A Little Less History
“Therefore the LORD Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14 NASB
Immanuel – Today is the celebration of what was once Saturnalia. Yes, now we call it Christmas and pretend that it is the day of the incarnation, the birth of God the Son, known in the first century as the Jewish, human, Messiah. We ignore the fact that this ancient festival was a celebration of pagan origins revolving around the rebirth of deities worshipped in cultures outside of Israel. After all, we have transformed this rather hideous ritual into a Christian one, no longer filled with moral depravity and ethical exemptions. We could study the history and discover just how despicable the real tradition actually was, but since we don’t do those things (now), what does it really matter? We might even agree that historically this is probably not the day of the birth of the universal Christ, but what does it really matter? One day is just as good as any other if you don’t know the real day, right? And besides, it’s just tradition. What’s wrong with that? Everyone has traditions.
So let’s set aside all this history and concentrate on the texts that are used to support the miracle. Isaiah’s two passages about a child named Immanuel (7:14 and 8:8) are referenced in Matthew 1:23. Obviously Matthew thought it was relevant. But what did Isaiah think?
The history of the debate about the meaning of ‘alma versus bĕtûlâ is well documented. TWOT offers some helpful analysis.
Since bĕtûlâ is used many times in the ot as a specific word for “virgin,” it seems reasonable to consider that the feminine form of this word is not a technical word for a virgin but represents a young woman, one of whose characteristics is virginity. This is borne out by the fact that the LXX translates it as parthenos in two of its seven occurrences, and that its use in Isa 7:14 was quoted to Joseph by the angel as a prediction of the virgin birth.
Some translators interpret Mt 1:22–23 as being simply a comment by Matthew, but it is more reasonable to consider that the argument that convinced Joseph was the fact, pointed out to him by the angel, that such an event had already been predicted by Isaiah. There is no instance where it can be proved that ʿalmâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where ʿalmâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac. Also obvious is Ex 3:8. Song 6:8 refers to three types of women, two of whom are called queens and concubines. It could be only reasonable to understand the name of the third group, for which the plural of ʿalmâ is used, as meaning “virgins.”[1]
The point is that Matthew’s account views Isaiah’s statement as Messianic. But that doesn’t necessarily imply that Isaiah thought it was Messianic. One of the characteristics of the Messianic prophecies is that they are applied after the fact, as our previous review of Matthew’s use of the Tanakh demonstrates. The description of this child had to mean something in Isaiah’s time in order for it to have any relevance to the audience Isaiah addressed. In other words, the prophecy in Isaiah wasn’t given in a vacuum. It wasn’t a prophecy that could only have relevance to Joseph or the followers of Yeshua hundreds of years later. While Matthew clearly sees it as applicable to Yeshua, that doesn’t mean it is only applicable to Yeshua. In Isaiah’s time, ‘alma might have been understood as a reference to a woman who is to bear a child of some special significance in some extraordinary way as a part of Isaiah’s directive in the days of Ahaz and Matthew appropriated the statement because it also fit what he was trying to communicate. In other words, in one context ‘alma could have been understood as a young woman of marriageable age and in the other context it would mean virgin. No matter how we read the cultural context of the two ages, the point is that it is a miraculous sign, much in the same way that the birth of Isaac is a miraculous sign. In other words, there are precedents, even if they are not exact replications.
At any rate, perhaps the real emphasis is in the name, not in the generating event. Immanuel is important in both contexts because it expresses the unwavering faithfulness of God with His covenant people. The “sign” is a sign of God’s presence despite disobedient rulers, idolatrous practices and the rejection by the polis. That Yeshua continues to fulfill what God promised to Abraham underscores YHVH’s righteousness. The name does not indicate that the person so named is necessarily God, as we see from Isaiah’s second verse. It indicates that God is present with His people as evidenced by the one who carries the name.
Today the Christian world celebrates what it believes to be the arrival of God, but in biblical thought, God never left. His Son represents that fact. Say “Hallelujah!”
Topical Index: Immanuel, ‘alma, bĕtûlâ, Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 8:8, Matthew 1:23
[1] Macrae, A. A. (1999). 1630 עלם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (672). Chicago: Moody Press.
Was Yeshua the Son of God, or was Yeshua both the Son of God and God the Son? Can a man raise Himself from the dead? Jesus said, “Destroy this temple [His body], and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19). Yeshua also said, “I lay down my life so that I may take it up again” (John 10:17).
Why a thumbs down on Craig’s comment? Aren’t these legitimate questions? Yes, this topic has been discussed in many posts, but it’s a big one, especially for those of us who have been Christians for a long time and have been taught (and have taught…) through numerous scriptures that Yeshua is God. I often get satisfactory explanations to issues in TW, but then as I continue to read scripture I find verses that still seem to contradict. The discussion must go on – I think Skip would agree. I would really appreciate some comments/explanations to Craig’s questions too.
Yeshua is not God. Yeshua is the “Word of God” made flesh but not God made flesh.
Jeff A. Benner from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center gives this explanation. You can find the video on Youtube.
Published on Apr 13, 2012
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
In Modern Western philosophy the focus is on the individual: the me, myself and I. In contrast to this, the Ancient Hebrew/Eastern philosophy always focuses on the whole or the community: the us, our and we. When we read the Bible we must interpret it according to the culture of the Ancient Hebrews and their Hebrew/Eastern philosophy, and not from our own Modern Greco-Roman/Western philosophy.
