Leader and Followers
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, 1 Timothy 1:1 NASB
Our hope– We tend to pass over opening verses like this one because we have been trained to look for the theologically important applications in Paul’s letters. So we jump fairly quickly to verses like 1:8 and 1:15 or 2:11-15 (on women) or chapter 3 about the qualifications of bishops and deacons. But maybe that’s a mistake. Maybe we should pay attention to the details in every verse, particularly opening ones. When we look carefully at this verse, we discover some unexpected things.
First, Paul says that he is an apostle of Yeshua HaMashiach according to the commandment of YHVH. In other words, Paul seems to consider his commission directly from God. He is in service to the Messiah because God commanded it. Too often we imagine that Paul serves the Christ because he was called in the same way John and Peter were called. But apparently Paul doesn’t think so. This seems quite unusual when we read the story of Acts 9. Do we incorrectly assume that the instructions Ananias receives concerning Paul are from Yeshua? Or are they from YHVH? We’ll have to investigate this anew.
Second, notice that Paul uses the phrase, theou soteros (“God our Savior”). There seems to be no doubt in Paul’s mind about who is saving whom. This is all the more odd when a few verses later he writes, “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15). Of course, coming into the world to save sinners doesn’t necessarily mean the agent of salvation is the originator of salvation. We would have to ask Paul what he had in mind, and that is a little difficult. We won’t enter into the obvious Trinitarian implications here, but the verse is controversial, to say the least.
Finally, let’s look at the closing emphasis: “Yeshua HaMashiach our hope.” In what sense is Yeshua the Messiah our hope? Hope of salvation? But Paul already asserted that God is our Savior. The hope we have in the Messiah must be something else. After all, for centuries before Yeshua men and women still experienced salvation through YHVH. What does Yeshua offer that is new to this plan? It seems to me that Paul sees Yeshua as 1) the first fruit of acceptability before God for all who will follow, and 2) the guarantee that there is something after death, something real as evidenced by the risen Messiah. What’s new is that this man came back from the grave to proclaim the victory of God over death itself. What’s new is that there really is a reason to push on; that this life is not the end. What’s new is the flesh and blood evidence of vindication, justice and resurrection. Because he lived this life in obedience, YHVH raised him to be the final authority in this realm, and as his followers we have hope that we will participate in his eternal kingdom.
Topical Index: hope, savior, Messiah, 1 Timothy 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:1
Skip, you are reading your paradigm into the text (of course, we all do). The verse can be read exactly the opposite, too – as you well know and have taught us – IF (and only if) both ‘sides’ have already subscribed to the dialectic, right? I believe that anything that creates division of any sort can only be a device cooked up in the pits of hell. I find nothing corresponding to the dialectic anywhere in nature; therefore it must be a cursed spiritual interjection into creation.
I am convinced that salvation baby got split somewhere back there, and surely most of us would have to agree that it has not been very pretty ever since?
I am not sure how to read the verse “exactly opposite.” Maybe you could elaborate.
Paul claims commission from “God our savior”. If our savior is God, then of course, he would claim that. But it can be read that if God is our savior, then Yeshua NOT BEING GOD, must therefore not be our savior. It can also be read that Yeshua, NOT BEING OUR SAVIOR, must therefore not be God, either. Notice that both PREsuppositions; i.e. Yeshua not being God or savior, must be in place before it can be read those ways.
Do I also need to point out the exactly opposite corollary that if a person believed that our Savior is Yeshua, and that He is also God, then Yeshua, BEING GOD, clearly fits the criteria? You have to bring those presuppositions into the text, too, as you have taught us.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and is equally applicable, too. But Scripture, then, ‘helps’ neither side, right?
If God is savior (which is the claim of the prophets), then the Messiah is His agent of salvation. This does not mean the Messiah has nothing to do with salvation. He has everything to do with it. He just isn’t the ORIGINATOR. He is the one who APPLIES what YHVH initiates.
How’s that?
That’s boiler plate monotheism, for sure.
