The Test of Glory
“I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.” Isaiah 42:8 NASB
Will not give – In the famous Servant Song of Isaiah, YHVH declares that He will not give (hand over, set, place, allow or surrender) His glory to another. On the basis of this declaration, those who embrace the standard formulation of the Trinity declare that Yeshua is YHVH. The reasoning goes like this:
- YHVH is God
- Only God can have glory (Hebrew kavod)
- Yeshua receives kavod (glory)
- Therefore, Yeshua must be God
The argument might stand if it were always the case that glory is only given to God. But when we investigate, we discover something else. First, we notice that when YHVH speaks about not sharing His glory, He is addressing glory shared with idols. That will never be the case. But when He addresses those who fear Him as the only God of creation, then He Himself gives His glory to the nations (Ezekiel 39:21), the whole earth (Psalm 72:19), to all men in the Messianic age (Isaiah 60:2) and to the experience of a visual reality for all nations (Isaiah 52:10). Obviously, none of these qualify as “God.” Therefore, the argument that glory cannot be given to anything other than God is not sustained. It follows that if Yeshua receives glory from the Father this does not mean that Yeshua must be God any more than glory given to all nations means that the nations must be God. God shares His glory with whomever He pleases, but He never shares it with idols.
TWOT notes that kavod is applied to the reputation of an individual. “Thus the person of high social position and accompanying wealth was automatically an honored, or weighty, person in the society (Num 22:15, etc.). Such a position, its riches, and long life were commonly assumed to be the just rewards of a righteous life (I Chr 29:28, etc.). While one would be honored automatically if one attained this stature, it is also clear that one was expected to merit the honor and the glory. The book of Prov makes it clear that the trappings of glory without an accompanying weightiness of character was an offense to life (21:21; 22:4; 26:1; etc.). Likewise persons in positions of responsibility and authority were deserving of honor (Ex 20:12; Mal 1:6). It is significant to remind oneself that giving honor or glory is to say that someone is deserving of respect, attention and obedience.”[1]
John’s remark, “We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only son of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14) must be set in the context of the Hebrew use of kavod. As such, it implies that the glory of Yeshua is in respect to its uniqueness as the only son quite extraordinary, but that alone does not mean it is incommensurable with the kavod due someone of highest rank, special authority and God-ordained purpose. The text does not demand that Yeshua be understood as God Himself. But it does demand that Yeshua hold a place no other human being has ever or will ever hold—as the Messiah and the Son.
Topical Index: Trinity, glory, kavod, John 1:14, Isaiah 42:8
[1] Oswalt, J. N. (1999). 943 כָבֵד. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (426–427). Chicago: Moody Press.
Ouch. It’s a narrow path (this teaching); too ‘Jewish’ for the Christians, and too ‘Christian’ for the Jews.
I read some of the teachings on this site the other day regarding the deity of Yeshua:
http://www.wildbranch.org/teachings/lessons/lesson105.html
I wasn’t raised believing in the Trinity (I grew up Jehovah’s Witness.) but he makes some compelling arguments for Yeshua being YHWH.
I would love to hear your thoughts on it, if you have read it or get a chance to. I’m still on the fence on this doctrine, and while I know it’s impossible to have something this complex fully nailed down, I would love to reach a point where I felt more sure of what I believe, in either direction.
But wait, is it really that “complex” or have men made it so. If I told you that Yeshua is the Messiah, is that complex? If I then tell you that he is “divine,” (in whatever sense the biblical text allows of that word), is that too complex? If I tell you that he is glorified by the Father, put in the position of Judge and is coming again to bring the Kingdom to earth, is that too complex? What is complex is how one being can be three persons and still be echad? That is complex because it doesn’t make rational sense and it doesn’t align with the Tanakh. But where did that complexity come from?
WHO DO I SAY HE IS?
I say what the Word says.
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all
principality and power.” Col 2:9-10
Amen.
Thanks, Rich!! Another great reply!! A lovely Truth expressed in the beauty of His Word!!
Helen
But we already looked at this verse and it does NOT say “Godhead.” That was an interpretation of the translators. Please check the Greek and let’s continue to discuss.
I must admit you have been working very hard to elevate your doubt
about who Jesus is.
I don’t know if Thomas worked as hard as you, but when he finally
had a chance to stop everything and touch the reality of Jesus,
he remarked, “My Lord and my God!” Jn 20:28
But you have attributed to me something that even I don’t claim. I know who He is. He is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world, the atonement for our sin, the victor over death, the Judge to come, the King of the Messianic Kingdom, the one who brings restoration to earth and turns the restored creator over to the Father, the suffering servant and the beloved of the Father.
What do you think I’m missing that is actually IN THE TEXT?
Please forgive me if I misunderstand what you are saying.
But where IN THE TEXT does it say that Jesus isn’t God?
