David Lamb
Member
Jesus Christ is God. He said, "I and my Father are one." Thomas bowed before Him, calling Him, My Lord and my God."
More on the deity of Christ
- Thread starter KUWN
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You’re missing the point.
@marks isn’t an orthodox trinitarian. The vast majority of people who claim to be have only a shallow idea of what historical orthodoxy teaches. They’ve never truly heard it. They’ve never truly seen it. It isn’t taught to them in church and they haven’t invested any time in reading church history. When confronted with it they recoil and protest, just as he did.
I’m not trying to persuade him (or anyone else) to affirm or reject orthodoxy. I’m trying to educate him (and others) about what it teaches. Only then are they in a position to affirm it or reject it.
I agree that this is a human tendency.
Well said.
The choice in the Bible is between Yahweh and idolatry.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I'm making a different point.
My point has nothing to do with marks but you and your tactic of claiming Jesus is not a human person. You think that tactic is effective and blame the reader for missing the point or not being educated. I believe your tactic is ineffective for the reasons stated.
Yes.
My claim is that Jesus is a human person, contra orthodoxy.
When asked, most people respond that when they read the Bible they see and understand that Jesus is a human person.
Education allows people to make an informed decision.
That’s fine. I appreciate the feedback.
I believe the tactic of most non-trinitarians is ineffective because it is foolish.
Absolutely!! And many things like that. I look at the twists and turns people take trying to prove otherwise. Someone recently said, and I quite agree, truth is simple. I think so. Long and convoluted arguments, or reliance on commentary over Scripture, are red flags to me. Like you've brought out here, "Thomas declared Jesus to be his Lord and his God.
Paul wrote that when Isaiah said there is one Savior, the LORD, and everyone will bow to Him, that it will be Jesus they will bow to.
Much love!
Last edited:
“Jesus is God.“ That’s true. The question is, and always has been, how is Jesus God?
Historical orthodox trinitarianism provides an answer. Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish monotheist, provides the answer which I find persuasive. So did the New Testament writers and the primitive Christians.
Historical orthodox trinitarianism provides an answer. Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish monotheist, provides the answer which I find persuasive. So did the New Testament writers and the primitive Christians.
I saw this while looking for something else and it brought your comment to mind again.
Jesus of Nazareth is the way - the only way - to the one, unique, and only true God.
Let's start with Polycarp...
Polycarp wrote against Gnosticism, especially against Marcion.
Prologue:1 " mercy unto you and peace from God Almighty and Jesus Christ our Savior be multiplied."
Polycarp distinguishes Almighty God from Jesus Christ. Peace from God Almighty AND Jesus Christ. According to Webster’s Dictionary the word "and" means - also, in addition, plus.
Polycarp does not consider Jesus to be the Almighty God. If he did, why would he offer peace from the same person twice? Just read it the way you would read anything else.
1:1 "That be truly chosen of God AND our Lord."
Same conclusion as in prologue.
1:2 "Unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to face even death for our sins, whom God raised, having loosed the pangs of death."
Emphasis on whom God raised. Obviously, who ever God raised is not God. This sentence states that Jesus was raised by God, therefore, Jesus cannot be God. Acts 9:41 is where Peter raises Tabitha from the dead. it reads, He gave her his hand and raised her up. No one would argue that Tabitha who was raised is Peter who raised her. Read 1:2 the same way.
1:3 "But by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
Jesus Christ is not considered in the term "God." Go to 1 Clement 1:3 for explanation.
2:1 "That ye have believed on Him that raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and gave unto him a throne on His right hand."
Distinguishes between Him that raised Jesus from the dead and gave him a throne at His right hand, and from Jesus. There is no other way to read this, unless you think that the same person who raised himself, then gave himself a throne next to himself, so that he himself could sit next to himself. This is exactly how a Trinitarian has to interpret this verse. Extremely unlikely, to say the least!
3:3 "While hope followeth after and love goeth before--love toward God and Christ and toward our neighbor."
There is a distinction between God AND Christ AND our neighbor. If we claim that Christ is God, then our neighbor must also be God.
5:2 "For if we well pleasing unto Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world also, according as He promised us to raise us from the dead, and that if we conduct ourselves worthily of Him we shall also reign with Him."
Polycarp believes that we will be raised from the dead and we will receive the kingdom of God in the future (it has not yet come). We will also help the Messiah reign. In complete agreement with Revelation 5:10 and 20:6.
7:1 "For everyone who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist."
This verse echoes 1 John 4:2 and 2 John verse 7. Polycarp is in agreement with John that anyone who does not confess that Jesus was truly a human being , is the antichrist. According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary, flesh - Human being. The Trinitarian definition of Jesus according to the Council of Chalcedon is:
"That he is fully God and fully man undivided, inseparable."
Someone with that makeup is not truly a human being. Obviously the Chalcedon Creed is not the definition of Jesus that Polycarp believes in.
7:2 "Wherefore let us forsake the vain doing of the many and their false teachings, and turn unto the word which was delivered unto us from the beginning."
Polycarp is urging the people to turn away from false teachings and turn unto the word. His usage of word is very Jewish, and identical to the way John the Apostle uses it. This is fitting because Polycarp was a disciple of John, and one would expect his views to coincide with John’s, which they do. Polycarp is saying , turn away from false teachings and turn unto the word (plan, or will ) of God which was delivered unto us from the beginning (from the time of the Patriarchs). Polycarp has no idea of "the word" being Jesus. He even says that the word was delivered unto us in the beginning. Jesus was not delivered unto us in the beginning, Hebrews 1:2 states:
"In these last days He spoke to us through a son."
Ignatius who was a contemporary of Polycarp and a fellow bishop says in his letter to the Magnesians in verse 6:2, Christ...
"And appeared at the end of times."
But God’s plan, or will, was delivered unto us in the beginning through the Patriarchs and the Prophets. This is a direct parallel to John 1: 1-14. Polycarp would never have read all that logos Christology into
John 1:1-14, as is evident by this verse.
11:2 "That the saints shall judge the world."
This shows his belief in the saints judging (administering) the world when the kingdom of God comes.
