The Problems of Solo Scriptura (from Keith Matthison)

[Matthias]

No brother.

J.

Thanks. I appreciate and respect that.

The church that developed the post-biblical doctrine of the Trinity produced creeds which assert that it is a salvation issue. I grew up believing that it is a salvation issue. It isn’t easy to change your mind about it when you’re brought up that way.

Why even discuss it if it isn’t a salvation issue?

 

[Johann]

Thanks. I appreciate and respect that.

The church that developed the post-biblical doctrine of the Trinity produced creeds which assert that it is a salvation issue. I grew up believing that it is a salvation issue. It isn’t easy to change your mind about it when you’re brought up that way.

Why even discuss it if it isn’t a salvation issue?

I have conducted my own studies and listened to Messianic teachings, as well as to Benjamin Sommers. While I agree that it may not be a salvific issue, it is imperative to approach the Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and insights from Jewish scholars. There are a couple of points where I would respectfully disagree with you. However, I don’t want to spend more time here engaging in this discussion, as it could lead to circular reasoning and potentially harm the bond of peace between us, @Matthias.

Shalom.

J.

 

[Matthias]

I have conducted my own studies and listened to Messianic teachings, as well as to Benjamin Sommers. While I agree that it may not be a salvific issue, it is imperative to approach the Scriptures with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and insights from Jewish scholars. There are a couple of points where I would respectfully disagree with you. However, I don’t want to spend more time here engaging in this discussion, as it could lead to circular reasoning and potentially harm the bond of peace between us, @Matthias.

Shalom.

J.

That’s fine. I’ll continue to post in order to wrap up some loose ends for our readers. If at some point you want to resume discussing it with me I would welcome it. From my perspective, it’s been a good dialogue between us. Your conduct has been exemplary. I tip my hat to you.

 

[Hepzibah]

The early church did (and the EO still do) teach Monarchistic Trinitarianism which is not the same as the Trinitarianism of the western church. I wonder if this is the source of confusion.

'According to Monarchical Trinitarianism, as expressed by (MT), the Father is the sole ultimate (unsourced) source of everything else and thus possesses a specific priority within the Trinity (and reality as a whole). This specific priority grounds the fact of the Father being designated as ‘God’ in the primary (i.e. nominal) sense of the word. That is, the Father is numerically identical to the one God. Whilst the Son and the Spirit are each, with the Father, ‘God’ in a secondary (i.e. predicative) sense of the word (by each of them sharing in the one divine nature). Therefore, this specific view of the Trinity posits the existence of three entities: the Father, the Son and the Spirit, who are each ‘God’ in the secondary (predicative) sense. Yet, there is only one ‘God’ within the Trinity, as only one of those entities: the Father, is 'God' in the primary (nominal) sense of the word.'

(PDF) Monarchical Trinitarianism: - ResearchGate​

Scripture does not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son (as opposed to being sent by).

 

[Johann]

The early church did (and the EO still do) teach Monarchistic Trinitarianism which is not the same as the Trinitarianism of the western church. I wonder if this is the source of confusion.

'According to Monarchical Trinitarianism, as expressed by (MT), the Father is the sole ultimate (unsourced) source of everything else and thus possesses a specific priority within the Trinity (and reality as a whole). This specific priority grounds the fact of the Father being designated as ‘God’ in the primary (i.e. nominal) sense of the word. That is, the Father is numerically identical to the one God. Whilst the Son and the Spirit are each, with the Father, ‘God’ in a secondary (i.e. predicative) sense of the word (by each of them sharing in the one divine nature). Therefore, this specific view of the Trinity posits the existence of three entities: the Father, the Son and the Spirit, who are each ‘God’ in the secondary (predicative) sense. Yet, there is only one ‘God’ within the Trinity, as only one of those entities: the Father, is 'God' in the primary (nominal) sense of the word.'

(PDF) Monarchical Trinitarianism: - ResearchGate​

Scripture does not say that the Spirit proceeds from the Son (as opposed to being sent by).

Bookmarked this and will peruse it later-thank you.

J.

 

[Matthias]

“The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ‘the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

(Henry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 362-363, Second Edition, Revised)

Jewish monotheism, says Gregory, is heresy. The trinitarian conception of God destroyed the Jewish dogma.

Jesus himself is a Jewish monotheist. What will he say about it when he returns? Will he applaud it or will he deplore it?

Who is Gregory of Nyssa?

