Beating a Dead Horse
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 NASB
The Word – There is an amazing little fact about the gospel writers that is often overlooked. It is simply this:
The New Testament provides little information on Jesus’ family. Outside of the nativity stories, the Gospels hardly mention Jesus’ family. Christians historically have struggled with the reality of the incarnation—God became man. While they have had little problem looking at Jesus as divine, the struggle comes in viewing Jesus as man—the principal point of the incarnation. His family, however, ties Jesus to history, joins Him to humanity, and connects Him with the Jewish people. His family makes the incarnation real, and like any other person in human history, His family shaped who He became as a man.[1]
Now let’s read Turnage’s remark from the perspective of Jewish writers in the first century. Jews don’t have any problem at all with Yeshua as a man. How could they? He is just like every other man, born to this world, growing up in a Jewish household, speaking the languages of Israel in the first century, following an orthodox faith, participating in customary rites and rituals, living among his native people. Is there anything controversial about this? No. But notice what is disconcerting to Jewish readers of the story of Yeshua—the claim that he is God, precisely what Christians apparently don’t have any problem accepting.[2] This is quite odd. Christians seem ready to accept Yeshua as unlike any other man ever born, but struggle to imagine that he really is like every other man. Jews have no problem thinking of Yeshua like every other man, but balk at the idea that he is different than every man ever born. In fact, Jews would argue that Turnage’s statement, “His family makes the incarnation real, and like any other person in human history . . .,” is nonsense. By Christian definition, he is not like “any other person in human history.” That is why Christians struggle with the incarnation. Whatever the incarnation is, it excludes Yeshua from being like anyone else. It does not include him in the history of every other person. It can’t! If it did, he couldn’t be God.
Do you find it rather odd (perhaps distressing) that Christians assert what is patently nonsense from the human perspective while Jews assert what is nonsense from a divine perspective? How did this genuinely perplexing state of affairs come to be? Just for a moment, put aside your presuppositions about the incarnation and read Turnage’s statement again. Does it make any sense to you if you don’t assume the doctrine of the incarnation is true? And if you have to assume that the incarnation is true in order to claim what Turnage says, then where did the idea come from? It certainly did not come from the absolutely ubiquitous experience of human beings. If Turnage has to employ vocabulary about “Jesus” humanity that has no equivalent in any human experience, then what in the world do his words really mean? Isn’t it something equivalent to saying that it’s raining, but meaning that I’m standing in the Sahara desert sunshine?
Just one last thought before we stop beating the dead horse. If you were a rational human being, unfettered by the cultural history of Western Christianity, what position would make more sense to you: that Yeshua is a man or that he is God? Is it any wonder why Millard Erickson suggests that we believe this Christian idea because it doesn’t make sense and therefore must be from God? What kind of a God would play that colossal re-definition trick on human beings? OK. Enough. Let’s go back to thinking about things that actually have meaning in the human world, like what to eat for dinner.
Topical Index: incarnation, Word, Marc Turnage, John 1:1
A theological notice: Some time ago I was advised to avoid the topic of the Trinity. “Stay below the radar,” was the instruction. But, as things progressed, I found it impossible not to investigate the origin and language of this doctrine. The discussion has been lively, and worthwhile, I trust. But I have concluded that the real analysis of this doctrine must occur at the meta-theological level, that is, this is about paradigms, not exegesis. So the analysis must involve the culture, perspective and context of the authors, not the exegetes and certainly not the Church since it was not yet formed when men wrote the words of Scripture. At this point, I think we have articulated these real concerns. Continued exegetical analysis is really rather pointless if we are not willing to ask, “What did these men think within their own context?” So, now perhaps it’s time to duck below the radar. Thanks for letting me poke my head up over these last few years.
[1] Marc Turnage, Windows into the Bible, p. 211.
[2] While common understanding of the divinity of “Jesus” is mainstream Christianity, that does not mean there have been no discenters throughout the history of Christianity. If you want to know the full argument about this doctrine, it might be instructive to read the writings of these theologians from the earliest fathers until today.
Yes, absolutely, Yeshua is God! Yes, He was all man. Yes, it was His feet that stood on the mountain and yes, it was Him that stood before Abraham in Gen 18. There is not 2 YHVH’s. That’s what the text plainly says. If that were the case then I guess we that believe such “nonsense” would have to be idolators. The word speaks for itself no need to try and rationalize the thoughts of a holy God. Of course, Rabbinical Judaism wants to refute this reality. But, His Apostles didn’t. They wrote it down for us. Of course “it’s disconcerting to Jewish readers”. Yeshua was nothing even close to “just another man”. What is nonsense is thinking He could be anything less than YHVH Himself in the flesh. May He reign forever!
Thank you, Mark. I LOVE your comments because it demonstrates that YOU and I do not have to agree on even these things and we can still care for each other, work together and have great fellowship. THANK YOU!!
Absolutely my brother! I hold you and your efforts in high esteem. I thank HaShem for having put us together.
And THANK YOU!. For your faithfulness, for your incredible character and attentiveness to my efforts as well as others. Our core beliefs always meet the road on what we DO to show the true intent of how we value one another. And in that regard, my friend, I can say you are truly a man who attempts the best he can and knows how, to do what is right in the eyes of our great and mighty God.
I honestly believe that in the end, we’re all going to be extremely humbled when we find out just how much we got wrong and how little we got right. However, the compassion, mercy, loving kindness and grace of YHVH will surely prove to be sufficient to those that love Him and serve Him with all their heart, strength, and might. It’s our job to just do the best we can with what we have to work with each and every day until He returns.
“However, the compassion, mercy, loving kindness and grace of YHVH will surely prove to be sufficient to those that love Him and serve Him with all their heart, strength, and might. It’s our job to just do the best we can with what we have to work with each and every day until He returns.”
Mark, thanks for this comment, which should sum up our walk in this world until Yeshua returns and clears our minds
Skip, please don’t stay under the radar! We need help in ridding ourselves of our former paradigms! I admit, I still struggle with some of the verses the “prove” Yeshua is YHVH, but that is just my old church training still rearing its head.
I had a former pastor email me about a year ago. He was concerned that I was following your teachings, especially since you espouse “No Trinity.” After a couple of email exchanges, he let me know that he could no longer associate with me, and that would be his last email to me (which it was). I found it interesting that he had not had one thing to do with me since I had announced I was following Torah (4 years earlier). He let me know at that time that I was rejecting “Christ” and becoming a “Jew.” Then, after almost 4 years, he writes me to let me know he will no longer associate with me. Interesting.
All that to say, we must follow the truth where ever it leads us, especially if it doesn’t align with Church Doctrine. I will no longer follow the traditions of man. Give me His word. Only! It takes effort to properly study, and I thank you for being a resource to help us in the shedding of our old paradigms! So, Skip, PREACH IT! (grin)
Amen!
Skip,
Praying for you and Rosanne as Matthew bears down on Florida. Be safe my friend.
thank you
Amen to both comments above for me!
I have wondered about just when the Jews became enamored with numbers. I have read about the Egyptian fascination with them, and got really weirded out once by reading a book about the ‘intrinsic’ meaning supposedly inherent in each number. I mean, they really worshiped them! I guess it would be rather easy to do if you believed that perfection in something equaled divinity. I have noticed that we pretty much think numbers equal perfection (as we think we know it, anyway) in this culture, too.
I have reluctantly decided to accept Karl Marx’s definition of his made-up perversion of the word “dialectic” for the purposes of trying to understand what it has done to the world. What I have noticed (as I have tried to say before) is that something has to have been unnaturally split before you can apply names to that split (this would correspond to “thesis” and “antithesis”). “Synthesis”, then, would be man’s attempt to reestablish order (put Humpty Dumpty back together again) after he split it apart in the first place. I think this has caused several world wars already, and a whole ton of division where there should not be any. I have yet to see any real order accomplished after any of this chaos, however. Um, I take that as a major flaw in this approach!
I bring these points up as I consider the possibility that, in our Greek minds (as opposed to a true Hebrew mind), we have been trained to believe that arguments are about real things, but I have started to be suspicious that something true has to have been split first before there can be one. I am saying that opponents in diametrically opposed positions could well (in our society, anyway) be falling for an artificial dialectic superimposed FOR them. In other words, somewhere a baby has to have been split already for there to be one. Of course, a true Jew back in the first century would not have had a problem with holding conundrums in his head – his head was trained to think that way. A Greek head, however, would have. Even then, Greece (and of course, Egypt, too), through the influence of Alexandria, would already have been affecting the way Jews (including Messianic Jews, I am sure) thought and responded, both in their way of thinking about numbers, as well as in their response to argument. I am wildly conjecturing here, of course, but it seems to me it could have been so.
I want to quote Einstein’s mathematics teacher, Hermann Minkowski, who wrote in his paper that demonstrated mathematically that time could be treated as the fourth dimension: “Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”. What if we found one day that numbers themselves could possibly be relevant only in our dimensional experience? Would that change this discussion? What if numbers could only enjoy their seemingly “independent reality” because of the existence of higher dimensions above them, in which they may not even operate? What if God Himself, Who is above all His creation (and that would include, presumably, the numbers that help delineate it) makes everything else possible by His union (through Yeshua’s incarnation) with that creation? What if we are falling for a straw man argument – whether it be the number of one, or three, even – while ignoring the fact that you cannot have an argument (in a Greek sense, anyway) at all without agreeing first on the terms? And what would those mutual terms have to be? Would they not both have to be agreeing on the question “What NUMBER is God?” Seems to me that could smack of a question that Alexandria -which was the center of Egyptian learning – could have posited, and we could have been struggling with ever since. That is, after we went to that university and had been inculcated with that world view, which we may find that we have inherited, even today.
Laurita- as dizzying it was for me to read that- I understood it all and followed your mind to that conclusion at the end. Compound that with TW from skip WITH the Lil theological note at the end {to which I say “speak on what G-d TELLS you to, Skip- well done!”} and I have just been served two deep thoughts for today’s thinking. Interesting Laurita. I have not ever considered that. Thank you! Todah!
Hey Laurita!
According to E. W. Bullinger, numbers DO have significance in Scripture and he took great pains to catalogue them (see Numbers In Scripture, E.W. Bullinger). This would be different then such things as numerology and gematria, but one would need to review the book to understand the concept. I’m not able to delineate it here.
It is a fascinating read.
Thanks, I will try to look that one up, bcp. I think there is all the difference in the world between numbers having their proper significance in RELATION to what they signify (for example, the seventh day is not holy because it is the seventh; it is holy because its Maker is resting on it.) and the numbers themselves bringing TO the table their inherent ‘specialness’. The only thing that is special just because it is itself is, of course, God. Everything else is mere commentary on, illumination for, and derivatives of Him, and as far as I am concerned, that would include numbers. As far as numerology is concerned, I think the text in which we find all that beautiful order is what gives the numbers their beauty. (Try taking away the text and just keeping the numbers.) I think I would rather take the text without the numbers any day, although there is a high probability that, in order to satisfy perfect beauty, they were made to work together. That would be so like heaven. I think numbers, like all creation, are no more meant to be isolated than anything else. They lose all their significance, alone.
Your post here reminds me of my study with a theory related to Koine Greek verbal aspect. Stanley Porter delineated between verbal actions that are “timeless” and “omnitemporal” (as opposed to “gnomic”). The former would be eternally true, the latter true for all time, temporally. As I explained it, a timeless verbal action should be thought of as not affixed to the time-line; whereas, an omnitemporal verbal action would always exist on the timeline. I initially thought of using, by analogy, a number line but abandoned the idea because I wasn’t sure if numbers were necessarily eternally true or whether they are a construct of creation (Porter defined timeless “not restricted to any temporal sphere of reference”, which may or may not be construed as eternal). 1 + 1 = 2 may be a timeless truth, but is it necessarily true in the eternal realm? The two are not necessarily the same thing. God is love, however, is certainly an eternal truth and a timeless truth – whether one differentiates those terms or not.
All this reminds me of this post from a while back:
https://skipmoen.com/2012/08/rewriting-history/
…as well as the “Exceptions to the Rule” post
First of all, yes, the Greek syntax of Rev 13:8 is ambiguous; it absolutely can be understood one of two ways (and see Rev 17:8). However, I think this is very easily reconcilable. How can there be a Book of Life before there has been the Life Giver? The former presupposes the latter! Jesus Christ was slain before the foundations of the word. This raises the philosophical question of the relationship between the eternal realm and the temporal realm. In the following I’ll quote portions of something I’d written a while back.
According to Ephesians 2:6 all believers are currently seated in the heavenly realms; that is, though we are currently in our earthly bodies, we are in heaven (cf. Col 3:1-3). Believers have a sort of “dual citizenship”. Eternal life is a future that we already possess. This means, in a sense, we are already in the eternal realm, while we are yet still on this earth in the temporal realm. However, the tension between these two realities must be kept in check, as we are not bi-located; we are not simultaneously living in heaven as we walk on earth.
Though I do not agree with all his teachings, Lewis Sperry Chafer seems to adequately capture the relationship between the temporal and the eternal, to my mind:
Going back to the OP: …If you were a rational human being, unfettered by the cultural history of Western Christianity, what position would make more sense to you: that Yeshua is a man or that he is God?
Does this have to be an either/or question; why not the possibility of both/and? As Skip would agree (according to the “Rewriting History” post), Jesus’ sacrifice predates history, predates the foundations of the world. Given that, Jesus Himself predates history, predates creation. Hence, Jesus should be understood as a being with unbounded eternality. Believers, on the other hand, have bounded eternality, as we have a beginning point into the eternal realm; we do not predate creation. Noting this distinction, therefore, Jesus’ eternality seems to be in common with God’s eternality.