12:2 "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest Himself the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth."
This is the clearest verse that shows who Polycarp thinks Jesus to be. He thinks Jesus to be the Son of God, not God. Polycarp says, the GOD and Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus has a God. Jesus cannot have a God and be God at the same time because that would mean that there are two Gods. Two God’s are an impossibility for Christianity. Polycarp’s view that Jesus has a God is in agreement with Jesus’ view in John 20:17, Matthew 27:46, and Revelation 3:12, with Paul’s view in Ephesians 1:3, 1:7, and Corinthians 1:3, and with Peter’s view in 1 Peter 1:1.
Conclusion - As one can easily see, Polycarp is in theological agreement with Clement of Rome. Polycarp believes that Jesus has a God, the Almighty. Jesus is not God. Polycarp believes in the future coming of the kingdom of God and the resurrection of the dead. There is no going to heaven. I found absolutely no sign of any kind that would suggest that Polycarp had even heard of the concept of a triune God. His letter is completely contrary to that thought. Christianity is still in good shape. I give Polycarp an A+ in theology.
Do you want me to continue with Ignatius ?
Let's continue...
1:2 "To the church of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
We have already mentioned the meaning of AND. God the Father does not equal Jesus in this sentence. According to Webster’s Dictionary the word "and" means - also, in addition, plus.
1:9 "But by the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Same explanation as above.
3:3 "Surely, all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ..."
And.... it's not looking good for your early Church exegesis!!!
THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE PHILADELPHIANS
1:2 "To the church of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
We have already mentioned the meaning of AND. God the Father does not equal Jesus in this sentence. According to Webster’s Dictionary the word "and" means - also, in addition, plus.
1:9 "But by the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Same explanation as above.
3:3 "Surely, all those that belong to God and Jesus Christ..."
And.... it's not looking good for your early Church exegesis!!!
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS
This letter was written by a non-Jewish Christian who applied the name of Barnabas for authority. It was probably written around 96-100 AD in the city of Alexandria in Egypt (Reading The Apostolic Fathers,, pg.11). There are some signs of a Gnostic influence in the letter, which would not be surprising because of the fact that Alexandria was the home for the early Gnostic movement.
5:5 "Onto whom (Jesus) God said from the foundation of the world, let us make man in our image and likeness."
This is a clear belief in the pre-existence of Jesus. The belief in pre-existence is a very Gnostic concept.
5:10 "For if he had not come in the flesh neither would men have looked upon him and been saved."
The author believes that Jesus was fully human. He repeats this in 6:9. Although, how a pre-existent spirit can become a truly human being is perplexing.
6:16 "For the Lord said again, For wherein shall I appear unto the Lord my God and be glorified?"
This clearly states that the writer knows that Jesus has a God, (God the Father). They are not the same being. There can only be one God, and if Jesus is God and he has a God, that would mean that there are two Gods.
6:17 "So in like manner we also, being kept alive by our faith in the promise and by the word, shall live and be lords of the earth."
This indicates a belief in the followers of the Messiah inheriting the earth. This is the concept of the kingdom of God.
7:11 "They that desire to see me, and to attain unto my kingdom, must lay hold on me through tribulation and affliction."
To attain implies something to be accomplished in the future.
9:2 "Hear O Israel, for thus saith the LORD (YHWH) thy God, " who is he that desireth to live forever, let him hear with his ears the voice of My servant."
This verse shows a definite distinction between the LORD and His servant (Jesus).
21:1 "For he that doeth these things shall be glorified in the kingdom of God... For this cause is the resurrection."
This implies glorification as something that will happen in the future. It also mentions the resurrection of the dead.
Conclusion - The writer of Barnabas does not believe Jesus to be God, but in fact acknowledges that Jesus has a God. He believes in the future kingdom of God and the resurrection of the dead. He also believes that Jesus pre-existed before coming to earth. There is no mention of any triune God or in going to heaven. There can be no doctrine of the Trinity if you believe that Jesus has a God. It is an impossibility. I give the writer of Barnabas a B+ in theology. Christianity for the most part is still intact.
More again on the deity of Christ.
The Names of God
So far, we have seen from the Bible that Jesus Christ is entitled to the Honors - that are due to God (such as worship, prayer, song, faith, and reverence) and that he possesses the essential Attributes of God (such as being eternal, uncreated, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and incomprehensible). We will now consider what Scripture says about the names of Jesus Christ.
What we will find is that the Bible gives Jesus a wide array of names that properly belong to God-and that it gives him these names in contexts that confirm that they describe or identify him as God.
In these articles posted out here, unless stated otherwise, we use the word Name to refer to both proper names (like Jesus) and titles (like Savior).
Second, the distinction between (proper) names and titles, although legitimate, is not always hard and fast.' A good example is the word God (and its counterparts in Hebrew and Greek). Is God a name or a title? One could argue that God is a title that the Bible often uses as a name. When the Bible refers to God with qualifiers (such as "our God" or "the God of Israel") it is clearly using the word as a title. When it appears without such qualifiers, however, one can make a good case that it often functions just like a proper name. An even clearer example is Christ. In some passages, it is certain that "the Christ" is a title, the Greek equivalent of "Messiah" (e.g., Matt. 16:16; Luke 24:46; John 1:41). In many if not most instances, though, especially in the epistles, Christ (with or without the article "the") functions just like a proper name.
Before going farther, it is crucial to clear away a misconception that often confuses the issue of whether a name refers to deity. We are not saying that if the Bible uses a particular name for God, then anyone else given that name in the Bible must also be God. The Hebrew and Greek words for god and lord, as well as for savior, shepherd, rock, and the like, all apply in certain contexts to beings who are neither divine nor objects of religious devotion. Like virtually all words, these words have different meanings in different contexts. Even proper names can have different meanings depending on context.
