A Jewish View?
but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:31 NASB
Jesus is the Christ – Of course, we need to correct the theological overtones here. John is writing, by his own admission, to demonstrate that Yeshua is the Messiah. Let’s make that change so that we don’t get bogged down in the twenty centuries of redefining what “Christ” entails. Then we should pay some attention to the work of Joseph Klausner.
Klausner’s book, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab, continues to haunt us, even if you haven’t read it. Why? Because this classic work in the study of the Jewish concept of the Messiah draws the following conclusions:
Yet the word ‘Messiah,’ to designate the expected redeemer, does not occur either in the Holy Scriptures [Tanach] or in the books of the Apocrypha. We find it in this sense for the first time in the Book of Enoch, and precisely in that part of this Pseudepigraphic book which was composed, in the opinion of all the best scholars, in the time of Herod the Great.
Thus we can determine with certainty that the idea of the savior and redeemer was not originally connected at all with the idea of ‘anointing,’ but with the idea of king and high priest.
In fact, the idea of political and spiritual redemption was not always connected with the idea of a personal Messiah. This expectation—redemption without a human redeemer—resides in the nature of the Jewish view of the Deity and the control of the world.
Hence we find in the period of the prophets many words of prophecy which without any doubt refer to the expected redemption, yet contain no hint of a personal Messiah.[1]
Klausner concludes, “It is Christianity which has attempted to remove the political and nationalistic part which is there, and leave only the ethical and spiritual part.”[2] From the Jewish perspective, this is entirely true. However, Klausner’s statement is not true of the apostolic period or the writings of those authors. They did not abandon the nationalistic and political elements of belief in the Messiah. Any contextual reading of the text demonstrates this—unless, of course, you read the text as a Christian. Without spectacles provided by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Augustine and eventually Aquinas, the writings of the apostles are thoroughly Jewish. But once you put on those glasses, the text is transformed into a theological treatise of Greek universals, removed from its inherent nationalism and parochial Jewish existence. Klausner is correct when he says that Christianity is to blame for the disregard of cultural context, but his criticism does not apply to the document that the Church calls the New Testament. That document is as Jewish as anything in the Tanach, and because it is Jewish, its view of the Messiah is merely the extension of Israel’s growing political and cultural awareness of YHVH’s chosen one.
Klausner’s research haunts us because it points out how much of our own concepts of the Messiah are the product of Greek-Western theological assumptions. Without conscious re-examination, we adopt this theological position, and despite the fact that we claim to follow the ways of the early disciples, we end up with a Gentile Messiah. We fail to appreciate the book of Enoch (we probably haven’t even read it) and its influence on the development of the “son of Man” in Matthew. We fail to recognize the political agenda of John. We are blind to Paul’s continual efforts to locate the Messiah within the web of Jewish belief. In other words, whether we like it or not, we have become victims of a deliberate transition away from Jewish ideas. When it comes to our theology, we are Christians wolves disguised as Hebrew sheep. Just ask any one of us if the man Yeshua is the political king of future Israel, if he will return as a divinely appointed human ruler, and listen to the answer. Then ask if any orthodox Jewish scholar would agree.
So where did our ideas come from?
Topical Index: Messiah, Klausner, John 20:31
[1] All citations from Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea In Israel From Its Beginning To The Completion Of The Mishnab (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1955) Scholar’s Choice edition, p. 8.
[2] Ibid., p. 10.
APOLOGIES: I want to apologize for the several typographical errors in the first few paragraphs of the Today’s Word from December 8. Neither my proof reader nor I can figure out what happened as the posted copy appeared to be without errors. At any rate, they have been corrected so if you want a clean copy you can go to the web site and get the updated version now.
Is this a Hebrew word study today which elevates Yeshua as king and high priest or a Jewish word study that denigrates him as king and high priest?
I’m not sure that it has to be an elevation or denigration, or that those are the confines of the intentions presented here. Part of what I “see” in this TW is, simply”, an attempt at addressing the concept of an anointed one apart from the additions placed on the text of the Hebrew scriptures by either Jewish or Christian commentators. It’s not a question of whether there is more to the concept than is spelled out on the surface of the text, as that is a common occurrence in the combined writings, but rather a question of whether the extensions engaged in are faithful to the original idea. It’s a hard thing to go back to the foundational issues sometimes, as that is where the “truth is told” insofar as verification of the ideas we have developed.
Not to assume the intentions of Skip in composing this TW, but it would seem that one of the issues he’s attempting to bring out is the idea of a “personal” savior that died “for me” (individually) as understood by most Christian laymen and whether that lines up with what’s declared in scripture. It’s not about whether “I” am affected, but whether “I” am the focus and intent.
I agree it starts out personal but must extend to the body. I just don’t agree that Hebrew thinking is synonymous with Jewish thinking. a Jewish unbeliever trying to explain messiah, theologian or not is almost an oxymoron. I do appreciate your input though much to consider.
Agreed, Hebrew thinking is definitely not synonymous with Jewish thinking. I think that is part of the exercise, if you want to really untangle the can of worms, you have to leave out your preferences. 🙂 Tough business!!
BTW, not picking just want to clarify. It would seem, that if “read” as whole, salvation begins nationalistic, and then, and only then, is it applied personally. By applied, I mean this, once we determine to enter into the congregation of Israel and begin to walk in covenant and in submission to His Kingdom (national) will that salvation (deliverance) be applied personally. As Skip pointed out in a previous TW, once obedience is established, (to the expectations of the kingdom) our thinking will be straightened out as we go along. (personal) That “pattern” seems to be consistent throughout scripture. Just some added thoughts.
Could this not be a “which comes first, the chicken or the egg” kind of matter? Did we even begin at birth by physical conception or were we also “the word made flesh”. Is it linear or cyclical? Also, how about this, is His Messiahship and the “salvation” or “redemptive” process the same for everyone? Could it be first nationalistic and then personal for one and visa versa for another? And, how about THIS one, is it one before the other or both simultaneously? Or…..is it just over our heads (lol)? Personally, we just believe that ultimately it must be both, and THAT’S what REALLY matters […..we THINK]! ; )
I quite agree that the 2 issues are inseparable. The question here can probably be boiled down to focus and intent. Does the kingdom exist for me specifically, (focus being on me) or am I saved for the purpose of being part of that kingdom. (Focus on God and His kingdom) I guess the difference would be, as stated by Laurita, is a matter of the purpose of unity what I think is most important. Do I (I being underlined) think the Kingdom is here for me or do I think that I’ve been placed here for the furtherance of the Kingdom, and that affects how I operate within that Kingdom.
I have found if you want to refute error, it can really help to positively state the truth up front, and then lay the error beside that. I have found it difficult to refute error by going after it because error does not make sense already; you end up just running the risk of tilting at windmills. Also, I think I have realized that because error tends to come in splintered dialectics, it is best to balance the one error with its mirrored mate, so to speak, while you are at it, else you run the risk of just dumping one camp into the lap of the other.