In the Hebrew philosophy, the goal is the elimination of “self,” or the “ego.” If what I am saying is true, then why, when we read Yeshua’s words, do we always see Yeshua centered on himself, in complete opposition to Hebrew philosophy. A perfect example of this is John 14:6. “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me.” The answer is, we are reading the text wrong. We are interpreting it from a Western philosophy and not a Hebrew one.
To answer this question, we need to take a closer look at John 1:1, a very controversial and, in my opinion, a very misunderstood verse. In the KJV this passage reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
In the Old Testament, we are repeatedly told that the words of God are his teachings, which is the Hebrew word torah. God’s teachings are his word. If we place the word teachings, within this verse we have, “In the beginning was the Teaching, and the Teaching was with God, and the Teaching was God.”
Then in verse 14 we read “And the teachings became flesh.” According to this passage, Yeshua took on the persona of God’s teachings. After all, isn’t that what Yeshua did? He came to teach the teachings of God.
Yeshua emptied himself of himself and instead took on the attributes of God’s teachings. Therefore, whenever Yeshua speaks, it is not Yeshua speaking, but the teachings. When Yeshua says “I,” the “I” is not Yeshua, it is the teachings.
When we look at John 14:6 again, but with this understanding, we can read this as “the teachings of God are the way the truth and the life.” Interestingly, this is exactly what God teachings teach in the Old Testament.
Exodus 18:20 Teach them the Teachings and make known to them the way they are to go.
Psalm 119:142 Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and your Teaching is the truth.
Deuteronomy 32:47 Through [the Teachings] you may live long in the land.
According to these passages, The teachings of God are “the way the truth and the life,” do you think Yeshua would teach anything different from what God himself taught in his teachings?
Do these scriptures actually say Yeshua is resurrecting Himself? Can’t they be read differently? Yeshua says that He is willing to die so that He can start living all over again. God brings people back to life from death. From then on, it’s up to the individuals to “rise up,” get going.
By the grammar and syntax these verses unequivocally state that Yeshua will raise Himself. There is no other way to read them. They are in the active voice, with Yeshua as subject and agent of His resurrection.
So when the truth of a matter conflicts with my preconceived notions about said matter, I’ll just nonchalantly cast that truth aside. And why not? The Oxford dictionary’s word of the year is post-truth, defined as: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. Just skip those inconvenient facts and stay adhered to those emotionally driven views! It just feels so much better! Grammar and syntax are just so, well, boring.
“God never left”. The Father, as we know, can have no contact with sinful us. We are told that repeatedly. YHVH is the God we know (experience). There is simply no good way to explain the many many manifestations of Him, from the One Abraham bowed low before (no angel ever let anyone bow to them), to the burning bush to the Voice at Sinai to the Pillar of Cloud and Fire, etc. We were given, as sinners, these manifestations all through the Old Testament. Immanuel was not a new species at all, you are right, but a continuation in yet another manifestation, of the YHVH Israel had always had. But I don’t think anyone that I have ever seen has made, or even tried to make, a case that we have ever experienced the Father at any time. So what have we been given to experience? Who is YHVH (Salvation) exactly? Who has been saving us all along from both sin and the Father’s wrath? Who is our representative? And if He did not preexist then how was He a WILLING Lamb, and slain before the foundations of the world, no less? Someone with no preexistence could have also not had a previous experience with the Father to bank on, trust and refer to when He walked among us (Immanuel), nor could He have had a chance to willingly choose to be that Saviour.
How could we have even possibly imagined that the Messenger of the Covenant Himself would come to walk among us until we saw Him? Because of that, we cannot have seen the prophecies that foretold of Him clearly until we could see Him clearly. Micah 5:2, paired with Daniel 9:24 was enough to convince Persian royals to mount camels and ride, and if they could read it right, not a few in Israel could, too. Blindness to the First Coming in Israel was a willing blindness, and the rabbinic curse on the book of Daniel, specifically that verse, is going to have to be discussed if we are to have a balanced conversation about what Israel WANTED to understand at the time of the (now obvious after the prophetic fact) virgin birth.
Just a small note. Who told you that God cannot have contact with sinners? I know it is a popular idea concerning the death on the cross, but if you think about it, YHVH is EVERYWHERE involved with human beings and every one of them is a sinner. Including us. Our defilement might remove us from God’s presence, but that does not mean He can’t connect with us. If what you say is true, then no one in the Tanakh could have ever been in contact with God. That just doesn’t seem to be the case at all.
Who is YHVH? And just who or what were those manifestations I listed? Angels? Imaginations? You did not tackle anything I listed.
And just why cannot God live with us as us? NOBODY has explained WHY those have to be axioms, except I guess they would have to be if He, in fact, cannot.
Something you might consider Laurita, and this is just consideration. 🙂 The manifestations of God may very well have to do with what God desires and is tailored to the ones He is attempting to prod. A good example of this is in the exodus, where to one group He was light (those entering covenant) while to another (those pursuing the ones under covenant) He was darkness. One could argue that these manifestations are fully God as they exert His authority, and yet they aren’t fully so, as no one died in the presence of them. As concerning the pre existence, note that Gen. 1 and 2 seem contradictory to one another in some ways, as the plants in 1 seem to be fully formed and in 2 they are held in suspension, as a seed, until the man arrives. Is 1 the plan form and 2 the plan expressed? I don’t know, but it it may give us an idea of the method appropriated in creation. (including but not limited to this subject) The mystery of Godliness is truly great!! Just something to think about today. 🙂
YHWH bless you and keep you…..
