A Jewish Messiah: Yeshua in the First Century

In brief form, this document intends to articulate the concept and person of the Messiah from a thoroughly Jewish, first century perspective. Of course, this means some interpretation and extrapolation is required since we cannot interview those first century men and women who actually encountered Yeshua and concluded that he is the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. But the purpose of this study is not to exhaustively describe what the Jews expected or what actually transpired. It is rather to counter the popular Christian view, promulgated by the Gentile Church after 135 CE and solidified in dogma by 485 CE.

The reason such a study in needed is obvious. If “Jesus” as understood by Church dogma is a construction based on a priori philosophical and theological assertions (e.g. the dual nature of a God-Man), then there is little point in examining the Jewish background of the Messiah. The Messiah of the Church is, for all intents and purposes, not Jewish. He is the universal Savior, the man who is God (somehow), unlike every other human being who ever lived but (somehow) also human like us. He is unique among all Mankind, only fictitiously a product of Jewish heritage but actually the result of divine intervention and manifestation. The Messiah of the Church might be Jewish in name, but that is really as far as it goes. He is distinctively not Jewish as far as Jews are concerned, as any examination of modern Judaism will confirm. The Church also acts as if he is not Jewish, despite inconvenient historical records, insofar as he is proclaimed as God in the flesh, the Savior of the world, adaptable to any culture and time because, of course, he really is God who is outside all cultures and time. God might have chosen to arrive in a Jewish context, but God isn’t really Jewish and so the incarnation of God as a Jew is an accidental attribute of the divine plan, not an essential one. As far as the Christian Church is concerned, what matters is that “Jesus” is God, not that Yeshua is a Jewish Messiah.

Unfortunately, the texts tell us a different story. At least on the surface, the gospels recount the life of a man who is totally Jewish in heritage, birthplace, ethnicity, custom, training, pedagogy and purpose. If we “discover” a Christian Messiah in these accounts, it comes at the expense of sacrificing a Jewish prophet. The problem for Christianity is fairly straightforward: all of the accounts of this man are written from a Jewish perspective and claim Jewish significance. There is no indication at all that any of these authors thought their Messiah was abandoning the traditional faith of their forefathers or that he was in any way not essentially Jewish. In fact, they go out of their way to assert just the opposite; that Yeshua came to correctly interpret and apply the revelation of YHVH to Moses and that at no time did he overturn or abolish any of the Mosaic way of living. They assert that he lived a fully observant lifestyle, accomplished a Jewish mission for a Jewish population and enlisted Jews to act as his agents after he departed. Furthermore, according to the gospels, Yeshua specifically targeted the Jews, not the larger world, taught with rabbinic methods they understood, claimed to be the Messiah within a Jewish context and made no effort to reach outside his ethnic community. This striking fact is so obvious that both Christians and Jews often claim it was Paul, not “Jesus,” who really introduced Christianity to the world. I believe this is a tragic error; a mistaken reading of Paul’s own letters, but that is another story.

Most of us are quite familiar with the Christian Messiah called “Jesus.” We have grown up with the dogma that this “man” is really God the Son, the incarnate Word who pre-existed his physically miraculous birth and who, upon fulfillment of his mission, returned to heaven as one person of the Godhead. We have probably attributed his insights and miracles to his divine nature. We have marveled at his sacrifice claiming that it is a complete mystery how God Himself, in the person of the Son, could die on the cross to atone for our transgressions. Because salvation was the focus of the Christian Messiah, we overlooked the logical inconsistencies that haunted even the theologians who were responsible for the dual nature proclamation. And we certainly didn’t pay attention to the Messianic claims of the Jewish rabbis. Their eyes were divinely blinded to the truth. Jesus is God in the flesh. What more could we want?

But the rabbis wrote a lot about the Jewish Messiah and what they wrote reflected the common expectations of the crowds that heard Yeshua and saw his miracles. That is to say, if these thoroughly Jewish people understood him to be the Messiah, they understood this claim within their own culture and time. They were most decidedly not part of the Church, an organization that did not exist when Yeshua walked the hillsides of Israel. They believed him to be the Messiah because of their Jewish perspective. It is this perspective that is the basis of the gospel accounts. If we don’t know what this is, then we have only the “Jesus” of the Church, not the man who shows up on the pages of the apostles’ records. That means we must recapture the concept of the Messiah in ancient Judaism. Abraham Cohen provides a starting point.

Whereas other peoples of antiquity placed their Golden Age in the dim and remote past, the Jews relegated it to the future. . . . The glorious future centered around the person of a Mashiach, ‘an anointed one,’ who would be deputed by God to inaugurate this new and wonderful era.[1]

Cohen goes on to point out that there were very few detractors to this claim in spite of considerable variation in opinions about the identity of the future Messiah. Nevertheless, some general points can be made. After each point, I will try to draw parallels to the apostolic writings.

  1. The Messiah was part of the Creator’s plan from the beginning. The rabbis spoke of “King Messiah” being born from the beginning, “for he entered the mind (of God) before even the world was created” (Pesikta Rab. 152b).

Certainly the prologue of John comes to mind. If we do not read “Word” (with a capital W) as the equivalent of a pre-existing being, but rather as the already-developed purpose and plan of YHVH from before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8), then there is no exegetical reason to conclude that the prologue of John says anything more than what was common among rabbinic thinking. With this interpretation, John 1 is not opposed to Orthodox Judaism nor would it have been strikingly unintelligible to orthodox believers.

  1. The Messiah would be a human being “divinely appointed to carry out an allotted task. The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah.”[2]

Virtually everything in the gospel accounts of Yeshua can be understood within this framework. In fact, some explicit statements of Yeshua are difficult to understand in any other way. The continuous question of the gospels is, “Are you the Messiah?” not, “Are you God?”

  1. The Messiah would be a descendant of David. He is commonly referred to as “the son of David.”

The gospel accounts take the same view, referring to precisely the same language.

  1. The actual name of the Messiah was disputed by many rabbis who often bent the texts of the Tanakh in order to support a particular name of distinction for one group or another.

The gospel accounts provide the name, and justify it with miraculous beginning or angelic endorsement. The name, by the way, only works as a wordplay in Hebrew, not Greek.

  1. The distinction between Messiah ben David and Messiah ben Joseph is not prominent, mentioned only once in the Talmud. As a result, it seems likely that the general populace thought of the appearance of the Messiah in terms of re-establishing the kingdom. But the idea that the Messiah would appear as a suffering servant was also in the cultural mix. Cohen remarks in a footnote, “The conception of a Messiah son of Joseph only came into existence after the failure of Bar Kochba’s revolt in A. D. 135.”[3]

Cohen cites Klausner as the source, but if we consider the gospel accounts and their use of the suffering servant theme in Isaiah, we see that the Messiah ben Joseph was already in play prior to Bar Kochba in the writings of the apostles.

  1. As political tensions increased in the first century, the expectation of the arrival of the Messiah grew. Josephus notes that many men claimed to be the Messiah and while some rabbis embraced various claims, other rabbis contended that the Messiah would not appear until Israel as a whole was ready.

The gospels testify to the same phenomenon, i.e., other claimants to the title “Messiah.” It is also possible that Yeshua’s remarks about the return of the Messiah can be seen in the same way the rabbis interpreted the event (e.g., “When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith on earth?”)

  1. The rabbis preached “the doctrine that there will be ‘travail of the Messiah,’ i.e. his coming will be attended by pangs of suffering in the same manner that a child is born a the cost of much pain to its mother. . . . they taught that the world would show signs of utter demoralization before his arrival and the conditions of life prove well-nigh unbearable.”[4]

One has only to reflect of Yeshua’s comments in Matthew 24 to see the parallels. Jewish Messianic thought encompasses the same material that Yeshua proclaimed on that occasion.

  1. The Messiah will come at a time of particular political unrest and bitter warfare, according to Genesis Rabba 42:4. This is symbolically represented by the wars between Gog and Magog.

The gospel records and the history of the era both fit this rabbinic view.