Yes, the Christians have been guilty of using this idea of a ‘personal Saviour’ to try and avoid some obvious stuff, but, over on the other side, you can also find shades of Maitreya (universal christ) as well as versions of work-your-way-to-heaven, I-can-white-knuckle-righteousness that are also attempting to avoid the same stuff. If we could take the time to understand what the real truth is, I think that exercise would kill two birds with one stone without having to ever draw a gun; I do mean the extremes the flesh is left with in its attempts to avoid a true partnership with heaven or by attempting to become its own god; don’t-need-heaven (or its Saviour), both of which we can see everywhere.
People who fall for one side of the dialectic are equally vulnerable to falling for the other. The personal-only Christ folks have no natural defense, given the right conditions, against the unversal-christ corollary, because the personal-ONLY idea still does not establish the vital connections with the true Body, which we are supposed to be saved INTO, but neither, of course, does the ecumenical, universal-christ.
Salvation is a restoration of connection. ‘Personal’ saviours and ‘universal’ saviours alike miss this salvation boat. Unity is always about more than singular; “One” is always going to be more than one. Saved folks will all be alike in that the image of God is restored in them. What is that image? Unity. A concept equally foreign to the singular humanism of the West or the self-erasure of the East. We must be sure to fall for neither.
Well stated Laurita.
Laurita and Robert, Thank you both for adding your $200 worth (2 cents worth adjusted for inflation and value). It helped me to clarify my current position in the arena of Personal v. Communal and Introspection v. Action. What I am beginning to understand is that my inherited Greek view of …well, everything, but particularly here, is that my focus on individual spirituality through introspection has wrongly been directed towards me, mine, and Michaels and NOT taking actions to Him, His and others in a community sense. My obsession with the inner man through perpetual introspection and rumination has not only poisoned me, but it is harming the whole as well. To limit the work of Messiah to the individual first and/or primarily is to risk allowing the ego to swallow the bigger picture of the community. [No wonder I am so full (of myself)…I have eaten everyone in sight…(BURP, sorry).] I have the cart before the horse in this case and then I wonder why my advance is so slow and my horse so frustrated and fatigued. So I definitely need to get out more ( both from my head and my house).
Uh oh.
Guess I should be clearer. Do not appreciate Klausners displaced body hypothesis theory still used today.
Sorry Pam…not a comment on your posting. I just posted my posting just following yours. I was making a comment more directed towards Skip’s penchant once in a while to post comments that may rub some of us in a way we don’t take to. He has lost other readers before because of his honest postings of the creative aspect of some Christian dearly held doctrine. My ‘Uh oh’ was a more ‘look out…here it comes’ kind of note.
Was not offended in the least no apology necessary. Fully realize Skip takes us on a roller coaster ride and yes he has few followers and loses many sorry just was not interested in the ride today but sometimes I am???
John 20:28-31 (CJB) 28 T’oma answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Yeshua said to him, “Have you trusted because you have seen me? How blessed are those who do not see, but trust anyway!”
30 In the presence of the talmidim Yeshua performed many other miracles which have not been recorded in this book. 31 But these which have been recorded are here so that you may trust that Yeshua is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by this trust you may have life because of who he is. (Complete Jewish Bible)
Bob, good seeing you again! Aways glad to hear from the wise elders here, including you and Carl. Gives me hope…for both wisdom and more years!
~ Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ ~ (Acts 2.36)
Virgin birth? Sinless life? Vicarious death? (Behold the Lamb of God?) Victoriously (bodily) resurrected from the dead after three days? Ever living to make intercession for us? God has given unto Him a Name which is above every name? Every knee shall bow? (Does this include Gentile AND Jewish knees?) Is He LORD of the living and the dead? LORD of ALL? (Does ALL mean all?)
~ YOU do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God.. ~
~ YOU (you talking to me?) MUST be born from above…~
WHOSOEVER (does this include “whosoever?”) will, may come…
~ Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Ruach HaKodesh ~ (Titus 3.5)
~ This is the new covenant in My blood ~ (For blood of bulls and goats is incapable of taking away sins.)
~and that He died on behalf of ALL..~ (Does ALL mean all?)
~ ALL have sinned? ~ (Jews and Gentiles?) Do ALL stand in need of a Savior?
Tell me (again) tHis Name!
~ And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other Name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved ~ (We?…) (MUST be saved?) Acts 4.12
“In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely; And this is His Name by which He will be called, ‘The LORD our righteousness.’ (Jeremiah 23:6)
~ I AM the way, the truth, and the life. No one (no one?) comes to the Father except through Me ~
~But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to (all) those who believe in His Name ~ (John 1.12)
Skip,
Does Klausner provide chapters and verses for the references to “Messiah” as redeemer in 1 Enoch? I want to be sure I’m tracking with his position (“…precisely in that part of this Pseudepigraphic book which was composed, in the opinion of all the best scholars, in the time of Herod the Great”). I’m presuming he’s speaking of the “son of man” references, but I want to be sure before I comment further.
Just for the record, the complete work is extant only in Ethiopic, though there are fragments of it in Greek, Aramaic, and Italian. I have the text in Greek, which is apparently made up of the existing fragments and translations of the Ethiopic back into Greek. The original text, however, could be either Aramaic, Hebrew, or a combination of Aramaic and Hebrew.
More to my point, Klausner’s work, dated 1955, obviously relies on R.H. Charles’ now outdated work. I’m assuming Klausner is referring to what are known as the Similitudes (Chapters 37-71), which are now assumed to be completed by the end of the first century AD (the work was written in stages, and likely by various writers). See, e.g., Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1983; p 6-7). In other words, one cannot use this text to ‘explain’ the Biblical texts.
From the OP: “We fail to appreciate the book of Enoch (we probably haven’t even read it) and its influence on the development of the ‘son of Man’ in Matthew.” With this statement, I’m going to assume that Klausner is indeed referring to the Similitudes. Setting aside the historic issues that newer scholarship dating of this work reveals (possible anachronism), the Ethiopic language does not have an article in order to particularize “son of man” (See, e.g., David R. Kirk, “Heaven Opened: Intertextuality and Meaning in John 1:51,” Tyndale Bulletin 63.2 (2012): 237-256, pp 246-247). For all we know, the writer here is merely copying usage of the Tanakh in which “son of man” simply means human. Thus, passages in 1 Enoch such as 46:3 (And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. [translation by E. Isaac “1 (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) ENOCH”, p 34, in Charlesworth volume cited above]) could just as easily be the anarthrous “son of man”. Comparatively, the NT places the particularized “the Son of Man” (with the Greek article) on Jesus’ lips, as an apparent development on OT (Tanakh) usage.
Moreover, as Hurtado persuasively argues, as it’s used in the NT, “the Son of Man” term itself is devoid of meaning, as it is the context in which it used that conveys meaning. He writes: “[T]he expression’s primary linguistic function is to refer, not to characterize . . . [I]t is the sentence/saying that conveys the intended claim or statement, not ‘the son of man’ expression itself” (“Summary and Concluding Observations,” in ‘Who is This Son of Man?’: The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus, L. W. Hurtado and P. L. Owen eds. [London: T&T Clark, 2011] p 167, emphasis in original).
