When God Acts (Rewind)
But when the multitudes saw this, they were filled with awe, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men. Matthew 9:8 NASB 1977
Filled With Awe – Matthew is fond of expressions of amazement, but his fondness is not simply a literary device. Long before Abraham Heschel mentioned it, Matthew recognized that the first step in transformation is awe, not conviction. Unless we are confronted with a God whose power forces us beyond the limits of our understanding, we will have no need to listen to His instructions about life. We have to be pushed to the edge before we admit that life is much, much bigger than we can control. When we are filled with awe, there is nothing left to do but glorify God, and that starts the process of walking toward Him.
The Greek word, ethaumasan, comes from the verb thaumazo (to wonder, to marvel). This word means to be struck with astonishment. Notice that it presumes a lack of natural explanation. I am not astonished at the fact that I can get on a 200,000 pound machine and be lifted off the ground to fly 3000 miles. I know the physics of partial vacuums and the mechanics of curved wings. I might be impressed that men can develop engines with enough power to create flight, but I am not astonished. Neither am I astonished at the flight of a Saturn 5 rocket in spite of the fact that I can barely comprehend the amount of power it releases. No, thaumazo is reserved for something greater than this.
When we read this story about Yeshua, we tend to think that the crowd’s reaction concerned the healing of the paralytic. That was a miracle, indeed. But was it astonishing? Didn’t the Jews have a rich history of healing miracles? Weren’t there examples from their past of much greater feats of power? Unusual, yes. Wonderful, of course. But astonishing? Hmm? Maybe not. So what were they astonished about?
This story involves two elements, only one of which can be explained. The explainable element is the healing. God heals through His prophets. A prophet is on the scene, so the healing can be comprehended. But forgiveness? Only God can forgive (the scribes were right). For a man to pronounce forgiveness of sins without acting as an intermediary with God was beyond comprehension. No Jew could imagine such a thing. For this man, Yeshua, to forgive sins directly and then demonstrate that His forgiveness was real by healing the paralytic as proof – now that is astonishing. That requires me to fall on my face in praise. That is beyond the edge of how I understand the world.
Matthew’s gospel has an objective. That objective is to demonstrate that Yeshua is the Messiah. This story provides evidence for Matthew’s claim. A prophet may heal. A holy man may heal. Perhaps even someone quite ordinary may be used of God to heal. But who among us can forgive sin? We have become numb to a reality that the audience understood on that day. Forgiveness is astonishing! The holy God, the just God, the God of perfect integrity and unity – how can such a God forgive? And how in all the world is it possible that such a God would give this authority to a man? It’s beyond me. All I am able to do is say, “Praise Him, praise Him, praise Him.”
Topical Index: astonishment, amazement, awe, thaumazo, forgiveness, Matthew 9:8
Thanks Skip. Huge insight on this verse’s explanation.
If a person looks like a Saviour, walks like a Saviour, and acts like one, He might just be a Saviour, sent to “save His people from their sins”, and Who, “by himself purged our sins (and) sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High” (Heb. 1:3).
Catholic priests claim that they have been given the power to forgive sin, too, but only the person who has been sinned against actually has the power to forgive that sin. David knew this when he prayed “against Thee, and Thee only , have I sinned”. That is not a prayer that can ever be prayed to any but God because He is the chief injured party in every sin.
We forgive each other when we sin against each other, but God is the One Whose cosmic reality has been shredded. Part of forgiveness requires the ability to reset the connection that was fractured. When we sin against each other, our forgiveness resets the potential for relationship restoration, but none of us have the actual ability to restore it. That requires a Restorer. This is why we have been told that all forgiveness – even our forgiveness of each other – is a gift of God, for He is the One Who was ultimately injured, but He also is the only One Who has the ability to repair that injury to His reality, through the power of HIS forgiveness.
Yeshua claimed to be able to repair reality – and then proceeded to do it. That is like claiming to void the second law of thermodynamics (which I bet even people back then knew no person had the ability to do) – and then proceeding to do it. If we think about it, the only way He had that ability was if He had been the One Who had been sinned against, because that is one of the characteristics of forgiveness, which David had pointed out. Put it this way; no priest or other person can turn that great law around (even if they claim to be able to) for God is the only One Who can rewind the cosmic clock, as an integral part of the act of forgiveness. All healing comes from that great Forgiver, for all healing is the reversal of the consequences of sin.