  1. Other calculations concerning the arrival of the Messiah and its accompanying victory over the collapse of the world are found in the Talmud. “. . . most of them indicating a date about the end of the fifth century.”[5] However, these attempts to calculate the arrival of the Messiah were typically rejected by the rabbis who considered the efforts no more than fruitless speculation. “As against the belief that God had determined an exact date for the dawn of the Messianic era, there grew up another doctrine that the date was not fixed but would be affected by the conduct of the people. That thought was read into the words, ‘I the Lord will hasten it in its time’ (Is. lx. 22), which were explained in this sense: ‘If you are worthy I will hasten it; if you are not worthy it will be in its time’ (Sanh. 98a).”[6] Yeshua’s comment about only the Father knowing the date could easily reflect this rabbinic teaching.

This rabbinic idea is parallel to Yeshua’s own remarks about the date of the return, particularly the claim that only the Father knows. Furthermore, the gospels clearly pick up the suffering servant motif as a way of understanding Yeshua’s role.

Several expectations surrounded the event of the Messiah’s arrival and the subsequent Messianic age. Because these expectations were part of the rabbinic culture of the time, it is easy to see why Yeshua’s claim to be the Messiah might have been rejected on purely Jewish grounds. These expectations included:

  1. The Messiah will illumine the whole world, i.e., replace the purpose of the sun.
  2. He will cause running water to pour forth from Jerusalem; water that will heal every disease and ailment.
  3. He will cause the trees to produce their fruit every month.
  4. All ruined cities will be rebuilt and there will be no wasteland in the world.
  5. He will rebuild Jerusalem with sapphires.
  6. Peace will reign throughout nature.
  7. He will make a covenant between all creatures of the world and Israel.
  8. Weeping and wailing will cease.
  9. Death will cease in the world.
  10. Everyone will be happy.[7]

Most importantly, Israel’s position of preeminence in the world will be restored. This change will be so striking that many Gentiles will attempt to join the Jewish community, but they will have to be rejected because their motives are not pure. In addition to preeminence, the Messianic age will reunite all the tribes of Israel. In spite of the statement in the Tosefta that the ten tribes will not share in the ‘olam ha’ba, the Talmud states the opposite, that is, that the ten tribes will be reassembled. This event will precede two striking displays of Messianic power: the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of the Holy City. Finally, the Messianic age will be extended to those righteous ones who have died. The resurrection of the dead became a central pillar of Messianic thinking, generating rabbinic claims that resurrection is taught throughout the Tanakh.

A review of these Talmudic expectations and the common cultural beliefs about the Messiah helps us understand two critical factors: 1) many Jews rejected Yeshua’s claim because he did not fulfill the common beliefs and expectations, particularly the socio-political ones, and 2) those Jews who did accept Yeshua as the Messiah did so in spite of the fact that he did not fit all of the rabbinic concepts. We can easily understand why some Jews rejected him, but the more perplexing question is why Torah-observant Jews within the rabbinic ethos accepted him. The answer seems to be that those observant Jews who accepted his Messianic claim did so on the basis of his character, teaching and resurrection. While other notable holy men might have taught very similar ideas, none were resurrected from the dead as proof of divine endorsement. In fact, with a few exceptions, it seems that most of Yeshua’s followers were in line with rabbinic expectations and, consequently, completely demoralized after his death. Only the resurrection changed their perspective. This is the paradigm-shifting event that caused them to reassess their common expectations and view the life of Yeshua as the fulfillment of prophecy. Without the resurrection, Yeshua is just one more in a long list of failed Messiahs. The shift from Messiah ben David to Messiah ben Joseph can be accounted for only if the resurrection is viewed as the ultimate divine endorsement of Yeshua’s claim to be the Messiah. This event recasts the Talmudic expectations and the cultural assumptions so that they are temporally separated. All of the rabbinic beliefs may still become reality, but they are now separated into two different temporal periods. Once we see this shift, Yeshua’s claims are validated. But it takes the miracle of life from the dead to push us to rethink our common assumptions.

If we have established that it is possible to understand Yeshua as Messiah within the Jewish cultural context of the first century, then it is necessary to explain the role and purpose of a fully Jewish Messiah. This is our next task.

First and foremost, within a Jewish context a Messiah must act as a godly guide to living. Torah, of course, forms the foundation, but Torah must be applied to life as we know it in the culture and time of our present. It must have adaptability. This is precisely what the Oral Torah and all of the subsequent commentaries intend to accomplish. Since direction signals are some of the most confusing signs on life’s highway, we need more than a few indicators. We need a guide, someone who has gone before us and knows the way. If we are to be delivered from the confusion of hundreds of possible choices before us each day, we need someone to follow. That person must also be one who knows just how difficult it is to sort out the confusion, to stay focused and to experience the distractions common to all of us. In other words, in Hebrew, we need a Messiah. A Messiah is someone whom God appoints to represent fully and completely what God is like in this world and what we have to be like to stay in alignment with Him. A Messiah is literally a rescuer of those who have lost their way among the choices. A Messiah not only points us in the right direction, he has already taken that road and knows where it goes. He is the anointed representative of God. In the past, God appointed various men as messiahs, anointing them to perform specific roles within the community of the faithful. They all pointed, in some not-clearly-defined way, toward a final version of this chosen rescuer, one who would provide the last word about directions for living. The final version of this anointed one would be the mentor of godly relationship and the rescuer to all of us who have lost our way. Furthermore, this final anointed representative would successfully complete the necessary steps for the restoration of the creation itself. In the end, death would cease and the world would be happy, as the rabbis believed. This accomplishment requires that God appoint a special person for the task, a second Moses who is so close to YHVH that he is able to complete the assignment of being fully human as God originally intended.

To accomplish these things, the Messiah would have to conqueror death itself, because unless that issue is settled once and for all, everyone will still feel the uselessness of life. The Messiah provides an anchor point, not because he explains the theology of restoration but because he has experienced it. Such a guide is the trusted interpreter of human experience. He is authorized by God and worthy to follow. But we must nevertheless choose to do so.

This brings us to reconsider the role of the final, unique Messiah, the one chosen by YHVH to act as His full representative and authorized executor of His will for humanity. Previous messiahs played limited roles, but this one is the end of the line, the last word of God in the realm of men. His life, unique from beginning to end, is the sure sign that God has empowered him to act as our guide, our final guide, to kingdom living. In fact, because of his resurrection from the dead, he is elevated to the King who will never die again, and therefore the Kingdom he establishes is without end. All of this is about the history of God’s involvement with men and the Messiah is an historical person, not just an idea of ecclesiastical construction. He has an ancestry, a culture and ethnicity, a point-of-view, a defined language and a way of living in the world. In other words, he is like us—human in a human world.

According to the gospels, Messiah Yeshua fulfills these multiple roles. He is the final word of interpretative commentary on the revelation given to Moses. In that capacity, he is the last rabbinic sage. He is the fully authorized regent of YHVH. In other words, he is Lord of life and has been elevated to the position of King over the world. He is the ultimate expression of YHVH’s will in human form. He is the Torah of YHVH manifest in our world. And he is the guarantor of God’s plan of total restoration. His resurrection from the dead is the first-fruit sign that God has not abandoned His intention that all creation will be reconciled and will glorify its Creator. There is no more important person who ever lived, or lives, in all humanity.

This Messiah fulfills a crucial role that is easily overlooked by Westerners. In our world, rationality is the hallmark of truth. Being human means being rational, logical and cognitive. This emphasis on mental affirmation and propositional logic can leave us empty of the emotional experience of God. We have all the right facts but we are left with a black hole in the heart. We don’t know God because we don’t feel Him. As Arnold Bennett observed, “There can be no knowledge without emotion. We may be aware of a truth, yet until we have felt its force, it is not ours. To the cognition of the brain must be added the experience of the soul.” Yeshua the Messiah introduces us to the feelings of the Father, and these feelings are not judgment, rejection and stern demands. They are graciousness, compassion, care and concern. Yeshua shows us the Father in his healing, forgiveness and sacrifice. Yeshua writes a theology of emotion with his life, something we have longed for since the poet David. Perhaps this is the most important of all his roles for us, Westerners who have been taught that there is something terribly wrong with who we are, Westerners who have succumbed to Plato’s view of the material world, Augustine’s view of sinful nature and Luther’s view of penal atonement. Yeshua comes to demonstrate that YHVH grieves over His lost children and seeks us with a broken heart of emotional longing and undying love. In this sense, Yeshua is the culmination of a biblical theme that begins in the Garden—the recovery of God as Father.