I’ve written about this (in pursuit of another end) in some detail in a lengthy multi-part blog post. Anyone interested can find it by going to:
notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com/2016/01/15/the-son-of-god-given-authority-to-judge-because-he-is-human-a-study-in-john-527-pt-3/
That part and the following part, part 4, conclude the background on “the Son of Man”.
Important in our subject verse is the qualifier “the Son of God”. Is it strictly in apposition to “the Christ/Messiah”, such that the two terms are synonymous (the Christ/Messiah = the Son of God), or is “the Son of God” a further description of “the Christ/Messiah”? It must be one or the other. What, then, does “the Son of God” mean? At the least, it obviously means that Yeshua was “the Son of God” in some unique sense, distinct from other humans.
What did “Son of God” mean to the original audience I mean, Christ’s contemporary Jewish fellow nationals? They apparently felt that claiming that description was the ultimate blasphemy, worthy of the death penalty. Both Caiphas and the crowd of Jews assembled acted like it was, anyway, because without further ado they passed the sentence and executed it based on that claim.
Yes, indeed. In John 1:14 Word-made-flesh is referred to as having “the glory as of a ‘unique one’ of a/the F/father” (doxan hōs monogenous para patros). In 5:18 “the Jews” (hoi Ioudaioi) were so incensed they tried all the harder to kill Him because He “was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (NASB; ison heauton poiōn tō̧ theō̧ = equal himself making [the] God). Then, in 19:7, the reason provided by “the Jews” for Yeshua deserving to be crucified was “He made Himself out to be the Son of God” (NASB; hoti huion theou heauton epoiēsen = that ((the)) Son of God himself made). Their focus was on the fact that He ‘made Himself’ “the Son of God”, which seems to be equivalent to ‘calling God His own Father’, i.e., ‘making Himself equal with God’.
Just some additional consideration… Job was considered to be among the sons of God. Jesus was declared by the spirit to be the only begotten son. Either the scripts in Job are incorrect or the term only begotten seems out of place or must imply something else…
It was Jesus’ followers that exalted him to be equal unto God. Jesus self only claimed to be obedient to the one who sent him. Saying he was one with the father could possibly also imply he was following the calling to the letter rather than the attributes or DNA of God.
I once read that Christ implies anointed while Messiah is redeemer. If I understand earlier discussions on Messiah it generally referred to being anointed or sent so this would not be likened to but rather empowered unto.
Just my non Jewish thoughts maybe to Greek for some…
Seeker, “the term only begotten seems out of place or must imply something else”…
I think the something else can be found in the Greek where it can mean “unique, one of a kind”, not singular in number. Hope that helps.
Seeker,
Though even Paul calls believers “sons of God” (Romans 8:19), only Yeshua is called the Son of God, and only Yeshua is called monogenēs in relation to the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16), denoting a particularity that is claimed of no one else. While others are said to be monogenēs, this is always in relation to their birth (human) father.
Craig and Michael
Thank you both for the response. Michael with that interpretation and understanding I can agree.
Craig referring to the relationship with the birth Father… Are we all not called or rather birthed by the same spirit to become sons and daughters? Out of ourselves or a fellow man the rebirth is not possible. But I understand the divine relationship. Not called in the womb but manifested in the womb. Thank you I now have more questions to seek answers elsewhere… First.
Who exactly do you think “the Jews” were Craig? The vast majority of the populace at large or some (maybe even a majority) of the Sanhedrin? The only ones with effective power.
Most times the contexts–not all–reflect those in opposition to Yeshua. Sometimes Yeshua’s adversaries were identified as Pharisees, sometimes not (John 5, e.g.). Without making a formal study of it, I’d say it was a large part of the Sanhedrin and probably a fair number of others outside this circle.
But maybe NOT the majority.
Now here’s an interesting thing. We see the Messiah contending with the religious rulers of his day in regards to their understanding of scripture. What we find is the He points them back to the true biblical use of a “pure” understanding, and we raise up and applaud Him because we understand He’s correct. Yet, when they accuse Him of using the term (the) son of God as claiming equality with YHVH we somehow take the side of those who are in opposition to Yeshua. Is it even remotely possible that the rulers and teachers of the time were using the term in a non biblical (Babylonian) understanding and that Yeshua was actually referencing the term as actually spelled out in scripture? Just askin’ the question. Back to that dialectic thingy. ??
How do you understand Yeshua to be claiming equality with YHVH in “the Father is greater than I” or many other such like texts? Sounds like subordination to me.
Wasn’t sure if this response was directed at me, as my phone doesn’t show the proper indentation. But, That’s exactly my point in this post. It’s the jewish leadership, or at least those opposing Yeshua here, that are claiming that he is making a statement of equality, not Yeshua. As a matter of fact, Yeshua corrected them in their thinking. So it’s NOT Yeshua claiming equality, but the “jews” claiming that He claimed equality. That’s why I asked the question about whether there is a possibility that the “jews” were misrepresenting the term. I would suggest that it was exactly the case. 🙂
Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that in the first place.
When Caiphas required Him to swear “by the living God” whether or not He was or was not, He confirmed it, and emphasized it by adding “nevertheless I say unto you, hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven”. “Sitting on the right hand of power” denotes equality, and was received as such.
When Yeshua took on human form as our Example, He became subordinate to the Father as our Representative. He stood in our place. That is a subordinate place. That does not ‘prove’ that He was not equal; it only proves that He met us where we are at. Surely only God could have done something so difficult as to denigrate Himself so low.
The interpretation that “sitting at the right hand denotes equality” is a bit presumptuous. Kings often had “right hand” men. Pharoah is a perfect biblical example. Joseph was NOT Pharoah but he had all of the authority of Pharoah. I suggest to take a look at Kegan Chandler’s book on all this. The idea of agency is pretty strong in the ancient world, and in Scripture, and does NOT require equality.
Upon hearing Yeshua’s statement that Laurita cites above in Luke 22:69, the Sanhedrin ask, “Are you then the Son of God?” After Yeshua answers in the affirmative, they declare no need of further testimony. What does that mean? Yeshua is specifically called monogenēs in relation to God the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16). What does that mean? Is this said of anyone else?
“For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God,” (John 5:18, NASB).
I am not the one generating this problem. I am only pointing out the problem the original audience was having.
And that brings up a really interesting point. Was He actually breaking sabbath, or was He breaking sabbath according to the Jewish leaderships understanding of what that entails. If He was breaking sabbath, that makes Him sinful. Again it goes back to THEIR understanding of scriptural dictates and whether, or not, they were in alignment with a true scriptural intent and meaning.
I tend to agree with you, Robert, but then that leaves us back on the slippery slope Skip has been trying to get us off of for so long! Just HOW do we know “true scriptural intent”?!
Subordination in function does not necessarily mean inequality in person: “The Father is in me, and I am in the Father”
Thy will be done
I and the Father are one.