This same awesome Restorer is quietly working His miraculous grace among us on a daily basis. We would do well to halt our careless way and turn back, like the tenth leper, to praise the great Life Restorer. Halleluah!
… but Laurita, in the words “your sins are forgiven” (Matt. 9:2) who exactly is providing the forgiveness, God or the Messiah who, when Yeshua says this, always speaks in the third person? Why? When a member of the Security Council of the United Nations casts a vote he does so on behalf of his entire Nation that in turn is first represented by a President, King or Prime Minister. For me Matt. 9:6 etc. clarifies this; “the Son of Man has the AUTHORITY on earth to forgive sins” as an agent (Son) of God, and is not the forgiver himself. Of course, belief in the Trinity provides an alternative which I don’t buy but the Catholic Church does and then the tortured Aramaic/Hebrew interpretation in Greek begins again.
The Catholic church says that authority can be given to a third party; a man, no less; to forgive sins. I want to ask, did the Jews back then believe that? If they did, then why were they having trouble?
“Why were they having trouble?” I’m not sure what you meant here. Trouble about what? About a man claiming that he had to authority to forgive sins?
Well, what were the scribes referring to when they thought (“said within themselves”) that it was blasphemous? In the Mark 2 account of this healing, Mark elaborates and quotes the thought further by adding “who can forgive sins but God only?” (vs. 7) Apparently the understanding of the relevant audience was that because only God could forgive sin, Yeshua was claiming to be God. There is no other way to read their mindset, otherwise the charge of blasphemy would not have come up every time Yeshua told people their sins were forgiven BY HIM. The audience, at least, made it clear that they understood that He was doing the forgiving Himself, and thus, blasphemy, or, claiming to be God.
Actually, I think there is another way to read their mindset. Yeshua is not calling himself God, nor is he even making claims of deity (this is evident as Yeshua argues against their valuation) but rather claims of authority; the authority given to him by God Himself. Therefore the blasphemy accusation is a false accusation. In fact, the real reason the Jewish leaders aren’t comfortable with Yeshua’s statement is not because they are worried about Yahweh’s name being maligned ( honestly, I don’t think they care about the name of YHVH as much as they let on) rather they are worried Yeshua’s claims (Messianic) will undermine their own authority; and to the Jewish leaders, this is the real blasphemy.
Woah, Craig. You mean to say that they had changed the definition of blasphemy (claiming to be God) to whatever undermined their own authority? In other words, they were setting themselves up as direct opponents to Messiah, knowing He was Who He was. Pure rebellion,. They had become blasphemy itself. This is serpent behavior. No wonder Yeshua told them that they were of their father, the devil.
Are you saying, then, that they challenged Him because they wanted the authority to forgive sins themselves? That is what I am hearing you say.
I’m kinda wondering who this is you’re talking to and what did you do with our friend Craig.
what did HE do with our friend Craig. 🙂
LOL!
Laurita, we need to be careful not to assume modern ideas of blasphemy into the text. The notion that the only way a person could be brought-up on blasphemy charges was by claiming to be God, or claiming some form of deity is not accurate. Blasphemy charges introduced in the Torah (Ex.22:28, Lev 24:10-16) could also be made for reviling a ruler or king (Ex. 22:28; Isa. 8:21). But in second temple Judaism, these charges had come to cover a wide range of insulting speech or activity. It was blasphemous to speak words of insult against Moses or the Torah. (Acts 6:11) and claiming to be a Jew if you were not (Rev 2:9) But what’s most important to our text, is that in Yeshua’s day it WAS a capital offense to claim (without proof) to be the Messiah, King of Israel. Look at an example of this in John 19:
“The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”” (John 19:7, NASB95)
The high priest tears his robe for the same Messianic claim:
“.. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Messiah, the Son of God.”” (Matthew 26:63)
Yeshua confirms the High Priests question of his claim with a short midrash based on Ps. 110:1 and Daniel 7:13
“Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy (Matt 26:65)
Good clarification that I needed to understand. Thanks, as usual!
