism where the second line is a poetic recapitulation (repetition using different words) of the same idea. The other references listed here of YHWH Elohim referring to himself as father are unequivocal. Again, let us not forget that “father” is a poetic conveyance that YHWH is the creator of all – not a literal child-siring father per ancient pagan views. 39 Hans Schwarz, Eschatology, 2000, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, p. 61. 40 Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith (Rev.), Trans. Sierd Woudstra, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986, pp. 155-156.

57

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) And, how did the woman at the well respond to the words of Jesus? She realized the man she was speaking with was the messiah, the anointed representative of that one true God, whom Jesus identified as the Father – creator and maker of all (Mt. 19:4) – with none beside him, whose name is YHWH (e.g., Dt. 32:6; 1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 146:5-6; Ecc. 11:5; Is. 27:11; 40:28; 45:5-12,14,18,21-22; 51:13; 54:5; cf. Ps. 95:6; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 149:2; Jer. 10:16; 51:19).

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) Tentu saja saya menerima kata-kata / ajaran Yesus, tetapi tidak sebagian-sebagian seperti yang anda lakukan! 2) Kalau kata-kata ‘none beside him’ yang anda katakan itu benar, bagaimana anda percaya bahwa Bapa mencipta segala sesuatu melalui Yesus? Bdk. Yes 44:24! 3) Kalau YHWH hanya Bapa, mengapa Yesus disebut YHWH dalam Yer 23:5-6? Kalau Allah itu hanya Bapa, mengapa Yesus disebut ‘Allah’ dalam begitu banyak ayat, termasuk ayat Perjanjian Lama seperti Yes 9:5 dan Mas 45:7? Belum lagi dalam banyak sekali ayat-ayat Perjanjian Baru yang anda takut untuk bahas dan anda sengaja hindari!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: After you have read all the explanations above carefully, I believe all your armor “evidences” have been defied. If you still have any other, please give me more arguments on your side to prove the existence of a triune God in the OT texts. If you can’t refute what is explained above, then all your other questions concerning Jesus as the “Tunas” or the Holy Spirit is not difficult to answer. If you believe that the God of the OT is the same with that of the NT, no Trinity will arise. That’s simply a matter of interpreting the NT texts (which I also find to be non-Trinitarian).

Tanggapan Budi Asali: 1) I have read all your explanations above carefully, and I don’t think that any of my armor evidences has been defied! Sebaliknya, semua kata-kata anda sudah saya jawab balik! Jadi, ‘kejamakan’ yang ini saja anda belum bisa membereskannya. Tetapi kalau toh anda berkeras meminta serangan-serangan lain yang menunjukkan adanya kejamakan dalam diri Allah dalam Perjanjian Lama, lihat kutipan dari International Standard Bible Encyclopedia di bawah, yang mengutip dari buku B. B. Warfield (perhatikan bagian yang saya beri warna hijau).

58

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) 2) O, ini taktik anda untuk membuang Perjanjian Baru? Lucu sekali! Lalu mengapa anda tidak berbakti di Bait Allah, mempraktekkan sunat dan Perjamuan Paskah, mempunyai imam, melakukan pengorbanan binatang untuk dosa, dsb? Bukankah itu diajarkan dalam Perjanjian Lama, dan bukankah Allah tetap sama dalam Perjanjian Lama maupun Perjanjian Baru, dan bukankah itu berarti Ia tetap menghendaki anda melakukan hal-hal itu? Jelas semua ini tidak mungkin, bukan? Perjanjian Baru memberikan ajaran yang baru, dan jauh lebih jelas dari Perjanjian Lama, bukan hanya berkenaan dengan sakramen, ibadah, korban binatang, tetapi juga dalam pernyataan Allah tentang diriNya sendiri. Jadi, kalau anda hanya melihat Perjanjian Lama saja, menyimpulkan satu hal, lalu mengatakan bahwa Perjanjian Baru tak akan berbeda dengan Perjanjian Lama, itu betul-betul menggelikan! Kalau hanya melihat Perjanjian Lama saja, anda bahkan tak akan tahu bahwa akan ada 2 x kedatangan Kristus, karena dalam nubuat-nubuat Perjanjian Lama berkenaan dengan hal itu, kedua kedatangan itu dibicarakan bersama-sama sehingga tak bisa dibedakan. Tetapi pada saat melihat Perjanjian Baru, maka terlihat dengan jelas bahwa akan ada kedatangan Kristus yang kedua-kalinya yang terjadi setelah kedatangan Kristus yang pertama. Dari contoh seperti ini anda masih belum mau mengakui bahwa Perjanjian Baru memberikan terang yang lebih besar dari Perjanjian Lama? Juga bahwa tanpa Perjanjian Baru ada banyak ayat-ayat Perjanjian Lama yang tak bisa dimengerti, atau bahkan yang akan disalah mengerti? Anda seperti orang yang hanya mau sekolah SD, menolak SMP, SMA, Fakultas dan sebagainya, dan lalu mengatakan bahwa matematika itu hanya terdiri dari 1 + 1 = 2, karena itulah yang diajarkan di SD, dan matematika dari SMP / SMA / Fakultas tentu sama dengan SD! 3) Anda terbalik! Anda menafsirkan Perjanjian Lama dulu, lalu Perjanjian Baru harus disesuaikan dengan Perjanjian Lama. Rupanya Musa-lah, dan bukan Yesus, yang menjadi guru anda. Kitab Suci diberikan secara progresif, dan Perjanjian Baru memberikan kebenaran yang lebih lengkap dari Perjanjian Lama. Jadi, seharusnya Perjanjian Baru ditafsirkan dulu, dan lalu Perjanjian Lama dibaca dengan kaca mata / terang Perjanjian Baru!! Ibr 1:1-2 - “(1) Setelah pada zaman dahulu Allah berulang kali dan dalam pelbagai cara berbicara kepada nenek moyang kita dengan perantaraan nabi-nabi, (2) maka pada zaman akhir ini Ia telah berbicara kepada kita dengan perantaraan AnakNya, yang telah Ia tetapkan sebagai yang berhak menerima segala yang ada. Oleh Dia Allah telah menjadikan alam semesta”.

