Que Sera Sera
If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 1 Corinthians 15:32 NASB
Raised– You hope it happens. You hope that the dead are raised, that there is something after the grave, that what you do now will matter later. But you don’t know, do you? You don’t really know, you can’t really know, what happens later. Oh, and by the way, neither could Paul. In fact, the Sadducees were the ones who pointed out that in Moses’ Torah there is no resurrection. Of course, Paul was a Pharisee and the Pharisees accepted the works of the prophets on par with Moses, so they had hints of something after this life. Hints, I say, not facts. Not until Yeshua. Then there was evidence. Someone came back, walked around with men, talked, ate, taught. Someone was once dead and was now alive again. Of course, Paul didn’t actually “see” any of this. He had a vision. He didn’t shake hands with Yeshua and say, “Welcome back.” But he knew men who did and his vision was enough to convince him that something was on the other side of the grave. His choice of the Greek verb actually suggests that this was no pagan resurrection myth.
As distinct from anistánai, egeírein expresses the concreteness of the action. For the resurrection as Jesus’ own act, cf. Jn. 2:19; 10:17–18. The risen body of Jesus has both material (Lk. 24:39ff.; Jn. 20:25ff.) and spiritual features (1 Cor. 15:47; Phil. 2:6, 9; Jn. 20:17). Even linguistically the myth of the dying and rising redeemer-god neither forms the native soil of the gospel nor offers a parallel, for in it egeírein seldom occurs. In addition, the eschatological concept is missing and the NT core is theologically significant history rather than nature myth or speculative myth.[1]
Egeírō, “to awaken, to rise up,” expresses Paul’s eschatological, apocalyptic hope. It’s not just a hope about Yeshua. Paul is convinced that all the dead will experience resurrection. Just in case you didn’t catch the implication, this statement pretty much eliminates the Greek philosophical concept of souls waiting in heaven for reunion with bodies. People are resurrected, not bodies. People who have died, who no longer exist in any sense that we might comprehend. The idea of an eternal soul is not Hebraic. But resurrection is.
What’s startling is how little importance is given to this notion in the Tanakh. It seems to have come into fashion as a result of a problem for the Greeks. What problem? Oh, simply this: The Greeks were interested in justice and bad people seem to get away with things in this life. So rectify this situation, the Greeks postulated two answers. First, the children of bad people who have died without being punished will inherit the punishment. The scales will be balanced. That doesn’t work so well for followers of the Tanakh since the prophets clearly proclaimed that children are not punished for their fathers’ sins. The second answer, however, worked just fine. There was an afterlife and justice was served in the next world. Bad people got hell. Good people got heaven. Justice was served—again.
It’s this idea that Paul endorses. All the dead will be raised—apparently, for judgment. Scary, but necessary if God is a God of justice and the next world is real. That’s pretty much what we think these twenty centuries later. No one gets away with it forever.
Of course, that leaves us with the problem of why the Tanakh seems so silent on the matter. Why focus on just this life if it’s preparation for another? Maybe we really don’t appreciate just how necessary it was for God to remove the Egyptian preoccupation with the afterlife from His ex-slave population. All we know is that Paul and his compatriots certainly put a lot of stock in what’s next. We probably do too. It’s actually comforting to know it will be fair in the end (as long as we’re on the good side, of course). Still, it’s a hope, perhaps a well-grounded one, but nevertheless, not quite like what we insist on for evidence in other matters. But it’s a hope worth having. It changes things. It’s not a fairytale wish. It means what I do really does matter, and that matters a lot. It’s a hope we actually need, I think. It makes us human. As Paul says, if this isn’t true, then what’s the point of it all?
Topical Index: egeírō, raised, dead, hope, afterlife, 1 Corinthians 15:32
[1]Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Abridged (p. 195). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
OK, we heard you! We heard all of you who said, “We love the blog comments. We need community.” So, Mark and I decided NOT to erase everything. As of September 1 you will no longer be able to ADD comments to my site, but everything that has been written (all 63,ooo comments) will be retained, so whenever you look for a past Today’s Word, you will be able to read any comments posted to that Today’s Word edition. If you want to continue to voice your ideas, please take up Gayle’s offer to join the interactive group. The web link is HERE.
Skip, Hallelujah, Bravo, Kudos, Hurrah, Praise The Lord and bless you for your decesion to keep the old comments alive. Who now needs an afterlife afterall!! I have been feverishly trying to re-read, rate and copy as many of the best comments as I could before the approaching deadline, but there was no way I was going to make it. For example, I have long kept a copy of my favorite Skip comments, answers to questions, explanations, etc. on my computer. But from just ONE post alone (“Torah – and all that stuff” on February 8, 2013), YOU had SIX noteworthy comments over a period of time that I deemed worthy of saving in my files for future reference, not to mention a couple from some of the readers. So thanks from the bottom of my heart and, no doubt, from the hearts of the future readers who will still have access to these 63,000 community comments. Once again Hallelujah, Bravo, Kudos, Hurrah, Praise The Lord and bless you.
And yes, everyone come join Gayle on her MEWE page to keep the community conversation continuing. For my part I promise to continue to try to keep you entertained, appalled, confused, annoyed, engaged, bored, pained and guessing, as always, by my commentary…sometimes all in the same post.
Ditto ?????
I think Isaiah blew the lid off the speculations about both the afterlife and the Messiah very well. If you take all the verses about both subjects, you can flesh out both pretty satisfactorily – and he was pre-Greek. Oh, but the legends tell us that he, being a prophet saying things nobody wanted to hear, got chased into a hollow log and sawn in half (Hebrews mentions that). So much for that audience wanting to understand him!
If you bring a belief in the resurrection already to the text, as well as a belief in a suffering Messiah, you will find both in the Tanakh just fine. In the New Testament, Isaiah got quoted the most, as far as I have been able to tell. I guess, as a prophet (who never writes to their contemporary audiences, according to Skip), he was writing to Yeshua’s generation, because they got him. Loud and clear.
Paul had a lot of visions, and his descriptions of the judgment, as well as the afterlife, are clearly visual descriptions of what he saw. They weren’t written as “hopeful speculations”. I think the resurrection was the real gripper that got the audiences: finally: a definitive answer to what lay beyond the grave! We read that that brought the house down everywhere the apostles took it. People believe what they already want to believe. The Greek audiences obviously were primed and ready to believe this message, and the Alexandrian-trained, Hellenistic elite of Israel, apparently were, too. We read that thousands of the priest class accepted Yeshua as the Messiah after He rose from the dead. I have seen some reports that as many as 60,000 believing Jews, as per Yeshua’s instructions about what to do when Jerusalem fell, fled to Pella. That’s a lots of Jews in Jerusalem who had bought into this idea. Perhaps the world was finally ready to hear it. Are we?
Yay! Glad to hear it! I’ve learned from the comments as well ?