Does this fact by itself indicate Jesus’ unqualified Deity? Maybe or maybe not, but it’s a start. Other Scripture must be brought in to verify that. Would that be mere “proof-texting”? No; that would be applying a legitimate rabbinic method of interpretation known as G’zerah Shavah (equivalence of expressions).
Hey Skip. So I totally agree with you – Jesus not God. And as I’ve said post ago, it’s comforting to me. I think it proves very little on how we are suppose to live if it’s God showing that he even struggled as his commands. Verse the idea that it was a man who was divine (which i don’t know what that actually means, ‘divine’) and he was able to. Last thought before my question, no where in the Bible that I’ve seen at least does it allude to the Messiah having to be God or God being the Messiah. Doesn’t have to be, doesn’t hint at that. Big criteria for Messiah: king, prophet, priest and from the line of Judah. Check, check, check, and I can’t really explain the last one because it shows two different lineages.
Question. I know Skip that you have talked about how you don’t believe in reincarnation like how the Jews believe in it today (or at least a some Jews believe in it today). I however think that at the time they did. Please tell me where I could be wrong. I have to throw out some verses for you to see where I’m coming from:
Paraphrasing
Mark 8:27-30 Yeshua ask who do you think I am? People start spouting out dead prophets. He doesn’t rebuttal with, “Hey, they are dead we don’t do the reincarnation thing” just continues the dialog.
Malachi 4:5 says that Eljah will be sent in the last days. Could it just be in the reincarnated Eljah. Yeshua actually states Eljah has actually come (Mark 9:13). And Luke 1:17 states that John the baptist had the spirit and power of John the Baptist.
It’s hard to see “No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or wife or children or land for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age – homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields … and in the age to come, eternal life.” (Mark 10:29-30) outside of reincarnation.
John 8:58 – Yeshua states that he was born before Abraham
Okay so I could pull out a ton more, but I’ll leave it at that with a question. Couldn’t it be that Yeshua (wait for it..) is the reincarnation of the Son of God the ‘lamb that was slain before the foundations of the world’, therefore can be Son of God AND Son of Man? From things I’ve read there was in fact reincarnation as a belief at the time.
Love to hear your response.
Skip, in this first chapter of John 1, doesn’t it say that the “Word dwelt among us”? And, doesn’t the word dwelt mean tent, as in the tabernacle in the wilderness? If so, why would there be this reference with the tent/tabernacle and then also with the Holy Spirit “dwelling’ inside of us? I don’t like using the trinity and its bad explanations, but can you help with these passages? I’m not ready to let go of the idea of Yeshua not being God.
Gordon D. Fee (“The New Testament and Kenosis Christology” in C. Stephen Evans, ed., Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God. 2010 (2006 Oxford University Press) p 25) writes about the struggle of many Christians in coming to terms with Jesus’ humanity:
So, what/who is Jesus exactly? No doubt he’s the Word-made-flesh (John 1:14), but what does that entail?
John 1:1 makes it clear that “the Word” is in some sense God/divine, as the Word predates creation, since the Word was agent through which/whom creation came about (John 1:3). Earlier it has been stated that the Word is the Torah. This works from a first century rabbinical, Jewish perspective. Let’s test that theory using only Scripture.
In Hebrews 2:9 is the statement that Jesus was “made a little lower than the angels” and in 2:14 he is said to share flesh and blood common with humanity. This agrees with John 1:14. But, again, what does it mean for Jesus to be ‘made flesh’?
In John 1:14 the verb for “made” is ginomai, which means “become”, as in being born, to develop, to arise out of a process, or “to experience a change in nature and so indicate entry into a new condition” (from BDAG). In Hebrews 2:9 the word for “made” is the Greek verb elattoō, which means “to cause to be lower in status, make lower, inferior” (BDAG). This indicates that Jesus had a former higher status before he was “made flesh”. This can be compared to Philippians 2:5-8.
The Book of Hebrews goes further. In 1:1-2 we find that God has spoken through his Son. His Son is, of course, Jesus. Also in 1:2 we find that the Son is identified as the one “through whom also He made the world/ages”. This indicates that the Son is ontologically the same as “the Word” of John 1:1-3! In other words the Son = the Word, and the Word = the Son.
The Son is also “the radiance of His [God’s] glory and the exact representation of His [God’s] nature” (1:3). In addition, the Son “upholds all things by the word of His power” (1:3). If the Son is now upholding all things, and the Son was the agent of creation, one could and perhaps should infer that the Son was upholding all things before and even during his earthly existence. This is precisely what Colossians 1:17 states: “He [Messiah, the Son] is before all things, and in Him all things hold together”.
So, by Scripture itself Jesus is both God’s Son as a man and the exact representation of God’s very nature! That certainly sounds not only self-contradictory, but a violation of shema! However, if YHVH is God – and of course He is – cannot He do anything He wants, including something truly beyond human comprehension?
First century rabbinic thought was also such that God was defined by functional and relational categories. God did certain things that creation could not, and God was/is totally other than creation. Yet we have the Son who functioned as the agent by whom creation came about and who is defined relationally as God’s Son in a literal sense as well as having the very same nature as God as His “exact representation”. What does this make the Son?
“What does this make the Son?”
I think in your own argument, you have made it pretty clear……It makes him His son.
“If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my Father.”
David F,
Why is it that the Jewish leaders took offense to Jesus’ claim that God was “My Father” (John 5:17-18, 10:24-39)? In John 5:18 they understood him as “making himself equal with God”. Why is that?
As I have pointed out, I am not sure we can read the text as an ONTOLOGICAL claim of equality. There are other perfectly legitimate ways of reading these words that do NOT conflict with the uniqueness of YHVH.
Then, for my benefit, what is just one way?
I think you again answer your own question, by stating, “They UNDERSTOOD” him as “making himself EQUAL with God.”‘ The word “equal” being ISOJ and carries the idea of “seeming” equal, similar, like, agree, as much.
Isn’t it interesting that Yeshua never defends the accusation that he was “God”. But when he does actually defend his statement in John 10:24-39, his defense is that he actually NOT God, rather he is the son of God. Meaning, in context, “I am very much like my Father, and much more so then the rest of you by the way.”
Just prior to this statement Yeshua said:
John 5:19 “The son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the Father do.”
John 5:30 “Because I seek not my own will but the will of the Father which hath sent me..”
John 14:28 “…..for the Father is greater than I.”
When I am about my own Father’s business, we are (hopefully) one in how we run the business, how we behave ethically, how we treat those who work for us and the mission of the business. As such, we are one, and I will carry all the authority that he has given me to run the business. I see Yeshua saying nothing beyond this. I know its overly simplistic, but, hey, that’s how I run my fathers business!
I am certainly no Greek/ Hebrew scholar like yourself. However, like you and others on here, the dialogue causes us to see the scripture from other perspectives. I like that. At the end of the day, it only strengthens my understanding of the scripture as it seems to do yours. Shalom
David F,
I don’t think you are quite comprehending the point I’m trying to make. Jesus’ adversaries understood that they themselves were “sons of God”. That is a very Jewish concept. However, the context makes it clear that their offense came in when Jesus claimed a much closer relationship with God the Father as “My Father”. This was actually a greater offense than working on the Sabbath (as per John 5:18), this claim construed such that Jesus’ statement that God was “My Father” was akin to making Jesus equal with God.
Jesus didn’t correct His adversaries; he affirmed them! He did this by reiterating His claim that God was “His Father”, and, in addition, making the claim that the Father has granted the Son authority for all judgment, both then-current and future. The key to understanding it from this perspective is Jesus’ claim that He does only what He sees His Father doing. While this indicates the Son is acting in obedience to the Father, the more important point is that Jesus sees God the Father!
In John 1:18 are these words: “No one sees/has seen God ever…”, a paraphrasing of Exodus 33:20, “…for no one can see Me [YHVH] and live”. So, how did Jesus, the Son, “see” God the Father and yet live? The obvious answer, from a Trinitarian perspective, is that Jesus is God, God in the flesh. How does a monotheistic perspective understand the fact that Jesus can see God the Father and yet live, when this would be a clear violation of Exodus 33:20?
You wrote: Isn’t it interesting that Yeshua never defends the accusation that he was “God”. But when he does actually defend his statement in John 10:24-39, his defense is that he actually NOT God, rather he is the son of God. Meaning, in context, “I am very much like my Father, and much more so then the rest of you by the way.”
That’s not the way I understand this passage, as once again Jesus calls God “My Father”, infuriating His adversaries, yet He also claims “I and the Father are one” (10:29-32). Once again, their anger arose out of Jesus’ words, which they construed as a claim that He was God, i.e. His claim of God being “My Father” was equated with Him being ‘one’ with God the Father. From their perspective, given that “God is one” (the Shema), Jesus’ claim that God was “his own Father” (5:18) was really no different than His claim that “I and the Father are one”, as both seemed to violate the Shema. Yet Jesus continued to do just that, indicating that their understanding of the Shema was not adequate. Of course, God is one; however, the Son and the Father are One.
Jesus’ answer to their charge in 10:34 is in the form of the classic rabbinic method of arguing from the lesser to the greater. First he notes that judges/rulers were gods, citing Psalm 82:6 (10:35). Then, he compares these with Himself as one specifically consecrated (10:36), and asks why, since these other rulers were called ‘gods’, why it would be blasphemous if He says “I am God’s Son”, implying that His position is superior to those in the Psalm. And once again, He claims God is “My Father” (10:37) in a very particular sense. The climax comes when Jesus requests that they believe the signs/miracles He does (Jews always ask for signs; Greeks for wisdom) as evidence that “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father”. And, once again, this is an expansion to the understanding of the Shema.
Oneness – didn’t yeshua pray for his disciples to be one also. Isn’t union with the Father what we all seek. Wasn’t connecting us to the reality of God being our source an important factor. Sometimes when we focus on the doctrine part, that we actually agree gets lost. Three manifestations one purpose. a group could refer to themselves as sons of Abraham … yeshua responds in john 8 that their father was the devil because they carried out his deeds, his murderous will … doesn’t doing what my father says identify me as his son. i read the Bible and understand the label Christian to mean a name given that stuck and simplified things … at the end of the day I am a believer, not in the doctrine per se but a believer in the invisible one who used the lives and conversations of others to reveal himself.
Peace
Yeshua asked “but who do YOU say I am?”. This is most likely a question directed at each and every one of us, too. It is a question that I think REQUIRES each of us to answer from within the respective frameworks of our own paradigms, which, hundreds of years of indoctrination notwithstanding, I would wager are STILL unique and different to each and every one of us (thank YHVH!). Who do I say He is? To me? This is an experiential question, and can only be answered out of my own experience of Him, and, conversely, His of me. At the end of the age, He will look at those who did not share this mutual experience and say “I never knew (experienced) you”. What we think we are holding in our heads matters not a fig. I think what (um, that would be a Who, actually) we allowed into our lives is going to determine whether we are in or out of heaven’s loop.
Skip, first let me say this community is a gift- to be able to address controversial subjects, ask questions and share different thoughts without a judgmental response is pretty neat. So thank you. But one thing we (my husband and myself) have been increasingly frustrated over is the lack of community in our lives. We DON’T believe Yeshua is God. We haven’t for quite some time. Yet we recognize him as Messiah. We don’t believe you need a church or a synagogue to follow the God of Israel but community with like minded believers, yes. Where do we find that? We don’t even believe that we all have to believe the same things but our experience with some Christians (as I can tell others in this online community have had the same experience) has been that we aren’t even really free to enter into a dialogue about certain subjects, or even just share where we’re coming from, what we’re wrestling with- for instance the Trinity- without a very judgmental response: ‘Don’t talk about MY savior and MY God like that.’ Or, to a subject like ‘yeah we’ve really been struggling because we find such richness and fulfillment in the Jewish way of life, but we believe Jesus is the messiah so we don’t really fit either mold right now- Christian or Jewish’– to that it was no response at all- AKA, friendship seemingly ended. So we’re like- we could become Jewish and just not ever talk about Messiah. Or we can go join up with a church and just smile and nod at everything we disagree with. Or we could just continue on, the two of us (my husband and myself), with zero (local) community outside of each other. It’s just hard because we know how valuable and important this ‘community thing is’- as you have taught, ‘hesed is a function of relationship.’ I guess I’m not really expecting you or anyone to have an answer for us- just sharing in case anyone has any advice cause it’s been a lonely and unhealthy walk in some ways with what little community we have had over the years. Feel lost and without a paddle in this faith journey in a lot of ways.
Holly, your comment sounds like my wife and I could have written it word for word. It is so challenging and lonely and unhealthy to not have active community. We are so thankful that at least the two of us are in this together.
It is amazing to me that the early followers of Yeshua could worship YHVH in the general Jewish Synagogue with others who did not believe Yeshua was Messiah but today those that believe He was Messiah but maybe not YHVH are not welcomed into community with those convinced He is YHVH.
I wish, Skip, you could add a map to your site where those of us that are out here alone, often in very remote areas, can find each other and perhaps build some face-time community. I am so appreciative of this site and the opportunity it offers but it is just not enough!
Hi Holly,
Indeed, this blog is a gift as you said, is YHWH ordained for folks, who hunger for more than reading the Word, who acknowledge the discrepancies in translations and interpretations.
This is a very unique site, whereby only someone like Skip, with his specific calling can start-a world view versus a Hebraic view, with a daily TW that aims at having our paradigms amazingly changed, from falsehoods, lies and deception.