59

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Yoh 1:17-18 - “(17) sebab hukum Taurat diberikan oleh Musa, tetapi kasih karunia dan kebenaran datang oleh Yesus Kristus. (18) Tidak seorangpun yang pernah melihat Allah; tetapi Anak Tunggal Allah, yang ada di pangkuan Bapa, Dialah yang menyatakanNya”. 2Kor 3:7-18 - “(7) Pelayanan yang memimpin kepada kematian terukir dengan huruf pada loh-loh batu. Namun demikian kemuliaan Allah menyertainya waktu ia diberikan. Sebab sekalipun pudar juga, cahaya muka Musa begitu cemerlang, sehingga mata orang-orang Israel tidak tahan menatapnya. Jika pelayanan itu datang dengan kemuliaan yang demikian (8) betapa lebih besarnya lagi kemuliaan yang menyertai pelayanan Roh! (9) Sebab, jika pelayanan yang memimpin kepada penghukuman itu mulia, betapa lebih mulianya lagi pelayanan yang memimpin kepada pembenaran. (10) Sebenarnya apa yang dahulu dianggap mulia, jika dibandingkan dengan kemuliaan yang mengatasi segala sesuatu ini, sama sekali tidak mempunyai arti. (11) Sebab, jika yang pudar itu disertai dengan kemuliaan, betapa lebihnya lagi yang tidak pudar itu disertai kemuliaan. (12) Karena kami mempunyai pengharapan yang demikian, maka kami bertindak dengan penuh keberanian, (13) tidak seperti Musa, yang menyelubungi mukanya, supaya mata orang-orang Israel jangan melihat hilangnya cahaya yang sementara itu. (14) Tetapi pikiran mereka telah menjadi tumpul, sebab sampai pada hari ini selubung itu masih tetap menyelubungi mereka, jika mereka membaca perjanjian lama itu tanpa disingkapkan, karena hanya Kristus saja yang dapat menyingkapkannya. (15) Bahkan sampai pada hari ini, setiap kali mereka membaca kitab Musa, ada selubung yang menutupi hati mereka. (16) Tetapi apabila hati seorang berbalik kepada Tuhan, maka selubung itu diambil dari padanya. (17) Sebab Tuhan adalah Roh; dan di mana ada Roh Allah, di situ ada kemerdekaan. (18) Dan kita semua mencerminkan kemuliaan Tuhan dengan muka yang tidak berselubung. Dan karena kemuliaan itu datangnya dari Tuhan yang adalah Roh, maka kita diubah menjadi serupa dengan gambarNya, dalam kemuliaan yang semakin besar”. Coba perhatikan kontras antara kata-kata yang saya beri warna merah dan yang saya beri warna biru. Itu menunjukkan kontras Perjanjian Lama dan Perjanjian Baru. Juga perhatikan yang saya cetak dengan huruf tebal dan sekaligus saya garisbawahi! Hanya Kristus yang bisa menyingkapkan Perjanjian Lama. Kalau anda hanya memegang Perjanjian Lama tanpa Perjanjian Baru pikiran anda tetap tumpul! Juga baca komentar dari beberapa penafsir tentang ayat-ayat di atas ini.

60

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) Barnes’ Notes (tentang Ibr 1:2): “The clearness of the truths which he communicated to man on a great variety of subjects that are of the highest moment to the world. Revelation has been gradual-- like the breaking of the day in the east. At first there is a little light; it increases and expands until objects become more and more visible, and then the sun rises in full-orbed glory. At first we discern only the EXISTENCE of some object-- obscure and undefined; then we can trace its outline; then its color, its size, its proportions, its drapery-- until it stands before us fully revealed. So it has been with revelation. There is a great variety of subjects which we now see clearly, which were very imperfectly understood by the teaching of the prophets, and would be now if we had only the Old Testament. Among them are the following: (a) The character of God. Christ came to make him known as a merciful being, and to show HOW he could be merciful as well as just. The views given of God by the Lord Jesus are far more clear than any given by the ancient prophets; compared with those entertained by the ancient philosophers, they are like the sun compared with the darkest midnight”. Matthew Henry (tentang Yoh 1:17-18): “We have received grace and truth, v. 17. He had said (v. 14) that Christ was full of grace and truth; now here he says that by him grace and truth came to us. From Christ we receive grace; this is a string he delights to harp upon, he cannot go off from it. Two things he further observes in this verse concerning this grace: - (1.) Its preference above the law of Moses: The law was given by Moses, and it was a glorious discovery, both of God's will concerning man and his good will to man; but the gospel of Christ is a much clearer discovery both of duty and happiness. That which was given by Moses was purely terrifying and threatening, and bound with penalties, a law which could not give life, which was given with abundance of terror ; but that which is given by Jesus Christ is of another nature; it has all the beneficial uses of the law, but not the terror, for it is grace: grace teaching <Titus 2:11>, grace reigning, . It is a law, but a remedial law. The endearments of love are the genius of the gospel, not the affrightments of law and the curse. (2.) its connection with truth: grace and truth. In the gospel we have the discovery of the greatest truths to be embraced by the understanding, as well as of the richest grace to be embraced by the will and affections. It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation; that is, it is grace and truth. The offers of grace are sincere, and what we may venture our souls upon; they are made in earnest, for it is grace and truth. It is grace and truth with reference to the law that was given by Moses. For it is, [1.] The performance of all the Old-Testament promises. In the Old Testament we often find mercy and truth put together, that is, mercy according to promise; so here grace and truth denote grace according to promise. See . [2.] it is the substance of all the Old-Testament types and shadows. Something of grace there was both in the ordinances that were instituted 61