I agree with Craig (Sep 15 at 3:35pm) that Yeshua did not claim to be God. But I do disagree on the comments about a Messianic claim being a capital offense for the Jews. I have been told repeatedly by Orthodox Jews that is simply NOT the case. Bar Kochva was a failed (thus a false Messiah) and yet he remains a Jewish hero because he tried. But there is a specific explicit prohibition (and capital offense) in the Mishnah against uttering the name of God “according to the letters” (i.e. YHVH) for a non-priest. The consequence stated is that the High Priest is to rip his legal robes “never to be mended” and pronounce death. That is exactly what happened when Jesus quoted Psalms 110:1. I am convinced that Yeshua did not make a substitution ha Shem, power, heaven etc. Rather he quoted Psalms 110:1 that contains the specific name of YHVH. It was considered to be “unutterable”. What Yeshua did IMHO was to provide the Sanhedrin with a legal basis for his own execution… in effect he self-incriminated. It is important to note that Yeshua perfectly kept the written Torah laws. There was NO basis for a conviction under ANY Torah infraction. Yeshua was in control of the whole process!
So what about the “law” that is mentioned about claiming to be “Son of God”? This is in a discourse with Pilate, the Roman prefect. To claim to be “son of God” is NOT a Jewish offense but it IS a MAJOR Roman offense… it is blatant insurrection. Only Caesar was called “Son of God”. The religious authorities are forcing Pilate’s hand by claiming Yeshua has challenged the authority of Caesar himself. That is why the gospel account informs us that Pilate was afraid. The sentence for insurrection was crucifixion. The two criminals on the crosses with Yeshua were not “thieves” they were insurrectionists. Let us look at verses in John 19 starting at verse 6. Pilate tells the religious authorities to “take him yourselves and crucify him for I find no fault in him”. Oh but wait… simply tell Pilate that Yeshua deserves to die because he uttered the name of God then wait for Pilate to direct the soldiers to throw them all out on their ear for such a ridiculous charge. So they turn the tables on Pilate claiming that Yeshua “ought to die because he has made himself out to be the “son of God”. In Judaism the term “son of God” is a title of Messiah and was also given to judges and others in authority BUT to a Roman official that same title is s direct challenge to Caesar… insurrection. THAT is why Pilate is cornered and knows it. Verse 8 informs us that when Pilate heard THIS STATEMENT he was more afraid!!! Lest there be any doubt look at verse 12 in which the religious authorities explicitly inform Pilate “everyone who makes himself out to be king OPPOSES Caesar. Then they shout in verse 15 “We have No king but Caesar. In verse 16 the Roman order is given to execute Yeshua (for insurrection).
Very informative, thank you! But, the The Herods were proper kings, and many kings ruled under the Ceasars, however, none of them claimed to be God; that would be what Ceasar would have reserved for himself. Besides, if there was another claimant for the Judean throne, would not that have been a rival for Herod, not Ceasar? Were they also rejecting Herod at that time? I am asking because I do not know.
And what about the title Pilate had inscribed over the cross? Why were the Jews desperate to have him take it down?
Herod was not the king of Judea at the time of Jesus trial. Rather Herod Antipas was Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (where John the Baptist was executed by him) Pilate was the Roman procurator of Judea. Direct rule by Rome was instituted in Judea in 6 AD after the removal of Archelaus. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod (Antipas) because Jesus was a Galilean and hence a subject of Antipas.
Regarding the title on the cross, it was written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. The Latin would have been Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum from which we get INRI for short. Some have suggested the Hebrew version was Yeshua haNotzri uMelekh haYehudim from which we would get YHVH but this is debatable. I think the religious authorities simply thought it a scandal that a crucified naked criminal would have a title “King of the Jews”.
Concerning “son of God”, Julius Caesar was “deified” after his death as “divine Caesar” His son Octavian (Augustus) in 27 BC was given title “son of the god”. Of interest to us is Tiberius (emperor 14-37 AD) had the title “divus Augustus”. By the end of the first century Domitian was being called “Dominus et deus” (Master and god).
Thank you HSB.
Thank you HSB.
I agree with you that the High Priest would have understood Yeshua’s statements as blasphemous, while Pilate would have understood the same statements as treasonous.
I also agree, that Yeshua never offered a basis for a conviction under any Torah infraction. Yeshua never broke any law of YHVH.