This community is where one receives encouragement and strength to travel the narrow and few-will-find-it way, that is the TORAH way, which is meant for all who stood at Mt Sinai and those in the future generations to come, not about being a “Jew” (from Tribe of Yahudah/Judah) nor about beliefs. It has to be based on the written Word as spoken by YHWH in the creation of all things. HE spoke, and it came to pass – e.g. Adam, in Hebrew, as coming from the earth, not any other name, revealing that dust to dust we will return.
If folks are here not to learn, but to contradict to impose their preconceived beliefs upon others, it really defeats the purpose of being at this site, but positively, they SEE how weak their positions are through their corrupted views, we offer our prayers for them to come out of the corrupted Babylonian doctrines they have been sadly ingrained in for so long.
Feel free to seek, to find the many treasures through TWs and comments to learn from. You are never alone! We are on this journey together. It is challenging, confounding, but rewarding, as little by little we are freed, to walk His way not turning to the left, nor to the right! Amein!! Shalom and blessings.
Hi Holly , keep strong and stay on this path it is the only way to go, we are your community in YESHUA’ you can always reach out also in prayer ask him to guide you into all truth let him be your paddle. SHALOM!
Thanks, Monica 🙂 I appreciate it
Craig,
You said, “If YHVH is God, and of course He is, can’t He do anything He wants, including something truly beyond human comprehension?”
I totally agree with you.
And, while I appreciate the opportunities to explore these issues on TW, I wonder if God doesn’t intend for us to ever arrive at a definitive answer. Perhaps He intentionally made it difficult to understand? I’m not convinced that any human being will ever be able to conclusively define or explain the divine relationship between YHVH, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit.
I don’t think I could disagree with the totality of your comment. Though I do think there are enough Scriptural clues to get a basic understanding, I don’t think it will be truly understood. But I’m OK with that, as I think it proper that an omniscient God should be beyond our ability to fully comprehend.
I agee Judi
I agree as well, Judi. But haven’t we beaten this dead horse long enough? I think so. Time for more compassionate insights from Skip and others who share on this website.
By the way…I encourage everyone to listen to a sermon by my Rabbi, Jacob Rosenberg that offers some insight into the relationship between YHVH, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit. It’s 48 minutes long and might help you decide if you believe Yeshua is God or not. I found it instrumental in my understanding.
To listen, go to adathatikvah dot org
Then click on “Sermons”
Then click of the sermon from Sept. 3, 2016 titled: Holy Spirit: The Messiah and the Spirit.
What about the other evangelistic reference that God sent His Son. Not God incarnated Himself.
The Son possessed the same divine DNA than the Father… The creation of Adam earth, second Adam from heaven…
Could this term Son mean something we are miss reading.
Something about rebirth instead of just the entity to gathering the lost sheep.
Adam toiled the earth. Yeshua toiled the soul.
Not God in flesh, God’s will fully exposed in flesh.
A servant of the will of God.
Two different entities, as Adam was not God Yeshua was not…
But divine through DNA I can understand.
Problem, Seeker. Genetic DNA was obviously created, and as such (not a few earthly dynasties notwithstanding), has yet been able to either generate or to transfer divinity. I agree that it could be a kind of physical picture of that relationship, but impossible as an actual way for that transfer, for the Scriptures teach that “God is a Spirit”, and also above His creation, too. And I just ran off the page. That’s all I know. I think. Maybe.
There is a great book – The Only True God, A Study of Biblical Monotheism, by Eric H.H. Chang – where he examines the Scriptures one by one that are used to support trinitarianism. It is a free PDF download from Christiandiscipleschurch(dot)org. There is a link toward the bottom of the first page to download it. It is a 600+ page book. It answered many of the questions that were coming up as I delved deeper in to the topic. I had to purchase the book to keep as reference book so that I can look up specific verses as they come up in my studies.
Ric, Really good online book, thank you! Highly recommended. I am still reading it online,,,
So appreciate it. Shalom!
I agree with Ric about the book “The Only True God” by Eric H.H. Chang. Although, as Ric said, it is available free online, I also bought the book to have for reference.
Another book that I would recommend on this subject is “Divine Truth or Human Tradition – A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures” by Patrick NAVAS.
In my view, when considering this or any other subject in the Bible, clear statements that are made on the subject carry more weight than ambiguous ones or those, many times because of what we have been taught, we read our understanding into the text.
For example on this subject Yeshua said clearly: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” – John 17:3 (TLV). Paul also said: “For even if there are so-called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Yeshua the Messiah, through whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” – 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (TLV). Or another quote from Paul: “For there is one God and there is one Mediator between God and men—a human, Messiah Yeshua, who gave Himself as a ransom for all—the testimony at the proper time.” – 1 Timothy 2:5-6 (TLV).
These are just a few examples of clear statements that, as I said, in my opinion have to be considered before others that depend on the interpretation.
I read through some of Chang’s work. He makes some good points, but he also makes some logical fallacies. While his understanding that “the Word” is YHWH’s Skekinah Glory seems to work on the surface, applying it results in contradiction. Specifically (see quote below), he states that “the Word” = “the Son” and “the Son” does not = Jesus.
So, basically, according to Chang, “the Word” was incarnate “in” Jesus, and Jesus Himself is not “the Son”. But, how does that work when Jesus calls God “My Father”? How does this work when Jesus claims to “see His Father” (John 5:19)? Perhaps one could try to explain this such that when Jesus speaks it’s “the Word” speaking through Him, rather than Jesus Himself speaking, but that seems rather forced, does it not?
Worse is his reference to Hebrews 1:3. “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory…” But, how is Chang’s stance to be interpreted in Hebrews 1:4-5, in which the Son became “superior to the angels”, as Psalm 2 is quoted: “For to which of the angels did God every say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’”? How can God’s Shekinah Glory be somehow brought lower than the angels and then subsequently brought higher and birthed as a result of the Incarnation, given that It’s always been a metonym for YHWH?
Hi Craig, if I may give some considerations. You asked how that works when Jesus called God my father. The terms father and son go far beyond what we consider in our standard vernacular, (as I’m quite sure you understand) In John 8,the messiah speaks to the rulers of Israel and tells them quite frankly that they are the “sons of their father the devil” (English) does that make them the literal (DNA and all that stuff ?) sons of ha-Satan? But sonship has to do with the space in between and house building (wisdom) and I would suggest that there is “one” who is accomplishing that task and has accomplished the requirements to finish it as well, the “only” son. Sons and fathers mean much more than sons and fathers, check out the story of Easu and Jacob.
Yes, the terms ‘father and son’ mean different things to those of the first century than current readers. As for one aspect, the Jewish people in general understood themselves as in some sense, though not literally, as sons and daughters of God. Jews also understood Abraham as their father, because of their common lineage.
Jesus’ point in John 8 is to chastise them for not understanding that Jesus was part of God the Father’s plan. Jesus then tells them that they are not of the Father God; they are of the devil, Satan. Of course, they don’t share DNA with Satan any more than believer’s in God and Christ have God’s or Christ’s ‘DNA’.
“Sonship” is a different thing altogether, as I think we agree. Where we apparently depart is Jesus’ relationship with God the Father by His “My Father” and “His Father” (3rd person) sayings. You apparently believe Jesus to be illustrating mere “sonship”. My views are much stronger, given the contexts of Jesus’ sayings in this regard (Jesus’ Jewish protagonists understood Jesus as making stronger than “sonship” statements), and can be found in the following earlier comment:
https://skipmoen.com/2016/10/beating-a-dead-horse-2/comment-page-1/#comment-47156
In any case, my main point about Chang is that his work is fatally flawed with his concept that “the Word” = God’s Shekinah = “the Son” and “the Son” ≠ Jesus. It just doesn’t work in the Gospel of John, and it’s even worse when applied to the Book of Hebrews.
It’s only fatally flawed if you hold on to your current paradigm. That is the point of my post above in asking you to consider what son ship, or a true (only) son is defined by. Again, Jacob and Esau, Isaac and Ishmael, Abel and Cain all give us insights and varying perspectives on this issue. I’ll ask again for your consideration of “divisions” and “house building” in reference to a true son and the link to wisdom. If you choose not to consider it, then so be it, I’m only bringing it up in order to, “perhaps” clarify the definition and reasons for the accusations. One of the points is that Yeshua is indeed claiming much more than “mere sonship” in the sense you assumed I adhere to.
OK, perhaps I’m just not getting it. Can you explain Chang’s view with respect to “the Son” in Hebrews1:3, keeping in mind the immediate context in 1:4-5 (and following through verse 13)? Specifically, that the Son “became as much superior to the angel as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (cf. Philippians 2:9-11). Doesn’t this imply that the Son was at some point inferior to the angels (cf. Heb 2:9, 14)?
No, I won’t explain that to you, if you look some of these things up they may clear up for you some. Otherwise we’ll just continue going around in the same circle. The son being, at some time, inferior to the angels is simply, as you said, implied, but not by the text. The “context” of the section could just as easily be the “method” of delivery of the word to men in the past ages. Prophets and ministering spirits are all inclusive of “angels” as the term means a messenger. Yeshuas ministry was a perfect representation of the will and execution of YHWH, others claimed and proclaimed YHWH’s intentions, but not perfectly. Yeshua was a true son, exhibiting the glory of YHWH (chang’s understanding of shekinah is as the scriptures state, God’s presence among men) in perfect accordance and with a “willing” heart. That could be considered the “superiority” of Yeshua, not in regards to the “person” but the method of proclamation.
If the Son’s (Chang’s “Shekinah Glory”) method of delivery (i.e. Jesus) was the means by which the Son became a little lower than the angels, but then the Son subsequently became superior to the angels by the name He inherited, then why is it that Jesus is described by very much the same phraseology in Philippians 2:9-11?
Doesn’t this indicate that “the Son” and Jesus are the same? Hebrews 1:13, quoting Psalm 110:1 states, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”, which is a parallel to Hebrews 1:3 (“right hand of the Majesty on high”). And doesn’t this sound remarkably similar to 1 Corinthians 15:25?:
In Hebrews 1:2 we find that “the Son” was “appointed heir of all things”. Isn’t that what the passage directly above is saying about Christ?
In Colossians 1:13-18 we find more parallels with Hebrews 1. Of course, we know it’s by Jesus/Yeshua Christ/Messiah that we have “redemption, the forgiveness of sins”, but note all the other parallel passages to Hebrews (bolded):
All things were created through “the Word” (John 1:3), i.e. “the Son” (Hebrews 1:2), yet also Christ (Colossians 1:16). And we find that it’s “the Son” who is “sustaining all things” in Hebrews 1:3, while it’s Christ in Whom “all things hold together” in Colossians 1:17.
You’re right you aren’t getting it. Nothing that you stated (quoted) is in regard to the initial consideration I introduced. I’ll leave off this conversation and hope for a more appropriate time and circumstance.
Well, I’d be willing to hear your further comments on Jesus and ‘the Son’ in relation to “sonship” if you can somehow reconcile that with all the above. In my very first comment regarding this, I noted that understand Jesus’ relationship to the Father in the manner in which Chang represents seemed “forced”. However, the larger point I made is how his stance regarding “the Son” in Hebrews 1:3 made nonsense out of the concept. I’m reading further and finding other problems.
The first quote above from John 17:3 actually reads in the TLV version: “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Yeshua the Messiah, the One You sent.” The quote I inserted by mistake is from the NASB version.
I found Richard E. Rubenstein’s book “When Jesus Became God” not only helpful, but enjoyable.
It’s a history, not a theological axe-grinder. And how history repeats itself!
The question I learned to ask is not “Is Yeshua God,” but rather “How — in what way — is Yeshua God/god?”
The Hebrew word elohim has many more shades of meaning than our English God/god.
I have come to understand that elohim means “a judge with the the authority over life and death.” So Jacob tells Esau that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God.”
It was up to Esau to decide whether to allow his brother to live, or kill him on the spot.
It was said to Moses, “‘See I have made thee a god to Pharaoh.”
The judges are called “gods.”
And of course “Have I not said, you are gods?”
In the day that the ate of the fruit, Adam and Eve became gods, deciding what was life and death for themselves. We see how well that went. So the Almight gave us little god-wannabees the Torah and said, here wildly and dynamically paraphrased, “Well, kids, since you wanted to be gods, I had Moses write down all the stuff that will keep you alive, and all the stuff that’ll get you killed. Just as a favor, you know. I suggest that you choose life.”
So when Thomas calls Yeshua “his elohim,” maybe the guys in the room we’re hearing and processing that word through a set of 1st century filters that didn’t freak them out at all?
My recommended reading list also includes:
Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah – The Origins of Rabbinic Authority by Daniel Gruber
Galatians by Avi Ben Mordecai
Primitive Christianity in Crisis by Alan Knight (a good history of Gnosticism in the first century.)
The word took on flesh. Not really the Holy Ghost impregnated flesh…
Craig I tend to consider Chang’s explanation even closer to the truth than God needing to use a virgin birth to introduce salvation and the saving of the lost sheep???
Seeker,
The virgin birth (actually, I prefer “virginal conception”) is a whole ‘nuther ball of wax! I could try to explain – and I will if anyone would like – but it would take us pretty far from the basic gist of this post. I’d read a philosophical argument that, from a Christian perspective, God could have chosen a non-virgin and have done the same thing, and it wouldn’t have made a difference in what Christian’s define as the Atonement. At first I disagreed, but as I pondered it, I think it could have been fine. That is, to your statement as to “God needing to use a virgin birth to introduce salvation…”, I agree that it wasn’t specifically necessary to do it that way. A virgin was not necessary. And, God certainly could have chosen a different means to effect Atonement. But, he didn’t.
