The Agony of Perfection
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 5:48 NASB
Be perfect – What a terrible translation! No, it isn’t that the words aren’t correct. The Greek esesthe teleioi does mean, “you are to be perfect.” That’s not the problem. The problem is that no one can be perfect! As it stands, this verse condemns all, and furthermore, condemns all regardless of our spiritual desire. Face it. Human beings are “mistake makers,” as John Powell so aptly puts it. So it’s not a question about the verb (teleioo). It’s a question about the command itself.
Most of us know that this verse is really a citation from Leviticus 19:2. The text of that verse reads, “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.’” Perhaps this is even worse. How in the world can we be “holy” like God is holy? The typical answer is to treat holiness as if it means, “to set apart” for divine use. That sounds accommodating. Yes, maybe we can actually set ourselves apart for God, at least some of the time, but the sense of the verse seems to ask for more than an hour of prayer a day (or ten minutes) and a day of worship once a week. How do I set myself apart on the job, at school, in the gym, on the road, in the store? And since this Hebrew idea also applies to spoons, carts and animals, how does it make any sense for me? Am I not just as condemned because everything in my life is not “set apart” for God? Either way, these two verses seem to leave me with a declaration of my moral inadequacy.
Until I read Matthew Wilson’s study of holiness.[1] In that book, Wilson makes a compelling case that holiness does not mean “set apart.” It means “devoted.” We are to be devoted to God in the same way that He is devoted to us, to Israel and to His creation. “Therefore you are to be devoted, as your heavenly Father is devoted.” Yes, that is something I can do. I can choose God in my circumstances. I can choose to pursue Him despite my failures and mistakes. I can be for God, on the way toward Him, seeking His presence even when I am in the midst of terrible struggles, trauma and discouragement. I can be just like David, a man full of vigor for God, but nevertheless a man, just like me.
And now maybe another verse makes more sense. “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). Did Yeshua devote himself to God? Yes! Did he do so as a man just like me? Yes! Did he draw upon some divine nature in order to avoid sin? No! He was without sin because he remained devoted, not because he wasn’t completely human. Oh, yes, I know. This raises all kinds of other questions. But for now, let’s just focus on this one thing: you and I cannot be perfect, but we can be devoted. And isn’t that what real relationships are all about?
Topical Index: holy, perfect, teleioo, devoted, Matthew 5:48, Leviticus 19:2
[1] Matthew Wilson, The Simplicity of Holiness: Understanding God’s Devotion to You, Y-H Press, 2016
that makes sense
Yeshua achieved total devotion to God, in human flesh, and He offers that devoted relationship to us, through Him. We can share in His devotion because He shared in our fracture. This is what He came to offer. This is a mystery of mysteries to me – completely incomprehensible. All I can do is say “yes”.
Thank you for writing on this, it’s inspiring and encouraging. I am interested in reading Wilson’s book, do you know where I can purchase it? It doesn’t seem to be available on Amazon, or anywhere else that I can find. Thank you!
I have written to Matthew to try to find out where you can get it.
Thank you! I appreciate it
Holly and Skip… I searched (using Bing) for “Ruth-like Church by Matthew Wilson” and received a page of responses. One source listed was “E-book download which offered “The Ruth Like Church” and “The Ruth Less Church” as .pdf for read on line or download. I’d provide the address but it causes problems for Skip’s website. So I’d suggest: remove the space within “e-book download” prefix with a www. and add a .net and then add /search/the-ruth-like-church to the address before pressing return. This looks like it might be an online source for Matthew Wilson’s book.
Thanks Ken. His other book, The Simplicity of Holiness, might be a bit more difficult to find. I am asking him about it.
Thank you Kenneth!
Hi Skip. Is he the author of Ruthless church as well? That is another book that appears to be out of print.
Yes, he is. I heard from Matthew. Apparently an e-book of The Simplicity of Holiness might be available later this year.
Skip and Abraham Joshua Heschel, Skip and Jacques Ellul, Gager, Flusser, Ruether and now Matthew Wilson- proof that great minds think alike. I appreciate being introduced to deep thinking men and women who are devoted both to their studies and to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. I found this insight by Wilson very helpful to understanding what, as Heschel states, “God requires of man”. It made me immediately think of a Today’s Word only a week ago on 9/28/17 entitled “Tombstones”. Skip’s conclusion was:
“The man who is righteous is the man who is devoted to God regardless of whether or not he is keeping the rules. This explains why David is called a man after God’s own heart despite his obvious sins. David is righteous because he pursues God even when he is disobedient. It’s not the rules that make David ṣedeq. It’s his devotion.
Of course, devotion carries weight. Commitment, care, concern, conscientiousness, consideration, consistency: they are all aspects of devotion. But devotion isn’t measured by some ethical standard. It is measured by the willingness to bend on behalf of another, to place my agendas second or not at all, to do what I do for someone else out of love, not obligation. That’s the man who will be remembered. That’s the man who loved so much his whole life changed.”
Thanks Skip, Matthew Wilson, et al. My quest for both perfection and holiness has always dumped me along the side of the road in a ditch; waylaid, wounded, worn out and worried. Maybe now I can get up and confidently continue on my way to the Celestial City with devotion.
Michael, if I ever get to Jamaica you are at the top of my hit list to meet. EMS responder of the highest order. Thanks for your contributions that are so considered and cutting. I totally agree with your “great minds list”. Cheers mon.
George, Thank you for your kind words. You are always welcome to visit us in Jamaica mon. I wasn’t exactly sure what you meant by EMS responder, though I was a Medic in the Army during the Vietnam era (and vaguely recall you were as well?) So most likely you were referencing Emergency Medical Services, but I went to Wikipedia to double check what else the initials EMS could mean in the context of your kind words. These were some of the most likely candidates: Eagleview Middle School, no, I went to Lincoln Middle School. European Mathematical Society, no self respecting math society would allow me as a member, so no. Electrical Muscle Stimulation, a type of medical therapy…maybe, if it were hooked up to the brain…OWWW!
Equine Metabolic Syndrome, a horse disease. Well, I have been accused of being a horse’s… uhh headquarters. Ethyl Methane Sulfonate, a mutagen. We may be getting closer.
But it was Wikipedia’s final entry that seemed the best use of the initials EMT as it relates to me:
Earthen Manure Storage, structures for the storage of liquid livestock manure! In other words someone full of s— ! Regardless of your intented meaning I had fun decoding the possible meanings of EMS. It is much the same way I read, study and interpret Scripture. No wonder I am in such a confused state and often in a crappy mood! Shalom my friend.
Michael, belly laughs before breakfast could be dangerous to one’s health! George can answer your question, but seeing how he has called me that, too, perhaps he thinks we have something in common. (Probably, with the both of us, he meant to say EMT. Snort.) But he did explain to me that he was referring to my bad habit of being a First Responder, which EMS, I understand, is classified to be. If that is so, you need to come rescue me more so that I don’t feel so alone in my knee jerkiness. You do that so gracefully, you have us laughing on our butcher blocks!
Thanks for taking the time out while you are enjoying your time in the Holy Land.
Sorry for taking so long to respond Michael – Laurita. Busy day. I know you told us you were Army medic so I think immediately of you as EMS with a smile. EMS just rang a bell for me with Laurita as Early Morning Sparkplug who gets me going with a point or counter-point to Skip. Which ever way it goes it doesn’t matter, they both turn my crank. Always have and I love them dearly for it. The neutrality of this site is its beauty and strength and the depth of considered responses are precious and unique. That’s exactly why I am here. I am not looking for a team to join. Long may it reign.
I love your joyful enthusiastic Caribbean responses. They remind me of a guy from Trinidad during my air force survival training under canvas in the Rockies around a fire describing to us Canadians the beauty of a cricket match. I can hear his voice and see his face nearly 60 years later. “The chirping of the birds and the crack of the cricket bat on a beautiful warm sunny spring day, it is loovely mon.”
Thanks to you both and everyone else on this web-site.
Thanks Michael,
Mi – chamocha – Elohim
Mi-cha-El
2.Corinthian 3:18 must be one of you favorite scriptures in the apostolic writings.
Michael, may I quote what you wrote in a Facebook post ?
Michael, Of course. Not sure why you would want to, but no problem. You don’t even have to use my name… anonymous is fine, maybe even better ! Shalom.
Though one must be careful not to fall prey to the exegetical fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer—i.e., imposing all the known definitions of a word upon a given context—I think one should bear in mind that teleios can also mean “complete”, as does its cognate teleō, illustrated by Yeshua’s last word (tetelestai; in the perfect tense) on the Cross: “It is finished”. With this in mind, Hagner (Matthew 1-13, WBC, [Dallas: Word Books, 1993], p 135) states (Greek and Hebrew transliterated):
As for the last paragraph of this TW, the interpretation of Hebrews 4:15 will largely depend on one’s Christology, of course. However, I offer some food for thought. Was Jesus able to not sin (posse non peccare) or was Jesus not able to sin (non posse peccare)? One can feel the ‘pull’ to sin yet not follow through with it, and thereby not sin. But, can one feel the ‘pull’ to sin while concurrently possessing the inability to actually succumb to it? This seems possible. If so, this would account for Yeshua being “tempted in all ways but without sin”, while we, on the other hand, will eventually succumb to some sort of sin. And with this understanding, He can sympathize/emphathize with human frailty, because He’d lived it, even though He Himself lacked the ability to succumb to sin.
But, this then may leave open the question of how we can be perfect/complete in the context of Matthew 5:48…
From the OP: “He [Yeshua] was without sin because he remained devoted, not because he wasn’t completely human.” I think you meant to convey that it was “not because he was more than human”, or something to that effect. Just for the record, orthodox Christian theology maintains that Jesus was/is “perfect/complete (telion) in humanity”. That is part of the Chalcedonian Definition. However, the same affirms that He is also “perfect/complete (telion) in Godhood (Deity)”. I don’t state this to be argumentative, just to identify the orthodox Christian position, for those who may not know.
Craig: I once asked a Roman Catholic neighbor why she prayed to Mary. She said Mary understands us in a way Jesus couldn’t. How so? I asked. Well Jesus as God could not have actually sinned.. but not so for Mary. I have always wondered how Jesus could be tempted as a man while at the same time not being able to be tempted as God (according to James). Then of course we would have him subject to death as a man while at the same time unable to die as God. Tertullian thought the absurdity of these arguments were the “best proponent” of them…. surely I must be misquoting my Kelly resource book on Early Christian doctrines. Can you help make sense of these things?
Admittedly, the doctrine of the hypostatic union–the two natures (human and divine) of Yeshua–is difficult to put into words. However, there’s no contradiction to what I’d just stated re: Jesus being tempted yet not able to sin and James 1:13. God cannot be tempted to sin; however, any human can. Thus, in Jesus, it’s His divine nature that prevents His human nature from ultimately sinning. He can be tempted (in His humanity), but He cannot sin (in His Deity).
I’m not RCC, so I don’t believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, nor do I pray to any human. As for Tertullian, I cannot speak for him; however, I don’t have Kelly’s book (I need to get it one day). If you can provide the work from which Kelly quotes Tertullian, I may have it here somewhere.
so are you saying Jesus was tempted “just like us” but in fact it was impossible for him to sin because he was God? ….and that is supposed to encourage us by his example??
I think you are asking the wrong question. You must look at the context. Previous to verse 15, in 14 we are instructed to hold firmly to the faith. The very next verse, 16, states that the result of 15 is that we can approach the “throne of grace” with confidence, in order to receive mercy. Therefore, by the context, we are not assured of sinlessness; on the contrary, sin is presupposed. In other words, if we were sinless, why would we need a “throne of grace”? And, just what is this “throne of grace”? And who is this Melchizedek in whose order Yeshua is a priest forever (5:6, 7:17), this one who is “without father or mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” (7:3)? And what is Hebrews 7-10 really all about? What is this “better covenant” (7:22), which is described in these chapters?
Finding adequate answers to these questions will, I do believe, provide the answers to what seems to be implied in your line of questioning.
Catholic theology invented the passe non pecare doctrine (not possible to sin) in order to support the idea of a divine being and the strong doctrine of immutability (see my book God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience). As I argue in the book, none of this is scriptural.
Given that the phrase is Latin, it certainly came from Latin as opposed to Greek or Hebrew, that much is true. But to say this isn’t Scriptural, is a whole ‘nuther thing. You claim immutability isn’t Scriptural, but there are plenty of systematic theologians who would disagree.
Yes, there are plenty who would disagree Thus, the 360 page doctoral dissertation, God Time and the Limits of Omniscience
Actually, I didn’t say “immutability” isn’t scriptural. I said “strong immutability” isn’t scriptural. You would have to know the technical difference. Thus, the book.
From the best of my recollection of your brief sketch of your thesis/book in a comment quite a while ago—correct me if I’m wrong here—you posit that God exists in time. Assuming my recollection is correct, it’s on that point that I cannot even get to first base in your theory.
Your recollection is essentially correct, except that the Greek idea of eternity is ex-temporal and it is ex-temporality that is the real problem. Plenty of scholars have noted that this causes severe issues for God’s interaction with the world and with men. I point out that ex-temporality is the product of Greek philosophy, namely the Greek idea of perfection. If you accept Parmenides view of perfection and Augustine’s extension of that view with regard to time, you will arrive at Aquinas’ view of the ex-temporal God. This is standard Christian doctrine. It just isn’t in line with Scripture.
