Taking the Gloves Off
For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5 NASB
THIS IS LONG
Man – Is any doctrine more divisive than the Trinity? You might ask, “Why are you asking this question? Didn’t the Church always believe in the triune God?” If you grew up as I did, you were taught that Christianity grew out of Judaism as it moved from the God of the Old Testament to the central role of Jesus, God the Son. You believed that God the Son died on the cross so that you could be forgiven and the wrath of the God of the Old Testament could be appeased. You thought Jesus was the God-man, unique in birth and death, who pre-existed since time eternal along with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. You prayed to Jesus, worshipped Jesus and wondered why the Jews were so blind to the truth of Jesus’ divinity. No one told you that until the 4th Century the Church itself went through a bloody battle (literally) over these ideas or that half of the Christian population did not believe this. No one told you that the reason Christianity holds the Trinity as its uniquely qualifying doctrine today is the result of political/social/ economic “ecclesiastical oppression”,[1] not simply theological exegetical distinctions. The winners of this battle, the Gentile theologians of Alexandria and the West, taught you. You never knew the real history, and perhaps you didn’t really care. After all, everyone believed the same thing and the Church told you that if you believed you were saved and going to heaven. Maybe that’s all that mattered.
Well, not quite. In fact, there is a long history of scholarly protest. A long history of dissent and alternative theological exegesis that is just as strong as the theology of the winners. In addition, there is the obvious objection of Jewish monotheism. But no one told you anything about this side of the story.
Now the gloves come off.
Eric H. H. Chang was a Trinitarian. But something happened. He realized that the Jewish authors of the “New Testament” were as firmly convinced of strict monotheism as the authors of the Tanakh. In fact, it is simply not possible exegetically to come to any other conclusion once you see that these men are all orthodox Jews. So he began to investigate. He looked at the arguments, the exegesis, the culture, and the linguistics. He concluded that something was wrong. His book, The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism, is a 650-page analysis of what went wrong. Coupled with Richard Rubenstein’s When Jesus Became God (a study of the political history of the conflict), Uriel ben-Mordechai’s The End of a Messianic Lie and Anthony Buzzard’s The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, we begin to recognize just how much of this story we never knew. Perhaps the investigation isn’t over (yet), but what has become quite obvious is that the Trinitarian Church has gone to great lengths, with great theological gymnastics, to ensure that the story of the conflict and the alternative views are no longer part of the dialogue. The Trinity has become the centerpiece of Christian thought, and whether or not theologians are hesitant to say so, this particular doctrine is treated as if any question about its truth or any denial of its validity is the equivalent of apostasy and guarantees the loss of salvation.
Nothing could be more mistaken.
I would like to provide you with a sample of statements from Chang’s book (perhaps I can save you reading the 650 pages if you aren’t really bothered by the enormous misdirection perpetrated by the Gentile philosopher/theologians). After you read these, you might appreciate just how much conformity has become a requirement of Christian theology. There has always been a significant portion of Christian believers who have raised serious questions about the Trinitarian view. Their voices have been unfairly swept away by the “majority” view, letting you think that theological conformity is the same as Christian theology. But it isn’t.
Chang says:
“ . . . nowhere in the NT is belief in the deity of Christ required for salvation.”[2]
“Trinitarianism required that a distinction between our humanity and Christ’s be made because Christ is not a human being in the way that we are: he is the God-man, God and man in one person. This means, further, that his humanity is overshadowed by his deity. This raises the question whether the trinitarian Jesus is anything more than a human body in which the one driving personality is his divine nature. The trinitarian Christ is God, but can it honestly be said that he is ‘truly man?’ A God-man, in the nature of the case, is not a man such as we are. So Trinitarianism has to alter both the Biblical definition of ‘God’ and of ‘man’ to accommodate their deified Jesus!”[3]
Chang notes that the ones who formulated the doctrine of the Trinity needed to borrow a term from Greek philosophy – the “hypostatic union”—a term not found in Scripture, in order to articulate the idea of the “God-man.”
“The idea of a God-man was familiar to the Greeks, whose mythology is full of such gods who once were men or women. Little wonder that the Greek, or Greek educated, Gentile church leaders could come up with this notion of the union of a divine and human nature in the one person of Jesus Christ. They were simply formulating Biblical teaching in terms of Greek cultural ideas in which they were habituated to think and express themselves.”[4]
Chang asks some important questions about the equivocation in describing Jesus as the God-man.
“ . . . if Jesus cannot really be tempted, then he is not a man; and if he can be tempted, he is not God. . . . Trinitarianism wants to have it both ways: Jesus, the God-man, is one person yet functionally he is really two persons simultaneously, i.e. God and man. So when there is the question of facing temptation, Jesus who is God, is instantly switched to being man. This constant switching back and forth as the situation requires is the inevitable way in which the trinitarian Christ functions, but which immediately reveals the fact that he cannot be both God and man simultaneously.”[5]
The doctrine of the Trinity did not arise in a vacuum. It required a prior re-evaluation of the nature of Man. In other words, the Trinity is built on an idea about human depravity (original sin), a concept that reverses the Hebraic view of Man.
“The Augustinian and Calvinistic degradation of man as being nothing more than a wretched, ‘depraved’ sinner, made it seem unworthy for Christ to be ‘mere’ man.”[6]
“It is evident that the Psalmist knows nothing of the degradation of man such as that taught in the Christian doctrine of man’s ‘total depravity.’ Nor does the Apostle Paul teach any such doctrine, seeing that he speaks of man as ‘the glory of God’ (1 Cor. 11.7), by which he proclaims the same truth as in this Psalm [Ps. 8].”[7]
When it comes to handling the text, Trinitarians apparently use theology as the rule for explaining the text rather than using the text as the rule for developing the theology.
“Trinitarianism has daringly given itself a boost by their newer translations of a few verses in the pastoral letters, notably Titus 2.13. The KJV translated it as, ‘Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.’ But the New King James changes this to, ‘Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ’, and the same is true of all the newer major English translations. In this way ‘our great God’ and ‘Savior’ are both applied to Jesus.”[8]
“Is the salvation which God has made available for us worth less if Christ cannot be shown from Scripture to be a being eternally coequal with Yahweh God in every respect?”[9]
On Philippians 2:6-8, Chang notes:
“Had Paul only said that ‘man is the image of God’ that would have been problematic enough, because according to the doctrine of original sin that image was tarnished at the very least, or even totally destroyed, as a result of Adam’s sin. But the Scripture goes beyond this with the ‘double-barreled’ statement that man is both ‘the image and the glory of God.’ That should have left our doctrines in total shambles but, nothing daunted, we simply ignored the Scriptures (as usual) when these contradicted our doctrines.”[10]
“From the moment the church declared Jesus to be God they thereby inevitably made the Father redundant.”[11]
“But the God of Trinitarianism is not a person; he is not even ‘person’ in some generalized sense because ‘he’ is the ‘substance’ of which the three persons consist. To speak of a substance as ‘he’ is contrary to language and logic, . . .”[12]
After nearly 200 pages on the problematic verses of John 1, Chang concludes:
“This study leads us to the conclusion that Yahweh Himself came into the world in the man Jesus Christ in whom He ‘tabernacled’ or dwelt as He formerly did in the Temple of Jerusalem, but now in a ‘temple not made with (human) hands’—the living body of the Messiah Jesus. The error of Trinitarianism was to invent a second divine being whom they called ‘God the Son’ and claim that this being came into the world to save us. In this way, Yahweh, who is honored as ‘God our Savior’ in the NT, was sidelined or marginalized while the deified Jesus was made to take center stage.”[13]
What can we say? The more we investigate the roots of the Trinity, the more we find that Millard Erickson’s declaration is probably accurate. “It is so absurd from a human standpoint that no one would have invented it. We do not hold the doctrine of the Trinity because it is self-evident or logically cogent. We hold it because God has revealed that this is what he is like.”[14] In other words, we are told to believe it because the Church says so in spite of the fact that no one can make any sense of it.
That sounds just like something God would require of us, right?
Just a final note: It’s not likely that I will respond to the comments on this post. I have pretty much exhausted the desire to continue the argument as I am convinced that the real issue is the paradigm commitment to reading the text according to the teaching of the Church or according to the point-of-view of orthodox Jewish followers of YHVH. Once again, I find paradigm assumptions at the bottom of the “evidence.” I hope that the effort to look at all this over the last few years has been useful. That doesn’t mean you will agree. That isn’t important to me. What is important is that we now appreciate how much of the story we never knew.
Topical Index: Trinity, Eric H. H, Chang, 1 Timothy 2:5, Millard Erickson, Uriel ben-Mordechai, Anthony Buzzard
[1] Eric H. H. Chang, The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism, p. 25.
[2] Ibid. p. 83,
[3] Ibid. p. 105.
[4] Ibid. p. 115.
[5] Ibid. p. 152.
[6] Eric H. H. Chang, The Only True God: A Study of Biblical Monotheism, p. 163.
[7] Ibid. p. 179.
[8] Ibid. p. 186.
[9] Ibid. p. 195.
[10] Ibid. p. 235.
[11] Ibid. p. 389.
[12] Ibid. p. 391.
[13] Ibid. p. 570.
[14] Millard Erickson, Systematic Theology, first edition, p. 342.
Skip,
Maybe the confusion is a resullt of the translated word…
He who believes in me shall not die.
He would believes on my name shall live even though he is dead.
He that calls on my name I shall raise in the last day.
Whatever you ask in my name God will provide.
I am the way, life and truth, nobody comes to the father than through me.
And my favourite he who has the son has life he who has not the son has not life.
All relying on he was given as redemption, so we can see God….
Yet through out the ages God only revealed himself to few. In the cycle of human beings this may only be 144000 individuals. You and I may never have that privilege but then blessed is he that believes without seeing.
So then what is the mediator, life or entity we must become part of. Cannot be Torah or Moshe as these chastise us or disciplines us to this mediator. And. It can neither be the church or gathering (there am I in their midst) for they must be united in His name for this revelation to occur…
I’d like to first note that for those who downloaded the pdf version of Chang’s book there is a page conversion at the very back. For example, the very first footnote reference (p. 25) is equivalent to page “040”, or just “40”.
Wooo hoooo!!!! Amen! Thank you Dr. Moen. My husband and I have followed you teaching for many years and have appreciated all the work you do in order to teach us. We truly are like minded.
Well done good and faithful servant. Thank you, Skip
If I may suggest an ulterior motive for the development of these doctrines, namely the trinity and, in close proximity, the inherent sinful nature, among others. If read at face value the “new testament” unfolds what the texts of the tanach, in one sense, only hint at, which is that man, in right relation to the True God, is not only free, but has fantastic potential. The gentile leaders and intellectuals, steeped in Greek (Roman) philosophy, would, obviously, be threatened as this would decentralize the power and influence they held. I would go so far as to suggest that Constantine, and others like him, had no intention of a true conversion but rather desired to rule over the masses with as little backlash as possible. One can see how the formulation of such doctrines, especially the inherent sinful nature, (which I believe is the true center piece) accomplish this very thing. My, how the powers that be are such opportunists, but someone said that the children of this world are more clever than the children of light. So it remains today, and has been prevalent throughout the history of “the church” as represented by RC. Skip once mentioned the distinction between theological understanding and obedience, here it is in its outworking. How can one obey and therefore find freedom if we, by nature, are inherently sinful? If you ask how this affects those who assume power, well, they don’t believe it anyway. I say, he who the son sets free is free indeed, follow him.
Excellent point. As Rubinstein demonstrated in his book on the conflict surrounding the Trinity, the social/political world has a much greater influence on these things than we account for. And, your are correct, the initial formulation of sinful nature by the early Church fathers sets the stage for doctrines that attempt to view Yeshua as anything but a man, and all other men as worthless without the Church. If we paid more attention to the history, and understood the enormous influence of “tiny” little ideas like the Platonic dualism between the spiritual and the physical, we would see how theology REACTED to philosophy. The intellectual environment of first century Rome was the consequence of 3rd Century BCE Greece and the Hellenism of Alexander. We never get very far from the source. Where we start will determine where we end. If you start with fallen, corrupt MAN, you will end at the God-Man who is not really very human. If you start with the declaration of Moses regarding MAN, you will end with Man as the glory of God, a human Messiah and the potential of each and every person to become the representative of His image as He intended.
I submit that John the Gospel writer deftly wrote his Gospel to refute the dualism inherent in Platonic thought (darkness vs. light; above/below, etc.). This is why some in the early church were initially reluctant to view the Gospel of John as an authentic work (however one wishes to define that) and why some proto-Gnostics accepted it (or at least portions of it).
Skip,
Just a brief question the response of which (should you choose) can be equally brief. What do the ‘curses’ in Genesis 3:14-19 signify if not that ‘the fall of man’?
I can’t speak for Skip, (obviously) but I’ll give you some things to consider. Note that God curses the “serpent” and He curses the ground (adamah) for his (adams) sake (more accurately, in his sake). The statements to the man and woman are devoid of curses and can be read as consequences. Whether or not they apply to mankind as a whole would be a question, but it’s obvious that mind/heart sets are definitely passed from father to son. The other issue is that God states very clearly, after the flood, that He will never again curse the earth for mans sake. That doesn’t men that the curse is necessarily removed, only that, perhaps, the mode of introduction changes. Just some thoughts
I look at it somewhat simplistically. In their disobedience (sin), both Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil; so, I presume that prior to this they only knew “Good”. Once they partook they did “most surely die” – whatever that entails exactly – and, my interpretation is that now evil thoughts compete with good. Hence the curse and the other consequences that a knowledge of good AND evil brings. It’s no stretch of the mind to envision that this dualism and the inner struggle that attends this is inherent in all offspring. That doesn’t mean we’re not made in the image of God, but to my mind, it means that image is tarnished.
As good as that may sound, unfortunately, that’s not what the text says. 🙂
Opps, I guess I got those replies reversed!
To be a bit more forthright, what it does say is that they now have to contend with issues (and perhaps entities) that previously were not in the scope of the existence meant for them. In no sense does it convey a degrading of character or intent. If we can “assume” something, perhaps we should do so in regards to the character of God in that the measures taken and imposed on all parties is due to the fact that God is good, not a tyrant, and that He has a vested interest in His creation and especially so in regards to the ones made in His image, as His likeness.
What it does say is this. God gave them a commandment. They disobeyed, listening to the serpent instead (this entity was there before the fall). Upon eating the forbidden fruit ‘their eyes were opened’ (they most surely died) and they realized they were naked and sought covering. They were now seeing things they hadn’t noticed before. Hearing God now provoked fear because they were naked (their sin exposed?).
God is good. God is faithful and true. But in the main mankind is rebellious, as Scripture and history testifies.
Again, “tarnished” as denoting “fallen in nature” is no where mentioned. If anything, something was added, not taken away. I was replying concerning the original query noting that curses and the fall of man are intertwined (Genesis 3:14-19) , implying that the man was cursed. Not so. BTW, my comment concerning “entities” isn’t necessarily limited to the serpent before or after this event.
I concur with Robert. We are born with inherited tendencies and propensities and perverted forms of thought patterns, but those are curses that have been superimposed on us. The curse is activated when I agree with the choices and mindsets that released it into my life. For example, I can inherit a genetic defect that primes me for, say, heart disease, but that priming can still be circumvented if I choose to not follow the behaviors of my generations that programmed my cells for that curse. I can make more loving choices in my beliefs (trust), thoughts (forgiveness instead of anger, say) and in my lifestyle.
In a study of rats with a genetic defect for an inability to repair mitocondrial decay, all rats genetically predisposed this way were dead in less than a year. That is, without exercise. With exercise, rats with the same genetic defect were all alive and healthy with no evidence of age at one year.
The very fact that we ARE made perfect (even though sin has tainted us all) allows us to override the curse of sin by righteousness, simply through a change in behavior and choices (obedience). How we become FREE to obey, however, is another story. Freedom simply returns me to the potential I was already created into. The trick is that I cannot free myself. I think Skip has this one right. ‘Not free’ does not equal ‘defective’. Halleluah!
Laurita, that’s a mine full of gold in the piece you Jane written. Blessings!
Dear Suresh,
It is my earnest desire to spread the good news that we are not sitting ducks, programmed for disaster. Sin enslaves me, but repentance frees me. What people don’t seem to realize sometimes is that ALL things, behaviors, mindsets, and even BODY realities that do not line up with how we were created are NOT what our Maker wants for us, and also not what Yeshua, as our Pattern, came to show us and return us to. I can repent for agreeing with fear, clumsiness, stinking thinking, the power others exercise unjustly over me, poor body maintenance, etc. and THEN I am returned to a different choice.
About that different choice: it can be hard to stand when all your programming is screaming at you that you are crazy to not think and act like you did last time, but standing that ground is what allows YHVH to empower that choice. He will never not back up a truly repentant person who is determined to make a better set of choices (obedience to the laws we have been given), because that is what returns us to trust in Him. Halleluah!
Laurita,
Sorry to intrude. There exists three realities that are beyond our control. Deformities, life and death. We have tendencies to manipulate these but that is were it ends…
Death is not that car accident or bullet we fear but. That mysterious last breath we exhale.
What we experience and enjoy in life is determined by our choice of lifestyle. Whatever we choose God seems to bless… it remains or gets a greater hold on us… a god if you please, and it is this god that determines the complete cycle of my soul.
Our calling in life is to choose that which benefits all …
Am I understanding your view correct or do you believe I can live to be say 108 if I choose to eat, drink and exercise correct…
If that were true no one would have a need for a God or doctrinal view to live out our lives…
We agree, Seeker. Your statement, “Our calling in life is to choose that which benefits all…” is the key. If we all were blessed to live until 108, or at least a full “threescore and ten” this planet would be so much better off. We need the wisdom of the aged. There is so much premature death. YHVH’s stated will is life “and that more abundantly”, and it is too bad that we do not read that as a commandment and act accordingly. So many unnecessary early graves, and most of them being dug with our teeth!
But why would someone who is living to the best of their efforts not need God or a “doctrinal view”? The best efforts in the world, says the wise man, who learned the same way the rest of us do, one pant leg at a time – I do mean experience – are vanity without the full cooperation of heaven. I may have been taught the truth very well as a child, but I woke up this morning knowing to the bottom of my soul that it did me no good until it was made alive in my life. Truth is as much alive as anything else that comes from that Throne, and none of us can give that Life to ourselves. We get it only by the cooperative effort of aligning correct choice with the blessing of heaven. I have noticed that all true sacrifice is consumed by heavenly fire, not earthly.
Thanks Laurita, I agree with your above written statement.
I didn’t want to leave off this discussion without clarifying a position here, what I’m not saying is that man is an uncorrupted being and has the capability to pull himself up by his own bootstraps (so to speak). What I am attempting to point out is that the corruption man is subjected to is because something has been added to the mix as opposed to “losing” something. ie; the image of God. Adding flavoring and sugar to water doesn’t diminish the qualities of water. The differences between the 2 positions, inherited sinful nature and what the text actually says, may seem small but it’s vast in the implications of our activities.
YHWH bless you and keep you……
Thank you, Robert. I have personally seen that vast difference most clearly when a shame-based person (like I was) is informed that they are not defective; that defects are an addition to them that can be subracted, leaving them with their real identity. This corrects the false premise that they are having to believe to keep that shame-based identity in place. When I realized that fear could go and I could stay I was delivered of 38 years of Chronic Fatigue, for fear – based as it was in my belief that I was a victim of it because of INHERENT FLAWS – was what was keeping me in that bondage. Sin covers our real identity, which we were shaped with at conception and was never lost. This is the kind of knowledge that can set people free! Halleluah!
Amen Laurita
Agreed! Dwight Pryor’s material on the origin and implications of the doctrine of sinful nature is very, very good. A tiny shift to a Platonic view on Man rocks the rest of the world and reshapes how we think about us AND GOD!
Craig, I highly recommend Skip’s book “Guardian Angel” for an in-depth study on this very topic. It is worth noting that the language in Gen 3 (where God is pointing out the consequences of their actions) is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Which is exactly the statement every New Age adherent has made to me when I question them as to Who Jesus Christ is. Also the Buddhists, who claim that is who Buddha is, and all the planet who is looking for Matraiya. They hold to everything you are saying, Skip. The entire planet is comfortable with it. Fine with human perfection being sufficient for us. When I ask them about GOD Himself encountering us, people walk out of the room. Conversation over. Nope. Cannot be. “Why?” I ask. Every one hates it, can’t stand it, says it is impossible. I have found people can agree on everything else, and warmly embrace everything else, but not this. If you picked one single thing that would allow the rest of the planet to accept the Bible, it would be to make Yeshua a mere man. Jews, Hindus, Baha’i, the people I know in Wicca, my Sufi friends, my Muslim friends, my humanist friends and acquaintances, Jehovah’s Witnesses – all of them say that they agree with the Bible has to offer, but that God cannot dwell among us. Not acceptable. And now you. The world will welcome you with open arms, Skip. You will find warmth, comraderie and acceptance everywhere, and people will ask you what took you so long to figure out what the world has always been saying. How may opinion polls have you taken on the street and in your larger circle of acquaintances? Try it, like I have been doing, and see what you think.
Amen to that!
To assist both those who have the book and those who have the pdf, I’ll reference both, placing the original pagination first. That is, using footnote 2 above, I’ll render it “p 25 / 040”.
As regards Chang’s claim at footnote 2, “nowhere in the NT is belief in the deity of Christ required for salvation”, let’s take a look at one his own proof-texts. Chang rightly notes that John’s Gospel is unique in that it provides the very reason for which it was written in John 20:31:
Throughout Chang’s work he tries very hard to convince the reader that the Word is not Jesus the Messiah [but see my distinction at the end of this comment]. However, the writer misses a key point – the bolded/highlighted part above. By believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, “you may have life in his name” (cf. 3:15-16, and etc.). In whose name? In Christ’s, in Messiah’s name, the one who is “the Son of God”. But who IS the Messiah? Let’s look at the parallel in John 1:12-13, a parallel passage that escaped Chang:
So, while belief in the name of the Messiah, the Son of God brings about “life” in 20:31, in 1:12 belief “in His name” provides the right for those believing “to become children of God”. Are the two saying the same thing or are they saying something different? To be sure, we must determine the referent for the pronouns Him/He/His. Chang rightly notes that the referent is the Word (this can be inferred from his claim that the Word is a metonym for YHWH and that the Word inhabits the flesh of Jesus). So, let’s look at the descriptions provided by the Gospel writer for the Word.