When I first read Chang’s idea about “the Word” being YHVH’s Shekinah Glory I really liked it. It wasn’t until I began testing it that I found that it failed – at least as Chang presents it as wholly separate from Jesus Christ, though yet in Jesus. Applying it in the Book of Hebrews makes nonsense.
Craig
The virgin conception is the essence of John’s introduction as it is only when we are pure in heart and clean in deeds that this dead horse will make sense as being clothed in the power and wisdom of God to reveal the full glory of God… Christ in us.
It’s ok to poke your head out for a bit. It’s good to explore things. Sometimes it’s a matter of being ready to hear and explore. Honestly, I struggle with this topic because I see evidence of 2-3 positions. I don’t have a problem with Yeshua pre-existing, but I don’t understand the concept of deity not being equated with a god because it seems that is the definition of the word. I have to be able to reconcile the Shema with oneness versus separateness. I recently read where echad was not so much unity as it is that no one else can compare to YHVH; yet others use the term “unity.” At this point, I can’t see other possible interpretations for John’s writings. I also see terms/titles applied to YHVH that are also applied to Yeshua. I’ve also seen manipulation of the letters of words that appear to point to oneness (sorry, I don’t know what that is called, or just how valid this practice is). There is much for me to reconcile. I need more information if I’m to change my beliefs in order to be in better conformity to Scripture. Learning idioms is on my agenda as well as more culture and Rabbinics. I will stay below the radar until I have more solid evidence on this topic. I’m not interested in being labeled a heretic at this point. I have enough problems. I’m also cautious around people who are denying the validity of the New Testament, and that are saying Yeshua is not the Messiah. I am shocked by the apostasy going on around me; I don’t want to cross that line, yet I know that people are entitled to their opinions. Frankly, challenging any long held belief is shocking and scary for people, even when the truth is only slightly different than what is currently understood. Sometimes we have to take a deep breath, relax, and listen. Once we hear, we can go test everything. Maybe the truth is really between two points of view.
Beth,
I like your attitude about continuing to search before you make up your mind. As to unity/oneness in the Shema from a Trinitarian perspective, see my comment above to David F, in which I address one aspect of it:
https://skipmoen.com/2016/10/beating-a-dead-horse-2/comment-page-1/#comment-47156
Hi Beth, I’m also with you on the whole “unity” thing. If I may offer you something which helped me out, you said that you’ve read that echad is not so much about unity as it is about the fact that no one else can compare to God. That is true, and the point is that we need to be in unity with him, not oppose Him. I have an opinion, and so do you, the question is,if we submit to Gods opinion. It’s a matter of unity (with God) being available to us, and if we will, we have that “wholly separate One” showing us how to walk. But here’s a consideration, Elohim is about true strength being poured out and made manifest. There’s a quote that says money is the weakest form of power, and money can fix some things, but it can’t buy love, or bring the rain, but “unity” can, because its unity with the living God, and He’s the one that said so. Do you find yourself lacking? Seek unity with YHWH, the Son will show you how and judge you in mercy. YHWH bless you and keep you….
Craig I propose we start with Isaiah 42:1-7 to understand being a servant for God
Then God in flesh as in Isaiah 45:1-16
Not Jesus nor an individual from God’s chosen people a peculiar chosen and empowered servant. What was the difference in anointment… Nothing
What was the difference in purpose… Gentile kings versus Lost sheep.
If I were God I would also empower Jesus more…
Now look at Paul he healed, resurrected the dead exactly as Jesus did he had power over serpents and although in captivity enjoyed more movement privilege than Jesus who stilled the storm and walked on water…
The secret, miracles and wonders are for the non believers while rebirth is for the lost sheep not for everyone…
Now consider Job he was a son of God so was his friends and even the devil moved among the sons and they knew it not. God restored Job when Job started praying for his friends after his arguments to defend his convictions, which were stronger than mine is currently, were made nothing when God reminded Job of God’s creation…
What is the same in these three examples… The word took on flesh. God considered all servants and all sons. God only empowered all according to their specific task.
Nb. I am a gentile trying to make sense of why God created the natural realm, and even though He regretted making it, He was very harsh but did not start over… WHY?
And yes God is in you and you have the exact same power as Jesus but have not been tasked accordingly hence you can’t reveal this.
Chang writes (pdf p 512):
Not many deny that the middle clause of John 1:1 refers to the Father. Chang finds fault with changing the referent from the middle clause to the last, yet he’s OK with changing its meaning altogether in a parallel passage? That is, why does “the Word” refer to “Glory” in John 1:1, but in its parallel passage it must mean simply “the word” as in “The word of life”? Yes, Philippians 2:16 does not refer to a person, but can the same really be said of 1John (and John 1, even)?:
In a similar way, Chang dismisses Revelation 19:13 – “His name is called The Word of God” – as referring to a person, Jesus, by claiming that Christ is not identified by the immediate context. Is he kidding?!! While certain aspects could refer to Yahweh, there are some qualities solely described of the Lamb/Jesus:
Who is the Judge (John 5:22-29)? Whose eyes were like blazing fire (Rev 1:14)? Who will overthrow Satan with the breath of his mouth? (2 Thess 2:8) – “From his mouth comes a sharp sword”? Who will rule with a rod of iron (Rev 2:27)? Who is the King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 17:14)?
Chang is being intellectually dishonest in his zeal to denounce the Trinity. I’m fine with having trouble and doubts with the concept, but to dance around this as Chang does is mindboggling!
The phrase “He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty” is likely referring to Rev 14:17-20:
A problem, however, comes with the identification of the figure here as an avenging angel. The best explanation I’ve found comes from Paul A. Rainbow [Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014), who notes that Christ is described here “in terms reminiscent of Old Testament accounts of angelophanies,” but “by adapting stock [OT] imagery for manifestations of celestial beings, John indicated Christ’s appearances in the visions, not his nature” (p 158; emphasis added). This makes sense in light of Jesus being given the authority to judge by His Father (John 5:22-29).
We get all hung up in our Greek don’t we Westerners? All religious language is metaphor. It is the only way we can speak to (about) God. Trinitarian, unitarian are both Greek substantive terms. Nouns. When will we ever learn? God “spoke” Hebrew. Whatever happened to “am” as in “I am who I am”? Relational, personal, adjectival, as in Father, Son?
Amein! Well expressed, George!
Craig luckily we all create our faith through what we understand and not through that which confuses.
I was wondering how would you paraphrase John 1:1 in English to explain how you understand the verse without referencing later scriptures, after all it was the HG that inspired John to write it in the best understandable way he could.
I would say in my modern mindset… In the beginning God had a plan God thought it thoroughly through and then God implemented it… Later versus and this plan was the life He intended for mankind… Those who accepted this lifestyle He called sons and daughters.
So do we all interpret the scriptures as George said with our current way of thinking… And I add to this to our own detriment.
The correct way to understand would most probably be to reference earlier scriptures e.g Job 38 and Psalm 119 with Proverbs 3 above later scriptures.
As the original title of this post suggests, the debate about the Trinity, and particularly the ontological equality of the son and the Father, is a paradigm issue, not a textual one. That is to say, once you adopt the Trinitarian view, you will read the text in support of it. The history of the Church plainly demonstrates this, in spite of the fact that even within Christianity there have always been dissenters to the paradigm. So the issue is not going to be settled by re-examining the texts. It can only be settled by investigating the THOUGHT WORLD of the original authors. My view is that they were basically orthodox Jews (and there really are texts to support this) and that as such they would have been shocked at any suggestion that the Messiah was the ontological equivalent of YHVH. They may have seen him as a divine figure but he could never have been thought of as YHVH Himself. But, again, this is a paradigm view, a paradigm based in the Jewishness of Scripture.
So, rather than continue to beat a dead horse, and try to convince those who do not hold this paradigm as the basis for understanding the text, I will break off the discussion (as Robert suggested). However, early next year I am planning a weekend conference on this topic with a well-known linguistic expert. Watch for the announcement. It will be held in Florida.
Maybe I can add a p.s. to the post mortum. Roman Catholic priest Richard Rohr in his latest book, The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation describes the issue somewhat thus; God is utterly one – and yet three, not unlike the science of an atom with a proton, an electron, and a neutron doing an endless dynamic three dimensional “dance” rather than St. Patrick’s static three leaf clover that really explains nothing or the equally innocuous equilateral triangle. Love is the explosive core of this nuclear hydrogen bombshell. As he says, “in attempting to parse out and diagram the persons of the Trinity, something vital is lost: the space between them.”
James Martin SJ says, “The Trinity will of course always remain a profound mystery, but after reading Father Rohr’s book, you will experience it as a mystery that can, and will, transform your life.”
As a former Catholic and believer in a unitarian God, I can only add WOW, talk about a paradigm shift, you have to read this book! It was only published this week but it is available as an e-book at a very good price and a great way to enjoy the Sabbath. Shalom Skip see you in Florida.
See I disagree. I think examining the text is exactly what we should be doing rather than using “THOUGHT WORLD”. Because the text says what it says. We want to try and interpret it as we feel or think. Why not let it speak for itself?
For example. Let’s take some “improper Greek” like John 8:58 where Yeshua says ““Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”. That doesn’t even make any sense. Why would He say “I am” instead of maybe I was? Because “ἐγὼ εἰμί” is clearly “I am”. That’s why they were going to stone Him. The Jews knew exactly what He was saying. I mean who has no beginning and no end? Hebrews 7:3
Or John 20:28 when Thomas says “my Lord and my God”. “θεός μου”, clearly my God.
Or Titus 2:13 ” the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”, “μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ”.
Yes, the text tells us that these “Jews” did in fact, see and write that Yeshua was and is God. The one and only God, YHVH. I know how difficult that is for us to accept sometimes, to have to agree with some Christian theology but, nonetheless, the text says what it says.
Mark, you might have the wrong spin on what I said. I did NOT say that this book supports unitarian thinking (or anything else). You will be VERY surprised I think by what it does says regardless. I guarantee it.
Sorry, George for the misunderstanding. I actually wasn’t replying to you, it was more toward my friend Skip 🙂
I would also like to say, I totally disagree that we should be picking up Rabbinical lenses to look through either. That road is full of slippery slopes. Especially when it comes to Yeshua or the Apostolic scriptures.
I accept the idea, claimed by the Scriptures themselves, that the Bible is the product of dual authorship. That is, the text of the Scriptures embodies the thoughts of God transmitted through the agency of human authors, utilizing human language. One of the fundamental questions of biblical hermeneutics, is this: when God revealed His thoughts to the human author through the agency of the Spirit via inspiration and revelation, did the human author sufficiently understand the divine meaning? And if so, did the author properly and fully convey that meaning by the words he chose to write? Are the thoughts of God as revealed in the Scriptures accurately conveyed by the human author’s words or should we seek a “deeper, hidden” meaning? Is this supposed “deeper, hidden meaning” missed if one simply interprets the human author’s words literally, that is, in their historical, grammatical context?
I say that answer is yes, we can use the text, as well as the Spirit, to understand the meaning. Just as Moses told us.”But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth(common human language) and in your heart(understandable), so that you can do it.”
I’ll stop beating this “dead horse”. But, I’ll just say this final thought. Using a “paradigm” perspective that may exclude the clear meaning of the text, or that may in some way lead us to think that we can’t trust the literal meaning of the text, is a very dangerous one, IMHO. And I see that the Apostolic scriptures DO in fact, tell us that Yeshua is God.
Shalom.
If I may, let me help to focus any further discussion on this thread (or other similar threads), with respect to the Scriptures – not that I think you, Skip, are unaware of these, but more for general readership. I think many know and do the following instinctively, but I it may be helpful to lay it out. I will do so by differentiating two key terms. The first is exegesis, which means drawing out the bare text, what it says (this can include, if necessary, textual criticism). The second term is hermeneutics, which means applying principles of interpretation to the uncovered text. These must be done in order, though the two usually overlap a bit.
So, after determining what the text actually says (usually by going to the original language), one then applies proper hermeneutical principals to the text (which can help uncover specific meanings in ambiguous texts, e.g. with words having multiple possible meanings), which should include the historical setting and religious thought. Overall, the texts should not be in conflict with other Scripture; they should not contradict other passages.
From Wikipedia are some methods of Rabbinic interpretations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#Rabbinic_hermeneutics), which illustrates that there are different, sometimes conflicting methods among ‘schools’. However, the 13 principles of R. Ishmael look pretty solid. Of importance here are the last two:
Therefore, we must look to immediate, local context to determine meaning. Moreover, looking to other similar texts for assistance in interpreting those difficult to exegete initially or those hard to understand after applying proper hermeneutics, and searching other passages for resolving seeming contradictions, is not only allowed, but specifically a part of the hermeneutical process.
In total agreement with Skip!
” But, again, this is a paradigm view, a paradigm based in the Jewishness of Scripture. (Amein!)
So, rather than continue to beat a dead horse, and try to convince those who do not hold this paradigm as the basis for understanding the text, I will break off the discussion (as Robert suggested)
Right, no good banging heads on the wall, will not resolve anything.
It is clear that Skip and others are choosing to bring to the text a paradigmic view that Yeshua is not God, and, sure enough, there are no proof texts that say that that is not true. The texts that Mark quotes above are thus, through that worldview, going to be read the other way. End of that discussion, as Skip says.