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Saint Gregory of Nyssa

Bishop, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, d. after 385 or 386

www.newadvent.org

He is a major figure in the history of trinitarianism; a 4th century champion of the trinitarian faith.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus himself is a Jewish monotheist. What will he say about it when he returns? Will he applaud it …

If I’m a trinitarian, I think my position would have to be that he will agree that Jewish monotheism is heresy and that he will applaud the destruction of it.

… or will he deplore it?

If I’m a Jewish monotheist,* my position would have to be that he - being himself a Jewish monotheist - will disagree that Jewish monotheism is heresy and that he will not applaud its destruction.

In either case, what will he do about it if it isn’t a salvation issue?

* Just to be clear, I’m a Jewish monotheist who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, the Son of God. Not all Jewish monotheists believe that he is. In fact, the majority of Jewish monotheists believe that he isn’t.

 

[Matthias]

Let us take Tertullian as an example. Do you think he was a trinitarian?

I did, before I read for myself what he wrote.

”Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His always having been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

(Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)

What did Arius say? “There was a time when the Son did not exist.” I don’t know anyone who believes that Arius is a trinitarian.

Terullian says “There was a time when the Son did not exist [with God].” I know droves of people who believe Terullian is a trinitarian.

How many trinitarians today would insist in discussions with me (or anyone else) that there was a time when the Son did not exist? It is a fundamental tenet of trinitarianism that the Son has always existed. There is no Triune God without an eternally existing Son.

Tertullian is a trinitarian?

***

Was Tertuallian a Jewish monotheist? No.

 

[Johann]

”Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His always having been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–110 AD)
Letter to the Ephesians 7:2: “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Ignatius unambiguously refers to Jesus as “God existing in flesh,” affirming His divine nature and incarnation.
Letter to the Romans 3:3: “...our God, Jesus Christ.”

A direct declaration of Christ’s deity.

2. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD)

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 63: “For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, that He may become the first-begotten from the dead, and that He may reign forever and ever.”

Justin directly calls Christ “God” and elaborates on His role in salvation.
First Apology, Chapter 6: “And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God... He existed before the morning star and the moon.”

Explicit recognition of Jesus as the preexistent God.

3. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD)
Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 16, Section 6: “But He indicates in clear terms that He is Himself the Lord who suffered, who was sold, who was raised up, and who ascended. This is the Son of God, who became incarnate for our sake, and whose name is Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

Irenaeus identifies Jesus as the incarnate Lord, clearly referring to His divine nature.

Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 19, Section 2: “For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord, except Him who is truly God, and Lord of all, who also was made man, and was called the Son of man.”

Jesus is declared to be “truly God.”

4. Tertullian (c. 155–240 AD)
Against Praxeas, Chapter 2: “We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. This [Son] then, sent by the Father into the Virgin, and born of her, being both Man and God...”
Tertullian refers to Jesus as both “Man and God,” highlighting the unity of His divine and human natures.

5. Origen (c. 184–253 AD)
On First Principles, Book I, Chapter 2, Section 1: “Jesus Christ... who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God... He is the effulgence of the glory of God, and the express image of His person.”

Origen affirms Jesus’ equality with God and His divine nature.

Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chapter 12: “For we who say that the visible world is under the government of Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not different from the Father... We worship the Father of the truth, and the Son, who is the truth...”

Origen emphasizes the Son’s unity with the Father and His worthiness of worship.

6. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD)

Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, Chapter 30: “For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new.”

A clear assertion of Christ as “God over all.”

7. Novatian (c. 200–258 AD)

On the Trinity, Chapter 16: “For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man.”
Novatian affirms that Scripture presents Christ as both God and man.

Conclusion
The writings of pre-Augustinian church fathers demonstrate a clear and consistent belief in the deity of Jesus Christ. These statements are rooted in Scripture and reflect the early Christian understanding of Christ’s divine nature, long before the formalization of doctrines such as the Nicene Creed in 325 AD.

For the readers sake @Matthias.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35–110 AD)
Letter to the Ephesians 7:2: “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Ignatius unambiguously refers to Jesus as “God existing in flesh,” affirming His divine nature and incarnation.
Letter to the Romans 3:3: “...our God, Jesus Christ.”

A direct declaration of Christ’s deity.

2. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD)

Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 63: “For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord, and angel, and man, and captain, and stone, and a Son born, and first made subject to suffering, that He may become the first-begotten from the dead, and that He may reign forever and ever.”

Justin directly calls Christ “God” and elaborates on His role in salvation.
First Apology, Chapter 6: “And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God... He existed before the morning star and the moon.”