Given that Einstein concluded that time is a necessary aspect of creation (you cannot have one without the other), and that God existed pre-creation, I’d say it logically follows that God exists inherently outside temporality. And given this, I’ve no issue conceiving that God then is not in any way restricted by time. As part of His own creation, He can certainly interact within temporality (which is an aspect of creation) while not being bound in any way by it. Humans are most certainly subject to temporality; God is not, as He lives beyond it, while interacting with and within it.
pace Einstein, read Nelson Pike.
I should clarify that: God exists in time, as opposed to eternity, and is affected by the limitations of time.
Craig,
af·fect·ed
əˈfektəd/Submit
adjective
1.
influenced or touched by an external factor. Can you expand what you mean Craig? maybe also as humans in the same context subject to temporality ?
Bruce,
I was clarifying what I understand Skip’s position is (see comment @ October 5, 2017 6:59 pm) in his book. That’s not my position. I don’t think God is subject to time at all. He reins over creation which includes time.
Humans are certainly subject to time, in that we live only in the present, have a past, and the future is not yet here. We cannot change the past and we cannot predict the future with certainty.
thank you again
Craig: let’s look at Hebrews 4:14 to 5:10. In my study I find that the passage is focused on the role of a “high priest”. That is explicitly mentioned in verse 14,15, 5:1, 5,10. A high priest represented the people to God. It is within that context that we are called to draw near to the “throne of grace” in verse 16. How does that happen? 5:8,9 indicate that Yeshua “learned obedience” and was “made perfect” through his sufferings so that he could then (see verse 10) be designated by God as a high priest… The focus of these verses clearly is on the High Priestly role of Yeshua, not him being God. The High Priest was, and still is, the intermediary between God and man. “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). I believe the “throne of grace” is actually what the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies represented. Yeshua approaches it on our behalf. We are not all charging into the Holy of Holies in my opinion. We approach God through the High Priest Messiah Yeshua. Like Melchizedek, Yeshua is priest-king. Recall that in the ancient Israel the roles of high priest and king were separate.
Quote from JND Kelly Early Christian Doctrines p152
…yet these careful distinctions did not prevent Tertullian from using expressions like “God allows Himself to be born”, “the sufferings of God”, “God was truly crucified, truly died”-language which foreshadowed the “interchange of characteristics” which later counted as orthodox. On the other hand he was convinced that the man Jesus had preserved intact the substance and form of human flesh in heaven. In certain moods the sheer absurdity of these paradoxes (‘certum est quia impossible’ De carn. Chr. 5: cf. c. Marc. 2,16.) strikes him as the best argument in their favour.
Reflect on that for a moment.. “the sheer absurdity of these paradoxes strikes him as the best argument in their favour”…. and we wonder why the Jews have never accepted the deity of Jesus to any extent. oy vey!
HSB,
I read your response quickly, missing the middle part re: Yeshua subject to death as a man, yet unable to die as God. Once again, there’s no contradiction. God is spirit (John 4:24), in a qualitative sense; i.e., God is a spirit, incorporeal Being, Whose spirit cannot die. Jesus, being both God and man, only died in His humanity, while His Divine spirit continued on. In fact, John 2:19-22/10:17-18 attests that it was His own Divine nature (in concert with the Father [Acts 5:29-31, Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:17-20] and the Holy Spirit [Rom 8:11 (Rom 1:4?)], = “God” [Acts 2:24, Rom 4:24]) Who raised His human body from the dead.
The preexistent Divine Word, staying very much alive, remained with the flesh (sarx) He took on (John 1:14) while Yeshua’s human body was dead, having “handed over His pneuma” (John 19:30), aka the pnoē zōēs, breath of life (Gen 2:7, LXX).
Humm ….been mediating on the Shema and these well expressed thoughts on “Christology” regarding “Divinity” . I am not sure we are able to actually know for sure until we meet Yeshua face to face and ask him. Many speak with great conviction things they know nothing about. I am no longer a Trinitarian as I do not find it supported in scriptures without some major assumptive leaps regarding meanings of words. So that might presuppose I am not longer Christian? Humm I’ll think on that awhile, nahh. I just go for walk on the beach!
Mark,
After your walk on the beach (lucky you!), perhaps you could reflect on the post I’m finishing up in response to Laurita on the most recent Pavia thread.
Thanks Craig Ill head over to your trinitaian discussion mometntarily. What seems to come up agin and agin in this forum for me are a some improtant considerations. 1. Respectully disagreeing and graciously engaging is critical. Thank you for maintaining that position. 2. Paul suggests “being firmly convinced” (Romans 14:4) in ones own mind is important even when on opposite sides of the discussion 3. It really all mostly still remains a mystery God only knows for sure. Being firmly convinced is important for us individually, acting integral to our convictions is even more important but expecting to agree or convincing others of their veracity is less important than acting consistently out of them ourselves. God is the judge and he judges the motives of our hearts .
In discarding the Trinity, I’m curious how you were able to reconcile Yeshua’s claim that He would raise His own dead body as a mere man. To very briefly sketch the Scriptural background, in John 2:19 Yeshua explicitly states that He will raise “this temple” “in three days”, with the narrator identifying “this temple” as Yeshua’s own body (2:21). This same event is stated a bit differently, though to the same effect, in John 10:17-18, in which Yeshua asserts that He’ll lay down His life, only to “take it up again”.
In a previous comment on this very blog, one astute commenter noted that the Greek word for “take” can also mean “receive”. This is true; however, all Greek finite verbs encode voice, and this verb is in the active voice. So, semantically, this still indicates that Yeshua will actively take/receive His life “up again”. To further explain, I can go to my mail box and find that I received mail. This would be best rendered “the mail was received by Craig”–passive voice. Alternatively, I could be home and respond to my doorbell with the mail delivery person extending his/her hand, to which I then reach out my own in order to receive it. This is the active voice: “Craig received the mail”. In the latter case, I’d be the active receiver rather than a passive receiver.
But even still, this rendering does not parallel Yeshua’s specific words in 2:19: “I will raise [this temple] again”, for this better correlates with “take it up again”, as opposed to “receive it up again.
How can a dead man actively do anything, most especially take His own life back up (‘raise this temple’) again?
Do we not all have the same power. Insult me, breakdown my convictions. But if I focus properly all those attributes can be restored through a humiliating humble approach.
Now either the scriptures are wrong or the information is distorted.
In what form was Jesus first seen after the resurrection… Not recognized as the same person buried…
Now among his disciples suddenly appeared. Thought a ghost. Reads as if they did not recognize him until he spoke the same as at the tombstone when he started talking and explaining… Same and similar message not person. Omnipresence not literal presence.
If they recognized why would it be needed to explain it was him and show wounds etc.
Could it be possible that Yeshua is but a message that must be made flesh before its real meaning is found.
Skip refers to paradigms and how the incorrect understandings prevent us from seeing the truth. Is this one truth that is often overlooked because we accept the literal implications.
Was the actual body resurrected or was another example brought to life…
Seeker,
While some will be raised, none will do so of their own power. It is God who raises the dead. Yeshua’s words are quite different, stating explicitly that He raise Himself. The narrator of John specifies that as Yeshua’s disciples remembered His words, they “believed the Scriptures and the words Jesus had spoken” (2:22, NIV 1984).
As Paul explains in 1 Cor 15, the perishable body is changed to imperishable before it is raised (15:50-54). This accounts for Yeshua’s different appearance.
Craig: may I chime in here a bit? You mention Yeshua raised himself from death.I won’t restate the approximately 40 New Testament verses that indicate it was God/Father who did the raising. However note that in the text you quoted John 2:22 the full verse is “So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered…”. And in the reference to John 10:18 about Jesus taking/receiving his life back He explicitly says in that very verse “This commandment I received from the Father”. The authority and power in this wonderful resurrection event come from Father God. This reminds me of the miracles that the gospels tell us Yeshua performed. Yet Luke 5:17 provides the background “…and the power of Lord was present for him (Yeshua) to perform healing. Darby informs us that every time Lord (Kurios) is used without the article it means Jehovah/YHWH is involved. So in his NT edition he explains Lord in footnote as Jehovah. Here is my point. None of us would argue that Jesus did not perform miracles. However he did not have the power to do so solely in himself… it was ALL derived from Father God who empowered him to do the will of the Father (agency). That includes the resurrection.
With all due respect, this isn’t a paradigm question, it is one of logic. The word rendered “power” should best be construed “authority”: Yeshua had the authority to lay down His life and the authority to take it up again, which He received from the Father. To illustrate: A man who had been given power of attorney (agency) dies. Can said man exercise his POA? Of course not. The dead man lacks the ‘power’. A POA should be thought of as an ‘authority’ of attorney. By analogy, a dead man may have the authority to raise himself from the dead, but in lacking the inherent power he cannot raise himself. Yet the Scriptures clearly state that Yeshua did raise Himself, which means by His own inherent power. Since no human can raise Himself, we’re left with the only other alternative. Yeshua, as the Divine Word-become-flesh, raised Himself via the Divine Word. The other Scriptures stating it was “God”, “God the Father”, “the Holy Spirit”, “Spirit of God”, “Spirit of Christ”, confirm a ‘joint effort’, so to speak.
We must constantly be reminded that ALL the books of scripture were written by Hebrews out of a Hebrew mindset influenced by a Hebrew culture that produced a uniquely Hebrew perspective being conveyed primarily to a Hebrew audience which understood the nuances of the Hebrew language. To properly understand what these words mean necessitates viewing them from the Hebraic perspective they were written in – not from our current English culture. The words of the authors of the Messianic Writings were not written to an audience 2000 years in the future.” haRold Smith
Luke, the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts, was most likely a Gentile by birth. He had a very high command of the Greek language, writing his Gospel like a Greek biography. I’m fairly well aware of cultural context.
Craig
Thank you for thr response in ROM 6 we read that the ch d he literally die or did he die for sin.
In John 6 a similar claim is made eat of body drink of blood. Clearly he was not talking about the natural male form… So. In John 2 he could also be talking allegorically as most of his other teachings. Reading 1 Cor. 15 from the beginning we read the reflection of Jesus up till verse 5 then we read of our own change till around verse 22. Then it could be a referral to self in the choices to accept the changes and believe in them or else we will just say there is no reason to be alive other than enjoying the natural body. Only after this is the clarification given of temporal being clothed with eternal… The same we read as referenced in calling of all the messengers and prophets in the OT. Even Jesus himself sates it no one comes to me unless the father draws. So yes out ourselves we cannot redeem but we can repent. And it is the repentance we read of in the Cross reference and John 2 but later we read of the redeeming power. I think we are reading of two different empowering choices. Our choice to repent which is important for sanity in the natural order. Then God’s redemption choice which we have no power over we can just trust on this.
Remebder our discussion a year plus ago on John 1. Here we read of the consequences in John 1 verse 12 – 14.
Just my allegoric view.
I never said Messiah was a mere man I simply belive the Shema is true. “Be hold oh Isreal the Lord thy God is one” not three…How , when and where YHVH chooses (and I’ll use Skips analogy) to where men like a garment is entirely up to him. I’m entirely comfortable with the mysteries about Gods nature implied by the scriptures. I personally have no need to fill in the gaps with thologies to make him more resonable to me.
Craig: help me understand more completely what you just wrote: the Divine Word.. remained with the flesh.. while Yeshua’s human body was dead…having “handed over” His pneuma. So the spirit of life in Jesus returns to the Father while the dead body in the grave still has the Divine Word, very much alive, still “with” it. I think that humans are a little like cars… in an accident the engine may fly in one direction, the transmission in another and the chassis yet another. None of these pieces is the “car”. You only have a car when they are functioning together.
I’m not following your analogy. The text (John 19:30, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46–the latter two use the term ekpneo, translated “breathed his last”, though it is most ‘literally’ out-breathe) says what it says. This should be thought as the ‘reverse’, so to speak, of Gen 2:7. No matter how one looks at John 1:14 (word-became-flesh), “the word” is in some fashion “God”. Given the texts of John 2:19/10:17-18–Yeshua claiming He would raise Himself–and the confirmation in John 2:21-22, in some way Jesus did, in fact, raise Himself. And a dead man certainly cannot. This leaves “the Divine Word” as the means by which Jesus raised Himself. This apparently doesn’t contradict the other passages which state it was “God”, “God the Father”, or “the Holy Spirit”, “Spirit of Christ”, “Spirit of God”. But one cannot escape or explain away the clear wording in John’s Gospel.