I should first point out that Kittel et al here affirm something I tried to get across more than once: Jesus raised Himself from His own power, according to the plain words of John 2:19, as well as the similar verbiage of John 10:17-18 with its use of the active voice (over against passive) in describing how Yeshua will ‘take up’ the life he will ‘lay down’. With that out of the way, I’ll proceed.
While there isn’t much in the Tanakh regarding judgment, both in its positive and negative sense, Daniel 12:1-3 is fairly straightforward and detailed. In verse 2, the prophet describes the fate of the righteous contrasted with the unrighteous (which John the Gospel writer apparently follows in John 5:29):
yāqı̂ṣû ʾēlleh lᵉḥayyê ʿôlām wᵉʾēlleh laḥᵃrāp̱ôṯ lᵉḏirʾôn ʿôlām ~= will awaken, these to life everlasting(?), those to reproach everlasting(?)
The LXX Greek is more expressive and expansive: anastēsontai [3 pers pl indicative anistēmi (anistanai)], hoi men eis zōēn aiōnion, hoi de eis oneidismon, hoi de eis diasporan kai aischynēn aiōnion. ~= will arise, some, indeed, to life evermore, but some to disgrace, but some to dispersion and shame evermore.
Verse 3 is a rephrasing of the ‘fate’ (for lack of a better term at the moment) of the righteous:
wᵉhammaśkilı̂m yazhirû kᵉzōhar hārāqı̂aʿ ûmaṣdı̂qê hārabbı̂m kakkôḵāḇı̂m lᵉʿôlām wāʿeḏ ~= the prudent will shine brightly like the heavenly expanse, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars evermore.
LXX Greek: hoi synientes phanousin hōs phōstēres tou ouranou kai hoi katischyontes tous logous mou hōsei ta astra tou ouranou eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos. ~= the wise to shine as the lights of heaven, and those overcoming [by/with?] my words/message like the stars of heaven into the age of the age/evermore of the evermore.
I’m trying to understand why Kittel et al see a distinction between the two Greek verbs egeirō and anistēmi. The former (egeirō) can mean simply “awaken”, as in from literal sleep, or it can be used figuratively as in from death to life; yet, when used in its figurative sense, it seems to be synonymous with anistēmi (from ana, up; histēmi, stand). For example, when Yeshua declares He will raise up His ‘temple’ (John 2:19) He uses egeirō, while in John 5:29 He uses the noun form of anistēmi to describe the final judgment of both the faithful and the unfaithful, and in John 6:39 He uses the verbal form of anistēmi in referring to those He will raise up on the last day. Yet in 1 Cor 6:14 Paul uses egeirō to refer to both the previous action of God with the Lord Jesus and the future action of God for the faithful. The Louw and Nida lexicon renders it either, “‘God raised up the Lord and will raise us up through his power’ or ‘God caused the Lord to live again and he will cause us to live through his power’.” So, I think the two terms are indeed synonymous when used for the raising of the dead to life.
“Jesus raised Himself from His own power.”
Craig, given that we are dealing with something supernatural that had no observers or first person (Yeshua) relation of the subject in hand, anything we say about the resurrection is speculation. God did it, Yeshua did it himself, (he is God so he can do anything). This is just another joist in the trinity platform which is, AT BEST, is implied.
George,
I’d truly be willing to concede this, for things would be so much simpler if Jesus were a man like all of us (except for also being the one, unique Messiah, of course), except the text is so unambiguous–not implicit, but explicit in this regard. In John 2:19, Yeshua makes a startling claim (the first portion expressed in the imperative, i.e. a command, followed by his own action in the active voice): “Destroy this temple [His body], and I will raise it again in three days.” To reiterate, this is not ambiguous, nor does it merely imply that He would raise His body by His own power; this statement (after the command “Destroy this temple”) is explicit. Jesus didn’t say “God will raise it again in three days” or “the Father will raise it again in three days”; He claimed He would do it Himself. What kind of man can make such a claim?
In addition, John 10:17-18 is not ambiguous. In these verses Yeshua declares that He will voluntarily lay down His psyche, His life, and He will take (active voice–not passive) it back up again. Full disclosure: I made a few comments on Larry Hurtado’s blog on this, and Hurtado came back with the caveat that this laying down of His life and taking it back up again were to be achieved by the authority given Him by the Father (verse 18); however, I responded something to the effect that this not material to the fact that Yeshua was to do this by His own power (again, active voice instead of passive), regardless of whether or not He would take up His own life by the Father’s authority. The important issue here is the inherent power to do so, not the authority on which/whom He acted. Moreover, these verses should be considered in light of Jesus’ earlier claim in 2:19.
I’d read one commentator who tried to use the passive “after He was raised from the dead” in John 2:23 to somehow negate the active voice in 2:19; but, the two can very easily be harmonized. That is, if Jesus is God (like Thomas exclaimed in 20:28), as part of the Trinity, then the passive voice in 2:23 is merely expressing the human nature of the Divine-human Yeshua being raised, while the active voice in 2:19 is Jesus expressing His own action from the Divine side of His theanthropic (God-man) Person. I know many bristle at this sort of thing, but this is how the divine-human Person of Jesus has been expressed for about the last 1670 years. Admittedly, it’s not an easy concept to grasp, but if I can understand it, most anyone can.
Craig: I recall we discussed this some time ago. I believe I provided over 40 verses in the Scriptures that indicate that God/Father raised Jesus from the dead. The clear teaching of the writers is that God the Father did this. I think you are too dismissive in your comment about John 2:23… It says “after he was raised from the dead” not “after he raised himself from the dead”. We can disagree on this but to be honest the overwhelming testimony of the New Testament writers is that God the Father raised Jesus from the grave.
HSB,
There’s no doubt “God” the Father is explicitly referenced and “God” non-specified raised Yeshua from the dead. But, this poses no problem from the Trinitarian perspective. It was a joint work of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Himself) and the Holy Spirit (Romans 1:4; 8:11). Understood as such, John 2:23 does not negate the explicit words of Yeshua on 2:19 (and 10:17-18).
One cannot just simply impose the “overwhelming testimony”, as you call it, upon the very clear grammar of 2:19 and 10:17-18–not to mention John 20:28. These must be harmonized somehow. The Trinitarian answer provides such harmony.
If a detective is investigating a crime, finding irrefutable evidence that Lopez committed this crime, while also finding irrefutable evidence that Smith committed the same crime, would the detective just apply the Smith evidence to Lopez based on the “overwhelming testimony” or might the detective conclude that both Lopez and Smith were the perpetrators?
…..”this is how the divine-human Person of Jesus has been expressed for about the last 1670 years.”
Yes but the real point is how did the Jews (and any gentiles) of the first century see it, let alone those of the next two centuries before the corruption of the Roman Empire and the Church merger.
