Fair Warning
For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. 2 Corinthians 11:4 NASB
Another Jesus – Paul is afraid. He’s afraid that the Corinthians will be deceived just as Havvah was deceived by the serpent. He voices that fear by exhorting his reader not to accept any other “Jesus” or any other good news. He assumes that his readers know the difference. After all, he spent a lot of time teaching them who the Messiah really is and what the good news is all about.
I’m afraid too. I’m afraid that after 2000 years of philosophical influence by Hellenism we no longer have the same “Jesus” that Paul recognized. If Paul was afraid in the first century, we need to be twenty times as afraid after our long history of separation from the Scriptures he knew and the message he preached.
Let’s just examine a few possibilities. Just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Paul never became a “Christian.” Let’s listen to his own words instead of the words of Christian commentators and realize that Paul obeyed Torah, held to the same Jewish festival calendar of the Tanakh, fulfilled biblical vows based on Torah obligations and agreed with James that Moses should be taught to the new Gentile converts to the Jewish way of living. Do we still hold to that good news? Would Paul express joy if he attended our gatherings, praising us for remaining faithful to God’s instructions given at Sinai? Or would he find that we no longer follow the “gospel” he taught? If you have any doubt at all about what Paul would say of your assembly, before you dismiss the possibility that he just might have remained a rabbi, you must determine what Paul meant by his words and his life, or you will be the one looking in from outside the Kingdom.
Let’s consider another striking possibility. Suppose that Paul was not a Trinitarian. Suppose he continued to believe the Shema, the single echad of YHVH and the humanity (elevated) of the Messiah. After all, Paul never says that God is three in one. He never writes a single verse that demands a Trinitarian conclusion. In fact, he writes quite a bit that says otherwise. But just for the sake of argument, suppose that the “other Jesus” Paul worries about is the Church’s “God the Son” rather than Paul’s “Son of God.” What if your Trinitarian view is in fact the about the “other Jesus,” the one never spoken of definitively in any Scriptural text, the one created by theological inference three hundred years after the Gentile, Hellenized Church separated itself from the Jewish Scriptures.[1] What if Paul wouldn’t recognize at all any of the “one essence three person” verbiage, or worse, thought it was tantamount to idolatry. Where would that leave you?
Are you so sure that Paul became a preacher of grace over law, that he abandoned the absolute unity of YHVH? Are you so sure that you would stake your life on it? Are you so sure that all he says about obedience to Torah can be summarily ignored? Are you so sure that his statements about “the man Yeshua” are only to be understood as disguised Trinitarian doctrine? What if Paul is really Jewish, in thought and deed? Where does that leave you?
Now, are you afraid?
Topical Index: law, Trinity, 2 Corinthians 11:4, afraid, another Jesus
[1] Consider this quote from A. T. Hansen, “No responsible NT scholar would claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously held by any writer of the NT.” (A.T. Hanson, The Image of the Invisible God).
Just a couple thoughts, my brother.
First, Paul wasn’t, by any clear definition of the word, a Rabbi. Or a Rav, which would have been a babylonian equivalent to a Rabbi. Just one of those pet peeves of mine.
Also, all through out the scriptures YHVH is pluralistic. A trinitarian? Of course not but, there is most certainly a mystery in the plurality of YHVH. And I’m not sure why we have this insatiable need to wrap our minds around that reality (mystery). Clearly they didn’t.
Just because someone understands enough of the Hebrew text to know that Elohim is a pluralistic Elohim does not mean one thinks in terms of the trinity. There is a difference.
Hi Mark,
I am not sure why you would say Sha’ul wasn’t a rabbi. Perhaps you mean that he did not have the proper endorsement certificate. But then what is his claim about his own history? And functionally, his letters establish that he is the accepted authority for the assemblies he visited. That is a rabbi’s function. Maybe you have a different definition of what it means to be a rabbi. Please enlighten me. Obviously people considered Yeshua a rabbi yet he had no official body recognition, but Sha’ul did. I’m perplexed.
Second, the plural of el (i.e. elohim) does not entail a pluralistic God. If it did, the Shema would have to be completely revised. Jewish scholars have long held that elohim is a title of majesty, and they have good grounds for this since the word reflects cultural appellations consistent with use in other societies. I am not denying the mystery of YHVH, but it seems to me that claims of a pluralistic God would be rejected by any monotheist. A plural word does not mean a dual nature.
He is never called a rabbi and never used that title. In fact he calls himself a “bond-servant” and reckons his prior observance as blasphemy. Paul’s commission as an Apostle was not selfdetermined.(which any Rabbi of the last 1800 years would be) His apostleship was divinely decreed.