I simply have a different concept of what “Word” is all about. Elsewhere I mentioned a study I did of the Aramaic targums that were read every Sabbath in the synagogues. For me it is important to understand what the first century Jewish audience would make of John’s writings. Others may claim John wrote to the Greeks using Greek concepts. I differ. I have found hundreds of cross references to Old Testament Scriptures scattered throughout John’s writings. There was no need to explain to the audience who Isaiah was since they all knew. In the targums I found over 265 explicit references to “word of the Lord” or “word” connected with YHWH when only six appeared in the Hebrew Torah text, and all of those in the Hebrew could simply be called “message” of YHWH or Lord. But I found that the targums used this “code phrase” when they encountered anthropomorphisms. “YHWH planted a garden” becomes “The word of the Lord” planted a garden. The author of the targum is saying “It is as if God Himself had planted a garden”. Other examples would be use of arm, ear, eye, etc. It is “AS IF” YHWH Himself raised His arm… so the targum calls this an action of the “word of the Lord”. I do NOT believe that the “Word” is somehow a separate personality from YHWH. Rather it is the expression of God’s action in the world when an anthropomorphism is involved. Deuteronomy 18:18 indicates that God will send a prophet like unto you (Moses). YHWH will put His words in the prophet’s mouth. Thus God will be speaking directly through the mouth of the Prophet. So I believe THAT is what John is referencing when he talks about “Word” in John 1. John does NOT say “God became a man”. Rather John says “The Word (code word from the targums) became flesh… which means it is “AS IF” God Himself was speaking out of Jesus’ mouth. Hebrews 1 continues the same conversation… in the past God spoke through the prophets, in these times He has spoken through the Son… perfectly!
I certainly agree that a dead man cannot rise up on his own. But if YHWH gives life back to the corpse it can now “rise up”. When Jesus was dead, where exactly WAS he? Was he the Word standing “with” the body, was he in heaven? hell?
But if YHWH gives life back to the corpse it can now “rise up”. In your description here, logically, this would mean that YHWH raised the corpse. But, that’s not what John 2:19-22/10:17-18 states. Yeshua raised Himself. See my comment @ October 7, 2017 8:21 am.
When Jesus was dead, where exactly WAS he? Was he the Word standing “with” the body, was he in heaven? hell? I don’t think we should go beyond the Scriptures. Simply: Divine Word became flesh = the Person of Yeshua. Word-become-flesh claims He will raise Himself from death. Word-become-flesh dies and raises Himself. This implies Word remained with flesh, and it is by the power of the Divine Word that Word-become-flesh raised Himself.
The agency analogy (Word as aspect of YHWH) does not work in regard to Yeshua raising Himself.
Now this post got me thinking. God be the creator, word be the tool of the creation. Faith be the result of the human creation depicted through out the bible.
Would this not takes us back to YHVH as I understood Skip when worshipped or praised means thoughts focused determines actions that bring about results.
Would salvation Yeshua/Jesus not mean exactly that. It is when we “rob” the body of the fleshly or death creating activities that the body be raised through the same words to be a body living out faith… And the only true way to rob us from death bearing activities is to scrutinize ourselves against what others have said…
Again Craig, someone further down the road like most of you all has said it more eloquently then I. and I believe consistent with a Hebraic understanding of the writings . Shalom
Words mean things. If we are courageous enough to set aside what we have been told of this passage by the tradition of men and just read it from the framework of simple grammatical pronoun structure, a view of Who the Father and the Son are begins to unfold before us that is quite different from what has been traditionally handed down to us (Hosea 4:6 – click on the highlighted words to view content). If we are seeking to understand the concepts of Truth given to us in scripture, we must approach them from the standpoint of mental honesty (which is the definition of the Greek word haplotes translated as “simplicity” in 2Corinthians 11:3). It does not mean to remain ignorant of the Truth simply because it might conflict with what we have come to believe or because it requires of us to search the scriptures to see if these things are true. Challenging ourselves to revisit why we believe what we do and where that belief comes from is the Way to Life (John 3:19-21). To simply say, “I believe” without a coherent understanding of what scripture says to believe and how to believe it, is to remain in ignorance of the Word of YHVH. That ignorance results in our destruction because it causes us to be separated from the Source of Life. The only thing Yeshua ever spoke of as being able to render the Word of YHVH ineffective was the tradition of men (Mark 7:13, see what it means To Believe). The tradition men have given to us is that there are two Greek words used for “Word” in scripture – logos and rhema. This is true. However, what has also been taught conceptually is that “logos” means the written word of God and that “rhema” means the spoken, inspired or revealed word of God. This is not so true. In fact, it is the Greek word “logos” that is translated as “Word” in this passage from the first chapter of John above (also in 1Thessalonians 2:13). The primary definition of this Greek word “logos” means “of speech” – NOT OF WRITTEN WORDS (Strong’s G3056). The words may subsequently be captured in written form, but primarily, they appear as a declared purpose of the one speaking.
The word translated as “beginning” comes from the Greek word arche and means “origin” – to have its origin in. the active cause of something. There is no concept of time associated with this word (see what it means to be In Perpetuity). The word translated as “with” in this passage comes from the Greek word pros and means “toward” – signifying a direction or motion to a goal. Nowhere in these definitions is personification signified except who it might be pointing to – in this instance, YaHoVeH, the Present Presence. The “Word” spoken of here is the declared speech or purpose that originates with or from YHVH. Therefore, when the verse says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHVH (God), and the Word was YHVH (God)”, a more appropriate translation would mean that the speech, the “declared purpose” of YHVH, originated with YHVH – it was His and His alone (let us also remember that the Name of the Father, YHVH, appears over 2,500 times throughout scripture but does not appear once in any of our modern translations, having been replaced by the names God, LORD, Adonai, etc. – see Whose Name Is It? for further explanation) haRold Smith
Bruce,
Rather than going point-by-point, let me just take the last paragraph and make a few comments. First of all, words only acquire meaning in context. The meaning of a word in one context is not necessarily the same as another. Archē can mean “beginning of a process”; “beginning, as in ‘origin’”; “a person with whom a process begins”; “first cause”; “ruler, authority” (see Romans 8:38; Ephesians 6:12, e.g.); “corner”; “domain, sphere of influence”. I’ll agree with the author above that John 1:1 speaks of the beginning, as in origin of creation. I’ll disagree with his assertion about time not being associated with this word, as that will depend on context. John 1:1 begins exactly as does Gen 1:1: “In the beginning”. Prior to creation—the origin of the cosmos—there was no time, as time is a necessary construct of creation. In the beginning was the Word…and through [the Word] all things were created. If the Word was the agent of creation, as the text states, then the Word must predate creation.
The word pros is a preposition, and while its most basic definition dynamically is “toward”, in a static sense, as it certainly is in this context, it means “with”: the Word was pros God–the Word was toward God? The Word was ‘moving toward’ God? These make no sense, given his assertion The “Word” spoken of here is the declared speech or purpose that originates with or from YHVH.
This author is imposing a preconceived paradigm upon the text and thereby doing violence to the context.
As I was on my morning run today, it occurred to me that your position that Yeshua speaks as “the Word of YHWH” is subject to criticism similar to that levied against Trinitarianism. Specifically, it’s your words here: I do NOT believe that the “Word” is somehow a separate personality from YHWH. OK, sometimes Yeshua speaks by himself, but on other occasions it is YHWH speaking through him, correct? Besides the fact that hoi Ioudaioi took umbrage with Yeshua “calling God his own Father” (John 5:18), there are times when Yeshua is using “my Father” language alongside claims of doing things in imitation of his Father, or even performing divine operations apart from his Father (5:17, 19-22). Similarly, you’ll have difficulty reconciling just who is speaking in the discussion of 8:52-58. The same applies in John 11:38-44. This is not to mention Yeshua’s promise of the Holy Spirit (14:15-16:15). Then there’s John 17:5, which clearly describes two separate entities: “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed”. Was “the Word of YHWH” (i.e., YHWH) speaking to YHWH? In addition, somehow 20:17 must be reconciled to your schema.
I am caught between Craig and HSB. Like Craig, I believe Yeshua was the incarnation of Yahweh (and that Yahweh is not God the Father), but like HSB, I believe Yeshua was fully human and was completely dead, so He could not raise Himself.
HSB says, “40 New Testament verses indicate it was God/Father who did the raising”.
Craig cites a couple of verses that state, “explicitly that He raise[d] Himself”, and Craig explained away the 40 verses by saying, it was “a ‘joint effort’, so to speak.”
As Craig has the tail wagging the dog here, it doesn’t sound convincing to me.
For Yeshua to raise Himself He needed to be fully human and fully God. That has to be self-contradictory or a mystery beyond understanding. If He was fully human, he was fully dead and could do nothing. If He was fully God, He was never human.
My answer is that Yeshua was fully Elohim as Yahweh in heaven and then fully emptied Himself of His Elohimness and became fully human, (albeit full of the Father’s spirit.) Then, in His resurrection, He regained His Elohimness by the power of the Father.
That should be enough to unsettle both Trinitarians and Unitarians but, for me, it reconciles the verses at hand.
Paradigms, pal. Paradigms. Start with the forgone conclusions and find the evidence to support them. If we just use the text, we will ALL find what we are LOOKING FOR. The text is not the crux of the problem here. The crux of the problem is HOW we read the text, and that is a matter of paradigm. Think Jewish – find Jewish. Think Christian – find Christian. Even from the SAME evidence. Can we move the conversation beyond the text please? Can we start talking about worldview, culture, history interpretive schemes within those arenas?
It’s not a matter of imposing a paradigm a priori upon the text. It’s a matter of proper exegesis of each associated text, then harmonizing them. I’m willingly engaging with other views, but I don’t find that they hold up under scrutiny.
I, too, would like to move the conversation beyond the text.
People have been playing with the double-slit interference phenomenon in physics for years now, and one of the latest, most comprehensive studies on it can be found at deanradin dot com /evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf
I am afraid if we don’t watch out we are going to find ourselves behind reality and people who are asking real questions about it. The form over function model that the West has been traveling on ever since the Greeks handed it to us clearly does NOT fit! (And that includes Skip’s termite mound communication phenomenon that he wrote about recently, too.)
I think if we don’t start learning to think like a Hebrew pretty soon, we may have to go to the secular world to be taught how, for YHVH says that He will answer anybody who asks. Well, just like Skip says, because we think we already know, we have quit asking. Perhaps to our peril! Or at least to our embarrassment.
Laurita: I enjoy your insights. Just a bit of caution on this research by Radin et al. Dr.Stanley Jeffers (Physics) at York University in Toronto did 74 sessions to duplicate the effect reported.”He failed to find anything” according to an article I read very recently. You can Google him in relation to Radin (or I can send you a link).
I will google him as I like to see all the sides. Thanks.
My problem is that I am surrounded by precious peeps who are asking questions (like this one) that the boiler plate church party line does not satisfy. I get stretched every day. I need LOTS of explanations for them. Extra work for me. I will take all the help I can get! thank you for your help on this one, and hopefully it will net something that I can pass on. Got anything about Skip’s termites?
What are Skips termites and precious peeps, Sis ?
Precious peeps (people) are mine; most of them various flavors of your “Buddhist/athiest/gentile”.
Skip wrote about termite mounds in Africa that he was told responded instantly to the mood of their respective queens. There is no ‘form’ explanation for this; which is to say, scientists have searched in vain for chemical, electrical, or other physical ways that this mood is transmitted. The conclusion is that it is ‘psychological’. The function of the mound is determined by the queen, but we don’t know how. Go figure.
Daniel,
Why cannot it be both/and? Jesus raised Himself, and God raised Him, God the Father raised Him, the Spirit of Christ raised Him, etc.? John 2:19/10:17-18 doesn’t necessarily restrict the raising of Yeshua to Himself only. But, one must somehow account for the explicit phraseology of John, and not discount it based on the other passages. A harmonizing is required.
What you are describing is what is known as kenotic Christology: the Word emptied Himself literally of some or all divine attributes in becoming human (Phil 2:7). But, all other occurrences of the verb for empty (kenoō) are used metaphorically (Romans 4:14; 1 Cor 1:17, 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3). This makes your interpretation (and others who follow this) truly an exception.
I should add that your position was first(?) put forth by W. F. Gess in the mid-1800s–a metamorphosis from Divine to human. The main issue is that, with the human Yeshua completely devoid of Divinity, he must somehow reattain Divine status. Can a man become God? If so, will other humans become God at the resurrection at the eschaton? The other issue is that the Word is explicitly stated in Scripture as sustaining the cosmos at all times, which would include his time on the earth (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3 — the verb tense in each one speaks of continuous action).
Well just in case we don’t have enough on our hands, what exactly does a resurrected man look like, do? Might as well complete the circle.
George,
I’m not exactly sure what brought forth the nature of your question, so I’m not sure how to answer. Taking it at face value, my answer is I don’t know. I don’t like to go beyond Scripture. We have an account of what Jesus looked like, and we have Paul’s words of what it won’t look like (flesh and blood) in 1 Cor 15.
Craig: Flag on the field… ‘the Word is explicitly stated in Scripture as sustaining the cosmos at all times, which would include his time on the earth (Col 1:17, Heb 1:3 …)’
In fairness, “Word” is not explicitly mentioned at all in Col. 1:17. And in Hebrews 1:3 things are “upheld” by the “word of His mouth” The “His” here refers to YHWH given the parallel structure starting in verse 2. He (Yeshua) is the radiance of His (YHWH) glory and he (Yeshua) is the representation of His (YHWH) nature, and he (Yeshua) upholds all things by the word of His (YHWH) power. Why did the translators not do as you indicate, and put a capital W for word? I suggest they recognized the parallel structure here and knew the focus was on YHWH and His power.