My intention with that quote was strictly to point out the way this was explained in the fourth century and later; but, this does not mean Jesus wasn’t understood as God, Deity before this time. I’d noted elsewhere that Ignatius asserted the Deity of Christ ca. 107AD in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (and in his some of his other letters). From my research, I’m of the opinion John’s Gospel was written in the late first century, ca. 95AD, FYI. Does this mean Yeshua was not understood to be Deity prior to John’s Gospel? There are indications in the Synoptics and in Paul’s letters, as well of Messiah’s Deity—though most are implicit, rather than explicit (see, e.g., here: etsjets dote org/files/JETS-PDFs/37/37-3/JETS_37-3_333-350_Doriani.pdf).
In any case, the Gospel of John contains the clearest references to Jesus as God, Deity. Of course, if one finds these truths inconvenient, then one may just exclude John’s Gospel (amongst other NT works) from the canon of Scripture, as some readers on here have done. Yet, as I explained—and Kittel et. al. affirm—the Gospel of John does indeed affirm, in more than one context, that Yeshua Messiah is God and that Christ raised Himself from the dead. I just don’t see how any being other than Deity has the inherent power to raise Himself from the dead.
I should also add that the verb form in 2:22 (I mistakenly stated 2:23 above, sorry), ēgerthē (from egeirō) is thought by some scholar to “bear an intransitive sense, meaning ‘He rose’” (Murry J. Harris, John, EGGNT Commentary, [B&H: Nashville, TN, 2015], p 67). In other words, it somewhat resembles the Greek middle voice. Harris goes on, This, of course, does not contradict the frequent NT assertions of the Father’s role in raising Jesus (e.g. Acts 3:15; Romans 10:9; 1 Peter 1:21) (p 67).
The bottom line is that, if the reader accepts John’s Gospel as part of Scripture, then the reader must grapple with the unambiguous statements in John relative to Messiah’s Deity. To categorically dismiss them or to claim they must be negated by seeming contradictions just will not do.
‘There are indications in the Synoptics and in Paul’s letters, as well of Messiah’s Deity—though most are implicit, rather than explicit. ‘
Craig: don’t you think that this remarkable, indeed transformative, understanding of the nature of God being a man should be totally explicit. When Paul/Barnabus were thought to be Hermes/Zeus in the flesh, they tore their clothes and protested loudly… wonder why they did not simply advise the Greek audience that God had indeed come as a man named Jesus. Tanach declares on multiple occasions “God is not a man…”
‘The bottom line is that, if the reader accepts John’s Gospel as part of Scripture, then the reader must grapple with the unambiguous statements in John relative to Messiah’s Deity.‘
Obviously we differ on this… and yes I do accept John’s gospel along with the other New Testament writings. But I believe John was writing to Jews primarily who had a well developed understanding of Tanach. Most if not all of the early church “fathers” were Greek philosophers who loved Plato. Constantine’s speech related to the Nicea debate shows his strong support for Plato and how church doctrine is understood in that context. The “church fathers” used this Greek understanding to interpret John and other writers.
Regarding John 10:17-18, Thayer indicates the word S2983 means “receive, get back”. This is different from our normal understanding of the word “take”. Indeed in verse 18 the same word is used to describe the commandment I “received” from the Father… again the initiating action belongs to the Father. Jesus only “took” what he was given.
I think much of this discussion is circular. Jesus says in John 5:25 that “the dead (S3498) will hear… and those having heard will live”. One could argue (not me) that in order to “hear” there must be life already in death. I think you raised a similar argument before relating to “receiver” needing to be alive to receive.
The bottom line for me is that the Father alone raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus had no consciousness or power to do anything… it was ALL the work of our heavenly Father. Multiple dozens of New Testament verses attest to this fact. Jesus did not simply decide to get up in his own power after three days… he was raised up.
But, HSB, when He decided to become one of us, He handed His authority over to the Father so as to only use what is available to us, as our Example.
Besides, love is about being submissive: it’s about what the other wants. There are plenty of verses where the Son is doing that, but there are also verses where the Holy Spirit is doing that to the the Father and the Son, but also verses where the Father is doing that to the Son! They all do it! To each other! What if being God is not about who is calling the shots, but about who is able to fully submit to the needs and desires and choices of another? Yeshua says this over and over and over and we read it as if it is ‘proof; that He is not God, but what if it is proof that He is?
Has anybody read The Sonship of Christ by Ty Gibson, yet?
Laurita: “when He decided to become one of us”… I don’t agree that this ever happened. “He handed over His authority to the Father”. Again don’t think this ever happened. “Father doing that” (being submissive) to the Son…when pray tell did that ever occur??
Phil.2:6,7 kenosis “emptied himself” (ESV) “of his divine “privileges and advantages” (Phillips). Love is voluntary, if it is anything. The Son chose to submit to the Father, and point to Him and glorify Him (John 17:4). But, we read that the Holy Spirit points to the Son and glorify Him (John 16:13, 14). But then we read that the Father points to the Son (Is. 42:1) “Behold!…My elect One in whom My soul delights!” (Matt. 3:17) “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Heb. 1:8) …but to the Son He says “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever”. They all submit to each other: that’s the foundation of love. Ty Gibson’s book makes a compelling case that Yeshua was not a Son of God until the incarnation. I was convinced.
“But, HSB, when He decided to become one of us, ***He handed His authority over to the Father*** so as to only use what is available to us, as our Example.”
So, if Yahusha is YHWH (Father), doesn’t it sound like he handed his authority over to himself?
It helped a lot in my untangling this messy doctrine when someone pointed this out to me:
Son of God ≠ God the Son
The phrase “son of God” is all over Scripture, whereas the phrase “God the Son” is NOWHERE in Scripture. If the trinity or the deity of Yahusha is crucial to the faith of Yah’s people/children, wouldn’t He make it explicit? Afterall, He’s the God of revelation.
Another thing that I find helpful in my paradigm shift is the definition of terms:
1. Christ/messiah/mashiach = anointed, anointed one (as opposed to the Anointer), chosen
Do you know that Nebuchadnezzar was also a mashiach (anointed/chosen by Yah to discipline His rebellious people)?
2. Yahusha/Yahushua/Yeshua = Yah/YHWH saves (Yahuwah is the one doing the saving via His agent/prophet/anointed one)
3. Saviour = one who saves
Although Yah is THE Saviour (the One doing the saving), He always sends a man to be His agent of salvation. E.g. Moses, Joshua, David, the judges, Yahusha (in the NT)
4. Son of God = someone who is born from above or born again (of the set-apart spirit of Abba Yah)
Which is why we see Yahusha being declared the son of God ONLY after his immersion/baptism. In Luke 1, the declaration of Gabriel to Miryam/Mary were all in the future tense. I used to think it was because the messiah wasn’t born yet. But now I see it as a prophetic message leading up to his immersion as the fulfillment of that prophecy. That’s why Yahusha told John the Immerser to baptize him…”Permit it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fill all righteousness.”
5. God/elohim = the Almighty, mighty ones, judges, mighty, false gods
There are still so many things and verses that I don’t understand in Scripture, but more are becoming easier to read and understand. Truth has a way of bringing the rest of Scripture to light, IMHO.
I pray this helps.