The Bible's use of various names for Jesus proves that he is God because of their contexts. There are at least three contextual factors to keep in mind as we examine Jesus' divine names. The first is that the application to Jesus of so many of these descriptive names for God confirms their significance as designations of deity. It is not just that the New Testament happens to call Jesus "Savior" a few times, but that the New Testament calls Jesus "God," "Lord," and "Savior," sometimes separately, and sometimes together (e.g., "My Lord and my God," John 20:28; "God and Savior," Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; "Lord and Savior," 2 Peter 1:11). One can find a few texts here and there in the Bible that refer to some men over here as "saviors," or to a man over there as a "rock," but one cannot find texts referring to the same mere human being as god, lord, savior, shepherd, rock, first and last, and king of kings and lord of lords! The application of all these designations to the one person, Jesus Christ, often with two or more in the same immediate context, is highly significant.
Second, when the New Testament uses these designations for Jesus, it very often does so by quoting from, or alluding to, Old Testament texts about God or by applying to Jesus characteristic Old Testament motifs and expressions that refer to God. It is one thing to call someone "lord"; it is another thing altogether to do so while saying that we "call on the name of the Lord" or that we are waiting for "the day of the Lord." As we shall see, names of God applied to Jesus in the New Testament occur in such contexts literally dozens - perhaps hundreds - of times.
Third, the New Testament calls Jesus by such names as God, Lord, and the like in the context of saying things about Jesus that connote deity. This happens when Jesus receives these designations in reference to the divine honors he receives, the divine attributes he exhibits, the divine deeds that he does, or the divine seat or position he occupies (the other four points in our "HANDS" outline). It also happens when the Bible applies these names to Jesus in relation to all creation. Again, it is one thing to call someone "lord," but another thing altogether to say that all creatures in heaven and earth must acknowledge him as "Lord"! These three contextual factors - that Jesus receives an array of divine names, often in the same passage; that Jesus often receives these divine names in allusions to, or quotations from, Old Testament texts speaking about God; that Jesus receives these designations in reference to his divine honors, attributes, works, and position, in relation to all creation - are closely related. They converge in such a way as to prove that when the Bible calls Jesus by such names as God and Lord, it is applying those names to him in their highest possible sense.
Although we will soon focus on the Bible's use of such names as God and Lord for Jesus, I start by considering the significance of the proper name Jesus. According to the Gospels, an angel or angels told Joseph and Mary separately that they were to call Mary's son "Jesus" The angel who spoke to Joseph explained why: "for he will save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31). The name Jesus means "Jehovah saves," and the angel's comment assumes an awareness of this meaning. Since the angel said that "he," meaning in context Jesus, would save his people, the implication is that Jesus somehow is Jehovah? To say that the name Jesus has a special place in the New Testament would be a gross understatement. The focus of the New Testament on this name is so intense and so persistent as to be extraordinary. In the Old Testament, the central name, the divine name par excellence, was the name Yahweh, or Jehovah.
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exod. 3:15)
Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain: for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exod. 20:7; Dent. 5:11)
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, JEHOVAH THY GOD. (Dent. 28:58)
O Jehovah, our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth. (Ps. 8:1,9)
We could fill many pages, multiplying such examples from the Old Testament. The New Testament assumes the same perspective on revering God's name while shifting the focus away from the name Jehovah, which is essentially absent. God's name is still holy (Luke 1:49), and people should fear his name (Rev. 11:18; 15:4) and not blaspheme it (Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim. 6:1; Rev. 13:6; 16:9). Jesus revealed to his followers the name of the Father (John 17:6,11,12,26) and taught his disciples to pray that the Father's name would be treated as holy (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2). Although these names God and Father (usually referring to the same person) occur numerous times in the New Testament, "the name" that is the focus of attention is the name Jesus. This focus on Jesus' name is consistent with the fact that the person of Jesus Christ is clearly the focus of the New Testament, even more than is God the Father. According to Paul, Jesus has been exalted "above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come" (Eph. 1:21). God "highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend ... and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:9-11).
One of the most aggressive enemies of the Christian church in its first years was Saul of Tarsus. He had authority from the chief priests to bind all who called on Jesus' name (Acts 9:14, 21). As he acknowledged after his conversion, he had tried "to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts 26:9). These statements reveal that, for Saul, the place of the name of Jesus in the early Christian movement was especially troubling to his rabbinical, Pharisaic mind-set. But Jesus, the Lord, had chosen Saul to take his name before Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel, even though it meant that he would suffer for the sake of Jesus' name (Acts 9:15-16). Saul, better known to us as Paul, was soon speaking boldly in the name of Jesus (Acts 9:27-28). Paul and his ministry partner Barnabas "risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:26. Paul was ready to go to prison and even to die "for the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 21:13). [Note the apologetic value of those who gave up their lives, not for a man, but for God.]
The Names of God
So far, we have seen from the Bible that Jesus Christ is entitled to the Honors - that are due to God (such as worship, prayer, song, faith, and reverence) and that he possesses the essential Attributes of God (such as being eternal, uncreated, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and incomprehensible). We will now consider what Scripture says about the names of Jesus Christ.
What we will find is that the Bible gives Jesus a wide array of names that properly belong to God-and that it gives him these names in contexts that confirm that they describe or identify him as God.
In these articles posted out here, unless stated otherwise, we use the word Name to refer to both proper names (like Jesus) and titles (like Savior).
Second, the distinction between (proper) names and titles, although legitimate, is not always hard and fast.' A good example is the word God (and its counterparts in Hebrew and Greek). Is God a name or a title? One could argue that God is a title that the Bible often uses as a name. When the Bible refers to God with qualifiers (such as "our God" or "the God of Israel") it is clearly using the word as a title. When it appears without such qualifiers, however, one can make a good case that it often functions just like a proper name. An even clearer example is Christ. In some passages, it is certain that "the Christ" is a title, the Greek equivalent of "Messiah" (e.g., Matt. 16:16; Luke 24:46; John 1:41). In many if not most instances, though, especially in the epistles, Christ (with or without the article "the") functions just like a proper name.
Before going farther, it is crucial to clear away a misconception that often confuses the issue of whether a name refers to deity. We are not saying that if the Bible uses a particular name for God, then anyone else given that name in the Bible must also be God. The Hebrew and Greek words for god and lord, as well as for savior, shepherd, rock, and the like, all apply in certain contexts to beings who are neither divine nor objects of religious devotion. Like virtually all words, these words have different meanings in different contexts. Even proper names can have different meanings depending on context.