Which I am not interested in, per se; neither am I interested in the trinity position, either, to be fair.
What I am interested in is what got dropped – and what got added, too – by both sides when those positions got polarized FROM EACH OTHER.
But so far, I think, I have been interested all by myself.
Nope, you’ve got some company in that interested department.
I to am interested. Yet admittedly this is mysterious to me. I do not need to know to trust Yahovah does, that is enough for me. But this post and comments does a fair bit of sapping of the wall of Christ’s diety in my mind.
As far as I can tell, on this forum, anyway, His deity is not in much danger from either side. And why should your convictions be wavering so easily, anyway? (smile)
Well His deity would be His and I think He knows more about it than any of us do, no matter how sure we are of our selves. I guess I’ll need to inquire of Him how to sort it all out. Until he answers I’ll just ruminate on it.
Yep, Mark, me too. That’s where I stay. I think I learned somewhere (probably from this site) that another interpretation of the word “meditate” (Biblically, anyway) is the idea of chewing the cud. Get the food down into the gut level (as opposed to putting it in the head?), regurgitate, chew, swallow, repeat. (um, moo?)
I was thinking about the trinity construct today and was speaking to a friend in regards to it. He had a difficult time with the fact that I’m unsettled in my thoughts regarding it as, he felt it was a “very important” thing to have clarified in your mind. I told him that, other than the fact that it’s been in constant debate for at least 1700 years, so it can’t be all that easy a thing to accomplish, I didn’t find it anywhere near as high a priority to engage in as much as something like “it’s not good the man being alone.” So, all that being said, on issues like the trinity where all the “supporting” verses can be read either way (and maybe that’s the problem) I don’t even ruminate. I’m pretty sure that man not being alone is something God made quite clear and that it’s in His will for me to engage others so they won’t be alone. (in so far as is possible with me) I don’t think one of the questions at the judgement will be what my views on the trinity are, I’m pretty sure that one of them will be, “did you do what’s in your power to love that other one?” Besides, if walking in right relationship to God and man is how I get to know God, maybe I’ll find out what’s up with that trinity thing anyways.
Of course, the Messiah could be both Originator (in some sense) and agent.
In Acts 9:5, the voice speaking to Saul identifies Himself as Jesus, commanding Paul to go to the city where he will be given instruction. The voice to Ananias is identified as “the Lord” (ho kyrios) in verses 10, 11, and 15, an identification the LXX writers apply to the Hebrew YHWH…and to Yeshua in the NT (“our Lord”–with the article: tou kyriou hēmōn–in 1 Timothy 1:2). In Ananias’ reply in verse 13 to the Lord’s instructions regarding Saul (in verse 12), he refers to Messiah-followers as “your saints” (tois hagiois sou), to which “the Lord” tells Ananias (verses 15-16) that Saul is “my chosen instrument” and that Saul must “suffer for my name”.
Now, at that point, I think both ‘sides’ can be confused. The Trinitarians are going to go crazy trying to pinpoint exactly WHICH Person is doing what, and the Monotarians(?) can go nuts about the way the subject keeps changing…
While I haven’t checked each and every passage, in the NT “(the) Lord”, (ho) kyrios, consistently refers to Jesus/Yeshua–when the referent is clearly not some other human authority figure, of course.
Except, of course, when the NT is quoting the OT (which it does a lot).
Ah, yes, what hermeneutic(s) do we employ when the NT sources the Tanakh?
The lyrics above are appropriated from rock band Mission of Burma’s song “Trem Two”. In its original context the lyrics seem to refer to the writer reflecting on why a personal relationship has faded. Now, that’s not at all what I mean here, as my point is that the Trinitarian vs. strict monotheism debate appears largely to be a matter of perspective, with one side failing to see the other. Thus, it would obviously be wrong to impose my meaning onto the original song. The same could be said of Paul’s sourcing of Greek poets in the NT.