HSB,
Be careful not to impose English convention upon the Greek. In the active voice, English speakers will use “take”, in the passive, “receive” is usually chosen, though not always. For a few other examples of the active voice of the Greek lambanō see Matthew 7:8 (“For everyone who asks receives”—“takes” would be a bit too strong here); Matthew 10:8 (“Freely you have received…”—here, once again, “takes” appears a bit too strong; the active voice is employed because their receiving was not passive, somewhat akin to being present and physically receiving [though “taking” could work—see next example] an award, as opposed to it being sent via mail and receiving it in your mailbox); Revelation 5:7 (“He [the Lamb] came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne”). The key in each and every context just cited is the active participation of the actor.
Craig
I am with you on the pre-existence of Yeshua in YHWH, but if He gave up His deity to become fully human, then He was fully dead and I don’t understand how He could raise Himself from the dead, so I have to go with HSB on the preponderance of Scriptures stating the Father (only) raised Him up.
I do not mean to be frivolous but how does a God remain a God and become man, and experience the mind of an infant? Was He one hundred percent God, understanding and helping to rule the universe in His crib? What was Yeshua using when He was a man, His human brain or His God brain? When He died on the cross, what died? His humanness only? If He was both God and man, where was His deity residing in His human body? If it was as spirit, what does that mean? Did He have a God spirit brain that went to heaven when He died? What did it reside in when it went to heaven, or, was it invisible, even to the heavenly Host? Then, at the resurrection, did He bring it back and put it into his old human body? I honestly hesitate to write this as it seems almost blasphemous, but I can’t make any good Greek or Hebraic sense out of this situation. You state John 2:19 and 10:17 are unambiguous. I can’t argue the Greek, but neither can I understand the consequences of those translations being taken exactly literally.
I think you are over-interpreting the ’emptying’ in Philippians. Think about it like this: Can God so ’empty’ Himself as to be completely devoid of His Deity? Even if so, how would He then regain His Deity? Can a man become God? Sorry, that chasm is much too wide to bridge for mere humanity.
Craig: Here is something for your consideration. After the resurrection, the disciples spent considerable time with the risen Lord discussing the Kingdom according to Acts 1:3. This would have been a wonderful opportunity for Jesus to provide insights into his “dual nature” as God-man. Yet when Peter presents his first sermon (Acts 2:22) Peter refers to “Jesus, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst”. Then in verse 36 he further adds “God has made him both Lord and Christ”. Later in speaking with Cornelius in Acts 10:38 Peter delivers a similar sermon: “God anointed him (Jesus) with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him.” This sure sounds to me that God is someone other than Jesus and is sovereign over him. God is doing things through him, making him Messiah Lord, anointing him, and “with him”. So did Peter understand that Jesus was actually God or not? If Peter knew this why did he not say so? I believe Peter saw Jesus as a special man, the Messiah of God. That is what he said! It would take a few hundred years and a healthy dose of Greek philosophy to refine the doctrine of the Trinity. Is this not problematic for you?
HSB,
I hope to provide a proper response soon, but in the mean time I’ll leave you with recent posts of Larry Hurtado, which partially align with my thoughts, especially with respect to early high christological beliefs. I’ll quote liberally from the latter link:
larryhurtado dot wordpress dot com/2019/08/23/the-origins-of-devotion-to-jesus-in-its-ancient-context/
larryhurtado dot wordpress dot com/2019/08/26/jesus-devotion-and-historical-questions/
Quoting Hurtado:
…In particular, we’re exploring the emergence of what Wilhelm Bousset referred to as “the Kyrios cult” [recall that the Tetragrammaton is consistently translated kyrios, LORD, in the LXX, and that Yeshua is consistently and quite often referred to as “Lord”–not merely in the context of the more common “master”–in the NT, most especially and importantly in citations of the Tanakh, with “God”/”the Father” rarely referred to with this designation], i.e., the treatment of Jesus as in some way sharing in divine glory and reverence. These are the questions, not whether there may have been some isolated group that didn’t revere Jesus in this manner.
Second, in doing historical work an important principle is chronology. As to the questions before us, the earliest assured evidence is found in the seven letters of the Apostle Paul that are almost universally regarded as genuinely written by him (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon). These are commonly dated ca. 50-60 AD, which means we have reflections of early Christian beliefs and practices from within approximately 18-20 yrs after Jesus’ execution.
But it gets better. These letters scarcely devote much space to teaching christological beliefs and devotional practices; instead they presuppose them. Which means that these beliefs and practices emerged and had become traditional well before these letters. Moreover, Paul’s efforts are evident to align his mission and churches with the Jerusalem church and Aramaic-speaking circles of Jesus-believers. As, e.g., in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Paul expressly says that the Jerusalem figures and he taught basically the same message. Paul’s collection for Jerusalem also shows how he strove to link his diaspora/gentile churches with Jesus-believers in the Jewish homeland…
…Were there other circles of Jesus-followers who didn’t share these beliefs? If so, we have no evidence of them. And Paul wasn’t reluctant to indicate or engage issues of difference with others! So, it’s conspicuous that there is no mention of differences over christological issues. Without evidence of major christological differences, or of circles that didn’t regard Jesus as glorified and sharing in divine honor, to posit such circles is an exercise in fantasy. Not good historical practice. To be sure, there are later references to “Ebionites” who may or may not be actual groups by that name. But these groups can’t be placed early or function as rival versions of earliest believers, nor is it clear that they denied the glorified status of Jesus.
Oh yes, the Gospels, especially the Synoptics, present us with a Jesus of Nazareth who doesn’t make divine claims and who is treated by people variously as prophet, Messiah, charlatan, or false teacher. That’s what biographical accounts are supposed to do–give an account of the actual activities of the subject. And the Gospels can’t be taken as full-blown accounts of the christological beliefs of their authors. They aren’t that kind of theological treatises.
Moreover, the Gospels are commonly dated ca. 70-100 AD, or somewhere between forty and seventy years after Jesus’ crucifixion, which means forty to sixty years into the Jesus-movement. Careful analysis shows that the authors presuppose a developed Jesus-devotion, and aim to present the historical roots in the figure of Jesus. But, as with all the early evidence, the authors regard God’s actions in raising Jesus from death and installing him as Lord and regnant Son as the point at which Jesus receives divine honors and is then to be reverenced accordingly. So, for example, it is the risen/glorified Jesus in Matthew 28:16-20 who is worshipped (v. 17) and who claims to have been given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (v. 18).