The Bible's use of various names for Jesus proves that he is God because of their contexts. There are at least three contextual factors to keep in mind as we examine Jesus' divine names. The first is that the application to Jesus of so many of these descriptive names for God confirms their significance as designations of deity. It is not just that the New Testament happens to call Jesus "Savior" a few times, but that the New Testament calls Jesus "God," "Lord," and "Savior," sometimes separately, and sometimes together (e.g., "My Lord and my God," John 20:28; "God and Savior," Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; "Lord and Savior," 2 Peter 1:11). One can find a few texts here and there in the Bible that refer to some men over here as "saviors," or to a man over there as a "rock," but one cannot find texts referring to the same mere human being as god, lord, savior, shepherd, rock, first and last, and king of kings and lord of lords! The application of all these designations to the one person, Jesus Christ, often with two or more in the same immediate context, is highly significant.
Second, when the New Testament uses these designations for Jesus, it very often does so by quoting from, or alluding to, Old Testament texts about God or by applying to Jesus characteristic Old Testament motifs and expressions that refer to God. It is one thing to call someone "lord"; it is another thing altogether to do so while saying that we "call on the name of the Lord" or that we are waiting for "the day of the Lord." As we shall see, names of God applied to Jesus in the New Testament occur in such contexts literally dozens - perhaps hundreds - of times.
Third, the New Testament calls Jesus by such names as God, Lord, and the like in the context of saying things about Jesus that connote deity. This happens when Jesus receives these designations in reference to the divine honors he receives, the divine attributes he exhibits, the divine deeds that he does, or the divine seat or position he occupies (the other four points in our "HANDS" outline). It also happens when the Bible applies these names to Jesus in relation to all creation. Again, it is one thing to call someone "lord," but another thing altogether to say that all creatures in heaven and earth must acknowledge him as "Lord"! These three contextual factors - that Jesus receives an array of divine names, often in the same passage; that Jesus often receives these divine names in allusions to, or quotations from, Old Testament texts speaking about God; that Jesus receives these designations in reference to his divine honors, attributes, works, and position, in relation to all creation - are closely related. They converge in such a way as to prove that when the Bible calls Jesus by such names as God and Lord, it is applying those names to him in their highest possible sense.
Although we will soon focus on the Bible's use of such names as God and Lord for Jesus, I start by considering the significance of the proper name Jesus. According to the Gospels, an angel or angels told Joseph and Mary separately that they were to call Mary's son "Jesus" The angel who spoke to Joseph explained why: "for he will save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:31). The name Jesus means "Jehovah saves," and the angel's comment assumes an awareness of this meaning. Since the angel said that "he," meaning in context Jesus, would save his people, the implication is that Jesus somehow is Jehovah? To say that the name Jesus has a special place in the New Testament would be a gross understatement. The focus of the New Testament on this name is so intense and so persistent as to be extraordinary. In the Old Testament, the central name, the divine name par excellence, was the name Yahweh, or Jehovah.
And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exod. 3:15)
Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in vain: for Jehovah will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. (Exod. 20:7; Dent. 5:11)
If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, JEHOVAH THY GOD. (Dent. 28:58)
O Jehovah, our Lord, How excellent is thy name in all the earth. (Ps. 8:1,9)
We could fill many pages, multiplying such examples from the Old Testament. The New Testament assumes the same perspective on revering God's name while shifting the focus away from the name Jehovah, which is essentially absent. God's name is still holy (Luke 1:49), and people should fear his name (Rev. 11:18; 15:4) and not blaspheme it (Rom. 2:24; 1 Tim. 6:1; Rev. 13:6; 16:9). Jesus revealed to his followers the name of the Father (John 17:6,11,12,26) and taught his disciples to pray that the Father's name would be treated as holy (Matt. 6:9; Luke 11:2). Although these names God and Father (usually referring to the same person) occur numerous times in the New Testament, "the name" that is the focus of attention is the name Jesus. This focus on Jesus' name is consistent with the fact that the person of Jesus Christ is clearly the focus of the New Testament, even more than is God the Father. According to Paul, Jesus has been exalted "above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come" (Eph. 1:21). God "highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend ... and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil. 2:9-11).
One of the most aggressive enemies of the Christian church in its first years was Saul of Tarsus. He had authority from the chief priests to bind all who called on Jesus' name (Acts 9:14, 21). As he acknowledged after his conversion, he had tried "to do many things against the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts 26:9). These statements reveal that, for Saul, the place of the name of Jesus in the early Christian movement was especially troubling to his rabbinical, Pharisaic mind-set. But Jesus, the Lord, had chosen Saul to take his name before Gentiles, kings, and the people of Israel, even though it meant that he would suffer for the sake of Jesus' name (Acts 9:15-16). Saul, better known to us as Paul, was soon speaking boldly in the name of Jesus (Acts 9:27-28). Paul and his ministry partner Barnabas "risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 15:26. Paul was ready to go to prison and even to die "for the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 21:13). [Note the apologetic value of those who gave up their lives, not for a man, but for God.]
Agency
The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through “Hebrew eyes;” however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.
H. N. Snaith in his book, “The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,” writes “Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato.” (p161) “Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith.” (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his “thesis” is correct:… “then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought… We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought.” (p188.).
With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition. According to some scholars a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding “The Principle of Agency.”
A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the “law”) of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion.
Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.
Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, “who” is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that “’God’ called to him from the midst of the bush and ‘said’, ‘Moses, Moses!’” (v4).
Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, “’I am’ the ‘God’ of your father, ‘the God’ of Abraham, ‘the God’ of Isaac, and ‘the God’ of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at ‘God’.” Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that “’the angel of the LORD’ appeared” to Moses from the midst of the brush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.
This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament’s commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.
Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was “an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush” (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, “there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).
Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, “I am God.” The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.
Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, “behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and roused him, saying, ‘Get up quickly.’ And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself and put on your sandals… and follow me’” (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which “opened for them by itself,” Peter “did not know what was being ‘done by the “angel”’ was real, but thought he was seeing a vision”(v.9).
Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door… Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? “He described to them how ‘the LORD’ had led him out of prison” (v.17).
So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.
There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, “’The angel’ of God ‘said’ to me in a dream…’I am the God’ of Bethel.” Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: “I am the God of Bethel.” Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.
In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with “a man” until dawn, but he says he had “seen God face to face” (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.
Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, “As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with “the angel” and overcame him. So the one who is called both “a man” and “God” in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.
There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him “God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in “My hand”, and it shall be turned to blood” (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, “Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt… that they may become blood” (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are “God” (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!
Part 1
The foundation of our Bible is the OT. It contains the first three-quarters of our Bible. It stands to reason that if we misunderstand this Hebrew foundation then we construct a system of error. The art of successful reading is generally to let the last quarter of a book agree with the first three-quarters. As the grand finale of the Bible, the NT agrees with and is consistent with its OT heritage. It might sound like an over-simplification to say that the Bible is a Hebrew book and must be approached through “Hebrew eyes;” however, it was written within the culture and thought-forms of the Middle East. In order to understand its message we must become familiar with the thought-forms, the idioms, the culture and the customs of those who lived in Biblical times. Every sincere reader of the Bible understands this. Doing it is the challenge.
H. N. Snaith in his book, “The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament,” writes “Christianity itself has tended to suffer from a translation out of the Prophets and into Plato.” (p161) “Our position is that the reinterpretation of Biblical theology in terms of the ideas of the Greek philosophers has been both a widespread throughout the centuries and everywhere destructive to the essence of the Christian faith.” (p187.). Snaith also makes this remark that if his “thesis” is correct:… “then neither Catholic nor Protestant theology is based on Biblical theology. In each case we have a denomination of Christian theology by Greek thought… We hold that there can be no right (theology) until we have come to a clear view of the distinctive ideas of both Old and New Testaments and their differences from the pagan ideas which have so largely dominated Christian thought.” (p188.).
With the passing of many centuries since Scriptures were written much of the original intent has been buried under the accretions of generations of human tradition. According to some scholars a lot of Bible confusion can be cleared up by understanding “The Principle of Agency.”
A common feature of the Hebrew Bible is the concept (some even call it the “law”) of Jewish agency. All Old Testament scholars and commentators recognize that in Jewish custom whenever a superior commissioned an agent to act on his behalf, the agent was regarded as the person himself. This is well expressed in the Encyclopedia of the Jewish religion.
Thus in Hebrew custom whenever an agent was sent to act for his master it was as though that lord himself was acting and speaking. An equivalent in our culture to the Jewish custom of agency would be one who is authorized to act as Power of Attorney, or more strongly one who is given Enduring Power of Attorney. Such an agent has virtually unlimited powers to act on behalf of the one who appointed him.
Let's look at one of the stories in the Old Testament with this new mindset. In the story of Moses and the burning bush in Exodus 3, “who” is it who appears to Moses and talked to him? My answer once was typical of the vast majority in the Church. Of course it was God himself, Yahweh, who spoke to Moses. After all, the text states that “’God’ called to him from the midst of the bush and ‘said’, ‘Moses, Moses!’” (v4).
Verse 6 is even more convincing when the same speaker says, “’I am’ the ‘God’ of your father, ‘the God’ of Abraham, ‘the God’ of Isaac, and ‘the God’ of Jacob.’ Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at ‘God’.” Surely it was Jehovah God himself who appear to Moses and who personally spoke? But what do we make of verse 2 that prefaces this narrative by stating that “’the angel of the LORD’ appeared” to Moses from the midst of the brush? Many scholars have declared this angel to be God himself, even the pre-existing Christ. They make much of the definitive article and point out that this was a particular angel not just any angel.
This is a fancy bit of footwork that disregards the Hebrew text as we shall see. If we turn to the New Testament’s commentary on this incident, we will see how Hebrews understood their own Scriptures.
Let us now turn to answer our question: Who is it who appears to Moses and talks to him? The martyr Stephen was a man “filled with the Holy Spirit.” Let's listen to his commentary on the burning bush incident. He clearly states that it was “an angel who appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush” (Acts 7:30) As Moses approached this phenomenon, “there came the voice of the Lord: I am the God of your father. The Lord said to him, ‘Take off the sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground. (31-33).
Quite clearly this is an example of agency. It is an angel who appears to Moses and it is the angel who speaks. But note that this angel evens speaks for God in the first person. The angel of the Lord says, “I am God.” The angel is distinguished from God yet identified with him. In Hebrew eyes, it is perfectly natural to consider the agent as the person himself. In Hebrew thought, homage given to God's agent or representative is homage ultimately given to God Himself.
Let's look at just one more example. In Acts 12, the apostle Peter is in jail about to be executed. But while he was asleep, “behold, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared, and a light shone in the cell; and he struck Peter’s side and roused him, saying, ‘Get up quickly.’ And his chains fell off his hands. And the angel said to him, ‘Gird yourself and put on your sandals… and follow me’” (Acts 12:7-8). Peter thought he was dreaming. As he followed the angel past the guards, out through the iron gate which “opened for them by itself,” Peter “did not know what was being ‘done by the “angel”’ was real, but thought he was seeing a vision”(v.9).
Now the Church was meeting in a house and praying for Peter's release. Peter started banging on the house door and Rhoda, the servant girl went to open the door… Once Peter was eventually inside you can imagine the stir in that place. Peter motions with his hand for everyone to be quiet. He told them his incredible story. And what did he say? “He described to them how ‘the LORD’ had led him out of prison” (v.17).
So who really did get Peter out of jail? The angel or the Lord? The text says both did. But we know that the Lord sent the angel to do the actual work. To the Hebrew mind, it was really the Lord who rescued Peter.
There are many such OT examples. An agent of God is actually referred to as God, or the Lord himself. In Genesis 31:11-13 Jacobs said to his wives, “’The angel’ of God ‘said’ to me in a dream…’I am the God’ of Bethel.” Here is an angel speaking as though he was God Himself. He speaks in the first person: “I am the God of Bethel.” Jacob was comfortable with this concept of agency.