The word-made-flesh = Jesus Christ. Word was agent of creation (John 1:1-3). In Col 1:17 the context is the preexistent Christ, which cannot refer to the earthly Christ, hence it’s the “Word” as shorthand. If you wish to maintain “preexistent Christ”, that’s fine, but we understand that “the Word” is the ‘name’ John used. In Heb 1:3 “the Son”, “sustains all things”. I’m using “Word” as a substitute for “the Son” here, not as in “word of His power”; but, it you like, we can stick with “the Son” in this context–even though they (“Word” from John 1 and “the Son” from Heb 1:3) refer to the same entity. So, it is “the Son” who “sustains/upholds all things”, and it’s by the “word of [the Father’s] power”. To recap: In Heb 1:3 “the Son” (aka “the Word”, aka pre- post- and concurrent with- “word-made-flesh”) sustains/upholds all things “by the word of [the Father’s] power”. Similarly, in Col 1:17 Christ sustains the cosmos, and since we know Christ did not exist prior to word-made-flesh, but that “the Word” is Christ’s preexistence, it must have been “the Word” that sustained the cosmos pre- word-made-flesh.
Now, I must ask why you keep using YHWH, when YHWH is specifically not part of this context. The word used is “God”, and He (theos) has spoken through “Son”. This makes Him Father, but not necessarily YHWH.
Craig: thanks for your comments. I find your submissions helpful, even when we disagree. I was having a bit of fun (note the “flag on the field”) with your submission that “Word is explicitly stated…” I guess we can differ as to the meaning of “explicit”. I don’t mind if you say inferred, intended etc. I mentioned YHWH to show the distinction from Yeshua/Son. To me the author is meaning somebody (Theos) other than Jesus himself. I am happy if we use Father here. However I am of the opinion that the author of Hebrews intends us to understand YHWH is involved here when he says “theos”. I don’t think that the author of Hebrews has any concept of a “Godhead” with multiple members. But that is my point of view. I would like to comment on your use of capital W for word. I find the whole topic of translations and inferences to be fascinating. For example look at “Light”. The NIV NEVER uses a capital (unless you consider John 3:19 where Light follows a colon), the NKV uses a capital for light/Light in only FOUR verses (Matt 4:16, John 1:7,8,9) but my NAS uses a capital at some 21 times. Wow! Here they are: John 1:4,5,7,8,9; 3:19,20,21; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35,36,46; Eph 5:8,9; Col 1:12; 1 John 5:7,7; 2:8,9,10. What is going on here? Is the issue the potential “deity” of light/Light? This is a serious question on my part. After all, in 1 John we learn God is light (as well as God is love) Personally, I believe John is using metaphors. God is light means God illuminates. Otherwise folks might start to worship light/Light…after all many worship Word. Same for Love/love. Why can’t John use the same arrangement for word/Word. Perhaps John is saying that God SPOKE, “anthropomorphically”. (see Hebrews 1:1). Word NEVER is capitalized in the Old Testament, the only Scriptures available to the early believers. What would the Bereans make of Word as opposed to word?
HSB,
I fully understood why you made the comment the way you did, and I concede that “explicitly” in the manner in which I used it was poor phraseology (blog comments can be written rather hastily and meanings can get lost in the one-dimensionality of their very nature). What I meant was that it is explicitly stated in those passages that the cosmos will be continuously upheld/sustained, not that “the Word” was explicitly mentioned in the text. Using “the Word” was merely shorthand for the entity I was referring to.
I ‘took you to task’ in your use of YHWH, in the same manner in which you stated “flag on the field”. Frankly, I don’t disagree in your use of YHWH here, but then again, I construe “the Son” as YHWH as well. Personality is tough to bring out when the discussion is of a serious nature. I actually find humor in lots of things, but it’s hard to convey humor in a blog comment. It can come off as unintended sarcasm (though I love sarcasm, but not to demean someone—I’m quite adept at poking fun at myself). Many times I wanted to inject some humor, but as I was writing them in pre-comments and reflecting on them, I thought they’d come off as flippant.
While I cannot know the minds of various translators, I can understand, e.g., the NASB’s use of “Light” in John and 1 John (though I may quibble over some capitalizations)—the Johannine writings have been the focus of much of my study. “Light” is exchanged for “Word” in John 1:4, made more evident in 1:5 (I’d capitalize the latter, but not the former), then carried on through the Gospel. So, yes, “Light” is akin to “Word”, which—though your position currently differs on this—is identified as “God” in John 1:1. I’m working on an answer to your earlier question, but it’ll take me a while to complete it.
Craig: I am interested to know what you think the “Divine Word” meant to a first century Jew, using Old Testament/Tanach verses. In my study of “word of the Lord” in the Scriptures I found almost every reference simply meant “message”. The one exception appeared to be Psalms 33:6 “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made”. That might mean some kind of divine agency is involved. Then I noticed the second part of the verse “their starry host by the breath of His (YHWH) mouth”(NIV). This verse is clearly an anthropomorphism, arranged ABBA… The word corresponding to breath of His mouth, and the heavens to the starry host. I have already made my case that the targums use exactly this same pattern. The Word of the Lord/Word is used when anthropomorphisms are involved. That is what a first century Jew would understand. I agree the targums are NOT Holy Scripture, but they were read every Sabbath in the synagogue. I have mentioned elsewhere that I found 265 of these explicit substitutions when anthropomorphisms are involved. Do you believe that “word of the Lord” is a person separate from YHWH or Father God in Tanach? So if you reject my line of argument (that John was informing his readers that God was acting in human affairs AS IF He had become a man) then what would the multiple references to “Word” in John chapter 1 have meant to the Jewish reader? I am at a loss to understand why “Word” was otherwise so important to John in chapter 1. Note also that John and the other New Testament authors never call Jesus himself the Word. Yeshua calls the Word of God an “it” in Luke 11:28. We can discuss Rev 19:13 separately if you wish. (hint: anthropomorphism flag on the field) Paul calls the “word of God” an “it” in Acts 13:46, 1 Cor. 14:36, Col. 1:25, 1 Thess. 2:13, Heb. 4:12, etc. In fact none of these references to “word of the Lord” or “word of God” involve personal pronoun he/his or capital W in the various translations. Why is that? I only found capital W in John 1:1, 1:14 and Rev 19:13. What about all the other examples of “word” (word of the Lord 10 NT references, word of God 38 NT references) I suggest that “message” is what is intended, and “message” is an “it”.
I think Skip is right about it all coming down to paradigms- Jewish or Greek/Christian. Given these choices I will always side with the Hebraic understanding for context and meaning, unlike Constantine who is reputed to have said “Let us have nothing to do with the perfidious Jew”. I have been amazed over the years of the almost total lack of response of the Jews to Jesus… maybe it is the deity issue that they cannot abide. The messiahship of Jesus/Yeshua is a different matter. Hand these folks a copy of the New Testament in Hebrew. Yeshua is called mashiach some 578 times. I think they might “get it” if we focused on that as the gospel, not that God died on as stake. Just my thoughts.
PS Hope you saw my follow up on Tertullian Oct 7 5:26am. I found the “sheer absurdity” comment interesting.
On which TW post was this HSB? Nothing is posted on 7th Oct. as usual?
hi George. The post starts with “Quote from JND Kelly..”; my computer shows the date time stamp as Oct 7, 5:26am but if you scroll through the posts above you should find it. Good luck!
HSB,
Given that John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 begin with the same exact phrase (“in the beginning”), there’s no doubt a connection between them. And Ps. 33:6 is clearly in view in John 1. Another compelling example as providing background for John 1 is Isaiah 55:9-11: …So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (55:11, NASB). However, as Rabbi Samuel Sandmel cautioned, we must be wary of “parallelomania” (“Parallelomania,” Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 81 [1962]: p 1-13). I’d call this article—available online as pdf—a must read. Here’s an excerpt:
Isaiah 55:11 uses not logos but rhēma for “word” (the two mean the same thing). Moreover, like Ps. 33:6—which does use logos (and Gen 1 uses the verbal form of logos for “said”)—the “word” ‘spoken’ by YHWH is an example of personification, while John 1 personalizes “the Word”. How do I know for certain that “the Word” is a person in John 1? It is proven in the grammar. While logos can be either masculine or neuter, which can make John 1:1 ambiguous, in John 1:2, the first word is houtos, “this one”, a demonstrative pronoun in the masculine (and there are no textual variants here)—not neuter (touto), or feminine (autē). See NASB, which translates it as “He”, though with a footnote indicating “this one” is literal. And the historical person Yeshua Mashiach, Jesus Christ, is this same “Word” become flesh.
Now to answer your specific question a bit more completely, I do believe that John was writing in a Jewish and Hellenistic-Jewish setting. The word “word” had a range of meanings from a Jewish ‘orthodox’ (for lack of a better term) perspective and from a Hellenistic-Jewish perspective. Just like you and I today are part of a Judeo-Christian culture in our faith, we are both also part of the larger pagan culture in which we live, in the sense that we have an understanding of the larger culture, which for first century Jews would have been the larger Hellenistic culture (here I mean as opposed to Hellenistic-Jewish culture). So, just like Paul referenced Greek poets in Acts 17 (as an apologetic, evangelistic tool), as well as I Cor 15:33 and Titus 1:12, we shouldn’t think to restrict John to a strictly Jewish backdrop for his writings. Consider the Hellenistic influence upon Philo’s theology (see the Wikipedia entry for his logos), which I do think John also had in mind, not as a backdrop, but as an implicit apologetic against it. Philo’s logos was at times called theios logos, “divine word”, therefore, I opine, one of the reasons John phrased the third clause of John 1:1 as kai theos ēn ho logos is because theios, “divine”, could have been misconstrued as congruent with Philo’s theology. Hence, John had a multi-pronged purpose in using logos, “Word”, in my opinion.
Moreover, I think John also had in mind the Stoics, whose theology was such that logos was a universal rational principle permeating the world and present inside all human’s souls. While logos, essentially theos in their theology, was the active principle, matter was the passive. Thus, no Stoic could conceive of the logos actually becoming human. I believe this may be one of the reasons why John chose to use sarx for “flesh” in 1:14, which was a rather crude term (Paul used it over against ‘[living by] the Spirit’, the term translated in some versions as “sinful nature” rather than “flesh”), as opposed to, e.g., anthropos, “man”, or sōma, “body”. In any case, just the idea of logos becoming in any fashion a part of matter would have been totally contrary to Stoicism.
Another prevalent ideology in Hellenism was dualism (as apparent from the above re: Stoicism), and I think John used his own dualism as a means to indicate what ‘true dualism’ was. This is evident in the contrasts John employs in his Gospel, e.g., light/darkness, from above/from below, salvation/condemnation, good works/evil works, etc.
Circling back, I think Proverbs 8, and perhaps other extra-biblical Wisdom literature, could be in mind. However, nowhere does John use Sophia, “wisdom” in the prologue. Thus, this is not an exact parallel.
PS: I did see your follow up comment on Tertullian. I’m certainly not here to defend him. He even fell in for a time with with the errant Montanists. We are all fallible and prone to fall and fail.
I must make a correction. Logos is masculine, not masculine or neuter. And, pronouns must match the gender of the noun referred to. Rhēma, on the other hand, is neuter. Perhaps this is why logos was used and not rhēma in John 1.
Nonetheless, the context illustrates personalization of “the Word” in John 1:
(a) John 1:1c makes the claim that logos is theos, God. If one disputes that in some fashion, then a confirmation is found in the grammar of 1:14. The “glory” refers to the subject of the verse, which is logos; the grammar expressly does not make the Father the subject of the “glory”. If one is still not persuaded, we know that Word-made-flesh = Jesus Christ, the Son, and it is the Son who reveals the Father in 1:18. 1:14 referred to Word-made-flesh as monogenes, which means most literally ‘one of the same kind’ “with/from the Father”, and 1:18 calls him, by the textual evidence, monogenes theos, ‘one of the same kind, God’, in relation to the Father, or, if one is not persuaded by the textual evidence, monogenes huios, ‘one of the same kind, Son’, in relation to the Father, which amounts to the same thing. In other words, whether word-made-flesh is monogenes God, or Son makes little difference, as the key thing is the relation of monogenes to Father God. It takes a lot of explaining away to discount the overall evidence.
(b) If one follows “the Word” through, one will eventually get to 1:11, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him” (NASB). Substituting “it” in place makes little sense in this context: ‘It came to its own…its own did not receive it” If that’s not convincing, the next verse states, “those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God. Can this sort of claim be made about a message/word, etc.? If that’s not convincing, we get to 1:14 in which was seen “the glory” of “the Word”. Can this be said of a message/word, etc.?
HSB,
In doing some further research, I see I’d forgotten one important connection here (duh!): the Torah. Craig Keener, a Christian scholar, whose specialization is history of religion, has some fantastic insights (and cautions) which should be of interest to readers here. In his Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003, pp 338-363) he painstakingly goes through the evidence for the background of logos in John. However, before I go further, I wish to reiterate that this is not an either/or thing, rather it’s both/and. Just like we shouldn’t discount the implicit Hellenistic apologetic in John’s Gospel in acknowledging the Jewish background in logos Christology, the Jewish background cannot be divorced from the personification of the logos, and His ultimate hypostatization in the person of the Messiah. Regarding the latter, it is worth quoting Keener here:
blockquote>…The use of an image with which Jewish readers would be at least somewhat familiar—an image whose nuances included those of Wisdom, the Word, and Torah—allows John to communicate his conception of the divine, eternal revelation of the Father, but it is ultimately Jesus’ identity as a human being (John 1:14) that concretizes the abstract personification as a person in history (p 360).