But I want to add an observation. In my experience (and in my observation of the experience of others), what we choose to bring to the text as our filters for that text is going to allow or disallow the truth to speak back to us. For example, I see people who bring a filter that was handed them that tells them to read that Book as if trying to keep the Law is the thing that will keep you out of heaven are going to suffer from an inability to see the cohesiveness of the Scriptures on the topic of the Law. Instead of being able to enjoy the harmony, they are going to experience confusion. They are eventually going to find that there is not hardly a verse in that Book that you can read in its fullness if you do not understand the relevance of Torah for today.
When a knitter sets out to knit a sweater, they take up a single strand of yarn and tie it all around itself. The end product is warmth for the wearer. If you bring a worldview to the text that does not allow the truth to hang onto itself (like in the above example) you are going to experience that confusion. Truth hangs together; to itself. If you attempt to force it to not do that, you may eventually find that, in the effort to reknit that sweater around that paradigm, you will have unraveled the rest of it instead. None of the even supposedly ‘plain’ meanings will be apparent, and you will find yourself having to go back through and ‘explain’ everything another way. I have noticed that this is typically when people abandon their simple, child’s approach and turn to the esoteric or to the mystics or at least to some other person, such as their pastor, to ‘explain’ it for them. The Scriptures plainly teach that will not do. We are instructed in many places that we have to reach our OWN understanding (experience), via the Holy Spirit.
I can (and should) study all the concordances, dictionaries, rabbis, and histories, etc. I can get my hands on, but, at the end of the day, I need to be noticing whether or not my experience of the Word is producing cohesiveness and a ever-growing clarity of understanding, or ever more increasing confusion and the ‘need’ to search OUTSIDE those Scriptures. The Word explains Itself, and all truth has this peculiar attribute of illuminating itself. Truth needs no ‘help’. I think incorrect paradigmic views are based on the need to keep flawed understandings intact so that we do not have to experience the force of the Truth (which has the power to transform us, as Seeker expresses the need for so many times). I think we hide behind our insistence to force the Truth (forever blessed be His Name) to submit to our finite intellectualism far too much, while the Truth beckons us to step beyond it, far into the realm of our faith. Scary!
Seeker,
I don’t disagree with you that John 1:1 should be understood through the lens of earlier Scripture. Skip had an earlier article referencing Wisdom from Psalm 8, and, of course, Genesis 1. These are obvious references (or at least, in the case of Wisdom, allusions). Since the “New Testament” is written specifically post-Messiah, it makes sense that it centers on the Messiah. If we look chronologically, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are, in essence, historical accounts of the life of the Messiah, centering primarily on His ~3 year earthly ministry. The Book of Acts chronicles the early church, set just after Jesus’ glorification and His being taken up into heaven. After this, Paul’s letters are recorded circa 50 to 60 AD. Most think John’s Gospel was written late in the first century, perhaps 95 or so AD. Given that, it makes sense that John would draw on both OT references and prior NT Scriptures.
Colossians was most likely written during Paul’s imprisonment in Rome (see Acts 28:16-31), so AD 60. It is the first chapter of Colossians that speaks of Christ (1:1,2,8) as “the Son” in relation to the Father (1:13), the one “in whom we have redemption” (1:14) and “the image of the invisible God” (1:15), the one who made “peace through his blood shed on the cross” (1:20). I state this to set the stage for how Paul describes Christ/Messiah in the immediately following verses in order to show its relationship to the Book of Hebrews and the Gospel of John. This is proper exegesis, keeping things in context and chronology. And the following is applying a legitimate rabbinic method of interpretation known as G’zerah Shavah (equivalence of expressions).
Going back to Colossians, Messiah is described as both “the firstborn over all creation” and the one in whom and by whom “all things were created”, and created “for Him” (1:15-16) and He’s “before all things” (1:17). How can He be the firstborn while simultaneously being “before all things” as the agent of creation?! And “in Him all things hold together” (1:18) and the “firstborn from among the dead” (1:18). He is also described as having the “fullness” of God dwelling in Him (1:19, 2:9).
In the book of Hebrews, which is commonly thought to be written sometime before the destruction of the Temple (AD 70), Messiah is described similarly. To set the stage, we find that Jesus underwent a status change from higher to lower (Greek verb elattoō, translated “made” here) as He was “made a little lower than the angels” (2:9) when Messiah “shared in humanity” as flesh and blood (2:14), for He had to be “made like His brothers in every way” in order to “make atonement for the sins of the people” (2:17).
And “in these last days he [God the Father] has spoken through His Son” (1:2). Who is “His Son” here? Since He is the one who “provided purification for sins” (1:3), He is obviously the Messiah (contrary to Chang). He is the one whom the Father “appointed heir of all things” (1:2; cf. Col 1:16 “all things created for Him”). Messiah is the one “through whom he made the universe” (1:2; cf. Col 1:16). “The Son is the radiance of God’s [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of his being” (1:3; cf. Col 1:15). He is currently “sustaining all things” (1:3; cf. Col 1:17) “by [either His own or the Father’s] powerful word” (1:3). After making atonement He “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (1:3). He then achieved another status change, becoming “as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs” (1:4). This is an obvious reference to Philippians 2:9-11, with both referring to His “glorification” on the cross (John 12:23,32) in which He became “the firstborn among the dead” (Col 1:18).
It is obvious that John’s logos refers to the Messiah, that “the Word” is the same one spoken of in both Colossians and Hebrews, the one “before all things” (John 1:1) and the one who was subsequently “made a little lower than the angels”, though He had the “fullness of God” dwelling in Him (John 1:14). The first Epistle of John confirms it:
The $60,000 question then is how to interpret the final clause of John 1:1 – kai theos ēn ho logos, and-God-was-the-Word, turning it around for proper English (the subject nominative is “the Word”): “and the Word was theos”. To that I ask, “How does one describe an entity that is ‘before all things’ as the agent of creation yet ‘the firstborn over all creation’, the one who was ‘made a little lower than the angels’ before achieving the name which was ‘superior to the angels’ whom everyone will call ‘Lord, to the glory of the Father’ [Phil 2:11], who will have the name ‘Word of God’ ( ho logos tou theou) [Rev 19:13; cf. John 5:22-29], and who will have a name on his robe and thigh: ‘KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS’ [cf Rev. 17:14].”
Wait! The Messiah is called ho logos tou theou, “the Word of God”, and at the eschaton His robe and thigh will bear the name KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS?! We know that “the LORD our GOD, the LORD is one”! Perhaps this is the reason why the Son sees the Father and yet lives, in light of Exodus 33:20 (cf. John 1:18). Perhaps this is what Messiah meant when He said “I and the Father are one” and “the Father is in Me and I in the Father”. In other words, perhaps there IS plurality in YHVH. This, of course, cannot negate the humanity of the Messiah.
This isn’t a paradigm assumed into the above. This is a serious investigation of the Scriptures. If Messiah isn’t part of the plurality of the “Godhead”, then it takes some pretty serious explaining away to do justice to the above Scriptures.
Excellent and well thought out comment Craig. Thank you.
Craig
The implication of this is that God be solely a Word.
This would coincide with the New Age idea that positive thoughts create the positive world. Making the need for worship obsolete and the need for motivation a necessity.
Are you willing to settle for this. If you are this is the modern Gnostic or Spiritual enlightened view of religion. The claim why Paul’s letters were difficult to understand. The reason why some earlier Church fathers deemed Paul the birth of the Anti-Christ.
The truth of this view is that from the creation through the laws of Moses into the ministry of Jesus everything became a reality and even a blessing for those that… Obeyed, no turned the spoken or written word into a positive act.
Which is also the claim for rebirth do, do, do. As is faith… Shema, hear/read and do…
So yes Yeshua is the Word in flesh. Faith is the word in flesh, life is the word in flesh, death is removal from the word. And so I can go on.
The God I serve made His will and desires known through a word a method for similar interpretation… Nothing more.
What God or Jesus are you going to serve… A Word or the Creator and user of words. The same question asked throughout the bible.
Did the dogmas of those years accept this possibility… No they were willing to kill to stop this idea from manifesting. As you rightly commented for blasphemy.
Why because the exact exegesis of the concept diminishes the God of Israel.
That Jesus represented God fully I will never dispute. That I will worship him… No he is a mediator of the New Covenant.
As mediator I understand the introducer of how God inscribes our hearts through words and the more we adopt according to the understanding of these words the more we become likened unto Jesus… Christ in us the reality of the New Covenant.
Seeker,
Keep in mind that we don’t know who the writer of the Book of Hebrews is. It may be Paul, or it may not be. And the Gospel according to John was a different author, assumed to be the Apostle (that’s my view), with the 1 John commonly assumed to be the same author (I agree). Moreover, Revelation is written by a “John”, and, while there different opinions as to authorship, I think it’s the Apostle as well. My point is that it’s not just Paul’s words used to arrive at the conclusions above.
Contrary to your assertion, this cannot simply imply that “God be solely a Word”. One of the keys is John 1:1b “and the Word was with God (the Father – as Chang rightly asserts), which both provides some sort of distinction, while implying a relationship. This same exact verbiage is found in 1 John 1:2 with the additional words “and manifested to us”. The verb here for “manifested” is phaneroō, which is defined “to cause to become visible, reveal, expose publicly” or “to cause to become known, disclose, show, make known”. This makes perfect sense in light of Hebrews 2:9 in which, as I’ve noted above, the verb indicates a change of status from higher to lower, which corresponds nicely to the notoriously difficult to exegete Philippians 2:6-7. He was the One who en morphȩ̄ theou hyparchōn “in the ‘form’ of God existing”. The verb for “existing” here is a present active participle, meaning then-current, which, when taking into consideration that this was written from the perspective of the Incarnation and in conjunction with verse 7 which states that He metaphorically “‘emptied’ Himself, taking the ‘form’ (morphȩ̄) of a slave”, logically indicates a higher status pre-incarnation. In other words, “the Word” aka “Christ/Messiah” aka “the Son” was greater in status than all humanity prior to the Incarnation. Of course, He was equal with humanity in/during the Incarnation (Hebrews 2:14-18).
Of “the Word” also it is said that in Him was life (John 1:4; 1 John 1:1-2), and He was/is the light of men (John 1:4-5,7-9). The Gospel of John explains Him further in 1:10-11:
So, he writes about the Word aka (Word of) life aka light of men being “in the world”, though, sadly, “His own [people] did not receive Him.” This means that “the Word” = Word-become-flesh.
I’m belaboring this in order to illustrate that we cannot just think the Messiah is merely the vehicle by which “the Word” dwelt among us. The Messiah preexists the Incarnation, he precedes his “phaneroō”, His disclosing/revealing. He is both “the Word” itself, preexisting the creation that was made through Him, by Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16), indicating an eternal existence pros ho theos, “with God (the Father)” (John 1:1b; 1 John 1:2), implying that the Word is indeed “God” in a very strong sense, though fully human. And with those passages equating Father and Son (John 5:17-18ff; 10:30,38) and those passages using verbiage used only of YHVH (e.g. Rev 19:16; 17:14; 22:13), it seems we should accord full, unqualified Deity to Him, thereby expanding our idea of the Shema, that there is a plurality in YHVH, in the ‘Godhead’.
Craig
God either exits as one entity with numerous ways to reveal himself or he is more than we can comprehend.
Gen 1 Let us make… were does this specific comment in the creation fit in the rest of the scriptures
Unto image / Holy Ghost / Male / High Priest / Kings / Apostle
Unto likeness / Christ / Female / Levites / Judges / Prophets
From this perspective I can agree in a specific trinity or three life giving attributes of God.
The again Eph 4 One God and Father and John 17:3 know God AND Jesus Christ who he sent… indicative of separate entities.
Seeker,
You wrote: God either exits as one entity with numerous ways to reveal himself or he is more than we can comprehend. I think it’s both/and! YHVH is One and YHVH is a plurality, which is more than we can comprehend, who reveals Himself in many different ways.
As regards Ephesians 4, context will make it clearer (verses 3-6):
*body of believers (“body of Christ/Messiah”)
**Spirit of God / Holy Spirit
***Lord Jesus Christ
God the Father is the only God the Father, as he is the Father of all humanity and the Father of Messiah, since Messiah is the Son of God in a particular way. That is, Christ/Messiah describes the Father as “My Father”.
As for John 17:3, context once again provides assistance in understanding:
To interpret, let’s start with verses 4 and 5. Jesus’ glorification began on the cross (“on earth”), accomplishing the work the Father gave Him. Therefore, with this work complete, Jesus is praying that the Father would glorify Him “together with” His Father, in the same manner with which they shared Glory prior to creation. The obvious implication is that Jesus Himself predates creation! This then can be compared to John 1:1-3, in which “the Word” predates creation and is the agent of creation, who was “with God in the beginning”. Hence Word-become-flesh = “the Word”, as I’d illustrated earlier.
Admittedly, at first, verse 3 seems difficult to resolve with 4-5. The resolution comes in understanding that Christ is speaking incarnationally as the divine-human Son who was sent by His Father. This accounts for why Jesus prays to the Father “not My will but yours be done”, for, in this He was speaking from His humanity. His cry on the cross makes this even more evident: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me!” – in Aramaic, no less.
On the other hand, His preexistence, His eternality, is exemplified in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am!” His equality with the Father is evidenced by “The Father and I are one”, and “The Father is in Me and I in the Father.” The same is evident when He refers to Himself as “the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End” (Rev 22:13 [22:12 obviously refers to Christ/Messiah, for He is the one given authority to judge in John 5:22-29]), language similar to that spoken by the “Lord God” in Rev 1:8 and God “speaking from his throne” (Rev 21:3,5) in Rev 21:6.