In the next chapter, Jacob wrestled with “a man” until dawn, but he says he had “seen God face to face” (Gen 32:24-30). So was at this time when God appear to Jacob as a man? Perhaps as some have suggested it was actually the Lord Jesus himself, as the second member of the triune God, who wrestled with Jacob.
Not at all according to Hosea 12:3-4 which says, “As a man he [Jacob] struggled with God; he struggled with “the angel” and overcame him. So the one who is called both “a man” and “God” in Genesis is identified as an angel in Hosea. This is a perfect example of Jewish agency where the agent is considered as the principal.
There is another instance of agency in Exodus 7. God tells Moses he will make him “God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Exodus 7:1). Moses is to stand before the king of Egypt with the full authority and backing of heaven itself. Then God says, By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, I will strike the water that is in the Nile with the staff that is in “My hand”, and it shall be turned to blood” (v.17). But observe carefully that just two verses later the LORD says to Moses, “Say to Aaron, take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt… that they may become blood” (v.19). God says He Himself will strike the waters with the staff in His own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that actually held the rod. Aaron is standing as God's agent in the very place of God himself. There is identification of the agent with his Principle. In Biblical terms, Moses and Aaron are “God” (Heb. elohim) to Pharaoh!
Part 1
Last edited:
Sometimes this concept of agency has caused the translators of our Bible difficulties. The Hebrew word for “God”(elohim) has a wide range of meanings. Depending on context, it can mean the Supreme Deity, or “a god” or “gods” or even “angels” or human “judges.” This difficulty is reflected in verses like Exodus 21:6
The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”
The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”
But
The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God”
So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God”
Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.
Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. “The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat”. As ‘the angel of the LORD appeared to him,’ he greeted Gideon with the words, “The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior.” We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, “Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?” Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: “And the LORD looked at him and said, ‘Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?” At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. “But the LORD said to him, ‘Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.’” Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him.” Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as “the angel of the LORD vanished from his site,” he exclaimed, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face.” (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.”
There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3).
Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, “the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."
Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).
However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)
So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.
Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.
The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (v 1-2).
So, the Son of God “did not speak” in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in “portions,” whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared “in these last days” that we have heard God speak “in his Son.” This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:
Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."
Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,
Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).
In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:
"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).
"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).
Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.
Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).
[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ρημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Jesus had every right to claim to be God because God was in Him doing His works.
"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds. John 14:10
"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. Joh 8:40
Part 2
Now you know the truth...
Paul
The KJV reads… “Then his master shall bring him unto the judges;”
The NIV reads… “then his master must take him before the judges.”
But
The NASB reads… “then his master shall bring him to God”
So too the RSV… “then his master shall bring him to God”
Clearly, because the judges of Israel represented God as His agents, they are called “God,” elohim. As the slave gave his vow before these representatives of God, he was in fact making a binding vow before Jehovah. The agents were as God.
Another example that we have time for in this brief overview, is in Judges 6:11-22. “The angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak tree while Gideon was threshing wheat”. As ‘the angel of the LORD appeared to him,’ he greeted Gideon with the words, “The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior.” We can hear Gideon's disbelief when he says to the angel, “Oh my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us?” Now notice a change in the text at Judges 6:14: “And the LORD looked at him and said, ‘Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have not I sent you?” At this point Gideon murmurs and throws up excuses as to why he could not rescue Israel from their enemies. “But the LORD said to him, ‘Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.’” Notice how the angel who is speaking on God's behalf actually uses the first person personal pronoun. And the text clearly says that when the angel looked at Gideon it was God himself who looked at him: And the LORD looked at him.” Gideon is not confused regarding who he is looking at or who is speaking to him. For as “the angel of the LORD vanished from his site,” he exclaimed, “I have seen the angel of the LORD face-to-face.” (V.22). We know that the angel of the LORD is the agent and not literally God, because the Scriptures are absolutely clear that no one has ever seen God himself (John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16; 1 John 4:12). Many scholars have failed to take this very Hebrew way of looking at things into account. They have literally identified the angel of the LORD with God Himself. All confusion is dissipated when we understand the Jewish law of agency: “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.”
There is one very clear OT example of Hebrew Principle of Agency. It comes from Deuteronomy 29. Moses summons all of Israel and says to them, "You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh and all his servants and all his land; the great trials which your eyes have seen, those great signs and wonders" (v.2-3).
Moses continues to recite for the people all that God has done for them. But notice that in verse 6, while still reciting all God's wonders, Moses suddenly changes to the first person and says, "You have not eaten bread, nor have you drunk wine or strong drink, in order that you might know that I am the LORD your God." It is obvious that God himself is not personally speaking to the people. Moses is preaching. But Moses as the agent of God can speak as though he is the Lord himself. What is happening here? God is speaking through His man, His appointed representative. Therefore, he can move from speaking in the third person, “the LORD did this and that for you" to the first person: "I am the LORD your God doing this and that."
Knowing this principle helps us with other apparent difficulties, even seeming contradictions through the Scriptures. Lets look at one New Testament example. The story that has created a problem to many minds is the one concerning the healing of the Centurion’s servant. In Matthew's account (Matt 8:5-13), it is the Centurion himself who comes to Jesus and begs him to heal his servant. The Centurion himself says, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering great pain" (v.6).
However, the parallel account in Luke (Luke 7:1-10) states that the Centurion did not personally go and speak to Jesus. He actually sent or commissioned as his agents “some Jewish elders.” These Jewish elders pleaded with Jesus on behalf of the Centurion saying, "He is worthy for you to grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and it was he who built us our synagogue" (v.4-5)
So who actually went to Jesus here? Did these gospel writers get confused? Are the detractors perhaps right to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions? Not at all! The difficulty is cleared up when we understand the Hebrew mind behind these Scriptures. The answer to who actually stood before Jesus is the elders. They had been sent by the Centurion. Matthew in typical Hebrew idiom has the Centurion himself there and speaking in the first person before Jesus. The agent is as the principal himself.