In verse 4 the Word is described further (brackets replace the pronoun): “In [the Word] was life, and the life was the light of men”. Verse 5 carries over this “light of men”, which/who “shines in the darkness”. Jesus describes Himself as “light of the world” (8:12, 9:5, 11:9) and the “light of life” (8:12), and those who follow Him “will never walk in darkness” (8:12). Messiah also claims that He is “the Light [that] has come into the world” (3:19).
In verses 6-8 we find a parenthesis. Here John (the Baptist) becomes the subject, while “the light”, aka the Word, becomes the object. The subject reverts back to “the light” (the Word) in verse 9.
This “true light” erchomenon, “coming”, into the world “enlightens every human” (v. 9). This “true light” was “in the world” (v. 10), and though “the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him” (v. 10). In verse 11 we find that “His own” did not recognize/receive him. [Who should we identify as “his own”?]
Now we come to the crux of the argument: verse 14. What does it mean for the Word to ‘become flesh’. Was it that the Word inhabits this flesh (Unitarian view), or was it that the Word took this flesh to himself (Trinitarian view)? I think this is resolvable by doing a search for “name” in John’s Gospel, in which “my name” clearly refers to the Messiah (14:13,14,26; 15:16,21; 16:23,24,26), or “his name” in which the referent is the same (2:23; 3:18; 10:3; 20:31).
And what does it mean to be a “child of God”, those “born of God” not by “the will of men”? I think John 3 answers that (and cf. 11:51-52; 13:33; 16:19-24; 21:5).
Hence, given that receiving and believing in the name of the Word results in one becoming a child of God (1:12-13), and those believing in the name of Jesus Christ / Messiah Yeshua results in essentially the same, wouldn’t we conclude that the Word is coextensive with Jesus Christ / Messiah Yeshua (from Jesus’ birth/the Incarnation and forward)? Doesn’t this mean that when the Word sarx egeneto, “the Word became flesh”, the preexistent Word joined flesh to himself? That is, the preexistent Word took on a new mode of existence as Word-become-flesh? Moreover, since, as Chang agrees, the Word is the agent of creation (1:3), wouldn’t other Scripture which claims “the Son” as the agent of creation (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:16) necessitate this same conclusion?
Please note my distinction; I’m not stating that the Word = the Messiah in a wholly equivalent sense. The flesh of the Messiah doesn’t preexist His birth/incarnation. In the beginning was the Word, then the Word took on a new mode of existence as Word-become-flesh, in the Person of the Messiah.
I spent some time yesterday with the first five verses of John, looking at the Greek. It struck me how insistent John was to point out that all creation came THROUGH that Word. If the Word “took on” flesh (I have noticed that the verse does not say that flesh was put on Him), then He must have existed before that flesh, but the most striking thing is that if Yeshua was a mere created man, then He, according to John, would have had to have originated through Himself. This is a conundrum that Greek certainty would probably scream at, but I think the seeming conundrums we struggle with when it comes to things so far above our head are not conundrums on the other end; just on ours. It seems to me that, even in the Greek, if someone was reading John for the first time, it would take an enlightened one to come along and have to explain to them WHY these verses do not actually mean what they so plainly say.
I suppose I’m not seeing the conundrum you are seeing. Could you perhaps rephrase?
The conundrum that only God can create, but all creation comes through the Son, Who, according to Skip, is a created being. So, did He create Himself? Is that logical? If He did not, then what is John saying? The only other option is that the Son is not a creation. If the Creator is created, who created Him? This is too much of a conundrum for even me. I have noticed that it is too much for the human Messiah proponents too, but the way they attempt to circumvent it is to say that the Word is; a. not the Creator; b. is not a life source (because if you are created, your life comes from elsewhere) and c. is not the Messiah. But then, what was John saying?
Laurita,
Here’s Chang’s way around it. The Word is a metonym for YHWH, in a sense YHWH. So, YHWH created through this metonym, the Word. In John 1:14, the Word “tabernacles” in the flesh of the man Jesus, the Messiah. The Messiah is created, He is merely man, though God’s agent. So, the Word created the flesh of the Messiah; the Word created flesh for which to become enfleshed.
Taking this in isolation, this could work, except:
1. The exegesis I just provided illustrating an equivalency between 1:12 and 20:31 (in His name), as well as Jesus’ self-descriptions throughout John’s Gospel paralleling those of the Word in 1:3-13. [And what about 8:58, which implies preexistence and Deity (“I AM”)?]
2. The parallel passages of “the Son” – not “the Word” – as agent of creation (Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). We’d have to agree, however, that, logically, these two verses do not reveal that the fleshly Messiah was the agent; but, we’d have to also concede that in some sense “the Son” precedes creation in order for Him to be the agent of creation. Unless I missed it, and I don’t think I did (thanks to the handy Scripture index), Chang does not even address the fact that these verses used “through (dia) Him/the Son”, though he references different aspects of both verses and their associated contexts.
3. A number of other things revealed in Scripture.
Thanks #mustreadChang#.
Perhaps it may be prudent for me to illustrate how it is that Chang strains to fit John 8:58 into his paradigm. First, I’ll show how he misunderstands the Trinity doctrine; on page 106 / 94 he asserts the following:
As regards (1), Trinitarians have no problem identifying YHWH as either the Father or the Son, so this is perfectly fine. Regarding (2), this too is not contrary to the Trinity doctrine, though I’d prefer to rephrase. Christians view the incarnation thusly: Jesus Christ is the incarnation of the eternal Logos/Word (which is YHWH). Stated another way, the eternal divine Logos/Word (YHWH) added a human body/nature to Himself, such that Logos became Logos-made-flesh. [This also makes better sense of the “in His name” language in 1:12 and 20:31.]
On pages 586-87 / 582-83 Chang further attempts to shoehorn John 8:58 into his paradigm (like he does with 1:15/1:30):
prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi, “before Abraham was born, I AM!”
Some translations render this “before Abraham was, I AM!”, which doesn’t capture the essence of the verb ginomai, here in the aorist form (genesthai). At root, this verb is about origination, whether coming into existence as a birth or a creation. Clearly Jesus’ words here are a proclamation that His existence precedes Abraham’s; but, the most important aspect is the explicit reference to Exodus 3:14. Here are Chang’s comments:
Can Chang be so sure about that? Could a mere agent, a man merely embodying God’s Memra make His own personal claim of Deity as if He were Deity Himself? Does agency really go that far?
To see that the Gospel writer’s intention was to proclaim Messiah’s Deity, he uses this exact same language later in the Gospel, upon Jesus’ arrest. After the detachment of soldiers [normally 600 men) and some officials and chief priests and Pharisees (18:3) came for him, Jesus asked (knowing, of course), “whom do you seek?” Once they answered that it was the Messiah:
legei autois, egō eimi, “He replied to them, ‘I AM.’” – not “I am He”.
Note in verse 6 that in response to Jesus’ words of egō eimi, “I am”, they drew back and fell to the ground. All 600+ of them! Must’ve been some sight! Jesus reiterates those words in 18:8.
For fear of reiterating points made over and over, and so only to add just a comment, I will politely disagree that Trinitarians have no problem identifying the Son as the Father or visa versa. If there were really the case, then what is the purpose of having three “persons” in the Trinitarian formulation. Also, I would note that I am absolutely convinced that Chang and others are correct in noting that John would NEVER have proposed a Trinitarian version of his monotheism. In fact, Chang and others point out the many verses in John’s material and the other apostles that absolutely confirm Jewish monotheism, unless, of course, you come to the verses with a Trinitarian theology already in place. This includes the passage in John 8:58, which as far as I know, can be legitimately read without the implication of a declaration of personal divinity by Yeshua. And, yes, agency is a KEY idea in the Tanakh and there is no reason to believe it wasn’t part of the cultural understanding of YHVH’s interaction with men in the first century. It is unwarranted to claim that John’s purpose is to establish Yeshua’s DIVINITY. John established that Yeshua is the Messiah, the son of God, but that is not the same claim that Yeshua is God the Son, as a number of monotheists have noted. Ah, so there it is. My comment for today.
I now intend to move on to other things until the upcoming conference with Anthony Buzzard in February. It will be streamed and recorded. Should prove to be quite interesting.
Now back to other paradigm difficulties. 🙂
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Trinitarians have no problem identifying the Son as YHWH or the Father as YHWH, but not the Father as the Son. For the Father to be the Son would be modalism, aka Saballianism. In other words, the Son being YHWH and the Father being YHWH does not necessitate that the Father = the Son. Think of YHWH as the ousia in the Trinitarian formulations.
My earlier comments in this particular thread stand. John most certainly did equate the Word with Messiah as harmonizing 1:12 with 20:31 (and the other Scripture cited from the prologue and the rest of the Gospel) illustrates; and, if the Word is divine (which Chang affirms), then Messiah is as well.
If one has difficulty with this, then one must somehow harmonize the Word as agent of creation in John 1:3 with the Son as agent of creation in Col 1:16 and Heb 1:2.
OK, clear. But here’s the fundamental issue. There is NO question at all that the writers of the Tanakh were monotheists, i.e, there is but ONE God YHVH. There is no question at all that the rabbis of the first century followed this position, all being monotheists, with ONE GOD, YHVH. What is absolutely required by Trinitarians is that the apostles STOPPED being Jewish monotheists and adopted a Christian (although perhaps not well formulated) view of God, in at least rudimentary form as God, an essence in three persons. This requires that the apostles break with all they previously believed, their entire cultural background and prior religious convictions and adopt a view that took another 300 years to fully articulate. It also means, exegetically, that NONE of the texts which hint at a Trinitarian position in the apostolic writings can be LEGITIMATELY understood from the position of Jewish monotheism. If they can, then the argument that the apostles left behind strict monotheism and embraced a from of nascent Trinitarianism would be unsupported. So what this really boils down to is this: Exegetically it is incumbent upon Trinitarians to demonstrate that the texts under consideration CANNOT BE READ as monotheistic. I contend that this cannot be demonstrated so that NO OTHER VIEW is possible. As long as the texts can be read from the perspective of Jewish monotheism, it is always possible to claim that the apostles did NOT embrace the Trinity and that we are reading Trinitarian ideas back into the texts. In other words, it seems much more likely to me that the apostles REMAINED Jewish in every sense of the term. Paul explicitly claims this.
So, this is the challenge. SHOW ME that these texts CANNOT be read in view of Jewish monotheism or admit that they can read that way and that the Trinity is a THEOLOGICAL decision, not an exegetical one.
Jesus’ words (15:26-27) in John’s Gospel in the following are surely challenging:
blockquote>26 “When the Helper (paracletos) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, 27 and you will testify also, because you have been with Me from the beginning.
The Helper/Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, whom “the Father will send in my (Christ’s) name” (14:26). So, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Son/Messiah will send him to the disciples (happened in Acts 2, of course). First question is how does Christ send the Spirit from the Father? In other words, how can a man, even a Messiah, send the Father’s Spirit? If the Spirit is an aspect of the Father and the Son is an aspect of the Father, how can one aspect send the (an?) other aspect? How can this by understood from a strictly monotheistic perspective?
Craig, once again I suppose I may be over-simplifying this discussion, but here are my two cents’ worth. Jesus–Yeshua–is the Son of God, and under his feet were placed all things–ALL things except God Himself. Can this not include the power to send the Holy Spirit? Jesus was a human being, like the rest of us, except that He was the Son of God, and not the Son of a human father. But being human, he was made in the image of God, like the rest of us as well.
Now here is another thought. Perhaps we’re not looking at God big enough. Is it possible, seeing we’re made in God’s image, that more is entrusted to us than we’re aware of?
I’ve also yet to find an adequate strictly monotheistic explanation on Colossians 1:16 (and Heb 1:2). None address the Son as agent of creation – that all was created through (dia) the Son. Chang doesn’t even discuss it. I looked on Buzzard’s site, finding the one referenced below; however, the author claims Jesus is the firstborn over the “new creation” (as opposed to the “old”?) – whatever that means:
http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/colossians.htm
Response to previous. Uriel ben-Mordechai takes up the question of John 8:58 in the 4th chapter of his book, The End of the Messianic Lie. From the perspective of a Jewish/Hebraic view (with analysis of the Hebrew phrases translated into the Greek of John), he demonstrates the monotheism of John 8:58, noting that a Trinitarian exegesis requires introduction of a key phrase that is nowhere to be found in the New Testament declarations. You might want to look at this. He also makes a short comment of Heb. 1:1-2 on page 198.
i would have bet money on you commenting, when i read the last line of today’s TW. GREAT READ:
The Jewish Gospel of John: Discovering Jesus, King of All Israel by Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg
All I can say at this point is this: We will have so many really interesting questions to discuss in the February conference in Winter Garden. Everyone is welcome. Please come if you can.
Craig,
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
In 1 Cor 12 Plus Eph. 4 We read of gifts or abilities to serve a Godly purpose.
Based on these references I want to provide you with another alternative to approach the word took on flesh as Laurita stresses in her comment.
God created man, man sinned, God reconditioned man’s way of living to confirm with his purpose. Job is the first record of such renewal. But note that it was God fearing men that tried to help him change his mind. It did not happen until God intervened personally. This is also found with Jacob wrestling the messenger, Moses challenging the burning bush etc.
So a basic rule is that there is a messenger or angle or servant depending of the labeling the individual would like to refer to the entity as. Note not God but the entity God is using to reveal His desire.
Isaiah comes and confirms this. A child must be born… Matthews 18 unless we become like a child we will not enter the kingdom – renewed view or approach. Such a child is for all relevance a son of God. When we accept this the rest falls in place. Rebirth equals shema or manifesting of faith. God is not using a supernatural means to bring all to conformity if He was we would not even be discussing this issue today…
When we gather in this united purpose salvation or the kingdom of God is in our midst. Not us seeking something else. It is about us seeking application for God’s will that reveals the Son God has sent. To understand this an example had to be provided. Mary giving birth to Jesus. No one would even have thought of this birth as different had those of the time not seek a sign to prove it was happening. And had God not provided such signs as He promised He would.
I am not saying this intervention was not unique and as holy as can be and worth admiring and proclaiming. But in just doing this it has no impact. It is when we make this our approach to seek God and His will as you already are doing that
worship and praise is based on the salvation in our life… Proclaiming that we need to be renewed and that renewal is about us manifesting God’s will and admitting to others that what they are seeing and witnessing is Jesus or salvation in reality. Read Matthews 5 again then read the scriptures you are referring to as flowing from Matthews 5 teachings.
If I am wrong then I do not understand I am the way, the truth and the life proclamation as it is recorded and am I really exegesissing myself out of all Godly interventions with man…
Just my 2c and with respect towards Skip if you wish to discuss with me in more depths email me at protegeipc@gmail.co.za
I love your in-depth reference and knowledge and wish I was that committed at finding out the truth but I am just starting out on a quest after 40 plus years of indoctrination…
I understand your position as the Word = the Torah and, Yeshua as the Torah enfleshed. I just don’t see it that way for a multitude of reasons. Acts 18:12-13 is merely one:
If Jesus was keeping all things status quo as it pertained to the Law, and Paul was a follower of Christ, why did the Jews construe Paul’s words as connoting the above? It cannot be because Paul accepted Gentiles, as there’s OT evidence of that.
Moreover, going back to John’s Gospel, Jesus claimed to work on the Sabbath – a blatant violation of the Sabbath – and while this certainly caused consternation, it was his words “My Father” that provoked anger to the extent of attempted murder. Why? Jesus was making claims construed such that He was “equal with God”. If this is merely shaliach, agency, then these Jews were absolutely clueless about such a thing.
Craig
Thank you for commenting.
This may be the difference. Exodus 4 is what I view as Torah. The rest rules for Israel to free themselves from Egyptian mindset.
Yeshua said wait to achieve Exodus 4 you need to really live out love… even to achieve rest of Moshe’s laws is to show caring and holiness or truthful living.
Two errors with Sabbath view. 1 six days work 7 day rest… basic labour law even enforce this.
2 Sabbath is Saturday… yet on eighth day after birth a child must be introduced to community and if male circumcised (Not law of Moses submission by Abraham) so Sabbath will differ indirectly from every child birth or else we are applying a rule that every child must be born on a Thursday to be circumcised on a Sunday…
And I believe it was this view of the Sabbath that Jesus was explaining. But between us Yeshua did not work nor his disciples they did loving deeds that were argued as work…
Skip, thank you so much for being willing to stand for and speak out with truth no matter the cost. You are truly an inspiration to me. This weekend I was accused of being a “Moenite” because I so often reference you as I share what YHVH is doing it my life. While a hear the words and accusations and can appreciate them, what I responded with is that Skip Moen is a teacher unlike any I have experienced in my life. Skip, you have NOT taught me WHAT to think but HOW to think and for that I am extremely grateful!
Regarding this post – there was a day that I believed what I was taught. One of those beliefs was that the Sabbath and the Torah were for the Jews and not for the “church.” I studied it and proved it out and left it at that. But YHVH used my wife to continue to challenge me in this. She was beginning to see and learn what it meant to honor Sabbath and I finally decided that, while I didn’t see it the way she was seeing it, I did trust in her relationship with YHVH. Out of honor for her, and through that, honoring my Father, I began to set the Sabbath aside for Him. Immediately, the blinders fell off and I began to see everywhere in scriptures that Sabbath was made for MAN – ALL of God’s people! And I could no longer find anywhere in scripture that is was NOT for me! I had to be removed from my paradigm in order to see what was always in front of my face. Now I can no longer comprehend how I ever saw it differently – it is not possible to ever go back.
Some time later, I began to ask myself if it was okay to question and examine the Trinity. It was scary at first; I was raised Conservative Baptist and I knew this issue was the line that counted me either in or out of the “true church” — of being part of God’s people or part of a cult. Because I learned from you, Skip, how how to think, I knew I had to consider that perhaps this belief I had in the Trinity was simply another paradigm. I had to be willing to look at the whole picture with an open mind — to have a determination to seek out what was actually being said in the scriptures and to question and examine the issue. That also meant that I had to have a willingness to accept the outcome no matter where it might lead. Once I got to that point, I began to see the conflicts and confusion that appeared when I held to the idea of the Trinity. Most often, those conflicts disappeared when I considered that perhaps the Trinity was brought to the scriptures instead of being found in them. When I put a focus on the “red letters” of the scriptures, I began to see a new picture of our amazing Messiah! Then, turning to the Epistles, I started to see the beautiful mosaic come together as it never had before.
The journey continues . . .
Whose your daddy! i mean teacher….
Gloves Off
Yes, this Story, this story of Redemption began a long time ago, “in the beginning..” In the beginning, God cut a covenant, a covenant of blood. O.T.? “Without the shedding of blood – there is no remission of sin.
Yes, bulls, goats, turtledoves, etc. were sacrificed upon the altar by the high priest as per God’s commands.
And btw, “the God of wrath?” Is this the “trinitarian” view of God? The LORD is my (wrathful- angry- vengeful Shepherd?) Friend, here is my view.. (brother John!-here we go with our “personal opinions”- can we PLEASE avoid this?) and altogether say – “What do the Scriptures (yes, the Old Covenant Hebrew) say concerning the promised Messiah? This is what we need to know, not the opinions of dead men. And when I say “dead,” I’m not referring to physical death. Blind sheep still attempt to lead blind sheep. And in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
So, yes, (long story longer) – Who is the Christ? Mr. Jew, what sayest thou? Mr. Pagan-Heathen-unsaved, unwashed Gentile, – what say you? Who is this Jesus of Nazareth? – And what I believe ( what we believe btw, is what we “live-by” – all the rest is just “religious” talk!), the best question ever? — “Are You the One? – or should we look for another?”
And may we all remember, over three hundred prophesies were fulfilled (to the letter) concerning this Nazarene, the King of the Jews.
One final word to those whose “righteousness” exceeds that of Nicodemus (whose very name translates to “Superior”), you (too) must be born from Above.. Is this “second birth” necessary? Are these the words of the “church,” or are these the words (One-to-one, — one Savior to one sinner!) of the Christ? We report – you decide..
Skip, I’m definitely not looking for an argument, but I do have a question…if you’re not willing to answer today, then perhaps down the pike. For years now you have suggested that the Trinity is not scriptural, that it’s absurd, the result of ecclesiastical oppression and conformity to Christian theology. But, your TW’s that suggested this were few and far between, so it was easy to put the idea on the back burner. Lately you’ve been stepping up your teachings of this belief. And, while the jury is still out (in my mind), you continue to present a convincing argument, challenging us to dig deeper. I’m sure you can appreciate the dilemma this has presented for many of us who grew up with the Trinity paradigm. I’ve noticed you seldom talk about who Yeshua is…just primarily who He isn’t. I would find it extremely helpful if you would expound more on who you believe Yeshua was/is and who/what He should mean to us as believers in the one true God. Thanks
Ditto to your comment, Judi.
Hi, does he need any other title/description than Messiah? Isn’t that what the NT tries to prove? To my best understanding, He was the only man that lived his life the way mankind was suppose to and that is why he is called the second Adam, not the second God. Having lived his life that way, God could legally lift the death sentence hanging over mankind. Y’shua proved that it is possible for mankind to live a life of obedience. He had no advantage above Adam 1, if he did his obedience would have been no accomplishment and therefore meaningless. He is now the first and only resurrected (and still living) man and we have the promise that we will be exactly like him one day. He will be coming back as a resurrected man to reign as anointed king on earth, representative of the one true God. If what I am saying is true, the Orthodox Jews will be the only group to recognize the true Messiah, because they are the only ones expecting a man and not a god. Something to ponder about ……
What is your basis for thinking that a man, regardless of how righteously he lived, could possibly lift the sentence of death over mankind? What man could possibly sit at the right hand of the Father? That just doesn’t line up at all with who Yeshua was, claimed to be, and who His disciples spoke of.
Hi Mark, because one disobedient man brought the death sentence over all mankind, one 100% obedient man can lift it again. The Bible is full of examples of one standing in for the many. The authority and position that Y’shua has, he received from the Father, he never claimed to have it inherently. God placed Y’shua at His right hand and gave him the authority over all. Just one Scripture to consider 1 Cor 15:22-28, there are many more.We must honor Y’shua as our Master and Messiah because that is what our God and Father expects of us.