…In sum, the evidence indicates that the conviction that God had glorified Jesus and given him divine honor and status erupted first among Jewish believers in Judea. Contra Bousset, it was not in diaspora settings, but in these Judean churches…
Craig: I realize you are working on a reply to my question that concerned Peter’s understanding of Jesus nature as reflected in early chapters of Acts. But I must provide a critique of Larry Hurtado’s comments on his website. Basically his position is that Jesus did not just “get understood” to be divine as the gospel spread to Gentile populations, but rather right from the start Jesus was understood to be deity in Judea. Furthermore there is no discussion about this (startling) development because there was near unanimous agreement about this point that Jesus was God. I find Hurtado’s comments incredibly weak!! Let me explain why…
Yeshua is “consistently and quite often referred to as Lord…in some way sharing in the divine glory”. In North American English we typically reserve the word “lord” for religious meanings. Of course in old English it simply meant “master”. I had a good discussion with a former missionary in Asia. He said there was no word for “lord” so they used “boss”… and for “god” they used “allah”. Wow! Of course in England there is “lord of the manor”, “lord mayor” etc. Even in Canada Provincial court judges are referred to as “my lord”. And the city mayor is still called “your worship” (i.e. worthy of worship) So if someone is called “boss” does that imply deity status? Of course not… same with “lord”. I’m sure you know that copies of the Septuagint dug up in Israel have the Hebrew letters YHWH instead of “kurios” which is a substitution word. Kurios is not the name of God. His name is not Boss either, even though He is the ultimate BOSS! Jesus was called Lord because he was master, not because he was God.
I do not like the term “divine” because I am uncertain what the author means. Of course God is divine. Are the angels? I often hear the expression “divine angels” meaning simply “heavenly”. Of course Jesus is “divine” but is he “deity”. That word still has a limited meaning restricted to God Almighty YHWH. Hurtado makers a big deal of quoting Matt 28:16-20 with reference to Jesus being “worshipped”. That word meant “paid homage to” in old English. John Darby knew that and translated every occurrence including the one in Matt 28 as “paid homage to”. He only used “worship” in cases where it was absolutely clear that the homage was being paid to God Almighty YHWH. Thus the magi did not come to Bethlehem to “worship” the Baby Jesus as God, rather they paid homage to the new born king of Israel.
Hurtado indicates the letters of Paul scarcely devote much space to teaching Christological beliefs and devotional practices: instead they presuppose them…. become traditional well before these letters”. Of course such a statement begs the question… what beliefs??? Hurtado indicates “it is conspicuous that there is no mention of differences over Christological issues”. Perhaps that is because there was no Trinity belief at all. The focus of the early church was on the Messiahship/kingship of Jesus, not his deity. Believe me there would have been a huge eruption and debate on the deity issue. The debate focused rather on the question of whether Gentiles needed to be proselytes to be included in the kingdom. I agree with Hurtado that there was no debate on the deity of Jesus but totally disagree with his conclusion that this would have been already well understood by the early church leaders in Judea. So when you have time please answer my question about Peter. Was the deity of Jesus kept as a secret, even though they all knew (according to Hurtado) that he was God… they didn’t say so because why? It was so obvious?
Hurtado indicates “The authors” (early NT writers) presuppose a developed Jesus –devotion… (they) regard God’s actions in raising Jesus from death and installing him as Lord and regnant Son as the point at which Jesus receives divine honors and is then to be reverenced accordingly”. Hurtado thinks God raised Jesus. God installed Jesus as Lord and ruler… but this surely must have meant a return to his former status since he was already God…no? Even Hurtado is using phrases that a normal person would conclude were talking about different individuals…God doing things to and for Jesus.
I know in a few days we will lose this forum to discuss issues. I thank Skip for his patience in tolerating a pretty wide scope for comments. I value the scholarship that you Craig have brought to the “table” but to be honest with you I find these comments by Hurtado extremely weak, almost insulting. I do look forward to your answer to the questions I posed. Thanks in advance!
HSB,
Sorry, I’ve still been very busy, so I will try to get everything in today. First of all, Hurtado’s position is more nuanced than your critique of it here. He doesn’t even discuss the Trinity, as he maintains that the 1st century audience didn’t even think in such categories of ontology (he may phrase this a bit differently, but I’m going by my recollection).
Let me try to address your rebuttal, point by point. First, it is best to think of Hurtado’s position using the shorthand of the title of his book One God, One Lord; i.e., the “one Lord” (Yeshua) is consistently placed alongside the “one God” in a unique relationship, both receiving worship as Deity. But he doesn’t specifically call Jesus “God”.
As regards Hurtado’s position that Jesus is “consistently and quite often referred to as Lord…in some way sharing in the divine glory”, he is clear that this is to be understood post-glorification. In Philippians 2, this ‘name above every name’ was given by God only after Yeshua’s obedience unto death. And, Paul begins his letters by referencing the ‘one God’ and the ‘one Lord’. So, while Jesus is sometimes referred to as “lord” in the sense of “master” in the synoptic Gospels (which are written more as chronological history from a perspective of as-if-you-were-there in the disciples’ shoes), He is presupposed as “Lord” (all caps) in the introductions to Paul’s epistles. This is part of what Hurtado means when he says that this developed Christology is presupposed rather than explained. The other part is used in what appear to be pre-formed ‘Christian’ hymns incorporated/adapted into Paul’s writings (Philippians 2:6-11; maybe Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Corinthians 8:6, etc.).
I probably confused the issue by my bracketed stated re: the use of kyrios in the LXX and the subsequent use of these LXX citations in the NT in reference to Jesus. That is, the portion in brackets is mine, not Hurtado’s.
I understand your aversion to “divine” and I share it. I prefer “Deity” (capitalized). In any case, in context, Hurtado means “Divine” (of Deity) in the above. Yeshua is portrayed as receiving obeisance on par with God in the Pauline letters.
I’m aware of the different senses of “worship.” You may disagree with Hurtado’s understanding of its use in Matthew 28:16-20, but I ask you to ponder how you would feel upon seeing the glorified Yeshua. I’d read Buzzard’s claim that the Greek word proskyneō (used in Matthew 28:16, e.g.) is more of an homage as compared to latreuō, which is reserved for worshiping (or “serving”) God. But this clearly doesn’t hold. In Revelation 22:3 the latter term is used (for the Throne of both God and the Lamb), while just a few verses later, in 22:9, the angel tells John the Revelator to “worship (proskyneō) God!”
Now, as I go off to take care of a few things, I will continue to ponder my response to your main question. I used Hurtado’s words as an interim response, noting that I differed a bit from him. One of those differences is his opinion that John’s Gospel is pretty much the same Christologically as the Synoptics. I strongly disagree, as John’s Gospel—as Hurtado has stated—is written from a “post-Easter” (better is “post-glorification”) perspective, and is clearly, in my view, more developed (witness Thomas’ confession and Yeshua’s response which doesn’t ‘correct’ the former-doubter-now-believer).
Craig, I wanted to take this time to thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing yourself and your scholarly, balanced perspective to this forum. I have learned so much from you! You are such a great person: so patient and unassuming and, may I add, brave, too? I hope we are not going to lose you, and that you have decided to become brave enough to try social media (my first time, too) over at Gayle’s MeWe site. It seems secure: more secure than this one, even. I really hope you will reconsider the fact that we need you! Thank you again for being you. If you decide not to, I am going to hound you anyway by email and pick your brain too, anyway. It would be too sad to lose you altogether.