Regarding Bar Kokhba. While a great leader, I’m not so sure Simon bar Kokhba considered himself the Messiah. I’m under the impression that it was Rabbi Akiva who indulged the possibility that Simon could be the Jewish Messiah, giving him the surname “Bar Kokhba” meaning “Son of the Star.” Also, Simon was doing the things Israel believed the Messiah would do when he came (from a political attitude at least.) In this way, Simon would not have ground so hard against the political grain as Yeshua.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I don’t think the Jews had a problem with someone making messianic claims, as long as they could back them up politically.
Someone arriving on the scene promising to “make Israel great again” with the administrative savvy to back it up, would have probably been embraced.
But a man with no Levitical pedigree, no political clout and no desire to be involved in the process, so-to-speak, was just making a mockery of the system. “How can you make yourself to be the prophesied of King of Israel without even one military conquest? You don’t even have an army! Who do you think you are? “
In this way, I think the so-called “law” against fallacious Messianic claims may have been used/interpreted at the will of the powers that be, to control the system and squash those pundits they deem unsavory to their cause.
Dear Craig: I dug out some Mishnah information. As you would know the Mishnah preceded the Gemara. It reflects Jewish sentiments that likely go back earlier than the first century. Notice the following:
-a blasphemer must utter the actual name of God (according to the letters)
-witnesses were normally employed to testify against the accused. It would have been bizarre for a individual standing before the court to self incriminate (by saying the actual name of God in such a setting of judges).
-the response of the court is to “tear their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God”… never to be mended.
I suggest that Yeshua self- incriminated by quoting the actual text of Psalm 110:1 “YHWH said to my lord, sit at my right hand…” Jesus did not need to use a substitute word. The high priest indicated they did not “need witnesses” (as outlined in the normal process) because the defendant had just blasphemed in front of them. He rips his robe. They all agree on death.
I have just provided explicit proof of the court process dealing with blasphemy of the Name. I welcome proof that simply claiming to be Messiah was a capital offense. As I have mentioned Yeshua was NOT convicted for ANY breech of Torah commandments, but he did violate a specific ORAL LAW prohibition against using the Name.
Sanhedrin folio 55b
MISHNA: One who blasphemes, i.e., one who curses God, is not liable unless he utters the name of God
Sanhedrin folio 56a:
On every day of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges judge the witnesses, i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.
When the judgment is over, and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, they do not sentence him to death based on the testimony of the witnesses in which they used an appellation for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. Rather, they remove all the people who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges interrogate the eldest of the witnesses, and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says exactly what he heard. And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. And they do not ever fully stitch it back together again.
Sanhedrin 90a
MISHNA: All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot:
Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters.
A further few tidbits on Sanhedrin actions in criminal court… First of all I read that the Sanhedrin actually retained the authority to pass death sentences directly related to desecration of the Temple. (H.H. Ben-Sasson A History of the Jewish People p250 )Recall the sign to non-Jews that they had only themselves to blame for their own deaths if they passed the wall of separation. When the crowd thought Paul had brought a Gentile into the Temple area in Acts 21:27-31 they were attempting to kill him for “defiling this holy place”. Note also that the one charge filed against Jesus involved perceived “desecration of the Temple”… Same thing for Stephen in Acts 6:13-14. But the charges required testimony from multiple witnesses who totally agreed. The charges against Jesus (and Stephen) turned out to be false and groundless as turned out.
I mentioned the capital offense of uttering the name of God “according to the letters (tetragrammaton)”. It seems incredible to us. But in Sefaria website of Jewish writings I found the English translation of Lev. 24:15-16 “anyone who blasphemes his God shall bear his guilt; if he also pronounces the name LORD he shall be put to death.” My NAS says anyone who “curses “ his God and “who blasphemes the name…”. So I went to my copy of Tanach JPS version and sure enough… it also refers to “pronouncing the name” as worthy of death! The Hebrew root word in play is “naqab” Strong5344. It means pierce, perforate, curse…seems to me a long way from simply pronouncing…unless the intent was desecration of the name all along. Notice the son of the Israelite woman in 24:11 ended up being stoned to death because he had “pronounced the name in blasphemy” according to Jewish versions. Presumably the Sanhedrin similarly believed Jesus had “pronounced the Name in blasphemy” and deserved to die as well.
Which brings us back to whether or not He used it as pertaining to Himself as a mere man – which would have been blasphemy, giving them the right to execute Him – or whether He used it as pertaining to Himself as, well, God. Everything dumps us right back here, it seems, and it seems they had the very same quandary we have!