Hi Skip, thank you for your writings on the subject of the Trinity. It is a valuable discussion — one that I am convinced we will actually not be able to resolve until we stand in God’s presence face-to-face (which would be unsurprising based on what is written in 1 Cor, 13:12 — “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully”). While Jesus was certainly a man, there was something so extraordinary about him that set him apart from every other man in all of history that you don’t seem to acknowledge very often — how as the writer of Hebrews 1 details, he is uniquely the “Son of God” whom God created the world through. As The Gospel of John chapter 1 tells us, Jesus was with God in the beginning and “was God’s very nature” (v1, Gk “kai theos en ho logos”). What other man or angel or creature has God ever spoken so highly of? I am not writing to debate, because I too have no interest in doing so. However, I do have a question for you: if Jesus does in fact share God’s very nature and was “begotten” of God (whatever that actually means, but it is ONLY true of Jesus as it says in John 3:16), in your view, how could he in fact NOT be divine in some degree as John told us? The great mystery of how God could reside in a man is a mystery that truly does seem incomprehensible, but from what I’ve known of YHWH so far, that is entirely consistent with who He is — unknowable to us beyond the small ways in which He has in fact revealed Himself, which happens to be just as much as He deemed right to do.
As to the Chang quote at footnote 4, it’s not a matter of imposing Greek mythology upon the Biblical text; it’s a matter of attempting to explain proper exegesis of the text – no different than using the term anthropomorphism, a word used to describe those times in which actions of YHWH are described in human terms. In one specific example, given that the Word is the agent of creation (John 1:3) and the Son is the agent of creation (Col 1:16; Heb 1:2), then John 1:14 is describing the preexistent Word taking flesh to Himself, i.e. the Word becomes Word-become-flesh. This also accounts for the words John records of Jesus in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was born, I AM!” Jesus preexists Abraham because the Word preexists Word-become-flesh.
This also explains how “the Son” can be the one who is “upholding (pherōn) all things through the power of His word” (Heb 1:3), with pherōn in the present tense-form, indicating continuous action. Its even stronger parallel is in Colossians 1:17 in which “all things in Him hold together (synestēken)” – the perfect / stative form of the verb, meaning that the Son has been holding all things together, and is, and will continue to hold all things together omnitemporally, which even includes the period when Word-become-flesh walked the earth. The latter is in virtue of the omnipresence of God’s divine nature.
Craig,
Go to sleep man! you are killing me!
“Jesus” did not pre-exist before his birth. The spirit with which he was filled certainly did. A study of the Word (referred to in the Targums as the Memra of YHVH) and the personification of Wisdom in Jewish writings would be helpful to understand the introduction to John’s gospel.
A study of the concepts of Adam Kadmon, Adam Rishon and ben Adam would also be enlightening. Yeshua is often found referring to himself as ben Adam (the “son of Man”) in Luke’s gospel. This is a functional term, not a familial one. Similarly, “b’tzelem Elohim” – in the image of God – is also a functional term. The same term is referred to (but in Greek this time) in Phil 2:5 – again, this is a functional description rather than of form (consistent with Hebrew thought patterns). Phil 2:5-11 is comparing the actions of ben Adam with Adam Rishon (the first Adam).
Skip is correct – it is a question of paradigms, and the paradigm of the NT writers was thoroughly Jewish, steeped in the study of the Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of the proto-rabbis. Understanding how they viewed the world, God and the concept and role of Messiah is critical if we’re to understand what they’ve written.
Who was the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world” then?
I have studied Adam Kadmon, Adam Rishon, and ben Adam. The first finds itself very comfortably fitting in either Gnostic teachings or the Kabbalah, the second with Kabbalah, and the third, which I’ve actually written about, doesn’t fit as Jesus/Yeshua as being merely man at all. I see the first two as incongruent with the exclusivity of Christianity, as they also fit very comfortably into teachings not at all associated with Christianity and more in line with current New Age / New Spirituality teachings.
On the last one, ben Adam, or in the Greek huios anthrōpou, son of man, you will find in the OT that the singular form is always without the article(s) (“the”). The term simply means “man” or “human”, either singularly or as collective depending on context. It occurs 108 times in the OT.
Conversely, in the NT ho huios tou anthrōpou, THE Son of Man, is the only way it is used in reference to the Messiah, and every time it’s as His own self-designation. In other words, Jesus doesn’t call Himself merely son of man, but THE Son of Man, a term no one else had used previously. And He does this 81 times (with two additional uses found in others paraphrasing Him, a third is Stephen using this term when he sees the Messiah at the right hand of the Father – Acts 7:56). The singular form is only used 4 times in the NT: once is a quote from Psalm 8:4 (in Hebrews 2:6), while two are in Revelation (1:13 and 14:14), and these latter two are both referencing the figure from Daniel 7:13 who is LIKE a son of man. The final one is debatable as, syntactically and linguistically, it may be congruent with THE son of man (long complicated explanation).
Oh, and 1 Enoch, aka the Book of Enoch does not use the definite form either.
One of the most interesting of all the contexts in which Jesus uses the Son of Man is after healing the blind man and asking the now-healed man if he ‘believes in the Son of Man’ (John 9:35-41), then making the statement that He came into the world to make the blind see and those seeing become blind. Keep in mind that the entire purpose of John’s Gospel is for all to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and believing you may have life in His name (John 20:31), which is equivalent to belief in the name of ho logos, the Word, providing “the right to become children of God” (John 1:12).
The bottom line is that Yeshua’s own self-designation as THE Son of Man is quite unique, not found in any other literature except the NT. It cannot be construed as Jesus being common man. It obviously means something more, though what all that entails has been debated for centuries.
Skip, I 100% concur with Judi Baldwin and Michael C.
Brother, you’ve spent a huge amount of time and effort to tell us what Yeshua “can’t” be. But, never explain what it is “you” see Him as.
I think after all this time of telling us how unscriptural and unjewish it would be for Him to be deity, I believe a detailed explanation is surely in order. I mean what exactly is your understanding of Him being divine? How can just a man sit at the right hand of the Father? And if He isn’t just a man in your opinion, exactly what is He.
This just seems to get danced around way too much. And that’s why people have asked so many times for clarity on this. I’m not trying to be disrespectful or argumentative. Just asking for some clarity.
Thank you, my friend.
Got it. It is in the works.
Scary! 🙂 if the trinity is a can of worms, that could be a worm farm.
And I’m still waiting for an explanation of the virgin birth? He was obviously different in some way. Also I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to define divine which I have heard you use more than once. BTW I’m not a trinitarian. Just hoping to better understand what people are saying when they come to these two issues. 😀
Briefly (more is coming when I finish my piece on the JEWISH Messiah), divine is derived from a Latin word (divinus) meaning “of a god.” The word does not exist in Scripture (at least not in the original languages). In Roman it was applied to all sorts of gods, including Zeus. When the Scriptures were translated to Latin, the word became part of the Christian concept of God. However, while the word itself did not exist in the Hebrew world, the BEHAVIOR associated with the gods did (obviously). So we might usefully look at the way people BEHAVED in the presence of the gods as a way of understanding what “divine” would have meant to them. Clearly, WORSHIP was exclusively limited to YHVH in Jewish culture, but other beings, persons, would have been considered divine. Caesar, for example, was elected to the status of a god by the Roman senate. Therefore, he was divine. As such he was to be honored, respected, adored, and show difference like no other ruler at the time. To say that someone was divine did not mean that person was YHVH (something we think after 2000 years of Christian training). It was to say that the person commanded the respect due to elevated beings whose rank and authority overshadowed all other men. In the first century, YHVH competed with the other gods for this status in the Gentile world. Obviously not in the Jewish world where YHVH ALONE was worthy of worship, etc. The disciple would have recognized the Messiah as a man who was elevated to a status above all other men, and as such, worthy of recognition and honor and obedience like no other man. But this does not mean they thought of the Messiah as YHVH, or even as a “person” of the Godhead, both concepts being quite foreign to first century Jews. So “divine” becomes a way of acknowledging supreme authority among men, unique rank, worthy of fully obeying, and in Jewish thought, appointed to a task by YHVH Himself. As you can see, with this definition Moses is also “divine.” In fact, YHVH tells Moses that He (YHVH) will make him (Moses) a “god” to Pharaoh.
More later.
Buddha is definitely divine, by this interpretation. You’re ok with that, right?
Not to be contrary, but in the interest of the facts, the word for “divine” does occur in Scripture in both the LXX (33 times, though most are in Maccabees) and the NT (3 times) – the Greek theios, the adjectival form of theos. Here are the NT uses:
Acts 17:29 – in the Greek, it’s near the end of the verse, but because of the syntactical structure, it’s usually placed in the middle. Also, it’s unique because it’s nominalized (the article precedes it), making it act like a noun. Here it refers to the true God (which should not be made into idols) [Note the full context in which Paul masterfully compares the pagan gods with the One True God]: to theion einai homoion = the divine is [not] like (gold and silver)
2 Peter 1:3 – it’s near the beginning of the verse; refers to God: tēs theias dynameōs autou = by/of His divine power
2 Peter 1:4 – in the middle of the verse; refers to God (through the Holy Spirit): genēsthe theias koinōnoi physeōs = become partakers of the divine nature
Here are the occurrences in the LXX, excepting Maccabees (and one in Sirach): Exodus 31:3, 35:31; Proverbs 2:17; Job 27:3, 33:4.
I’ll forgo any other comments on this, reserving them (potentially) for your post on who the Messiah is.
Skip, I question these things as well? As my journey of these last 4 years in a synagogue and formalizing my belief , soon , my verbal acknowledgment of the only and one g-d, not wanting to be just a ger. Confirming my DNA , Finding my Jewish family and knowing what I know in my heart of what it means to love and belong to Adonai. I will be going through the process and the mikvah and a then a new name, a Jewish name. Mazel Tov. I think this is part of the journey find out who G-d is to you.
I actually don’t really understand why this is such a hot topic with people to tell you the truth. I believe that Jesus does not equal God, you (the person reading this that does believe trinity stuff) do – so what? I think that we can both agree that Jesus had a big enough impact that we now tell time by His death (exp: AD). We can also agree that the Bible is a composition of stories/interactions with God or His presence and people trying to make sense of something that you can not simply put into a box. Lastly I think we can agree that if you follow the text in red (meaning Yeshua’s words) you will find a lot of low hanging fruit on how to live your life that will keep you busy without even knowing Torah.
This isn’t a topic that is challenging the validity of the Bible, or a topic that is challenging the validity of even events that have happened (resurrection of the dead, the sea splitting, plagues). So it’s not an argument really. Pretty much the way that I feel about it is pretty simple, if it makes you happy and makes sense to you then sure believe in the trinity – it doesn’t for me so I don’t. i don’t think either side is going to be ‘dinged’ when they meet their maker and their life flashes before them. I highly doubt this is will be the thing on the scales that tips me over for more time in the lake of fire if I’m wrong and vice versa if you are wrong.
My advice is simple, study and do the things that have actions behind them that you do understand and yet you still don’t do; don’t keep yourself up at night trying to convince someone that has their mind made up already.
This is why the question of the trinity is important to me: should I worship YHVH only as indicated by the Shema or should I also worship the Son and the Spirit? If the former is true, then the latter is idolatry. That is not something I want to have to answer for someday!
Is there any passage in the NT where Yeshua commands us to worship him? Worshipping YHVH is a given. The Scripture everywhere commands it. But is there any passage at all that commands worship of the Son?
Jesus’ quotation of Deuteronomy 6:16 in Luke 4:12:
(NASB Strong’s) 13 “And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,
“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.”
Admittedly, this is not a command but rather an example of the Lamb (Yeshua) being worshipped alongside YHVH (Him Who sits on the throne).
Skip, here are some more apparent examples of worship of Yeshua that my husband found.
Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9,17
Luke 24:52
John 9:38
And also In John 20:28 Thomas declares Yeshua to be his Lord and God.
Quickly,
Matt. 2:11 describes the magi from the East who “worship” the baby as a new king. Consider the CONTEXT! Is this not homage to a new authority? If the behavior tells the story, do you imagine that these men thought, “This baby is GOD.” Or were they doing what all men should do in the presence of royalty in the first century, in the same way that they would “worship” Caesar.
14:33 again, understand the context. What has just happened? Why do they ACT in this way? These men are MONOTHEISTIC JEWS. Do you suppose they for one minute thought they were worshipping YHVH in the flesh, or were they so shaken by what had transpired that they acted in way that are described in Greek by proskyneo (see TDNT – to bow, to kiss, to serve, to worship. Note the application in the LXX: “Most of the instances relate to veneration of the God of Israel or of false gods. proskyneín may also be directed to angels, to the righteous, to rulers, to the prophets, and to the shade of Samuel (Saul). While it may express regard, it also suggests that those thus honored are in some way God’s instruments” Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (948). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
28:9 and 17 – see the application above. If angels, righteous ones, rulers, prophets and even “shades” are venerated by proskyeno, are we to assume that this behavior is UNIQUE to Yeshua.
Luke 24:52 ??? Don’t know how this is an example???
John 9:38 Again, the use of proskyneo. Is there any reason why we should understand the actions of this man as uniquely acknowledging Yeshua as YHVH in the flesh, or can we read this as an acknowledgment of Yeshua as the Messiah, in Jewish context? I am writing a long piece on Yeshua as Jewish Messiah. It might be done before the end of the year (I hope).
John 20:28 I have written on this expression in the past. Look for it on the web site.
Here’s the real problem. Today we think of “worship” as exclusively associated with God as the subject. But this is clearly NOT the case in the first century or for that matter in any of the ancient world. Because of our cultural background, we do not associate worship with men, angels, prophets, kings or spirits. In fact, if people behave in that way, we consider them idolaters and speak of “false worship.” What this means is that we read into the text our own ideas about worship and its appropriate subjects rather than reading the text from the perspective of the first century or earlier.
Furthermore, the claim I made, I believe, is that there is no COMMAND to worship Yeshua anywhere in Scripture. The fact that people demonstrated actions that are described as “worship” in the first century does not mean that there is a COMMANDMENT to worship the Messiah. In fact, as I recall correctly I hope, Yeshua actually dissuades people from doing so.
Given the fact that the Lamb is pictured as being “at the center of the Throne” in Revelation 7:17, wouldn’t that necessitate worship?
I’ll have to take a look at your post on John 20:28.
Thank you for replying, Skip. For several years I have been a part of a “messianic” (for lack of a better descriptor) congregation as well as a part of the small home church that my husband pastors. I have found it increasingly difficult to participate in the songs, hymns and rituals of the church. Especially bothersome is the frequent interchanging of YHVH and Yeshua even to the point of praying to “Jesus”. Again, this is why the question of just who is Yeshua is so important to me.
Skip, I would implore you to follow your own advice and not just sign on wholescale to the Jesus is just a man paradigm. Please leave a little room for your inner independent Berean.
Yeshua never stopped anybody from worshiping Him, not the people he healed, the foreigners He encountered, or His own disciples, like the time when Peter walked on the water, notably.
Moreover, Jews did NOT go around worshiping Ceasar or anybody else. Witness all the bloody gore that ensued when the yearly tax was enforced with the additional provision that people had to show allegiance to Ceasar by kissing his image on the coin they handed over. Countless Jews lost their lives by their steadfast refusal to worship anyone but YHVH.
You may implore (thanks). Of course the Jews did not worship Caesar. But again, the word “worship” even in the LXX is applied to many more beings than YHVH, so why are we so insistent that it MUST MEAN the subject is God? Pay attention to the way the term is USED, not what we think about it today. We have a very truncated definition that doesn’t fit even the use in the Tanakh. The meaning of a term is the way it is used in the language of the people who use it, not in the way an outsider wants to use the term. The best example is my constant reference to the meaning of the term “man” in Zulu. It does NOT MEAN adult male. That’s what we think, but it is not the way the term is used by native speakers. So with “worship.” HOW IS IT USED? Not, what do we think it means.
My point IS to go look at the behavior (understanding) of those first century Jews. Who did they worship? It is immaterial who anybody else was or wasn’t.
Yes, as historian Larry Hurtado notes, worship of Yeshua at the level of YHWH was evident in the first century, both as Scripture attests and as other historical documents attest.
True, but my point was that the Jews were NOT worshiping just anybody. Just Onebody. There is no evidence that I have ever seen, post Babylonian captivity (where they were supposedly cured of worship of any other elohim but YHVH) that the Jews ever again worshiped anyone else BUT YHVH – um, and Yeshua.
I’ve researched this to the level you have, but I’ve no reason to see your position as flawed.
>>NOT<<
I refer you and others to the authoritative article by Greeven in TDNT, Vol 6, pp. 758-766. On the use of proskyneo in the LXX, Greeven comments, “What is appropriate to God is also appropriate to His elect.” He follows with several examples. I see no reason to suppose the proskyneo DEMANDS the subject be YHVH since it is clearly used of actions toward those who are REPRESENTATIVES of YHVH. Go read the article. Greeven claims that the use of proskyneo in the NT always supposes that the object is “divine,” but now we are back at the beginning. What does “divine” mean in first century Greek?
Specifically to devout Jews speaking first century Greek, otherwise we are going to have Jews who were worshiping Herod as a god being representative of good examples for us to follow, and YHVH can just go to the head of a very long line.
Skip,
But, as you’ve noted, it’s all about context. It’s one thing to worship a representative of YHWH; it’s quite another to worship “the Lamb” in concert with YHWH as Rev 5:14 and Rev 17:11-17 indicate.
As to the meaning of divine, in a previous comment I showed that the Greek word for “divine” IS in both the NT and the LXX; and, in the NT it always refers to God in some way. In case my comment was missed, here it is slightly amended:
Not to be contrary, but in the interest of the pursuit of truth, the word for “divine” does occur in Scripture in both the LXX (33 times, though most are in Maccabees) and the NT (3 times) – the Greek theios, the adjectival form of theos. Here are the NT uses:
Acts 17:29 – in the Greek, it’s near the end of the verse, but because of the syntactical structure, it’s usually placed in the middle of the verse in translation. Also, it’s unique because it’s nominalized (the article precedes it), making it act like a noun. Here it refers to the true God (which should not be made into idols) [Note the full context in which Paul masterfully compares the pagan gods with the One True God]: to theion einai homoion = the divine is [not] like (gold and silver)
2 Peter 1:3 – in the Greek, it’s near the beginning of the verse; refers to God: tēs theias dynameōs autou = by/of His divine power
2 Peter 1:4 – in the Greek, in the middle of the verse; refers to God (through the Holy Spirit): = genēsthe theias koinōnoi physeōs become partakers of the divine nature
Here are the occurrences in the LXX, excepting Maccabees (and one in Sirach): Exodus 31:3, 35:31; Proverbs 2:17; Job 27:3, 33:4.
Skip,
You’re exactly right. Context is important. The word used for worship <proskuneō can have a number of meanings. However, this term IS used in Revelation 5:14, as Linda quotes above, clearly referencing worship of both “Him Who sits on the Throne” and “the Lamb”. Moreover, as I just noted just above Revelation 7:17 situates “the Lamb” “at the center of the Throne”. These verses must be considered.
It is VERY possible that the ‘Lamb’ is situated in center as a sign of respect.
I mean, as long as we are entertaining ‘possible’ meanings to everything, this must be considered as well. IMO
☕️ ?
I just finished looking more closely at the context of Revelation 7. I recalled from the YouTube video of the Trinity debate between Buzzard/Good and Brown/White that Buzzard made the claim that latreno, serve (as in worship) is exclusively for worship of YHWH (and Buzzard understands God the Father = YHWH), and, lo and behold, this is the word used in 7:15. I think it important to keep the full context, so here it is in the NASB:
The latter part of this verse is a reference to Revelation 22:1, which more explicitly illustrates God and the Lamb sharing the Throne:
Just to ensure I understand correctly…
Is calling someone master, rabbi, pastor, teacher etc not also a form of worship..
Acknowledging superiority.
Was it not this that Yeshua self warned we may not permit as then we bring not glory to the one and only God.
If this be true then maybe I could be misreading the context when reference is made to worship or bring glory to or through whose name… for these forms of referencing are more towards the legacy or teachings and lifestyle of Yeshua rather than the empowered individual of 2000 + years ago.
I acknowledge Yeshua lived and brought miracles to those that believed and done what he said how simple it may have sounded…. blindman was clay off as at, tax money in mouth of first fish you catch, through net on other side… And it is this humble approach that is implied by worshipping not the messenger as he self said do not kneel before me their is only one to kneel down too.
Just my 2c thoughts.
I agree with Skip. When they asked, “How do we pray?” He didn’t respond with, “Our Yeshua…”. Also you should know that more or less with the idolatry that in the commandments it’s referring to powers (Skip correct me if I’m wrong).
See I’m not even exactly sure if believing Yeshua is God and man is idolatry. I think it’s more just wonky (no offense). Because idolatry is the idea that the power stands on it’s own. (Exp: astrology when the stars align this way good fortune is going to come.) But people that believe in the trinity believe the power comes from God ultimately and some how works through Christ. So I’m not exactly sure if that qualifies as idolatry again it could just be wonky (that is if the trinity isn’t true). I think that idoltry with trinity would be more like, Jesus Christ works on his own and does His own thing and God has nothing to do with it. But that’s generally not the common belief to my understanding. I think Skip could comment on that – above my pay grade.
Again, I’m not sure about the idolatry. I just think it’s incorrect and makes it harder to follow someone as an example when His life proves nothing because I will never be able to replicate it no matter how hard I try because He’s God and deemed for perfection from the very beginning.
But we are told that He voluntarily set aside that divinity so as to run the race only in the power available to us. There is nothing – nothing – about His life that cannot be duplicated by His followers except for His claims about Himself. The same connections with His Father, the same help, the same power to resist temptation, the same opportunities to learn and apply. “In all points tempted like as we are” is a broader statement I think than just about sin. It has to do with being subjected to the same conditions that we have. That having been said, the fact that He was still divine – although He did not, shall we say, ever abuse that divinity – gives us a huge advantage. Now we are promised not only the return to the freedom to be the humans we were created to be, through His intercession, but also access to His divine power that He has promised repeatedly to give us when we need it, or when He needs us to have it, through His Spirit. The apostles worked with a power far beyond their own. We should be, too. (Right, Seeker?)
