A fortiori
Whoever believes that Jesus is the [a]Christ is [b]born of God, and whoever loves the [c]Father loves the child [d]born of Him. 1 John 5:1 NASB
Born – Today we leave all the indications of marginal notes in the text. The NASB has four notations (a, b, c, d) that explain that the Greek text uses a slightly different word than the English. For example, where the English text has “Christ,” the Greek reference is really to “Messiah.” So, “Whoever believes that Yeshua is the Messiah” is the proper rendition. The rest of the notations all involve the word “begotten.” The text actually reads, “Everyone who believes that Yeshua is the Messiah is begotten of God.” The Greek verb is gennao, here a perfect, passive, singular. In other words, God is the parent (the generating party) of this person. God performed the action and this person is the beneficiary of that action. Furthermore, the action is completed in the past but has continuing effects in the present. The one who believes that Yeshua is the Messiah has been made a child of God by God and that status continues.
OK, pretty straightforward. You believe and on that basis you are generated as a child of God. Furthermore, the one who has been generated as a child loves the Father and the child whom the Father generates. Two implications here. First, John reiterates Yeshua’s claim that if you love him, you will also show that love for those who are his followers. In other words, love of God manifests itself in the love of those who follow God.
The second implication is a bit more complicated. Could John also be referring to Yeshua HaMashiach? Could he be saying that if you believe Yeshua is the Messiah, then you have been made a child of God and as a child of God you will love the child begotten by God, that is, you will love Yeshua? You see, the text does not say that if you love Yeshua you will love those who have been generated as God’s children. It says that if you believe Yeshua is the Messiah, then love will manifest itself in your life in certain ways. John uses his favorite verb, pisteuo. But he doesn’t mean, “If you hold a cognitive proposition to be true about Yeshua.” He means, “If you actively enter into the worldview expressed in the life of the Messiah, then you will love the Messiah who is also generated by God.” The verbs are singular. The Greek text doesn’t include the noun “child.” It uses a form of the verb gennao to indicate that the last demonstration of love is for whoever has been generated (born) by the parent, the Father. But this is exactly a description of Yeshua. He is God’s son, born of the Father.
This implication gave the early Church fathers considerable distress. Desiring Yeshua to be divine, these men began speaking of “eternal generation,” in order to avoid the implication that Yeshua was born like all human beings are born. You can appreciate their dilemma. But it isn’t John’s problem. John is Jewish. In spite of attempts to make his theology fit the ideas of Athanasius, John’s Messiah is a Jewish Messiah. And all of the Jewish ideas of the Messiah present in the first century never include the thought that the Messiah is God. A fortiori, to believe that Yeshua is begotten by God as the Messiah is to believe that Yeshua is a specially selected human being uniquely chosen to play the role as Messiah.
You know, I actually hate to even bring up this point. It will probably generate more controversy. But until we recognize that John’s Messiah is Jewish, we will fall under the influence of Athanasius and Gregory whose Greek philosophy and social circumstances produced a Messiah unrecognizable to Jews. Isn’t that amazing?
Topical Index: born, generate, gennao, pisteuo, Messiah, 1 John 5:1
Surely it wouldn’t have been because some of those early fathers were canting towards gnosticism and all its implications, would it? If you arrive at “eternal generation” after you have given the notion of the Messiah who’s Father was God and mother was Miriam a gnostic bath you get an entirely other kettle of fish. Paul wrote that these folks were already starting to cause trouble in his day and that it was going to get worse. It has.
You say, “gennao” means God performed (past tense) the action, but specifically, I presume you mean, after someone believes Yeshua is the Messiah, then God makes that person a child of God. But that does not concur with other verses from John.
I don’t know Greek, so I have to ask, is it also possible John is saying that only those already (past tense) born of God are able to believe Yeshua is the Messiah?
That fits with John 3:7, which Strong says means, you must be born from above; by analogy from the first . . . from the beginning (very first).
It’s not a popular belief but it would seem only sons of God can hear their Father’s message as delivered by Yeshua.
Joh 8:43 Why do you not understand my speech? Even because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil,
I don’t believe eternal damnation is predestined but these verses, and many others, certainly seem to indicate that God has His favorites.