Jesus claimed to represent God like no other before or after him. He claimed to be the unique spokesman for God his Father and to speak the ultimate words of God. He claimed to act in total accord and harmony with God like no other. He claimed to be the Son of God, the Christ or Messiah, and the agent of the Father. The NT claims that he who sees Jesus sees the Father. He who hears Jesus the Son hears the words of God Himself.
The New Testament puts this theory about the angel of the Lord being Jesus in his preexistence to rest in Hebrews 1: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (v 1-2).
So, the Son of God “did not speak” in the Old Testament days! Back in those days God spoke in various ways and only in “portions,” whether by vision or by prophet or by angel. It is only since Jesus Christ was brought into existence at birth and appeared “in these last days” that we have heard God speak “in his Son.” This is axiomatic. Jesus Christ was not God's messenger before his appearance as a man, born of Mary in history. Look at the scriptures:
Act 7:53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it."
Gal 3:19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty,
Now let's review one last example and look at Exodus 23:20-23. Notice 'my name is in him!' (agency)
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way ... Take ye heed of him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not (be not rebellious against him): for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him" "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. "For My angel will go before you… (Exodus 23:20-23).
In this passage the angel was to be for Israel in the place of God; he was to speak God's words, and judge them. In fact the angel expressed God's name; he was God for them. Now if this was true of an angel of the Lord, how much more of the Son of God himself? Hence these sayings:
"This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent ... I (Jesus) have manifested thy name unto (the disciples) ... Holy Father, keep in thy name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:3,6,11).
"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).
Jesus, then, enjoyed a unity of mind and Spirit with the Father, so that he could say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). For the disciples Jesus was in the place of God; he spoke God's words, proclaimed God's truth, and pronounced His judgements.
Hebrews 1:1 makes more sense now:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world (ages).
[The Net bible adds… The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb_11:3 for the same usage.]
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds (ages) were prepared by the word (ρημα G4487) of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.
Jesus had every right to claim to be God because God was in Him doing His works.
"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).
Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds. John 14:10
"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. Joh 8:40
Part 2
Now you know the truth...
Paul
Last edited:
I have another train of thought for you think about. Is what you're reading into John 1 mostly church tradition? For almost 400 years, we have a read John 1 through the eyes of the Catholic Church. (reinforcing the Trinity). In the New Testament, “the Word” (Logos) happens to be of the masculine gender. Therefore, it's pronoun -"he" in our English translations - is a matter of interpretation, not translation. Did John write concerning “the word” that “he” was in the beginning with God or did he write concerning “the word” that “it” was in the beginning with God? As already stated, in the NT Greek the logos or word is masculine noun. It is okay in English to use “he” to refer back to his masculine noun if there is good contextual reason to do so. But is there good reason to make “the word” a “he” here?
It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).
Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.
There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"
Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.
who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!
Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?
Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:
Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."
The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:
"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
It is a fact that all English translations from the Greek before the King James version of 1611 actually read this way: (notice Him and He are now “It”).
Tyndale 1534:
Joh 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God. 2 The same was in the beginnynge with God. 3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
Cranmer 1539
John 1:1 IN the begynnynge was the worde and the worde was wyth God: and God was the worde. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it and without it, was made nothynge that was made. 4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was the lyght of men
Bishops 1568:
Joh 1:1 In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. 2 The same was in the begynnyng with God. 3 All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. 4 In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men,
Geneva 1587:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. 2 This same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. 4 In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
And now our modern Concordant Literal Version:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. " 2 This was in the beginning toward God. 3 All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being." 4 In it was life, and the life was the light of men."
The word logos appears many, many more times in this very Gospel of John. And nowhere else do the translators capitalize it or use the masculine personal pronoun "he" to agree with it ! The rest of the New Testament is the same. Logos is variously translated as "statement"
(Luke 20:20), “question" (Matt 21:24), "preaching" (1 Tim 5:17), "command" (Gal 5:14), "message" (Luke 4:32), "matter" (Acts 15:6), "reason" (Acts 10:29), so there is actually no reason to make John one say that "the Word" is the person Jesus himself, unless of course the translators are wanting to make a point to. In all cases logos is an “it.”
In the light of this background it is far better to read John's prologue to mean that in the beginning God had a plan, a dream, a grand vision for the world, a reason by which He brought all things into being. This word or plan was expressive of who he is.
"The Word" for John is an “it” not a "he." On one occasion, Jesus is given the name "the word of God" and this is in Revelations 19:13. This name has been given to him after his resurrection and ascension, but we will not find it before his birth. It is not until we come to verse 14 of John's prologue that this logos becomes personal and becomes the son of God, Jesus. "And the Word became flesh." A great plan that God had in his heart from before the creation at last is fulfilled. Be very clear that it does not say that God became flesh.
There is even strong evidence suggesting that John himself reacted to those who were already misusing his gospel to mean that Jesus was himself the Word who had personally preexist the world. When later he wrote his introduction to 1 John, he clearly made the point that what was in the beginning was not a “who” he put it this way: "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life…"
Logos - This word is translated in English as "Word". This word has an actual meaning which has been almost completely lost due to the Greek philosophical interpretation of John 1:1-3 & 14.
who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. (Rev 1:2)
"I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word (logos) of God." (Rev 20:4)
Notice that they were beheaded for their testimony to Jesus AND for the logos of God. Jesus and the word of God are not the same thing.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one (God) who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, as He is not the Logos! So who is the Logos? The very next verse tell us!
Joh 12:49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak.
Jesus is not our Judge, but our savior!
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He ( God) has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Word of God in this verse means God's plan of salvation for us (NAB), i.e. the kingdom of God message. So what does "logos" mean?
Logos - 1. Denotes an internal reasoning process, plan, or intention, as well as an external word. 2. The expression of thought. As embodying a conception or idea (New American Bible (footnote) & Vine’s Expository Dictionary).
According to Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon, it also means:
Logos - the inward thought which is expressed in the spoken word.
I will give you a brief paraphrase of John 1:1-3 using the definitions for "logos:"
"In the beginning was God's plan, will, or idea for our salvation. It was present in his mind, and God's plan or will possessed all the attributes of God."