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) for Israel and the providences that occurred concerning Israel; but they were only shadows of good things to come, even of the grace that is to be brought to us by the revelation of Jesus Christ. He is the true paschal lamb, the true scape-goat, the true manna. They had grace in the picture; we have grace in the person, that is, grace and truth. Grace and truth came, egeneto-- was made; the same word that was used (v. 3) concerning Christ's making all things. The law was only made known by Moses, but the being of this grace and truth, as well as the discovery of them, is owing to Jesus Christ; this was made by him, as the world at first was; and by him this grace and truth do consist. 3. Another thing we receive from Christ is a clear revelation of God to us (v. 18): He hath declared God to us, whom no man hath seen at any time. This was the grace and truth which came by Christ, the knowledge of God and an acquaintance with him. Observe, (1.) The insufficiency of all other discoveries: No man hath seen God at any time. This intimates, [1.] That the nature of God being spiritual, he is invisible to bodily eyes, he is a being whom no man hath seen, nor can see, <1 Tim. 6:16>. We have therefore need to live by faith, by which we see him that is invisible, . [2.] that the revelation which God made of himself in the Old Testament was very short and imperfect, in comparison with that which he has made by Christ: No man hath seen God at any time; that is, what was seen and known of God before the incarnation of Christ was nothing to that which is now seen and known; life and immortality are now brought to a much clearer light than they were then. [3.] that none of the Old-Testament prophets were so well qualified to make known the mind and will of God to the children of men as our Lord Jesus was, for none of them had seen God at any time. Moses beheld the similitude of the Lord , but was told that he could not see his face, <Exo. 33:20>. But this recommends Christ's holy religion to us that it was founded by one that had seen God, and knew more of his mind than any one else ever did. (2.) the allsufficiency of the gospel discovery proved from its author: The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. Observe here, [1.] How fit he was to make this discovery, and every way qualified for it. He and he alone was worthy to take the book, and to open the seals, . For, First, He is the only-begotten Son; and who so likely to know the Father as the Son? or in whom is the Father better known than in the Son? <Mt. 11:27>. He is of the same nature with the Father, so that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father, <Jn 14:9>. The servant is not supposed to know so well what his Lord does as the Son, <Jn 15:15>. Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ as a Son. Secondly, He is in the bosom of the Father. He had lain in his bosom from eternity. When he was here upon earth, yet still, as God, he was in the bosom of the Father, and thither he returned when he ascended. In the bosom of the Father; that is, 1. In the bosom of his special love, dear to him, in whom he was well pleased, always his delight. All God's saints are in his hand, but his Son was in his bosom, one in nature and essence, and therefore in the highest degree one in love. 2. In the bosom of his 62

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) secret counsels. As there was a mutual complacency, so there was a mutual consciousness, between the Father and Son <Mt. 11:27>; none so fit as he to make known God, for none knew his mind as he did. Our most secret counsels we are said to hide in our bosom (in pectore); Christ was privy to the bosom-counsels of the Father. The prophets sat down at his feet as scholars; Christ lay in his bosom as a friend. See <Eph. 3:11>. [2.] how free he was in making this discovery: He hath declared. ‘Him’ is not in the original. He has declared that of God which no man had at any time seen or known; not only that which was hid of God, but that which was hid in God <Eph. 3:9>, EXEGESATO - it signifies a plain, clear, and full discovery, not by general and doubtful hints, but by particular explications. He that runs may now read the will of God and the way of salvation. This is the grace, this the truth, that came by Jesus Christ”. Adam Clarke (tentang Yoh 1:18): “[No man hath seen God at any time] Moses and others heard his voice, and saw the cloud and the fire, which were the symbols of his presence; but such a manifestation of God as had now taken place, in the person of Jesus Christ, had never before been exhibited to the world. It is likely that the word seen, here, is put for known, as in <John 3:32; 1 John 3:2,6>, and <3 John 1:11>; and this sense the latter clause of the verse seems to require:- No man, how highly soever favoured, hath fully known God, at anytime, in any nation or age; the only begotten Son (see the note at <John 1:14>), who is in the bosom of the Father, who was intimately acquainted with all the counsels of the Most High, he hath declared him exeegeesato (grk 1834), hath announced the divine oracles unto men; for in this sense the word is used by the best Greek writers”. Barnes’ Notes (tentang Yoh 1:18): “ [No man hath seen God at any time] This declaration is probably made to show the superiority of the revelation of Jesus above that of any previous dispensation. It is said, therefore, that Jesus "had an intimate knowledge of God," which neither Moses nor any of the ancient prophets had possessed. God is invisible: no human eyes have seen him; but Christ had a knowledge of God which might be expressed to OUR apprehension by saying that he SAW him. He knew him intimately and completely, and was therefore fitted to make a fuller manifestation of him. See <John 5:37; 6:46; 1 John 4:12; Exo. 33:20; John 14:9>. This passage is not meant to deny that men had witnessed "manifestations" of God, as when he appeared to Moses and the prophets (compare ); but it is meant that no one has seen the essence of God, or has "fully known God." The prophets delivered what they "heard" God speak; Jesus what he KNEW of God as his equal, and as understanding fully nature. [The only-begotten Son] See the notes at <John 1:14>. This verse shows John's sense of the meaning of that phrase, as denoting an intimate and full knowledge of God. [In the bosom of the Father] This expression is taken from the 63