Daniel Boyarin (The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ) points out that a divine Messiah is not a foreign concept to Jews, but this is not the same as saying that the Messiah is deity. We must be careful (extremely careful) to recognize that the language of the apostolic authors is not our language. The words they chose to use mean what they meant in the first century, not what they mean to us today. Since Jewish thought includes the idea that every person has a “divine spark” because of the animating action of the Ruach Hakodesh, it is perfectly acceptable to claim that Yeshua as Messiah exhibits in the fullest sense this divine connection. But that is not the same as the claim that he is deity. Perhaps it is helpful to note that the word “deity” is never found in Scripture and did not come into the language until Augustine coined the word in Latin. Our contemporary equivalence of “divine” and “deity” simply did not exist in the first century. History demonstrates that many human beings were considered divine during the time Yeshua walked in Israel, but that did not make them equivalent to the one true God, YHVH. The Jewish believers in the first century viewed Yeshua as The Messiah without claiming his ontological equality as YHVH. They certainly accepted him as their Lord and Master, as YHVH’s fully authorized representative, as the final interpreter of Moses and as the once and future King. They may even have seen him as divine. One must wonder what else is necessary in order to fulfill the role of Messiah.

What does this mean for us, followers two millennia removed from the Jewish culture and context of the Messiah’s earliest proponents? Don’t we have the same connection with Yeshua that they had, removed only by intervening years? Yeshua is still the final interpreter of Moses, not the replacement of Moses. He is still the only one who deserves unrestrained loyalty and deference. He is, after all, my King here on earth. He is still the conqueror of death. How that happened is not nearly as important as the fact that it did happen, and because it happened you and I are released from the specter of meaningless existence. Death is not the end. He has proven that. He is still my daily guide. Yes, his words require decoding for my world, a world far removed from the political-social-ethos of the first century. But human problems are fairly constant across the ages and his instruction is valid for us just as it was valid for his disciples. In the end, I choose to live according to his life and words. He is still the one who helps me experience the reality of the Father’s love. He is my friend who talks with me about a God who cares and demonstrates what that care means in the ordinary acts of human existence.

How does any of this humanity diminish his importance? Frankly, it doesn’t. The only stumbling block here is that we have been accustomed to think of this unique, authorized representative of God’s word as deity, not in the sense of the first century use of the term “divine” but in our theologically Christian sense of the term where “divine” for us means “God.” We are frightened that we might have a Messiah who is not “God.” That doesn’t seem to have bothered any of his original followers, but it certainly bothers us. The real question is, “Why does it bother us?” Perhaps our concept of divinity is really a reflection of the Church and not the Bible. Perhaps we are Augustine’s children rather than Abraham’s.

How does this affect exegesis? What do we do with all those stories and lessons and instructions from Yeshua that we find in the biblical text? May I suggest that in order to understand what our faithful guide Yeshua the Messiah is teaching us, we must first understand the content of his teaching in its own environment. Since he is teaching about Torah in the context of first century Jewish thought, it seems reasonable to know something about the cultural background before we attempt to extract ideas from a commentator on these topics. In other words, it’s not possible to understand the apostolic writings unless we understand the Tanakh and the rabbinic ethos of the first century. That doesn’t mean we put aside the words of the Messiah until we have fully comprehended the body of literature. Such a task is impossible for us. We must begin somewhere and grow as we learn. Where we begin will be a choice. From that starting point, we will be driven to see the larger reality because of these smaller steps and we will struggle to incorporate that larger reality into our lives. Tension, progress, confusion, deliberation, decision, and revelation—all seem to be part of this journey.

But it isn’t a journey for everyone. You will have to decide.

What is the role of the Jewish Messiah? As simply as possible, it is to accomplish God’s will on earth. That means he will become the model for living, the faithful friend who reveals the Father, our King and confidant, and the one whom YHVH Himself elevates to authority over all creation. What else do we need?

 

[1] Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud, p. 346.

[2] Ibid., p. 347.

[3] Ibid., p. 348.

[4] Ibid., p. 349.

[5] Ibid., p. 351.

[6] Ibid.

[7] cf. Cohen, op. cit., p. 353.

Subscribe
Notify of
81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Amanda Youngblood

I wish there was a way to heart this. Thank you, Skip, for taking so much time, thought, and effort to elaborate on and illuminate the Messiah Yeshua. One thing I love about your writing is how much you share about what life and thinking was like for him and his earliest followers. You say that to begin, we need to understand the Tanakh and the rabbinic literature surrounding it, as well as the environment from which it developed. I know you have a ton of books listed on your resources page, but do you have any particular recommendations as a starting point? Ones that might be particularly accessible and understandable to those of us who are still early in the journey and learning to wrap our minds around the difference in thinking and living and knowing? I remember working through Messilat Yesharim with you, and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have grasped as much without your insight and guidance. 🙂 So, any starting recommendations would be helpful.
Shalom!

Daria Gerig

Thank you for the recommendation, Skip, and thank you, Amanda, for speaking for others, including me, who are just learning to love (ancient) history! While I so very much want to understand the culture, language, etc of Yeshua’s day, I’m leery of studying under a rabbi or with Talmud because “man’s teaching” is what had me so trapped, brainwashed and distant toward “Jewish stuff.” (I laugh at myself now in that mindset… “Jewish stuff.” Ha!) However, maybe this particular book will give me a clue as to the politics and environment Yeshua lived in.
Skip, thank you again and again for teaching us to THINK (not wallow in paradigm paralysis) as we pray and study!

Rodney Baker

Thank you, Skip. Very well articulated. I’ve reached similar conclusions through my own studies, but you have expressed them much more eloquently than I’ve been able to to date. Blessings to you and yours.

Rodney Baker

Thanks, Skip. Yes, we’re all well. The boys have grown lots since you saw them. 🙂 We would love to have you and Rosanne stay with us again if you do travel this way. You’re always welcome.

Tim

I ditto what Rodney said.

Mark Parry

Amazingly articulate, well documented and clearly expressed. I re- titled it “a Jewish Messiah or a Greek god/man” and sent it off on the sea of Facebook to hopefully wake a few sleepers from their dreams…

Aurora de Jong

Excellent treatise on this. Thank you, Skip, for inspiring us to know our Jewish Messiah, and in turn, our God.

David Russell

Hello Skip,
Wow, this is tremendous, thank you! I face my pain daily in realizing the denomination of my family upbringing chooses to ignore the Jewishness of Jesus and his contemporaries. Myself and 3 other writers find ourselves using our imaginations and computers to construct a small anthology imagining first century citizens of Israel waiting for Messiah. In some sense the wait is the same for all generations.

While several wish us well, few choose to join in on the writing journey. Yet, like you, we follow our King and Rabbi who knows every nuance of our days. God bless and keep you and yours!
David

Tanya

David Russell, your creative project sounds interesting. Please let us know when you have something ready for public viewing.

Pam

This is excellent Skip. Hopefully more and more will truly look into those first century traditions, words, lingo, cultural aspects and actually shift their paradigm. Many ‘say’ that one has to understand the first century in order to understand the words of Yeshua and the disciples, but few are willing to let go of thei preconceived notions when it comes down to it. Thanks for stepping out on that limb!

Linda

Who do we thank for healing that we have received?

Linda

Thank you, that’s what I have been doing. Thank you Skip for your work and your willingness to put yourself out there and share your heart. God bless you !!

Daria Gerig

YHVH and Yeshua both recognize the heart. God and His divine Torah in human form love that we have grateful hearts! He/They are not trying to trick us or wait to pounce on us for unknowingly making a mistake. Praise YHVH forever.

Seeker

Got me thinking…
Yeshua was to save Jews.
Paul to enlighten I heathen.
Jesus said am light, way and life.
Paul claimed Christ established in us.
Sounds like two different processes than need to be followed.

Craig

As regards 1: The Messiah was part of the Creator’s plan from the beginning. The rabbis spoke of “King Messiah” being born from the beginning, “for he entered the mind (of God) before even the world was created” (Pesikta Rab. 152b). On the surface, John 1 can certainly fit into this framework. However, how do we harmonize John 1:3, the ‘word/plan’ as agent of creation, with other texts which explicitly claim Yeshua as agent of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6) and “the Son” as agent of creation (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2,10)?

robert lafoy

If I may ask, when you say “agent” of creation, what exactly does that mean? Just curious, so that I’m aware of the parameters of the usage.