THANK YOU FOR AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW TO APPROACH GEN 1&2 Robert.
Maybe I missed your point. There isn’t any issue with YHVH manifesting Himself as human, or anything else. The text describes these manifestation in various ways – as men, angels, etc. The only texts that suggest Man cannot be in the presence of YHVH are about YHVH in His unfiltered glory. Obviously He can be seen in some partial sense of His glory (e.g. Sinai). But none of this demands that He must exists as more than one person. Jewish orthodoxy has always contended that YHVH manifested Himself in various forms but it never drew the conclusion that YHVH is more than ONE. That raises an interesting question: When did it become necessary to postulate more than one person? As for your second post (question): I don’t understand the issue. What is it that you think must be an axiom?
Thank you. And you just outlined a Jewish understanding that I did not know about before; namely that YHVH can manifest Himself in different forms without drawing the conclusion that He is more than one God. Exactly. Those forms may have much more to do with our perception limitations and a whole lot less with ‘defining’ (limiting) Him to those forms, which is an excluding exercise. Very helpful for me!
Assumed axioms:
a: that God cannot dwell among us.
b. that God cannot Be one of us.
But axiom 1 seems incorrect to me. All that God wants is to dwell with us. The tabernacle is a clear manifestation of this fact, as are all the stories of His involvement with the figures in the Tanakh. Perhaps we could say that men resists God dwelling with MAN, but this isn’t God’s axiom or His purposes.
Axiom 2 seems correct. God is NOT one of us. The Bible is pretty clear about this. He is ontologically transcendent. But this does not prevent Him from manifesting Himself in a way that WE can relate to.
In the initial post, Skip wrote, “It [the name, Immanuel] indicates that God is present with His people, ” and here he writes, “God is NOT one of us…this does not prevent Him from manifesting Himself in a way that WE can relate to.”
Oh sing praises to YHVH forever in every breath we take! Thank You, Father God, for desiring to be THE GOD we can relate to because You make Yourself known. YOU choose that! Wow… how You pour out hesed onto us!
God’s PRESENCE does not require His ONTOLOGICAL IDENTITY. I am not a lion, but that doesn’t prevent me from being in the presence of a lion. Immanuel represents the presence of God (God with us), but that doesn’t require that God be “the same as us.” Right?
Amen! Nnooooooo, I never want God to be the same as me! Eeeeekkk!
If “YHVH is EVERYWHERE involved with human beings” yet He is “ontologically transcendent”, then how does He sustain creation? You’ve already indicated that, in your opinion, YHWH is limited in His omniscience, thereby indicating that He must be in some sense reactive rather than proactive.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. Ontologically transcendent means that God is not “made of the same stuff” that we are. His essence is not the same as ours. He is, for example, UNCREATED. He is eternal. He is perfectly holy. None of these apply to me. But none of these prevent Him from being present in His creation. He is not LOGICALLY transcendental. That would suggest your question, that is, that God’s very being is such that He is LOGICALLY removed from His creation. I addressed this in great detail in my doctoral dissertation (God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience). Nelson Pike’s work, God and Timelessness, carries the argument forward. The Bible makes NO claim that God is LOGICALLY transcendent, but it certainly claims He is ONTOLOGICALLY transcendent. Logical transcendence is the result of Greek philosophical categories, introduced into the Christian biblical God via Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas. The idea might seem as if it honors the magnificence of God, but it does so at the expense of His intimate involvement in creation (as Pike clearly demonstrates). It leaves us with a God who CANNOT BE KNOWN and CANNOT INTERACT WITH US. This is all logical stuff. But this isn’t what the Bible says. It says God is “high above” and thoroughly involved.
So then, to paraphrase, God’s ontological Being is ‘other than’ creation, yet also, with respect to creation, localized among it, omnipresent. Correct?
Does God exist outside His creation, simultaneous to His existence within creation? If not, then where did God exist prior to creation?
Do you not recognize that your question contains a “category” mistake? “Where” is an interrogative of LOCATION? But that is precisely what is NOT asserted.
On the 2nd question I do – it’s a bit tongue in cheek, related to the 1st one. What is the answer to the first one?
Coming at this from a different angle, using a Biblical springboard, taking the LXX of Gen 1 and the Greek of John 1, we must assume God predates creation, that “In the beginning” (En archȩ̄) is point preceding creation. Prior to this archȩ̄, “beginning”, do we consider this the eternal realm as opposed to the temporal realm; i.e. is “time” prior to archȩ̄ of a different type, different from the linear time we experience?
Again, see Pike and Moen on this issue.
I’m not asking you to prove your thesis here; I’m simply asking for a simple answer. So, I’ll rephrase: what do you call “time” prior to the creation event: eternity or time, or something else entirely? My position is that the answer is eternity and that time is strictly part of creation – a necessary construct of creation. What is your position on this one question?