I’ll just jump in here for a minute (only a minute, I promise). If you begin with the Trinitarian premise, you will arrive at the Trinitarian conclusion. If you look at the HISTORY of this development, you will see that it took a shift from Jewish/Hebraic understanding of the relationship of Messiah to Son of God, i.e., a movement to the Greek idea of person and identity, before the doctrine could be formulated and even then nearly 300 years of debate over key Greek terms before the Church determined the outcome (which, by the way, ostracized about 50% of the then Christian world). Of course, none of this fits the Hebraic idea of agency, person and monotheism. But we all know this! So, the bottom line is that this is NOT an exegetical debate. It is a paradigm debate, strung out of 400 years (and still going on today). We agree, I trust, that there is more than one way to legitimately interpret the text. The issue is not the text. It is the CONTEXT – the monotheism of the earliest believers and the understanding of Yeshua himself. As I have mentioned before, if we want to debate the TEXT, there will never be a solution satisfactory to both parties. That is obvious as both Judaism and Christianity embrace the SAME Tanach and have never agreed on the outcome. If we want to talk paradigms, then let’s start looking at Yeshua in the context of first century Judaism, which he is clearly part of. But I suspect that won’t happen either. If you really, absolutely NEED the Messiah to be GOD (YHVH) so that GOD can die on the cross for you, then feel free to believe that. I am quite happy with God choosing a man to become His elected Son of God through obedience in order to fulfill YHVH’s plan for first fruits righteousness by ushering in the last days with the inauguration of the Kingdom. And with that, we probably will disagree until he returns and sets us all straight.
Let’s get right to the real heart of the issue. Exactly who is Jesus’ biological father? We know who Yeshua’s birth mother is, and we know that Joseph is His step-father; but, who is Yeshua’s father? That is where the rubber meets the road: monogenēs in relation to God the Father.
He doesn’t have a biological father. Neither did Adam, or a mother either. Maybe that makes Adam mono-mono genes. Note however that it does fit the pattern of one directly created for a purpose without free choice in it AND a direct creation of God at that. Of course mono genes isn’t ever applied to Adam as well, but I’ve yet to find that term in Hebrew. ?
Except, of course, if He wasn’t created, but begotten, and if He did choose.
Of course. ? this was stated quite lighthearted in reference to this somewhat weighty conversation we’ve all been engaged in. I’ve said all I’ll say awhile back, but I thought it might help to lighten things up.
Robert, you are always a treasure and it is always an honor. Thank you for you.
Thank you, as always, Skip. We are all muddling through. Exercises in faith.
I keep holding my breath waiting for you or somebody who has access to the sources to lay out exactly what the Hebrew paradigm was (BEFORE Greece, that is), as well as the Greek mindset BEFORE it got ‘infected’ with Judaism, too, and everything ended in a big muddle. I need to contrast and compare. I could also be steered to source material, too, especially if it was free!
Hi Laurita, I am in the process of reading Kevin Chandler’s The God of Jesus. Dan might want to read it while he is in FL for a few weeks in Jan. One way or the other you will get it in the New Year (Roman version). You will like it.
I look forward to it very much. Thank you George. If I read it after Dan, perhaps he could forward it with his take on it? (Yours, too, of course).
But where do paradigms come from? Either the text or someone’s imagination.
So, does that really help explain anything?
We need a real starting point.
Robert,
I’m familiar with what is entailed in being a son of God in the Tanakh. But, can you show me in Scripture where anyone besides Yeshua is referred to as the Son of God? Can you show me in Scripture where anyone besides Yeshua is referred to as monogenēs in relation to the Father (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16)?
I’m aware of your position on the term as it includes the definite article insofar as you insist that it denotes equality with YHVH, but your argument is not sustained anywhere in the scripture either. The main problem that I have with the position (not with you) is that (given context) the definite article added to a term most often clarifies it as the “perfect” or “ideal” form of that term. Adam, among others, was A son of God, appointed to rule justly and be God’s representative. (although not limited to those 2 endeavors) They embodied the idea, but not perfectly, as they came short. There is one who is shown coming that would perfectly fulfill that Idea which would be THE Son of God. Yeshua fulfills that Ideal Man. This is not an uncommon occurrence in scriptural construction. BUT….there’s even more to this, as there are other terms used in apposition ( 🙂 ) which have to be addressed as well, such as elohim, as well as the direction the opposing party was pointed to in order to affirm the correction that was given.
All that said, the addition of the definite article denoting equality with YHVH would seem to be a weak argument (at best) and simply an attempt at gaining ground on a theological position held, even though unsubstantiated.
All THAT said, let me add that this is a very confined argument in relation to a specific passage in regards to which Yeshua is accused of claiming equality. I’m not considering other passages in this debate, as the context in any other sections hasn’t been determined to be relevant.
In the overall context of John’s Gospel, there’s is only one figure given the term the Son of God. And, in the immediate context of our subject verse, 20:31, this term is in apposition with “the Christ/Messiah”. This is somewhat similar to the context of Luke 22:67-71 (“Are you the Christ?” “Are you the Son of God?”).
If we expand our context to include the entirety of the NT, there are no other figures given the term/title the Son of God.
And still there’s no verification that it denotes equality with YHVH. This, is my point. ?
You’re absolutely correct; but it doesn’t preclude it either. We have to wonder what exactly it signifies.
Moreover, we must wonder what it means when Yeshua is called monogenēs in relation to the Father (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16). Yet another distinction.
I don’t think that we have to wonder what the term signifies in regards to the tanack, as it’s laid out pretty clearly. To be a bit brief, it designates one who represents God in all His (Gods) ways. Are there extensions to that? Sure, that’s where the questions lie.
Monogenes Singularly generated. Is it the person who’s generated uniquely in and of himself, or does it designate one who’s uniquely outfitted to accomplish a task given? Samson?
Monogenēs is never used of Samson. Can you illustrate a specific context to support your line of questioning?
The reference to Samson has to do with that same idea as he was a Nazarite AT BIRTH. He didn’t choose to become one, as is normally the case. He was also held responsible for that position. It’s the “task” he was created for represented by a man singularly created to accomplish it. Monogenes. Determined before birth.
A similar thing can be said of John the Baptist, yet he is not referred to as monogenēs. In any case, the aspect of this you’re not addressing is that the term is relative to a person. In the case of Yeshua, He is monogenēs relative to the Father.
Because John wasn’t appointed or created for that specific task, THE ONLY one. The ultimate and full form of Messiahship. Yeshua, singularly, was and is.
To be more to the point, what is being affirmed is that Yeshua is not just A son of God, or A anointed one, but is THE ONE spoken of and alluded too in the whole of scripture. I can’t see where that is a claim to equality, or for that matter, a claim of actually being YHVH. The real question is how did those who are questioning Him understand those terms and how did Yeshua understand those terms. As I said before, the correction was given. Did they heed it?
So, if “the Son of God” means, essentially, “the Christ/Messiah”, then the Sanhedrin crucified Him because he claimed to be the Messiah. Correct?
No, not correct. They (supposedly) crucified Him for what they understood to be a claim of equality with YHVH. Not for claiming to be the promised Messiah. You know as well as I do that they wanted Him dead because their position of rulership was at stake. It’s pretty messed up but, one has to be amazed that those claiming to be the representatives and guardians of God and His ways are found conducting themselves in the same manner that rulers of the age were engaged in, of which Rome was the perfect representation. Power by fear!