Yet it’s not so simple when the NT sources the Tanakh, as it will depend on a number of factors, such as: Is it a direct quotation, or merely an allusion? Then, do we interpret the NT passage through the lens of the (preconceived) understanding of the Tanakh, or do we (re?)interpret the Tanakh through the lens of the (perceived) understanding of NT?
I think Jude 5 provides excellent fodder for this line of inquiry. Over the years, the Greek Critical Text (the Greek text assumed to be ‘original’) underlying modern translations has changed from “Jesus” to “the Lord” and now back to “Jesus” as the One who delivered ‘His people’ out of Egypt. For the sake of our discussion, it’s not important to settle this Jesus/the Lord matter. The important thing is that the text in Jude explicitly states that Jesus/the Lord was the instrument, while in the original context, the referent is YHWH.
You put your thumb on the case in point very well. Modern translations have tended to muddy the water even more when it comes to some of this, I think.
On a side complaint of mine about manuscript copiers and translators, too; I don’t know why we accept that early necessarily means pure, when Paul and others were complaining from day one about wolves (gnostics and others) in the flock – Simon Magus a very famous case in that point. My point being that we are told (Biblically at least) that more witnesses (not necessarily earlier witnesses) show more clearly the harmony of the truth.
There is evidence to suggest that, of the @ 50 copies of the NT translation that Origen made for Constantine, we may have in our hands at least two that originated from those. Now, who would be willing to say that Origen would be a good origin for Scripture? But we find that both of these single copies of what could be his translation – found in Alexandria and Rome (which were arguably the earliest(!) hotbeds of gnosticism in the early church) no less, are taken as the SOLE foundation of ALL those “modern translations”. Some folks may be able to take “early” to mean “pure”, but I smell a fish. If anybody wanted to take a serious look at the dubious origins of these possible copies from Origen, there’s a lot of truly damning history out there to look at. It’s just my take, of course, but I would like to suggest that perhaps we should be looking in all the mouths of all the horses? Even harder? And while we are at it, we damn the committee James I appointed, but who is willing to take as hard a look at (the self-appointed) Westcott and Hort?
Laurita,
You wrote: …My point being that we are told (Biblically at least) that more witnesses (not necessarily earlier witnesses) show more clearly the harmony of the truth…But we find that both of these single copies of what could be [Origen’s] translation – found in Alexandria and Rome (which were arguably the earliest(!) hotbeds of gnosticism in the early church) no less, are taken as the SOLE foundation of ALL those “modern translations”.
But that’s not true. First of all, there’s no evidence to suggest any extant NT Greek manuscripts are Origen’s—though Origen was known for writing commentaries as well as the Hexapla, which is the Hebrew Bible. What we do know is that there are two different nearly-complete Alexandrian Greek NT manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the latter taken to Rome long after its original penning)—and quite a few Alexandrian papyri—and neither promotes any sort of Gnosticism, not even implicitly. I don’t state the following to be specifically critical of you, as I respect your contributions generally, but this is the sort of thing I read from KJV-only advocates.
I’ll agree that earliest doesn’t not necessarily mean “purest”. Westcott and Hort asserted this in the late 19th century, however this view has fallen to the wayside long ago, and modern translations do not follow this method. Instead, they follow a methodology called “reasoned eclecticism”, in which they choose from all available Greek manuscript witnesses (and secondarily, “Church Fathers”) to determine the most likely original text. It’s part science and part ‘art’. But, we must keep in mind that the number of variances we have is very small—excepting obvious transcription errors, such as spelling and omitting/duplicating some text. And with the plethora of manuscript evidence, we are fairly certain of the text, and those variances we do have do not impact any important doctrine.
The Byzantine manuscripts (i.e. post-Constantine) are by far the most numerous. But, this text ‘family’ is known for harmonization. That is, for example, when Matthew records words of Jesus that are shorter in Mark, then Mark is lengthened to keep the words of Jesus in harmony. This, of course, is faulty, and this fact makes this text longer than any other. And this is the text (mostly) underlying the KJV, e.g. (So, one can compare the KJV with any other newer translations; sure, there are differences, but none of the new ones can be construed as promoting Gnosticism, in comparison with the KJV.)