Craig

The commonality in all these passages, except the very last one, is the word through (Greek: dia); so, in John 1:3 all creation emanates “through him/it” (logos, “word”); in 1 Cor. 8:16 it’s “through him” (Jesus Christ); in Col. 1:16, “through him” (the Son – see verse 13); and, in Heb. 1:2, the Son “through whom”. In Heb. 1:10 the verse begins with “And…”, with the implied ‘speaker’ being God – see in verse 6 “And again, when God…he says…”, then in verse 8 we find “…about the Son he [God] says…”, which carries through verse 12. Hence for Hebrews 1:10 we have (NASB):

10 And [God the Father says about the Son (again, see verse 8)],

“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;

This is a paraphrase of or allusion to Zechariah 12:1, with the original referent for “Lord” as YHWH (of course); yet, here the referent is the Son.

Rodney Baker

Hmmm…it seems to me that to be consistent with the rest of scripture, Col 1:16-18a should be understood as a parenthetical remark; not about “the Son” (which, btw, is a covenant term as much as a familial term), but about YHVH himself. Given the lack of punctuation in Greek, again it seems to me that this could be read as such without violence to the text (although perhaps not without violence to fondly-held theological/Christological positions).

Laurita Hayes

The reading of ALL the Messianic passages can be read either way. This leaves us with faith. Both positions require faith, for neither are ‘proven’ points, Scripturally speaking. The only way to resolve this with evidence is to find somebody who has spoken directly with Yeshua and who has asked Him pointblank Who He is. ‘Proof texts’ are not proof, here, forensically speaking.

Craig

I beg to differ on this. See my post at 8:30am.

Craig

Rodney,

The grammar proves that the pronoun cannot be feminine, but must be either masculine or neuter (but see further below). Following the subject through to verse 9, we find that of the “word” it is said, “In him/it was life, and that life was the light of men” (v. 4), which/who “shines in the darkness” (v. 5).

In verses 6-8 we find a parenthesis. Here John (the Baptist) becomes the subject, while the light, aka logos, becomes the object. The subject reverts back to the light (logos) in verse 9.

This “true light” erchomenon, “coming”, into the world “enlightens every human”. Erchomenon, which is a present middle/passive participle (in Greek a ‘verbal adjective’) referring to the “true light”, is either masculine or neuter in gender [all Greek participles encode gender]. This negates the possibility of a feminine autos, while leaving open a neuter.

However, in verse 14 in which the “word” becomes flesh, we find two masculine adjectives describing “the word”: monogenēs (unique, only – modifying logos, “word”) and plērēs (full – modifying “of grace and truth”, also modifying logos, “word”). This seems to negate your assertion that God’s spoken promises of deliverance for Israel (understood to be accomplished through the Deliverer, the Messiah) “became flesh” (were realised and fulfilled) in the man Yeshua.

Moreover, going back to verse 12, note that “all who believed in him, he gave the right to become children of God”. This is akin to eternal life. And throughout John’s Gospel belief in the “Son of Man” brings eternal life (3:14-16; cf. 9:35-41); belief in “Him Who sent Me”, [the Father who sent the Son] brings eternal life (5:24; cf. 6:40); and belief “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” brings “eternal life in his name” (20:31).

In addition, in those contexts in which “the Son” is the agent of creation, the Son also continues to uphold/sustain the creation of which He was originally agent. In Colossians 1:17 the Greek word for “hold together” ( synestēken) is in the perfect tense-form, which means the Son is in a continuous state of holding all things together. This must mean from the point of creation and continuing forward. Similarly, in Hebrews 1:3 the Greek word for “upholding/sustaining” (pherōn) is a present active participle [‘verbal adjective’], which, again, means the Son is continuously holding all things together.

All this said, the relevant grammar and contexts do not align with your overall position.

Craig

My response below at 8:30am was meant to be in response to 6:38 am post. Regarding this 7:10am comment, your position cannot be sustained. Christ is the head/body of the Church in Ephesians 5:23. Throughout Colossians 1:15-20, “the Son” is clearly the subject/referent.

Craig

Perhaps I can briefly expound just a bit on my earlier post in response to this (@ 8:38am). Rather than attempt to explain how the text in 1:16-18a is grammatically referring to the Son (and not the Father, as you imply), let me point out that it parallels Heb. 1:2-3 in two specific key areas: (1) the Son is the one through whom the Father made the universe (the ages); (2) the Son is upholding (present active participle) all things. Regarding these two things, both the grammar and context are clear. And that’s not to mention Heb. 1:10, as noted above…

robert lafoy

So I went and checked out all the references and tried to get the “gist” of the term di or dia as used in general. In seeking an unbiased position I would ask if, in fairness, the term, most generally, alludes to “for the sake of” as opposed (?) to agency in activity. One can’t help but see the striking references to the creation description and the positioning of the man (adam) as the regent and maintainer of the God designed order. I apologize for the seemingly gloss over in this response as there is a lot here to consider and I didn’t want to add yet another lengthy post. I’m just attempting to address the text as opposed to a position or stance on the text.

Craig

Robert,

Context must always determine meaning, of course. Colossians 1:16 is a great one to check since it uses three different prepositions preceding “him”. The first is at the beginning, en Him – the NASB translates this “by”, but it seems more proper to render it “in” (and see footnote at biblegateway on this). The last part of the verse is di’ autou kai eis auton ektistai [the apostrophe after “di” is because of elision/contraction since the next word begins with a vowel]. Let’s look at eis first. Eis is similar to en and is usually “into” or “in” but can also be “for”, as is the best translation here. This leaves us with “di'”. This most usually is “through”, though it can be “because of” or “for the sake of”. However, if it were rendered in this way, the final “eis” would be redundant.

So, it seems the possibilities are, respectively, by/in him; through/because of/for the sake of him; for/in him. Whichever way you go, you must somehow harmonize that with all the other texts I referenced above.

robert lafoy

or it could be, …all things for the sake of him and unto him have been created… speaking of the accumulation of all things under his feet. It would seem that a certain rendering is only a matter of choice when approached this way. The “issue” I have with the use of agency in these discussions is that it applies force to an understanding that God either used or needed another entity in the creation process. That is quite contrary to the testimony of scripture in it’s fullness. Perhaps it would help some if we saw that the text of Gen. 1 isn’t just a description of the material world, but that along side that is a description of the authorities set in place, (ie, fruit producing after its kind is speaking of obligation as much as apples) and that these things were formed and put in place explicitly for the son of God (adam) to rule earth with the authority of Heaven. “in the beginning God created the heavens AND the earth.” (echad, the two being one) But I doubt it. Context determining meaning seems to be a circular debate as passages such as this one and the others you referenced can be translated to determine both context and meaning. I suppose the best thing to do is hold the whole of scripture in regard in determining meaning, and if we find something that is contrary to an explicit declaration of God, to adjust our understanding appropriately.
I want you to understand my approach here Craig, I’m not attempting to “prove” one position over another. Debating a “stance” prevents us from looking closely at the text and diverts us from the true purpose of searching out the truth. Harmonizing scripture is good, but it’s not limited to new or old testament, it needs to harmonize with Genesis, Amos, etc. as well as Romans and revelation. BTW, that’s probably why you’ve had some confusion as to where I stand. 🙂

Craig

Let’s assume for the moment you are correct. Then how do you explain (1) Hebrews 1:10 in which “the Son” is substituted for YHWH as the one who “laid the foundations of the earth…”; (2) “the Son” as the one who is upholding all creation (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17)?

robert lafoy

(1) Again, you have to assume the name is being applied to the son in Hebrews 1 instead of describing the role of the agent active of the everlasting kingdom. I’ll again reference you to Gen. 1 where the first adam failed and diminished the kingdom. (he didn’t uphold or maintain the creation) This one will not. There’s no problem with the harmony in Hebrews or Colossians or the other many references you noted IF you translate and read it accordingly. We, IN the Messiah, have the same effect on the order of creation by our choices of establishing what authority rules the world we exist in.
(2) following that, Hebrews 1:3 …who being the radiance of His glory and the exact expression of the substance of Him, upholding moreover all things by the word of THE power for the sake of / through (di) him. (adam, genesis 1) Col. 1:17 and he is before all things, (first fruit, the intention of God in man) and all things in (en) him hold together. (unless he fails like the first adam, which he will not)
The parentheses are not additional commentary as much as to show you the perspective I’m coming from.