Here’s a question to ponder. Could Yeshua have failed in His mission? That is, assuming His mission was to live out a life of perfect Torah observance, could He have failed? If true, then YHWH would contradict His own Word, the Tanakh; hence, that cannot be so. Therefore, Messiah could not have failed in His mission. Given this, doesn’t this render His example in a sense unfair to the rest of humanity? In other words, If Yeshua could not fail in His mission, and assuming this mission was to live out a life of perfect Torah obedience as our example for same, then how could He really be an example for others who obviously do not have this built-in safeguard?
Exactly the POINT in why he is NOT a ‘god’ or, to be direct, “GOD the Son”.
He had to live his life as man, human, for his life to be our example.
Which destroys the trinity.
It does, however, open the door to holiness, sanctification and living Torah.
Thank your for bringing that up.
Does it really ‘destroy the trinity’? Could not God have made Himself into ‘man’ in order to demonstrate how to live a perfect life as a man, given that God created man? And what other “man” has been born with the inherent advantage of not being able to fail in Torah observance? Doesn’t this make the Messiah something more than any other man?
Actually, Craig, the TRUTH is, basic Torah is not difficult to follow. Review it: honor YHVH, Honor your parents. Don’t sleep w/anyone other then your spouse. Don’t lie. Don’t covet. Don’t cheat. Respect your fellow man.
CHOICE is what steps in, making it difficult.
Messiah made the right choices AS A MAN, thereby demonstrating that so can we.
That’s the POINT.
These endless circular discussions are not about Torah. It’s about wanting something OTHER then Torah, to replace Torah, and being willing to force square pegs into round holes to do so.
Circular conversations occur when people start arguing with what the spirit is revealing to them. (my opinion) and, as Laurita has said, it’s only when a person is able to step onto the next rung that they stop. I agree with that.
The above is my opinion and nothing else.
You seem to imply that you accept the Catholic idea of non posse peccare, i.e., that it was not possible for Yeshua to sin, as opposed to all other human beings which Augustine lumped under non posse non paccare (not possible NOT to sin). This has enormous implications and complications. “Born with an inherent advantage” must mean “not like us,” right? And the Trinity does not contend that God manifest Himself as a man, but rather that the “man” Jesus was God, not simply a manifestation of God.
My interest at present is in non posse peccare as it pertains to Yeshua. I’ve never stated the Augustinian non posse non peccare, as that’s a separate argument.
“Born with an inherent advantage” must mean “not like us,” right? Yes, exactly.
And the Trinity does not contend that God manifest Himself as a man, but rather that the “man” Jesus was God, not simply a manifestation of God. I’ll restate this, Trinitarians believe that Jesus was/is both God and man, the theanthropic God-man, with a human nature and a divine nature. The divine Word (John 1:1) took human nature to Himself, becoming Word-made-flesh (John 1:14), i.e. Jesus the Messiah.
As I said, NOT like us in any sense of the term. Not man as all other men are men. Not capable of sinning, right? If that’s the inherent advantage, then I guess I can never really be like him, can I?
No, no one can possibly ever be like the Messiah with respect to Torah observance, because we have not been born with an inherent predisposition to NOT be able to not obey the Torah perfectly. That was stated negatively. Stated positively, while the Messiah was born with the predisposition to obey the Torah perfectly, we do not have this inherent predisposition. See my comment of today at 1:11pm below for further elaboration.
My point in this line of questioning is this. Setting aside a discussion on the Trinity for the moment, how do we construe the ontology (being) of the Messiah based on the Biblical fact that the Messiah could not have failed in His mission – however one wants to define this mission? Taking just His perfect adherence to Torah, a foregone conclusion if He were indeed the Messiah, how can we understand Him as being merely a man? An answer (not that I’m accusing anyone of supplying this answer) that ‘He was the Messiah’ would be inadequate, as it would be circular.
Well, another way of perceiving the response of “He was the Messiah” would be….wait for it…….
Succinct.
I think you are asking the wrong questions no offense. Everyone has free will and your question only has any weight with the assumption that we don’t in fact have free will including Yeshua. There is no safeguard. If it wasn’t going to be Yeshua it was going to be someone else.
Also your assumption is that His mission was to live out a perfect life to Torah obedience. Where does it say that in the OT? When does Yeshua say this? I thought he came for the lost sheep of Israel.
I don’t think Yeshua’s mission was that singularly focused on, “I need to do ‘x’ or a fail my mission’. Pretty sure there was a lot going on.
I think the better question to ask is, “What was the point of His life and ministry and death and Resurrection?”. If grace already existed, if we already knew that God holds the power to life and death (bronze serpent), if forgiveness of sins already happened before Him, if the Law was not a burden and wasn’t thought to be….what was the point of it all? The Bible is circular, so everything He taught isn’t new. All the points He was bringing up weren’t new. He was pointing people to scripture.
Again I don’t think there was a mission that was singularly focused and I don’t believe it had to be Him either. Could be wrong – I don’t know.
So, you’re stating that Yeshua of Nazareth was only the Messiah because He ended up fulfilling the messianic mission, and that if He had not fulfilled it to the jot and tittle, He would not have been the Messiah, as it would have been someone else? Can you point to where this idea would be in the Tanakh? Keep in mind the words of Jesus as recorded by Luke 4:18-19.
You are correct Craig. This will be my last response to you on this post because I have a feeling that it won’t be fruitful on either of parts for us to continue a dialog about this. The Messiah is suppose to be a King Prophet and Priest. So yes, if he lived out Torah perfectly it would have not been enough. If he lived out Torah perfectly and was not from another priestly line you are correct not enough. If he fulfilled Torah and did not come from King David it would have not been enough. If He fulfilled Torah and did not speak prophecy it would have not been enough.
To your original argument, I think there was a lot going on other then the fact He had to live out Torah perfectly. Impressive that Yeshua did, but that doesn’t make Him the messiah. And your idea of a fail safe isn’t scriptural. That is one of the amazing things about the God we worship, we have freewill.
As I’ve stated I do believe He is the Messiah. I guess where I’m left with is A) I don’t understand the point you are trying to make now B)Disagree with the fact that Yeshua didn’t have free will and couldn’t sin C) I don’t agree with the statement that Messiah’s mission was to live a perfect life. I tend to believe that you are over simplifying the Messiah’s mission. What the exact mission was, I don’t know. I do know however it could have not been just that simple.
Points! ALL of them! AND you didn’t use 4 million words to make them.
Derek,
For the record, I wasn’t at all offended initially by your first response, and I didn’t intend on being in any way confrontational in my response to you. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the matter of free will with respect to the Messiah.
If Yeshua did not have free will, that would be saying that God does not have free will, and God never yet has ‘made’ Himself do anything. If He did not have free will, then His fidelity to His Father was a joke, and we have no pattern to follow. How is saying “God made me do it” any different at that point than saying that the devil did? Force is force and love never did force, neither can it ever BE forced. Yeshua could have called all the angels to do whatever He wanted them to at any time, came down from that cross and gone home and nobody would have faulted Him, for He did not deserve it in the first place. I bet He spent a good while sweet talking His Father into this plan, in fact, way back when, and not the other way around. I love Him because He came because He wanted to. That is what love is.
Sorry, I thought that my comment at 2:04pm could be misconstrued, given my non-qualification. I was referencing Derek’s comment about ‘free will’ with respect to how I framed my original set of questions around Messiah’s Torah obedience, that as the Messiah it was impossible for him not to obey the Torah absolutely faithfully. Had Yeshua failed in complete Torah obedience, He would have failed His mission and ‘the Scripture would have been broken’. No matter how one construes the exact mission of Messiah, there’s a certain amount of tension. Was He potentially able to fail in His initial temptation in the wilderness? John the Baptist had already baptized Him for His messianic mission by that point.
Certainly Messiah had a will, as He stated in the Garden of Gethsemane, “not My will but Yours be done.” [Though two wills – one divine and one human – was implied at Chalcedon, the Third Council of Constantinople in 680/81 codified it.]
Well, that’s a relief!
Blog commenting can be hazardous!
Just a man, isn’t conceived by just a woman, without a human man. Yeshua’s only “Father”, was YHVH, period. Joseph didn’t lay with Mary, the Spirit of YHVH begot that child. That makes Him far more than this “just a man” theory. There was never before or never would have been at any time, to come, or past, where that would be the case. So, yeah, if in fact, Yeshua were to have failed, there would have been no redo. All “mankind” would have been doomed.
Keeping Torah from the “just a man” perspective would involve the reality that said man “IS” going to sin but, has a means to be restored. Yeshua “never” sinned, never broke Torah, never needed or have to seek atonement through “human” means. As is the case in Torah. Never in His actions, words, or thoughts did He sin. Because keep in mind, He said more than just an action can break Torah and therefore sin.
So much gets left out or set aside from this Yeshua is “just a man” theory, it’s not even funny. One definitely has to toss out a very good portion of the Apostles words, not to mention His own, in order to do that. And of course, that’s exactly what people do.
Mark:
Why is it we have no problem considering Eve as “just a woman” when she had no earthly mother? God took Adam’s DNA and created her. Why could God not take Eve’s egg cell and create a man? Messiah
For that matter He took dust and created Adam himself who had neither human mother nor father. Yet Adam was “just a man”. I put that in quotes because I hate the expression “just a…” Adam was created with a role to be sovereign over all creation. He blew it, choosing to be autonomous. The second Adam achieved what the first did not. He actually did get tempted and yes he even died. God can Himself do neither of those things!
Excellent point. And we have another example with Sarah, a miraculous birth by human standards deeply embedded in the heritage of Israel
But the wombs of Abimelech’s harem were sealed because of Sarah, and then unsealed. Was Sarah’s womb likewise sealed and unsealed? I have wondered about Rachel, why it took so long for her to conceive, and if it had something to do with fertility being withheld and granted, and what about Rebekah? She was old when she conceived, and Isaac prayed for decades for her, too. All miracles? Sarah was old by our standards, but maybe not by the standards of the day. How old was she when Pharoah saw her? Abraham was still siring babies for the better part of a century afterward Isaac’s birth. I think Sarah was a clear case of womb sealing, even though she obviously thought she was menopausal, some indigenous societies do not go through menopause, even today. I think the womb sealing was as big a miracle as the other.
HSB:
Adam isn’t ever called the only begotten Son of God. Or the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. The great I AM. God made flesh. Adam’s never said to save his people. That would be the “Salvation” of YHVH, which is in totality and name, Yeshua. Adam is never referred to as Emmanuel “God with us”, Yeshua is such. Adam is never called mighty God, Prince of peace, Counselor. Adam was a created being, Yeshua was not. He had no beginning and has no end. Adam came from the dust and returned to it. Yeshua lives! And sits on the throne, Adam does not.
Eve is called “Woman, because she was taken out of Man”. Not, “begotten” by God.
Unless of course, it’s one’s intention to toss out the Apostolic scriptures or the prophecies regarding Him, I’m gonna go ahead and go with that.
Got your point, but careful not to get too effusive. Yeshua isn’t called “The great I AM” or “God made flesh” either. As for the Isaiah name, see Rodney Baker’s comment on the verse some years ago. As for the claim that Yeshua had no beginning or end, that is precisely the question, so it can’t be asserted as a proof. I see the rest, but just a little care please.
Point taken. I was referring to He Himself saying He was “I AM”. If that wasn’t exactly what He meant to say then He probably would have used better grammar. And the “God made flesh” from the word being made flesh and dwelling with us, and was God. So, while I agree there are talking points in all that, I personally, as well as many others, see it for just that. But, that also doesn’t require me to hold to a Catholic doctrine of the trinity.
As I say all the time. I think scripture, all 66 books of it, is meant for us to struggle over and through. Many aspects of it are just simply beyond our reasoning. Some things are still a mystery. I accept that and have no problem at times saying my reasoning and logic simply come to an end.
Mark I was simply commenting on the first three lines of your post:
“Just a man, isn’t conceived by just a woman, without a human man. Yeshua’s only “Father”, was YHVH, period. Joseph didn’t lay with Mary, the Spirit of YHVH begot that child. That makes Him far more than this “just a man” theory.” I was not casting any cloud on what Jesus accomplished for us. Sorry if I was not clear about that.
Hello HSB. I guess I was misunderstanding what you were saying in your comment. Sorry about that.
And to be clear, I wasn’t trying to be snippy either. Reading my post again I see it may come across that way but it wasn’t my intention at all. That’s one of those “lacks” in relating through a keyboard.
And I wasn’t saying that Mary isn’t “just a woman”. I’m certain she was. The details as to exactly how YHVH brought Yeshua from the woman is unclear I think. My only point in this thread was that Yeshua Himself is not and could not be “Just a mere man”.
I’m not trying to diminish Mary either. The “Just a…” comment is as in “just a human” and nothing more.
Shalom.
Scanning through Paul’s letters I believe he was the one that said the most of the Christ in flesh principle. And all this explaining how we need to work on becoming empowered through the HG by clothing ourselves with Christ.
Jesus was baptized around the age of 30… Ever wonder why if the 8th day introduction was already fulfilled as required by the Jewish dogma of the time and still followed today. As a few Christian sects also believe in. Infant or adult baptism debate…
And it was only at this stage that the prophetic visions to those involved was revealed and did they most probably understand their life goal. Was it not after this baptism that he was acknowledge the son of God…
God, God’s will, God’s deeds. Three in one makes God not a split person but a complete known entity to mankind.
As God is not of this world, yet he created it. How he completed his declaration of himself to us through an empowered individual should never make him less worthy in our life… As was it not John that said Jesus came and revealed God (will) unto mankind.
For the Trinitarian view this is exactly the same principle he used to create the earth we dwell on. Maybe the paradigm is something new happened in the gospels rather than we need to adapt a new approach to serve God to qualify as his sons and daughters…
And was his sending or deliverance task not heal, grant vision and set free… thereby uniting the last sheep with the Judah…
If we read more than this we may also be reading our paradigm into the scriptures…
There’s not been discussion of many of the points raised by this post. I’ll quickly address one, the Chang quote at footnote 6:
“The Augustinian and Calvinistic degradation of man as being nothing more than a wretched, ‘depraved’ sinner, made it seem unworthy for Christ to be ‘mere’ man.”
Setting aside specifics of Augustinian and Calvinistic doctrines, I’ll address the “’mere’ man” statement as regards the sin issue by quoting just two Scriptures (NASB):
All have sinned, yet our high priest, Messiah, did not.
It is quotes like the above that set the rest of us up for the same old dialectic that is as sure to follow as God made little green apples. I tend to want to resist such bipolar statements. There is bound to be something added, and something subtracted, too. I have fallen for them one too many times.
As to Titus 2:13 – the point raised at footnote 8 – I’m not sure why we have to trust the KJV over newer translations. As point of fact, in the important part of this verse there’s only one textual variant, and that one merely switches “Jesus” with “Christ”. Below is the Greek, which I’ll break up into two pieces. My translation is word-for-word:
prosdechomenoi tēn makarian elpida kai epiphaneian
awaiting the blessed hope and appearing
The second word is the article (“the”), which is in the accusative, direct object case. This matches the case of the two nouns which follow, separated by the conjunction “kai”.
In the last part of this verse (below), all words are in the genitive/possessive form except “kai”, which is a conjunction and is not, therefore, ever declined in any manner. The two articles, tēs and tou (masculine and feminine, respectively, to match gender of the nouns they modify/precede) are rendered, appropriately “of the”. Contrary to the KJV rendering doxēs is a noun, not an adjective (as the KJV translation of “glorious” makes it). Note that hēmōn, a 1st person plural pronoun, which precedes “Jesus Christ” (or “Christ Jesus”) is rendered “of ours”, since it’s in the genitive:
tēs doxēs tou megalou theou kai sōtēros hēmōn Iēsou Christou,
of the glory of the great God and Savior of ours, Jesus Christ
At issue here is just how the conjunction functions – does it couple “great God” with “Savior of ours…” into one, or is “great God” separate from “Savior of ours…”? Usually, one article (tou) would indicate that both nouns are coupled by that one article – otherwise two articles would be used, preceding each noun. Note for comparison the use of one article governing two nouns in the clause above (“the blessed hope and appearing”).
In the interest of fairness and completeness, I’ll take a very lengthy quote from the New American Commentary (Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, NAC 34; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. [Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992], p 312-314) Italics in original; bold added for my own emphasis:
I think it’s best rendered – removing some clumsiness, while keeping as true to its original syntactical ordering as possible:
…awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ…
Well, phooey. After taking my time, getting blurry eyed trying to properly tag the italics in the quotes, etc., I see I’ve made a mistake (hopefully no more). The two articles, tēs and tou (masculine and feminine, respectively… should be The two articles, tēs and tou (feminine and masculine, respectively…
Thank you for being meticulous, Craig.
Craig
Well referenced view, thank you.
Just for clarity did you add the comma before Jesus Christ in the direct translation or is it part of the Greek text.
If not part of could the translation not also say
Saviour of our Jesus Christ…
Referring rather to the power that resurrected Jesus from the dead to bring fullness to the redemption to the souls in the dead region as well… for as he lives so shall all that believe including those he saved in the dead region…
Seeker, the problem with that is that Jesus Himself said that life was something He laid down freely of Himself, and took back up again. He said that life was something “of Himself”. This is a God statement, if you will, and also a statement that I, to my knowledge, have not seen any proponent of the Jesus is man theory tackle. Don’t even begin to ask me about the human-sleeping-in-the-grave part vs. the get-Myself-back-up-again part. He said it, not me.
Hi Laurita, again a translation issue. The Greek for ‘take’ in ‘take it up again’ is lambano, which can either mean ‘take’ or ‘receive’. If the translator believes Y’shua is God then he has to choose ‘take’. If he believes Y’shua is an anointed man, then ‘receive’ makes a lot more sense. I believe the proper translation should be, ‘This is why the Father loves me: because I lay down my life – in order to receive it back again’. Y’shua did not raise himself up, he was raised by the Father, as confirmed in Acts 2:32, 5:30, Rom 10:9 and many more verses.
Then why the numerous statements about life that He made, and that His disciples, like John, made about Him? All of them statements that no other creature can make. Why make them, why are they so many, and why do they say what they say?
You are correct that lambano can mean either “take” or “receive”. However, “receive” doesn’t fit the grammar. Both verbs are in the active mood, and for your interpretation to work these would need to be in the passive mood. In other words, if, in your interpretation, Yeshua lacked the power to raise Himself from the dead, He’d have to be the passive receiver, thus necessitating the passive mood in both instances.
Moreover, your interpretation stands in contrast to John 2:19, in which Messiah clearly states He’d raise His own “temple”, i.e. body.
Also, see my response to Seeker.
Maybe it would be helpful to use an analogy. First a correction: above I meant active or passive VOICE not mood. Now on to the analogy.
Let’s say that I’m expecting an envelope from a particular person. I see this individual approaching me. I can either (a) actively extend my hand to take it from him, or (b) allow the individual to hand it me, becoming the active recipient. Both cases are instances of the active voice. Sentences could be:
(a) I took the envelope from him.
(b) I received the envelope from him.
On the other hand, if I were asleep, I wouldn’t have the ability to either actively take the envelope or actively receive the envelope. The individual could place it on my chest, e.g., but I’d be the passive recipient, necessitating the passive voice. A variation of (a) above, i.e., using the verb “take”, is obviously not possible. A variation of (b) is possible: The envelope was received by me from him. Note how in the passive voice the envelope becomes the subject rather than the direct object (accusative), and that “I” am no longer the subject. Also note that a helping/linking verb (“was”) is necessary in English.
It took me awhile, but I did find one example of a passive voice for this verb, though prefixed with a preposition (fairly common practice): analambano (ana meaning “up”). It’s in Acts 10:16: …the sheet/object/vessel was taken/received up into heaven.
Interestingly, in the latter part of John 10:18, the same verb is used in the active voice, with “received” the best translation: This commandment I received from My Father. This fits the pattern of (b) above, except the direct object (“This commandment”) is placed before the subject (“I”).
I hope that helps alleviate any potential confusion.
Craig,,
Sorry but this claim was a discussion outside the teachings that were meant for Israel… and yes there is no greater love than he who lays down his life for his friends.. take a bullet for me or rather standing up for those who cannot stand up and help themselves…. For me a very allegorical why of explaining goal and purpose.
Hosea explained this priinciple long before Jesus reiterated it…
Laurita these are documented so are in the same NT records that. Jesus,, does not give unless the father authorizes. Neither can he help unless the father first calls.
Back to John 1 to understand or define the mediator in this blog’s topic.
The word.
Not wisdom, not spirit, not love, not Torah… or wait, Torah is words so John would then say the Torah is life for those that accepted it, for the Torah is the flesh vessel Jesus which is mediator. This then translates to understand the Torah as documented in the evangelistic books to identify with the mediator. Literally translate these evangelistic records and the word cannot be your mediator as the literal translation tends to contradict itself.
I go to the father to prepare a place for you… sounds like a mediator in action not the giver of everything.
Sorry but cannot accept that Jesus or the holy ghost rose Jesus from the dead only the will and power of God can do that by Jesus’s own declarations not his allegorical conversations….
Seeker,
As to the first part of your comment, there is absolutely no punctuation in the original Greek. In fact, there are not even spaces between the words or paragraph breaks (though there are some indicators in words themselves)! But, to answer your more specific question: (a) it would be very unusual, such verbiage is foreign to the NT; (b) it really doesn’t fit the context well. Testing your theory, we’d have “God” the subject through to the next verse:
…awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the great God and Savior of our Jesus Christ who gave Himself up for us to redeem us…
Yet, all throughout the NT Christ/Messiah is our redeemer. It much better suits the context if “Jesus Christ” is the subject of the next clause beginning with “who”. So, it seems the real choice is between “the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ” (two persons = the second person, Messiah as subject), or “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (one person = Messiah as subject).