Sure I understand the underlying reason to put Yeshua to death; but the straw that broke that camel’s back was His claim to be “the Son of God”. It all turns on this term/title.
Sure it does. Going beyond my previous statement of confining passages to their immediate contexts, it’s an enlightening endeavor to see all the “types and shadows” represented in scripture. For example David being an anointed one, (messiah) Samson being a deliverer, etc. but they all fell short of being THE ONE. But, they form the ideas behind and in part represent the true idea and form.
The Sanhedrin’s first question in this exchange is “Are you the Christ/Messiah?” which Yeshua doesn’t answer directly, but his answer prompts them to ask “Are you the Son of God?” How does all that fit together?
Any additional answer would only be a reiteration of what has already been stated by me previously. If you want to understand my position on Beni Elohim more clearly, I have 2 podcasts entitled “behold the nephilim” which you can hear (if desire) on stitcher radio. You can find them by typing in “devils been talking radio on stitcher”. Other than that, the fitting together of these terms and their usages (correct or otherwise) can pretty much be determined by the previous replies.
Craig how do you reconcile Luke 22:67 with Matt 26:63 and Mark 14:61? In those cases ‘son of God’ is linked in the question with Messiah FOLLOWED by Yeshua response quoting Psalm 110:1
Whoever, thumbed down my comment, would you care to identify what it is you disagree with? I’ve laid out two choices for the usage of “the Son of God” in this context. There are no others, as this is what the grammar explicitly suggests. What is your interpretation then?
I know what the standard view is in relation to the sons of God in the book of Job, (angels) but if you consider why was Job present (he was pointed out) and why the adversary was there (the accuser of the brethern) it might give us some insight to how the term is applied. It says that Job was a righteous man, (he walked in God’s ways) was he also one of the “anointed” ones, appointed to judge justly and teach righteousness? You’re correct in that the 2 terms don’t have to be in opposition of each other. Not sure whether, although distinct, they can be separated. Just some thoughts.
Robert,
Just to clarify, the word I used was “apposition”, which means one of the terms serves to identify the other in some way. They are clearly not opposite terms in this context.
Exactly, read the response again. ? I said that they were NOT in opposition. Apposition is a standing along side, in relation to another.
Sorry, wasn’t ‘picking’ on you; it was for the benefit of other readers.
Yes sir
With few exceptions when “son of God” is used in the NT it refers to Yeshua. Those few times when it doesn’t it is never particularized by using the Greek article. In John’s Gospel, those placing belief in the “true light” (1:9), receiving Him, believing in “His name” (1:12), He (the true light) gives the right to “become children of God” (tekna theou genesthai). The corollary to this verse in the prologue is the subject verse, 20:31, in which one must believe that Yeshua is “the Christ, the Son of God” in order to receive “life in His name”, i.e., “become children of God”. So, belief in “the Son of God” brings with it the right to “become children of God” (not of natural descent, i.e. genealogy, but “born of God”—1:13). This implies that humans are not born ‘children of God’ (sons of God) by natural flesh and blood birth, that this is predicated only upon belief “in Him”.
Hi Craig. What did Paul mean in Acts 17:29 “Being then the children of God” when he was addressing Greek philosophers on Areopagus?
He was quoting two different Greek poets (Epimenides and Cleanthes) as an evangelistic tool; he wasn’t asserting a strict theological view.
But.Paul goes on to say “we”… he is clearly identifying the audience with himself as children of God. Surely that is the obvious meaning.
Paul also claims to know “the Unknown God”. As I stated, this is all an evangelistic effort.
What do you think he means, and how would you harmonize it with, say, Romans 8:12-25?
It would seem that he was asserting as true, what the poets said. But, the context is different than one being born of God in spirit. “in Him we all live and move”…. Romans 8 is a different context in that he’s speaking to those born of the Spirit. (born again)
I bring this out because far to often we take the privilege that we are offered, adoption, and press it to far into isolationism and disregard the value of those who are “unsaved”. I’m of the opinion that what Paul says here is, in fact, a theological certainty and we certainly need to take it to heart.
Robert,
I don’t disagree with you. Keep in mind that my response (which also specifies evangelizing the ‘unsaved’ here) in this context was with a view of my December 10, 2017 1:06 pm comment that HSB was responding to. Paul was not agreeing with the pagan sense of all being God’s ‘offspring’, with each person containing a seed of the Deity. He was adapting their views. See 1 Cor 9:19-23.
ADDED: I think you were at once reading too much into my words and not enough into my words. I’m not blaming you, necessarily, I could have been clearer.
It was just a cautionary statement. (From the hip) no harm, no foul.
So we have a King, High Priest, who the text names “Son of God”- Where can I find Him? Tell me, have you seen Him?
The “personal Messiah” is when you have a relationship with this King High Priest Son of God”.
Remember, Jewish thinkers are called “stiff-necked” so they have always had trouble with the progressiveness of their God.
That is why Jesus asked His disciples personally, who do you say I am?
It is each man’s responsibility to know Jesus and recognize Him when He returns-
A personal experience is never subject to an argument.
How will you recognize Him if He doesn’t agree with some of the rabbis who have not met Him and are not sure who he is? Why does it matter if we agree with Klausner?, who is Klausner when the Son of God is standing before you?
I can appreciate and glean from Jewish thought about scripture and all the commentaries of the ancient writings and original scrolls. But they are all subject to the true original who is available for an eye witness encounter today. I invite you all in beyond the veil into the Holy of Holies where He dwells, meet with Him face to face. See Him and be known today-
That, my friend, is an offer you should not refuse!
All who have seen Him will testify who He is and they will all agree. So it is good to hear from the eye witnesses, but even better to become one!!
All striving will cease when you see Him for yourself.
Profound things are wrapped in simple packages.
Abigail…thank you and AMEN!!
Skip wrote, “Just as[k] any one of us if the man Yeshua is the political king of future Israel, if he will return as a divinely appointed human ruler, and listen to the answer.” So, may we ask what would you say to that question?
Additionally may we say, to be just, it is not “Jewish thinkers”, per se, that He called “stiff necked”, but the rebellious [Neh 9:17], the uncircumcised in heart and ears, those who resisted the Ruach ha-Kodesh [Act 7:51]. That could include people of any persuasion, including Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, savage, slave and free, as well as you and us [Col 3:11].
We agree with you that Messiah Yeshua is our “personal Messiah” and we can and ought to seek to intimately know and be with Him now, in heavenly places. However, sorry, but going “beyond the veil into the Holy of Holies”, as you say, might be a bit presumptuous. We don’t think that is something we can do or that we may ever be able to do. This phrase and concept of “going into the holy of holies”, which we also used and claimed we could do and were doing before we came out of Christianity, may be what we might now call weil-intentioned, “hyper-spiritual Christianese” or “Charismania”.