But there is another possibility here. The unique elect Messiah of YHVH represents Him (YHVH) as if he (the Messiah) were the full embodiment of the one sending the message, just as a messenger of the king is the full representation of the king. This principle can be found in Yeshua’s own parables (the vineyard, for example). So it is not necessary to conclude that the Messiah IS God, but only that the Messiah embodies the full representation of God and is therefore to be treated as if he (the Messiah) were speaking completely on YHVH’s behalf. Given this possibility, it is perfectly legitimate for the Messiah to utter the holy name without the charge of blasphemy.
Looks like we have two Craigs here!
Skip you are totally correct. The sad reality about the actual name of God is that, in ancient times, it was used quite openly to bless people. Folks should look up Ruth 2:4. Boaz comes from Bethlehem and blesses his workers in the field using the name of God YHWH/YHVH. In turn they bless him using the same name out loud. They were not writing the name on a piece of paper and waving it around. They said the name! I had a good discussion with an Orthodox Rabbi in Bethel, Israel some time ago. I asked him to read Ruth 2:4. He said “May Ha-Shem bless you.” I told him we both knew that he was making a substitution for the actual name of God which Boaz and his workers were free to speak. I asked him if the Name would ever be “liberated” like it was in the time of Boaz. He said “Maybe sometime, Baruch Ha-Shem”. I believe Jesus was actually convicted of a capital offense (according to Oral Law) for simply saying this name out loud. Skip is absolutely correct about the issue of “authority”. When Jesus forgave sins the crowd praised God who had given such authority to a man…
On the issue of authority, in my younger years I served as a Captain in an Armored Regiment . During some of this time I was the Adjutant of the Regiment. If I signed an order with just my own name it did not have much punch… a Captain is not a particularly high officer rank. However if I signed my name with rank over the signature block of the Lieutenant Colonel of the unit, there was a lot of authority. I could and did make significant decisions in the name of the commanding officer. Signature blocks are important. It is not so much who signs the paper but what authority is attached to it. For me that was a powerful lesson. Here is the downside. Heaven help the individual who thought he had actual power apart from the commanding officer. That would blow up in your face!!
I understand the shaliach (agency) principle, but how does that extend to Jesus when He describes events that preexist His birth, when He speaks of these as if He were actually present at the time? Specifically, how is agency applicable when the Messiah speaks as if He were YHWH in events predating his birth, as in Matthew 23:37-39 (“how often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling”). [While this passage does not specifically quote the Tanakh, a number of Scriptures are alluded to (see Beale/Carson, pp 85-86 on this).] I don’t see how the shaliach principle works here; I see this as implying Yeshua’s life preexisting His earthly birth. That’s not to mention John 8:58…
On the pre-existence debate, see my previous writings and the citations from Buzzard, Chang, Rubinstein and others.
So you agree that shaliach in and of itself is not sufficient here. There must be something more at play.
I have read through some of your previous posts on preexistence, I have Chang (downloaded the pdf of The Only True God), and from what I can see on Buzzard’s site, none specifically address Mt. 23:37-39. In any case, the issue of preexistence is covered in writings on Col 1:15-20, e.g., in all three, in which it is claimed that preexistence is actually preeminence (the same is claimed of John 1:15, 30 by Chang). Setting aside the flaws in Chang’s arguments for ‘the memra/logos dwelling in Christ’, that this can somehow account for how Yeshua can place Himself in past events and speak as if He were actually present during those events is deficient. It’s one thing to make the claim that the verses which explicitly speak of Christ’s preexistence are merely in virtue of preeminence or the memra/logos dwelling in Him (it’s not Christ that preexists, it’s the memra/logos preexisting within Him), it’s quite another for Yeshua Himself to claim to be present at temporal points preceding His earthly birth.
I’ll add that Chang illustrates that he doesn’t comprehend Trinitarianism as he explains the exegetical possibilities of John 8:58 (p 106):
As to (1), Trinitarians do not limit YHWH to the Father. We believe the Triune God, YHWH, to consist of Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. As for (2) Chang again assumes that YHWH = the Father only. It’s not my intention here to get into a debate on the relative merits of Trinitarianism, this is merely to show how Chang misunderstands it, and thereby dismisses exegetical possibilities which are actually congruent with it.