It’s upon known characteristics of ‘this family’ of texts vs. ‘that family’ that text critics base their decisions. Yet, while the Westcott/Hort method is no longer followed, the W/H text is largely shown to be correct. And even in cases where one may wish to go against the Alexandrian texts (W/H), the difference does not materially affect the text. The only major exception is the “long ending” of Mark (16:9-20)—absent in the W/H. (I wrote an article about this: notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com/2013/12/08/charismatic-ramifications-on-the-long-ending-of-marks-gospel/)
If you look at the middle column here (biblehub dot com/multi/jude/1-5.htm), you will see that all have slight variations of ὅτι [ὁ] Κύριος (that [the] Lord) in Jude 5, with none evidencing “Jesus”. This is because this site does not use the newest Critical Text (NA28/UBS5). My point is that the W/H agrees here with all the others, except for the lack/presence of the article.
That helps a lot, and, no, I am not a KJV only advocate, even though I am more comfortable with its biases, being more familiar with them (I’ll take the known enemy over the unknown one). There is undeniably more clarity in a lot of the text from the recent finds, which I have found helpful. Balance (look at all sides) is what I look for. It is too easy to get polemic for lack of that, and I thank whoever yanks me back out of that!
That being said, Gnosticism is one sneaky critter. If you are going to say that “none of the new ones can be construed as promoting Gnosticism, in comparison with the KJV.” that is going to have to come with examples and more explanation than we have forum for, here. Anything that recasts Yeshua on a level with the other “great” human/gods (or that helps clear the runway for that) is suspect. Ecumenism is not a new idea. The groundwork for it got laid long ago. Unfortunately, we can find that groundwork all the way back to the Garden. The world has never had a problem with Him being just one more gate to god.
What got tweaked one way (for example, supportive of the Trinity) can most certainly have gotten tweaked the other way, too. Isn’t it unfortunate that so many of the tweaks or even drops in the new stuff is so favorable for ecumenism? (Must find the tweaks…)
Thanks as always for the scholarship and the heart.
Laurita,
I didn’t take you for a KJV-onlyist. But, I can understand how one can look at the polemics they use and assume there’s truth to their allegations against the newer translations. I have a friend who has fallen prey to it—and he definitely prefers the KJV, and he may well be a KJVO.
I think one can construe Gnosticism from the Scriptures, but I don’t think one can do it more so with the newer translations over against the older ones. But, I concede, some are much more imaginative than me.
Somewhat related to this post and our discussion here is something I just wrote on the ICHTHYS. Most are unaware that early on someone ingeniously formed an acrostic from this Greek word. I even cite a portion of the DSS and quote a bit from Origen as I write about the “Jesus fish”. An important aspect of the article is the early Christian church’s concern of possibly falling into idolatry and thus their preference for symbols. Too bad that was cast away by the RCC: notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com/2018/08/26/fishers-of-persons/
Skip, I always appreciate your comments on the passages you choose to explore. I don’t necessarily get to study them each day, but when I do, I take away new ideas. Thank you for taking the time to challenge us. I also like viewing pictures you take. We have many languages to use in communicating. Pictures, plus all visual arts, are one of the more delightful ways. I look forward to future posts.
You say, “Too often we imagine that Paul serves the Christ…..But apparently Paul doesn’t think so.”
It seems quite clear that Paul DID think he served Yeshua HaMashiach, in that he wrote, “…..according to the commandment of God our Savior AND of Christ Jesus…..”.
And you say, “…..notice that Paul uses the phrase, theou soteros (‘God our Savior’)”.
Yes, but in his next letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 1:10] and in other letters, he also refers to Yeshua HaMashiach with the same word for savior, right?
Also you ask, “Do we incorrectly assume that the instructions Ananias receives concerning Paul are from Yeshua? Or are they from YHVH?”