Craig

That 1:10 is exchanging Son for YHWV is made clear by verse 13; so, the writer of Hebrews is clearly stating that the Son is either (a) the Creator, or (b) the agent of the Creator. The latter aligns with all other NT passages. Obviously, the overall perspective has changed a bit in this new testament (Heb 1:1-2).

You must go back to John 1. Whatever you wish to make of John 1:3, the subject of 1:3, the ‘word’, is aka the “light of men”; and belief in this “light” grants one the right to become a child of God, in other words a granting of eternal life. This same eternal life is according to those who believe in “Him Who Sent Me” (the Father Who sent the Son), believe in “the Son of Man”, and belief in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God does same. Clearly, these are all related.

I’ve already illustrated this in my response to Rodney at December 8, 11:25pm. Extrapolating from the grammar there, the ‘word’ in becoming flesh is described using masculine adjectives; and, going further, ‘the word’ – the subject there – is “full of grace and truth”; yet, in verse 17 Jesus Christ is described in the same way. In the intervening context, it’s clear that the subject itself is unchanged, just renamed – renamed from ‘the word’ to “Jesus Christ”. The two are coextensive.

If you doubt this, see that monogenēs is used of the ‘the word’ in verse 14 and used again for “the one who is in the bosom of the Father” (or “at the Father’s side”), the latter clearly referring to the glorified Messiah Yeshua, Christ Jesus.

robert lafoy

You’re kinda going in circles here Craig. 🙂 Obvious isn’t part of this as it can be rendered appropriate to your outlook. (see HSB’s response at 11;09) These verses have previously been discussed in light of both stances and are found to be appropriate as well as somewhat wanting concerning both opinions. My advise is to keep the whole declaration of scripture in mind before assuming a position. Again, I’ve enjoyed conversing with you on these things and I hope that some benefit is to be gained in and through these discussions. (on all parts)
YHWH bless you and keep you….

Craig

Robert,

I brought you back to John 1 because of your statement here: The “issue” I have with the use of agency in these discussions is that it applies force to an understanding that God either used or needed another entity in the creation process. That is quite contrary to the testimony of scripture in it’s fullness.

Even those who argue for a Unitarian understanding in John 1 agree that 1:3 refers to “word” as agent of creation, citing Genesis 1. The “word” then is interpreted in a number of ways. [For the record, I do think Wisdom is part of the picture, as is “word” as a metonym for an attribute of God.] This culminates in, according to this view, “word” subsequently being enfleshed inside the Person of Christ, such that the “word” inhabits Yeshua, and He becomes he vehicle for the “word”.

Since I don’t think it fair to dismiss another view out of hand, I tested it out. And as I traced “word” in the context following John 1:1-3, as I’ve illustrated above, it became clear that the view sketched out above is unsustainable. Hence, given that “word” is coextensive with Jesus/Yeshua – insofar as the “word” precedes the actual birth/incarnation of Yeshua but they are coextensive, strictly speaking, only at that point of word-become-flesh and forward – then Son as agent in 1 Cor 8:6, Col 1:16, and Heb 1:2,10 fully agrees. Respectfully, that these do not, to your mind, agree with Genesis 1 is a matter for you to decipher. I see no issue at all. But, then again, I’m OK with looking at another view, as long as it can be harmonized with other like texts.

Going back to the statement of yours quoted at the beginning of this comment, God didn’t need an agent of creation, as it truly was God who was the Creator through and through – if you understand “the Son” as Deity alongside the Father.

Robert lafoy

And the wheels on the bus….. I’ll attempt another statement but this all seems to be getting us nowhere fast because of the approach in question. To say that the word is the agent of creation as God bringing things into existence through His speech, is a long way from stating that there is another “alongside” that is helping or co authoring. You keep bringing up John and his usage of the word as applying to messiah, and that is true, but it’s the way that it’s applied that’s in question. I’m not so sure that John would have bought that argument as it’s awful close to what is rendered as blasphemy. Not that I’ll use that as a debatable point simply because of the fact of accusing one is not the same as one actually commiting the act. In other words I’m not convinced that what you put forward is what John had in mind when he wrote the epistle. That what John wrote in his epistle does indeed agree with genesis 1, what you present it as, does not. Nuff said for me. YHWH bless you and keep you….

Craig

Let me illustrate how the exegesis I put forth in John does not contradict Genesis 1.

Αnd God said; and God said… God used His ‘word’ in Genesis 1 to create. In John 1 everything was made through “the word”. Could the two be referring to the same thing?

In Hebrews 1:3 we find “word” again [this time as rhēma, though this term is used synonomously with logos throughout the NT]: “And He [this Son] is the radiance of His [Father’s] glory and the exact representation of His [Father’s] nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”

The referent for the last pronoun is a bit ambiguous. In consulting 7 different commentaries [yes, they were all in the Christian realm], they all made the case that “Son” is the referent. While I agree with that position for contextual reasons within Hebrews 1 (and the larger NT), I think Guthrie captures the essence of the point I wish to make:

…Yet how does the Son exercise his power? It should be noted that the word his (autou) could refer either to the Son’s power or to the power of the Father, but it makes little difference to the interpretation. The word is reminiscent of God’s command at creation (e.g. ‘Let there be light’) and the idea in John 1:1–3 that all things were made by the Word (Logos), by which term Jesus Christ himself is meant [ED: as preincarnate “word”]. In the same way as the Word created, the Word sustains. The amazing stability of the created order is witness to the ‘power’ behind it.

Donald Guthrie, Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary, TNTC 6; IVP/Accordance electronic ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1983), pp 71-72.

Throughout the NT there are instances of semitisms – words or phrases adapted from Hebrew or Aramaic, and F. F. Bruce (The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], p 6) recognizes one here:

He upholds all things “by the word of his power”. This…is probably an instance of the Hebraic adjectival genitive: “the word of his power” may mean “His mighty word” or “His enabling word.” The creative utterance which called the universe into being requires as its complement that sustaining utterance by which it is maintained in being. So Paul can write to the Colossians of Christ as the One in whom “all things hold together” (Col. 17, RSV)…

It all harmonizes beautifully! No contradiction between the Testaments. And see the final paragraph in my response to HSB yesterday.

Thomas Elsinger

I’m not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. I like to keep things simple. My word is me. Your word is you. What we plan, what we say, what we desire, it’s all ours, but it’s certainly not a separate entity. Humans are made in the image of God, so it’s easy for me to see the word, the plan of God, being God, and not having to be another person, just being God. Like I’m me. And you are you.

Laurita Hayes

Are you counting, Thomas? Just kidding.

Somehow, to be caught up in counting seems to lose the wholeness – the oneness – of God.
I hear the trinity proponents counting to three, but the messiah-as-man proponents are still having to count our creation and/or salvation as needing at least two, but YHVH says that He is One. How are we going to get to one by counting by two’s or three’s? Either He does it all, or He is not God, and needs ‘help’ (which would make it more than one being the Source) Both sides of this argument seem to agree that He needs ‘help’; the hangup being whether that help is another god (or two) or a man (thus introducing Things that we can count). I’ve said it before, but maybe we need to start somewhere else besides the numbers?

Thomas Elsinger

H-m-m-m…”the messiah-as-man proponents are still having to count our creation and/or salvation as needing at least two…” Actually, when God put all things under Yeshua, God was just delegating. So that’s one plus delegation, not two God-beings.

Craig

Thomas,

When YHWH is said to have used His right hand, should we think He has a right hand like you and me? I think we must be cautious in drawing straight parallels between God and us. Figurative language is used throughout Scripture, but sometimes things are literal. And sometimes it’s kinda hard to tell which is which.

In John 1, “the Word” was also called “the light of men”, and in Him was “life”. This “light” came to the world, yet his own neither recognized nor received him (1:10-11). However, those who believed in “his name” received the right to become children of God (1:12-13). The “Word” “became flesh” (1:14) and was later called Jesus Christ (1:17). Yeshua/Jesus called Himself “the light of the world” (8:12; 9:4) and “the light of life” (8:12); He is “not of this world” (8:23). Yeshua gives “eternal life” (10:28; 11:26), and if one believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, one will have “life in his name” (20:31). Why is it that believing in the name of “the light” aka “the word” brings about “life”, and believing in the name of Messiah Yeshua results in the same? How exactly are they related? And why does Jesus state that believing in the (name of) the Father also brings about eternal life (5:24) in the same context stating that He ‘gives life’ to those who hear Him (5:25)? Why is that believing in “the Word” aka “the light (of men)”, Yeshua, the Son (“the light of life/the world”), and the name of the Father all result in eternal life?