Why would we attach a title or view to Paul that he didn’t, or those that were part of the 1st century ekklesia didn’t? When we use such terms today, there’s really no way for us to escape our modern idea of what a Rabbi denotes for the last 1800 or so years. And that, would in no way shape or form describe Paul. If we’re gonna call Paul a rabbi, then we might as well call the other 12 Rabbi’s as well. Paul didn’t view himself as anything more then them, in fact calls himself the least, and neither should we.
Blasphemy is a bit too strong. He considered it garbage, but not idolatry. But the comparison is relative. Garbage compared to the knowledge of the Messiah and his suffering, but certainly his past training and reputation opened doors for him and gave him the expertise for the intricate arguments he presents, so it wasn’t wasted. Nor was it insulting to the glory of God’s name.
Well I think Paul himself said it and called it as it was.
1Timothy 1:12-14 I thank him who has given me strength, Messiah Yeshua our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Messiah Yeshua.
So, there’s no sense in us putting a spin to it. The above shows he was in fact appointed by Yeshua, not some system of rabbinism, and surely nothing even close to what we look at what a Rabbi is. And he also deemed what he was, acted as and bought into, as well as calling himself a blasphemer (βλάσφημον). But, regardless, more then just garbage I would think. The point being, if we’re calling him a rabbi based on his knowledge etc. prior to his being called and taught by Yeshua, then we would have to at the very least look at it as Paul himself did, worthless. I doubt very seriously he’d appreciate us calling him a rabbi. A slave to Messiah or a bond servant, sure.
There is no plurality in YHWH EXCEPT GRAMMATICALLY in the word Elohim. The Pagan God Dagon (singular) is called elohim.
Comment awaiting moderat
YHWH, YAHWAH. Yah is the masculine authoritative . The Wah comes from Hawah, ; (Eve of paganistic roots) which is the merciful mother figure.
Hawah spelled backwards is Yawah. I think the Hawaiians and the Iowans… had a clue.
Hello Skip, this Trinitarian doctrine is surely a difficult one. We know Yeshua is the light from Gen 3:3 Who was already. We know all things were created by Him, for Him. We know He is our law giver from Sinai, he is our king and our Saviour and He is YHWH. But how to grasp the truth with understanding comes only by walking in His way and the Torah He gives us to follow. When we see Him we will Know for we will see Him as He is. Shalom brother.
Well said Dave.
We just did a study of the menorah from our Torah portion this last Shabbat (we do the 3 year cycle). And it’s a excellent study on the “light”. It’s all through out scripture and most assuredly is about Yeshua. Even in Isaiah 53, most texts leave out the word “light” but, not in the DSS. I recommend doing a study of the “light”.
Is it not possible to view statements about Yeshua prior to his birth in the same way that we would view statements about Wisdom (which also “existed” prior to creation)? Doesn’t Hebrew regularly personify attributes, ideas and inanimate objects? How much of our Trinitarian view depends of Greek categories of “person,” categories that may not be part of the Hebraic worldview at all?
But like you ,Skip, I fear for so many and the warning cannot be sounded loud enough. There is another Jesus and anti- Messiah preached in the majority of Church today. Truly I fear even for and especially for many of our extended family and friends who refuse to hear and see. It surely exposes those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
Dave Sheard, well said.
This other Jesus invariably is coming wrapped in another gospel than that which was preached; and that gospel (grace alone) will invariable come wrapped in another law. What people might not realize is that no sooner than they get the last Law safely in the trash, another ‘law’ is going to get trotted out, and it is going to be this anti-Messiah who is going to be wrapped in it. Then where will grace be? I fear it will be going into the trash, too. You cannot throw away Law without throwing away Grace for they are but two sides of the same coin; the only coin by which our redemption can be paid with. This scenario gets played out over and over. Why do we always want to fall for it? Back to Troy for us!
My fear: in this seeming deconstruction of the Trinity some will lose who and what Yeshua is, and that in trying to discern what the text doesn’t say, what the text does say will be ignored.
Your statement is akin to a “straw-man” argument. By determining what the text doesn’t say, you will absolutely learn what it does say.
Yes, that’s a concern which is why I am taking a very gentle path in examining the texts. But if we find that the early believers (for several hundred years) did not view Yeshua as GOD but rather as the Son of God, chosen by God, empowered by God to fulfill this task, have we really lost anything but a doctrine? Have we diminished in any way the majesty and YHVH or the magnificence of the Messiah? Have we lessened his unique place in human history?
Perhaps we will need to wrestle with the question, “Is my faith so dependent on a doctrine inferred from Scripture 300 years after the coming of the Messiah that I cannot believe without it?” How many doctrines of the Church have already been shown faulty or suspect? Must we accept Augustine’s idea of the sexual transmission of original sin? Are we wedded to the Catholic idea of transubstantiation? Do we have to believe in double predestination? Are we required to conform to the ecclesiology of Rome? Or the teachings of the Talmud?