While I appreciate your fervor, the answer is NOT simple and requires a lot more than a simple one-liner. Chapter 8 of God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience argues that temporality is a function of person, of consciousness. So there is no distinction between eternity and time, Greek words of analysis, but not part of the Hebrew notion of continuum (there is no Hebrew word for time as an abstract). Christian theology distinguishes “time” from “eternity” and sets up an artificial distinction that causes us to postulate an ex-temporal God. I trace this to the Greek distinction developed from the idea that time is essentially a measure of change. We experience time in the outside world this way, but Husserl demonstrates the internal time consciousness is also temporal transition regardless of outside change or not. So, if time is an element of consciousness, then God’s consciousness is eternal and time is therefore eternal. Our idea of time as material change is a subset of eternal. Because it is a subset of this larger category, there is no difficulty at all with God’s interaction with His creation. But as Pike demonstrates, postulating an ex-temporal God creates logic contractions that cannot be overcome with theologian manipulation. Please read the book. This is but a tiny piece of a very extended argument.
Thanks for providing a snippet of your book, thus providing a snapshot of your belief in this regard. I have to ask, though, does all matter have consciousness as well (I have a book by new age/occult author Alice Bailey, whose title answers it from her perspective: The Consciousness of the Atom); and, if not, does this render matter non-temporal?
My perspective is that, since Einstein proved that time and space are intimately related, and that, according to physicists, space does not antedate creation (Big Bang), then time (temporality) does not either. Moreover, time/temporality is not a subset of eternity, in my view. God has always existed in the eternal realm, currently exists in the eternal realm; and God, though omnipresent, immanent in His creation, is not at all affected by His creation, including temporality. God’s consciousness is such that it conceives all things, past, present and future simultaneously; this is why He is described as the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega. Just as we understand that God has no beginning (First, Alpha) – otherwise, who would have ‘made’ God? – we understand that God has no ending (Last, Omega). In other words, these self-designations (“I am the First and the Last”) are ways of expressing His eternality, His infinite existence as YHWH.
Craig If I may.
Maybe you are confusing ‘God with us’ and ‘God in us.’ Or even ‘God with us’ as ‘God as one of us.’
God has always been working in and through us. He need not do this but maybe he prefers this as it units people with a common purpose to seek his will.
And this is what Jesus introduced and John reiterated nothing new just summarizing the calling explained in the OT.
And this is exactly what Paul set out to bring to me the heathen…
It is after all not about Moses or the Kings, or the Prophets or even the Apostles they are just mediators or spirits introducing the will of God the foundation upon which all things rest. Or said in plain English the reason why this creation was created. And as Paul confirms the only why we will ever understand God and be united with His intent.
Rejoice therein, I repeat rejoice in the Lord always.
Dear Laurita, those were/are angelic being, Representatives of YHWH, as in having supreme authority in His place -to speak and act on His behalf.
Bowing does not mean worship, as in many cultures, as in Asian cultures e.g. Chinese, and Japanese, it’s simply a sign of respect., same as a curtsy in English culture to the Queen.
Shalom!
Angels themselves forbade that respect, then, which MUST mean something else
Right! That ONLY GOD YHWH is to be worshipped, none else!
I still wish you a blessed and joyful Christmas my friend.
And me to you. Miss you and the family. I hope your time over the holidays is filled with relationship reward.
Joyful Chanukkah, Paul. May YHWH’s light ever shine into your life and your loved ones. May you receive the miracle of victory like that of Chanukkah too.
It is a personal journey of seeking and finding, of re-learning. Why wish a pagan festival upon anyone?
Try searching the roots of christmas online?
Shalom!
If “the word” in John 1:1 is a metonym for (and plan of) the one monotheistic Father God, and this “word” was made manifest in, ‘became flesh’ in, the man Yeshua the Messiah (1:14), the latter God’s Son and not God the Son, then why is eternal life found in all the following: belief in the name of the light/word (1:12; cf. 1:4-5; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5) – with Yeshua Himself claiming that He was “the light of the world/life” (8:12; 9:5; cf. 3:19-21; 1:4-5; 12:36, 46) – belief in the name of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God (20:31); belief in the Son of Man (3:15; cf. 9:35-41; belief in the Son of God (11:23-27); and belief in Him Who sent Me [the Father who sent the Son] (5:24; cf. 6:40)?
In John 10:27-30 we find a startling overlap of roles. Jesus Himself gives His sheep eternal life, saying “no one will snatch them out of My hand”; and, continuing, “My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Whose “hand” are these believers in – Jesus’ or the Father’s? While Jesus claims that He Himself provides them eternal life, He also says the Father has given these sheep to Him. The climactic statement “I and the Father are one” indicates the overlap between the two. What do we make of this?
As explanation to the specific issue addressed in this TW by the Hebrew alma in Isaiah 7:14 and the Greek parthenos in the LXX of this verse, in which some claim there’s absolutely no messianic prophecy in the context, while others claim there is a messianic prophecy in view but that it was not meant to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s day, I offer the following from Grant Osborne’s ZECNT (Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], pp 78-79):
Perhaps the question of Yeshua as man and God keeps us from facing the role of man in marriage as the lamb. Together the lamb and ezer are a visual representation of the image and likeness of God. We have richly explored this with Gaurdian Angel seeing the surrounding, protecting, nurturing aspects of God as the ezer kenegdo of Israel yet we did not call ezer God. She has a special relationship when in maturity the bride and the spirit say come. Come to all who thirst for righteousness. Becoming the representation of the lamb is an equally compelling aspect of maturity.
“The issue between Jews and Christians are quite different. Jews reject the incarnation, we insist on God’s transcendence and we make absolute difference between God and man” p391.