As to the second part, Laurita well-answered it. In John 2:19-22, Jesus, in His own words, declared He’d raise His temple, His own body; and, he reiterates this in John 10:17-18. Of course, this is not to contradict the many Scriptures stating that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 5:29-31; Galatians 1:1; Ephesians 1:17-20, e.g.), but rather to illustrate at least a binitarian view. And, while the following are not conclusive (both are subject to different interpretations), there are two verses that can be construed that the Holy Spirit also raised Jesus from the dead: Romans 1:4 and 8:11.
John 5:26 is the verse which states Jesus had “life in Himself”, granted by the Father. Clearly no one else can claim to have life “in Himself”. This harmonizes well with Messiah as agent of all creation, with all things coming “through” (Greek dia) Him, thus illustrating that He precedes all creation: as “Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 8:6); as “the Son” (Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2); as “the Word” (John 1:3).
Craig,
Once again very detailed response, with which I have no problem with accepting at face value.
I cannot comment on translation issues but only on how I understand it… The difference for me between the OT and NT is that the OT authors wrote more for literal translation and application while it seems as if the NT authors were very allegorical in their way of explaining things…. including discussions.
Think of John 1 and John 9 as well as 14….. Word creates, word revives, word enlightens all by applying. Jesus is lght or rather example of executing as long as in world. Jesus is way, truth and life and only mediator… wait, only for those God calls. Not everyone who worships, praises and glorifies… they are dealt with elsewhere differently. But where…
So can we literally apply these records to imply us or only relevant for those that lived then, for all Jesus promises will come to pass in that generation – his own translated statement. Or did he only refer to certain claims not mentioned in that specific script..
Paradigm on mediator outside ourselves instead of being manifested in us… my 2c.
From the OP, quoting Chang: “But the God of Trinitarianism is not a person; he is not even ‘person’ in some generalized sense because ‘he’ is the ‘substance’ of which the three persons consist. To speak of a substance as ‘he’ is contrary to language and logic…”
My comments here are not an attempt to ‘win’ anyone over to the Trinitarian position, but an effort to correct straw man arguments which keep erecting themselves. I can’t know if Chang is doing this deliberately or out of ignorance, so I’m assuming the latter. It only seems right to accurately represent the position with which you are arguing. I should add that, unfortunately, many adherents to the Trinitarian position do not understand it.
In this comment I’ll address Chang’s charge about “person”, then I’ll address his assertion regarding “substance”. As to the distinction between the ‘Persons’ in the Trinitarian formulation and a human person, here’s a decent delineation by Gerald O’Collins (The Tripersonal God [New York, NY: Paulist Press, 1999] p 178; bold added for emphasis):
Prior to O’Collins’ words above, the author noted the difference on what person (Greek prosōpon; Latin persona) meant at the time of the Trinitarian formulation, which had evolved from the mask one wore in theatrical performance to the role of the one wearing the mask. This is in stark contrast to the individualist connotation of “person” in the current vernacular.
As for Chang’s charge regarding substance, it would be instructive to note the meaning underlying the term used: homoousias. Setting aside the prefix homo which can be easily understood, on the latter part, ousias, the knowledge that this is a form of the verb to be will go a long way toward understanding the intent of those formulating the Trinitarian doctrine.
In the Nicene Creed the Son is homoousion with the Father, one essence/being with the Father. The word is in the neuter because, well, how would we gender the divine nature? This does not mean to imply that the essence of the Trinity is an “it”; however, the point is not the being or essence so much as the ‘Persons’ subsisting IN that essence/being – ‘Persons’ understood within the framework provided by O’Collins above. Yet, the essence / being has one single consciousness and one single will, as we would expect of any person. To think of each member of the Trinity as having His own will and consciousness is to devolve into tritheism – three gods.
Of course, all here know that ‘YHWH is a verb’. In the LXX (Septuagint), the rabbis translated Exodus 3:14 into the Greek as Egō eimi ho ōn…ho ōn, which twice uses the Greek verb to be, with the latter part reiterated by YHWH (“say ho ōn has sent me to you”). It can be translated a number of ways:
I AM WHO I AM…WHO IAM
I AM THE ONE WHO IS…THE ONE WHO IS
I AM THE ONE WHO EXISTS…THE ONE WHO EXISTS
or as Brenton’s has it: I AM THE BEING…THE BEING
I think this idea undergirds the Trinitarian formulation.
For those who wish to charge that this is all incomprehensible, I’ll ask that you to explain in a manner comprehensible to all how it is that Jonah could live 3 days in the belly of a great fish. Keeping that in mind, just know that the formulators of the Trinitarian formula were doing their best to explain how they interpret the Scriptures with respect to the ontology of the Deity.
Skip says it is not possible for New Testament Jewish authors to understand Yeshua as part of a Godhead and yet Moses, in the very first verse of Genesis, writes that “Elohim”, a plural form of a word for god, “created the heavens and the earth.”
I have heard Elohim explained as a uni-plural noun, similar to “family”, a singular noun yet having a plurality involved in its meaning.
Deut. 6:4 reads, “Hear, O Israel: YHVH our Elohim is one YHVH ”, but Strong’s definition of the word “one” (H259) says it is, “properly, united”. Not singleness, but united-ness. That negates the insistence for there being only one being. In fact, how can there be unity unless there is more than one being?
Then John 5:37 tells us regarding the Father that, “Neither have you heard His voice AT ANY TIME nor seen His shape.” But YHVH was seen and heard.
All that indicates that YHVH is different from, or at least not limited to, the Father.
Scripture tells us the Word was with God and the Word became flesh, and also, Christ being in the form of God emptied himself taking the form of a servant, a man.
The Son may not be equal to the Father, but He was more than a man, then became a man “full” of the holy spirit, and is now the Mediator between them.
That’s very basic but what problems does anyone see in this? Is Elohim not plural? Is James Strong wrong in his definition of “one”? Is the Father not invisible? Did YHVH not make Himself visible? Does all this not help reconcile the difficulties? (If not our paradigms?)
I am quite sure all these questions will be addressed in the February conference in Winter Garden. But just for starters, see Nahum Sarna (JPS Torah Commentary – Genesis) on the plural elohim with the singular verb. Since he is thoroughly orthodox Jewish, his answer might be revealing.
Sarna says of Gen. 2:4 “the Lord God – This combination of the unique, personal divine name YHVH with the general term elohim appears 20 times in this narrative but only once again in the Torah (in Exod. 9:30). YHVH signifies compassion (as well as protection and personal relationship). Its combination here with elohim (signifying justice) is to indicate that these are two aspects of the one God.”
Additional Conservative halakhah commentary says, “Legend has it that God created other worlds before this one, but was not pleased with any of them. One world was based on the principle of strict justice; who did wrong was punished. Every righteous person who gave in to temptation was struck down. Rejecting that world, God fashioned a world based on the principles of compassion and forgiveness; ……Finally God fashioned this world on both law and compassion which is why Scripture (in v. 4) uses both divine names YHVH for compassion and Elohim for justice.”
As I was reading through the conversation on this blog, I had another question. I know I’m very late commenting and I have no idea if this has been covered elsewhere, but I wanted to ask it anyway, hoping perhaps someone will see it and have a response. I don’t know the original languages so perhaps there is something I am missing.
If Yeshua/Jesus is God in the same sense that YHVH is God, how is it possible that he worships a god? To restate the question, unless he is god as described by Skip in this blog, can god have a god? There may be more than what I’m listing, but the reason I ask the question is because of these scriptures I found that seem to say that Yeshua has a god.
(I’m not sure about the first one since I know he is quoting Psalm 22; I used the NASB but I think they read similarly in other translations):
Matthew 27:46 (NASB)
46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
John 20:17 (NASB)
17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'”
Romans 15:5-6 (NASB)
5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,
6 so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:3-4 (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,
4 who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.
2 Corinthians 11:31 (NASB)
31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, He who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.
Ephesians 1:3 (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
Ephesians 1:16-17 (NASB)
16 do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers;
17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.
1 Peter 1:3 (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
Revelation 1:5-6 (NASB)
5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—
6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Revelation 3:2 (NASB)
2 ‘Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God.
Revelation 3:12 (NASB)
12 ‘He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
You make a good point. Trinitarians would probably answer that this is Jesus as the Man part of the God-Man, but as you can see, it violates the plain meaning of the text and makes a mockery of the idea that Jesus worshipped YHVH.
Thanks Skip. That begs another question: where did the concept of Yeshua having two natures come from? The Trinity dogma?’
Mel,
Excellent questions! (And your note about Psalm 22 is astute, though see below.) First, I’ll summarize how Yeshua/Jesus is God. As I noted above (Dec 1, 9:10am and 2:44pm), the grammar is explicit in John 10:17-18 (verbs are in the active voice; cf. 2:19-22) that He raised Himself from the dead (and there’s other Scripture stating that God raised Him, the Father raised Him, and, arguably the Holy Spirit raised Him). I’m sure we’d not disagree that only God can raise the dead; and, even though the 1st century Apostles did raise the dead through the power of the Holy Spirit, no one raised himself from the dead.
John 5:16-30 are clear indicators that Yeshua/Jesus acts just as God does/did. First, He overtly claims to work on the Sabbath; however, more importantly, He calls the Father “My Father”, which prompted the Ioudaioi (Judean Jews?) to want to kill him because He was “making Himself equal with God” (5:18). Clearly the Ioudaioi here thought Jesus’ words (and probably actions re: the Sabbath) were stronger than their idea of messiahship, which implies that shaliach, agency, is deficient as an explanation. In addition, an appeal to the understanding that all, or perhaps all who believe, can be called a ‘son of God’ is deficient, as, it was Yeshua’s explicit “My Father” statement that drew their consternation.
Moreover, the Gospel writer, right in the beginning (John 1:18), reiterates (paraphrasing) Exodus 33:20 that no one can see God, yet Yeshua/Jesus [the Son of God – see 5:25] makes the explicit claim that He only does what “He sees His Father doing” (5:19). I won’t detail the rest (giving life and judging both contemporaneous with His interlocutors and at the eschaton, e.g.); but, note the interchangeability in the following statements: that one who “believes Him Who sent Me [the Father who sent the Son] has eternal life” (5:24; cf. 6:40); those who “believe in His [the logos’/light’s] name, He gave the right to become children of God” (1:12; and note Jesus’ claim of being “the light of the world/life” in 8:12; cf. 12:36, 12:46); “everyone who believes in Him [the Son of Man] may have eternal life” (3:15; and cf. 9:35-41, 11:25-27); and “these [accounts of the signs] have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (20:31).
To recap:
– Believing in the name of the logos/light, believing in the name of the Messiah/the Son of God provides eternal life
– Believing the Father (“Him Who sent Me”), believing the Son of Man, believing the Son of God (11:25-27), provides eternal life.
And read carefully Yeshua’s words in John 3:16 – stated positively – and His words in 3:18 – stated negatively.
Now, clearly we agree that Jesus was a man. And it is for this reason that He obeyed the Father, prayed to the Father, etc. This is where the two natures doctrine comes in. Yet, on its face this seems self-contradictory. Nevertheless, this is what Scripture reveals. So, it was because of the particular Scriptures indicating that Jesus was God yet undoubtedly man that eventually led to the Trinity doctrine (though it took a while to formulate).
Given that the Hebraic mindset has no difficulty in believing simultaneously A and not A, then why should there be difficulty with God actually sending Himself in the form of His
Son, culminating in the God-man? Perhaps the Hebraic mindset needs the Greek mindset as much as the Greek mindset needs the Hebraic?
To answer your question, and to anticipate a potential follow up question, Yeshua, as the man He was (and still is – glorified), prayed to the Father; He didn’t ‘pray to Himself’. Each ‘Person’ of the Trinity is distinguished from the other by his relationship with the other and by individual roles. To state in an oversimplified manner, there is one ousia, one being/essence, in which each of the three members subsist. This ousia is the divine nature, in which consists the collective consciousness and will, as well as all the traits one would associate with God (omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, etc.). One nature, three ‘Persons’ individuated by their relationships between each other and their separate roles (Father sends the Son; Son is the one sent, etc.).
As for Yeshua’s quote of Psalm 22, I think Craig Blomberg (Matthew, New American Commentary [Nashville, TN: B&H, 1993], p 419) does a great job with it, as well as some of the associated issues:
Craig, I wanted to take an opportunity to thank you for supplying what I did not have before, which is a very lucid and thorough and motivated representation of what you could call the best of the Trinitarian viewpoint. I needed it to lay up against what Skip is doing, for sure. I am not sure where we are all going to end up, here, but I do know that it is going to be important that we strive to end up together, as I am beginning to be rather certain that some brave bunch needs to tackle this head on so as to get our vehicle over this extremely large roadblock. There seems to be some missing pieces, else we would have gone on long ago. Thank you for working with all of us, and it is my earnest prayer that we all seek to know. Together.
Laurita,
Thank you for your kind words, though I still don’t feel like I’ve articulated the doctrine of the Trinity as finely as it should be. However, the discussion here (and elsewhere; other posts here) has helped me to better articulate it. I intended on reading a bit on others’ views this past weekend, but that did not pan out, as it was very busy.
I also want to comment on one of your other comments – which I hope to tomorrow – which is tangential to this discussion (togetherness).
Craig,
On John 5, the truth is even till this day… the one we value as important is the one we will duplicate as the scrIbe of our lives.
Joshua said here I am send me.
Hosea said as for me and my family we will follow God.
While Moses and Joshua said if we will just hear and obey…
I do not read anything more here than what was already documented as a prerequisite to serve God.
But given Jesus uniqueness I can accept your view. But as for the Jews response back in 30 CE I do not understand as they awaited his appearance and all their leaders or prophets before Jesus proclaimed a similar relationship…
Without confusing why would God actually take on the form of a man to redeem when he had always used a mediator, then again was Jesus not the last mediator.
According to some scholars it is claimed that Jesus was only transformed or reborn into the mediator when he met with Moses and Elijah on the mount… and it was here that the messiah confirmation was actually given to Jesus. Freely he surrendered to freely take up the redemption covenant.
Unless the claim is God is a word, thought, concept or idea of man…
For as Creator God made everything by using words etc. This includes Jesus’ conception. Could this not maybe provide the answer as to the fathership relation Jesus was referring to..
Skip and Laurita ask us the same question, are we ready for this covenant relationship. I add if not then the gospel of Jesus be still covered and we need to climb on the mount to unite Moses and the prophets before we will understand this new relationship of father and son…
Seeker,
Regarding your pondering about how Jewish leaders and prophets were referred to as ‘sons of God’ and whether or not Jesus’ calling God “My Father” was really any different, let me provide a Biblical analogy. Throughout the Tanakh, in various ways, YHVH refers to Israel as His bride. Yet, no Jew would understand him/herself as God’s bride individually. This was understood (a) metaphorically (and allegorically) and (b) in a collective sense. I think the same thing applies to their understanding as children of God. Just like no one understood him/herself to be YHVH’s betrothed in an individual sense separate from the whole, as that would be too personal, I think no one would have considered themselves a son of God in a familial, genetic sense, as Jesus’ words imply.
Considering this same analogy, notice in the NT that it is Yeshua who is the Bridegroom of the Church, the ekklesia (Eph 5:25-27, John 3:28-29, and especially Rev 19:7-8). Once again, this is in a collective, not individual sense; and, once again this is understood metaphorically. [However, there have been certain movements in the Christian realm erroneously over-stressing Church as bride to the point of individuals becoming ‘betrothed to Christ’. A current one is in Kansas City, MO under Mike Bickle, though he denies any such allegations.]
Isn’t it interesting that YHVH in the Tanakh is Israel’s Bridegroom, yet Yeshua is Bridegroom to the Church in the NT?
Yes, of course, Jesus was the last mediator! You wrote: For as Creator God made everything by using words etc. This includes Jesus’ conception. Could this not maybe provide the answer as to the fathership relation Jesus was referring to… No doubt this is true; however, we must consider those verses regarding preexistence such as “the Word” as agent of creation (John 1:3), Yeshua as same (I Cor 8:6), and “the Son” as same (Col 1:16; Heb 1:2), as well as Yeshua’s claim to predate Abraham (John 8:58). Moreover, we have to make sense of Jesus’ words in the Upper Room discourse regarding the sending of the Counselor (paraklētōs), aka the Holy Spirit, and the relationship between and the differing roles of Father, Son, Spirit (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15).
Skip, Craig, Laurita, Seeker, Et al,
Your thoughts may or may not be His thoughts,
but they stimulate me as I believe His way is to
stimulate us to seek Him.
Thank you all for sharing your deeply sincere hearts . . .
all wondrously united in the loving mystery of knowing Him!
Craig:
Craig:
Adam is called the “son of God” in Luke 3:38; Adam was an individual.
Solomon is called son of God in 1 Chron. 28:6 “…for I have chosen him to be a son to Me, and I will be a Father to him.” See also 1 Chron. 17:13 “I (YHWH) will be his Father and he shall be My son…” Again we find an individual.
In addition we read in 1 Chron. 28:5 that Solomon was chosen “…to sit on the throne of the kingdom of YHWH over Israel.
Notice that high placed individuals are called “sons of God” in the Scriptures. Solomon sat on the throne of God to rule Israel. Interesting that the parallel passage in 2 Kings refers to the throne of David. We thus learn that the physical throne of David was understood to also represent the throne of God.
Now turn to Psalm 45. In verse 1 we learn “I address my verses to the king.” The NAS footnote mentions “A song in praise of the king on his wedding day.” Then we find in verse 6 that he is called “elohim” but then in verse 7 “…therefore God, your God has anointed you.” This is clearly messianic. That is why the writer to the Hebrews quotes it directly in Heb. 1:8,9. It was important to quote the second part as well as the first. Kings as well as judges carried the name “elohim” because they stand in the place of God to rule and judge.
In Rev. 19:7,8 we find the same parallel. The righteous Messiah Lamb is marrying the ekklesia of God. This reflects the intimacy of the relationship. Messiah will judge and rule even more righteously than Solomon ever could have hoped to (amen to that). But the Messiah is not God; he rather stands in the place of God.
As an example, perhaps a flawed one at that, in the last Olympics I heard the announcers say “Here come Canada, here comes Germany… etc. I did not see any Rocky Mountains or lakes or even millions of people. I simply saw some athletes who represented their countries, bringing glory to those they represented. The Messiah is the agent of God. Comments?
HSB,
I should have been more careful, perhaps, in my comment. I’d previously recognized that in the Tanakh rulers were called ‘sons of God’, as agents of God. No disputing that. My point is that no one actually referred to YHVH as “My Father” as if they were literally his offspring, like I write above “a son of God in a familial, genetic sense, as Jesus’ words imply,” unless I’m mistaken.
Regarding 1 Chron. 17, note in verse 12, “I [YHVH] will establish his throne forever”. This clearly wasn’t the case with Solomon; however, 12-14 is applied to Yeshua in Mark 1:11, Luke 1:32-33, and Heb 1:5. Note Acts 15:16-17, which quotes Amos 9:11-12; this indicates the fallen Davidic dynasty, which had been restored in Christ. And that throne is the subject of Hebrews 1:8. I don’t disagree with the rest of your points regarding Psalm 45:6-7 – I’ve never argued these – though I’d go a bit further than you. In verses 10-12 (Hebrews 1:10-12), which reference more of the Tanakh, we find another reference to “the Son” as God’s agent in creation. Of this, Koester writes:
As regards Adam as “son of God”, one must go all the way back to the beginning of the genealogy in Luke, to Luke 3:23, to see that this text is referring to “Jesus Himself”: “…as was supposed, the son of Joseph…” In the Greek the word for “son” (huios) only occurs here in verse 23. The rest of the text is patterned tou, which means literally “of the”, here just “of”, followed by the name. Hence, Jesus is the son of Joseph, of Heli, of Matthat…of Adam, of God. It’s not so much stating that Adam is the son of God; it’s emphasizing that Jesus is the Son of God, that His lineage predates Adam. That’s not to negate the fact that Adam was the first man. But, we recognize that Adam was not genetically God’s son; however, Luke records that Yeshua was conceived when the Holy Spirit came upon the virgin Mary, implying something more than the creation of Adam.
You didn’t address my comment about Jesus raising Himself from the dead. In addition, you may have missed my other comments regarding “the Son” as agent of creation (Heb 1:2). In John 1:3, “the Word” is agent of creation, “Jesus Christ” is the agent in 1 Cor. 8:6, and “the Son” is agent of creation in Colossians 1:16 (at end of verse: “all things have been created through Him and for Him”).
Yes, the Messiah IS the agent of God – par excellence. That is, He is not merely agent, just like He is not merely man.
Craig:
I will make a comment regarding Jesus “raising himself” from the dead. The comment has already been made that lambano can mean “receive” in John 10:17/18.
But let’s see how the writers of the New Testament referred to the resurrection. Surely if Jesus had “raised himself” they would say so. Please check out the following 37 references:
Acts 2:24; 2:32; 3:15; 3:26; 4:10;5:30;10:40;13:30; 13:34;13:37 Rom 4:24;4:25;6:4;6:9;7:4;8:11;8:34;10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14;15:4;15:12;15:13; 15:14; 15:15; 15:16; 15:17; 15:20; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1 Thes.1:10; 2 Thes.2:8; 1 Pet 1:21 then these 8 from the gospels: Matt 16:21; 17:9; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 24:7; John 2:22; 21:14.
ALL of these references speak of God doing the raising, some speak of Jesus who was raised, not “who raised himself”. I could not find even one reference to Jesus raising himself from the dead. In my opinion it is quite impossible for a dead person to do anything.
Looking forward to your response to my post of 10:56am 🙂
But, these Scripture references do not negate the clear grammar of John 10:17-18 as being in the active rather than the passive voice (see my comments on Dec 1 @ 9:10am to 2:44pm regarding this point) as well as Jesus’ assertion in John 2:19 that He’d [active voice] raise ‘this temple’ in three days. However, these do harmonize with the Trinitarian view that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all “God”. In fact, John 2:22 in the passive voice makes much better sense in that light; that is, if it were the entire Trinity raising His body. And see Romans 1:4 for a possible reference to the Holy Spirit, and reread 8:11 in light of its larger context, as Paul used “the Spirit” as a shortened “Holy Spirit” – see 5:5 and 9:1 for the full notation. Alternatively, 8:11 could be seen as Trinitarian – Father, Son and Holy Spirit all encompassing “the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead.” Moreover, those that state “God” rather than “the Father” or “God the Father” can be construed as a reference to the Trinity.