I did not word this very well: “It’s one thing to make the claim that the verses which explicitly speak of Christ’s preexistence are merely in virtue of preeminence or the memra/logos dwelling in Him”. It should be: “It’s one thing to make the claim that some verses which seem to claim preexistence are preeminence instead, or that the verses which explicitly speak of Christ’s preexistence are merely in virtue of the memra/logos dwelling in Him”. The rest is fine.
Craig: here are my thoughts on John 8:58:
To understand what Jesus meant when he said “Before Abraham was, I am” let’s look at the passage starting in verse 31. The irony of course in all this is the audience is “those Jews who had believed him”. With friends like these who needs enemies? Anyway in verse 33 the audience declares “We are Abraham’s descendents”. Jesus confirms that in verse 37 “I know you are Abraham’s descendents, yet you seek to kill me…” ouch. Verse 39 “Abraham is our father”. Jesus then tells them “do the deeds of Abraham!” By verse 51 “If anyone keeps my word, he will never see death”. What did Jesus mean by that? Surely he is talking about the FUTURE state. But the audience thinks he means the PRESENT state because they reply “Abraham died and the prophets also. Surely you are not greater than our father Abraham, who died”. Finally in verse 58 the famous statement “before Abraham was born, I am”( prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi). I don’t personally think the prin S4250 refers to status/preeminence. Nor do I agree with Chang that somehow Jesus was present as the Word before Abraham existed. And the meaning of ego eimi is pretty clear. That leaves genesthai S1096. In my interlinear it is labeled as V-ANM verb-aorist tense, infinitive mood, middle voice. So I looked up the other examples from John’s gospel where the same V-ANM applies to the same word. John 1:12 “gave the right to become”, John 3:9 “how can these things be”, John 5:6 “well to become” and John 9:27 “his disciples to become”. All deal with becoming, but none of these examples concerns a past event. So I went to my list of translations and I found almost all saying “before Abraham was (born)” The last on the list though is Young’s Literal. A difference: “I say to you Before Abraham’s coming, I am”. This strikes me as quite significant. What if the audience continues to be rooted in the past appearance of Abraham yet Jesus is looking to the future. “Before Abraham becomes, I am (the resurrection)” Jesus is saying. OK I am not a Greek scholar. I may be way off here. But strange that Young’s literal would provide a different slant than all the others. Is it possible that the translators’ choice of words is shaped by their own theology and not the actual text? Just asking? Because if Jesus is not talking about the future here, what on earth did he mean in verse 51 that no one believing him would see death?
According to Yeshua, His friend Lazarus was not dead, but asleep. Perhaps the only real death is in the lake of fire at the end of the age, and only the lost will experience it?
HSB,
To be fair, Chang’s position is that Jesus is “before” Abraham temporally only by virtue of the memra/logos within Him. In other words, it’s the memra/logos that precedes Abraham, not Jesus. In this view, when Jesus speaks it’s not really Him speaking per se, it’s the memra/logos speaking through Him. While I think this tortures the context, more importantly, it goes well beyond shaliach, agency.
Though I can appreciate the fact that you are looking at other aorist middle infinitives as examples, and that you are looking at the larger context in order to determine John’s meaning in 8:58, there are a few flaws in your position. First, the verb ginōmai means become, be (as in come to be), be born, be created. Think of this as an English infinitive: to become, to be born, etc. “Before Abraham came to be, came to be born” is about the most literal translation, though it’s a bit clumsy. I understand what Young’s LT tried to do, but I think the translation leaves a lot to be desired. Better would have been “Before Abraham’s becoming” (“coming” would be erchomai), but that’s also clumsy.
The aorist tense conveys perfective aspect, which means it describes events as a whole, rather than in progress, or as a process. Aspect is not an easy concept to teach native English speakers, but currently Wikipedia has a good overview. It is a separate concept from time (temporal reference), which is different from English, which ties both time and aspect together, since English is “tense”, time, prominent while Greek (and many other languages) are aspect prominent. With perfective aspect in mind, the point in those verses you looked up was to describe the actions as a whole. Some were actions that will take place in the future, but one shouldn’t impose that upon another context.
The predicate “(the resurrection)” that you supplied is a bit forced. In the immediate context, Jesus is responding directly to verse 57, “You are not yet fifty (years old), and you have seen Abraham?!” Thus, Jesus is explaining how it is possible that He has seen Abraham. His response earns the consternation of oi Ioudaioi, “the Jews”, who sought to stone Him—presumably for blasphemy, in calling Himself “I AM”.