It seems we may now, by the Ruach HaKodesh, enter the place in the heavenly tabernacle called “the holy place”, which is beyond the first curtain (that was torn in the natural upon Messiah’s death), but Messiah Yeshua is the great High Priest now, after the order of Melchizedek, and it is our understanding that it is still only the High Priest Who may and has passed through the second curtain and gone into the holy of holies.
Though we have become “a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” [1Pe 2:9], we still need and have a High Priest. Only He may go into the “holy of holies” and His priests may only go as far in as the holy place. We are not equal to Him, and the “holy of holies” and the “holy place” are not the same. Messiah, as our High Priest, may go in and come out of the holy of holies into the holy place, as well as in the outer court and beyond. So we believe we will be able to see Him face to face in the future.
And now who are those priests of His “royal priesthood”, but those who are grafted into the “renewed” or new covenant YHWH made with the commonwealth of Israel, who recognize Yeshua as the Messiah of Israel and the only mediator of that covenant, and are keeping the “royal torah” of the Book of the Covenant.
Also, we will not yet see Him face-to-face until we pass through the veil (curtain) of our own flesh, our own earthly tabernacles, our own physical bodies, unless we are still present in these bodies when He returns.
“And He raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Messiah Yeshua—to show in the olam ha-ba the measureless richness of His grace in kindness toward us in Messiah Yeshua.” [Eph 2:6-7]
“Loved ones, now we are God’s children; and it has not yet been revealed what we will be. But we do know that when it’s revealed, we shall be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.” [1Jn 3:2]
If you “could” go into the Holy of Holies, would you?
How is our love for Him measured? Not by mere emotionalistic ambition.
Consider Job’s self-realization in answering YHWH – “You ask, ‘Who is this, who darkens counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke without understanding, things too wonderful for me which I did not know. [Job 42:3]
Solomon in all his wisdom realized, “Zeal without knowledge is not good, or to act hastily and miss the way.” [ Pro 19:2]
Messiah said, “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” [Joh 14:15]
So, if He commanded us to go in, we would hope we would go in. Otherwise, at best, it would serve no purpose and, worst, we would be utterly consumed.
“Now Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu each took his own censer, put fire in it, laid incense over it, and offered unauthorized fire before Adonai—which He had not commanded them. So fire came out from the presence of Adonai and consumed them. So they died before YHWH. [Lev 10:1-2]
And consider the fate of Uzza who also was overly zealous, presumptuous, and acted hastily:
“They transported the Ark of God upon a new cart from the house of Abinadab. Uzza and Ahio guided the cart while David and all Israel celebrated before God with all their might, with songs, lyres, harps, timbrels, cymbals and trumpets. But when they came to the threshing-floor of Hidon, Uzza reached out his hand to hold the Ark, because the oxen stumbled. The anger of Adonai burned against Uzza, and He struck him down, because he reached out his hand and touched the Ark. He died there before God.” [1Ch 13:7-10]
Here’s an act of devotion that was acceptable to Him:
“And while Yeshua was in Bethany at the house of Simon ha-Metzora, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive oil of pure nard. Breaking open the jar, she poured it over His head. But Yeshua said, ‘She’s done Me a mitzvah. She did what she could—she came beforehand to anoint My body for burial. Amen, I tell you, wherever the Good News is proclaimed in all the world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.’” [Mar 14:3, 6, 8-9]
you’re right, you can’t go in.
That’s how we understand it. Unauthorized. “Do Not Enter”
Desire has to trump understanding.
That also answers your question “how is our love measured?”
Thinking only “Jewish” can become a stumbling block.
David was able to break the rules-his heart took him where it was “unauthorized”
Esther also approached the King in unauthorized territory, in the same way or pattern, follow her “If it pleases the king”, “if I have found favor in your sight”
“would it bring you great delight if I would lay down my life and follow you into the Holy of Holies?” To meet with you, like so few do, leave lofty arguments at the gate, look into Him and ask again, here i am take me in. I’ll die with you and live again!
Tell your soul to be still
The accuser be silent
Bind me with the one I love,
Worship in His holiness ……..
Only He can satisfy
This is what He died for
May your love for Him be like His love for you.
Fortunately we can and should have both – desire AND understanding. And that is best.
After all, His instruction in Deut. 6 tell us so. You’ve probably heard of the Shema prayer:
“Hear (Shema) O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love Adonai your God with all your HEART and with all your SOUL (MIND) and with all your STRENGTH. These words, which I am commanding you today, are to be on your heart. You are to teach them diligently to your children, and speak of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down and when you rise up. Bind them as a sign on your hand, they are to be as frontlets between your eyes, and write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” [Deu 6:4-9]
In Luke it is written, “Now a certain Torah lawyer stood up to entrap Yeshua, saying, ‘Teacher, what should I do to gain eternal life?’ Then Yeshua said to him, ‘What has been written in the Torah? How do you read it?’ And he replied, ‘You shall love Adonai your God with all your HEART, and with all your SOUL, and with all your STRENGTH, and with all your MIND; and your neighbor as yourself.'” [Luke 10:25-27]
This is actually how we gain eternal life according to Messiah Yeshua. It is the life of His grace lived out in us by faith – beyond affections alone – beyond understanding alone. It is BOTH – IN OUR ACTIONS!
LOVE IS VERB-ALL, not just verbal!
It is not an either or decision.
I see you love the scriptures and all it’s truths, you love Yeshua and serve the One true God, so we can leave it at that-
One thing though,
There is nothing beyond affections-they are intrinsic to Him.
I’m not saying that is all He is, of course not, that would be presumptuous. Any limitation we place on Him is presumptuous because He is above all things.
Trying to define Him is limiting.
But on the other hand, if you have seen the Living Word, you are at liberty to give it your best shot to describe Him to others.
He is the source of understanding. He is the source of all creation.
Worship Him and desire will grow, and grow and grow until your heart desires more than anything to touch Him. You will share His affections and they will draw you into Him, there is no end to His affections.
Just like us trying to communicate on a blog,
It would be much better face to face.
But we are all safe here on the blog even so, I think we all have genuine affections for each other just participating in this minimal type of communion.
Shalom, thank you!
Skip wrote, “Just as[k] any one of us if the man Yeshua is the political king of future Israel, if he will return as a divinely appointed human ruler, and listen to the answer.” So, may we ask what would you say to that question?
SKIP…..You say, “…..we are Christian wolves disguised as Hebrew sheep.”
PLEASE CLARIFY, IF YOU CAN, THIS CONFUSION WE HAVE IN YOUR WRITINGS BETWEEN “HEBREW” AND “JEWISH”, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
[We, Jerry and Lisa, are not at all intending to be in defense of Christianity and we DO seek to be Messianic Hebrew, through and through. We also do not agree with the idea that the Messiah is only a personal Messiah but that He is ALSO a political and nationalistic Messiah of Israel.]
So, now, here are our questions of you…..
Are Jewish sheep and Hebrew sheep synonymous to you?
In your view, could there be such a thing as Jewish wolves disguised as Hebrew sheep and/or Hebrew wolves disguised as Jewish sheep?