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) custom among the Orientals of reclining at their meals. See the notes at <Matt. 23:6>. It denotes intimacy, friendship, affection. Here it means that Jesus had a knowledge of God such as one friend has of another-- knowledge of his character, designs, and nature which no other one possesses, and which renders him, therefore, qualified above all others to make him known. [Hath declared him] Hath fully revealed him or made him known. Compare . This verse proves that Jesus had a knowledge of God above that which any of the ancient prophets had, and that the fullest revelations of his character are to be expected in the gospel. By his Word and Spirit he can enlighten and guide us, and lead us to the true knowledge of God; and there is no true and full knowledge of God which is not obtained through his Son. Compare <John 14:6; 1 John 2:22-23>.”. Matthew Henry (tentang 2Kor 3:6-11): “Here the apostle makes a comparison between the Old Testament and the New, the law of Moses and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and values himself and his fellow-labourers by this, that they were able ministers of the New Testament, that God had made them so, v. 6. This he does in answer to the accusations of false teachers, who magnify greatly the law of Moses. I. He distinguishes between the letter and the spirit even of the New Testament, v. 6. As able ministers of the New Testament, they were ministers not merely of the letter, to read the written word, or to preach the letter of the gospel only, but they were ministers of the Spirit also; the Spirit of God did accompany their ministrations. The letter killeth; this the letter of the law does, for that is the ministration of death; and if we rest only in the letter of the gospel we shall be never the better for so doing, for even that will be a savour of death unto death; but the Spirit of the gospel, going along with the ministry of the gospel, giveth life spiritual and life eternal. II. He shows the difference between the Old Testament and the New, and the excellency of the gospel above the law. For, 1. The OldTestament dispensation was the ministration of death (v. 7), whereas that of the New Testament is the ministration of life. The law discovered sin, and the wrath and curse of God. This showed us a God above us and a God against us; but the gospel discovers grace, and Emmanuel, God with us. Upon this account the gospel is more glorious than the law; and yet that had a glory in it, witness the shining of Moses's face (an indication thereof) when he came down from the mount with the tables in his hand, that reflected rays of brightness upon his countenance. 2. The law was the ministration of condemnation, for that condemned and cursed every one who continued not in all things written therein to do them; but the gospel is the ministration of righteousness: therein the righteousness of God by faith is revealed. This shows us that the just shall live by his faith. This reveals the grace and mercy of God through Jesus Christ, for obtaining the remission of sins and eternal life. The gospel therefore so much exceeds in glory that in a manner it eclipses the glory of the legal dispensation, v. 10. As the shining of a burning lamp is lost, or not regarded, when the sun arises 64

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) and goes forth in his strength; so there was no glory in the Old Testament, in comparison with that of the New. 3. The law is done away, but the gospel does and shall remain, v. 11. Not only did the glory of Moses's face go away, but the glory of Moses's law is done away also; yea, the law of Moses itself is now abolished. That dispensation was only to continue for a time, and then to vanish away; whereas the gospel shall remain to the end of the world, and is always fresh and flourishing and remains glorious”. Matthew Henry (tentang 2Kor 3:12-18): “Superiority of the gospel. In these verses the apostle draws two inferences from what he had said about the Old and New Testament:-- I. Concerning the duty of the ministers of the gospel to use great plainness or clearness of speech. They ought not, like Moses, to put a veil upon their faces, or obscure and darken those things which they should make plain. The gospel is a more clear dispensation than the law; the things of God are revealed in the New Testament, not in types and shadows, and ministers are much to blame if they do not set spiritual things, and gospel-truth and grace, in the clearest light that is possible. Though the Israelites could not look stedfastly to the end of what was commanded, but is now abolished, yet we may. We may see the meaning of those types and shadows by the accomplishment, seeing the veil is done away in, Christ and he is come, who was the end of the law for righteousness to all those who believe, and whom Moses and all the prophets pointed to, and wrote of. II. Concerning the privilege and advantage of those who enjoy the gospel, above those who lived under the law. For, 1. Those who lived under the legal dispensation had their minds blinded (v. 14), and there was a veil upon their hearts, v. 15. Thus it was formerly, and so it was especially as to those who remained in Judaism after the coming of the Messiah and the publication of his gospel. Nevertheless, the apostle tells us, there is a time coming when this veil also shall be taken away, and when it (the body of that people) shall turn to the Lord, v. 16. Or, when any particular person is converted to God, then the veil of ignorance is taken away; the blindness of the mind, and the hardness of the heart, are cured. 2. The condition of those who enjoy and believe the gospel is much more happy. For, (1.) They have liberty: Where the Spirit of the Lord is, and where he worketh, as he does under the gospel-dispensation, there is liberty (v. 17), freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, and from the servitude of corruption; liberty of access to God, and freedom of speech in prayer. The heart is set at liberty, and enlarged, to run the ways of God's commandments. (2.) they have light; for with open face we behold the glory of the Lord, v. 18. The Israelites saw the glory of God in a cloud, which was dark and dreadful; but Christians see the glory of the Lord as in a glass, more clearly and comfortably. It was the peculiar privilege of Moses for God to converse with him face to face, in a friendly manner; but now all true Christians see him more clearly with open face. He showeth them his glory. (3.) this light and liberty are transforming; we are 65