Keener goes into more detail, illustrating how (citing work by Rodney Whitacre) Yeshua adhered to Torah perfectly, while his adversaries, who claimed to do same, actually did not. This illustrates yet another aspect of dualism in John’s Gospel.
I really think readers here should get access to Keener’s work for at least this part of his commentary. While he’s written a number of commentaries, it’s his work in historical background that is the most impressive.
In another comment you wrote, in part: Perhaps John is saying that God SPOKE, “anthropomorphically”. (see Hebrews 1:1). Word NEVER is capitalized in the Old Testament, the only Scriptures available to the early believers. What would the Bereans make of Word as opposed to word?
I think Hebrews 1:1 should be thought of as metaphorical rather than anthropomorphic. I think “prophets” should be seen as the OT (the Law and Prophets), as Moses was also considered a prophet, and the Pentateuch, consequently, is ‘prophecy’ in that regard. Thus, it’s the OT (“through the prophets”) in comparison to the NT (“through the Son”). God “spoke”, i.e., He communicated with us—not just by the spoken word, but through actions—using the vehicle of Word-made-flesh, “the Son”, the Messiah, as well as the written word, i.e, the NT writings. You rightly note that in the OT “word” in the phrase “word of the LORD” is never capitalized. This is precisely because it’s not another name for YHWH. The reason some translations capitalize “Word” (and “Light”) in John’s Gospel is that the term is construed as being a Divine ‘Person’.
Craig: thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do notice that Isaiah 55:11 refers to God’s “word” as an “it”. NOBODY reading this passage or hearing it read out loud would conclude that “word” had a personality distinct from Father God. Word is NEVER called he/him in the Scriptures that I know about (except John 1 in most, but not all translations. Tyndale 1534 and Geneva Bible both have “it” in place of “he” in John 1:3,4). Also, the person speaking in Isaiah 55:11 is YHWH (see verse 8). I would note that reference to “mouth” involves an anthropomorphism. You mention Philo and the extended Greek culture. I have not heard from you though about the Aramaic targums that, unlike Greek authors, were read weekly in the synagogues. Surely the 265 occasions I mentioned where the targum substitutes “word of the Lord” for an action of God when an anthropomorphism is in play in the books of Moses should be considered as possible background context to John 1, where the apostle follows the exact same pattern. Can you comment on this please. I doubt the Jews who heard John preach were experts on Greek philosophy or even knew about Philo, but they ALL would know the “word/word of the Lord” connection with the targums. Why does nobody seem to care at all about that?
I am unable to post the second part because the website concludes it is Spam (maybe AI has progressed further than I thought :). So I leave the part on “beginning” and will try again later. Let’s see if the third section gets through…
So where does all this lead? At this point in time I still believe that John is referencing creation in John 1:1 when he speaks to “the beginning”. But I ALSO believe that the disciples had a firm conviction that the “latter days” which they were experiencing ushered in a “new creation” (which Jesus inaugurated as a “new beginning”). Think of new “word spoken”, new “light dawning”, new “life emerging” which serves as a parallel to the Genesis story. That is what I think the writers are stressing. And I should add that according to Galatians we learn that James, Peter and John focused their ministry work on the Jews while Paul was “sent” to the Gentiles. Interesting that in almost all cases in Acts in which Paul preaches we find Gentiles who are attending the synagogues as “God fearers”. They are already seeking the God of Israel.
I still think that John speaks about the “word” as an agent in John 1:1 because he is using the Aramaic targum pattern his hearers were totally familiar with…namely that God has spoken in the Messiah AS IF He had Himself become a man (anthropomorphism). I still need to know from you why John stresses the “word” when commentators declare he was meaning God all along. Why not simply say “God became a man”? I mentioned that in my study of “word of the Lord” in the Hebrew Scriptures the plain meaning is “message”. Only in Psalms 33:6 and Isaiah 55:11 is there the suggestion of agency… but both these examples involve anthropomorphic expression (mouth). It is AS IF God were speaking out of a mouth. Yet we know that as spirit God does not have a mouth. The Hebrew language is rich in metaphor. Word is NOT a person in Tanach NOR the New Testament. I don’t think the Bereans would agree with you.
One final point…. As a child I was raised in an evangelical Baptist culture. I simply absorbed the doctrines I was exposed to. But over the years of personal study I became amazed that what was so “obvious” to us isn’t even mentioned in the Scriptures. I looked throughout the book of Acts for some indication that “God had been born in Bethlehem”, that God had according to one pastor “sent Himself to earth”. What I found was repeated references to Yeshua as being the Servant and the Messiah. I’m talking after the resurrection when the disciples ought to have known the “real deal”. Recall Jesus had just spent 40 days of personal training/instruction with them. In one of Skip’s postings there was some debate about the “Trinitarian formula” for baptism revealed in Matt 28:19. Yet the entire book of Acts with some eight or nine baptisms NEVER ONCE uses this formula, even though the events of Acts followed immediately after the ascension… but that is another topic. Just my ramblings… I still need to comment on your suggestion that Yeshua could be tempted as a man but at the same time unable to sin as God. Unless there is the potential to fall is it even a temptation? Not sure.
Regarding your thorough response on the grammar of my two “options” I am not “ready for the test” quite yet. Still studying. But I think you indicated option 2 is possible… sort of! Thank you for taking time to explore the full meaning of this text. May God bring us us all to full knowledge of Himself. Amen
I want to be sure that I respond fairly to you regarding the Targums, so would you mind providing just one or two good examples of what you are referring to?
As regards your parenthetical remark on the Tyndale 1534 and the Geneva’s use of “it” for John 1:3,4, that’s an interpretation which is at odds with the Greek. The personal pronouns are both in the masculine, which makes perfect sense as the referent is logos from verse 1. The demonstrative pronoun used in verse 2 is also masculine. But, those facts in and of themselves do not identify the ‘gender’ of “the Word” either way; however, I’ll have more to say about that in a separate comment.
Craig:Here are eight examples to get you started. I have a list of 265 that I have found. Let me know if you need a Targum source for Tanach. What follows has Tanach first then Targum Jonathan.
Gen 2:8 YHWH planted a garden…The Word of the Lord (WOTL) planted a garden; Gen 11:8 YHWH scattered them…WOTL was revealed against them; Gen 15:1 YHWH said I am your shield…My Word will be thy shield; Gen 26:4 YHWH said I am with you…said My Word is thy help; Ex 15:8 O YHWH at the blast of your nostrils…For by the WOTL the waters became heaps; Num 36:5 at YHWH’s bidding…by the WOTL; Deut 3:22 YHWH who will battle for you…for the WOTL fightest for you; Deut 28:22 YHWH will strike you…the WOTL will smite you.
Regarding the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles I suspect they both say “it” because that is the only way “Word” is expressed elsewhere in the Bible (both Old and New Testament). Can you give me an example otherwise. Isaiah calls it an “it”, Jesus does as well. I don’t speak Greek but know a little French. Window is “la fenetre”, the la meaning feminine. But in English we would say “it” when referring to a window, not “she”. I cannot debate Greek grammar but I have produced two expert witnesses Tyndale and Geneva Bible that did know some Greek…. and the authors as far as I know were all Trintarians.
HSB,
Thanks for providing some examples of Targums and how they relate to the corresponding text. Now I have a better idea. Regarding the Targums and their possible use as a specific motif, as a one-to-one correspondence, i.e., an anthropomorphic logos: (1) note that John doesn’t use logos specifically as “word of the LORD”—the logos was “with God” and the logos “was God”; (2) given that Jesus/Yeshua is an historic person, rather than an anthropomorphism, I don’t see this as an exact parallel. I would agree that it provides a background, except for Keener’s, comments:
Please understand that part of his criticism stems from his position that logos is personalized in John 1, and ultimately hypostasized in the ‘Person’ of Jesus Christ. This is as compared to personification, such as that found in creation in Romans 8:19-22. More on the former below.
Keener notes—rightly, I think—that “Word of the LORD” was a circumlocution for YHWH, with its intended purpose a way to refrain from speaking the Divine Name
Paul’s description in Colossians 1:15-20 is surely an explicit background for John 1. We can set aside for the moment the possible meaning of prōtotokos, “firstborn”, in verse 15; however, 16-17 provide clear evidence of preexistence. The subject is “the Son” (13), aka Jesus Christ (4), and in 16 we find that “for by/in [en] Him all things were created…all things have been created through [dia Him and for/in [eis] Him.” The specific Greek words panta di’ autou, “all [things] through Him” is the exact verbiage found in John 1:3. In 17 we find that “He is/exists before all things [pro panta], and in [en] Him all things hold together.” As I’ve noted before, the Greek verb tense for the words “hold together” is in the perfect, which means a continuous sustaining past, present and future, which would have included the time Yeshua walked the earth. Thus, the words pro panta [“before all (things)”] in this context provide the meaning for verse 15’s prōtotokos.
Now, we understand that Jesus, as a human, certainly didn’t exist prior to His earthly birth any more than you or I existed before our respective births. One could argue that “Christ” / “Messiah” as a title preexisted Jesus, but, of course, only Jesus/Yeshua is the Christ/Messiah. But, the context in Colossians clearly points to preexistence of “the Son”, aka Yeshua, as the agent of creation. Thus, in harmonizing these passages, en archȩ̄, “in the beginning” in John 1:1,2 and panta di’ autou, “all [things] through Him” in John 1:3 are indicative of ho logos’ preexistence with respect to creation, i.e, “the Word” is uncreated, and hence Divine; and, moreover, this provides evidence that the logos is a ‘Person’—a ‘Person’ distinct from ho theos of John 1:1b and “with God”, and this logos “was God” in John 1:1c.
Your thinking about French articles “la” and “le” is exactly correct. I could only speculate as to why the Tyndale and Geneva used “it”. All the modern versions use “him” in John 1:3, while they’re split in 1:2 between “him” and “this one”, the latter being the more literal translation of the demonstrative pronoun, though it is in the masculine. However, as illustrated above, “the Word” is a person, not an “it” in John 1, regardless of the use of “word” in other contexts.
Craig: how do you decide when the logos of God should be translated as “Word” or “word”, and “he” or “it”? You make an argument that the Greek of John 1 demands a “he/him”. I mentioned that Tyndale and Geneva Bible both have “it” for the word. I looked up Luke 11:28. In this verse Jesus is talking about people hearing the word of God (logon tou Theou) and observing….it (according to every modern translation I could find, as well as Tyndale, Geneva, even Wycliffe). So why did they all do that? Why is the “word” not “Word” and the “it” a “he” in these translations? Jesus could have said “hear the Word of God and obey Me”. Same for Luke 8:21. I think you will find that logon is accusative male singular in both cases. This is not a trivial question for me. Do not dismiss Tyndale and Geneva Bible too quickly. In the early verses of John 1 I believe word (of God) is clearly an “it” just like it is everywhere else in the Bible. Can you give me one example where word (of God) is a “he” in the Scriptures?
Craig: let’s look briefly at Colossians 1starting around verse 13. The contrast is made between two entities, the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light/Yeshua. Then there are a series of “all things”. In him all things were created (16), through him, by him. He is before all things (17); in him all things “subsist/hold together”(17). He will have preeminence/first place in all things (18) and through him reconcile all things (20). It seems to me that “all things” covers a huge territory. He is the beginning as well (18), the first-born of the dead. There is that special word “beginning”. 1 John the epistle uses “beginning” repeatedly to refer to Jesus’ earthly ministry. In the gospel it no doubt refers to an action by the Word in creation. My earlier suggestion was that John is outlining how Jesus represents a New Beginning, New light, New life, even New creation. So what does it mean in verse 17 about everything “holding together” in Jesus? The Greek is “synesteken”. Thayer’s talks about “commend, stand with, composed of” and the Helps Word studies indicates “stand together-referring to facts lining up with each other to support (commend) something.” Really? So maybe Paul is NOT saying that Jesus holds the universe together like some strong nuclear force but rather he “makes sense” of everything. In him things “line up’! But what about creation? Didn’t Paul say Jesus created everything in verse 16? Read the rest of the verse…whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. This is inserted between “in him” and “through, by him” in the SAME verse. So it seems to me that what Paul is talking about is the New Creation/New Beginning with Jesus who is first-born of the dead leading the way. Every one of the “things” has to do with authority systems (thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities) Jesus is sovereign over/above/before them ALL.
Clearly people come to different conclusions about what Paul and John understood and communicated in their writings. In my opinion they were proving Jesus/Yeshua was the MESSIAH of Israel, not the God of Israel… yet he represents the perfect plan of God in action. Just my paradigm.
Once again, we must look to relative contexts. If Colossians is referring to Jesus’ “new creation” as you assert (and I’ve seen this argument made elsewhere), then surely 1:15-20 would qualify “all things” as “all new things”. Yet it does not. Paul makes a blanket statement.
Were there not things in “heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” before Yeshua walked the earth? The verse is describing “all things”, to include the heavens, angels—good and now-fallen—and those who rule in the heavens or the earth.
That Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah was listed as a given right there in verse one of the epistle. The letter was written to the “faithful brothers”, i.e., believers (1:2), and Jesus was called “Lord Jesus Christ” in 1:3, the One in whom Paul’s recipients had their faith (1:4). So, this epistle was not making a case for Jesus’ Messiahship. Like all Paul’s letters it was one of a variety of instructions, this one, after initial greeting (1:2), thanksgiving (1:3-8), and prayers (1:9-14): (a) describing Christ’s supremacy; (b) detailing Paul’s labor for the Church and his concern for Colossae (1:24-2:7); (c) explaining what the Messiah’s sacrifice meant (2:8-15); (d) proclaiming freedom in Christ and warning against false teachers and teachings (2:8,16-23); (e) detailing rules for holy living (3:1-4:6); and, (f) closing.
Craig: If Paul had simply said “all things were created by Jesus” and moved on we would still not be sure what he was including. He could have explained it more fully by saying “all things, whether stars, or rocks or plants or people…” but he did not. He actually says whether (eite 1535) thrones, eite dominions, eite rulers, eite authorities. The conjunctions, it seems to me, focus the argument on authority structures. Some of these are on earth, some in heaven. After all that is the whole point of the passage… contrasting the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom with Jesus as head. Paul is not suddenly changing context to make statements about Jesus creating the universe and sustaining it. He is talking about a KINGDOM with governance. We can agree to disagree on this.
HSB,
But Paul did explain it. In verse 15 he says “all of creation”. In verse 16 he reiterates “all things were created by Him–things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible”. Clearly that encompasses all created things. Following that he specifies, in order to include the list of thrones, powers, rulers, as part of the “all things” he’d just mentioned, which is bracketed by his conclusion that “all things were created through Him and for/in Him”. It’s all-inclusive. Then “in Him all things hold together”.
I contend that you’re imposing your own thoughts upon the text. I’m simply drawing it out as I go.
Craig: I detect a bit of nastiness, but I hope it is not intended. I don’t think I’ve indicated that you are “imposing your own thoughts upon the text”. If I ever have I apologize. I think we simply differ on what “all things” means in verse 16. It seems to me that Paul in verse 15 is not talking about Jesus creating “all creation”. Rather he indicates Jesus is “firstborn of all creation”. (NIV says firstborn over all creation) That relates to status and authority, not origin of the universe. Back to verse 16. You seem to be saying that “all things” means literally …every single thing in the universe. I disagree. I think the context is kingdom authority… so that is why Paul goes on to define the all things as thrones, dominions, rulers, authorities. Let’s just agree to disagree. I am NOT trying to convince you of anything. We are all on a journey. I pray it leads you and me to truth. But I grew up in a culture where a whole lot of things connected with the Bible were “off limits”. Funny that when I told my sister- in- law that the word Christ is Greek for Messiah she said to me ‘You’re imposing your own ideas on the Scriptures’. Let’s move on…
No, sorry, that’s not my intention at all. I’m trying hard to write neutrally, which isn’t easy due to the one-dimensional nature of the written word, especially in blog comments.
If I felt things were ‘off limits’, I wouldn’t have continued to comment here, and I’m sure anger would have welled up. I assure you, that’s not the case here.
I should have prefaced that statement “With all due respect”, but even that can come off as trite, or sarcastic.
Again, sorry, I’m not intending to offend.
Craig: Great. thanks. I find it best to simply say :This where I’m at… or This is what I believe. I try and avoid second guessing what others are trying to do, even if I disagree. Having said that, I kept my side of this discussion going this far to learn things. I respect your comments and have learned from them. Thanks for helping me understand your point of view.
HSB,
Thanks. Yes, same here–I always learn by engaging in ‘discussions’, though I’m sure in an in-person real-time exchange would be much more profitable. It would remove that one-dimensionality inherent in online discussions.
I now saw your post about the cards. I’m sure I would’ve missed the same thing. I think this is the same reason why eye-witness testimony is no longer held in the esteem with which it had formerly. I know that for myself I do much better by reading, then reflecting, then re-reading. I don’t do that well just listening to lectures. I won’t learn much. Not sure why. It may be that I get bogged down in one point, reflect on that point, and then miss the ensuing instruction.
I want to post something further on the larger context of Colossians, but I want to get ‘out of the weeds’, so to speak; so, I’ll start a fresh comment, which will end up at the bottom. I’m no longer receiving notification on follow up comments here, anyway.
I should add, having established Christ as agent of creation of all things, the “firstborn” over all creation (1:15-17), Paul uses this background to assert that Messiah is the Head of the Church, the “firstborn” from among the dead (1:18). He’s making a delineation, not making equative statements.
HSB,
One mustn’t blanketly imposing one meaning upon a term. It’s the relative context that brings forth meaning. Both Luke contexts are very different from John 1, the latter describing One Who was/is “God” (1:1c), which the parallel passage in Colossians 1:15-20 confirms. In Luke, Jesus is not self-referencing; He’s just making a statement about what constitutes His “mother and brothers” (8:21) and what makes one “blessed” (11:28). Most often, when Jesus self-references He uses “the Son of Man”.
Craig: but you said earlier Oct 9 1:01am “Logos is masculine, not masculine or neuter. And, pronouns must match the gender of the noun referred to.” Obviously they don’t have to… given the examples I cited in Luke 8 and 11. Clearly the context IS important, and I am sure you agree. Regarding “word” in the first few verses of John it seems perfectly reasonable to say “it” for the various reasons I have mentioned already. (note: I think you meant to say masculine, not feminine or neuter… a minor typo I think). I am happy if we simply agree there are a variety of views on this. Also you like Keener’s work. (I must say I love his name) when he cautions “Despite protestations that the Memra must be an early component of Aramaic targumic tradition, all our extant evidence is too late to allow us to be certain that Memra was used in a particular manner in the first century.” I guess we could say the same about the New Testament manuscripts. Do any of them date to the first century? I was using Jewish sources that Aramaic was in general use back then, and the targums were read weekly. No doubt the specific content has shifted over the years, with compilations and additions, just like the Talmud.
HSB,
Regarding gender, I’m speaking of the Greek, not English translation.
As regards John 1, in some ways interpretation is dependent upon how one exegetes the Greek of John 1:1c (“and the Word was God” — something I’ll have more to say on separately); however, when one takes the parallel passage in Colossians 1:15-20 at face value–without imposing any sort of paradigm upon it–then harmonizes the two texts, the meaning becomes much clearer. Moreover, (again, more on this in a bit), the larger context of John 1, to include the remainder of the prologue (to verse 18) help complete the picture.
The New Testament documents are dated by a number of factors, to include the internal evidence based upon historical setting, clues, and the like. As a sort of analogy, we don’t have ‘originals’ of Homer’s Odyssey, but we have a very good idea of original composition given Homer’s period of life on this earth. The Targums are not so easy to date internally, I’m going to presume–which makes sense to me as they aren’t relating historical facts, they’re commentary on Scripture.
So, to use HSB’s story of the playing cards, he is used to the deck that calls Yeshua an agent, and Craig is used to a deck that calls Him God. But what I want to know is, WHO KEEPS THROWING THOSE ODD CARDS THAT CAN”T BE SEEN BY EITHER VIEWPOINT IN??
I think that I see this argument being about the form of agent vs. the form of God, and never the two can meet (except Craig says they do) but both sides agree that the function of Yeshua is essentially limited by the form of choice. Both sides agree that He can ONLY act as agent (or God/agent, take your pick). But what if Yeshua is defined by His actions (function) instead of His actions being limited by what He is? In other words, if He walks like a…. then we call Him a….
The odd cards in the text that both sides say they see (but can only see through their respective lens) that are thrown in this deck are what I am interested in, however, but we may have to start over with the questions first before they can really be ‘seen’ by either side. I see very interesting functions in those cards that may give huge clues as to Who Yeshua is as well as to Who God is, but if we keep trying to strain them through the preset forms we have determined for both, we may end up being able to see neither.
That’s what I want to say.
If anyone missed it, I mentioned a “card game” in the Punctuation Removed thread. See the entry at October 12, 7:02am. I grew up in a Baptist paradigm so I am pretty familiar with those “cards” and their respective values. We sang Holy, holy, holy…God in three persons, blessed Trinity! Quite often! Over the years I came to the conclusion that the Jews have been rejecting a paradigm of Jesus that in fact was remarkably Greek in nature. The Hebraic perspective is certainly different. In my further studies I came to the startling conclusion that none of the New Testament writers had any concept of a ‘trinity’ or tri-unity nature of God or the deity of the Messiah. It might be very useful indeed to identify the key gaps between Hebrew and Christian world views. Even the latter changes over time. I recall as a child that every Christian funeral I attended stressed the “hope of the resurrection”. But over the last few years I have repeatedly heard of how the dearly departed saint is already enjoying heaven, even in some case “looking down” upon our activities. Nobody mentions the resurrection of the saints anymore. In all fairness I am not even sure who or what defines the Christian paradigm, if there is one, or several. Hundreds of evangelical leaders write the President arguing opposite sides of support for Israel.
Years ago I spoke with Moshe Kempinski in Jerusalem. Skip has met with Moshe on occasions. I told him I thought everybody would be shocked when the Messiah arrived. How so? The Jews will be surprised that Messiah is in fact Yeshua of Nazareth. But the Christians will be surprised because the Messiah will be an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. LOL Time will tell, won’t it? Many Christian theologians have indicated that if the potential “Messiah” re-establishes Mosaic Law then we know for certain that individual is the anti-Christ. A dear friend of mine asked if it was possible that the authentic Messiah might arrive but be mistaken for the “Anti-Christ”.What card colour is that one? Wow! Chew on that.
I for one really appreciate Skip’s knowledge, insights and his willingness to provide a forum for discussion for differing points of view. I can’t keep up with the speed of daily topics that he introduces. Over the years I have led many trips to Israel travelling through the “West Bank” frequently. One time I took along a work colleague and his wife. I asked him after four days how they were enjoying the trip. He said immensely, but they were still trying to process even the first day. We shifted gears daily…just like Skip’s topics. I guess the race goes to the “fleet of foot” and us retired folks struggle to keep up.
Laurita, I did mention to Craig that I thought there is a potential overlap in views. I believe that messiah’s arrival (and return) actually are the “coming of God” to be “with us”…anthropomorphically of course
Laurita,
So, do I understand you to think there may be a both/and, which is a bit, shall I say, ‘stronger’ than the position I’m putting forth? One that entails a unified person based on function, discounting any preconceptions over ‘form’?
I am still trying to switch my head over to another way to see, so I am not actually camped out right now on a viewpoint, although I have some I am trying to see what the ‘wrongness’ is, and some I am trying to defend, or see the ‘rightness’ of, but all of it is getting mashed in my mortar and pestle right now. When you see me say something, it is because I am fishing for responses, particularly critical ones, because I am trying to adjust the steering. Nothing is set in stone for me, even though I have perfect faith that the Stone is there and set quite well!
To answer your question, I look at myself. I see a body, brain and self awareness, or, soul. But they are all me! Without my body, I would have no self awareness, for the sense of self, science is now starting to suspect, starts in the body proper and then gets communicated to the brain. ‘I’ cannot exist without all my facets, nor can they, for that matter, but they are all ME.
So, what exactly is ‘me’? I am the function happening BETWEEN all the above. We in the West focus on the forms, but they do not reality make. When man “became a living soul”, that action transformed elements into person. The function of the self made Adam’s clay into Adam. The clay form; even the Breath; was not Adam. :Adam was superimposed as a “living soul” onto those parts, and they BECAME him. The English that says he became a living soul is backwards in its description of the process, I am beginning to suspect.
This conversation between you two is particularly important for me because I have felt woefully lacking in the scholarly ability to parse these verses. Please continue; both of you! This is exhibit A of why Skip’s site is so important for me! I am going to sit down tomorrow and copy both out in note and chart form. along with the Greek, and finally get a good grip. Thank you both so much again. Keep it up!
I’d like to engage a bit further, but I’ll be very busy at work today, and out of pocket for quite a bit. I’ve been slowly going through John’s prologue, and I’m finding lots of nuggets.
I heard Ravi Zacharias a while back correcting Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” to “I think, therefore I think”. One must keep in mind that Ravi grew up with a Hindu (Eastern) mindset, yet now he does Christian apologetics…
Craig, this is addressed in the book Descartes Error (which outlines a whole bunch of his errors!) by saying that he should have said “I am, therefore I think”. Self awareness happens outside the brain, but without it, the brain cannot think.
I think the East suffers from a knee jerk reaction to the West, which is to say they still don’t have it right, either. We took the brain (form, or, body manifestation) part of Descartes, but they took what we both call the spirit part and work so hard to leave the body behind!
What if we took what both sides call “spirit” and called it “function” instead? Now, that would REALLY mess up the go-to-heaven-when-you-die crowd in the West, but it also messes up the necromancy crowd. Oops, I think I just stepped on some Eastern toes, too, for they all – pretty much – worship their dead.
You see I am starting over. There are huge holes in what I am now starting to consider a flesh approach in BOTH East and West when it comes to understanding the things of God, He says we must understand it from the viewpoint of the Spirit first, so I am trying, but what if the flesh approach to understanding that Spirit is what we are traveling on here in the West, too, and just don’t recognize it? It is highly suspicious to me that both West and East concur on what ‘spirit’ must be. That is what has been tripping my trigger. I feel I am looking in the window of Animal Farm and watching pigs and people but am unable to tell the difference.