The Messiah said, “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.“ [Mat 7:15]
Was He not referring to the Torah scholars, religious leaders and rulers, and other messengers of those days, and were they not primarily Jewish and therefore Jewish wolves in, maybe even Hebrew, sheep’s clothing?
Also, what, to you, characterizes someone as a RAVENOUS WOLF? Only, or just primarily, someone Christian? Or only someone you would view as anti-semitic or anti-Jew(ish)?
Lastly, you say, “Just as[K] (TYPO CORRECTION) any one of us if the man Yeshua is the political king of future Israel, if he will return as a divinely appointed human ruler, and listen to the answer. Then ask if any orthodox Jewish scholar would agree.” In fact, we know a lot of Christians, having also been one, who would answer, “Yes! Most definitely!”. And we also know that most orthodox Jewish scholar would answer, “NO! Definitely NOT! Yeshua is NOT the political king of future Israel!” Leave out His name, Yeshua, and just ask about “the Messiah” and you will likely get a much different answer, for sure!
***We very much appreciate you as a man, a scholar, and an online and quarterly in-person, maybe just one-way, friend (you don’t know us like we [think we] know you). And we do very much appreciate your Today’s Word, and other writings, and the way it stirs us to seek the truth. Thank you very much! So please take this as a somewhat light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek ribbing with love, when we say, we are just seeking to determine by your own definitions, if actually you, yourself, are coming to us in “Hebrew clothing” but inwardly are a not-so-ravenous, anti- or ex(iting)-Christian, now unintentionally becoming a “Jewish wolf”. After all, we are only doing what Messiah instructed us to do, which is to heed His warning, “Be careful that no one leads you astray! For many will come in My name saying I am the Messiah and will lead many astray ” [Mat 24:4-5, (punctuations removed by us – for that way it reads, many will say He IS the Messiah but will still lead many astray)]
I can get easily lost with the positional theologically derived explenations of messiah because I have met him personally. My faith rests not on what is said about him but who He is to me, based on what he actually has been and will be to all mankind. I trust Him- not what others think or say about Him. He is and will be what the word declares of Him whether we understand rightly or not. We might need to simply wait and see to know for sure. I enjoy John Eldredge’s book “Beautiful outlaw” Although “Christian theology ” regarding the position of Messiah John looks through the lens of a MFT. He looks at the person and personality of the Messiah as revealed in the gospel records, refreshingly approchable.
“Who may ascend into the Hill of the Lord or who may stand in His Holy Place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart.” Psalm 24:3-4
Perhaps we should consider going beyond the Courtyard experience where we often prefer to congregate, finding it more comfortable. If we truly want to pursue Him, perhaps we need to humble ourselves and die to the things that prevent us from wanting to draw closer. If we are going to pursue Him, we have to go beyond the Courtyard, and enter by the blood of the Lamb.
Hi Skip,
I’m having trouble comprehending what is being said in the final sentences of the last paragraph. Can you help me?
I see that it should have read: “Just ask any one of us if the man Yeshua is the political king of future Israel,” Then it probably makes sense. Sorry.
Here it is, 12:40 p.m. on Monday, reading through notes from people I don’t know, and will likely never know. Reading about half way through this TW on my way to work, I thought, “That’s it. I’m done with this mess.” Frankly, I’m tired of chasing the loose ends of theological questioning. I despise uncertainty. Having been a Christian for 40 plus years, and now delving into “Hebrew roots” for a year, I can confidently say that I have no idea what I believe. Maybe I am falling prey to the despair that captured nineteenth century existentialists. Why is the pursuit of truth seemingly an endless array of unanswered questions or contradictory answers? Was Paul a reformer in his own right? Was he a secretly despised loose canon (by the early apostles)? Was Jesus a reformer attempting to return us to First Temple Judaism, whatever that means? Is Christianity the culmination of spiritual ideals worked out in any given culture as directed by the Holy Spirit? Is Judaism? Was Constantine a reformer or an Antichrist? If Jesus really is God, why is there so much confusion about that? If he isn’t God, will I be missing some spiritually ideal truth that will affect my status before God? Do my deeds merit eternal life or is salvation all of grace? What was once black and white is now completely gray. Rabbi Akiva says this, Rabbi Hillel says that. If this is the best life brings–endlessly pursuing rabbit trails of the theological persuasions of dead men, then maybe it is better to just walk a path of hedonism, where I can feel the reality of my desires and choices. There is no “why” in hedonism. Hedonism at least helps me know that I am real and that I can interact with real people in the real world.
Has anyone else reached the point of despair in this mess? How did you cope? How are you coping? Suggestions? Feel free to email me privately at inthemote at hotmail dot com
Hey, WELCOME! Here’s the best part. Your relationship with God does not depend on having the right answer! Now that we’ve settled that, feel free to pursue those questions that really bother you, and let the rest go. There will be plenty of time to work on the ones that matter to you. After all, it took 2000 years to develop this mess. Stick around. You might just get inspired.
Yes. I very much know how you feel. It sounds like “dis-illusionment”. The dissing of an illusion. An illusion is something that’s not real. Disillusionment then is like the popping of a bubble with the a poking of the finger. It all seemed so nice and easy, black and white. Didn’t it? Then POP! It gets all mixed up and turns gray. It’s the popping of the bubble of an imaginary reality, “black and white”. It actually never was black and white. It just seemed that way. But it wasn’t the truth. Was it? It was something else. Religion, maybe. Group think. Belonging to a community that chose to believe in the bubble. Or maybe it was a true knowledge of and relationship with Him but then mixed with the pseudo-black-and-white reality of a religion, Christianity, along with its pseudo-black-and-white theology, only made to seem black and white by the pastors/teachers of it who ignore the contradictions and gaps and holes, etc., explaining them away in order to falsely comfort you to death with gloss-overs and twisted theological explanations that everyone just accepts due to “group think”. And you may want it to be easy and comfortable and to “fit in”, but apparently you’re not willing to compromise the truth, so He led you out of all that to really find the truth of the knowledge of Him and His ways. He hasn’t left you. So don’t leave Him!
So the dissing of that illusion is good and necessary. It’s very hard. But hard is not bad. It’s just hard. Do you think that hedonism is not going to be just another bubble that eventually gets popped? It is. I’ve been there, too. Haven’t you?
How do you cope? Get back to “square one”. Get back to the basics of the true knowledge you have of Him in His original revelation of Himself to you. Get back to intimacy with Him through prayer and His word. Get back to living with genuine childlike trust in Him, loving Him the way you know He loves you, in the simplicity of faith in Messiah Yeshua, with the confidence of what you KNOW is true and not with the confusion of what you don’t know is true. Get back to living by the Ruach HaKodesh and not just leaning on your own understanding. Get back to knowing Messiah. Get back to righteousness, peace, and joy in the Ruach HaKodesh, for this is the kingdom of YHWH.
Shalom, Paul. Shalom.