I’m asking these questions, repeating some of the above, because it seems you’ve (dis)missed these connections.

Seeker

Craig

I love your passion for your view and I desire to develop such a passionate heart but the more I dig into the records the more I return to Job and Skip’s Guardian Angel especially concerning the creation of mankind unto God’s image and likeness.

I will say we start at the first important promise/prophecy.

Ezekiel 43: 7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcasses of their kings in their high places. 8In their setting of their threshold by my thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they have even defiled my holy name by their abominations that they have committed: wherefore I have consumed them in mine anger. 9 Now let them put away their whoredom, and the carcasses of their kings, far from me, and I will dwell in the midst of them for ever.

Here God explains the intentions John wrote of in John 1.

Now consider Jacob’s wrestling and read this in line with John 1:1-14.

God manifested a permanent covenant with mankind. In an undefiled manner the virgin birth. The start of a new era of mankind’s relation with God.

But sorry this is the new covenant for those who as you say accept the intervention… Jesus Christ.
Allegorically; Salvation (Yeshau) is found when we become doers of the will (Christ/Spirit) of God not hearers thereof.

Not the man of 2000 years ago… the process of manifestation.

Job 33, Ps 119, etc. God’s word is our light, is our protection, is our way of doing… No third or dual personality a way of manifestation. For me if we seek something else we are separating the creation of mankind unto the image and likeness of God through our own understanding. Which we can never do as His ways (Jesus) and thoughts (Messiah) are above ours.

We must humble ourselves unto His way and will; Jesus Christ. Read anything more than this and we may be reading our paradigm into the records.

Thomas Elsinger

Thank you, Craig, for considering my comments. For me, the fact that ALL things were put under Yeshua EXCEPT God Himself explains the connections I may have seemed to (dis)miss.

Craig

I like the simplicity of your stance; however, consider the following. Notice that in 1 Corinthians 15 we have “Christ” all the way to verse 24, in which Paul states the end will come when Christ/Messiah hands over the Kingdom to the “God and Father”; yet in verse 28 it’s the Son who is made subject to “the One who subjected all things to Him” so that “God” may be all in all. Why the distinctions and why Paul’s use of “One”? I submit that in verses 25-28, which expound on verse 24, that Messiah’s work, having now been completed, allows “God” to dispense with the distinctions between Father and (incarnational) Son so that at that point God is “all in all”.

Interestingly, earlier in this same letter, in explaining the charisma, the “spiritual gifts”, Paul uses 3 synonomous words for “gift” with each partnered with a member of the Trinity. In verse 4 it’s gifts with Spirit; in 5 it’s ministries with Lord; in 6 it’s workings with God. Holy Spirit, the Son, the Father – all One.

Laurita Hayes

You are right, Robert. The Scripture is clear. Only YHVH creates. Only YHVH saves, too, while we are at it. No way around it. Only (One). This is why we only worship Him. He made us and redeemed us. With His strong right arm. This is what I stub my toe on, personally, with both sides in this argument. Where does that leave Yeshua? Is He in or out; and/or is creating and/or saving, in or out; of that circle of One?

robert lafoy

To be frank, Laurita, 🙂 I often stub my toe here as well. As you are aware of, I’m not a Trinitarian, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize the deity of the Messiah. I will continue to maintain that the arguments are due to stances instead of “a clear rendering of scripture, in context”. Until we get past that, I’m pretty sure we’ll never see what’s right in front of our faces. In other words, the very clear answer is there but we refuse to see it because of our bias.

Laurita Hayes

Took the words right out of my mouth, Robert.

Rodney Baker

Craig, John’s prologue and the personification of the Word clearly parallels the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs. The Greek pronoun οὗτος (houtos) can be translated “he, she, it, this, that, the same” etc. The decision to translate it as “He was in the beginning with God…” is clearly a theological one, not a grammatical or contextual one. Indeed, if we accept the parallel with the personification of wisdom, it could just as easily have been rendered,”She was in the beginning with God…” (given that Wisdom – chockmah in Hebrew – is feminine).

On the other hand, it would be equally valid to render it thus:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was not anything made that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men.”

That lines up exactly with Genesis ch 1.

Clearly Yeshua (the man) did not pre-exist and could not have been an agent in creation; however, the Spirit of Messiah could and did (as even some rabbinic sources suggest). Genesis clearly tells us that HaShem spoke, and “it was”, so the Word of HaShem was clearly an agent in creation. The identification of Yeshua as “the Word” (that which was spoken) does not necessarily imply Yeshua was present in physical (or non-physical) form and an agent in creation; rather, the “Word became flesh” implies that God’s spoken promises of deliverance for Israel (understood to be accomplished through the Deliverer, the Messiah) “became flesh” (were realised and fulfilled) in the man Yeshua. As Messiah he is the Light of God – the one who comes to show the way.

I see no conflict between John 1 and anything that Skip has written when we go back to the source texts and their original context.

It is way past time to critically examine the translations and the a priori theological assumptions that are so evident.

DAVID FERNANDEZ

I agree Rodney. And to tag onto that when we read Pslam 45:6-7 (what the writer of Hebrews 1:10 is quoting) it seems obvious that the “sons of Korah” are writing about the King of Israel when they say, “You’re throne, god, is forever and ever…” I know that the writer of Hebrews uses this verse as a Messianic prophesy but the original hearers of the song wouldn’t have heard it that way. So the greater mystery ,or not so great a mystery, actually, is that the King if Israel would have been referred to as elohim. Any thought on this Rodney?

Craig

Rodney,

Somehow my replies are all out of order. See my post at 8:30am which is a reply to your 6:38am post here.

Craig

Rodney,

Since I erroneously originally posted this comment under another one of your comments, I’m reposting here:

The grammar proves that the pronoun cannot be feminine, but must be either masculine or neuter (but see further below). Following the subject through to verse 9, we find that of the “word” it is said, “In him/it was life, and that life was the light of men” (v. 4), which/who “shines in the darkness” (v. 5).

In verses 6-8 we find a parenthesis. Here John (the Baptist) becomes the subject, while the light, aka logos, becomes the object. The subject reverts back to the light (logos) in verse 9.

This “true light” erchomenon, “coming”, into the world “enlightens every human”. Erchomenon, which is a present middle/passive participle (in Greek a ‘verbal adjective’) referring to the “true light”, is either masculine or neuter in gender [all Greek participles encode gender]. This negates the possibility of a feminine autos, while leaving open a neuter.

However, in verse 14 in which the “word” becomes flesh, we find two masculine adjectives describing “the word”: monogenēs (unique, only – modifying logos, “word”) and plērēs (full – modifying “of grace and truth”, also modifying logos, “word”). This seems to negate your assertion that God’s spoken promises of deliverance for Israel (understood to be accomplished through the Deliverer, the Messiah) “became flesh” (were realised and fulfilled) in the man Yeshua.

Moreover, going back to verse 12, note that “all who believed in him, he gave the right to become children of God”. This is akin to eternal life. And throughout John’s Gospel belief in the “Son of Man” brings eternal life (3:14-16; cf. 9:35-41); belief in “Him Who sent Me”, [the Father who sent the Son] brings eternal life (5:24; cf. 6:40); and belief “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” brings “eternal life in his name” (20:31).

In addition, in those contexts in which “the Son” is the agent of creation, the Son also continues to uphold/sustain the creation of which He was originally agent. In Colossians 1:17 the Greek word for “hold together” ( synestēken) is in the perfect tense-form, which means the Son is in a continuous state of holding all things together. This must mean from the point of creation and continuing forward. Similarly, in Hebrews 1:3 the Greek word for “upholding/sustaining” (pherōn) is a present active participle [‘verbal adjective’], which, again, means the Son is continuously holding all things together.

All this said, the relevant grammar and contexts do not align with your overall position.