You wrote: In my opinion it is quite impossible for a dead person to do anything. On that we agree: no dead mere human can do anything at all. But, yet the grammar states Jesus raised Himself from the dead in John 10:17-18…
Craig,
Thank you.
Did you notice the response on this live topic. It will never end as that is what keeps Moses and the prophets meeting when we also dare to seek the truth.
Jesus in our presence as he promised.
And it is kind of discussion that keeps hope, love and peace alive.
Thank you for sharing and remember we love talking about this relationship the bonding of us mortals with the immortal… The bride and bridegroom with all the guests from the streets… walk of life seeking direction and guidance.
This prophetic action of Jesus is our salvation. Here and now may we all find the understanding we need to progress to the next level in Christ.
In Christ we all become new…
Craig: this is a great discussion!
As I understand your comments, Jesus is making explicit claims to be God in John 5 (and the opposition knew it!); he is breaking the Sabbath, calling God his Father, claiming to be equal to God, only does what he ‘sees’ the Father doing, etc. Pretty serious charges… in short blasphemy.
So let us turn to the trial of Jesus. Notice that they could have simply killed Jesus outright in the middle of the night. No he deserves a trial. So I am hunting for the accusations based on your reasoning. I am looking for the simple charge that he claimed to be God… to no avail. The ONLY charge against Jesus is the accusation that he was going to “destroy” the Temple and rebuild it in three days…that’s it!!! Nothing else. Oh, oh, problem. The witnesses cannot agree on what Jesus had actually said. A great study is to look up the event in John and see what Jesus was actually saying about the “Temple”. So in the absence of solid testimony on this ONE CHARGE, Jesus is technically acquitted!
Do not play the “but he then claimed to be Messiah” card. I have heard at least a dozen Jewish scholars indicate that it was NEVER a capital offense to claim to be Messiah. That is why he was never charged with such an offense, even though they all knew of the claim, witness the messianic greeting upon his arrival in Jerusalem.
So there is a problem. Jesus came to die (we know that from what he shared earlier in ministry with his disciples). Yet there is NO violation of the Torah. (aside: how could there be…Yeshua kept the Torah perfectly) So where does this end up? Read the rest of the trial… self-incrimination!! Jesus himself provides the solution… he breaks the Oral Law in saying the actual name of God according to the letters when he quotes Psalm 110:1. Read the Talmud on this point. Upon hearing an unauthorized individual say the name of God “according to the letters” the High Priest is to rip his garments (never to be repaired) and pronounce the death sentence. That is why the High Priest turns to the Sanhedrin and says “why witnesses? You have heard IT” Then they all agree that Jesus is worthy of death… the rest as they say is history! The blasphemy was not claiming to be God…rather it was saying the name of God which had been banned for all except priests in the Temple.
Just something to think about. No claim is made at his trial that Jesus claimed to be God. How is it that all the leadership had forgotten the obvious (the I AM statements in John, your comments, etc.) Read the text as a first century Jew would read it. Jesus NEVER claimed to be God, nor did his disciples and followers EVER make such a claim. See my comments to you about “elohim” address to Solomon in Psalm 45.
I hope you are planning to attend the seminar in February in Winter Garden, FL
HSB,
In John, when Pilate tells the Ioudaioi to “judge him by your own law” (18:31), they reply, “But we have no right to execute anyone”. Apparently, they wanted to use Pilate as the vehicle by which to kill Yeshua. Yet, as Pilate finds nothing to charge Jesus with, he offers Barabbas instead – and the Ioudaioi allow the release of him in place of Jesus – then he again tells them he has found no charge against Him (19:6). To this they reply:
This comports and harmonizes with Matthew 26:63-66, Luke 22:70-71, and Mark 14:61-64. It was his claim to be the Son of God, directly and indirectly, for which they took offense. I don’t see any Scripture indicating it was a blasphemous reading of Psalm 110 that led to His death. To which NT Scripture do you refer? In Mark?
In fact, there is no consensus on what exactly constituted the charge of blasphemy in the Synoptics. The only clear Scripture we have is in John. Thus, it makes sense it was Jesus’ claims to be the Son of God in their totality, construed as a claim of being God’s Son in a familial way, with the rights and prerogatives of God; and His words before the Sanhedrin were, with this perspective, understood as verifying the previous witnesses and rumors. Also, note the stoning of Stephen in Acts, in which the breaking point is when he makes the claim to see ‘the Son of Man’ standing at the right hand of God. Was it because of a ‘misguided’ notion that Jesus was the Messiah or was it something else that pushed the throng to stone him?
To reiterate, note the way the blockquoted Scripture is worded. Jesus “made Himself out to be the Son of God”. That’s precisely my point regarding John 5, which you correctly interpreted in your initial paragraph. Claiming to work “along with My Father” on the Sabbath indicates a claim of acting like God, as God is recognized as working on the Sabbath – in the form of providing life (births) and judgment (death), the very thing Yeshua claims of Himself in 5:21-30.
So, I’ll agree with you: Jesus did not violate the Torah. However, as the Son of God, He did work on the Sabbath, something that was forbidden otherwise for Jews.
Craig
Here is my take on the trial(s) of Jesus..
In Ruth 2:4 we read that Boaz blessed his workers verbally in the name of YHWH. They reciprocated. They did not write the name of God on a piece of cardboard and hold it high, they said it out loud. By the time of the Greek conquest there was a major uptick in demonology, and occult practices, including the misuse of the name of God in chants, curses etc. Accordingly the religious authorities banned the use of the name of God. It was restricted to priests in the Temple. Consider this action a big “hedge” around the Name. The High Priest used the name at Yom Kippur ceremonies to bless the assembled people. Any unauthorized use of the name of God “according to the letters” warranted a death sentence. So a whole set of substitute names were invented: ha-Shem (literally the name), Adonai and others were often said out loud in synagogues when the actual name of God was found in the Torah… YHWH occurs about 7000 times in Tanach so it is on pretty open display. Other substitutions include “power”, “heaven”, “glory”. Are you aware that the title “Kingdom of Heaven” occurs 42 times in the Bible, ALL of them in the gospel of Matthew. This book is using a substitute name for the kingdom of YHWH. Either Matthew used it or a scribe who translated the original made this substitution. We see this in our modern Bibles all the time. Typically in the introduction there is a small note explaining that the translators have opted to write LORD (notice the four capital letters) in place of the actual name of God where it occurs in the Scriptures… so most people attending churches have no idea at all that God actually has a name that distinguishes Him from the gods of other nations.
Now let us consider the title “Son of God”. In Hebrew it simply means one who “follows God”. In America recall many patriots were connected to an organization called the “sons of liberty”. In the New Testament there are many such examples (sons of thunder, son of encouragement, son of perdition etc) We find examples in the Old Testament where the title is applied to high officials like kings and judges, even angels, but never deity. One point of confusion in English also revolves around the word “worship”. In Old English it simply meant “pay homage”. The mayor of the town was called “Your worship”; in Canada there is a level of the courts where the appropriate title of the judge is “Your Worship”. So when we encounter the word in Bibles referring to people being “worshipped” we need to be very careful in understanding if “homage to authority” is intended or what we might call “worship to God”. If you consult Darby’s translation you will find that every reference to “worship” appears as “paid homage” unless the act occurs in the Temple where it is clear “worship to God” is involved. Hence the magi are not appearing to worship the baby Jesus as God… rather they are paying homage to the new-born king of Israel. The same word is used by Herod in the presence of all his religious advisors when he tells the Magi to return so that he can also go and “worship” the new-born king. He is hardly saying that he will go and “worship as God” a baby. This is not like Tibet where the birth of the Dalai Llama is considered to actually be God incarnate. But I digress. Back to “son of God”
If you do a Google search “son of God Greek” what comes up are hundreds of links to deity lists in Greek religion. Many gods and demi-gods are involved. This is NOT a Hebraic understanding of the term but sure helped in the deification of Jesus by Greek philosophers in the first few centuries. The Romans followed the Greeks in their approach. Realize that the Caesar emperor was believed to be a “demi-god”. He was expressly referred to as “Son of God” to reflect that status. So let us turn back to the trial of Jesus.
My contention is that the Jewish leadership realized pretty early on that they had NO charge against Jesus related to Torah. Read the Synoptics. They introduce only ONE charge related to destroying the Temple and rebuilding it in three days… but the witnesses cannot agree on what Jesus actually said. No time to comment on that worthy topic. Realize Jesus could have then said to the Sanhedrin “Is that it? I am tired from lack of sleep, sore from the beating and hungry. So if you will excuse me, I am going home now!” There is NO Torah based charge against Jesus and they knew it!! So much for all the modern Biblical scholars that are so sure Jesus claimed to be God when he said “I am”, forgave sins, healed on the Sabbath, etc.. The trial prosecutors do not introduce ANY charge related to these so-called claims of deity. Think we know better than they?
The High Priest asks Jesus if he is the “Messiah, the Son of God”. In Hebrew terms, this is simply the full title of Messiah, not deity. Note that Martha said to Jesus in John 11:27 “you are the Messiah, the son of God” She DID NOT SAY “You are the messiah, God the Son”. Likewise in Acts 8:37 we find the eunuch declaring his faith in Messiah Jesus, the son of God.
Jesus came to die. He said he would lay down his life… no man takes it from him! In the trial we are now at a profoundly important point in time. Here are NO grounds for any charge against Jesus based on Torah. Yet we know Jesus must die at their hands. How does this occur? Not by simply saying he is the “Messiah, the son of God”. No Jesus continues on. “You will see the son of Man sitting at the right hand of……” you fill in the blank. Matthew says “power”, Mark says “power” and Luke says “power of God”. ALL of these are substitutions by either the authors or later helpful scribes. How do I know? Because Jesus is quoting Psalm 110:1 “YHWH said to my lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool” No sign of power, ha-shem, adonai, heaven etc. Do you think Jesus would have referred to his Father with whom he enjoyed the most intimate relationship as simply “power”? The word power is a substitute in the text. He actually said YHWH (probably Yahweh). So what did the trial participants do? Exactly what the Talmud instructs them to do. Rip the garments of the High priest, and declare a death sentence. Notice they have no need of witnesses for they have all heard IT, the ineffable name which was forbidden for non priests to use. That is what got Jesus condemned to death, he broke an Oral law forbidding use of the holy name. The rest of the trial now goes according to game plan. Thanks to Jesus for self-incrimination!
But we face a problem with execution. You are aware that the Jewish authorities had lost control over capital punishment in 6 A.D. It was reserved to the Roman procurator…so how to convince him to issue a sentence of execution? I won’t go into all their schemes and leverage points on Pilate (e.g. the amici caesari.. friends of Caesar association that they refer to, the probation order that Pilate is operating under etc. The ringer is to say that Jesus broke Jewish law and claimed to be the “Son of God”. You need to understand that in a Jewish context this is simply claiming to be Messiah, a delusion perhaps but not a criminal offense. But under Roman law it is a capital offense to challenge the emperor. Only he was called “Son of God”. To attach this title to Jesus makes Pilate “afraid” (John 19:8). He is now facing an open challenge to the realm. That is why he questions Jesus in terms of his kingdom status. But the ploy works. Jesus gets condemned to crucifixion even after his flogging. But he did it all for us. Such love!
HSB,
I appreciate you taking the time to elucidate your view. Having stated that, I’d say you are making quite a bit of assumptions from the text. I submit that an argument from silence is not a good argument. For you to extrapolate from Jesus’ recorded statement “…power (of God)” and the subsequent reactions of the Sanhedrin that Yeshua must have blasphemously stated the divine name and that the Synoptic writers or later scribes substituted “power (of God)” is quite a leap! Wouldn’t the Synoptic writers have added narration something to the effect that ‘because Yeshua spelled out the divine name…’? Moreover, I just checked the three parallel passages observing that there is no textual variant in this area, which means there is no evidence of scribal emendation.
I’m aware that challenging the emperor with a claim to be king was a capital offense and that the Sanhedrin attempted to use this as a ploy to have Messiah killed (John 18:33-35). Pilate continued to ask Jesus about this, and in the end he found no charge, wanting to release Jesus instead. Yet the Ioudaioi chose Barabbas instead. Pilate’s concern was not that Jesus was a “son of God”, but His claim of being king of a kingdom not of this world. Moreover, the concern of Pilate’s wife, who claimed He really was innocent, concerned him (see Matthew 27:18-19). In fact, when the Ioudaioi stated their law about Jesus’ claim of being the Son of God (John 19:7), Pilate didn’t get angry as we’d expect given your analysis, he “was even more afraid”. Yet the Ioudaioi insisted. Pilate finally relented, ‘washing his hands’ of the whole thing – as if that would absolve His guilt.
Craig, I appreciate your response to my questions. I’m frankly in awe of your knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity and the technicality of your responses as I have read through them on this blog. Honestly I don’t understand a lot of what you have said in some of your answers but I know you are obviously more educated than me and know the original languages of the Bible. Maybe I’m just dense but I still didn’t see an answer to my main question which was how can a person who is god in the same sense as YHWH worship another god?
Leaving that aside, I have other questions. In your answer to me you stated “Each ‘Person’ of the Trinity is distinguished from the other by his relationship with the other and by individual roles. To state in an oversimplified manner, there is one ousia, one being/essence, in which each of the three members subsist. This ousia is the divine nature, in which consists the collective consciousness and will, as well as all the traits one would associate with God (omnipotence, omnipresence, eternality, etc.)”. I assume this is some of the thinking of the “Church Fathers” but where does the plain text say anything like that? I looked in Strong’s Concordance and found two occurrences of the word “ousia” in Luke 15:12-13 and as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with a description of the nature of God. I would think anything as important as this would be to disciples, it would be stated plainly somewhere in the NT. To carry this even further, where in the Tanach or the Torah are there any ideas like this stated about God or about the coming Messiah? Since the writers of the NT were constantly making references to the Hebrew Scriptures to justify or explain their teachings, I would think there would be somewhere in them where these ideas would have their source.
The doctrine of the Trinity as I read your explanations sounds more like dogma to me; theory instead of what can be learned from the text. It sounds like intelligent minds (speaking of the so-called “Church Fathers”) trying to justify what they believe instead of actually what the text says . As Skip has explained in previous blogs both Yeshua and Paul were rabbis and taught in the rabbinic tradition which causes our difficulty many times in understanding what they say. If Yeshua is teaching as a rabbi (and I assume he is) then surely he is following these rabbinic guidelines. As I was reading Rabbi Jonathan Sacks commentary (Genesis: The Book of Beginnings (Covenant & Conversation, vol. 1), he stated “This is one of the great passages of the Torah, full of depths and resonances. But the surface narrative is clear, and there is a rabbinic principle: “Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning.”. His footnote refers to Shabbat 63a in the Talmud. Again, I think surely Yeshua, Paul, or the other NT writers would have told us plainly about something this important.
I have learned the hard way, as have Skip and others in this community, that it is not allowed to question the Trinity without consequences. I have suffered the loss of long-time friends because I began to ask questions about it. And this was done without having a conversation about it. I know others have suffered much more than that. Skip has described some of his experiences and if you’ve read “The End of a Messianic Lie” by Uriel ben-Mordechai he has documented how he has been treated by other Christians in Israel. It seems to be some sort of a litmus test for being a Christian. I have come to the conclusion that perhaps I am not a Christian, if this is a required belief. I’m just a simple man trying to be a disciple of Yeshua by trying to understand how Scripture would have been understood by those who heard it originally.
I would dare say there are a lot of other people who are in trouble if this is a required belief and especially if one is required to understand the doctrine. Again, where is this plainly stated in Scripture so that an average person, either in the first century or in our time could understand it?
I wish I could attend the upcoming conference in Florida but I’m afraid the best I can hope for is to listen to the recordings when they are made available. Blessings and peace to all in the TW community.
Mel,
First, please let me make it clear that I do not know the original languages. I don’t know Hebrew, but I’ve been self-learning Koine Greek for a few years. I’m far from having any proficiency; however, I have quite a bit of reference works to assist me. And, I’d like to try to answer your question at the end of the first paragraph.
I’ll assume you’ll agree that God is omnipresent, everywhere present. It is precisely this attribute that allows Yeshua to be of the same incorporeal essence as the Father, so that the two are really one. Unfortunately, no analogy is suitable to describe the Trinity. One cannot think of Cerberus, the three-headed dog of Greek mythology, for example (I actually heard a Christian preacher equate the Trinity with a three-headed human just this past weekend!). Some have tried using a three leaf clover, which is still deficient, though better. A very rough analogy would be three ‘faces’ all sharing the same divine nature, which includes one mind and one consciousness. This alleviates the charge of tri-theism – three gods.
The root of the word ousia is the verb to be – the same word in the Hebrew used to describe YHWH (and in the Greek LXX as a translation). In the NT it’s used differently than the later formulations. It first began to be used in the manner Trinitarians used it in Greek philosophy. I think it was Justin Martyr who first used the term to refer to God’s essence – again understood as incorporeal, not physical matter.
But, to get closer to answering your question in the second paragraph, there is no one text (or two, or three) which explicitly spells out the doctrine of the Trinity. It must be inferred from a number of texts. The later creeds were written in an effort to make sense of what Scripture reveals. However, just a cursory reading of the NT illustrates that no one, not even the disciples, were clear on just what messiahship entailed. There was limited understanding.
The Trinity is predominantly found in John’s Gospel (and Revelation) which speaks on aspects of the Trinity, though the other writers do so in limited ways. I’m not here to try to convince you or anyone else; I just want readers to at least understand what Trinitarians believe. And if anyone wishes to ask a specific question or challenge a specific point, I’ll do my best to answer it.
It’s true that a denial of the Trinity is viewed as akin to not being Christian. I’m not so sure this is right. However, I’m reasonably certain that no one is saved by perfect or semi-perfect understanding of the Scriptures.
What is ‘just a man’? We are obsessed with test tube babies and DNA replication and reproducing life. Who was it that came up with the analogy of the miniature primitives that came across a piece of art and proceeded to try to analyze it with the intention of being able to reproduce it? They broke it down into the pieces that they were comfortable with, which, because they were so small, happened to be pixil size, and then worked on a algorithm of each individual paint dot to find the pattern. Sigh. This, I am afraid, may be us, here. Ya think?
We think that if we start from what we think we are, as individual persons, we can comprehend life, but what are we, exactly? A bunch of programmed molecules? If we set out to make the perfect person, would we start from the individual building blocks, like the Greeks so fondly dreamed of? Wait, what if we are doing that, here?
What if, because we all are sinful, we are ‘naturally’ starting from OUR definition of what God is based on what we think we are, because we all suffer from worship of self – the singular? Do we really think we can break God down into individual pieces – from molecules to qualities and characteristics – so as to build from there? Are we really that backwards? What if we really need to start from the other end, which is to contemplate on what God is to be able to know what we are, instead of contemplating on what we THINK we are to be able to know what (um, wouldn’t that be a Who?) He is? Could we just start over, here? Are we ever going to know what art is by thinking we can count pixils? (Hey, but it sure is more fun to stick with what we are comfy with!)
I can sympathize with this sometimes. I think most here will agree with the first part (though wanting to exchange “the Godhead” with “God”) till Luther gets to the last clause.
On another Christian blog years ago there was debate about ‘the filioque’ (“and also the Son” – part of later Trinitarian formulas) with which the Eastern Orthodox Church takes issue, with one commenter stating something to the effect of, “I don’t think we can speculate about the inner life of the Trinity”. The filioque is a part of what is known as the ontological (or immanent) Trinity as found only in John 14:15 – 16:15, which is set against though in concert with the economical Trinity, the Trinity as revealed in the “economy” of salvation, as, to use the words in John 1:18, as ‘the Son “exegetes” the Father’. The filioque clause essentially means that the Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father (see John 15:26), but also from the Son. Does this really need to be debated either way? I think not.
But, to get to the gist of your comment, it all starts with just who the Son is. We all agree He’s a man, that He’s the Messiah. From there we have to make sense of such Scriptures as those claiming preexistence (the agent of creation [four different texts must be harmonized: John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2], John 8:58, etc.) and those making the claim He raised Himself from the dead (along with the others claiming “God” and “the Father” did).
Craig! I really think you got my point!
Skip says that the Scripture is not written from God’s viewpoint (in other words, it is not written in the vernacular of, say, A Course In Miracles, or the billboards we have here around Atlanta that have terse, first person messages signed “GOD”), but from ours. When I see Him described as Provider, that tells me that I am provided for: not necessarily that He is limited to a Name called “YHVH jireh”, and that all other names are blasphemous representations of multiple gods . When I see instructions that I am to direct my prayer to my heavenly Father, that tells me that I am to come before the Throne as a child: not necessarily that God is limited to being a Daddy. When I see directives to sign off a prayer in the Name of Yeshua (“God is Salvation”, which YHVH jealously tells us that only He is, by the way) that tells me that my prayer is routed through Him, as my High Priest, “Who ever lives to make intercession (which is a necessary component of our salvation) for us”. When I am instructed to ask for the gift of the Holy Spirit, that tells me that my spirit is designed to create a place for His Spirit; not necessarily that He is limited to that function. This tells me a lot about ME. But does it definitively tell me about HIM, or just what I need to know as His creature, which I have been told does NOT include understanding Who He is as my Creator (because I can’t)? He has presented Himself before my finite eyes in a so many ways, but just because I may have spider vision, does that limit Him to being an eight-faceted creature?
Yeshua said He came to show us the Father, Whom He says that He always sees. You are right. The only true insider info we have is by looking at Him.
However, when I start thinking that I know something about HIM by looking at myself first; particularly when I start outside Scripture in a dictionary defining “person”, well.
Maybe we are looking for the wrong answers…
Seek first…
Not seek first salvation (I understand Yeshua’s name)
No one finds the son unless the father calls.
No one understands or sees the father other than through the son
Can we start again at beginning…
No we can start anew…
If Jesus is all we need… how can we believe and find him. Through the words of others. Very convincing persuasion. But does not work that why, Jesus said so himself. Need to work through Moses via the prophets to hear God’s calling. These chastise us unto Christ. Yes learn obedience through how we suffer…
Christ rule 101. As long as I am in… no longer in so who be our light…
Now was it not Paul that said as we die in Adam so shall we rise in Christ. Not here or their is Christ but in our midst is he revealed… the gardener to the mother.