Daniel,
The issue of the “tense” of the perfect tense-form I may address in a separate comment. Skip’s words in this post echo what is found in most of the older grammars, but newer ones challenge this notion. I may comment on this a bit later.
But going directly to your question, on the surface, there appears to be some scriptural ambiguity on this issue. First, let me start more broadly: Jesus said, “…no one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6); but, he also said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him…” (John 6:44). So, the Father ‘draws’ individuals to the Son, and the Son is the only way to the Father. Thus, the Son is the intermediary to whom the Father ‘draws’ individuals. And, John clearly says that belief in the Son is the only way to zōēn aiōnion–eternal life (John 3:15).
Getting more specific to your question and the tenor of this post: John 1 lays it all out. If we follow “the Word” closely in the text, His identity is illumined (pun intended). The Word was with God in the beginning (1:2). Through him (the Word) all is made (1:3). In Him (the Word) was life and this life was the Light of men (1:4). John the Baptist came testifying about the Light [“life”, “the Word”], though he himself was not the Light (1:6-8). This Light [the Word] is the “true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” (1:9).
Verse 10 is the key to what follows: This Light was “in the world, and [though] the world was made through him [the Word], yet the world did not know him”. ‘His own’ “did not receive him” (1:11). Here’s the crux: “But to all who did receive him [the Word], who believed in his name, he [the Word] gave the right to become children of God” (1:12, ESV). Belief is the key. These believing children of God “who were born (gennaō), not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (1:13, ESV). See how the text differentiates between those born “of the flesh” and those “born of God”. Obviously, everyone is ‘born of the flesh’, but believers in “the Word” become “born of God”. This is what John 3:3-15(and through to 21) is all about.
Belief centers on “the Word”—“the Word” that was made flesh “and dwelt among us”. John’s Gospel was written with this end-goal: “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that [by] believing you may have life in His name (20:31, NASB/ESV). Belief in the Son, the Christ/Messiah, is tantamount to belief in “the Word” which/who was “with God in the beginning”. So, who were those identified as ‘his own’ who “did not receive him”? These were the oi Ioudaioi (“the Jews”—though, of course, not all of “the Jews”). So what is the identity of “the Word”? Stated another way, who is “the Word”? From a different angle, who did John the Baptist testify about—“the Word” or Jesus Christ/Yeshua Messiah?
In order to comment on the first paragraph in this post, I’ll have to somewhat briefly explain the Greek verbal system. As opposed to English, which is time (“tense”) based, Greek (and Hebrew) is aspect prominent. Aspect is not a difficult concept per se, but native English speakers have difficulty understanding it because of our time-dominant verb “tenses”. Because “tense” connotes time in English, I’m going to use “tense-form” when speaking of verb forms.
Common to most (all?) languages that are aspect-prominent are imperfective aspect and perfective aspect. The latter views the verbal action as a whole (think of this as “complete” and “perfect” being synonymous—not “perfect” as without flaw). The former views the verbal action as in progress (not “perfect”, not “complete”), without considering its beginning or end. Wikipedia (see “imperfective aspect”) does a pretty good job delineating this for English speakers (it references Bernard Comrie’s book Aspect [Cambridge, 1976], which I recommend as a primer on the subject). Since the writer(s) used an example straight from Comrie’s book, I’ll choose an equivalent, though I’ll quote Comrie directly (wiki didn’t cite page #s):
Called describes “the totality of the situation referred to…as a single unanalysable whole, with beginning, middle and end rolled into one” (p 3). This is perfective aspect. In Greek only the aorist tense-form conveys this aspect. The aorist works well for narrative.
Comparatively, was writing describes a process; she was in the process of writing when I called. Her writing preceded (and may have followed) my call. This is imperfective aspect, which views “the situation from inside, and as such is crucially concerned with [its] internal structure”. Both the present tense-form and the imperfect tense-form convey imperfective aspect. This aspect is for describing events more fully: He went outside, opened the shed, and saw a snake slithering on the floor. Slithering is conveying imperfective aspect, while the other verbs are perfective aspect.