Love in Yeshua, Laurita
Laurita,
Thanks for your kind words. I’m not too sure if I’ll join Gayle’s MeWe site for a number of reasons, the primary one that I think I’m going to be relatively busy for a time. Plus, I’ve neglected my own blog, which I really must rectify.
Craig: thanks for getting back to me “under the wire”. Too bad we cannot carry on the discussion. Do you have space on your website for such conversations? I am a bit nervous to post my email address in such a public space as this… but would be happy to do so on the new MeWe site. If you are able to join we could exchange addresses. Otherwise all the best, and may God of Israel lead us all into truth as we follow Him!
HSB (Hal),
You may comment on my site, as may anyone. The only ‘catch’ is that you have to sign up with WordPress, if you hadn’t done so already. Also, you may safely contact me via the “CONTACT” tab of my blog (notunlikelee dot wordpress dot com). I (and WordPress admins, I suppose) will see your email address once you submit, as it generates an email to me indicating recipient and contents–but none of this is made public on the site in any manner. With my response to you, you will, of course, receive my email address (which, like you, I don’t post publicly).
As far as engagement on my site, my terms are on the “BEFORE COMMENTING” tab, which are, essentially, that comments are at least somewhat relevant to the topic of the particular blog post. [When I first began my blog there were a number of incensed readers who didn’t take kindly to my assessment of one particular popular ‘pastor/teacher’ and they would write all sorts of ‘unchristian’ comments, thereby necessitating my policy on commenting–apologetics of the sort I used to engage in brings out the worst in some, it seems.] Somewhat recently, a guy named “Jim” challenged my Trinitarian stance on the series (unfinished!) on John’s prologue (“Probing the Prologue in the Gospel According to John”) but most especially on the series on “son of man” in John 5:27 (“The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27”)–his comments are mostly on pt 6, the conclusion (783 total comments!). You can look up either of these easily by typing in the search (upper right hand corner) with something like “son of man” for the latter or “prologue” on the former. Also, see on the right hand side (scroll down) the numerous “Categories”.
HSB:
OK, let me see if I can get to the root of your question. You must admit, however, that any answer to your specific question (at the beginning of August 21, 2019 3:07 pm) is strictly speculative, and the question you pose assumes the position that this sermon provided Peter an apt opportunity to explain the ‘two natures’ doctrine. But following is the real issue as I perceive it, which I’ll lay out by stating points of agreement along with disagreement:
We agree that “the Father” is God, but you assume that when the term “God” by itself is used it = “the Father”, while I do not necessarily. We also agree that “the Father” and “the Son” (aka “Yeshua/Jesus”, “the Son of Man”, “the Messiah/Christ”) are two separate entities. Let me state also that in contexts which speak about both Father and Son it is “the Father” in relationship with “the Son” and vice versa.
As you (and any reader) ponder the above, let me briefly digress to rephrase/reiterate my comment above @ August 20, 2019 1:26 pm, which, at present, remains with no response. Not to over-simplify, but allow me to explain active vs. passive en route to explaining what I perceive as the issue and solution:
Active voice: The boy kicked the ball
Passive voice: The ball was kicked by the boy.
In both sentences the boy is the actor, while the ball is the passive recipient. In John 2:19 Yeshua declared that He Himself would raise ‘the temple’ (His body) in three days. This is the active voice with Jesus as the actor. Yet in John 2:22 when the narrator states (NASB) ‘so when He was raised from the dead’ this cannot be seen as in any manner contradicting Jesus’ earlier words. Somehow these two must be reconciled. Common sense appears to indicate that Jesus cannot be the lone actor and simultaneously the passive recipient. The ‘dual nature’ doctrine reconciles this: Jesus’ inherent Divine nature raised His human nature/body, thereby fulfilling 2:19; the human nature/body was the passive recipient of this raising referenced in 2:22 (and 2:19). Understanding this is the key to reconciling the other Scriptures which specify either “God”, “the Father”, or “the Spirit” (Romans 1:4; 8:11) having raised Yeshua. To dismiss this because of the numerous references that “God” or “the Father” raised Jesus is deficient, for it is not entirely faithful to the entirety of the Scriptural record. We must reconcile all relevant passages.
Now let’s read Acts 2 very carefully, using the NASB. I double-checked the Greek to make sure “Father”, “God”, and “Holy Spirit” did not have any extra words attached or omitted; in other words, I ascertained that the NASB is translated exactly per the Greek text when any of these words are referenced, so we can safely look at the English translation here to study Luke and Peter’s usage. Importantly, each and every occurrence of “God” is not specific to the “the Father”, though the latter is used in 2:33—in fact, so is “the Holy Spirit” and Jesus (by context from 2:32) referenced here:
Note that it is Jesus who “has poured forth this which you both see and hear”; that is, it is Jesus who ‘poured out’ “the Holy Spirit”. Yeshua did so because of a “promise” from “the Father” (Acts 1:4) that He would be the vehicle through which God will disseminate the prophecy of Joel: ‘That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all humankind’ (2:17). But this raises the question: Can a mere man, even one designated as the Messiah, ‘pour out’ God’s Spirit, aka “the Holy Spirit”? “The Holy Spirit” is found in Acts 2:4 and 2:38 in addition to 2:33 here.
But this isn’t all Peter (as recorded by Luke) says here. Note that he explains some of David’s words (Acts 2:25-31), and Peter explains a yet-future prophecy about Jesus in David’s words of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34-35).
All the above may not be an elucidation of the “Trinity” doctrine, but it sure raises a lot of questions about the interrelationship between “God”, “the Father”, “Jesus/Yeshua”, and “the Holy Spirit”!
Craig, for me these Trinitarian discussions are circular but they remind me of my paradigm upbringing as an RCC. For half a century my faith consisted largely of; sit down, be quiet, dont ask questions, listen to what I have to say because I know more than you, put your money in the basket, go home and repeat this dose every 7 days. Until finally I had enough and started to do my own thinking and questioning. Dan beat me by decades.
The Trinity doctrine was one of many topics up for critical judgement. Over the years I also learned that autocratic authority is ultimately ALWAYS wrong so goodbye Pope. As well I learned to ask this question; what problem does this dogma or doctrine solve? I learned that the reformation didn’t solve much either other that formally establish the corruption of the RCC but in many cases substitutes just another corruption. I learned that when you have a problem, the easiest solution is a fire, whether it be a human or a library. Problem gone.
So just exactly what problem does the Trinity solution solve? Is the solution helpful or disruptive? What fundamental teaching of Yeshua does it reflect? Is it Torah based?
What problem does the doctrine of the Trinity solve? It serves to account for those passages that portray Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Deity in a manner that harmonizes with Jewish monotheism. As I’ve stated more than once on this forum, Trinitarianism should be understood as monotheistic Trinitarianism.
In any case, for further elucidation see my comment just above (@ August 26, 2019 10:51 am) to HSB. I hope to provide more substance in the next day or so.