My answer would be, no, I DON’T think we, those of us who believe that the instructions received by Ananias were from Yeshua, incorrectly assume that. Again, it seems quite clear that the instructions to Ananias WERE from Yeshua, by Ananias’ own words.
“But Ananias answered, ‘Lord, I have heard from many about this man—how much harm he has done to your kedoshim in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the ruling kohanim to tie up all who call on Your name.’” [Act 9:13-14]
Paul was only harming, specifically, Yeshua’s kedoshim and not, generally, YHVH’s kedoshim. He was only tying up, specifically, those who called on the name of Yeshua HaMashiach and not, generally, all who call on the name of YHVH, including the “ruling kohanim” who gave him authority to do so. So, Ananias could have only been speaking to Yeshua HaMashiach.
Additionally, “Ananias answered with the title, ‘Lord’….”. The word “Lord” there, as I understand it, is kurios, the same word David used the second time when he said, “The LORD said to my Lord….”.
So, in summary, though I don’t believe Paul thought that God, the Father, and the son, the Lord Yeshua, the Messiah, are the same person, I do think he knew they were echad and wasn’t confused about the Father and the son both saving him, commanding him, and being his hope. One MAY have been the originator and the other the agent, but I believe Paul believed they were and would be echad from beginning to end, and he acknowledged them both in their separate identities but harmonious workings.
Ok. So some Christians elevate “Jesus Christ” too highly. That is true. However, is it better that the great majority of the Jews throughout history elevate YHVH too highly, or maybe actually denigrate Him, in that they deny His “exact expressed image”, His messiah, Yeshua, His only begotten son, His savior, lord, and king of Israel? I think in distancing ourselves from Christianity because of some of it’s erroneous teachings and traditions, we must be careful to rightly distance ourselves, also, in the same sense, from Judaism because of some of it’s erroneous teachings and traditions, and we must rightly divide the truth regarding the teachings and traditions of the apostles and the prophets, being very careful to keep Yeshua HaMashiach as the chief cornerstone, as well as being very careful to not denigrate his high name, position, and role. After all, he is the great high priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron.
Just a short comment. You take the liberty to translate, “theou” as “YHVH” when you write above,
Paul says that he is an apostle of Yeshua HaMashiach according to the commandment of YHVH
Would you then NOT take issue with someone translating John 20:28 as “And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my YHVH.”?
I think we all agree Yeshua is the capital W, Word of God, but tend not to identify Him in that phrase with the same phrase using the small w, word of God, even though the difference is not in the originals. But if we do, then the pre-incarnate Yeshua often shows up in the Old Testament. For example, the very first time (of the 241 times) we find the phrase, it states,
Gen 15:1 NASB After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.”
2Sa 22:31 NASB “As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the LORD is tested; He is a shield to all who take refuge in Him.
:32 “For who is God, besides the LORD? And who is a rock, besides our God?
1Co 10:4 NASB and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
I found the phrase, “the word of the LORD” 241 times in the NASB. Is it always referring to the “voice” or, “written word” of God, or is it, at least sometimes, also referring to the Being known as the Word? (Of course, “LORD” is actually YHWH in the original.)
Exo_9:20 The one among the servants of Pharaoh who feared the word of the LORD made his servants and his livestock flee into the houses;
21: but he who paid no regard to the word of the LORD left his servants and his livestock in the field.
1Sa_3:7 Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, nor had the word of the LORD yet been revealed to him. (very interesting distinction)
1Sa_3:21 And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, because the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.
1Ki_13:2 He cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, “O altar, altar, thus says the LORD, . . .
1Ki_13:18 He said to him, “I also am a prophet like you, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the LORD, saying, . . .
These quotes are just among the first 30 of the 241. It’s not simple to figure out especially when Yesuha tells us,
Joh 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
Thank you Daniel Kraemer this is a nice reference to clarify what Yeshau meant when he said you search or study the scriptures to find salvation when all it does is testify about me (my own words).
I did not even consider more than the Ten Commandments as the word of God and here you point out that it is also the guiding principles in the OT that kept the people at least en route to salvation.