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) changed into the same image, from glory to glory (v. 18), from one degree of glorious grace unto another, till grace here be consummated in glory for ever. How much therefore should Christians prize and improve these privileges! We should not rest contented without an experimental knowledge of the transforming power of the gospel, by the operation of the Spirit, bringing us into a conformity to the temper and tendency of the glorious gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”. Barnes’ Notes (tentang 2Kor 3:14): “‘But their minds were blinded.’ The word used here [poorooo (grk 4456)] means rather to harden; to make hard like stone; and then to make dull or stupid. It is applied to the heart, in <Mark 6:52; 8:17>; to persons, in ; and to the eyes, in <Job 17:7>. Paul refers here to the fact that the understandings of the Jews were stupid, dull, and insensible, so that they did not see clearly the design and end of their own institutions. He states simply the fact; he does not refer to the cause of it. The fact that the Jews were thus stupid and dull is often affirmed in the New Testament. ‘For until this day ...’ The sense of this is, that even to the time when Paul wrote, it was a characteristic of the great mass of the Jewish people, that they did not understand the true sense of their own Scriptures. They did not understand its doctrines in regard to the Messiah. A veil seems to be thrown over the Old Testament when they read it, as there was over the face of Moses, so that the glory of their own Scriptures is concealed from their view, as the glory of the face of Moses was hidden. ‘Of the Old Testament’ Greek, "of the old covenant." See this word "testament," or covenant, explained in the notes on <1 Cor. 11:25>. This, I believe, is the only instance in which the Scriptures of the Jews are called the "Old Testament," or covenant, in the Bible. It was, of course, not a name which they used, or would use; but it is now with Christians the common appellation. No doubt can be entertained but that Paul uses the terms in the same manner in which we now do, and refers to all the inspired writings of the Jews. [Which vail is done away in Christ] In the manifestation, or appearance of Jesus the Messiah, the veil is removed. The obscurity which rested on the prophecies and types of the former dispensation is withdrawn; and as the face of Moses could have been distinctly seen if the veil on his face had been removed, so it is in regard to the true meaning of the Old Testament by the coming of the Messiah. What was obscure is now made clear; and the prophecies are so completely fulfilled in him, that his coming has removed the covering, and shed a clear light over them all. Many of the prophecies, for example, until the Messiah actually appeared, appeared obscure, and almost contradictory. Those which spoke of him, for illustration, as man and as God; as suffering, and yet reigning; as dying, and yet as ever-living; as a mighty Prince, a conqueror, and a king, and yet as a man of sorrows; as humble, and yet glorious: all seemed difficult to be reconciled until they were seen to harmonize in Jesus of Nazareth. Then they were plain, and the veil was taken 66

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) away. Christ is seen to answer all the previous descriptions of him in the Old Testament; and his coming casts a clear light on all which was before obscure.”. 4) And mengatakan bahwa pertanyaan-pertanyaan saya ‘is not difficult to answer’, tetapi anda bukannya menjawabnya, melainkan menghindarinya, dengan menggunakan rumus bahwa Allah dari Perjanjian Lama sama dengan Allah dari Perjanjian Baru. Apakah anda menulis ‘is not difficult to answer’, padahal anda berpikir ‘is impossible to answer, unless I change my belief into Christianity’??? 5) Saya juga setuju bahwa Allah dari Perjanjian Lama sama dengan Allah dari Perjanjian Baru. Tetapi dengan pemikiran yang terbalik dari pemikiran anda. Dari Perjanjian Baru saya tahu bahwa Allah itu adalah Allah Tritunggal, dan karena itu Allah dari Perjanjian Lama pasti juga demikian! 6) Perhatikan beberapa kutipan di bawah ini, yang menunjukkan bahwa Perjanjian Baru memang memberikan pernyataan tentang Allah yang jauh lebih jelas / lengkap dari Perjanjian Lama, dan karena itu Perjanjian Baru seharusnya digunakan untuk menerangi dan mengerti Perjanjian Lama! Kutipan-kutipan di bawah ini juga mendukung penggunaan ELOHIM dan katakata bentuk jamak lain untuk Allah, sebagai dasar dari doktrin Allah Tritunggal. Unger’s Bible Dictionary (dengan topik ‘God’): “Special revelation, for which the Holy Scriptures are the appointed vehicle, affords us the necessary and sufficient knowledge of God. The Scriptures throughout are harmonious in their teachings. The God of the OT is also the God of the NT. And yet the Scriptures exhibit a progress in the revelation. The NT doctrine of God is distinguished from that of the OT, first, in that it presents with peculiar distinctness and fullness the divine fatherhood. Second, it declares likewise the divine sonship of Jesus Christ, God "revealed in the flesh." The God-man is the fullest disclosure of the divine nature and is the Redeemer and Savior of mankind. Third, the distinct divine personality and peculiar office of the Holy Spirit are brought most clearly into view. And thus comes what at most was but intimated in the OT, the doctrine of the Trinity”. Unger’s Bible Dictionary (dengan topik ‘Trinity’): “Scripture Doctrine. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit rather than explicit in the OT, at the same time it is properly held that with the accompanying light of the NT this truth can be found in the OT (e.g., , the sanctity of the symbolical number three-- the plural form of Elohim, also places in which the Deity is spoken of as conversing with Himself). This is in accord with the gradual development of revealed truth in other particulars. The religion of the OT is emphatically monotheistic. The almost exclusive proclamation of the unity of God was essential as a safeguard against polytheism. The NT teaching upon this 67