As an amateur theologian, historian, genealogist, researcher, and one who has no interest whatsoever with social media all I can say is HALLELUJAH!
Hey, at least we agree on social media. I’ve never signed up for any of ’em.
Oh joy joy joy joy joy thanks Skip I knew you’re not a grumpy old man at least not yet the way I figure you and I got about 35 years left to hit the round 100 mark thank you for reconsidering
Wonderful news Skip! ? Thank you SO much for not deleting all the discussions and comments which have been such a treasured resource for so many of us as we stumble along this often very lonely path of faith…
“Why the Tanakh seems so silent on the matter?”
My understanding is that folks in the Tanakh went to Sheol (the grave, nephesh sleep) when they died. Since there was no concept of resurrection until Yeshua became the “first born among the dead (those in Sheol)”, there was little need for the Tanakh to address it. No doubt, it would have been a tough concept to grasp 100’s and even 1000’s of years before Yeshua did the deed.
And when he did resurrect – to include a first fruits batch of others (Mt 27:52,53) – it now becomes a big topic for those who begin to grasp it… “what in the world just happened…!”
Today, if you happen to believe a pre-70 AD 2nd coming off Yeshua (joining all the NT authors), this is when the rest of those in Sheol (the MT 27 leftovers) are now resurrected as per 1Thes 4:16 [and numerous other passages].
Afterwards, no more Sheol necessary. Since then, when someone dies, their nephesh is raptured to judgement: olam HaBa or second death.
“Since then, when someone dies, their nephesh is raptured to judgement: olam HaBa or second death.”
Steve, this is the part that I still struggle with. Can you please share Scriptural passage to support this? I seem to have read somewhere (can’t remember which verse) that it’s the spirit/ruach (wind/breath/mind) that goes back to Abba. I could be wrong.
Hope you can expound on this more. Thanks, Steve.
Hi Kay. Regarding our spirit/ruach returning to Abba (apart from our bodies), I believe Skip’s scholarship, in which he has consistently taught to be a Greek concept/idea, and not at all Hebrew.
Regarding our “nephesh is raptured to judgement: olam HaBa or second death.” The nephesh including our bodies unto judgment (one way or the other) is in many places, to include: sheep and goats, 1 Thes 4, 1 Cor 15, and final judgment in Revelation for those coming out of Sheol.
Hi, Steve. Thank you for the verses. I’ll check them out later.
By ruach, I meant the breath (of life) given by Abba, as mentioned in these passages:
Ecc 12:7; 3:21
Lk 23:46
Job 34:14-15
Ps 104:29; 146:4
Ecc 12:7 seems to be pretty clear about where the spirit goes:
“And the dust returneth to the earth as it was, And the spirit returneth to God who gave it.” (YLT)
Unless there’s another way of looking at it.
Hi Kay. I think the other way to look at this is that the ruach is not the nephesh. Yehovah breathed his Ruach into our soul/nephesh to make us a living being. So it would make sense that His Ruach would return to him. On the other hand, our nephesh does not return to Him… our nephesh and our bodies are tied together in the Hebrew worldview. Of course, the Greeks taught the opposite: the nephesh went to heaven with the Ruach, and left a body in the grave. And this is the worldview Western Christianity inherited.
Hi Steve. Thank you for taking time to explain. I do know that nephesh and ruach are two different things in Scripture.
This is how I understand nephesh…
Gen. 2:7
“And יהוה Elohim formed the man out of ***dust from the ground,*** and breathed into his nostrils ***breath of life.*** And the man became a ***living being.***”
Dust from the ground + breath of life = living nephesh (being)
It’s interesting (and I just saw it now) that the “breath” that was put into Adam’s nostrils was not the “ruach” but “neshamah” (from nasham, meaning to pant or gasp). I don’t know what this means but it can be significant.
Ruach, on the other hand, is a very interesting word. Last year I had a paradigm shift when I saw these definitions in biblehub:
“MIND, spirit, wind”.
“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your ***mind,***
What if “mind” and “spirit” are interchangeable in the Hebrew thought?
Set-apart spirit = set-apart mind
All of our actions begin in the mind…with a thought. The more we immerse ourselves in Yah’s word, the more our thoughts (and then our entire mind) will be renewed…leading to our being transformed to the likeness of our Abba Yah…as seen in our actions!
In the Tanakh, we do see Abba filling people with His ruach (mind?). E.g.
Exod. 31:2-4
“See, I have called by name Betsal’ĕl son of Uri, son of Ḥur, of the tribe of Yehuḏah,
and I have filled him with the ***Spirit*** (mind?) of Elohim in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all work,
to make designs for work in gold, and in silver, and in bronze,”
I’m just throwing this out there. I’m still digging and learning.
Sorry for the rabbit trail, Steve. I will still have to look at the concept of the “nephesh being raptured to judgment.” Thanks!
Steve,
I’m curious how you interpret Daniel 12:1-3 through the sole lens of nephesh sleep, absent resurrection. See my comment @ August 19, 2019 10:01 am–excepting the first paragraph.
I know a little Greek…
Who creates very tasty gyros;
But I find his thinking quite confused;
Concerning “son” and “theos”.
Love it!
Me, too!
Skip, thank you very much for allowing the past comments to stay. My friend, Irma (you met her and her husband in the Philippines) and I, and another friend (Kelly – who introduced us to your blogs and lectures) are ecstatic and super joyful over this wonderful news! HalleluYah! We praise and give thanks to Abba Yah for you! 🙂
Glad to oblige. Did you sign up with Gayle’s group?
Yes, I did! Irma did, too! I’m sure Kelly will be, if she hasn’t yet.
Will you be commenting there? No pressure. I’m not sure how the set up will be, that’s why I’m asking.
I am not a member of the group
Skip, This wonderful back and forth exchange is what I will really miss. Rarely do I have the opportunity to speak for another, but in this case I think I speak for everyone on this site…except for the one that counts. You. Please don’t leave us! We will miss your presence in the comment section of TW. You answer our questions (that you helped create) questions that oftentimes can best be resolved by you and sometimes, only by you. The additional insights you offer as a result of your interaction with we “commoners” is really what makes the comment section so valuable. Iron sharpens iron, but also lessor metals too. I understand that it can be both time consuming and frustrating to sometimes answer the same questions over and over and over again and deal with the same topics again and again, seemingly to no avail or end; but isn’t this exactly what Moses went through with the first generation who came out of Egypt? I’m not implying that your leaving is the same as hitting the rock (blog) with your rod (pen) in anger or that you won’t enter the Promised Land with the people, but simply that your interactions, wisdom and knowledge will be sorely missed if you permanently leave. Perhaps if Moses had taken a sabbatical from his daily interaction with the people he might not have been so vunerable to burn out and ultimate burn up. No one here wants you to be stressed to the point it affects your health, but I’m sure the Jewish people would have been willing to see and hear Moses much less often in the desert, if they had known they wouldn’t be able to see him at all in the Promised Land. I hate to push our collective luck, as we are thankful for your recent reconsideration of keeping the old comments alive, but I’m sure Gayle and her moderators wouldn’t mind not having to play Joshua and Caleb on MEWE and all of us (less one) would be elated at the prospect of reading your comments and having our questions answered much less often, than never again at all. Take a sabbatical… take two, if need be- more, but don’t stay away forever is our plea.Thanks for your consideration…again.