Thank you. Well summarized and explained.
You’re welcome!
This dead horse just won’t die. I have been on both sides of the issue of the Trinity and currently am lost somewhere in the middle of it but leaning towards it. I have read and reread all postings and nowhere have I seen any reference to Gen. 1:26 “let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”
Sarna says, “Commentators in every generation have puzzled over the plural language in this verse. The Midrash envisions God consulting with the angels, perhaps hinting at a measure of divine ambivalence. Truth and Peace oppose creating humans on the grounds that such creatures would surely be deceitful and contentious. Love and Righteousness favour their creation, for without humanity, how can there be righteousness in the world? God sides with those favouring creation.” Sarna continues, “Or perhaps God was speaking to the animals: Together let us fashion a unique creature in our image (yours and Mine), a creature like an animal in some ways – needing to eat sleep mate – and like God in some ways – capable of compassion, creativity, morality and self consciousness. Let the divine qualities manifest themselves in this culmination of the evolutionary process. Albo sees each animal species contributing its choicest quality to this new creature.”
Hmm. Sarna makes no mention of Trinity but does this not open the possibility to a Trinitarian existence at the most important time and place, Genesis, to equally “puzzled commentators” today? Given the further complications it would have for Sh’ma though it is hardly surprising he does not I suppose. Furthermore the Misrash opens the door for a much earlier age of creation with his use of “evolution” but my understanding is that evolutionary development of some sort and an old earth is not a problem for a Jew. Could not either or both Trinity and evolutionary development be possible on this basis?
With fear and trepidation, I will once again make a comment on a topic that I find to be a revolving door of paradigm articulation. IN answer to your question, it seems to me that unless you come to the text with a Trinitarian point of view, you could never derive the idea from the text itself. In fact, that is really THE issue in all this debate. You must presuppose the Trinity in order to find the Trinity. But you certainly do NOT have to presuppose a monotheistic, only one God, sole Creator with NO rival, no other god or gods, no equal in the text in order to find that idea. It is declared over and over again. If this is the case, then which view is more likely to be the one of the ORIGINAL audience?
However, to be fair, you CAN bring to the text a preconceived notion of what exactly ONE must mean when you start applying it to the definition (not that I think we can really do that, mind you) of God. Define One. Then, let us begin. Until then, I think this is just a numbers game; to me, anyway.
But aren’t we ultimately interested in what the text meant to those to whom it was addressed, not us, mind you, but to the people who actually interacted with the prophets and the apostles? Therefore, it can’t be a matter of simply defining what WE mean by a word and then seeing if it fits. We must investigate what the word meant TO THEM before we have any clue what it means in the text.
Yes, define what one would have meant to them.
Is there ANY doubt at all that ONE meant “single, solely, no other, unique”?
Does “single” refer to anything we know about love? And, following George (as best I can, as nuclear physics is way above my pay grade), it seems the space in between (corollary to relationship, perhaps?) could be the most relevant part, and NOBODY – except the ones who loved, anyway – would have divined that through their natural-born, or even Hebrew, understanding (except the “Spirit had revealed it to them”) two thousand, or four thousand years, or even further back than that, even. This is what I keep running into.
When dogs fight over a bone, both have to drop it to fight, I have noticed. Just noticing. What if both sides have been missing the most important thing here? What if, to have something at all, we have to share it? No, I don’t mean agree with the heathen, or even those who oppose the truth. We were never told to share with them, but we have been told to seek agreement with earnest people of good faith in that Word, and I have seen plenty of those on both sides of this isle. What would happen if we tried to put the pieces together? What if the world was neither round nor flat, or perhaps what if it were both? How would we know if we just kept fighting?
Is there ANY doubt at all that ONE meant “single, solely, no other, unique”?
I agree. There is no doubt! But, just to be fair, Trinitarianism isn’t tritheism (three gods); it’s better termed Trinitarian monotheism.
As an aside, just as it’s proper to view first century texts from a first century perspective, it’s improper to impose modern conceptions of what it means to be a person onto the Trinitarian formulations of the 3rd – 5th centuries. The term used for the individual ‘Members’ of the Trinity was the Greek prosōpon, which is best glossed as “face”. And, as I’d noted before, this is the same rendering Jewish rabbis gave in translating the Hebrew text of Exodus 33:20 into the Greek LXX circa 200BC. This text is translated into English Bibles, whether from the LXX or from the Hebrew as “face”:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0233.htm
How I resist getting back into this, but, “Trinitarian monotheism” demands further elucidation. Throwing out the words does not provide meaning. It only provides a convenient misdirection that sounds as if it is meaningful. So, if you don’t mind, tell me exactly how trinitarian can actually be monotheism. Monotheism in the only two religions that hold to the definition claims to be a faith in ONE unique god whose stature and status are not shared by ANY other being. Certainly this is what Judaism teaches. Jews do not have a monotheism that admits additional divine beings who are ontologically the same “substance” or “essence” of YHVH. Monotheism is explainable as MONO (One) THEOS (God). But what then, in Trinitarian monotheism. I might be able to understand the claim that there are three PERSONS in ONE Substance, but that doesn’t make it ONE God for God in Scripture is a PERSON, not a substance. In this regard, C. S. Lewis was right. Christianity does not have a personal Godhead. The Godhead in Christianity is an IDEA, not a person. And, as far as I have read Trinitarian material, no one has adequately explained how the word “person” used in human vocabulary can be intelligible when applied to a “being” who is more than one person and yet ONE monotheistic God. IT is useless to plead “special case” vocabulary here since the whole point of the exercise is to show that this is the COMMON view of the biblical authors.
To put this as simply as I think I can: God is spirit, God is omnipresent, everywhere present. He has chosen to reveal himself in a number of different ways (he passed by Moses showing only his ‘back parts’, the burning bush, between the two cherubs, etc.). Using ‘person’ is somewhat of an anthropomorphism. Yes, God is personal, but he is not a person in the sense that we see each others as humans. We know that he doesn’t literally stretch out his hands, as he doesn’t have hands. He told Moses that He is the “I AM”, that he simply exists. What’s to say he cannot reveal himself as what trinitarians see as three ‘persons’?
Given that Jewish thought accepts conundrums, why would this be considered totally incompatible with monotheism, that God is One?
We must do justice to the Scriptures, without imposing our own preconceived ideas onto them. Undoubtedly monotheism is a consistent doctrine throughout the Scriptures. With this in mind we must do justice to those Scripture which speak of Jesus’ preexistence and those which describe Him using the exact same verbiage used of YHVH. Moreover, given that God is spirit, then we have to harmonize those Scriptures that speak of the Holy Spirit (both the Son sent the HS from the Father (John 15:26), and this “Spirit of God” lives in believers (1 Cor. 3:16-17)).
But what you have described here as God revealing Himself in personal form (i.e., as a creature of flesh and blood) was REJECTED by the church and is NOT a Trinitarian doctrine. If this is all that you mean by “God is three persons,” then we have no argument since I too believe God can REVEAL Himself in many forms, persons and other. In fact, we could say that God is many personal, since He can reveal Himself in the person of the prophets, the angel of the Lord, a donkey, a mountain, a sacred piece of art, words, deeds, etc. But none of this is what Trinitarian Monotheism INTENDS TO MEAN. Trinitarian thought expresses claims that the ONTOLOGICAL substance of God is co-equal without mixture and yet independently separate in THREE persons (cf. Millard Erickson’s definition or that of John Piper – to wit: “The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally — the Father regards Himself as “I” while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as “You.” Likewise the Son regards Himself as “I,” but the Father and the Holy Spirit as “You.” While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.”
But, of course, this is special pleading on the word “person” since there is NO equivalent in any human understanding of the word in this way. Furthermore, Piper goes on the claim:
“The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God.
Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.
The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence.
It is not a contradiction for God to be both three and one because He is not three and one in the same way. He is three in a different way than He is one. Thus, we are not speaking with a forked tongue — we are not saying that God is one and then denying that He is one by saying that He is three. This is very important: God is one and three at the same time, but not in the same way.”
It should be plainly obvious that massive equivocation is needed to make any sense at all of this. There are plainly NO circumstances other than this special pleading where we use the word “person” in this manner. In fact, this is actually put forth as an argument FOR the Trinity, that is, that is cannot be understood in common human terms (cf. Erickson). But this implies that the central doctrine of God is given in such a way that human being CANNOT comprehend it (on purpose, I suppose). I could go on with more examples, but I am sure you are aware of these.
Your suggestion that God simply reveals Himself in the form of a person met with severe criticism by the early Church. Your idea is Modalism, considered heresy by the Church. Nor is it sufficient from a Trinitarian viewpoint to suggest that God just took over the body of the man Jesus (another heresy). Piper’s explanation discounts all these alternatives, and the Church EXTERMINATED those who proposed them. Since the Tanakh can quite legitimately be read as a purely MONOTHEISTIC religious document, and has been read that way for thousands of years by Jews, it is incumbent upon Christian Trinitarians to demonstrate WHY THIS MONOTHEISTIC READING is INCORRECT and FALSE. In other words, without beginning with the doctrine, you must demonstrate the the Jewish way of reading the Jewish Scriptures is IDOLATRY since they as strict monotheists worship a false God, a God who really is 3 in 1.
No, I did not intend to convey modalism (one mode only at one time); I’m well aware of that particular strand of thought, which is not congruent with Scripture.
Not sure exactly what you mean here: But what you have described here as God revealing Himself in personal form (i.e., as a creature of flesh and blood) was REJECTED by the church and is NOT a Trinitarian doctrine.
If you mean the person of Christ, the Trinity doctrine recognizes that Jesus Christ is the unique “God-man”. Fully God, yet fully man. Yes, another conundrum!
For what its worth, I don’t agree with Piper here, if I understand him as you quoted him. The ‘Godhead’ has one center of consciousness, one mind, one will – otherwise there’d be the potential for disagreement. Comparatively, Jesus had two wills, one divine and one human.
Thumbs up because I think you “win” the discussion.
Hey, Craig. Welcome to the world of paradigm. We bring our paradigms, as Skip is trying to teach us, to everything we understand about the world. I think that we do not make up our paradigms; instead, they are how our brains make sense of our experience, as well as what we have been told by authority that we trust. Then, and only after these things have passed through multiple filters our brain uses, do we actually get to have direct access to the information. What I choose to believe determines HOW I believe it. On both sides, or all sides. We, contrary to Western belief and action, do not believe what we are told: we believe what we have been convinced of by experience, including the experience of authority. This is why I think going around trying to use data to change someone else’s beliefs does not work well.
I think we are going to have to find another way to interact on this. That is where I am at, anyway. Welcome to the community!
Thanks Laurita! I do my best to remain objective on any given subject, though I think it almost impossible not to impose some sort of prejudice upon a view.
Having spent about 7 years working in a different sort of apologetic, and studying various religious beliefs, including the occult, I think I can divorce most of my inherent biases. But, we all have blind spots!
Good Read: http://www.npr.org/2014/04/07/300246095/if-jesus-never-called-himself-god-how-did-he-become-one
Hi Craig,
I really wanted the poor dead horse to rest in peace! Sorry horsie, not your fault at all.
so, here goes again- “Trinitarian monotheism.”??
Very contradictory in itself. How can believing in three be believing in one? Don’t make any sense. Three is three, one is one, no other!
No need to imagine what a MUTANT of three-headed animal/ creature would look like, it is gross, abnormal, dysfunctional, and of a certainty not a creation of the Almighty God, but of man, playing god. That grotesque creature is short lived with lots of malfunctions, having three brains, or, only one with the other two non-functioning. Nightmare stuff.
It is well known that one of the main Muslim accusations against Christianity is that Christians, in the doctrine of the Triune God, insert multiplicity into the nature of God. At the popular level, many Muslims believe simply that Christians worship three gods. To the followers of a religion like Islam or Judaism, whose central affirmation is the oneness of God, it is difficult to imagine a more basic or horrendous error.
Thus, the Qur’an can be read as rejecting these same unworthy understandings of God, proclaiming God to be far above such improper intermingling and, in effect, confirming Christian condemnations of similar erroneous interpretations.
It’s about as seemingly self-contradictory as man being God simultaneously, as in the Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union with respect to Jesus Christ. 100% God and 100% man. Another conundrum!
You are a brave man Skip but one last word. I agree one meant one two thousand years ago as it does today in the vernacular but an apparent “one” can have embedded in it additional values making it “greater” than the commonly understood basic “one” now or thousands of years ago. Such is the case with the “invisible” element number one, hydrogen, with atomic weight of one that has an “invisible” space, another “one” between itself and another “invisible” single particle, “one” electron, for a total of three separate components in the most basic of all elements. One invisible God, one invisible Spirit and one invisible Word. Three but One Absolute Most Basic Element of all.
No one ever saw “invisible” hydrogen two thousand years ago but it was there nonetheless and it was always apparent in the sun but not understood as hydrogen in fusion then any more than it was until modern times, and VERY strangely, involved in the discussion is the same homophone. Sun Son.
Just sayin’.
I think we try way to hard to cram a Rabbinic Judaism definition into what it meant to those who it was addressed too. Honestly, there’s quite a bit of text to conclude that the singular “One” can actually be comprised of a plural. Sometimes we just work too hard to deny it. Our paradigms seem to be easily swayed toward the Judaism’s.