Laurita makes a good point. “Death” had two meanings: physical death and eternal death. Of course, Jesus meant the latter in 8:51.
And aren’t we just the same today. Seeking approval of man rather than authority from YHVH self.
Dear Sister, could you give me the verses where Yeshua said that He was Father? I don’t remember reading a passage that said that. I need to read the B’rit Hadashah again, it’s been a couple of years since I’ve been in it due to my leading classes in the Tanach that take up a lot of my study time. Looking for a quick fix….lazy, I guess.
Blessings!
John 10:30 “I and my Father are one.” Did you need this one?
Of course, Yeshua never said that He WAS the Father. They have different functions.
But the issue is NOT what the text says. It’s what the text MEANS. Is the statement functional or ontological? That cannot be decided by the text alone. It is determined by the paradigm used to INTERPRET the text.
We know that later the Apostles exhibited the power to heal (as Men) and we know that the entire nation of Israel would be priest’s and holy people…special (as Men : Exodus) as the word you used Skip ‘intercessors’. And perhaps they had forgotten that they were to be so themselves as Peter revisited (1 Peter 2).
A conclusion may be that Men can acquire (through appointment) to have the powers that Yeshua exhibited and NOT BE GOD. And is it not so that this set apart nation who will be ‘intercessors’ will do so in the ‘millennial reign’ as physical men on ‘the old earth’ prior to a time when there will be no need for such? And not as gods?
Luke 19: 41-44 “…all because you did not recognize YOUR opportunity when God offered it”. (scariest words in the NT)
Thus misplaced awe.
Lest we forget….
Amen, Skip! If we’ve not learned a single other thing from you in all these years, I hope we’ve learned to CHECK THE PARADIGM that we come to the Word with!
Thank you Sister Laurita, But I think the meaning here that Yeshua gave in that verse (John 10:30) is that Yeshua and HaShem are (please forgive me, I’m not as articulate or as educated as those that post here) one in the same sense of unity of propose and desire in love of mankind and especially the Hebrew that ALL need to be saved from themselves. Yeshua also said that if we believe that Father G-d had sent Yeshua to us(mankind) that WE would be one with him(Yeshua) and HaShem. I take the meaning of John 10:30 from more of a Hebrew understanding and reading of scripture. Again thank you for your kindness, and I so enjoy your posts. Blessings!
Catholic church doctrine and John 20:23 etc. notwithstanding, given that there was no “Catholic” Church in the first century, who exactly does the forgiving, the apostles, the disciples, any and all of them? Do we need the intervention of a third person to be forgiven our sins by God? If so, why? Is honest repentance alone not enough, Jewish or Christian, then and now?
Direct forgiveness by God only, then and now?
The authority to forgive and the forgiveness itself are mutually exclusive unless you want to argue the case for the Trinity as well.
That is not what those charges of blasphemy seemed to imply. Forgiveness = God is the only way the audience of that day was responding, and the awe perhaps was not about the forgiving (because people, then and now, got forgiven every day, so that could not have been it) but surely it was about the Forgiver. They acted as if they were in the presence of God: the ones who were awestruck no more than the ones who thought they should be throwing stones. I mean, nobody was acting as if it was just business as usual. Except Yeshua, of course.
I think we need to separate the response of the people from that of the Pharisees. Many people were happy with what they were seeing and hearing and believing (who they followed). It was the strict interpretation (following) of SOME important (Sanhedrin?) Pharisees that was being challenged and they knew it. That is what they didn’t like. They knew that what was being said could not be challenged directly so they didn’t, couldn’t.
Dear George,
The pleasure of conversing with you is always mine, and I smile whenever I think of you and Penny, too. I really love you both!
Back to the discussion. You can have differing responses based on the same belief. The different responses in this incident came, however, from what people WANTED out of that belief. The people who responded with awe wanted Yeshua to be the Messiah He was being. The scribes, on the other hand, wanted a militant Messiah who did NOT forgive. BUT, this is a separate point that we should not get distracted about. The point is that both sides were still in agreement as to Who could forgive (or not be eligible to forgive) sin. They just differed on who they wanted as Messiah.