“God is never human and man is never divine: “I will not execute the fierceness of my anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am God and not man.-Hosea 11:9 God is not man that he should lie, neither the son of man, that He should repent – Numbers 23:19 p 368 – Heschel, Moral grandeur and spiritual audacity
Since it is a cardinal sin to fashion an image of God, or treat any human as God, how can we ever entertain the thought of “God the Son”? Idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than God as if it were God.
That’s a great question! Then Scripture promotes a conundrum. Clearly God raised Yeshua from the dead; there are numerous Scriptures to cite for that. Yet, just as clearly Yeshua raised Himself from the dead (see the very first comment in this post). How do we reconcile?
And why do we need to?
Given your position that Yeshua is the Son of God yet not God the Son, I’d think an answer would be important to sustain your position. As it is, the way I see it, we have:
a) God raised Yeshua, the Son, from the dead
b) Yeshua claimed He would raise Himself (and we know Yeshua was sinless, therefore He did not lie)
c) Yeshua must be God
d) But “God” is identified as “God the Father”, and Father and Son are clearly separate entities
e) Hence, Yeshua must be God the Son
Re: e) Hence, Yeshua must be GOD THE SON
for YOU that is a forgone conclusion and you have made that abundantly clear.
You have settled it in your mind and you are amazingly wedded to it. “We” rejoice for you and with you that you are content with that response.
However.
Not “ALL” “WE” have come to that conclusion and SOME of “WE” will be EXTREMELY grateful when “THEE” are comfortable enough with “THOU’S” conclusion as to resist the urge to toy with it.
Because frankly, my dear, Thou dost protesteth to mucheth!
I’m starting to think you are not as rock solid in your conclusions as you want to think you are.
Have a cookie. ? no more coffee. I’m seriously considering weeding out the chocolate chips.
For now or until we have new evidence, I stick to what YHVH demands or requires of me. As seen from Jewish thought, more than one opinion can all be right and entertained. Did Saul commit suicide or did YHVH killed him? Did Peter and Paul raised people from the dead or did YHVH? Acts 9:40, Acts 20:9 And plenty more of course.
These are not analogies. Yeshua made the claim that he would be dead, then raise Himself. Peter and Paul raised people from the dead by the power of God; they always affirmed that, never claiming they’d done this in and of themselves, by their own intrinsic power.
If YHVH authorizes His representative, the Messiah, with all power on heaven and earth, what logic prevents this Messiah from making such a claim even if he submits to the will of the Father when the event actually occurs?
I need to add something here. I am finishing Klausner’s book on the Hebrew idea of the Messiah. His investigation covers ALL the material in the Tanakh, the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha plus the Tannitic literature. The evidence points to a different view of the Messiah than our Christian heritage. There is a lot to digest now, and I am thinking there will be a lot of new views after this material, but there are some changes in the offing. More later.
How can a dead man submit to anyone?
Most of this discussion is avoiding the point as I think pertaining to conviction for he loved us first all other activities are lead baby interaction of God’s Living Word thanks think about that for a while for the word of God is alive inactive discerning the soul from the spirit the joints and the marrow of the bones and the thoughts and the intentions of the heart.shalom.
“How can a dead man submit to anyone?” He can’t, but he can exercise the authority that was given to him (john 10) while he was alive. (acts 2:24) You have to assume that the authority was exercised in the state of death.
A true team effort, Robert! There’s that picture of how I think all heaven works: everybody feeding everybody else everything at that banquet table. We really have a hard time grasping what that really is in practice, I think. Heaven is not just another top down concern with descending hierarchies. Heaven is about something else entirely.
and that’s why the birds, in day 5, fly OVER the heavens, not in! 🙂
But wait. Doesn’t Yeshua speak to the dead, expecting them to hear him (the son of the woman in Nain, and Lazarus)? Maybe OUR idea of dead isn’t quite the way the biblical account portrays it. IF the dead can hear a command to RISE, are we assuming that Yeshua CAN’T because he is “dead?” If he has all authority on earth, and can speak to the dead, then why can’t he also hear when he is “dead?”
I agree with this in regards to the dead being able to hear and respond, my comment was driving more to the point of the authority to raise those who are dead. In other words, the authority was given during his life in response to his obedience. I’m sure that opens up more questions than it answers, but it looks at the problem of raising himself from the dead from a different perspective. 🙂
Had to go find it but here’s an example. John 5:25-29 they were all raised but to what end is according to the practice of the authority they walked in during their life. It says he gave them the right to become sons of God. (authority, power)
Did the fig tree “hear” Jesus’ curse (Mark 11:12-25)?
Skip, @your 11:28 comment;
The body (flesh) IS separate from the spirit. The spirit is what gives the body life. When the body wears down and is no more, the spirit rises from it, still alive, hence the Scriptures telling us Matthew 10:28 telling us to not fear what man can do to the body because our soul shall live.
You teach the concept of “Nephesh” the soul/spirit being one unit, i think. I adhere to the soul being our mind/will/emotion that gives our character to our spirit (body/soul/spirt).
In my brain it matter not, because the spirit is cognizant and able to think and respond IN THE SPIRIT.
Therefore, It is not a reach for me to believe and accept that Messiah died, and in his cognitive spirit, submitted to YHVH, rose again.
As far as him saying *I* will raise this body up again, i stand on the side of semantics. I do not know the immediate, 1st hand accounting of when or how those words were spoken so any attempt to attach my concepts on to it would be circumspect.
I just believe that he did, and in doing so set precedence and example.
In real life experiences, i have never had any one question me about what i thought in this regard when i have asserted my submitted authority over the chaos that was presiding in their minds….just astonishment and relief that they were able to think clearly.