Shalom Mark,
The main thing that has divided Christians and religious Jews has not been whether or not Yeshua is the Messiah, but whether the one God consists of more than one Person!
Jewish writer David Klinghoffer rightly explains, “In Talmudic and other early rabbinic literature [produced during the early centuries of the Christian era], the most often heard polemical theme directed against Christians has to do with the charge that the latter worshipped two gods.
“Ps 110:1 is the most definitive non-Trinitarian proposition in addition to Mk 12:29 (the shema) and John 17:3
Some hasve used this favorite verse, Ps110:1, to make it say the opposite of what it says! The second lord (adoni) is the NON-DEITY term which never refers to God. [if one has watched the Israeli Anniversary parades, one would have noticed/ heard how the Parade Commander addressed the President for permission to start the parade. He said- Adoni, may I have your permission to start the parade, Sir? ]
In thousands of occurrences of the words for GOD in the Bible,
who can show that a single one of these means a TRIUNE GOD? Every scholar knows that the Trinity is a much later development of non-biblical, church councils. Is this not cause for alarm and a return to Yeshua in Mk. 12:29?
When Bible writers wrote GOD, they never meant Trinity.
Shalom! to you!
I thought I would reply to this one as well. I have found myself wanting to learn much of what you talk about especially on a topic like the trinity. I have found myself at a loss as to understand much of what is being discussed in the comments. I am not a scholar nor do I have preconceived thoughts around doctrine. And it really does not affect me in terms of my relationship with God. In other words, I don’t have to have it all figured out, BUT I would like to understand. I have truly wanted to have some basic understanding but most of the time I remain puzzled.
Having said that, I think I have some basic understanding of your discussion around replacement theology and trying to understand what the text meant to a 1st century audience. However, things like love and compassion apply to all. So I get lost sometimes in exactly what you are trying to say. So most Christians according to your view and some other scholars have misunderstood what the text was saying about Yeshua, about Paul, about the law and about grace.
I have strong faith in God now and I know He is real, but I honestly could not discuss many of these things in any intelligible manner. I read some of the comments on the trinity and no offense to anyone who commented. If anything, I may be showing my lack of intelligence. 🙂 I’m ok with that because I’m old and not afraid to own up to that. BECAUSE I love God now and I want to walk the way he wants me to walk. I don’t think that is your intent anyway to cause confusion. I believe you want people to know what God has said in his word.
BUT I can talk about hope, love, compassion. I can talk about what Yeshua means to me. I can talk about how I can look to him for how to walk through this life. I can smile every day now for being happy to be alive. I think YHVH everyday now for bringing me out of darkness.
I wrote to you last year about whether this was a journey I needed to go on. For me it just seems like an intellectual exercise. Like a class in intellectual gymnastics. But I have listened to you on audio file and
YouTube and you come across in a totally different dynamic. Much more like the Hebrew man I believe you aspire to in your walk.
Thank you, Laura, for your awesome comment. All too often we get caught up in “intellectual gymnastics”, that’s true. However, if anyone has had the pleasure of sitting in on an honest to goodness midrash among our Jewish brothers, they would have thought they were in a dogfight. But, it isn’t about hate and argument, it’s about passion. Passion for what we believe, in what we learn, in what we’ve experienced, and ultimately in how we walk it out to best honor and glorify the One that paid the price and gives us breath, Yeshua Messiah. As long as it’s done in love and with compassion for each other, I see it as very healthy.
For way too many centuries people have just sat in the pews and either not questioned or not been able to. For way too long people haven’t studied the scriptures, learned the languages, and took a grammatical-historical approach to exegesis themselves. And that’s what has led us to where we now are. So, I believe it’s a worthy endeavor for us discuss scripture even if it’s with intense passion and disagreement. Iron sharpens iron.
All due respect my brother but, we wouldn’t keep beating this horse if it didn’t keep falling on us 🙂
In all reality, a pluralistic understanding of YHVH did in fact actually come from the text itself. Even as far back as Gen 1.
If YHVH, separate from Yeshua, is the “sole Creator” then why does it say Yeshua created? If the audience of the 1st century didn’t think Yeshua was claiming, at least “equal” to the Great I AM, why did they try to stone Him when He said He was I AM?
These arguments and many many more do come from the text. So, yes, I think it is worthy to struggle over it and worthy to continue to beat this horse. However, no, I do not think we’re going to unravel this mystery. It is what it is and says what it says, though. The only way, IMHO that we discount it, would be to agree with the Rabbis that it’s an impossibility. Why do they say that? To obviously reject Yeshua. And yeah, I see that happen as well. And the results of it.
If I may, I would like to beat this horse a lot more.
I do not believe in a Trinity but I do believe in a pre-incarnate Yeshua Who is not God.
The word “God”
“God” is NOT the word the Bible uniquely uses to describe the Supreme Being of the universe. The Bible calls Satan god (2 Cor.4:4), and includes his associates (Psa.82:1, 6). Moses is made a god to Aaron (Ex.7:1). The so-called judges in Israel He called by this title (Ex.21:6; 22:8,9, 28; Acts 23:5). Those who were given it had a right to it (John 10:34, 35). Even demons (probably heathen deities) are called gods (1 Cor.8:5), but it is evident that the title does not denote the Absolute Deity. It is used in the sense of one who is a disposer or arbiter or one who is invoked, like God our Father. In this sense we, and Thomas, are justified in calling Yeshua our God, and for Hebrews to state, Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
The Absolute God is Invisible and inaudible
Joh 5:37 And He sending Me, the Father Himself, has borne witness of Me. Neither have you heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape.
This certainly does not apply to the Son of God for He is the Image of the invisible God (Col.1:15). Paul, in writing to Timothy, says, 1Ti 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
The supremacy of God
God has no God. To have one is self-contradictory. He is the Supreme. Jesus’ Orphan cry, “My God, My God, why didst Thou abandon Me?”(Matt.27:46) could never have come from the God and Father He implored. The Supreme cannot appeal to a higher Power. He could not be left helpless to His enemies by another. He could not die for He is the life of all that live. In Gethsemane, One will had to give in to Another’s. Yet this submission is the crowning glory of Christ.
The submission of Our Lord
Our Lord continually referred to God as Another, Who is not Himself but the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. To be the God of Christ is God’s greatest glory. Jesus spoke of One Who was His Arbiter, Whom He invoked in prayer, Whom He acclaimed in thanksgiving. He never assumes equality. His authority is a gift (John 17:2), All He saves are given Him (17:2), He is sent to carry out a commission (17:3) He does not glorify Himself but God (17:4) He does a work, but not His own. (17:4). It is by no means the consultation of two gods equal in power and glory. It is the humble, dependent petition of a Son and a Servant to One Who is surpassingly supreme.
Image
But nevertheless Christ is the exact Image of the Invisible God, the Word of God, and the Form of God. And so the verses, (John 14:8-10) “he who has seen Me has seen the Father” and “I am not speaking from Myself”, and “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me” can make sense to a rational mind.
The Son, not God, emptied and humbled Himself to be made flesh. But as such He was able to reveal God’s love, power, glory, wisdom and grace to us more than any miraculous vision could.
God the Source and Christ the Channel
All is out of God but all is through our Lord (1Cor 8:6). Nothing originates out of Christ or consummates into Him, but He nevertheless is still the Origin and the Consummation of the universe. All comes through Him, from the beginning to the end. He is the channel but not the source of all things. Christ is the Son, the Word, the Logos, the Creator and YHVH – all is through Him. He is not the ultimate source. If He was, it would be absolutely destructive of His mission as Mediator.
John One
The Word cannot be “with” God and at the same time “be” God (without devising an irrational Trinity mystery that explains nothing and leaves the mind wanting). The King James also reverses the original word order to state that, “the Word was God” instead of “God was the Word”, an important distinction considering the phrase immediately before and after state the Word was “with” God. The Greek phrase translated “with God” is usually translated “to, unto, or toward God” (16 times to 3). The English idiom does not easily tolerate it here but the sense is that the Word pointed to or toward God. John was not telling us the Word was with or nearby God, but that He directed us toward God.
Two verses confirm what makes sense but are extremely hard for a traditional Christian to accept.
Rev 3:14 “And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God”.
Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.
YHVH/preincarnate Yeshua was the first creation of God. (Even before the universe itself.) Then out of God, and “through” or “by” YHWH, all else was created.
Mediator
The Son of God is neither God nor merely man but the Link between them. He bridges the chasm between us and God. We must not rob Him of this work only He can do for us because of His absolute uniqueness. The Scriptures are emphatic on this point. “There is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus . . . ” 1 Tim 2:5
Dan,
I just ‘liked’ your reply, because I appreciate that you’ve obviously given this subject much consideration. I’ll disagree with parts, for sure, but I appreciate it nonetheless!
Regarding this: The Word cannot be “with” God and at the same time “be” God (without devising an irrational Trinity mystery that explains nothing and leaves the mind wanting). The King James also reverses the original word order to state that, “the Word was God” instead of “God was the Word”, an important distinction considering the phrase immediately before and after state the Word was “with” God. The Greek phrase translated “with God” is usually translated “to, unto, or toward God” (16 times to 3). The English idiom does not easily tolerate it here but the sense is that the Word pointed to or toward God. John was not telling us the Word was with or nearby God, but that He directed us toward God. …I’d like to state a few things.
The pronoun pros, translated “with” in John 1:1b (second clause) , like most all pronouns, has either a spacial/fixed sense, one of movement, or nuances in between. So, I’ll agree with the thrust of your statement. However, I’ll depart from your conclusion, as that reads a bit too much into it. The sense here is that the Word was ‘facing’ theos. While there is no doubt that the Word does indeed point toward God, your rendering is just a little too strong. The Word was toward God is fine as a very literal translation; however, the Word directed us toward God brings added meaning to the text. With all due respect, you’re asking a bit too much of a preposition; a verb would be necessary to make that kind of emphasis.
As for “firstborn” in Col. 15, the idea here is priority of rank rather than Christ’s temporal birth. The context makes it clear that Paul is speaking of Christ as the agent of creation.
Regarding Revelation 3:14, the word that the NASB renders “beginning” is the Greek archē the very same word used in John 1:1. In John the “beginning” is best understood as a ‘time’ before creation (and hence time), since the Word is the agent of creation, and, as I’ve just noted other Scripture indicates that Jesus, the Word-become-flesh, is the same entity as “the Word.”
In addition, archē can also mean “origin” or “source”, as the footnote indicates here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev+3.14&version=NASB
Dan,
The case with John 1:1c – kai theos ēn ho logos, and-God-was-the-word – is considerably more complicated than it initially appears. First of all, the standard pattern in Koine (NT) Greek sentence structure (syntax) is verb-subject(-object) (V-S[-O]). An example is the shortest sentence in the NT, John 11:35: edakrysen ho Iēsous, wept-the-Jesus, “Jesus wept”. Additionally, there is considerable flexibility with word placement; and placing a word closer to the front of a sentence is a way of adding emphasis. Moreover, verbs encode person and number (though not gender); so, for example, John 11:35 could have been simply edakrysen, “He/she/it wept”. However, the subject was added for clarity here, so that the reader knows who it is who wept.
On top of all that, the article (ART), ho – it is only properly known as ‘the article’, not the definite article (~”the”), as there is no indefinite article (“a” or “an”) in Greek – does not always definitize and its lack does not make the noun indefinite (“a”/“an”). As in the case of John 11:35, ho is not necessary in front of Iēsous, so it apparently provides a different function. There are many instances of proper names with and without the article, and there are some well-developed theories as to why this is so; but, there is not 100% agreement within scholarship.
To add more, there’s a particular syntactical construction in which a predicate nominative [PN] precedes its “linking” or copulative verb (CV). The most common linking verb is be/exist, followed by become. An example of a sentence in English with a predicate nominative is Johnny [S] is [CV] the [ART] quarterback [PN]. In Koine Greek this could be: Johnny-is-the-quarterback, is-Johnny-the-quarterback, the quarterback-Johnny-is, quarterback-Johnny-is (omitting the article), quarterback-is-Johnny (omitting the article). If it were Johnny-is-quarterback (without the article), then the English rendering would most likely be “Johnny is a quarterback”.
However, a sentence with a predicate nominative and both articles (ART/S-V-ART/PN or V-ART/S-ART/PN) denotes exact congruence. Using our English example, if there are no other quarterbacks on the team, this could be stated (in improper English), “The Johnny is the quarterback”, as in this particular Johnny (and him only) is the one and only quarterback. Hence, in John 1:1c if it were kai ho theos ēn ho logos, and-the-God-was-the-Word, it would convey that the-God is the exact same entity as the-Word. Of course, this would conflict with the distinction between the two in John 1:1b in which the Word was with God. So, the Gospel writer intended to keep this distinction in John 1:1c by using the specific syntactical structure he used.
Using all this as a background, the exegete must try to unravel just what the Gospel writer is stating here. Here we have to look at context to assist. The Word was “in the beginning”, and the Word was “with[/’toward’] God. Who exactly is “God” here in 1:1b? In looking at the larger context, to include the entire Gospel, the most likely answer is God the Father (as Chang rightly observes). However, this cannot mean that theos in John 1:1c is God the Father, as we’ve just noted.
It’s most logical to assume that “the Word” is the subject of the clause, and that the writer placed the PN before the verb for emphasis. This particular syntactical structure is used about 50 times in John’s Gospel, including John 1:12, John 1:14 (both of these lack the article, as well).