That “strict interpretation” that the special classes were being challenged on involved the militant Messiah verses, which were the only ones they were allowing. They did not want the Suffering Servant verses, nor the forgiving Messiah. There were two very different pictures of the coming of Messiah in the Tanakh for a reason that had not been revealed yet, and that reason was because they were describing two different Comings. This was confusing, and Yeshua had to clarify this to His disciples, too.
When Yeshua wept over Jerusalem, He Himself revealed the problem when He cried “they WOULD not” (accept Him). That means that they absolutely knew Who He was, but rejected Him in that full knowledge. That is why their “house was left desolate”. There was no mistake possible in that choice.
I did not get the morning email for this TW. Thanks for having it here!!!
But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.” (Matthew 9:8)
Interesting that the crowd makes a more accurate valuation of the situation than the leaders, as they recognized in this miracle, that God has given Yeshua great authority.
While the Scribe’s and Pharisees may be right from a theological standpoint (it is true that ultimately Yahweh alone can forgive sins) both the crowds and Yeshua understand that God is able to delegate and distribute authority to those He chooses to represent Him (Law of Agency). We shouldn’t forget that Yeshua, who had been given this authority by God, also gave authority to forgive sins to his disciples.
““If you (disciples) forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them…”” (John 20:23, NASB95)
In the same way that Yeshua is the authorized agent of God, Yeshua gives the disciples authority so that they can be his agents; authorized agents of the Messiah.
Craig, show me one verse – ONE – where anybody “authorized” forgave anybody else sins that were not committed against themselves.
The only precedent I have been able to find for the application of this delegation is in 2 Cor. 2:10:
“To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; ” That’s it. We have only been given the power to forgive others’ trespasses against ourselves; Paul could only forgive through the forgiveness of the injured party, too, and the healing of others was always done in the Name and through the power of Yeshua, Who – by contrast – went about forgiving and healing in His own (duly authorized) Name. None of the disciples healed in their own name, I have noticed, and, I repeat, none of them went around forgiving sins not committed against themselves. They apparently understood that authorization differently than we seem to be trying to, here.
I can find no instance where anybody went around telling others that THEY forgave their sins. It appears that this commission was about something else other than the prerogative to forgive the sins of folks against OTHER people that the Catholic church claims. I hope that you have not given them their argument to do so, for I see nothing is Scripture for this interpretation or application.
Read the our Father again… What we do will be done unto us as we forgive we are forgiven. As for the Apostles what they bind will be bound, and what thy unbind will be unbound.
The first one without sin cast the first stone…
Sin binds. Forgiveness undoes that curse, through the power of heaven’s forgiveness of us as well as its honoring of our forgiving, but we hold the key to that “unbounding”. That is how I understand (and have experienced ) that, too, Seelker.
I have wondered about where to find that corollary in the OT.
Maybe we can begin with love thy neighbour, do unto, do not ignore your enemy when he is hungry… Care for your enemies ox and return it to…
Pure heavenly power unleashed. Amen.
God knows how much evidence He needed to give man
about Who Yeshua is. And He gave it!
“Matthew’s gospel has an objective. That objective is to demonstrate that Yeshua is the Messiah. This story provides evidence for Matthew’s claim. A prophet may heal. A holy man may heal. Perhaps even someone quite ordinary may be used of God to heal. But who among us can forgive sin? We have become numb to a reality that the audience understood on that day.”
As you pointed out some weeks ago, Skip, many Jews at the time of Yeshua and today didn’t/don’t recognize Him as the Messiah because He didn’t fulfill a number of Messianic prophesies. If this story demonstrates that He is the Messiah – is there anything in the Tanakh that says the Messiah would somehow forgive sins? I think Jews knew that their holy, perfect God could forgive – their prayers show that. That He gave that authority to a man (and is it just to “a” man or to others too?) on the other hand, seems to be a new thought. I don’t get the Messiah connection here. Can you help me see it?
“But who among us can forgive sin?”
OR…cure leprosy. Only G-d can cure leprosy. Yeshua cured leprosy.
You can do all if your faith was the size of a mustard seed…
Unfortunately mine is a mustard seed inflated with air… Full of Nothingness.
Excellent topic and FANTASTIC discussion! Thank you for TW, Skip! My heart is rejoicing at the fellowship (iron sharpening iron) here on this Sabbath morning!