The very Trinitarian Roman Catholic New American Bible has this comment on this verse:
"Lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."
Predication - to affirm as a quality or attribute (Webster's Dictionary).
So how does the Word (logos) become flesh in John 1:14? Let me use an example which most of us can relate to. We are all familiar with the expression, "was this baby planned?" Let's say it was planned. You and your wife had a plan to have a baby. You had a logos, a plan. Your plan (logos) became flesh the day that your baby was born. In the same way, God's plan of salvation for us became a reality, became flesh, when Jesus was born. This verse is probably one of the biggest culprits in the creation of the trinity. The reason being that to someone educated in Greek philosophy such as the early church fathers of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th, centuries, logos had an entirely different meaning. Tertullian who was responsible for much of the creation of the trinity was a Stoic lawyer. The Stoics defined "logos" as the "divine principle of life." Which is basically a definition of God. With this definition you are going to arrive at a completely different interpretation than what John intended. You will interpret it something like this:
"In the beginning was the divine principle of life, and the divine principle of life was with God, and the divine principle of life was God. Then, the divine principle of life became flesh."
With this definition you arrive at the conclusion that the divine principle of life, which is God, became flesh. Now you have God's essence in two places at once. The explanation for this obvious problem came in the form of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Then you have God's essence in flesh, so the description of Jesus becomes that he is fully God and fully man. These concepts come straight out of Greek philosophy. Greek philosophers believed that man was composed of flesh and a divine spark.
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
David Lamb
Member
But all of that, (the Word of John 1:1 being an "it") ignores what John writes just a few verses later about the same Word:
“He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:10-14 NKJV)
Those verses don't make sense if you replace "He" and "Him" with "it." The flesh that the Word became was not an "it"; John says, "We beheld His glory," not "its glory."
Why did the trinitarian translators translate it that way? Why would they - assuming that they did - have ignored “what John writes just a few verses later about the same Word”?
I think your missing the point.... Your Church teaches that Jesus is the Logos!!!
John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word ( logos ) I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
Again… Jesus spoke the Logos, He is not the Logos!
Now... did Jesus make the worlds... What saith the scriptures...
NOW DAVID.... If I said the world was made through you... Does that mean you actually made the worlds or did something/one else make the worlds through you...
Let's look at this little word "through" ie. Greek word (DIA)!!!
G1223
διά
dia; a prim. prep.; through, on account of, because of: - account (4), after (2), afterward (1), always *(2), because (111), between *(1), briefly *(1), charge *(1), constantly (1), continually *(6), during (1), forever *(1), gives (1), means (3), over (1), presence (1), reason (40), sake (41), sakes (5), since (1), so then *(1), so *(1), therefore *(16), this reason *(1), this *(1), though (1), through (225), through the agency (1), through *(1), view (2), way (3), what (1), why (3), why *(27).
And the little word “of” better known by the Greek word ek
1537 ἐκ, ἐξ ek ex ek, ex
A primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence motion or action proceeds), from, out (of place, time or cause; literally or figuratively; direct or remote): - after, among, X are, at betwixt (-yond), by (the means of), exceedingly, (+ abundantly above), for (-th), from (among, forth, up), + grudgingly, + heartily, X heavenly, X hereby, + very highly, in, . . . ly, (because, by reason) of, off (from), on, out among (from, of), over, since, X thenceforth, through, X unto, X vehemently, with (-out). Often used in composition, with the same general import; often of completion.
Dia is the “preposition of attendant circumstances" and signifies instrumental agency. Put simply, this means that dia denotes the means by which an action is accomplished. And Scripture tells us that God the originator is bringing His purpose, His logos to fulfillment through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Agent, the Mediator of God's master plan. Jesus is always seen as secondary, or subordinate to the Father. There are occasional exceptions to this general use of the preposition dia. Sometimes blessings are said to come to us through God (e.g. 1 Cor 1:9; Heb.2: 10). But usually there is a clear distinction made between God’s initiating activity and the means through which God brings that activity to pass. The prepositions used of God's action are hypo and ek which point to primary causation or origin. Let's cement this idea in our minds by looking at one or two verses that highlight the difference: “yet for us there is but one God, the father, from [ek, ‘out from’ ] whom are all things, and we exist for [ eis, ‘to’ ] Him; and one lord, Jesus Christ, through [dia] him” (1Cor.8:6).
Prepositions are the signposts that point out the direction of a passage. Ek indicates something coming out from its source or origin, and indicates motion from the interior. In other words, all things came out from the loving heart of God, or God's “interior”, so to speak.
This agrees with Genesis 1:1 which says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. Both verses say that the source of “all things” is the one true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. In contradistinction to this "one God and Father" out of Whom all things originate, the "one Lord, Jesus Messiah” is giving the preposition dia which means "through." In other words, Jesus is God's agent through whom God accomplishes His plan for our lives. This is a consistent pattern all the way through the N.T. God the Father is the source, the origin of all blessings, and Jesus His Son brings those blessings of salvation to us:
"Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ" (2 Cor.5:18).
"God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ… has blessed us… in Christ. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to himself” (Eph.1:3-5).
"For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess.5:9).
"God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16).
"For God… has saved us, and called us... according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity" (2 Tim 1:9).
"Blessed be God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has caused us to be born-again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3).
"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jude 25).
"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which god performed through him in your midst" (Acts 2:22).
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Paul tell us in 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through (dia) whom we exist.
Always God the Father is the source and origin of all works, deeds and salvation which come to us through the mediatorship of his son. From Him comes all to us through our Lord Jesus Christ so that to God the Father made all the praise be directed. The Father is the sole origin and Creator of "all things." In contrast, Jesus is the Father's commissioned Lord Messiah through whom God's plan for the world is coming to completion. The whole Bible from cover to cover categorically states that God created the universe and all the ages with Jesus Christ at the center of his eternal purpose. Jesus is the diameter running all the way through.
HOW DO YOU NOT KNOW THESE THINGS... DAVID LAMB!
Similar threads