The perfect tense-form—not to be confused with perfective aspect—is a source of dispute. It is generally agreed that ‘past action with present results/effects’ is inadequate, since it does not work in a number of instances. Morphologically, the perfect tense-form carries features of both imperfective and perfective aspects. This is why Julius R. Mantey wrote the following (“Evidence that the Perfect Tense in John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 is Mistranslated” in Journal of Evangelical Theological Society (JETS), 16-3 (September 1973)):
But, it really shouldn’t be thought of as aorist tense-form + present tense-form. The most consistent method I’ve found is to view the perfect tense-form as conveying a third aspect altogether, the stative aspect, defined as, “a state of affairs (a condition) that exists, with no reference to any progress, and that involves no change” (Rodney J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014], p 225). This doesn’t necessarily mean that the state described by the verb in context cannot change at some later point; nor does it mean that the state continues into perpetuity. Also, the perfect tense-form does not convey any past action, though past action can be inferred from context. (And the perfect tense-form can refer to past states.)
Probably the best example is Jesus’ response to the wiles of the devil in the wilderness: “It is written”. This is better understood “It stands written”. Here Jesus is talking about Scripture which was, of course, written a long time before; but, that’s not what is conveyed by the perfect tense-form here. It’s not the past action of the Scripture having been written that’s in view, it’s the state of its ‘written-ness’. Perhaps it could be thought of like “It is on record”.
I’ll refer to the above when I respond to the first paragraph in this post (which I plan on doing later).
Using my earlier comments @ 5:50 pm and 1:07 pm as background for this comment, I’ll engage with the first paragraph of this post. First, in the NASB the notations are sometimes used for alternative English renderings, other times for words added for the sake of clarity, textual variances, and also for alternate meanings of a word. The latter is what’s in mind for [a]—note that the footnote uses “I.e.” (that is), whereas [b] and [d] use “or”—“Christ” is the English rendering for the Greek (transliterated) Christos, which means “Messiah” (or “Anointed One”). I don’t disagree with the translation, but “Messiah” is not the literal Greek.
The verb for ‘believe’ (pisteuō) is a participle in the present tense-form (made a substantive, as it’s prefaced by the article, ho); therefore, believes is imperfective in aspect, which means continuous belief. The verb for ‘begotten’ is, as Skip notes, a perfect tense-form, singular, and in the passive voice. Understanding this as stative aspect, this verb is conveying that the person is in a state of being ‘begotten of God’. Putting this together, everyone who continuously believes that Jesus is the Christ is in a state of being begotten of God. One may draw interpretation based on that.
As to the suggestion that the second clause refers to Jesus because it is singular (etc.), that does not necessarily follow. In fact, the larger context suggests otherwise. The first clause of 5:1 is in the singular, as is the second: all who believe that Jesus is the Christ are begotten of God, and the one who loves the one who begets [i.e., the Father] loves the one begotten [perfect tense-form again] of Him. Here we’ve come full circle: the implication in the latter part–“the one begotten of Him”–is that this ‘begotten-ness’ is predicated on the statement in the first clause, i.e., the belief that Jesus is the Christ. Then it follows that proof of belief in Christ is found in the love for the fellow believer [those who believe that Jesus is the Christ]. The next verse, 5:2, confirms that the former refers to the individual believer in Christ and not Christ: By this we know that we love the children [plural] of God…. Further proof is how 5:5 bookends the entire thought and completes the intervening context: …He who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
Clarification is in order in the above (I really shouldn’t complete technical comments when I’m tired!). The perfect tense-form of gennaō may be better understood a state of having-been-begotten begotten of God. One may think that we’re back to the two-step definition found in the OP (past action, present results), but one must keep in mind the intent of the perfect-tense form is to describe a state only. Is/are begotten/born is probably the best translation, keeping in mind the understanding above (“a state of having-been-begotten[born] of God”).
Thank you, Craig. Now I have to go back and notate all my margins on these verses some more. It is hard to follow tense changes, etc. when you can’t follow what the Greek is doing and so have to rely (not good) on translations. Much better to follow the Greek first! I really appreciate now being able to do that. I will also write that I got it from you.
Definitely better to follow the Greek, as there’s much difficulty translating an aspect-prominent language to a time-prominent receptor language. You don’t have to cite me–I’d recommend obtaining Comrie’s book.