Seeker unless ye be born from above you will never enter this life in Christ. No amount of knowledge or mega memory can open that door.
Not all that call on my name but those that do the will of.
Still feeling comfortable start asking different questions to find different answers… as we will always get what we always got, when we do what we’ve always done.
Nb to move into heaven I trust I must first move out of earth…. the journey is hazardous not the destination or the platform. It is that in between gap where the fight in heaven is taking place.
Agreed Laurita, you find the nature of things by exploring the source, not the other way around. Anything else is really just an opinion, of which, as far as I can tell, there is about 7 billion of. The nice part is that it eliminates the argument with myself. (7 billion and 1) 🙂
for Craig as followup to his Dec 7 (9:36am) post. I am posting here to get full width for text. I hope you get this. Looking forward to your insights:
Hi Craig
I think you are dismissing my comments too quickly. So I will ask you to respond to specific questions:
Q1: Why was Jesus not charged with blasphemy at his trial?
This is an important question. Clearly the religious leadership wanted him dead. Yet they do not charge him with the obvious… claiming to be God. There would be no shortage of witnesses (you could be one). Simply give your testimony of all the times Jesus explicitly claimed to be God. The fact they do NOT charge Jesus with blasphemy is quite simple… he never claimed to be God! … and they knew it. Instead, he was charged with uttering a profane statement about destroying the Temple. These were the two offences punishable by death (blasphemy of The Name and Profanation of the Temple) Only the second charge was read against Jesus, then dismissed for lack of witnesses who agreed.
Q2: Was the trial held in Greek?
This is not a silly question. You mention that power (dynamis) occurs in the text in all three Synoptics. If the trial was not held in Greek, it might be fair to conclude it was held in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Q3: What then did Jesus actually say when he was quoting Psalm 110:1 regarding “sitting at the right hand of….”? You fill in the blank. Did Jesus use a substitution word like “power” in Hebrew or did he accurately quote David (who was talking about him, the Messiah and YHWH)?
I contend that Jesus would NOT have used a substitution for the reference to YHWH which occurs in Psalm 110:1 as written by David. The fact that most English translations do substitute with LORD in that verse does not change the original Hebrew.
There was clearly something that Jesus said in his response to the High Priest that upset him and the entire Sanhedrin. You think it was because he was claiming to be the Son of God; yet that term does not appear in the trial text. Rather the text quotes Jesus as referring to himself as the Son of Man. Every Jewish source I have listened to has insisted that claiming to be Messiah is NOT a capital offense! Now we both know that Psalm 110:1 is talking about Messiah sitting at the right hand of YHWH. Jesus also references Daniel 7:13… again a clear claim to be Messiah. So we have two clear and explicit claims to be Messiah. Do you agree? If so then …
Q4: Why would the High Priest rip his garments and the entire Sanhedrin exclaim that he (Jesus) deserves to die? What infraction has Jesus committed? Please show me ANY Jewish source that indicates that claiming to be Messiah is worthy of death!
When I was a child I memorized Psalm 23. What a beautiful psalm. Of course the way I learned it is NOT the way David composed it. He did NOT say “The Lord is my shepherd…” He actually said “YHWH (Yahweh) is my shepherd..” A name and a title are not the same thing!! So if I quote David and write to a friend “Yahweh is my shepherd…” am I supposed to also write that this is what the text actually says?… even if my friend already knows that. So why would the gospel writers have to write in the original manuscripts that Jesus actually said the name of God when he was quoting Psalm 110:1? After all, they are writing for a Jewish audience that already knows clearly what Psalm 110:1 says. Remember that the prohibition against saying the name of god was a rabbinic ruling.
A few years ago the Roman Catholic authorities retracted on using the name of God (Yahweh) appearing in approved Bibles. I have a New Jerusalem Bible from the late 1960s and the actual name of God is written on almost every page in the Old Testament… some 7000 times. They later argued that the actual name of God does not appear in copies of the Septuagint. There a substitution with “Kurios” occurs. However, what they did not know (or else conveniently ignored) was that copies of the Septuagint FOUND IN ISRAEL have the actual name of God still in the text. The writer switched to Hebrew for the name YHWH then back to Greek for the continuing text. Not Kurios! So the original writers were keeping faith with the actual name of God in their copies, even in Greek copies! Amazing!
So here is a fork in the road. I think you are saying that Jesus was convicted of claiming to be Messiah and somehow the “Son of God” when he spoke before the Sanhedrin criminal court. I maintain that Jesus was NOT convicted of claiming to be Messiah. Rather he was convicted for uttering the actual name of God, an act which carried the death sentence according to the Talmud as blasphemy. There the High Priest is directed to rip his garments and pronounce death against anyone using the name “according to its letters” who was unauthorized. See below for some of the sections of the Talmud that specify this:
Now one final digression…. In the book of Acts 26:10,11 we are informed that Paul before his conversion went about capturing believers in Messiah by “forcing them to blaspheme”. (Many were killed). Have you ever wondered how he did that? Here is s simple solution. Simply open the Scriptures and get the individual to read out loud from just about any section. When he gets to the name of God, does he substitute with something like ha-Shem, Adonai, etc. Or does he simply read the text as it is written? If he substitutes then he is following rabbinic direction. Have a nice day! But if he actually read the text as it is written and he is not a priest in the Temple then he just committed a criminal offense worthy of death. Is it not interesting that the actual name of God has been removed from English Bibles? I use a NAS which is pretty good. But in the footnote for Jeremiah23:27 (“who intend to make My people forget My Name”) the footnote comment says “To forget the Lord’s name is tantamount to forgetting Him”. I almost fell on the floor, not sure if in laughter or sadness. This NAS translation has already removed the legitimate name of God from the entire text and substitutes a title (LORD) in its place, yet they write such a footnote! Amazing!
Talmud notes: Virtually all of Tractate Sanhedrin is useful. 36b outlines the appointment of judges of 23 judges for a capital case, 43b confession of sins, 44b stripping of garments, 45b blasphemer and idolater to be hanged, 55b blasphemer is punished only if he utters the divine Name, 56a judges rend garments after hearing divine Name, 90a no portion in the world to come for one who pronounces the divine Name “according to its letters”
The Talmud wasn’t compiled for hundreds of years beyond the 1st century. And this “ban on the Name” is pretty much not true anyway. Certainly not from a 1st-century Jewish perspective.
This, of course, leads us into all kind of strange directions if we try to apply Jewish perspective from the 5th century to the middle ages back into the 1st century. Very difficult to use Rabbinic writings from those periods, many of which were a direct response to believers in Yeshua, to give us incite into the mind of 1st-century Jewish culture. Next to impossible really.
hi Mark. I think the Mishnah was codified by 200 A.D. It reflects the Oral Law, the Traditions of the Elders that were around even before Jesus time on earth. I have read Jewish sources about the ban on use of The Name going back to Hellenistic times. Can you provide any information that supports the “pretty much not true anyway” comment? Feel free to answer the questions I posed for Craig as well. I value your insights.
Thank You HSB.
I’d like to read the source that says there “was” a ban on the name that would be worthy of a death penalty in the 1st century.
Earliest copy of Mishnah would be the Kaufmann Manuscript. And it’s date is placed at 950CE but, more likely even the 12th century. And of course, the Cairo Genizah scroll fragment. It’s earliest date is 600-700CE.
I know it’s said to have been written in 200CE and may have been but, I haven’t seen any real evidence to that. Do you have information I could look at that would show different? Regardless, though, it certainly wasn’t codified any earlier that 500CE to 700CE. Compiled? Maybe. Even on the chance that it was, though, it wouldn’t have been circulated to way late. Like I said, maybe 500CE probably even a few hundred years after that. They didn’t have printing presses. Not to mention the fact is was also against halacha to even write it down.
Earliest Talmud would probably be the Hullin scroll. And it’s dated at around 750CE.
Again, my point is, I don’t think we can really trust either for an accurate interpretation of 1st-century Jewish perspective. Especially given the fact that, much of what we do have, that it does contain, is highly influenced by push back of the early believers of the way.
Actually, our best evidence of a Jewish perspective of Yeshua would be the Apostolic text.
Actually, our best evidence of a Jewish perspective of Yeshua would be the Apostolic text. Amen to that!
So why was Jesus not charged with blasphemy at his trial? I want to read your answers to the questions I posed.
PS “beats me” is OK
Mark and Craig: I did a bit of further digging on the prohibition against using the divine Name. See below. I would really welcome an answer to the questions I posed, even just the one: Why was Jesus not charged with blasphemy at his trial?…
The Name (of God) was banned from common use after the death of Simon the Just (before 200 B.C.E.) This prohibition is reflected in the Septuagint translation of Lev. 24:15,16. While the Hebrew says that “blasphemy” of the Name of God is punishable by death, the Greek says simply “to name the Name”. This is strange because cursing God was subject to consequence (being put out of the camp of Israel) yet simply saying the Name of God merited a death sentence! Philo of the first century noted paradoxically that to “name God” was worse than to “curse Him”. (De Vita Mosis II 203-206 per G Gertoux Universite Lyon) The problem at hand was the rapidly expanding challenge of Hellenism with improper use of the name of God in oaths, curses, chants etc. Thus “the record of the Babylonian Talmud, Letter of Aristeas, the history of Flavius Josephus (Ant. XII;43), the translation of the Septuagint and the disappearance of the Name in Israel were contemporary events” (Universite de Lowain- Recueil Lucien Cerfaux Tome 1, 1954 0 149-172)
So did Jesus and his early followers use the divine Name? I think so, certainly at his trial. Jesus himself had challenged arbitrary rabbinic rulings (see Mark 7) when the religious leadership went well beyond the written Torah. There is evidence from the 90-135 C.E. timeframe that destruction of writings made by heretics (Judeo-Christians) was problematic since these writings explicitly included the divine Name (Rabbi Tarphon BTal Shabbat 116a, etc.)
Many substitutions were used by writers and copyists in place of the divine Name YHWH. These include heaven, power, ha Shem, Adonai, Lord, even God. All of these words represent titles not names.
In the Jewish writing Eccl. (Sirac) 23:9,10 we find a prohibition against common use of the divine Name. But it was still used in the temple (Eccl. (Sirac) 50:20. The name was not to be inscribed on things that might be considered idols (Wisdom 14:21) and there is evidence that it was even removed from jars and vessels which had been dedicated to the Temple before Jesus ministry in Israel.
We are totally unfamiliar with the Name of God appearing in the New Testament. Yet J. Darby’s translation always puts the article (the) in brackets before Lord in those cases where it is absent in the Greek. Darby indicated that Lord without the article is a substitution and originally had YHWH (Jehovah) in the text. Thus the angel of (the) Lord who appeared to Joseph in a dream is really the angel of YHWH. There are a host of these examples in the NT. I went through my own NAS and deleted all the cases where the article is not in the Greek text. Not only does this pattern hold through the gospels, it also holds through the other writings of the NT. Darby is simply quoting early Biblical scholars in this regard.
One of the saddest events in my opinion has been the removal of the name of God from the Scriptures we carry. The name has truly been forgotten. Typically, only generic titles like Lord, or God can be found.
HSB,
Putting this simply, Jesus/Yeshua was without sin; therefore, He did not blaspheme. However, if “naming the name” actually was blasphemy, then God would not blaspheme by using His own name, would He? So, if what you are stating is the correct interpretation of events, the high priest pronounced a rightful judgment of blasphemy in his assumption that Jesus was a mere man, though, given that Yeshua was, according to Scripture, without sin, then Yeshua must have been YHWH.
Why was Jesus not charged with blasphemy at His kangaroo court? If I have to answer this, my supposition is that the Sanhedrin suspected He was guilty of it, but did not have proof; and, absent that, the high priest began a line of questioning, with Yeshua ‘under oath’, in an attempt to get Him to blaspheme.
In any case, I stand by what I wrote earlier. The specific charge against Yeshua, according to John 19:7 was that He “claimed to be the Son of God”. From that and the reactions of the Sanhedrin in the Synoptics, I think it fair to infer that claiming to be not merely a but the Son of God = blasphemy – at least in the eyes of the Sanhedrin. Given that, I’d say the best line in inquiry would be to look at Jesus’ words in the Synoptics to see if they can be construed such as making the implicit claim that He was the Son of God (see Luke 22:70).
Regarding the LXX of Leviticus 24:16, I think you may be taking it too literally. Since the Roman Catholic Church uses the LXX as it’s Old Testament (Protestant Bibles use the MT, as you may know), check their English translations. I’ve not found any that state “naming the name” (which would be the most literal, since the verb is a present participle).
On the use of the article in Greek: you mustn’t think of it as akin to the English definite article. For example, there are quite a few times in which proper names are prefaced with the article, and we wouldn’t write “the Jesus”, “the Peter” or “the John”. The article has a number of different uses, and there’s no consensus among scholars as to what it signifies in certain contexts. Moreover, the lack of the article does not indicate that the noun in question is necessarily not definite.
Craig
First of all thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. A few final comments:
1. I use the Septuagint with Apocrypha by Brenton, published by Hendrickson 2007 edition. It has the Greek text and an English translation. This is word for word what the English is for Lev. 24:16 on page 162:
“And he that names the name of the Lord, let him die the death: let all the congregation of Israel stone him with stones; whether he be a stranger or a native, let him die for naming the name of the Lord.”
2. My question “Why was Jesus not charged with blasphemy at his trial?” follows up on all those beliefs that Jesus explicitly claimed his own deity at various times. My point is that Jesus NEVER claimed deity status. THAT is why he was not charged with blasphemy, only with uttering a profane comment about the destruction of the Temple and rebuilding it in three days. As we know the witnesses could not agree on what he actually had said, so the charge was unsubstantiated. My own opinion is that Jesus having been proven guiltless by the criminal court of the Sanhedrin regarding Torah, then went on to break an ORAL LAW prohibition against uttering the name of God. The high priest and Sanhedrin then announced him worthy of death. The execution done by Roman authority had to be linked to a Roman offense. That is why Pilate was informed that Jesus claimed to be “The Son of God”. This was a direct challenge to Caesar who alone held that title as divine Son of God. Pilate was forced to act in the face of their declaration of potential sedition.
I don’t mind if we disagree on these issues. But every time someone tells me that Jesus explicitly claimed to be God I will ask “Then why was he not charged accordingly by the Sanhedrin who had him in their power and who would have considered a claim to deity to be blasphemy?”
Brenton’s is a very wooden, literal translation. Most do not use it because of that. Check the Douay-Rheims, which pre-dates Brenton.
Does Jesus explicitly claim to be Deity? I don’t think so. John 8:58 comes very close, but it’s not a direct quotation of the Septuagint. However, it does point to an existence predating Abraham (no matter how a staunch Unitarian wishes to torture the grammar and the context). Moreover, see the last paragraph of my comment to George Kraemer today @ 2:52pm.
I forgot to ask: I could not find that reference for Josephus. In looking at Ant. XII, 43, I don’t find anything about blasphemy or “naming the name” (it references Onias). Are you sure that’s the correct chapter/ref? I’d like to check it out.
Why did Caiphas bother asking if Yeshua was “the Christ, the Son of God” if admitting that was not claiming to BE God? Where else was he to get the blasphemy charge from, if first century Jews did not understand what He was claiming? Even Pilate, by commanding him to prove He was the Son of God by saving Himself, had to have gotten what He was saying. Craig has been right to point out that the other ways to read this do not pan out. The other ways to understand the blasphemy charge do not fit the evidence of the reactions of the people involved.
Under Levitical law, Caiphas had condemned himself to death, for he had rent his robe, which, as high priest, he was forbidden to do under ANY circumstances. Of course, when traditions of men supersede the Law of God, anything goes. They were already way out of bounds by conducting a night trial (also forbidden). Besides, it was against Jewish law, as well as Roman, to condemn a person to death on just their own testimony. Why were the Jews so mad, if He were just another messiah? There had already been plenty that year, and we have no record that it was protocol to kill them for claiming it. What was behind the fury?
Laurita, I just noticed this post. I am away from home without a full keyboard but will try and pick away.
Blasphemy is defiance against God, insulting Him or His Name, punishable by death (Num 15:30,31). Claiming to be God would suffice. It is important tonote that Jesus was NOT charged with blasphemy at his trial by Sanhedrin Criminal court of 23 handpicked by High Priest. If Jesus had claimed to be God during his ministry or done anything to violate written Torah it would have been raised at his trial. So why was he convicted? He broke an Oral Law rabbinic prohibition to uttering the actual name of God “according to the letters”. He was NOT condemned for indicating he was Messiah. The High Priest did exactly what the Oral Law prescribed, ripped his outer judicial robe and pronounced death. There was no need of witnesses. Jesus had just self-incriminated. But this charge against Jewish Oral Law would have been ridiculous to a Roman governor. So they told Pilate that Jesus claimed to be “son of God”. To Greeks and Romans that is a claim to deity which only Caesar was permitted. The authorities are painting Jesus as aninsurrectionist against Rome. That is why Pilate had the sign “King of the Jews” mounted on the cross. Notice he did not say “messiah”
I believe Jesus led a sinless perfect life. He never broke any Torah commandment. But he did do something that would get him immediately killed.ironic that earlier in Hebrew history the actual name of God was usedquite openly in blessings (see Ruth 2:4) for further details about Oral Law see my posts to Craig.
HSB,
I’m not convinced this was formal a trial; I’d say it was a kangaroo court.
In any case, I think Matthew tells us all we need to know here (Matthew 27:41-43, NASB):
This appears to dispel your assertion that Messiah = the Son of God – that the words of the high priest in 26:63 (“Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”) were merely a reiteration. Moreover, if being “the Son of God” means the same as anyone else as “a son of God, then why was Jesus being mocked in this way by the chief priests et. al.?
Craig, the expression ‘Messiah,Son of God’ is ONE concept, not two. Peter used this title to Jesus in Matt 16:16 yet Jesus told his disciples in verse 20 ‘Tell no man that he was the Messiah’. Likewise Martha used this full title in John 11:27. So did the High Priest in his question at the trial. I have given quite a few sources indicating that claiming to be Messiah was NOT a capital crime, but simply uttering the Name of God WAS. I am not making this up. It is not my opinion. What source do you have to the contrary? What source indicates claiming to be Messiah, son of God was ever a capital crime? The religious authorities mocked Jesus on the crossbecause they considered him to be a false, failed messiah son of God but that is NOT what got him convicted at the trial. Jesus had been totally vindicated of ANY Torah infraction by a hostile court. But he then decided to break a rabbinic prohibition and died for that infraction. PS i have read that the judges wore outer robes similar to what modern judges wear representing their judicial authority. It would have been this robe that was torn at the trial.
If you are correct that “the Son of God” is an equivalent title to “the Messiah”, then why was the charge levelled against Jesus that “he must die…because he claimed to be the Son of God” in John 20:7? There’s no doubt that the Messiah would be “son of God”; but, would He be “the Son of God” in a particularized fashion, as if He were the literal, divine offspring of God? Again, look at the charge in John 20:7 along with the response of the Ioudaioi in John 5:18.
Regarding Peter and Mary’s words, according to Jesus Himself, these were provided to him by the Father, and Mary’s confession may well have been provided similar to Peter’s. In adition, possibly of significance, notice that in Matthew 14:33 the article (ho, the) is not present in the Greek, and is only added in translation (NASB uses “God’s Son”, which is more literal). [Also, note that the demon who was driven out in Mark 2:23-24 (cf. Luke 4:34) calls Jesus “the Holy One of God”, at which point Christ tells him to “be quiet!”; and “the Holy One of God” was used by Peter in John 6:69.]
As to whether or not uttering the divine name was considered blasphemous has no bearing on what I’ve put forth. Assuming it’s true, however, your position in this regard is still an argument from silence. Plus, it fails to adequately address John 20:7, as I’d noted above.
As to why Caiaphas posed the question the way he did, it could be precisely because he wanted to hear Jesus affirm these words, since they merely thought He was guilty of blasphemy, yet had no real proof (as I’d noted above). In other words, Caiphas may have used the particularized “the” in his command to speak ‘under oath’, even though “Messiah” = the non-particularized “son of God”.
Alternatively, Donald Hagner (Matthew 14-28, WBC, [Dallas: Word Books, 1995], pp 799-800; bold added) opines:
Note the “metaphysically distinct” part. Continuing with Nolland (italics in original):
Simply put, a claim to be THE son of God, that is, THE messiah, would have been expected to be accompanied by the many signs that first century Jewish rabbinic leaders looked for (see my article on this). Therefore, anyone who made such a claim but FAILED to deliver the signs, would have been considered a pretender, that is, a FALSE prophet and therefore subject to the punishment for false prophets. Such a claim would have been considered blasphemous since it attributed to a man what only God to give.
Skip. I think your article on Jewish Messiah is brilliant. However with respect i differ with your conclusions in this thread above. If Jesus was considered to be a false, failed messiah why was he not charged as such at his trial? It is only after the collapse of the case against Jesus that new information arises. I beleve Jesus self-incriminated by naming the actual name of God in Ps 110:1 which was a capital offense according to Oral Law prohibition. I do not belive he was sentenced to death for simply confirming his messiahship. Bar Kokhba is still considered to be a Jewish hero and yet he was clearly a failed messiah. Anyway just my two cents worth. Keep up the fine work and may your results be blessed!
Skip,
Yeshua was recognized as performing miracles in the aftermath of Lazarus’ raising from the dead; yet, the chief priests, the Pharisees, and Caiaphas himself wanted Jesus dead, for their own selfish and nationalistic reasons (John 11:45-53). So, it wasn’t for lack of miracles that Jesus was crucified.
Hey Craig.i happen to agree with you on this point. See my reply to your earlier items at the bottom of this lengthy thread
Not my point. Look that the expectations documented in the Talmud. Yeshua does NOT fulfill them, at least not all of them. Therefore, his claim to be the authorized Messiah from God must be false. As such, the claim is an offense to YHVH.
Just an afterthought…
Is being sons and daughters of God not based on the fact of being guided by the spirit of God.
Look at Samuel, Ruth, Saul, David etc they are all called yet all failed in certain aspects of Torah including taking of innocent blood, wait even Moses, they all made the same claim of being trusting in God… Do we reject them as false as well…
Skip we cannot claim something was not done just because the records do not reveal it.