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) subject is not given in the way of formal statement. The formal statement, however, is legitimately and necessarily deduced from the Scriptures of the NT, and these, as has been suggested, cast a light backward upon the intimations of the OT. Reliance, it is held by many competent critics, is not to be placed upon the passages in and <1 Tim. 3:16>; and <1 John 5:7> is commonly regarded as spurious. Aside from these, however, it is plain that both Christ and the apostles ascribe distinct personality to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (see articles, Father, God the; Sonship of Christ; Holy Spirit, the). And these utterances are such as to admit legitimately of no other conception than that of the unity of these three Persons in the ontological oneness of the whole divine nature (see, e.g., <Matt. 28:19; John 14:16-17; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 1:4-6>). The same worship is paid and the same works are ascribed to each of these three Persons, and in such a way as to indicate that these three are united in the fullness of the one living God. The monotheism of the OT is maintained, while glimpses are nevertheless afforded into the tripersonal mode of the divine existence. ... The glory of the gospel depends upon this truth; for Christ is most clearly seen to be God's unspeakable gift, the Bringer of the most perfect revelation and the Author of eternal salvation, when we recognize His essential oneness with the Father. Likewise the Holy Spirit is thus seen to be, in His relation to a sinful world and to the church, as well as to individual believers, the infinite source of hope and new and holy life”. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (dengan topik ‘Trinity’): “Not Clearly Revealed in the Old Testament: So strongly is it felt in wide circles that a Trinitarian conception is essential to a worthy idea of God, that there is abroad a deep-seated unwillingness to allow that God could ever have made Himself known otherwise than as a Trinity. From this point of view it is inconceivable that the Old Testament revelation should know nothing of the Trinity. Accordingly, I.A. Dorner, for example, reasons thus: "If, however-- and this is the faith of universal Christendom-- a living idea of God must be thought in some way after a Trinitarian fashion, it must be antecedently probable that traces of the Trinity cannot be lacking in the Old Testament, since its idea of God is a living or historical one." Whether there really exist traces of the idea of the Trinity in the Old Testament, however, is a nice question. Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity. It is another question, however, whether there may not exist in the pages of the Old Testament turns of expression or records of occurrences in which one already acquainted with the doctrine of the Trinity may fairly see indications of an underlying implication of it. The older writers discovered intimations of the Trinity in such phenomena as the plural form of the divine name 'Elohim, the occasional 68

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) employment with reference to God of plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image," ), or of plural verbs , certain repetitions of the name of God which seem to distinguish between God and God , threefold liturgical formulas , a certain tendency to hypostatize the conception of Wisdom , and especially the remarkable phenomena connected with the appearances of the Angel of Yahweh . The tendency of more recent authors is to appeal, not so much to specific texts of the Old Testament, as to the very "organism of revelation" in the Old Testament, in which there is perceived an underlying suggestion "that all things owe their existence and persistence to a threefold cause," both with reference to the first creation, and, more plainly, with reference to the second creation. Passages like , in which God and His Word and His Spirit are brought together, cocauses of effects, are adduced. A tendency is pointed out to hypostatize the Word of God on the one hand (e.g. ); and, especially in Ezekiel and the later Prophets, the Spirit of God, on the other (e.g. ). Suggestions-- in Isaiah for instance -- of the Deity of the Messiah are appealed to. And if the occasional occurrence of plural verbs and pronouns referring to God, and the plural form of the name 'Elohim, are not insisted upon as in themselves evidence of a multiplicity in the Godhead, yet a certain weight is lent them as witnesses that "the God of revelation is no abstract unity, but the living, true God, who in the fulness of His life embraces the highest variety" (Bavinck). The upshot of it all is that it is very generally felt that, somehow, in the Old Testament development of the idea of God there is a suggestion that the Deity is not a simple monad, and that thus a preparation is made for the revelation of the Trinity yet to come. It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation. And we can scarcely stop there. After all is said, in the light of the later revelation, the Trinitarian interpretation remains the most natural one of the phenomena which the older writers frankly interpreted as intimations of the Trinity; especially of those connected with the descriptions of tile Angel of Yahweh, no doubt, but also even of such a form of expression as meets us in the "Let us make man in our image" of -- for surely verse 27: "And God created man in his own image," does not encourage us to take the preceding verse as announcing that man was to be created in the image of the angels. This is not an illegitimate reading of New Testament ideas back into the text of the Old Testament; it is only reading the text of the Old Testament under the illumination of the New Testament revelation. The Old Testament may be likened to a chamber richly furnished but 69

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) dimly lighted; the introduction of light brings into it nothing which was not in it before; but it brings out into clearer view much of what is in it but was only dimly or even not at all perceived before. The mystery of the Trinity is not revealed in the Old Testament; but the mystery of the Trinity underlies the Old Testament revelation, and here and there almost comes into view. Thus, the Old Testament revelation of God is not corrected by the fuller revelation which follows it, but only perfected, extended and enlarged. 6. Prepared for in the Old Testament: It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being "setters forth of strange gods." To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity <Jn 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4; 1 Tim 2:5>. They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Yahweh, as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Yahweh as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Yahweh as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations. Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is; and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the Old Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in their minds. 7. Presupposed in the New Testament: The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the 70