Speaking of time, temporal reference must be gleaned from context (and my current understanding is that this is true of Hebrew, as well). For example, the aorist tense-form, being perfective in aspect, works well in narrative, i.e., past-time contexts. Some just assume the aorist is ‘past tense’; but, this does not hold. The best example of a non-past use of the aorist is the Father’s words to the Son at His baptism by John: in you I well-pleased. Should it be was well-pleased or am well-pleased? The latter is obviously the intent. The Father is just making a simple statement, not describing either an ongoing ‘well-pleased-ness’ (imperfective aspect) or a state of being well-pleased (stative aspect). The time value is probably past + present in that context; even though we can safely assume the Father will be well-pleased in the future, the context does not explicate that.
Regarding my reference that Hebrew is an aspect-prominent language, for a brief work on this look up “Levinsohn Aspect, Backgrounding and Highlighting in Biblical Hebrew”. I happened across this a bit ago. Levinsohn’s focus is on Linguistics and Discourse Analysis, primarily (solely?) on the Bibical languages (I have a book of his on NT Greek).
As I remarked more than once, I don’t know Hebrew; and it’s likely that I won’t spend any time learning it. Greek is hard enough for me! But, I thought some here may get some benefit out of Levinsohn’s work. He does a decent job describing aspect in general, and I assume he knows what he’s talking about with respect to aspect in Hebrew.
I’m still trubled with this line of thought.
Yeshua frequently spoke of His unique, otherworldly origin, of having preexisted in heaven before coming into this world. To the hostile Jews He declared, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (John 8:23). “What then,” He asked, “if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John 6:62). In His high-priestly prayer Yeshua spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). In John 16:28 He told His disciples, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” Thus, John described Yeshua in the prologue of his gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
Help me with this…
Yeshua assumed the prerogatives of deity. He claimed to have control over the eternal destinies of people (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8-9; John 5:22, 27-29), to have authority over the divinely-ordained institution of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13-14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10-17), and to have the right to receive worship and faith due to God alone (Matthew 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23). He also assumed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-11)—something which, as His shocked opponents correctly understood, only God can do (Mark 2:7).
Yeshua also called God’s angels (Genesis 28:12; Luke 12:8-9; 15:10; John 1:51) His angels (Matthew 13:41; 24:30-31); God’s elect (Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33) His elect (Matthew 24:30-31); and God’s kingdom (Matthew 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3) His kingdom (Matthew 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33; 2 Timothy 4:1).
So Mr word Wizard how do I put the above to rest and choose to agree with your perspective I am un-reconciled ?
My dear brother Skip. Please take no offense but rather consider the above. The Rabbi’s have indeed been dismissed, melinend, ridiculed and persecuted for their understandings regarding Torah. Christiandom has missed much because of their conceit’s. Yet with all due respect the Rabbi’s interpretations caused them to miss aprenhend the presence, purpose and even persona of the Messiah. Let us not now repeat agin that mistake out of reverence for the other things the did get right that Christians scholars missed.
Why the doubt that Jesus was God when even modern Jewish rabbis describe Mashiach as Adam Kadmon to be both God and man.
“The two words which form the name Adam Kadmon allude to its paradoxical nature of being, on the one hand a created being–Adam–while on the other hand a manifestation of primordial Divinity–Kadmon.
For this reason, Adam Kadmon is often seen to represent the archetypal soul of Mashiach, the general yechida of all the souls of Israel, the ultimate “crown” of all of God’s Creation, the Divine “intermediate” which reveals primordial Infinity to finite created reality.” – Rabbi Ginsberg
With this I agree thank you Bob. Rabbi David Rubin of Shiloh Israel say’s to his Gentile friends who believe in Messiah ,” the only difference between us is not the question is he coming but rather is he coming back.?”
Adam Kadmon is not a pre-existing god/messiah/man but it is the blueprint of what humanity is supposed to be, it is a concept. Kadmon means ‘original’, not divine. It is the collective soul of mankind. Adam failed in his mission to live out Adam Kadmon/blueprint. Y’shua fulfilled that blueprint and became the second Adam, not the second god. Y’shua is the only true Adam Kadmon and teaches us to follow in His footsteps and live the way mankind was suppose to.
I had hoped the controversy would be in the Christian theology and not in you, Skip. After reading the posted comments here I am heartened to find it is just in the theology.