All this to say that we still cannot definitively state what John 1:1c is conveying exactly – at least not by looking strictly at the immediate context. The Word could be “a god”. The Word could be God/divine in a qualitative sense. On the latter, the Word could be a semi-divine figure of some sort. Or the Word could possess all the same qualities of Deity that the Father has. Further Scriptural investigation is required, such as 1 John 1:1-3, etc.
…it seems to me that unless you come to the text with a Trinitarian point of view, you could never derive the idea from the text itself. In fact, that is really THE issue in all this debate. You must presuppose the Trinity in order to find the Trinity.
This is not true. The Trinity doctrine was established after first compiling a multitude of texts which state something supra-human about the Messiah. We could begin an investigation based just on those Scriptures which speak of His preexistence:
Those two are very clear regarding Jesus preexisting His earthly existence. The next two go even further; the first is describing Christ, the second, using very similar language, describing the Son:
We could say a lot more than I’ll state here. In these parallel passages the Son/Messiah not only predates creation, He is either the agent of creation, or the Creator Himself. I think the NASB rendering of the preposition en at the beginning of verse 16 is wrong; it should be “in”, with the understanding He is the agent through Whom creation was made. In any case, this seems to indicate that Jesus, the Word-become-flesh, is the exact same entity as the Word of John 1:1-3. This is verified in John’s first Epistle:
How does one harmonize these Scriptures into one coherent whole with respect to the person of Messiah/Christ?
Then, there are those Scriptures which speak of Jesus in terms used ‘solely’ of YHVH. I’ll just point to the uses in Revelation in “the First and the Last”: 1:17-18, 2:8, 22:12-13; and “King of kings, Lord of Lords”: 17:14, 19:16.
Hello Craig,
I very much appreciate your knowledgeable contributions. I agree with what you have written except for your conclusion of a co-equal Trinity. I don’t think the text demands it.
Certainly Christ had a pre-existence, all was created “through and for Him”, that implies (actually demands) a Greater One.
What do you find wrong with what I have just written? I think it harmonizes much. I apologize for it poor format. (That was the first time I posted on the new web site and something went wrong.)
Hi Dan,
Apparently I was replying to your other post while you replied this one!
Dan,
Two quick comments. 1) I don’t think first century Jewish thought supports the notion of an entity that is superior to humanity yet inferior to YHVH, a semi-divine mediator, unless we’re speaking of strands of Gnosticism. Perhaps I’m wrong, but, if so, I’d like to see some sort of reference.
2) Outside of the above, the only trouble I could see with the view of a semi-divine mediator (almost Deity) are the verses which attribute to Christ/Messiah specific names used only of YHVH, as I cited above from Revelation. Those must be considered in the analysis.
One last comment, there are most certainly some verses in which Jesus speaks and acts strictly out of his humanity. For example, God never sleeps or slumbers, yet Jesus was asleep on the boat before he woke up and calmed the storm. And, of course, as a boy Jesus “grew in wisdom”, just like any human would have to mature.
Hi Craig,
” And, of course, as a boy Jesus “grew in wisdom”, just like any human would have to mature.”
How perplexing! How could Yeshua be “God” and yet be “human”?
Be god, and be human, YES!
Who created these perplexities?
“When Bible writers wrote GOD, they never meant Trinity.” Anthony F. Buzzard, and I agree.
Shalom!
No doubt a perplexity! But, what do we make of those Scripture which definitively state Jesus’ preexistence and those which use the exact same verbiage of Messiah as that of YHVH, as I wrote above on October 13, 2016 6:57 pm?
Hi Craig,
It truly is a paradigm, of THOUGHT WORLD, as Skip puts it.
I do not read this the way it is understood-
Colossians 1:15-17: He [Messiah/Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
“First-born of all creation”- if I did not sow/ plant first, there will NO first fruit to harvest…there has to be first a God who created to bring forth a first-born…(among many others, sons i.e.);
“For by Him”, referring to GOD, “all things were created.” Didn’t say by Yeshua, the son, all things were created.
So in like manner, the rest of the verses would go-
“all things have been created through Him (GOD) and for Him (GOD).
17 He (GOD) is before all things, and in Him (GOD) all things hold together. Amein!
Shalom.
Ester,
The problem with your understanding of the pronouns here is that verses 18 and 19 are clearly about the Messiah. Without a noun placed in the intervening context somewhere referring to God the Father – like at the beginning of verse 19, then the pronouns must refer to the same entity. And that entity has been determined to be Christ/Messiah.
Moreover, as I noted above, you’ll have to somehow reconcile all this with Hebrews 1, John 1, and especially those verses which speak of the Messiah in terms only given to YHVH such as “the First and the Last”, the Alpha and the Omega”, and “Lord of lords, King of kings”.
Craig,
Somehow, you do sound like a broken record stuck on the same track playing over and over again. Slicha! No personal offense meant.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together-
WHO is before ALL things?! My answer- the One and Only GOD Almighty;
and in Him all things hold together-
WHO holds all things, the universe and creation together?!
Again, surely not a MAN, but the LORD/YHWH God Almighty, The Creator!! Wisdom and the Ruach of YHWH will reveal that.
That is the only understanding we need!
Why do I have further need of pronouns!
Shalom!
I agree!!!
Ester,
No offense taken! However, are you certain you are not looking at this solely through your own paradigm, without regard for what the text is actually stating?
If I may digress for a moment and offer some comic relief regarding ‘pronoun trouble’ [ ^_^ ]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1hZGDaqIw
No one disputes John 1 in which it is specifically stated that God created through “the Word”. There’s also no dispute that God is the Creator. We can look to the parallel passage in Hebrews 1 to see if we can find resolution:
The first verse is very clear, as the noun God makes the referent known. The first clause of the second verse introduces the Son, whom God the Father has chosen to speak in [or “by”]. With the next clause the pronouns begin, though the referent (Son or Father) is pretty clear if we go through systematically.
whom He appointed heir of all things: Like you stated above God the Father “holds all things”; so, here the “appointed” heir must His Son. Hence: whom God the Father appointed heir of all things; paraphrasing ‘God the Father appointed His Son heir of all things’. This makes perfect sense from a first century Jewish perspective (and even a modern perspective) that an only son would be the heir.
through whom also He made the world.: Given that God the Father is most certainly the Creator, the referent for He must be God the Father. This leaves His Son as the vehicle “through whom also God the Father made the world”.
Proceeding to the third verse: And He is the radiance[/reflection] of His glory and the exact representation of His nature. Once again, it’s not difficult to determine the pronouns here. I don’t think anyone would question that it’s the Son who radiates/reflects the Father’s glory and not the other way around. This makes the His before nature also God the Father. Hence we have: And His Son is the radiance/reflection of God’s glory and the exact representation of God’s nature,
The next clause continues the thought, upholding all things by the word of His power. Who is the one upholding all things? At the beginning of verse 3 the subject is the Son, with the “God’s glory” and “God’s nature” being descriptors of the Son; so, the one upholding all the things is the Son. There’s some ambiguity as to the referent for His power, but we’ll just assume it’s God the Father.
The rest is pretty easy to discern: “When He [the Son] had made purification of sins, He [the Son] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”
So, we have:
Harmonizing this with Colossians (keeping continuity of pronoun reference, as there are no other subject referents in this passage [“of the invisible God” is a genitive/possessive of the predicate nominative “image”, which refers to the “He” beginning the verse]), we have:
.
Once again we find some overlapping of functions/roles.
Dearest Ester,
I love you very much, and am in awe of your heart. Just wanted to let you know you make me smile about every day!
I wanted to say, though, that your statement “there has to be first a God who created to bring forth a first-born” Well, yes, if you are floating with the idea that Yeshua is a creation. But I think there could be another way to understand the concept of origin, and that is to think of it as the headwaters of a river. The head of the river does not ‘create’ the river; it is just where you go to find the start of the river. I don’t think most people – in the main trinitarian camp, anyway – seriously entertain the possibility that there ever was a TIME (hard for us 4th dimension folks to get very far away from that one, it seems) that Yeshua was NOT originating from His Father. They have always been there, together, for that is what Love is. Together. What if love is not a derivative of itself so much as it is a sharing of itself? Why is the concept of sharing so hard? Is it because we suck at it so much? Why cannot God share His Mind with Himself, as opposed to either imposing it, top-down style, or somehow competing with it (two things I have noticed we seem to be VERY good at)?
You are right. Trinitarians speak about the “eternal generation of the Son” as being eternally begotten before he was “born.” But what does that really mean? That he was a man before he was a man? Or that he was a god who was eternally generated before he became the god-man? This is another example of equivocation. Here is what Piper says about this double-speak. See if you can really make ANY SENSE of this:
In regards to the Trinity, we use the term “Person” differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an “independent individual” in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.
What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as “I” and others as –You.” So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a “You,” even though He regards Himself as “I.” Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that “Person” means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an “I” and the other two as a “You.”
But, Skip, we CAN’T “exist apart from each other”, that’s the whole point of the Torah! We AREN’T “separate, independent individuals” either! We don’t even get to be individuals except as we are together (community), first. You have tried to explain this to us so many times.
We already have reality so backwards, and yet we think we can parse the Godhood from our ass-backwards understanding of how reality really does work, much less how love works in that reality. We are so handicapped! Good thing His existence does not depend on our ability to understand it. That’s what I want to say.
No we cannot exist separate from one another, Laurita, we need to be challenged to walk in His Torah ways, interdependently in community living, sharpening, (not competing) each other to mature, to avail ourselves to serve Him as He calls.
It does matter so much to Him that we can grasp, discern what and Who we serve, NO idolatry, as in serving man.
Knowing and understanding the difference is crucial.
Three can NEVER be one! Neither a man made to become god as in the case of many cultic practices in idolatry and paganism, e.g. buddhism.
Love and hugs to you.
There is no doubt a straining at language in trying to explain Trinitarianism. My suggestion is to put aside the strained language and look at only a few Scriptures and interpret them in light of what I’ll call for lack of a better term ‘strict monotheism’, that is, YHVH as explained here on this blog over against Trinitarianism. First will be those referencing the Messiah; following that will be those referencing God the Father with similar language. Italics are used to assist in identifying the referent, while bold is used to compare with the words given to the Father and to the Messiah:
Following are verses in the Book of Revelation descriptive of God the Father:
How can we harmonize this overlapping of roles and overlapping of names/terms?
OK, last point on this. It ISN’T ABOUT THE TEXTS! Every text is subject to the interpretative scheme (paradigm) of the exegete, so while we might agree that these are the WORDS, we will not agree upon their meaning WITHIN the scheme because the paradigm you use to approach the words is different than the one I use. The question must be resolved at the PARADIGM level, not the textual level. What you mean by “divine” or “deity” or “messiah” or “atonement” or “God” is different than what I mean and no amount of pointing back to the text will help us here. If we are not willing to look at alternative interpretative schemes, history, culture, religious themes and a whole host of contingent points within the other paradigm, then we will just go on arguing about the “meaning” of the text without making any progress. You will repeat the standard Trinitarian arguments based on the standard Trinitarian reading of the verses and I will present the standard counterpoints and nothing will change. The evidence is a function of the paradigm. Until we are ready to talk about the paradigms, there is really nothing more to point out. We’ve already covered it all.
Every text is subject to the interpretative scheme (paradigm) of the exegete…the paradigm you use to approach the words is different than the one I use…
And this is what I’m after here – your perspective. I was asking for your explanation/exegesis on those texts, using a monotheistic first century Jewish interpretation/paradigm. I’m presuming there must be a way, given your stance. At present, I cannot see one; but, I’m willing to ‘listen’.
Beloved Laurita,
I love you and your zeal too.
Yes, Yeshua is a created being, a man, instrumental in being a perfect model of what /what a Son ought to live. Yeshua was God’s begotten son, as with the rest of mankind down the generations, begotten sons and daughters of so and so.
GOD started the very first In vitro fertilization, of a pure seed, just as with the rest of Creation through the seeds, every one after its kind? Amazing? Not so, being The Creator Almighty, all power is at His finger tips.
Except YHWH gives the revelation and wisdom, no one can receive nor do anything.
Love and hugs. So glad to bring a smile to you daily. We need that!
This discussion has been not unlike an Oxford Union debate; both sides are given equal opportunity to present a point of view and defend it with vim and vigour in a neutral environment. Public opinion scores the winner. It reminds me of a Torah student (maybe Sacks) defending his position with his teacher who replies in heavily accented agreement; you right, you right, you abzolootely right. Now I show you where you wrong!
The essence of education. Not what to think but how to think. In the spirit of an OU debate it looks like the public opinion of each person, if I can use that word, will determine the winner.
Thank you Skip for your forbearance and patience in teaching me how to think like a Hebrew. I am eternally grateful.
I should have added that both the student and the teacher were happy with the outcome.
Right, George, you have got it, if I may say so 🙂 I was thinking about someone saying Skip is trying to become a ‘Jew’. Definitely not so, we are, I am, trying to become a Hebrew, crossing over to YHWHs side, as Avraham did. He was the first Hebrew. Moreover that was the language YHWH spoke.
Shalom to you. And Chag Sukkot Sameach!
The paradigm effect…
Joel Barker done a lot of research on this topic and drew to the conclusion that while we still swing on our pendulum. Counter views and discussions we cannot change the paradigm. As it is only when we go back to zero that a paradigm can be changed.
This topic is well debated and referenced from biblical, scholastic, Hebraic and Christian perspective.
I have to now sot back and forget the topic and wait for the Holy Spirit to remind me of what God intended with the records.
For God to take control we need to become zero…
Sorry I forgot… Joel also reminds us that failing to go back to zero we will suffer from paradigm paralysis…