Neither can we claim the breach of Torah without knowing the facts.
Maybe we need to investigate the gift of Christ rather than the records of contradicting activities.
Is it not also true that failing to acknowledge that God directs the called to address the concern rather than enforce the rule that is not resolving the issue…
Craig, Mark, Laurita et al, I have read “Taking the Gloves Off” a number of times and unless I missed it, no one seems to have brought up Mark 12:28-35. For me this was/is the defining scripture for Unitarian belief. How do you defend the Trinity against the plain interpretation?
Other quotes are “why do you call me good, no one is good except the Father” and “no one knows the time (of the general resurrection) except God”. Thanks
I am with you on this one George, as all the other scriptures explain the manifestation of the will of God in one or more different possible ways as a result of the new covenant…
George,
Your questions are good ones. I’ll answer one at a time. As regards Mark 12:28-35 (repeating the Shema), this is no different than if Jesus had not explicitly recited the Shema. In other words, Trinitarians would still have the Shema form Deuteronomy 6:4-5 to contend with. A plurality in God, YHWH, is the Trinitarian stance; that is, YHWH is yet one, though a plurality. F. F. Bruce (New Century Commentary) has suggested that 1 Corinthians 8:6 illustrates that Paul is “Christianizing the Shema” into a binity. Later, in the 12th chapter of this same epistle, Paul partners three synonyms of “gift”, each with a member of the Trinity: (Holy) Spirit in verse 4, Lord (Jesus) in verse 5, and God (the Father) in verse 6. The three are One!
If the concern is that Jesus stated this without including Himself in some way, that is of no consequence here. Just because He doesn’t outwardly claim to be God does not mean He’s not in fact God. It’d be different had He specifically stated that He wasn’t God. Which leads me to:
“Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18). The same applies here. He doesn’t say He’s not good. He merely asks a thought provoking question. But, in another context, Jesus asks if anyone can find any sin in Him (John 8:46) – they can’t. He’s also declared as without sin (Hebrews 4:15). In addition, He doesn’t say he’s not God. Yet He calls God “His own Father” (John 5:18), and He declares, “Before Abraham was (born), I AM!” (John 8:58).
More to the point, in Mark 10:18 Jesus is asking the rich young man a penetrating question about the rich young man, not claiming that He Himself is not good, or that He Himself is not God. Alternatively, it could be wry way of subtly claiming His Deity, affirming the man’s claim that He is in fact “good” – like God. Better yet, it could be both at the same time.
Now we’ll look at “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” (Matthew 24:36). Does this mean that because Jesus is not omniscient He cannot be God? Not exactly. During the Incarnation He was the God-man, limited by His incarnational humanity. He certainly wasn’t omnipresent in His body, nor was He omnipotent (Gordon Fee made the seemingly startling claim to his students that he may have been able to beat Jesus in one-on-one basketball), nor was He omniscient. His divine attributes were only in service to His divine mission in inaugurating the Kingdom of God/Heaven.
Craig, thanks for your complete, considered response. I was raised Catholic, the “inventor” of the Trinity doctrine that put me on a spiritual quest to understand it and other questions I had. I learned the full story of how and why it was established and formalized in the fourth century and the politics of the early Church and Roman Empire from beginning to end, the establishment of medieval feudalism, the Jewish diasporas from pillar to post around Europe, the consequences that the concentration of the unholy trinity of political, regal, and spiritual power had on Europe and after 1493, around the world. The impact this had is what we live with today. Unintended consequences. For me I can draw a line back and connect all the dots of them through a spaghetti junction back to 4th century Rome and earlier, without any discussion with Jews that I am aware of.
This may have all been foreseen by Someone Greater Than Me but I cannot believe that this is the way it was meant to be. I believe we foolish humans create our own destiny of “heaven and hell” here on earth, for now and for the Resurrection, as we were warned by Yeshua and Paul. I met Skip by coincidence early in my quest for truth when he asked a group of us tourists while in Greece if anyone knew the origin of “cogito ergo sum” and I answered correctly “Descartes”. We were on a tour of Mediterranean ports that included some places like Ephesus and Malta of biblical note. Later we discussed some tourist things and some religious issues, one on one. He gently accused me of thinking like a Cartesian Greek and I had no idea what he meant so he told me to check out his web site when I got home. Voila, eureka, click! I found the missing link in my spiritual quest that IMHO keeps many Catholics (and others) confined to my dark ages and limited in their understanding of their religion. After many dissatisfying although worthwhile years in some sort of foggy state of grace, it began to make sense when I learned to think like a right-brained Sh’ma Hebrew looking backward instead of forward like the logical left-brained Greek that I was. I even learned that Greek was originally written “backwards” like Hebrew and changed during this same BCE/CE era. What a surprise!
I cannot accept a tortured explanation of the Trinity to what should not even be a question in the first place but when the Council created the problem in the 4th century without any consultation with the Jews to my knowledge, it had to find a solution and it did so, as indigestible as it is, and we live with the consequences as tragic as I think they are. For me the answer is Sh’ma. Hear, obey. Simple, easy for anyone to understand in any language as I think it was meant to be. Shalom and thanks again for your summary.
George,
I had no idea proto-Greek was, at one time, written right-to-left! (I checked one site, which claimed that, for a short time, it alternated back and forth – first line left-to-right, the one following, right-to-left, etc.) Learn something new every day.
There, of course, many issues within the RCC (Papal authority; Apostolic succession?!; Immaculate Conception?), but I don’t think the Trinity is one of those. Yes, that doctrine gradually developed, but this in and of itself does not mean it comes from paganism. And I also take issue with some things in most Protestant denominations. But, again, the Trinity is not one those issues.
I do think that most impose an anachronistic view onto their Christianity. And, that is unfortunate. I’m doing my best to look at the historical setting. So, I don’t think Skip is all wrong.
There are a number of reasons I hold to the Trinity. One of them is something I posed earlier regarding Jesus raising Himself from the dead. The Greek is quite clear on this by using the active rather than the passive voice. For those who wish to insist that simply changing the translation of the verb lambano from “take” to “receive” (His life up again) resolves the issue, I’ll provide another analogy. In American football (now there’s a misnomer!) there’s the position of wide receiver – clearly the player is quite alive when he receives the football! So, changing the verb to “receive” does not negate the active voice of the verb. Given that, I don’t see any way around the Deity of Messiah Yeshua.
Craig: I’m not convinced! I listed 37 times in Acts or later that the Scriptures tell us God/Father raised Jesus. Never once does it say he raised himself. There are a further 8 references in the gospels saying the same thing. That makes FORTY-FIVE verses in total. You keep going back to this one verse John 10:18. Here is a commentary with which I agree: notice the IN NO WAY CONTRADICTS… Father God raised Jesus from the grave. It was only by HIS command that resurrection occurred, even John 1:18 adds “This command I received from my Father”.
“I have power] i.e. right, authority, liberty: same word as in John 1:12, John 5:27, John 17:2, John 19:10. This authority is the commandment of the Father: and hence this passage in no way contradicts the usual N.T. doctrine that Christ was raised to life again by the Father”. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The reference to Josephus XII:43 in my other post was simply to connect Shimon the Just to the same time period when uttering the name was prohibited (as per the author I referenced)
Here is a funny little story about Shimon the Just/Righteous. Years ago while in Jerusalem I went to the tomb of Shimon the Righteous in the East Jerusalem Arab section of town. There was an old Jewish rabbi there with long beard and curls, wearing a big black hat. He looked at me VERY apprehensively when I walked in to the entrance-way. I merely pointed towards the tomb and said “Shimon Zedek?”. He instantly smiled, gave me a big hug and insisted I go and meet all the other rabbis downstairs who were studying. They all chatted with me in Hebrew for a few minutes, and hugged me lovingly. Then I excused myself and left, not having understood one word they had spoken. But they were overjoyed to see me there to honor the memory of this great sage.
HSB,
With all due respect, I think the author’s point is eluding you. The point is that the authority/power to lay down His life and to take it up again (note that Cambridge uses “takes” and not “receives” here) is received from the Father. The commentary isn’t denying that Messiah resurrected Himself. It’s stating that even though Yeshua raised His own body, this in no way contradicts the other passages that state the Father did it, since in John 10:17-18 Jesus was following orders – it was because the Father commanded Him, and thus the Father was ultimately behind Christ raising Himself. In other words, indirectly, it was the Father raising Jesus here because Yeshua received the authority, the commandment, from the Father to lay down His life and to take it up again.
A dead man cannot follow a commandment.
Having clarified that, I don’t agree with that commentary. Some of those references to the raising of Jesus’ body are “God” rather than “the Father” or “God the Father”, which means it’s possible that Yeshua was included in “God” in at least some of those instances.
In any case, it’s really very clear: the Greek is unequivocal in that the active voice – not the passive – is used. And there are no textual variants on this. Had the passive been used, it’d be ‘game over’ on this issue…except for John 2:19 in which Jesus claims He’d “raise it (‘the temple’, His body) again”. That makes two.
That’s one of the things I like about the Greek language. Each word encodes more information than English. Verbs encode person, number, tense-form, voice, and mood/mode (indicative, subjunctive, imperative). This means one word can make a complete sentence!
OK, now I understand why you referenced that passage in Josephus. Thanks for sharing your personal story about Simon the Just. I can picture it!
Craig, you say, “there, of course, many issues within the RCC (Papal authority; Apostolic succession?!; Immaculate Conception?), but I don’t think the Trinity is one of those”.
I can assure you that is most certainly was a huge issue and still is today. Maybe the best you can do to understand it is to read “When Jesus Became God – the struggle to define Christianity during the last days of Rome” by Richard E. Rubenstein. It tells both sides of the issue of how the Arian controversy re the Trinity was finally resolved in the 4th century.
Fundamentally it was a battle between Bishop Athanasius and Arius, both of Alexandria and it created the split between Eastern Orthodox and Western (Roman) Christianity.
Unfortunately, all records telling us who the Arians really were were destroyed. We only have the RCC’s word for it that the Arians stood for what they did. For all we know, they were NOT what we are told they were, and the RCC was not saving us from rabid people who denied the deity of Yeshua, but instead was solidifying its power, using a supposed fight over the trinity as an excuse.
George,
Without reading Rubenstein, I’d already read about and am well aware of the Arian Controversy and the events leading up to both the first Nicene Council and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Questions regarding the Trinity begin way before that. Back in the mid to late 3rd century Sabellius believed God was one divine Person in three different, distinct modes or forms which should not be confounded. While it’s not exactly clear what Sabellius’ views entailed, some thought it meant that God revealed Himself in each of these modes successively. Some adhere to this teaching – called modalism – today.
Sabellianism was opposed by Tertullian wrote against this in his Against Praexeas, the subject of which apparently taught something similar. Tertullian’s writings affirmed a Trinity. Going even further back, Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies (ca. 180), affirms a Trinitarian doctrine. Referencing Proverbs 3:19-20 and 8:22-31 he writes, “the Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with him, anterior to all creation…There is therefore one God, who by the Word [Son] and Wisdom [(Holy) Spirit] created and arranged all things”
The key to the truth (or non-truth) of Trinitarianism is an answer to the question ‘What does Scripture reveal?’ not ‘Who won the battle between Arius and Athanasius?’
George,
I’ll add: the controversy between the East and West has nothing to do with Arianism. The issue is the filioque, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and the Father (West), or just the Father (East). Both East and West affirm the full Deity of the Son.
LOL! The fact that this comment got a thumbs down is the sort of thing that leads me to believe that at least some readers here are not really interested in the truth, but in perpetuating their own biases. I’ve not stated my opinion; I’ve stated a verifiable fact! Both the Eastern Orthodox and Western Christianity absolutely affirm Athanasius (against Arius). The only issue is the filioque, which was added years later to the N-C Creed of 381. It has nothing to do with my own personal opinion. My comment was not any sort of judgment or statement against non-Trinitarians.
The fact that readers here disagree with teachings on the Trinity – against both Eastern and Western Christianity – has no bearing on the issues involved in the East-West split. One is free to disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity as expressed by the Eastern Orthodox or Western Christianity, but to disagree with my above comment about the East-West split is a flat-out denial of historically verifiable facts!
Funny. I didn’t even know you could add “thumb up” or “thumbs down.” I guess I need to find out more about my own blog site. Thanks for continuing the discussion.
LOL Skip I just gave you a “thumbs up”. First time I have used this feature.
Craig: I understand your sensitivity but with due respect we are talking about ONE thumbs down. I have had the same for exactly the same reason… the sun will likely rise tomorrow anyway 🙂
HSB,
You’re missing my point. If you look at my comments you’ll see that I get quite a few thumbs down. I’m fine with folks disagreeing with my opinions, but I had to laugh when someone disagreed with a fact that I was stating!
Craig:I DO get your point. There are facts and there are opinions. Welcome to the club. I have spent 10 years on a journey and repeatedly been given “thumbs down” for sharing FACTS with family, friends, et al. But let me say this: I learn MOST from people who disagree with me. I learn from you (facts AND opinions).
It’s kinda funny that even if we know that a thumbs up or down isn’t about “liking” something and instead it’s to signal that we disagree with that statement, we still often read it as a “like or dislike”.
There is another way to read the question of calling Yeshua good: He could have been pointing out that the only way that He WAS good was that He and the Father were One. He might have even had His tongue in His cheek while He was saying it… ya think?
And if Skip is right in that God holds the future openended, so to speak (whatever that entails), then that date is set by us as much as by Him. He is ready when we are, and He is delaying His coming until we are.
Hi Laurita, I would contend that Yeshua was speaking plain language that anyone could understand. He had no motivation to be Johnny Carson.
I also agree with Skip’s thesis that there are limits to God’s omniscience because of our free choice.
That still is skirting the question of whether they were wrong to call Him good. There is a point to His response.
…..but it is also an opportunity to support a Trinitarian doctrine which he doesn’t take and for me actually denies.
George, you are hitting the nail right on the head for me. It was exactly the way this whole situation was handled that has caused me to pause a while back and decide to rethink this entire paradigm. Thank you for bringing up the entire crux of the matter for me!
At first glance, this verse seems to be a gold mine for both trinitarians and unitarians. And that is what gave me a clue. Because at second glance, it helps neither. In fact, it hurts both sides. And it got me to wondering. I have realized in life that fights have to be agreeing on certain premises, and it is in the premises that you can find the common agreement that invalidates the fight. Humans descended from Greek approaches (the West) THINK that argument reveals truth, but the truth is (LOL) that it never has, and never will. Truth is revealed by itself. Period.
What is the common premise? There will lie the fatal weakness. I am suspicious that it lies somewhere in the way we are approaching YHVH when we go to trying to understand Who He is. We are approaching it, I am afraid, with the expectation (gotta watch those expectations!) that we can actually understand Who He is, but what if the revelations we have been given were to help us understand who we are? Wouldn’t that be more likely? What if we have been, all of us, trying to pick up this snake at the wrong end all along? I mean, once I saw that common premise, I started noticing a whole lot more, and some of them, to be frank, are pretty pernicious. What if we have received a warning NOT to do this by the very admonition, over and over, inherent in the proclamation that He is One, and we are not to mess with that? What if we are simply not even hearing it, because we are all hellbent (sic) on the idea that we can ‘prove’ the truth? A VERY Greek idea, by the way.
As I was searching for something else, I came across the following regarding “Why do you call me good?”, which, in the opinion of this scholar – one I hold in high esteem because of his forthrightness on matters related to the Biblical text – neither hurts nor promotes the Trinitarian side:
Maybe it is the ultimate conundrum. When is the Trinity not a trinity? When it is imagination?
WOW,
Full cycle of God in power till man exercising choice…
Back to Adam and Eve… Why did serpent take the chance because man chose to enjoy creation (maybe)…
Then to Job… Why did God permit testing, because God qualified Job as being just and righteous…
To final verdict against Yeshua… Why did this happen because the serpent was in charge – do not think so. Or because mans understanding was not aligned with YHVH will – do not think so. All happened because God so loves His creation which He was redeeming.
We can continue arguing this or that view – just as Job’s friends did. The history reveals we must meditate on the topic and justify the will and power of YHVH in all, before we can understand or appreciate what had happened. Our mistake may be we are reflecting on things that happened 2000 years ago which irrespective of how we interpret it it will not change the past… It may or may not change our assumption about it, but will never change the why and how it happened.
As the Eagles sang – Get Over It…
The secret is as Paul proclaimed we must take this event and test ourselves against it; how easy do we crucify Christ anew when we do things without considering the consequences…
As Craig has correctly pointed out, without reflecting thereon, each scholar has his or her view which is not right nor wrong until tested against the why and how… We cannot do either as the historic facts are distorted among many scholars’ views including all the rabbis notes and records recorded throughout the eras.
Would the best thing not be to put my hand in my own bosom and reflect if I am not crucifying Christ again anew through what I am doing…
Micah 6 – what expected, Matt 6 – what to seek, John 6 – how to become etc. May be something we need to seek in our studies rather than proving views and concepts of past scholars, because we can find anything we desire in them and argue them as we understand them to be.
Skip is right Although God be in control, and although the gospel of Yeshau be our prophetic saving reasoning this only means something when we apply it to our own lives – what we do and why we do it.
Shalom or rejoice as the kingdom is in our reach, we just need to reach out and grab onto the opportunities presented to us to apply the teachings.
Yes, Seeker; yes, yes, yes!
Skip says we tend to read the Scripture from YHVH’s perspective, when it was written from ours. I would add that we also tend to pray as if prayer somehow changes heaven when heaven is already there; we need to understand that prayer changes US. We are the problem. I also think, given the way I see we already have so much of it backwards because of our tendency to worship (start from the basis of) self, that we may have this one backwards as well. The revelation of YHVH in Scripture is not so much about positively identifying Him (as if we could grasp Who He is anyway!) as it is about identifying where we should be WITH Him. Which is what you said! Halleluah!
Craig this is a response to your Dec 19 post
I think you meant John 19:7 not 20:7. Notice that they are talking to PILATE. To use the term ‘son of God’ to the Roman governor means two things: first the condemned man is claiming to be deity. That is what the term means to Greeks/Romans. Secondly it is a direct challenge to Caesar who is the ONLY authorized Son of God/divine ruler. What “law” is being broken? The NAS footnote says “apparently Lev 24:16”. Why apparently? Because there is no such law in Jewish Torah being violated. Can you not see they are playing Pilate like a violin? Notice the next verse says Pilate was afraid. Why do you theorize they are playing honest and straight when you already called the trial a “kangaroo court” (i disagree with that as an aside comment)
Son of God means literal offspring of deity only in Greek and Roman religion… And Christianity but NOT Hebrew.
You mention John 5:18. Why was that not raised at the trial of Jesus. Oh I see you say they “thought he was guilty of blasphemy yet had no real proof”. Please tell the Trinitarians who are completely convinced that Jesus frequently claimed to be God. Too bad the first century religious experts couldn’t sort that out (i’m tongue in cheek here)
Actually it was Martha calling Jesus by his full messianic title. You are speculating that this was a godly inspiration. Text does not say that. Perhaps she was simply affirming Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God as the one prophesized to redeem the people of God. You mention Ps 110:2 and Dan 7:13 ‘that triumphant figure’ in the Tanach and I believe NT writings is a man… The messiah mediator man that Paul refers to in letter to Timothy. The Jewish sages understood both Ps and Dan passages to be speaking about a man. As I read the book of Acts I find sermon after sermon by Peter, Paul and others talking about Messiah as a man sent from God, not as deity. No doubt we disagree on this but over the years I have come to conclusion that the disciples understood Jesus to be the Messiah, not God!
HSB,
Yes, I meant 19:7. Thanks for the correction.
We’ve already covered a number of things you posted about in our earlier exchanges. If Pilate felt that their claim regarding Jesus was a threat to Caesar, don’t you think he’d be angry, rather than scared (John 19:8)? On the contrary, Pilate’s response indicated he thought there was some merit to the claim, even though, obviously, the Ioudaioi did not believe it.
My position, as outlined earlier, aligns with Caiphas making a charge of blasphemy. John 5:18 is one of the keys to understanding why they charged Messiah with blasphemy and why they told Pilate the claim in John 19:7. Why wasn’t John 5:18 raised at the ‘trial’? One can only speculate. Maybe the specific witnesses were not there in the dead of night at the kangaroo court (Matthew 26:3-5), and, therefore, Caiaphas wanted to phrase his questioning in such a manner to get Jesus to admit to these rumors. But, again, we’ve discussed this before, and I don’t wish to continue to rehash.
Regarding my point about “literal offspring of deity”, I prefaced it with like, as in almost. However, it’s clear in John 5:18 that Jesus’ interlocutor’s there understood Yeshua to be implicitly claiming a relationship to God much stronger than anyone else, and, presumably, stronger than Messianic expectations. Isn’t it possible that this is exactly the reason the Hebrews misunderstood who Jesus really was? Doesn’t this align with Jesus overt, explicit claims to raise Himself from the dead? I’m currently working on a closer Scriptural examination on this latter point, finding more passages which affirm that Messiah would raise, or had raised Himself (I Thess 4:14; Luke 18:33; 24:7, 46; Mark 8:31; 9:9, 31; 10:34; John 20:9; Acts 17:3 – I’ll post my findings, and the particulars, once I’m through).
I only offered Hagner’s commentary as an alternate, for it varies a bit from the view I hold, which I’ve not changed from before. Even so, Daniel 7:13 is describing “one like a son of man”, i.e. one like a human, one resembling a human but obviously more, as what kind of human comes “upon the clouds of heaven” (and etc. – see Dan 7:14)?!
John 5:18 and John 19:7 are the key to understanding why they charged Messiah with blasphemy. Why wasn’t John 5:18 raised at the ‘trial’? One can only speculate. Maybe the specific witnesses were not there in the dead of night at the kangaroo court (Matthew 26:3-5).
Ignore my last paragraph, as I constructed my comment in MS Word, copied and pasted, but I didn’t intend that last bit (it’s a repeat of other words). It was very late when I posted this comment last night…
The most sensible argument I have ever read on this and gives me hope that God is revealing His truth to all nations. Keep posting Skip we need clear guidance from truly Godly people