How much doctrine is necessary in order to have the “correct” relationship with God? Ah, but maybe that question is already “doctrinal.” It certainly looks Greek to me.
I was really worried to broach the topic of THE TRINITY to my wife.
I had been reading here and elsewhere, and I hadn’t talked with her during the process. I thought, “She’s going to think I’ve fallen off the deep end!” So like a wuss, I started with the “Some people say….” approach. But before I could get very far she said something like, “Oh, that trinity thing has never made much sense to me!”. I took a deep sigh of relief, and we had a good conversation – including a possible difference between “divinity” and “deity”.
Hi Bill,
In response to your statement: Possibly, however, I would think it is better going through the deconstruction process than not. In so doing a clearer and more discernible understanding of the real stated issue should be evident. Otherwise, remaining in a possible vain conclusion would be that which I would fear. Seeing what the text does say seems to be the missing link in this case as many have accepted an unchallenged trinitarian proposal and assumption of prior.
I’ve heard the “that’s all too hard” reply’s many times. The cries of “Just give me Jesus” don’t hold water with me with most issues now as the “Jesus” being reported fails to reflect the Yeshua of the Scriptures. “And don’t dare attack __________________ ” (fill in the appropriate established doctrine).
Going through much doctrinal reconstruction in the recent past was, by far, one of the scariest episodes of my life. Still is in many ways. However, being reamed of everything I deemed sacred and having to meticulously reconstruct a new paradigm provides, among other things, many firmer stances than I had held before. Also, having to re-paradigm myself has given me more insight and clearer understanding of the real issues as opposed to the myriad sunday school stories and seminary training I banked on previously.
I’ll grant that this issue must be approached very carefully and in a balanced manner, it certainly has the capability of “deconstructing” faith in some and building walls of divisions to further the separation that already exists. I suppose the larger question is, “how has that worked so far”?
It seems to me to be similar to the issue of an abused party in a relationship. The “norm” is that they remain in a relationship, somehow hoping that it will get better and all the while feeding the very thing they despise so much. Why? perhaps the change is to scary because the results are somewhat unknown.
I would suggest that deconstructing what is not part of the original design will bring more unity, not less. The Question for us is, can we get past the fear.
YHWH bless you and keep you………
Robert,
That is a great analogy. Shouldn’t we all have more fear for those who remain in a state of false belief? Also, don’t we all ignore truth at our own risk? Should we also fear that teaching the truth about Torah and the feasts might drive some completely away from YHWH and Yeshua? If someone is truly driven away from the Messiah by the truth, are they really seeking the to KNOW the truth?
True. And having felt my faith being shaken as one doctrine fell and then another – I can certainly sympathize with those who have a difficult time with ‘deconstruction’. My original thoughts were something like, “Okay, I can explore this as long as it is compatible with Jesus as my Savior (and everything that went along with that).”
People are also bombarded in this ‘information age’ with seemingly logical arguments for almost everything. Everyone is pushing a different form of ‘The Truth’. Sometimes I’m afraid that no amount of logic will convince more than a paltry few, and the only effective witness leading to repentance will be if we actually ‘live out’ the Torah. 😉
But that’s the secret of Hebrew evangelism. Argue, debate, employ logic and hermeneutics, but in the end it is HOW YOU LIVE that speaks the truth. I am consoled by this fact, realizing that there are many Christians who don’t know their own church history, the origin of their doctrinal beliefs or the arguments and counter-arguments of the scholars. But they live with a heart for God even if they don’t understand all that this means.
In the end, it’s what you do. Let’s argue it out–and then go to synagogue together, arm in arm.
Amein to that !!
An excellent message today, Skip. For what they’re worth, here are a couple of my thoughts to add to the discussion. First, God says we can know Him by looking at His creation (Romans 1). No matter what it is–mountains, planets, human bodies, botany, geology, etc.–it all has God’s signature. He is a part of it all, so to speak. It’s all part of His realm. Second, because of this, He can certainly say, “We,” and “Us.” You know, such language is present even in the wording of edicts and proclamations and exclamations of modern-day monarchies. They will say “we” when you and I would say “I” because they have the responsibility for and involvement in the entirety of their kingdoms.
Not as simple as that, “Let’s argue it out–and then go to synagogue together, arm in arm.” I have not heard from some Torah brethren, whom I got to know for three years or more, and had good fellowship with, from another State from me.
The issue was on Does the day begin at evening, or from daybreak of the day itself. Is this another “controversial” topic?! Sorry for adding to the ‘consternation’ of the day.
This week’s Torah teaches us that YHWH transcends from all His wrath to forgive and gather us even when we are so undeserving, but only when we walk in justice and chesed, and constantly trust in Him. What a YAH we exalt and bow down to!
When we seek, He will guide and teach.
Shalom!
Adding to the above comments, I so appreciate those questions posed, Skip!
Shalom!