Laurita,
There are large gaps in my knowledge base, e.g., I don’t know much at all about philosophers, so (a) I don’t know much about Descartes, and (b) I’d no idea there was a book length critique of his various positions.
In a previous comment you wrote: The clay form; even the Breath; was not Adam. :Adam was superimposed as a “living soul” onto those parts, and they BECAME him. The English that says he became a living soul is backwards in its description of the process, I am beginning to suspect.
Given your line of inquiry, you may find something I recently wrote on Jesus ‘giving up the pneuma‘ on the Cross and Him ‘laying down His psyche‘ (John 10:17-18). Though I don’t generally like to point away from here to my own work, this one is pertinent to the discussion. In any case, I note a point of connection with Gen. 2:7 in the article, as well, concluding that the language found in Yeshua’s death is like the reverse of Gen 2:7.
The easiest way for me to denote it here without using a link and for you to find it is to instruct you to go here: notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com. Then scroll down to “It is Perfectly Finished, Part II”. While you may find the first section of some interest, the part pertinent to your statement begins with the last two paragraphs of that first section, and if you read on from there, you’ll see why I directed you to it.
That was helpful, Craig. I enjoyed the read. Thank you for being an actual take-it-as-it-says and go from there. We don’t know. That’s for sure. Skip is right there.
Warning: highly speculative non-essential material below.
If function precedes form, then we could think that the clay (elementally constructed) body (form) of Yeshua was temporarily left out of that function (let’s call that function the Spirit of God, just for fun) at His death, perhaps, and looped back in later? If His temporal human form was an ADDITION to an already functioning Entity (which is how I read Father/First-begotten Son), then that Entity would not collapse without it; however, it would collapse without the function (Spirit) of that Entity.
The way I think I may see it now, perhaps, in our resurrection, the function of our identity (which is held in abeyance by the One in Whom our identity is completed) will effect its form (“raised to immortality” of body) once more, and we will, once again, “become a living soul”. In the interim of our “sleep” (unconsciousness) He remembers us, but, as Job says, we don’t remember Him, for our soul (consciousness) needs a body to originate that awareness, or, function, for our self to be a self, for that is our created design.
In other words, if function originates in the space in between, then there needs to be somethingS (more than one thing such as a body, say) for it to function BETWEEN, or, to effect a unity. My “living soul” is obviously such a unity. If life (Spirit/function) did not flow from God to me (as well as all creation), “I” would not exist, for example. (This is why we need grace to stay alive. Grace is needed to keep the breath in our rebelliously fractured selves, that’s for sure.) “Me” is never singular on any level, that is quite clear to me, anyway.
It is clear that function only happens between. If the Spirit of God is indeed His function, then that Spirit will never be found except in between, either. Function does not free float, or, exist in the singular (so much for disenfranchised, disembodied spirits). Seems to me you would need a Greek ideal form to do that.
Sorry for the muddy muddling.
Your first paragraph under “highly speculative” is describing Christian orthodoxy. To go further, at the very moment of Yeshua’s conception–and not a nanosecond later–He was animated, brought to life, by the Word. Otherwise, we’d have adoptionism: the Word ‘adopted’ a human person. Comparatively, the rest of humanity is brought to life by the “pnoēn zōēs, “breath of life” (presumably) at the very moment of conception.
I won’t disagree with your other speculations, as they make sense of the data as I see it.
Laurita,
Something else you’ll surely find of interest: In a book I read a few years ago—Micheal Parsons’ Body and Character in Luke and Acts: The Subversion of Physiognomy in Early Christianity (I reviewed this @ Amazon and on my blog)—the author notes the practice in antiquity of judging a person based upon outward physical charactistics because of a belief that the “soul” affects the body, and, conversely, the body affects the “soul”. A despicable character is illustrated by an unattractive physical appearance, and, on the other side, being unattractive will lead to bad character traits. The converse is true for beautiful people. Hence, function affects form, and form affects function.
The author’s main point is that Luke and Acts do not use physiognomy when discussing certain Biblical characters so as not to unduly influence the reader. In so doing, the Biblical author subverts the paradigm.
I read your synopsis, and it was helpful. Thank you.
If the body represents choices past (not all of them ours, even, as the choices of those before us and around us also affect us) and the state of the spirit is, likewise, affected by the state of the body, then the world is indeed unfortunate, as it is stuck in what is.
Faith, however (which Luke was obviously exercising), returns us to paths of probability that do NOT hinge on choices past. Bodies can reveal this transformation and spirits can soar again when the curses of choices past are removed through the power of repentance and forgiveness.
Faith can see through the eyes of the future to what SHOULD BE. This is the essence of the Golden Rule, too, for love “thinks no evil”. We are told “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he”. That is bad news to the flesh, but good news to the faith. Halleluah!
Laurita, Craig, HSB, and others thank you all!!! two hours of reading all the comments,looking up definitions and references with a couple quotes from another I read and study H, Smith… has maxed me out for the eve. I am truly Full and thankful for all that everyone offers as insight and perspective, Today was a great Shabat in that Janice and I were invited to the home of some Buddhists/atheist/ gentiles. “They have heard and seen our lives and want to know us on a more personal basis”, their words. Please pray for us as we will know how to speak with love from a pure heart, and listen with discernment . We have been here just 3 years and continue to plant and water, pray that YHVH will be pleased to produce fruit as we abide in Yeshua, We love each of you
Craig,I am back tracking now. You referred to Christ being the medium to creation. I agree with this. I understand Christ to be the word of God which was the medium of his creation. I also understand this to be the power and wisdom of God.
If I read this in Eph 4 the message is that this medium links all hope and glory towards God.
Now Jesus on the other hand is the son of man. Why would this imply Jesus did all the miraculous things while it could have been God’s medium working through him.
As explained it seems that the resurrected body had no resemblance to the crucified one. Then the second problem I have is that Paul confuses the audience by using both forms of address to refer to the Messiah. Would this’d not be an irrigation that the NT is all about the empowered by God rather than a specific individual… Just some more concussion.
Seeker,
Just so that I’m clear on your question, which two terms did Paul use for Jesus? He didn’t use “the Son of [the] Man” (Hebrews uses the term–but this book’s author is unknown–as “the son of man” once, but this is a quotation of Psalm 8:4).
Craig, Paul refers to Jesus the Christ then changes it aroundl referring to Christ Jesus or using the terms separately.
Seeker,
OK, now I see what you mean. Be careful there, as one must not understand “Jesus” as separate from “Christ” (see 1 John 2:22 in conjunction with 1 John 4:2-3—Laurita and I had a recent discussion on this, but I don’t recall which TW it was on). They both refer to one and the same person. When Jesus refers to himself as “the Son of [the] Man” (in Greek both articles are used the: ho huios tou anthrōpou) He is not speaking strictly about His humanity—this is a very common misperception—He’s speaking about His whole person. Many times the phrase can be interchanged with “I” to the same effect (“When the Son of Man comes…”). In the Tanakh/OT, “son of man” was common phraseology for a human (the phrase never had both articles, as opposed to how Jesus used it of Himself). There’s no doubt some sort of connection between the OT “son of man” and Jesus’ “the Son of [the] Man”, but they must be understood as distinct terms with different meanings. (I wrote a very long—and technical—piece on this that one can find by searching “the Son of God given authority to judge because He is ‘human’”. It argues that John 5:27 should be translated “son of man”, i.e. “human”, since neither article is present, instead of “the Son of Man” as all English translations render it.)
“Christ”, “Messiah” is a title, but this title is only applied to Jesus of Nazareth, and He was “the Christ” from the very beginning. He did not later acquire the title, though is a very common Gnostic / New Age assertion.
Thus when the NT uses “Jesus” it means “Jesus Christ”, when “Christ” is used it means “Jesus Christ”, and when “Christ Jesus” is used it’s just another way of saying the same thing. Also, when “the Son of Man” is used it refers to “Jesus Christ”. These terms are all for the same person.
The bottom line: don’t think that “Christ” means the Word/logos. These terms are never specifically correlated. But, Jesus Christ is Word-made-flesh. Stated another way, the Word was “in the beginning”, and later “the Word became flesh”, and this Word-made-flesh is the person of Jesus Christ (See John 1:14-17).
Craig thank you. I argued this point the same as you are and was told that the position of the word determines the emphasis. Christ Jesus would imply emphasis on Christ. While Jesus Christ places the emphasis on Jesus. The extra Greek has helped. Thank you.
Let me say that I hadn’t done any sort of study specifically on this, though, I recall off-hand reading that “Jesus Christ” and “Christ Jesus” are interchangeable. But, on the surface, what you were told is correct: “fronting” Christ over Jesus may indicate emphasis. Just taking a quick look through Ephesians I see that Paul DOES tend towards “Christ Jesus” (but see 1:5), and, when “Jesus” is first it’s usually “Lord Jesus Christ”. But, I would see this as possibly a stress on Messiahship, but not over against Jesus as a human being. It seems to me to be more like ‘the Messiah is Jesus’ as compared to ‘Jesus is the Messiah’. I suppose it’s possible that Paul wanted to stress Messiahship to the Ephesians for some reason.
But, the key thing, of course, is that Jesus/Yeshua is the Christ/Messiah. The two are not to be separated.
The individual who is making this statement to you, is s/he apt to speak about “the anointing”? In other words, is there a stress at all in any of his/her teachings about “the anointing”?
Re: Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ, Universalist A.E. Knoch wrote this
Just as “President So-and-So” indicates that he is actually exercising the office, so it is with Christ Jesus. There is no question in the minds and hearts of all believers that Jesus is the Christ. But He will not be Christ Jesus on earth until He is seated on the throne of David, as Ruler over all the nations. Only those who recognize His present exaltation in the heavens can well call Him Christ Jesus now, except in anticipation. The evangels all look forward to His exaltation (Acts 5:42) . . . We hail Him as the Highest in the heavens. He is the Ruler there. To us “Jesus Christ” speaks of His humiliation, Christ Jesus of His present celestial glory.
The notable fact about this title is its almost exclusive use by Paul (70x) . . . he uses it five times in three verses. Such a concentration of a single title is unknown elsewhere in the whole range of Holy Writ. Ephesians and Colossians were written by the apostle, and Philippians by the slave of Christ Jesus. All three epistles were written to the saints, but further limited in Ephesians by the phrase, “Who are also believers in Christ Jesus,” and in Philippians by the simple “in Christ Jesus.” Is not this overwhelming evidence that it is the hallmark, which not only indicates Christ’s glory but is especially used to differentiate between those who merely recognize Jesus as Israel’s future king, but emphasizes His present exaltation, and the celestial blessings of the nations?
Daniel Kraemer,
That’s an interesting position by A.E. Knoch—To us “Jesus Christ” speaks of His humiliation, Christ Jesus of His present celestial gloryo—but I’m not sure it holds up under Scriptural scrutiny. First, for any reader that doesn’t know, Christ’s “humiliation” is the time of His birth up to the moment just before the resurrection; the glorification begins with His resurrection. While most of Paul’s letters begin with a reference to “Christ Jesus”, in Galatians 1:1 Paul is sent by “Jesus Christ and God the Father”, and we know that S/Paul was commissioned by the risen “Jesus” on the Damascus road. Similarly, Titus begins with “Paul, a slave/servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ”. (And Ephesians 1:1 has a number of manuscripts with “Jesus Christ” instead of the reverse.)
But I must ask Knoch, Is Jesus not exercising His Messiahship right now (Romans 8:34, e.g.)?
Seeker,
I recall you are in South Africa. Have you been influenced at all by the teachings of Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Bill Johnson, and/or others in a similar vein at any time in your past?
You have a good memory. ? Unfortunately I do not know these individuals as was part of a very closed apostolic movement. Based on Margaret Campbell’s 1836 prophecies.
The Rhema group never heard any of their teachings.
It’s called “The Rhema group”? That’s a red flag to me. The typical (false) teaching is that “rhema” is the spoken word, while “logos” is the written word. This is not true, as the two overlap quote a bit. This is endemic to Word of Faith teaching, which is clearly not Scriptural on a number of levels. This is why I just asked about “the anointing”, as this is part of the Word of Faith teaching.
Thank you for the warning…
Daniel and Craig
Thank you for sharing and discussing with so much dedication. Craig I accept the tittle or rather for me the task version of Jesus to be the Christ. And I dare say yes Paul would probably be the best witness to this power as he was personally transformed by its presence… The other disciples knew it was possible but only experienced the Jesus in action…
Then the mediator and anointing in. Or may I say the baptizing into Christ an action that only God does under the covenant of cleansing and becoming our God. Not Jesus… As in Christ we become one in Jesus we trust and believe. This kind of reveals the fullness or as on the previous blogs the completeness of the Christ. Word in flesh…
Again I still have question on the resurrected Jesus… It was not in the same human form making Skip’s view of this happening throughout the generations in the referencing of man of God. Should we seek this man of God the Jesus or should we wait the baptism into Christ?