Going back one verse—keeping in mind that chapter-verse divisions are not always appropriate—seems to solidify that the last clause of 5:1 refers to individual believers. I’ll state 4:21 as ‘literal’ as possible: And this command we have from Him: the one who loves God should also love his brother [singular]. Thus “the one who loves God should love also his brother” is parallel with 5:1’s “the one who loves the one who begets [God] loves the one begotten of Him”. In other words, “brother” is subsequently defined as “believer”. This flows into “love the children [plural] of God” by carrying out His commands [plural] in 5:2.
Dear Brother Skip, you said that “Desiring Yeshua to be divine, these men began speaking of ‘eternal generation’, in order to avoid the implication that Yeshua was born like all human beings are born.” What historical accounts do you read? This statement is somewhat true as history shows, however, you seem to ignore the inspiration for what early church theologians did, which came directly from John’s Gospel. Chapter 1, verse 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (“theon”) and the Word was God’s divine nature (“theos”). And from Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 1, verse 20: “As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, “do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit.” Yeshua was clearly born both human and divine, making him who John called in chapter 3, verse 16 of his Gospel the “only begotten son” of God. I think there is no accurate way to interpret the history of debates over Yeshua’s nature than to accurately acknowledge the source material being debated. Somehow Yeshua is both divine and human. I think we may never actually understand how that is possible, but it is pretty awesome though! The truth of the historical matter is that the early church fathers were probably not so eager to invent a new version of “God” as you suggest, but moreso rather struggling to accrately understand the Word of God as He was indeed plainly revealed to us as recorded in the Apostles’ writings. I speak all this in love to sharpen you as “iron sharpens iron”. May YHWH continue abundantly blessing you in your service to Him and to all of us. Sincerely, Kyle Malkin
Your conclusion that “Yeshua was clearly born both human and divine” is a theological assertion, not an historical or cultural one. I’m afraid that the influence of 2000 years of Christian doctrine and interpretation (actually not 2000 years since the dual nature idea didn’t come into form until about the 5th century) is dominating your view of the verses you cite. So let’s consider this: is it possible that Yeshua has a special role, i.e. the Messiah, in the minds of these authors and as such is chosen, elected, in this role as distinctly different than any other human being? Would that violate any consideration of the strict monotheism of Jewish thought? Would it not parallel the election of Moses? Or Isaac’s birth? Doesn’t Matthew deliberately describe Yeshua as the second Moses? Is John’s opening verse really about pre-existence (see Anthony Buzzard’s work or Eric H. H. Chang)? Do the early Church fathers follow Jewish monotheism in their approach, or do they chose to go another way (see R. Rubenstein)? And are we really expected to believe something that is irrational (I do NOT mean the birth story but rather the church’s idea that Yeshua is FULLY man and FULLY God at the same time)?
I’d suggest that authors like Rubenstein who examined the historical development of these ideas,and Reuther, who provides substantial citations from the early Church fathers, and Gager, who forces us to reconsider the anti-Semitic elements of the early Church, all contribute to a serious challenge to rethink those 1500 years of doctrine.
Hi Skip, With all due respect, you did not reply to my questions above but rather to the error you could respond too. What do we do with these rocks in the road your paving? I may not really know for sure, as my reason is very limited, but I do really know who does. Yeshua….
I repeat…
Yeshua frequently spoke of His unique, otherworldly origin, of having preexisted in heaven before coming into this world. To the hostile Jews He declared, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world” (John 8:23). “What then,” He asked, “if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?” (John 6:62). In His high-priestly prayer Yeshua spoke of the glory which He had with the Father before the world existed (John 17:5). In John 16:28 He told His disciples, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again and going to the Father.” Thus, John described Yeshua in the prologue of his gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
Yeshua assumed the prerogatives of deity. He claimed to have control over the eternal destinies of people (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8-9; John 5:22, 27-29), to have authority over the divinely-ordained institution of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5), to have the power to answer prayer (John 14:13-14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10-17), and to have the right to receive worship and faith due to God alone (Matthew 21:16; John 14:1; cf. John 5:23). He also assumed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-11)—something which, as His shocked opponents correctly understood, only God can do (Mark 2:7).