Not to make this even more complicated, but . . . if all we have is prayer and reading the Word, we haven’t made much progress. First, the “Word” is subject to exegetical bias and cultural misunderstanding. That’s the reason this site exists. And second, prayer is a function of the Spirit PLUS our own paradigmatic, hidden assumptions. I suppose what we really should say is that somehow God still finds us, but that is quite a bit different than thinking that we have any real epistemological certainty. I’m not sure we can ever get back to “square one” with the damage done by 20 centuries of mess. And I am pretty sure that “simple” faith isn’t really very simple, unless you just decide to ignore the issues.
Totally agreed. Simple faith with prayer and reading the Word is not all we have or where we should stay, but it is what we need as a foundation if we are going to press on with all our perplexing questions. I agree with your advice that we should not ignore the issues, except maybe for someone who has grown weary, is experiencing distressing confusion, is tempted to forsake trusting in YHWH, and may be in need of restoration from disillusionment. For some, don’t you think the following may apply?
“As newborn babes, long for pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow toward salvation—now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.” [1Pe 2:2-3]
And …..”About this subject there is much for us to say, and it is hard to explain since you have become sluggish in hearing. For although you ought to be teachers by this time, again you need someone to teach you the basics of God’s sayings. You have come to need milk, not solid food. For anyone living on milk is inexperienced with the teaching about righteousness—he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who through practice have their senses trained to discern both good and evil.” [Heb 5:11-14]
Also, David said this, “Adonai, my heart is not proud, nor my eyes lofty, nor do I go after things too great or too difficult for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul—like a weaned child with his mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me. O Israel, put your hope in Adonai from this time forth and forever.” [Psa 131:1-3]
G.K Chesterton suggests “we have looked for questions in the darkest wildest peaks and the darkest holes….you can not call up any wilder vision than a city in which men ask themselves if they have any selves…We have found all the questions that can be found its time we gave up looking for questions and begin looking for answers.” I find it a strange discontinuity using the Socratic method of questioning in persuit of a God who is the answer and that expressed in the Hebrew …But that to me is fruit of the wrong tree! Yes Paul B. I am done questioning in who, why and how I should belive. I am now simply trusting YHVH…Yet this forum in fact does provide many answers as it expose the false questions or what is so clearly opaque!
Paul, I hear your pain. I don’t have any highly-trained, “seminary-type” scholarly answers for you. I just want to share my thoughts and some of my experience.
You wrote, ” I despise uncertainty.” If YHVH were small enough for us to have all the answers (certainty) regarding Himself, then that god isn’t really YHVH at all. Go back to the Tanakh and “feel” the fright of people who were in His close proximity… even in the proximity of His angels, His messengers. Nobody can ever see God and live. Go back to the context, the times. Who were the people that the Torah was being presented to? How were they expected to live?
If we can just continue to drop off the Greek way of thinking (breaking things down to their smallest parts and examining those to find the perfect solution) and just DO life (action, not philosophy and words) according to how YHVH tells us to love, we would be so free… and the people around us would be so much better loved. I’m not saying to check our brains out at the door. Just the opposite, in fact. THE GOD is way tooooo big for us to figure out. He’s not for the “figuring out” He’s to be obeyed with a heart of joy and service and commitment.
I praise YHVH that He shifted my paradigm (I’m 61 yoa and started “this Christian life” as an infant-baptized Catholic. Hint: expect to lose a lot as you move from “church” to a hunt for the Hebrew Yeshua. On the other hand, expect to gain a relationship with God so very much more powerful and colorful than ever before)… and that He continually moves and molds me. I’m so thankful for the “warning flags” or “questions” that come to me as I read my multiple “English translations” (created from many other translations) of the Scriptures; those things that don’t seem to make sense (because we’re not ancient Hebrews) force me to be more humble in my “declaration” of “what I believe.” I spend my time now trying to serve the God Whom I believe and let Him have His Way with me. I want to be oh so pliable in His Hands,
Isn’t the bottom line this: know that there is a Creator Who has designed us for His Purposes? He is All; He is (c)hesed +. He loves His creation, us being at the top of His list. He desires relationship with us and He loves us into that relationship. Seek only Him; listen for His Voice as you go about serving others. Drop off religion as He presents opportunity. He’s got this.
Thank you Skip, Jerry and Lisa, Mark, Daria, and Abigail. I’ve had to press my nose to the floor and confess that God is bigger and more important than my brain. Yet, He is here. Shalom.
Just breathe, He gave you an intellect to be able to sort things out and a heart to fall in love with and a soul that needs Him-
He will meet you where you are.
Losing control is a prerequisite to trust.
It’s all good, really.
When you see the sun rising in the East and setting in it’s proper time, you know He is still on the throne running the universe.
Worship while you are awake, as you lay down to sleep, the other half of the world will worship Him.
Just walk humbly with Him, lean on Him, if you get faint, fall on Him. You are His.
It’s funny how powerful you actually are in Him- You will still be standing when all else is shaken.
Laugh with Him-it’s good medicine.
In companionship with Love,
I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Qumran documents. Most read them as identifying two different Messiah figures, one Kingly and one Priestly.
Craig
Maybe the answer is in Luke 1:34 etc.
Holy Ghost comes over = Priestly mission
Spirit of God empowers = Kingly mission.
Which will also explain the unique or singular relationship as all those before and after only experienced a single calling. Either priestly/prophet plus apostle or Kingly and rulers of the time.
Again back all the way to creation… Male and Female as Skip nicely explains in Guardian Angel. And I thought apostle and prophet represented these forms of creation. Rather they sprout from the complete Christ creation. Image and Likeness. Not either but both…
And both completely human
I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
Skip, you suggested Kegan Chandler’s book. I’ve looked over the Amazon reviews, which are quite favorable, but I want to be sure this isn’t a matter of individuals merely confirming their own biases. To that end, I asked a question on one well-written review, which is as yet unanswered. I hope you—or someone else here—can answer it for me. While Chandler apparently cites John 17:3 (a favorite of Unitarians/monotheists), does he engage with 17:5 and 17:24? Also, does the book have a Scripture index?
For those who haven’t already, I suggest reading the historian and Christian Larry Hurtado’s work in this area. I would characterize his work as somewhere between the usual Christian stance as regards Christology and Trinitarianism and strict monotheism. For those with a Kindle, some of his works are conveniently reduced for the holiday season. Hurtado has written a few posts recently that condense his views. Rather than post a number of urls, I’ll provide a link to his December postings. From this list, the post on December 8th, the first and last of the 11th, and today’s (the 12th) posting all should be of interest to those here who want to look at the related issues with an open mind:
Larryhurtado dot wordpress dot com/2017/12/
Hurtado affirms Jesus as God’s ‘unique agent’ (as do I).
Scripture Index – YES. John 17:5 and 24 – there are about 2 dozen references to the 17th chapter of John, but without going back to check all of them, I can’t be sure if he specifically treats those 2 verses independently.
Skip, thanks, that helps. I don’t recall, is it George Kraemer who has a copy? Can anyone else confirm if Chandler engages with John 17:5 and 17:24?
No he doesn’t.
Thanks George.
I am confused with Klausner’s comment that ‘anointing’ is not connected to king and priest. I thought it would be totally connected. After all High Priest and kings were all specifically anointed with oil. What am I missing?