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that "the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture." It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already "in full completeness" (vollig fertig), leaving no trace of its growth. "There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought," says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, "than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle -- and without controversy -- among accepted Christian truths." The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament. 8. Manifested in Son and Spirit: We cannot speak of the doctrine of the Trinity, therefore, if we study exactness of speech, as revealed in the New Testament, any more than we can speak of it as revealed in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written before its revelation; the New Testament after it. The revelation itself was made not in word but in deed. It was made in the incarnation of God the Son, and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. The relation of the two Testaments to this revelation is in the one case that of preparation for it, and in the other that of product of it. The revelation itself is embodied just in Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is as much as to say that the revelation of the Trinity was incidental to, and the inevitable effect of, the accomplishment of redemption. It was in the coming of the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin; and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment, that the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead was once for all revealed to men. Those who knew God the Father, who loved them and gave His own Son to die for them; and the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved them and delivered Himself up an offering and sacrifice for them; and the Spirit of Grace, who loved them and dwelt within them a power not themselves, making for righteousness, knew the Triune God and could not think or speak of God otherwise than as triune. The doctrine of the Trinity, in other words, is simply the modification wrought in the conception of the one only God by His complete revelation of Himself in the redemptive process. It necessarily waited, therefore, upon the completion of the redemptive process for its revelation, and its revelation, as necessarily, lay complete in the redemptive process. From this central fact we may understand more fully several circumstances connected with 71

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) the revelation of the Trinity to which allusion has been made. We may from it understand, for example, why the Trinity was not revealed in the Old Testament. It may carry us a little way to remark, as it has been customary to remark since the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, that it was the task of the Old Testament revelation to fix firmly in the minds and hearts of the people of God the great fundamental truth of the unity of the Godhead; and it would have been dangerous to speak to them of the plurality within this unity until this task had been fully accomplished. The real reason for the delay in the revelation of the Trinity, however, is grounded in the secular development of the redemptive purpose of God: the times were ripe for the revelation of the Trinity in the unity of the Godhead until the fulness of the time had come for God to send forth His Son unto redemption, and His Spirit unto sanctification. The revelation in word must needs wait upon the revelation in fact, to which it brings its necessary explanation, no doubt, but from which also it derives its own entire significance and value. The revelation of a Trinity in the divine unity as a mere abstract truth without relation to manifested fact, and without significance to the development of the kingdom of God, would have been foreign to the whole method of the divine procedure as it lies exposed to us in the pages of Scripture. Here the working-out of the divine purpose supplies the fundamental principle to which all else, even the progressive stages of revelation itself, is subsidiary; and advances in revelation are ever closely connected with the advancing accomplishment of the redemptive purpose. We may understand also, however, from the same central fact, why it is that the doctrine of the Trinity lies in the New Testament rather in the form of allusions than in express teaching, why it is rather everywhere presupposed, coming only here and there into incidental expression, than formally inculcated. It is because the revelation, having been made in the actual occurrences of redemption, was already the common property of all Christian hearts. In speaking and writing to one another, Christians, therefore, rather spoke out of their common Trinitarian consciousness, and reminded one another of their common fund of belief, than instructed one another in what was already the common property of all. We are to look for, and we shall find, in the New Testament allusions to the Trinity, rather evidence of how the Trinity, believed in by all, was conceived by the authoritative teachers of the church, than formal attempts, on their part, by authoritative declarations, to bring the church into the understanding that God is a Trinity. 9. Implied in the Whole New Testament: The fundamental proof that God is a Trinity is supplied thus by the fundamental revelation of the Trinity in fact: that is to say, in the incarnation of God the Son and the outpouring of God the Holy Spirit. In a word, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the fundamental proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is as much as to say that all the evidence of whatever kind, and from whatever source derived, that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, and that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person, is just so much evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity; and that when we go to the New Testament for evidence of the Trinity we 72

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) are to seek it, not merely in the scattered allusions to the Trinity as such, numerous and instructive as they are, but primarily in the whole mass of evidence which the New Testament provides of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit. When we have said this, we have said in effect that the whole mass of the New Testament is evidence for the Trinity. For the New Testament is saturated with evidence of the Deity of Christ and the divine personality of the Holy Spirit, Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and of the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and outpoured Spirit. We may analyze this conception and adduce proof for every constituent element of it from the New Testament declarations. We may show that the New Testament everywhere insists on the unity of the Godhead; that it constantly recognizes the Father as God, the Son as God and the Spirit as God; and that it cursorily presents these three to us as distinct Persons. It is not necessary, however, to enlarge here on facts so obvious. We may content ourselves with simply observing that to the New Testament there is but one only living and true God; but that to it Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are each God in the fullest sense of the term; and yet Father, Son and Spirit stand over against each other as I, and Thou, and He. In this composite fact the New Testament gives us the doctrine of the Trinity. For the doctrine of the Trinity is but the statement in wellguarded language of this composite fact. Through out the whole course of the many efforts to formulate the doctrine exactly, which have followed one another during the entire history of the church, indeed, the principle which has ever determined the result has always been determination to do justice in conceiving the relations of God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit, on the one hand to the unity of God, and, on the other, to the true Deity of the Son and Spirit and their distinct personalities. When we have said these three things, then-- that there is but one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit is each a distinct person-- we have enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness. That this doctrine underlies the whole New Testament as its constant presupposition and determines everywhere its forms of expression is the primary fact to be noted. We must not omit explicitly to note, however, that it now and again also, as occasion arises for its incidental enunciation, comes itself to expression in more or less completeness of statement. The passages in which the three Persons of the Trinity are brought together are much more numerous than, perhaps, is generally supposed; but it should be recognized that the formal collocation of the elements of the doctrine naturally is relatively rare in writings which are occasional in their origin and practical rather than doctrinal in their immediate purpose. The three Persons already come into view as Divine Persons in the annunciation of the birth of our Lord: `The Holy Ghost shall come upon 73