Yeshua also called God’s angels (Genesis 28:12; Luke 12:8-9; 15:10; John 1:51) His angels (Matthew 13:41; 24:30-31); God’s elect (Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33) His elect (Matthew 24:30-31); and God’s kingdom (Matthew 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; Mark 1:15; Luke 4:43; John 3:3) His kingdom (Matthew 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33; 2 Timothy 4:1).
I know Yahweh is one. I know the word is truth. I know we are one in the Spirit, I know they will know we are Messiah’s by our love. I know wrestling with truth and reality is pleasing to Yahweh. I know arguing with each other does not please him. I know I am most grateful for this forum. I feel blessed that the opportunity to engage in the deep mysteries of Yahweh is available here, it is an honor a privelidge and a responsiblity. Thank you Skip for your patience, your amazing patience with those of us who can really only marvel as you mine the depths of the word with your vast resources. Bless you brother. We have so much to learn of Him….
Now if I were going to go down the track this OP goes, I’d marshal up to two different verses. First would be John 18:37, with Jesus’ own words: “…for this [reason] I was gennaō [perfect t-f, passive]…. This clearly indicates a birth in time, an earthly birth. Next would be 1 John 5:18. This one is a lot more interesting; here it is translated from the NA28/UBS5 (the newest rendition of the Greek text):
The bolded portion denotes textual variances. This same verse in the UBS4, the previous ‘critical text’ of the Greek NT, the one on which most current English translations are based, is identical except it has him in place of “himself”. On the first variant, the alternates appear to be theologically motivated. Rather than explain this myself, here’s what Metzger’s commentary states (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d, Accordance electronic ed. [New York: United Bible Societies, 1994])—the most technical of the textual commentaries—about this verse (brackets added):
Essentially, Metzger’s commentary rejected outright (and rightfully so) the variants in the first case. They also interpreted gennaō as referring to Christ, which led them to adopt “him” rather than “himself”. On the second variant, the textual evidence can be argued either way.
Below are comments from Roger Omanson’s adaptation of Metzger (Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 2006])—I highly recommend this for the layperson (brackets added for clarity):
In other words, the text apparently was changed from “rather, the one begotten from God keeps” to “rather, the begetting God keeps”—again, obviously, theologically motivated because the scribe(s) assumed the former referred to Christ. Continuing in Omanson:
So, interpretation of the content in the first variant may have led some copyists to change the pronoun one way or the other depending on the copyist’s theological bent.
I’m assuming that those who’ve changed the most recent critical text to reflect the reflexive pronoun did so from sound textual criticism, rather than from theological bias.
I’m a little late in the game joining the discussion, but I don’t think it is accurate to say that “…all of the Jewish ideas of the Messiah present in the first century never include the thought that the Messiah is God.” We may disagree over whether “divine” and “being of the same essence–God” are the same thing and could offer various proof texts to bolster our variegated beliefs. However, Daniel Boyarin in his book The Jewish Gospels has quite persuasively argued that notions of a God-like Messiah (“Son of Man”) are found in Jewish pre-Christian sources. Wouldn’t the response of the Sanhedrin in Matthew 26 to Jesus’ non-answer [“I’m the Son of Man”] to the Sanhedrin’s question about whether he was the Son of God support this understanding? Either the Sanhedrin were enraged that Jesus was claiming to be God, or they were enraged that Jesus was using a non-sanctioned interpretation of Daniel 7 [that the Messiah was God]. Did the Sanhedrin misinterpret Jesus’ words? Do we?
I’ve read Boyarin. He does allow a second divine figure, but I can’t recall that he ever says that this figure is ontologically YHVH. Furthermore, the debate over the title “Son of God” doesn’t seem to be about the ontological status of the Messiah. It seems to be about his authority. First century selection on this title and the more important “Son of Man” were influenced by Enoch, and it seems fairly clear that Enoch doesn’t ascribe YHVH status to “Son of Man” either. But more must be done here.
Do we not cross over into the world view of the Hellenists when we begin to parce out the ontological nature of YHVH? Would Moses have understood YHVH this way? Isn’t YHVH a description and/or proclamation of God’s personal presence with the chosen people of God? How God reveals himself is often a mystery. I agree that much more needs to be done here, especially when we enter the eternal kingdom.