Hey Rich,
No need to apologize. We are just learning together. The text in GREEK does not use the word “Godhead.” That is the translator’s interpretation. It actually says pan to pleroma eis theotetos. “all the fullness” or something similar seems pretty clear, but the use of theotetos is anything but clear. TDNT notes that this hapex legomenon indicates that the fullness of deity has been given to the incarnate Son, but since the word is used only once in all of Scripture, what Paul actually has in mind can only be determined by context and other Pauline passages. The translation “Godhead” is certainly NOT warranted since Paul never uses any term that could be translated as such.
As for “deity,” TDNT also notes that “In Jn. 10:30ff. Jesus proves that the use of theoí for humans is not unbiblical, though he himself claims only to be God’s Son. In Heb. 1:8–9 the designation of the OT king as theós is transferred to Jesus. In Rom. 9:4–5 Christ is called theós directly unless we have in the last clause an independent doxology. In Jn. 1:1 “the Logos was God” (and cf. some readings of 1:18). Thomas recognizes Jesus as his God in Jn. 20:28 (cf. the blind man in 9:38). Cf. also Tit. 2:13 and outside the NT Did. 10.6, Ignatius Ephesians 18.2 etc., and Pliny Letters 10.96.7. Christ as the representative of God is himself the bearer of the divine nature and office.” (Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (328). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.)
So we are left with some of the same issues. What exactly did Paul mean?
Are we prepared to claim that Paul, who designates himself as a Pharisee, a keeper of Torah and obedient to all the traditions of the elders, made a claim about the ontological status of the Messiah that was incompatible with significant claims of rabbinic Judaism? If he did, why are the references so obscure? If this claim, which completely alters the idea of the singularity of YHVH, is essential to Paul’s view of the Messiah, why doesn’t he actually say so in unmistakable language? He makes other less-controversial theological claims very clear. He performs acts that are designed to let the world know he is fully Torah observant. He vouches for God’s unmerited grace toward Gentiles in clear opposition to the traditional method of proselytes. He even takes Peter to task over the Gentile issue. He is certainly not shy. Why is he so oblique about this, the CENTRAL doctrine of Christianity? And for that matter, if it is a doctrine that was already latent in the Tanakh, then why did it take 300 years of Christian Greek philosophy to articulate it?
The problem, as I see it, is not that the text says Yeshua IS NOT God. The problem is that the text doesn’t say that he is. We have to infer this claim from obscure verse like Colossians 2:9. And when we look very carefully, the idea just gets more obscure. That does NOT mean that it isn’t central to Christian faith. It doesn’t mean that the development of the doctrine is critical in the history of Christian dogma. It just means that I can’t READ IT DIRECTLY FROM THE TEXT.
So, now what do I do?
(Oh, and by the way, please don’t think that Thomas’ declaration is any more clear. Did you notice what TDNT said about the attribution of deity to HUMANS?)
I wrote about this verse earlier. https://skipmoen.com/2014/06/10/the-trinity-who-decides/
I appreciate your well-studied response. Thanks.
Perhaps we’d be better off agreeing about the dynamic of
personal revelation. Pure heart to heart.
“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood
has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is
in heaven.” Mat 16:17
Sounds good to me. I am just trying to understand what the text says and what it doesn’t say.
I think I need to understand more of what “divine” encompasses, in this context.
Yes, that’s the key. We have a definition of “divine” that comes from 17 centuries of Christian theology so we naturally assume that whatever is divine MUST BE GOD, but the key is to understand how the word is used in the Tanakh since that is the reference source for the use in the NT. We will have to investigate this pretty soon.
Skip, I opened my copy of the Tanakh yesterday in the hope that I might find something about “divine”. It didn’t take me long to give up the search, but I was blessed in reading the Scriptures and being reminded of some of their beauty in the ones I had marked to recall and read again. I thank God that I have been blessed with this translation of the scriptures!
Helen
Healthy study and discussion is so good and rewarding. I think as long as we are secure in our relationship with YHWH our saviour we are able to have a healthy discussion and study on WHO Yeshua is. When our security is in what we believe rather than Who is our Saviour we can get very nervous and shaken but if we KNOW our Saviour personally we can afford to study Who He is without dictating enforced doctrine upon one another. We cannot force any of our personal doctrines onto one another. Healthy discussion reveals a security in YHWH. But when folk walk away because they disagree we are just being Greek and dividing into our thousands of denominations. The Hebrew people might disagree so often but they still come together to worship the same YHWH. Unfortunately when we disagree with “foundational” ‘Christian’ doctrine we can scare others off. Surely ‘the Trinity’ is the sacred cow of Christianity. But then personally I no longer want to call myself ‘Christian’; now that I see how the scriptures have been so twisted to teach a pagan sabbath (sunday), and allow for a pagan christmas and pagan easter. ( sorry I purposely changed the capitals). Being able to discuss such doctrines allows the two edged sword of scripture to do the work it is given to us for.
Shalom my friends.
Thank you so much Skip for such a good five days here in the UK. We pray we can be more like Ruth to reveal YHWH to our Jewish friends and one another, that will help us all to grow in security in Who YHWH IS for us all.
This is elucidating and inspiring, Skip. That begs for explanation to the question that keeps coming up in the circle of believers. If YHWH came down in the person of The Son, did He live all the time as God or all the time as Man or both?