It was like, as one woman told me about a year ago “someone flipped a switch in my mind and it went quiet”.
I have the solution. 😉
Again, the topic of the trinity has never been coached.
Hmmmm…correction: coached should ‘broached’.
#iloveautocorrect #not
Setting aside the illogic that a dead person can exercise any authority, you are still missing the key, essential aspect of this issue. The syntax and grammar are explicit: the verb lambano, “take (up)”, is in the active voice, and Yeshua is the subject, which means Yeshua raised Himself from the dead.
Stop thinking in Greek. He spoke Hebrew. Try backwards translating.
Appealing to the supposition that Jesus spoke only Hebrew, seems to me just a convenient way of obfuscating the issue. (And even Hengel [Hellenization, p 26] notes that, regarding Jews of this period, “it’s not so simple to distinguish between the ‘Jewish-Hellenistic’ literature of the Diaspora and the ‘genuine Jewish’ literature of Palestine… there were connections in all directions, and a constant and lively interchange.”) The fact is that John recorded his Gospel in Greek, though with occasional Aramaic words, such as <rabboni (20:16) and the Aramaic-derived Messias in 1:41 and 4:24 – curious that this all important word wouldn’t be from the Hebrew instead. In any case, it’s the Greek syntax and grammar with which we must exegete, then interpret.
The phenomenon, if you start from the position that Yeshua had life within Himself, was not the resurrection part: it was the laying it DOWN part. Now that, from the standpoint of the self-proclaimed Lifegiver, is a true miracle! He claimed to be able to do both, but it seems to me we want to try to pick out the part that would be hard for US to do: i.e. self resurrect. I think we as usual, tend to want to approach this from our perspective (easy for us to die), and then try to compute, analyze or relate from there. Sigh. Always a problem.
Yeshua’s life in Himself was granted to the Son by the Father, and most Christian theologians are of the view that that life must be His preexistent, divine life, rather than His human life. This makes sense, as the Father is most certainly divine, and granting the Son ‘life in Himself’ seems to be stating something much more than any other human was granted. In other words, it would seem superfluous for Yeshua to make this statement about Himself if this life were essentially the same as any other, as you are implying. With this in mind, I’d think the life Yeshua laid down in John 10 was not the life in Himself.
I see some ambiguity in my clause “as you are implying”. It should be seen as agreeing with your position that “life in Himself” IS a big deal, as opposed to modifying “if this life were essentially the same as any other”.
John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
There it is, it was received of the Father (the authority to lay down and take up) Now it could be that the Jesus of John 2 is a different one than the one in John 10 but I don’t think so. BTW, to tear down or attempt to disprove another, position doesn’t prove yours to be true, it only proves that your capable and willing to do so. We all can do that, it doesn’t gain anything except division.
You wrote: BTW, to tear down or attempt to disprove another, position doesn’t prove yours to be true…it doesn’t gain anything except division. Then why the attempt to disprove my view? If we’re after truth, then opinions don’t matter, truth does.
The fact that Jesus received the commandment from His Father (before His death), does not negate the fact that He said He’d take his psyche up again (after His death, logically). Nor does this in any way conflict with John 2:19.
Not trying to disprove anything, bringing up various aspects isn’t an attempt to disprove but rather an attempt to add too. We don’t speak the same language Craig, there’s bound to be misunderstanding. Try not to be so defensive, it gets us nowhere and diverts us from exploring.
As regards your comment @ 5:17, I don’t subscribe to the Hegelian dialectic; I believe in objective truth. You may ‘explore’ all you want, but due to my interaction here and my subsequent specific investigation of the syntax in John 10:17-18, the truth has been made crystal clear. And only God can raise from the dead.
I categorically and personally call out the error of your statement “only God can raise from the dead”.
Only one walking in sanctification and the AUTHORITY of the name of Yeshua HaMashiac ARE ABLE to raise the dead.
Fact.
“In the name of Yeshua HaMashiac and by the power of the Ruach Hakodesh” spoken by a believer in complete agreement w/YHVV’s Torah and walking in sanctification has raised more then 1 person ‘from the dead’. FACT.
They also have commanded health, reinstated emotional well being, cast out spirits and moved into a level of spiritual authority that most never experience and therefore can not accept exists.
FACT.
You need to read less, live more. It’s not about what one reads, it’s what one is able to mix their faith into and make real that crystalizes Truth. It’s when one takes up the authority of Messiah’s name and the humility of his walk and sprinkles that into the lives of others as well as their own that makes the difference.
Don’t read ANYTHING else until you have mixed your faith to the point that you can say to a fellow believer “walk this way and thou shalt be whole” and they are. When THAT happens, you will find that all your research amounts to nothing.
At my most broken place i prayed with a woman with a tumor, and it dissolved. I avoided interaction w/anyone and still spoke life into people who i stumbled into.
Not one of them asked me if i believed in the trinity, and all of them righted that little piece of their life and moved forward.
Have a cookie. Drop the books and live.
BCP,
Who raises the dead? I repeat: only God does. It’s only by God’s power that any miracles occur, not humanity’s. Nowhere here have I denied God’s supernatural powers working through His willing, submitted vessels – and see my comment @ 12/25 6:06pm. I’m not a cessationist.
Well, there’s a difference between saying ‘ONLY GOD DOES’ and “only by God’s Power”.
You know this.