Thank you, Mr. Stanley, for speaking from the heart for all of us. I wholeheartedly second everything that you say here. My prayer is with you. 🙂
This answer is for Kay: I am just starting over in a new thread for readability’s sake. Are you new here? If so, it’s a real delight to have you: welcome! A much-needed voice for sure! I (like it seems you have) decided to start over at some point, too. I love your earnestness and openness.
There have been umpteen discussions on this, and I appreciate all points of view, because I have been realizing that I really don’t understand either Trinitarians, Binatarians or Unitarians very well, and I want to. Thank you for your view.
Where I think I am currently at (hopefully a better place tomorrow) is that God, in Hebrew, is a verb doing nouns (things), which is form following function (Skip taught me this, and it instantly made so many things clear for me!). In the Western mind, however, He is a noun doing actions (verbs), which is function following form. The Western way of thinking makes it so much more difficult (for me, anyway) to understand the Bible, though, particularly when it talks about God.
The problem I have with the God# fight is that all sides seem to be agreed that God can be counted (which would make Him a thing – a form). I have become suspicious that what everyone left behind is precisely the idea that, with God, the action determines the form. Thus, someone who acts in the capacity of a saviour is a saviour. I agree with you that Messiah BECAME a Son by His actions. But if function comes before form, then the function determines the form. If God acts like a Father, He is a Father: if He acts like hesed, He is hesed. His actions (character) determine His Name (form). In other words, He acts; therefore He is God. In the West, however, we think He has to be God (form) before He can act (function).
I have become suspicious that the identity (Personhood) of God is a by-product of His action(s), which moves us out of something we can count and into a realm where what happens in between things determines the identity (form) of the result: the Personhood of God is a side effect, so to speak, of what God is doing already. In other words, it’s not God the Father doing all the Father things: it’s when God is acting like a Father, He is a Father: when He is acting like a mother…well, you get the idea. Eastern thought and quantum physics already are thinking like this: I think we in the West probably still have a ways to go. I think we can forget that, above all, the Hebraic mind and religion are Eastern: not Western, even though, by Yeshua’s time there had been several generations trained in Western thought at Alexandria, among other places. The Western mind is all about form: the Eastern one is all about function. When they clash, interesting anomalies and eddies can appear!
Anyway, it’s a real delight to have you. Please stick around!
Hi Laurita!
Thank you so much for taking time to write this out. I’m still in the process of taking in everything you wrote…not sure if it’s the 3rd or 4th time that I’ve read it. Lol!
Probably I’m relatively new here, compared to most of you. But I’ve been “lurking” for a few years now, shying away from contributing, because 1) sometimes the things being discussed go over my head, and 2) English is my 2nd language, so it takes me hours to compose my thoughts into coherent words and write them out. It’s been very beneficial to me so far.
I started to have the courage to share what I’m learning only after I realized that this good thing (learning from everyone sharing here) is about to end. You know how we take things for granted until they are (or about to be) taken away from us? It felt like that. So it prompted me to write, at the very least to let everybody know how much I appreciate them for sharing, instructing, encouraging, listening, and being very good “sounding boards”.
Thank you for the warm welcome, Laurita! I really appreciate this group because it’s very rare to find an assembly where no-holds-barred discussions are allowed, as long as it remains respectful and with integrity. All praises to Abba Yah!
“God, in Hebrew, is a verb doing nouns (things), which is form following function (Skip taught me this, and it instantly made so many things clear for me!).”
I, too, learned this from Skip. And it made so much sense to me coming from an eastern culture/background (Filipino-Chinese). So many of the Biblical principles and culture make sense to me, when understood in the correct light, because that was how we were raised. For instance, the family being the strongest unit in the community. We have very little sense of “independence” (or individualism), because our culture emphasizes “interdependence.” We rarely depend on the government for anything, because we look to families and friends for everything. 10 years ago (I’m not sure about now), there was no daycare or nursing home facilities in the Philippines. Extended families living together is still the norm. Unmarried children stay with their parents, no matter how old they get, until they get married. That’s why it’s really cool to see how Yah affirms these practices in His ancient ways. There’s so much wisdom in His ways!
Going back to the topic, I will still have to read again (and again) what you wrote here. You (and Skip and many others here) write with such depth, that I find a cursory reading does it no justice. This is also one of the many challenges of online written communication. Sigh.
Bottomline, I think simply. And I believe that Yah, as a Father, is not out to make His children go through so much mental gymnastics in order to understand Him and His truth. He wants us to know Him and His instructions, so we can better love and obey Him. As my husband always says, “If I want my children to get it, I will put it in their terms.” That is being merciful, understanding, just, and kind. Which leads me to doctrines like the Trinity, Binitarianism, etc. If this is something crucial in our faith and worship of YHWH, shouldn’t He make it very clear and easy for us to understand if He is a trinity, a binity or just one (echad)? Interestingly, majority of the usage of echad in the OT is to mean only one (being, thing, etc.). Single entity. The only exception that I see is with Adam and Eve, where they have become echad (still two beings but of one mind and purpose, like any husband and wife should be). And this is how I understand it when Yahusha said that he and Abba are echad (not one in being, but one in mind and purpose), just as we (the body of believers) are echad (united, one in mind and purpose). (John 17:22)
Deut 6:4
“Hear, O Yisrael: YHWH your Elohim,
YHWH is echad! (One or united? Which makes more sense? Which has less conflict with the rest of Scripture? Maybe this is not a good way to reason, but I trust Abba that He wants me to understand. And He’s not going to make it burdensome or confusing.)
PS: I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and a devout one for most of my life, as some of you here were also…until I opened my Bible. 🙂
Kay, I just love it. You have a wonderful perspective! I, too, have gotten to where if it can not hold up to immediate application in real life, it’s probably not real! You are so right. I am happy that you have signed up for Gayle’s group on MeWe. It would be too sad to lose you right after you showed up on the radar! I hope you say something often. Learning from others is the best way to learn, I think.
Hi Laurita! What wonderful words of encouragement! Thank you so much! I really appreciate it!
Skip is the only teacher I know who welcomes and actually sees the value of heretics. Now, I value them, too. Esp. ever since finding myself being one of them. ? I find that this view of Yahusha not being YHWH is the most heretical of all to date. (I wouldn’t be surprised if another bigger issue/doctrine will come along soon. We’ve inherited so many lies.) Our family got uninvited to our fellowship because of this change in belief. But it all worked out for our good, because we were then able to study, explore, and investigate Scripture unhindered, allowing only Abba’s spirit to lead us into His truth. And He also led us here to this place…of heretics.
Again, thank you and hugs to you!!!