Seeker,
I hope the following does not confuse, as I wish to use these quotes as illustration of prevalent false teachings. The first comes from Levi Dowling (The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, Marina del Rey, CA; DeVorss, 1964 [1904]), whose work is lauded by proponents of current New Age / New Spirituality teachings, which is actually just a rehashing of 2nd century Gnosticism:
The error here is that statement that Jesus was not always the Christ (this is one of the reasons I’m wary of the words of A. E. Knoch above). When did Jesus become the Christ, according to Levi Dowling? When He was “christed” at baptism—another HUGE error. But, this is consistent with 2nd century Gnosticism, as exemplified by the apocryphal/gnostic The Gospel of Philip. In the following the unknown author uses chrism rather than the correct word chrisma, which means “anointing” (used in 1 John 2:20 and 2:27[twice] only in the entire NT):
Thus, according to the false teaching within these two works, Jesus became the Christ just after His baptism when the Spirit/dove came upon Him. And, being the example for others to follow, we too are to be “christed” (anointed). This is essentially what’s behind the Word of Faith teachings. According to this false doctrine, we all become ‘christs’ via “the anointing”.
This is why we must be careful in our understanding of Christ, and our understanding of what it means to be “in Christ”.
Seeker, keep seeking. Read carefully Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15. You’ll see the correlation between Jesus’ resurrection and His new body and our resurrection and our new bodies.
But read Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, and Ehrman, How Jesus Became God. Not gnostic but interesting accounts of the history of this development. I am not in agreement with a lot of Ehrman’s work, but he raises some challenging points. As for Rubinstein, his is an historical review of the development of the doctrine, and I find it very informative. He has no theological axe to grind so his work is very balanced. Raises even more questions about this issue.
As for WHEN the Messiah became the Messiah, Luke seems to place the telling event at the birth, Matthew at the baptism, Paul at the resurrection – but all note that this plan was in the mind of God long before, so there are several streams that add to the question. And furthermore, don’t forget the cultural and social context. See Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab
Skip,
While I’m familiar with some of Erhman’s work (not this one), and not with the others, I’ll disagree with what I see is your major point. Matthew specifically states that Mary is to name her son “Jesus”, which in Hebrew, as you acknowledge, means YHWH saves. Thus, Matthew identifies Jesus as the Messiah/Christ from the beginning. As regards Paul, if you mean his references to Psalm 2:7, this is to recognize His coronation as King (as Psalm 2 is a psalm of coronation for Davidic kings), not as signifying the starting point of His Messiahship. I don’t think Paul addresses this issues of when Jesus’ Messiahship began. However, though I know you’d argue this, Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15-20 establish Yeshua’s Deity (and Titus).
I think Raymond Brown (though I disagree with a number of his positions) was on track to note that the understanding of the Deity of Christ took hold progressively in the first century, evidenced by those Scriptures which more overtly declare His Deity being present in books composed later in the century (see “Does the New Testament Call Jesus God?” [available as online pdf]). It seems that John wrote his Gospel with this specifically in mind. I understand there’s some debate in some of the passages, but one cannot escape the fact that “the Jews” understood Yeshua to be making a claim of equality with God, seeking to kill Him for this (John 5:16-18).
Craig, you wrote
According to this false doctrine, we all become ‘christs’ via “the anointing”.
I would not argue that we all become “christ” to the same degree as Yeshua was the Christ, the Messiah, but I think it is plain that Believers are referred to as the anointed, which is to say, the Christ-ed (?). Is this heresy?
Let me establish the foundation. As you know, the equivalent Hebrew word is Mashach. It is found 75 times in the Old Testament and while it is most often associated with the elevation of the High Priest or king, there is another group of people who are referred to as anointed and it seems plain to me these anointed are the common people of Israel.
Ps 28:8 NASB The LORD is their strength, And He is a saving defense to His anointed.
Psa 89:38 NASB But You have cast off and rejected, You have been full of wrath against Your anointed.
Hab 3:13 NASB You went forth for the salvation of Your people, For the salvation of Your anointed.
1Ch 16:22 NASB Do not touch My anointed ones, And do My prophets no harm.”
In the New Testament, Paul uses the word Christ around 400 times. In the vast majority he specifically joins it with Jesus, and even when he doesn’t, from the context we know he is referring to Jesus. But on occasion, I think it is plain he is referring to the anointed Believers. (Note [the] definite article in the Greek.)
1Co 1:13 NASB “Has [the] Christ been divided?”
Is Jesus divided between Paul, Peter and Apollo? Of course not, it is the people, the Believers, the anointed, who are divided. Not Jesus Christ.
1Co 12:12 NASB For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is [the] Christ.”
Don’t we all agree the “Body of Christ” means the “body of Believers”? So why pretend “the Christ” here means the body of Jesus when we all understand it otherwise?
1Co 4:15 NASB For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ . .”
Is this not referring to countless tutors among the Believers? What else could it mean? Countless numbers of Jesus tutoring you?
Eph 4:12 NASB for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of [the] Christ;”
Does Jesus’ body need a work out, or does the community of the Saints require strengthening in having different people for different jobs?
Eph 4:13 NASB until we all attain to the unity of the faith . . . to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of [the] Christ.”
Who is maturing here? Does Jesus need maturing, or, the anointed Believers?
Psa 2:2 NASB The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed,
Act 4:26 NASB ‘THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS [the] CHRIST.’
Act 4:26 is a quote of Ps 2:2. Are they talking about YHWH and His Jesus, or about His anointed people?
(I can go on with many more.)
So, when you read “Christ”, consider if it could mean the Believers.
Daniel,
With all due respect, those NT contexts all refer to Christ the person. This is precisely why the article (the) is included in those contexts. The collective of believers are only so in relation to [the] Christ. In 1 Cor 1:13 Paul is being hyperbolic in asking whether Christ Jesus Himself is divided among Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. The remainder of verse 13 makes it clear that this is referring to Christ Himself: “Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” In Acts 4:26, once again, the context indicates that ‘YHWH and His Christ/Anointed One’ is the referent, rather than believers–see 4:27.
As for the OT usage of “anointed”, the OT uses “anointed” and its cognates differently, as compared to the NT. In the NT, each and every time, bar none, that “Christ” (christos) is used it refers to Jesus and no other.
But I think you are missing my larger point. Only Jesus is the Messiah, and Jesus was established as such from the very beginning. He didn’t receive this designation in some subsequent “anointing”. And as I’ve pointed out earlier, the specific word for “anointing” (chrisma) is used only in John’s first epistle, once in 2:20 and twice in 2:27. John’s point is that believers have an “anointing” from “the Holy One”. This is clearly a reference to the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:21-22 [chriō, a cognate of christos, related to chrisma, is used]; Eph 1:13-14).
Jesus did not receive His Messiahship just after His water baptism when the Spirit came down ‘as a dove’.
Craig,
I agree with you on the larger point but I’ll still content on the finer.
2Co 1:21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,
So, with this and the two verses in 1 John 2, we all agree that Believers are anointed. You also state “christ” and “anoint” are just different forms of the same root word. So if Jesus is anointed and called the Christ, I say, so are Believers, who are anointed, are also said to be in the small “c” christ.
This is only saying that Believers are in the group of anointed people of God. If the verse read that we are in Jesus Christ, or, Christ Jesus, I could not make this assertion, but several times one will find “Jesus Christ” and “Christ” in the same or nearby verse, which leads one to question, why the distinction? (see this in verse 19 above).
Here is another example that solves a strange verse.
1Ti 5:11 KJV But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
What is this saying? That young Believing widows will eventually grow lustful against Christ and will want to marry? Does that make sense? As it does not, translations add words to make it mean what they think it should mean (and they are guessing).
What it should say, and makes more sense, is when young widows wax wanton TOWARD Christ, they will marry. (!!) Doesn’t that make even less sense? Not if we understand Christ as being men in the body of christ. Paul is just saying, these young widows should not make a lifelong vow to the Church for eventually they will have a normal sexual desire for one of the men of the anointed and they will want to get married.
Daniel, Craig and Skip thank you for this in depth alternative viewing of Christ. Becoming the anointed like Cyprus in Isaiah 45. Or even Jeremiah in Jer 1. Or just maybe as Amos… All called by God no intermidia from other humans. Therefore the baptism didn’t make him Christ so it could have been the 40 days purification that does it…
HSB,
I awoke very early this morning, deciding to head out for some breakfast. I had NPR on the radio, which was doing a somewhat light-hearted, though technical discussion on cats, specifically about the velocity of a cat falling, and a cat’s natural instinct to turn around feet first, yet at a certain point–when free-falling–said cat will completely spread out, front legs splayed forwards, back legs backward. I didn’t know that.
In any case, my point for bringing this up is that the speakers were discussing the number of cats that plummet from windows–a number I thought quite high–and in their discussion someone used the term defenestration in reference to the thought of throwing cats out of windows for testing (they were joking), upon which one of the speakers said, “there’s a word for that?” (throwing out of windows). I’d never heard of the term, however I immediately recalled your example of “la fenetre”, thinking “that’s where the term comes from!” (French). I took French in high school, but have forgotten much more than the little I’d learned.
the Physics involved with cats in freefall is incredibly interesting (angular momentum, torque issues etc) I had no idea that folks threw them out windows on a regular basis or that there was a formal term associated therewith. Do they say the French equivalent of “curtains for you” as they do the toss? PS I will likely go “dark” for a few days. Off to do grandparenting in Vancouver while my daughter and son-in-law celebrate his 40th birthday in the Big Apple. Her sister did a trip to Las Vegas two years ago. She and hubby rented a Harley and had a wonderful time touring around. I cringe at the thought of young people (or older ones for that matter) getting gunned down for attending a country music concert. So sad!!!!
They were talking about cats apparently falling from windows–at alarming rates, it seems to me. The one guy just made a joke about throwing them out for ‘science’, using that term. You should look at the etymology for the term (I did only after I posted the comment above). It’s from the Latin originally–though the French obviously ‘borrowed’ it–but it was coined after two radical Protestants threw some Catholics out of a window into a moat! This was known as the “Defenestration of Prague”, thus beginning the Thirty Years’ War.
One never knows what might be learned from reading the comments here! Who knew this action had a single word to describe it?!
I texted this to my 16 year old nephew, “Word of the day: defenestration”. He immediately responds, “to throw someone out of a window. I love it.” He’d learned it in 8th grade at the private school he goes to. Hmmm. I felt ‘small’. At least he didn’t know how the term was first coined…
On a serious note, he’s a very intelligent kid, and his strength is most definitely language (I’m a VERY late bloomer, and I think he’d have no trouble ‘catching up’ to me on things he does not yet know). When he was 8 or so, I was amazed at how robust his vocabulary was. If I would use a word he didn’t know, he’d ponder it, ask for clarification if necessary, then use that term at the next opportunity in order to add it to his working vocabulary. I wish I’d had that desire to learn when I was younger.
I have no idea why the blockquote didn’t work–it’s correct in the Word doc I copied from. The citation stops after “(p 360).”
Thank you a reference to further study material. And the painstaking effort put into discuss the questions.
You and skip should really work together on a book in the form of a dialogue as Job it may help us others understand things a little easier…
This one resonates for me. I was raised by a brilliant intellectual snob who was a perfectionist yet a believer in Jesus. She put a poster on the back of our front door “will it matter that I was”. Meaning we had to go into the imperfect world with our faith and brilliance and make it right. Well it is not that easy. I’m finding grace, mercy and understanding for myself and others goes along way. Yet the challenge of true devotion is to hold the high calling of Christ without compromise while yet missing the mark far to often. My biggest lesson is in holding the up the standard while not beating myself or others with it….
HSB,
Here’s how I view the light/darkness dichotomy in Paul’s epistle to the Colossians. There were apparently some false teachers espousing various doctrines centered around exalted beings, most probably angels. Thus, after Paul’s usual introduction, thanksgiving/prayer, he notes that believers are “in the kingdom of light” (1:12), having been rescued out of darkness (1:13). He uses this to preface his instruction to stay in the light and eschew the darkness, as some apparently had fallen into the latter.
After describing Christ’s supremacy over creation, stating that by/in Him all things were created (1:15-16a), He then specifically includes all powers and authorities, etc.—since He’d already rescued the Colossians from the powers of darkness. He speaks of the sufficiency of the Gospel (1:21-23), before speaking of the “mystery” in Christ (1:25-27, 2:2-3), and this is set over against the false teachings he then speaks about (2:8), going back to what is entailed in Christ, culminating in another restatement of “disarming the powers and authorities” (2:9-15). Following this, Paul instructs them to not listen to those teaching abstinence from various things, in apparent pursuit of asceticism and the worship of angels (2:16-23), which were probably part of pagan “mystery” religions. And instead of falling for these “rulers”, let Christ ‘rule’ in your heart (3:15).
1:15-17 is an A-B-A form, with the B a subsection of the two As, which bracket the B. Christ was able to rescue us from darkness to the kingdom of light, because He is Supreme over all (1:18), “whether things in earth or in heaven” (1:20) [reversing “things in heaven and on earth” in 1:16). Christ is firstborn over all creation (1:15, 17a), as agent of all creation (1:16e-f), and Christ is firstborn among the dead (1:18) having been raised from the dead (2:12).
Hi Craig , you mention you have a web/blog how do I get there, and what is HSB
Bruce,
I was addressing commenter “HSB” (scroll up a bit to find his comments). My blog can be found at notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com.
thank you so much Craig
I realise more and more, that everything is about relationships. Thank you for this.