HSB

Craig
You have highlighted a few verses about Jesus acting as “agent” in creation. Here is my take on these. Your critique is welcome and appreciated.
Let’s start with 1 Cor. 8:6: Father, FROM whom are “all things” FOR whom we exist; Jesus the Messiah BY whom are “all things” and THROUGH whom we (exist).
The context for this passage is laid out in verse 1: Now concerning things sacrificed to idols… then in verse 4: Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know there is no such thing as an idol in the world, there is no God but one. Verse 5: “there are many gods and many lords.” Then we have verse 6 which is under study. Summation occurs in verse 7; again the mention of idols “some being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol… The rest of the chapter also mentions eating food in an idol’s temple. Paul concludes with a promise not to cause a brother to stumble. So the entire chapter is focused on food sacrificed to idols with the authority they claim, and whether such food can in good conscience be consumed. So what are the “all things” about in verse 6? Many would assume that this is an aside by Paul referencing creation of the universe and the Messiah’s role in that process. Maybe….

Now let us turn to Colosians 1:16. IN (en) him and THROUGH (di) him and FOR (eis) him “all things” were created. Again in verse 17 we find the same phrase “all things”. He is before “all things” and IN (en) him “all things” hold together. Keep going… verse 20 “to reconcile all things to himself… THROUGH him, whether things on earth or things in heaven…verse 22 “yet he has now reconciled you in his fleshly body through death. Let’s stop and look at this. Reconcile “all things” is then followed with “reconciled you” I suggest there is a direct linkage. But also the “things” that were reconciled in verse 20 were “whether things on earth or things in heaven”. Interesting because that is the part I hopped over in verse 16. In fact EVERYBODY hops over this part which actually is critical to understanding the definition of “all things”. So now the rest of verse 16..”all things in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities.” We just found the definition of “all things”. Notice Paul does NOT say stars and planets and animals and oceans etc. He defines “all things” as thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities. Clearly these are four things connected with governance, control and power. Reconciliation of all these things occurs THROUGH the death of Jesus. I will now suggest that this same definition applies to the “all things” in 1 Cor. 8:6. The issue of sacrifices to idols involves deference to an authority structure which the Messiah has destroyed and replaced. The context for the passage in Colossians was stated by Paul in Verse 13. We have been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of Messiah Jesus… who is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of creation. That is what the next half-dozen verses are linking. This is a teaching on authority in kingdoms. Messiah Jesus is now the ruler of the Kingdom of God, firstborn of the dead so that in verse 18: “he himself will come to have first place in all things”. On to Hebrews…

In Hebrews 1:2 the author refers to Jesus “in His son, whom he appointed heir of “all things”, THROUGH (dia) whom also He made the world/ages. And in verse 3 we learn that Jesus “upholds “all things” by the word of His power”. To whom does the “His” refer? Look at the construction parallel. He (Jesus) is the radiance of His (Father’s) glory. He (Jesus) is the exact representation of His (Father’s) nature. And finally He (Jesus) upholds all things by the word of His (Father’s) power. Notice again the linkage to inheritance of kingdom rule and authority mentioned in verse 2 “heir of all things”. I have always wondered why Jesus would be designated as an heir to a universe he not only created as deity but also sustains. For me the definition of “all things” as concerning kingdoms with authority and control makes far more sense. The “upholding” of Heb. 1:3 as well as the “holding together” of Col. 1:7 both link to the word of His (Father God’s) power. Jesus as obedient Messiah has been resurrected. He inherits “all things” and will rule a righteous kingdom some day on earth (hopefully soon).

Craig

HSB,

I don’t mind taking a fresh look at Scripture, viewed from a different lens. Having said that, I did try to see these strictly from the perspective you provided, and here are my thoughts.

On 1 Corinthians 8:6: The way I read this, Paul’s point in this chapter is to not cause a brother to stumble by surrendering our ‘rights’ when around the ‘weaker brother’ with respect to meat sacrificed to idols, with the central idea that we are to accommodate others (think Philippians 2:3-4) – all in service of the Gospel . This carries over into the next chapter in which Paul surrenders his rights to earn a living from preaching the Gospel. The central point in both chapters is that we are to sacrifice our ‘rights’ to each individual for the sake of the Gospel message.

Turning back to our subject verse, I see this as pursuant to explaining our right to eat whatever we want: since all is created by God the Father – through the Son – and that all is ‘clean’ because of this [and see Jesus implying that there is no unclean thing in Mark 7:14-23 / Matthew 15:10-20], we should, nonetheless, suspend that right in the presence of the ‘weaker brother’. I don’t see the overall context of this Scripture being at all related to the other two verses.

On Colossians 1:16ff: From my perspective, “all things” is not meant to be delimited by thrones, rulers, principalities, etc., but rather to be inclusive of these things. Note that each time these ‘other things’ are mentioned they are prefaced with eite (whether, even). Also, what is translated “heaven” here is actually in the plural each time – tois ouranois, “the heavens”. This word can also mean “sky”, or even the entire expanse to include all remaining celestial matter. Moreover, a number of times in this full context “all things” is not in any way otherwise qualified.

In addition, as Paul says in Romans 8:19-21, creation is awaiting its liberation from decay as a result of (or contemporaneous with) our fully redeemed bodies – i.e. the eschaton. Of course, that doesn’t mean we should impose this upon Colossians 1.

Of tangential interest, 1:15-20 forms a chiasmus.

On Hebrews 1:2: I’m more amenable to your view here, agreeing with your basic exegesis, though not your interpretation. I just don’t think it’s as limited as you’re suggesting. The entire creation suffered with the fall in Eden; the entire creation will be redeemed – new heaven and new earth. You wrote: I have always wondered why Jesus would be designated as an heir to a universe he not only created as deity but also sustains. For me the definition of “all things” as concerning kingdoms with authority and control makes far more sense. Creation belongs to the Father, as He is Creator, though all was created through the Son. After the fall, the creation for which “the Son” was agent was all stained. In the interim He’s continued to maintain it, upholding it; and almost 2000 years ago His death provided the ‘down payment’, so to speak, on its stain-removal, and for this reason, He has become the rightful heir to be sole ‘owner’ (see 1 Cor. 15:20-28).

You wrote: He inherits “all things” and will rule a righteous kingdom some day on earth (hopefully soon). Amen to that! – with my qualifications noted above.

HSB

Rodney: are you aware that some of the earliest English translations used “it” in John 1 exactly as you have outlined? For example check out the Geneva BIble which was the mainstay of the Puritans and Pilgrim fathers. “All things were made by it” referring to the word of God

Rich Pease

Skip,
You write: “In other words, he is like us — human in a human world.”
Yet there is a variance.
Matthew 1:20 says He was not conceived by the seed of a human father
but “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”
Then Matthew 1:23 reprises Isaiah 7:14 stating: “The virgin will be with child
and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel — which means,
God with us.”
Where does this fit into your study?

Rich Pease

I’m not suggesting He isn’t human; He very much is.
I’m asking if His “unusual” conception via the Holy Spirit
is a clue to His larger identity?

Laurita Hayes

No paternal DNA is definitely different than any other human. except Adam, of course, but there was a body of dirt first with him, which presupposes all DNA nucleotides already in place ready for life to be added. Yeshua only had X chromosomes from planet earth. I would say that is a LOT different than, say, Isaac, or even Adam.

Laurita Hayes

Well, if it were ‘just’ a human, he couldn’t have had preexistence, that’s obvious. The point of the miracle is, WHY half Mary’s DNA? Also, why go to the trouble of the virgin? Wait, “virgin” is in dispute, I forgot. Is it?

Laurita Hayes

We call it DNA, but C.S. Lewis points out that people of that time were perfectly well aware that babies only come by a man lying with a woman. Please do not accuse Jews of the first century with ignorance, when they were not so. A baby that came of a virgin was recognized as the exact same miracle for the exact same reasons that modern science recognizes. Otherwise, they would not have accused Him of being a bastard, and His mother a whore. If they were biologically ignorant, a virgin birth would have been meaningless to Jews of the first century, now wouldn’t it?

Laurita Hayes

While we are on the subject, Skip, please explain to me from the other side of this, just why the virgin thing is so weird for the Messiah-as-man crowd? I am about to die of curiosity!

Laurita Hayes

Why a virgin birth?