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) thee,' said the angel to Mary, `and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of God' ( m; compare <Mt 1:18> ff). Here the Holy Ghost is the active agent in the production of an effect which is also ascribed to the power of the Most High, and the child thus brought into the world is given the great designation of "Son of God." The three Persons are just as clearly brought before us in the account of Mt (l 18 ff), though the allusions to them are dispersed through a longer stretch of narrative, in the course of which the Deity of the child is twice intimated (verse 21: `It is He that shall save His people from their sins'; verse 23: `They shall call His name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, Godwith-us') In the baptismal scene which finds record by all the evangelists at the opening of Jesus' ministry <Mt 3:16-17; Mk 1:10-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:32-34>, the three Persons are thrown up to sight in a dramatic picture in which the Deity of each is strongly emphasized. From the open heavens the Spirit descends in visible form, and `a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased. ' Thus care seems to have been taken to make the advent of the Son of God into the world the revelation also of the Triune God, that the minds of men might as smoothly as possible adjust themselves to the preconditions of the divine redemption which was in process of being wrought out. 10. Conditions the Whole Teaching of Jesus: With this as a starting-point, the teaching of Jesus is conditioned throughout in a Trinitarian way. He has much to say of God His Father, from whom as His Son He is in some true sense distinct, and with whom He is in some equally true sense one. And He has much to say of the Spirit, who represents Him as He represents the Father, and by whom He works as the Father works by Him. It is not merely in the Gospel of John that such representations occur in the teaching of Jesus. In the Synoptics, too, Jesus claims a Sonship to God which is unique (<Mt 11:27; 24:36; Mk 13:32; Lk 10:22>; in the following passages the title of "Son of God" is attributed to Him and accepted by Him: <Mt 4:6; 8:29; 14:33; 27:40,43,54; Mk 3:11; 12:6-8; 15:39; Lk 4:41; 22:70>; compare <Jn 1:34,49; 9:35; 11:27>), and which involves an absolute community between the two in knowledge, say, and power: both <Mt 11:27> and record His great declaration that He knows the Father and the Father knows Him with perfect mutual knowledge: "No one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son." In the Synoptics, too, Jesus speaks of employing the Spirit of God Himself for the performance of His works, as if the activities of God were at His disposal: "I by the Spirit of God"-- or as Luke has it, "by the finger of God-- cast out demons" (<Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20>; compare the promise of the Spirit in <Mk 13:11; Lk 12:12>).”. Catatan: a) kutipan dari The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia ini diambil dari buku B. B. Warfield, yang berjudul ‘Biblical and Theological Studies’, hal 22dst. 74

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9) b) Yang saya beri warna hijau bisa menjadi dasar lain tentang adanya kejamakan dalam diri Allah. 7) Kalau anda menganggap bahwa ‘the God of the New Testament’ adalah tunggal mutlak, bukan Tritunggal, lalu mengapa tak membahas ‘the God of the New Testament’? Mengapa sebaliknya, anda membuang semua serangan berdasarkan ayat-ayat Perjanjian Baru yang saya berikan?

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: The rest of your post I consider meaningless rhetoric. I won’t answer those rhetorical statements or questions so that we won’t waste our time and energy.

Tanggapan Budi Asali: O, rupanya ini taktik / cara yang anda pakai untuk tidak menjawab serangan-serangan yang saya berikan! Padahal tempo hari anda berjanji untuk menjawabnya. Anda kira saya pikun? Bukankah anda mengajukan topik ‘the God of the Old Testament’ ini untuk sementara saja, sementara anda belum bisa menyelesaikan jawaban anda terhadap tulisan saya yang sangat panjang tempo hari? Untuk mengingatkan anda, saya kutip kata-kata anda sendiri. ‘It will take me longer time to write a complete reply to all the points emerging from our discussions. Hence decide to write my reply into shorter sections, discussing each topic separately. I find this will also help us to get focused to the main issues we need to settle. Hereby I send you the first part of my reply, titled: The God of the OT.’ Ternyata anda memberikan topik ini hanya untuk lari dari serangan saya. Anda sangat tidak fair! Anda juga adalah seorang pendusta yang tidak menepati janji anda. Shame on you! Dari semula saya sudah curiga dengan topik yang anda berikan. Dan waktu saya nyatakan itu, anda menganggapnya sebagai ‘meaningless rhetoric’! Sekarang terbukti bahwa anda memang menghindari serangan saya, dan juga menghindari seluruh ayatayat Perjanjian Baru yang tidak bisa anda jelaskan! Menurut saya anda bukan orang yang percaya dan menghormati Kitab Suci. Anda hanya menggunakan ayat-ayat tertentu yang sesuai dengan pandangan anda, atau yang bisa dibengkokkan sehingga mendukung pandangan anda, dan lalu anda mengabaikan sisanya, khususnya bagian yang bertentangan dengan pandangan anda dan tak bisa anda jelaskan! 75

Perdebatan Pdt. Budi Asali VS Ellen Kristi (9)

Saya ‘bernubuat’ bahwa anda akan lari lagi dari serangan-serangan saya di sini, entah dengan cara apa! Kalau memikirkan taktik untuk lari dari serangan, kalian para Unitarian, sangat hebat. Tetapi kalau memikirkan dan menafsirkan Kitab Suci, kalian tidak becus! Bertobatlah, sebelum anda masuk neraka. Pada saat itu semua sudah terlambat!

Tanggapan Ellen Kristi: Peace be with you, Ellen Published by permission. Pengutipan dari artikel ini harus mencantumkan: Dikutip dari http://www.geocities.com/thisisreformedfaith/artikel/unitarian-ellenkristi09.html

76