I leveraged the difference in making my statement AND i have done so in my own life, as i stated above.
Have you?
Maybe a little more focus on walking your talk and a little less obsession with what OTHERS believe would serve God’s people better.
a) have a cookie
b) i still envy your ability to use different fonts.
“due to my interaction here and my subsequent specific investigation of the syntax in John 10:17-18, the truth has been made crystal clear.”
? Be careful Craig, that’s a pretty bold statement. I’m saying that as a brother, not as an opponent.
Your correct that it doesn’t negate him saying it, but it does tell by whose authority it was accomplished by. Logic says God doesn’t need to be granted authority. ??
You are absolutely correct @ 5:22pm; however, you are missing a key element. If we concede that no man can raise himself from the dead, considering that Yeshua did so must mean He was more than human. In fact, this points to what Christian theologians call the hypostatic union – the union of the human and divine natures in the one Person of Christ/Messiah. Within this framework any apparent contradictions vanish. That is, incarnationally the Son willingly laid down His human life, in obedience to the Father as the incarnate Son; yet, He, in His own intrinsic divine nature raised Himself from the dead, in concert with the Father (as all those Scriptures referencing the Father as agent in Jesus’ resurrection testify).
As a matter of note, the contradiction remains in that the Father raised him from the dead. You can get one side of the debate but you have to do so at the expense of the other. So, if he’s God, ontologically the same yet distinct why the need to be granted the authority by the father? It doesn’t work either way. I didn’t notice any contradictions in the proposition that he was granted the authority, as claimed.
No man can raise himself of his own power is what I’ll concede, someone that YHWH gives that authority to is a different matter altogether. After all if one considers that He framed the worlds and gave all life, this surely wouldn’t be over His paygrade. ?
But then you still have the statement “I and My Father are One”. That is no simple statement, because if that is true, then what One does, the other One is doing also. Wait, that is a quote, too. This whole thing runs off the edge of the page we can read in every direction.
Yep! I think it’s quite a bit larger than we can imagine. One of the reasons I’m so opposed to the hard and fast answers.
Two reasons I hate (strong word), but I repeat HATE this argument is that it divides by its very nature, therefore must have been conceived in hell. It also requires that both sides CLAIM to be able to define God.
What if we limited the discussion to just questions? Wait, that’s a Skip thing.
Laurita @ 6:50pm,
And I just posted an addendum to an earlier comment above (at 6:59pm today) referencing this same verse.
Robert,
The contradiction in your position is that a dead man can exercise authority. As to my position and your perceived contradiction, Father and Son are ontologically the same in their shared divine nature (ousia), yet they have different roles as ‘Persons’ (Grk: prosopon); moreover, the authority was conferred qua human, not divine (and the Father has no divine nature, of course). So, no contradiction. Now, I can understand some difficulty with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; however, that doctrine makes sense out of these Scriptural difficulties.
correction: the Father has no HUMAN nature of course!
It’s only a contradiction in your understanding of the argument. It’s not that it isn’t declared, just not understood.
the FLESH was dead, so to speak.
The SPIRIT was not.
I find NO contradiction in the thought that the SPIRIT (Messiah’s mind, will, emotion) stood alive, at YHVH’s pleasure, and re-entered and regenerated the flesh.
I have commanded flesh to rise before, not human, but animal, in a state of complete panic and complete submission to YHVH, and it did. I know a man who commanded more then one life spirit back into more then one lifeless body, rebuking the SPIRIT of death, and it was so.
I have no issue with Messiah making that declaration and then following through with it.
However, I don’t believe in the trinity and i DO believe man to be a triune being.
#thevilliagehertetic >mwah<
On another note, i am a complete dunce in the kitchen and devoted today to cooking for the next 2 weeks.
Please pray for me.
This is not a drill.
Praying! ?
If I may, bcp,
Greek thinking ties one up in a constant state of over-analysis, the Hebrew mindset asks one to hold on to the basic truth that the body AND soul together make up a human being, WHILE the spirit, breath of life, is what connects us to God, making us a living soul/nephesh in a physical body, connected to a spiritual realm. We are spiritual beings, though our bodies may perish, our souls/nephesh, do not. We await to be resurrected in a new body.
As in the case of your body lying on the hospital bed (your post some TWs ago), while you watched in your spirit, floating above with all your senses/emotions/mind with you, YOU (still you) were aware of what was going on, as you recognize the folks around.
Mind/ heart/ soul are ALL tied in together as nephesh.
There wasn’t another THIRD party separate from you, that was part of you, was there?
We are not triune beings!
Love your cookies!
Shalom!
Actually, in typing out that post i ALMOST saw it that way, and for the same reason.
And then….
There is a market for human souls and it is not about ‘spirits’. Seriously.
It’s a real, trackable thing, but the nuances you have to get into to research it are not recommended.
So, there’s that.
PS: i didn’t watch my spirit, it was my spirit watching the room, AND understanding what i was seeing.
A spirit w/out it’s soul would be effectively eradicated, OR, be defenseless to being overtaken by another ‘soul’ entity.
Can Yeshua be speaking of his ability to do so; communicating that he had authority. This puts me in mind of luke 4:11 temptation when Yeshua chose not to exercise a right.
Power under submission is an attribute that I’m still learning.
Eph 2 Comes to mind to understand the term dead.