Seeker

Laurita

From David Hook’s work…
Many of you have heard that the Hebrew word for virgin is almah. Now many people who
translated modern English Bibles do not know this, but the word virgin in is Isaiah 7:14. Instead
of virgin they translate it as “a young woman” or “a maid.” Now there are three Hebrew words
that could apply to a woman in this context. One of them definitely means a married woman and
it is not used here. It could not have been used here, because Mary was not married when the
Messiah was born. Now the word that is used, almah, can refer to a woman of marriageable age.
That is, it can refer to a woman who is married or is not married. Let me put it to you another
way. If I wanted to say virgin in Hebrew, almah is the only word that I could use. It does not
always mean virgin, but it is the only word I can use.

Laurita Hayes

The question is, WHY a virgin? Unless, of course, we are now questioning whether Mary was one or not.

Seeker

Laurita

I would say a birth not defiled by human seed…

Was it not David that said we are all born through sin or rather in sin by the seed of man…

Laurita Hayes

Sins get passed down through the father, not the mother, is that what you are saying? I mean, there is some Scripture that suggests that, as well as some implications of genetic inheritance. Does anybody have insight on the Hebrew view of this?

Seeker

No Laurita

I am saying copulation may be deemed sin…
Just joking.

No, we are born in flesh through the will and deeds of flesh. To be removed from this burden, live only to return to dust, we also need to be born from above… The reason why teaching children to seek the Truth is so important.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH DOES NOT MEET THIS CRITERIA 100% It is like Eve flesh of my flesh bone of my bone but not from the seed of another person. A gift from God if you like.

Seeker

Laurita another thought from David Hocking (Not Hook) work…

The Bible says that He is the Son of God,
not the daughter of God. According to genetic law, the virgin conception of Mary should have
produced a daughter, not a son. The human male determines the sex of the offspring. His entrance
into the unfertilized egg of Mary caused it to develop without the expected duplication of the
female X chromosomes.

Abigail

Are you asking us?

Laurita Hayes

Yes. All the question mark places.

Laurita Hayes

And if you can answer Skip’s question, too, then that would be a real bargain!
Take a swing at bat, Abigail!

Abigail

I think the bravest thing someone can do is find the truth. Without any complicated dialog about this and that favorite rabbi, why not go directly to the Rabbi of Rabbi’s? The King of Kings? Jesus, YESHUA is alive and He will answer you. He is the Truth.
Who among you can hear Him?
Please tell me you believe He is alive!!?
Skip, I love you, but you are in desperate need of a damascus road encounter. Maybe for Christmas you will get a visit from the Son of the Father.

George and Penny Kraemer

Skip, thank you for your “olam” opus. It is a wonderful 48th wedding anniversary present to us both. It is also exactly 5 years ago that we retired after I celebrated my 70th birthday the week before. It was my intent to finally discover the TRUTH as best as I could hope to after living a lifetime of discomfort with Catholic dogma and doctrine. I was particularly in disagreement with the Trinity and its associated components such as the Eucharist etc. but what to believe, where to start, who to listen to, how to understand the magnitude of such a task. I was overwhelmed as I was open to anything credible and I read some incredible books along the way both good and bad. Met hundreds of wonderful people.

In less than a year of very interesting but unsatisfying digging we met in the middle of the Mediterranean and although I had no idea of it at the time, my research was leading me towards a very satisfying conclusion that was fulfilled yesterday and I can now say amen. Hallelujah!

So I thank God for the time I have been given to arrive in this place of peace. It has been a most rewarding effort and experience. Thanks to you and Roseanne, Rabbi Bob, my brother Dan and EMS first responder Laurita too and the thousands of replies by your faithful contributors over the years. Shalom to all. See you in Feb.

Abigail

I am enjoying your journey, it does not unnerve me. I am for you. I am asking the Father on your behalf to draw you into an encounter that will put a smile on your face and tears in your eyes and Love in your heart that you have longed for since the beginning. Once you have seen Him for yourself, then you are qualified to tell the world who He is. You can be jewish and answer for yourself – Who do you say I Am?
As soon as you get over who you are, you are ready to be known by Him.
He is worth your undivided attention.

In Peace,
Abigail

Alicia

Skip, thank you for writing on this topic. It’s more timely for me than you could possibly know. I still have a lot of questions. I’ve never really been comfortable with the idea of praying TO Jesus. Even when I accepted some form of the Trinity doctrine, it only ever made sense to me to direct my prayers to YHVH. Also… it is widely believed among many Jews and Christians that Jesus was claiming to be YHVH in John 8:58. And in terms of whether or not Jesus “died for our sins”… a reading of Ezekiel 18 seems to plainly destroy the idea that the innocent can or will suffer and die in place of the guilty. It also seems clear, throughout scripture, that repentance was always what was required for forgiveness of sins. I also really struggle to actually *believe* that the resurrection happened. Why that is so difficult to believe, I don’t know. After all, I believe YHVH made the cosmos from absolutely nothing, I believe he formed man from the dust of the earth, I believe he flooded the world and spared eight people on an ark, I believe he split the sea of reeds to deliver Israel from the Egyptians, so why can’t I get my head around the possibility that he resurrected a man from the dead, and that that resurrection is one proof of that man being the Messiah? I really don’t know, but I’ve been praying for answers for years now. Not even all the answers. But enough of a framework to support faith. I wish the politics of both Christianity and Judaism allowed for more liberty of thought on this topic. It puts those of us who question it squarely outside of any worshipping community other than “Hebrew Roots” which seems to be self-imploding. Unless you’re willing to keep silent about it, and then you always feel like you’re hiding something or pretending to be someone you’re not.

Seeker

Christology The Doctrine of Jesus Christ
By Dr. David Hocking
A 400 plus paged document working through a lot of the views shared on the topics discussing the messiah and his deity.

Something I have come to understand through all these discussions is that some Jewish scholars believe God is powerful enough to create this universe but not willing to admit that he is powerful enough to take on the form of a man to save his called people… Even if this goes against his nature of revealing everything through his prophets as he did with the messiah 300 years prior to his birth.

Then some individuals claim a christian doctrine as the redeeming power yet easily forget that the redemption power lies in adherence to Jesus’ teachings above the confirmation works his apostle did to continue his redemption works.

And all this because some scribes years ago divided Gods message into a new and old testament, while the only new testament is that God personally inscribes the hearts when we seek his presence to help us overcome our sins. Now what would those be? Cursing and swearing, stealing, murdering, fornicating… Wait are these not transgressions of the laws as defined by Moses…

Skip the paradigm seems not to be the bible but the way we tend to use it to exclude alternative progressive teachings rather than include God’s reminders given throughout the scriptures…

Craig

I’d like to address point #2: “…The Talmud nowhere indicates a belief in a superhuman Deliverer as the Messiah.” That may well be, yet Yeshua raised Himself from the dead – hardly the act of a mere human. The verbs in John 10:17-18 for take it up (lambanō) are in the active voice. For those who wish to change the verb to its alternate definition receive, I shall point out that that doesn’t affect the force of the active voice here. Consider the title of the position wide receiver in American football – he clearly receives the ball actively, not passively. [In addition, this same verb, lambanō, is used again in the active voice in the final clause “this commandment I received from the Father.]

Also, the verb in “Destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days” in John 2:19 is in the active voice. Apparently, the man in Matthew 27:63 heard Jesus saying these words in John 2:19, as he paraphrases this statement in relating it to Pilate, “After three days I will rise”. Here the verb (egeirō, rise) is in the middle voice. The subject in the middle voice participates in some way in the action of the verb such that the subject is affected by the results of the action.

This does not contradict the various Scriptures which affirm that the Father or “God” raised Jesus. It was a joint action (and, though debatable, two other Scriptures could be stating that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus: Romans 1:4 and 8:11 – note that the latter is referred to as “the Spirit of God” and “the Spirit of Christ” in 8:9). According to Trinitarian doctrine, the action of one ‘Person’ is the action of the one Trinitarian God.

One may disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity; however, one cannot argue with the Greek grammar (and there are no textual variants affecting any of these verbs). It is crystal clear: Jesus raised Himself from the dead. Yeshua was most certainly a man; but, He was not merely man. [According to the witnesses of others, even Arius claimed a higher status for the Son than mere man; he claimed the Son’s essence differed in some way from the Father’s because, “there was a time when the Son was not”, as the words of Nicene Creed quote in order to oppose.]

Chris DeWeese

Skip, your site needs share buttons.