So why are we seeking another description of dead when the bible reveals what is being referred to…
The only point we will be proving is reading the scripture out of scope as throughout the scripture God declares he is the God of the living not the dead and then the preacher teaches that when we blow out this last breath the spirit returns to God and the flesh to dust… Two different understandings for death.
Without God’s Spirit and without the spirit that was given us by conception. As Yeshua was sent to save the lost sheep I would understand the raising of the dead referred to bringing to life those distance from God.
But yes I can also accept the raising of the natural dead as possible, remember that even Ezekiel spoke about the dead bones and was not referring to those buried 6 feet…
Looking forward to that, Skip. Shalom!
Cannot wait
Point made, but hardly ever treated as critical by non-Jewish believers, I observe.
That’s because the question flies in the face of Jewish monotheism. Certainly no man can raise Himself from the dead. And just as clearly God raised Yeshua from the dead. What does that make Yeshua?
Questions: What does that make Yeshua?
Answer: ALIVE!!!
Not really. Are we so sure of the resurrection, Skip? Any historical proofs? Todah!
Saturnalia ended on the 23rd of December and the Roman Empire had the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the “Birthday of the Unconquerable Sun”, on 23 December. I wonder how could the 23rd change to the 25th…
But that is a debate for another day…
Let us look at Yeshua’s birth. No the conception is more important as birth is not debated as through Mary. Did the HG provide the seed for the conception? If yes or possibly then we need to accept as true as that was the proclamation by the prophets before the turn of the lost sheep will be possible… If this is not possible then Skip the engagement could imply sexual intercourse as well…
As the records all point to the conception through the seed of the HG I for one will have to accept that Yeshua was the promised redeemer for the lost sheep. And as a child from the lost sheep I have to accept that when Jesus united with Moses and Elijah before he committed himself to his redemption work that his teachings are what redeems and not his person as explained in John through to John 14 all confirming: If eat of my flesh and drink of my blood ye have fellowship with and God will resurrect int he last days…
Craig as for the resurrection that is Hosea 6 in action each and everyone of our own responsibilities something God does not do but requires we willing do, consider the vow of a Nazarene…
Laurita consider the claims by Paul: Angels are spirits sent to redeem those that need to be saved. (Wait a moment that would be messenger, apostle, prophet etc as spirit refers to a person with a specific purpose) And then That he was received as Jesus The Christ. While John warns us to test all these spirits.This tells me that it is not our understanding or insight that says what is an angle but rather the role the messenger played to redeem us. Ezekiel said it best as God’s everlasting dwelling is amidst the children of Israel. Jesus confirmed this in Luke 21. (Does not say on earth or in heaven though)… The only indication is that we cannot build him a dwelling as our works are to small to house Him…
In testing this debate I keep finding verses that tell me that the Father is invisible and inaudible, and it seems He always was and always will be. I have pointed this out previously but with little response. Does no one believe it? If it were just one verse it might be explained away but there are many.
But if it is accepted, how can YHVH be the Father when YHVH was seen and heard? Right from the beginning Yahweh Elohim talked to Adam and his wife.
So, how does a monotheist explain . . .
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
1Ti 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
1Jn 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time.
Heb 11:27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit:
The co-equal trinity arguments get horribly complex but the following view seems to harmonize many issues.
The Father is ultimately the one supreme invisible Deity.
The Father created YHWH, the “Firstborn of all creation” Col 1:15.
The Father created everything through YHWH and for Him.
YHWH is also the Word and Image and One with the Father.
YHWH emptied Himself of His “divinity” and thus became a MAN.
This was Yeshua but He was “full of the Holy Spirit” Luke 4:1.
The Holy Spirit is the power of the invisible Father.
An architect (God) with a commission (Resurrection in a new world) has just one objective: get the job done. How that plan which is in the architect’s mind gets done is up to the engineers and construction crew (us). The objective can be achieved in an infinite variety of ways (Limits of Omniscience). So the Architect “sees” it all in His “mind” before it is started including who will be the Project Manager (Yeshua). End of concept, execute the plan; enter Genesis 1:1. Call Me if you need any help, which you will. Leave a message and I’ll get back to you (Holy Spirit) but I have already given you the plan (Torah) so you will have to wait for a reply from Me. Trust me. Sh’ma. Shalom.
I think the following helps regarding the debate on how to understand,
Joh 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.
The Jews thought He was speaking of Herod’s Temple but they were wrong.
Trinitarians think He was speaking of His resurrection, but maybe they are wrong.
Maybe I’m thinking too Greek, but technically God only brought Yeshua back to life and then Yeshua raised Himself up off His bed, folded His covering and left the tomb. Then, soon after and before He could be touched, Yeshua said to Mary Magdalene, “I [must first] ascend to My Father”. Yeshua was first required to “raise” Himself up to His God.
Is it too much of a stretch to think that one or both of these events are what He referred to?
(I am reminded that when we are resurrected that the first thing we will do is rise up into the air to meet Yeshua, but I suppose, not under our own power.)
But most importantly, perhaps Yeshua actually was referring to the raising of a new metaphorical Temple of believers. The Temple of which the apostle Peter wrote,
1Pe 2:5 you also as living stones are being built a spiritual house, a holy priesthood . . .
1Pe 2:9 But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,”
“The Body of Christ” as it is usually referred to, this is what Yeshua raised up and He was its “headstone of the corner”.
Verse 19 does not insist that “it” is referring strictly to His coming back to life and verse 21 only “clarifies” it to, “the temple of His body”. There is room to maneuver here.