Explicit recognition of Jesus as the preexistent God.

3. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD)
Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 16, Section 6: “But He indicates in clear terms that He is Himself the Lord who suffered, who was sold, who was raised up, and who ascended. This is the Son of God, who became incarnate for our sake, and whose name is Jesus Christ, our Lord.”

Irenaeus identifies Jesus as the incarnate Lord, clearly referring to His divine nature.

Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 19, Section 2: “For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord, except Him who is truly God, and Lord of all, who also was made man, and was called the Son of man.”

Jesus is declared to be “truly God.”

4. Tertullian (c. 155–240 AD)
Against Praxeas, Chapter 2: “We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. This [Son] then, sent by the Father into the Virgin, and born of her, being both Man and God...”
Tertullian refers to Jesus as both “Man and God,” highlighting the unity of His divine and human natures.

5. Origen (c. 184–253 AD)
On First Principles, Book I, Chapter 2, Section 1: “Jesus Christ... who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God... He is the effulgence of the glory of God, and the express image of His person.”

Origen affirms Jesus’ equality with God and His divine nature.

Against Celsus, Book VIII, Chapter 12: “For we who say that the visible world is under the government of Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not different from the Father... We worship the Father of the truth, and the Son, who is the truth...”

Origen emphasizes the Son’s unity with the Father and His worthiness of worship.

6. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD)

Refutation of All Heresies, Book X, Chapter 30: “For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new.”

A clear assertion of Christ as “God over all.”

7. Novatian (c. 200–258 AD)

On the Trinity, Chapter 16: “For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God Himself as man.”
Novatian affirms that Scripture presents Christ as both God and man.

Conclusion
The writings of pre-Augustinian church fathers demonstrate a clear and consistent belief in the deity of Jesus Christ. These statements are rooted in Scripture and reflect the early Christian understanding of Christ’s divine nature, long before the formalization of doctrines such as the Nicene Creed in 325 AD.

For the readers sake @Matthias.

J.

Thanks. My hope is that our readers will read them for himself or herself and draw their own conclusions.

I’ll deal with the corruption of Ignatius‘ letter(s) soon for their benefit.

***

“Jesus is God.”

Okay. I can agree with that. The question then becomes, how is Jesus God?

Trinitarianism offers a post-biblical explanation. Jewish monotheism offers a biblical explanation.

 

[Matthias]

I’m providing a link below for those interested in learning more about the “greatly corrupted, obvious interpolations” in Ignatius’ letters. Many other sources are available which address the issue. My advice to readers is to check multiple sources on that subject.

The Epistles of Ignatius

Ignatius of Antioch on Early Christian Writings: the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, and Church Fathers: information and translations of Gospels, Epistles, and documents of early Christianity.

www.earlychristianwritings.com

Who would want to corrupt Ignatius’ letters?

Jewish monotheists? No.

Other unitarians? No.

Binitarians? I don’t think so.

Trinitarians? Yes indeed. But why?

 

[Johann]

Thanks. My hope is that our readers will read them for himself or herself and draw their own conclusions.

I’ll deal with the corruption of Ignatius‘ letter(s) soon for their benefit.

***

“Jesus is God.”

Okay. I can agree with that. The question then becomes, how is Jesus God?

Trinitarianism offers a post-biblical explanation. Jewish monotheism offers a biblical explanation.

AND WHAT WILL BE HIS NAME? THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
In the OT no one except for God himself is called YHWH, (LORD) but here the Messiah receives the name “the LORD our righteousness”. As opposed to names like Daniel (the LORD is my judge) or Elinadav (My LORD is gracious) here, the explicit name of God is mentioned. Y-H-W-H.
To make sure you can’t accuse us of using a missionary-christian interpretation let’s see how the Sages interpreted this passage.
In the Midrash Proverbs section 19 it says:

“Rav Huna says: the 7 names of the Messiah are Ynon, the Lord our righteousness, Branch, Consoler, David, Shilo and Elijah.”

And in Midrash Lamentations 1 the passage is interpreted:

“What is the name of the Messiah King? Rabbi Abba Bar Kahana says: ‘The Lord’ is his name, and this is what they will call him: ‘The Lord our Righteousness’.”

According to Rabbi Johanan bar Nappaha the Messiah will be called by the name of God.

“Rabbi Johanan said: ‘Those three will be called by God’s name: The righteous ones, the Messiah and Jerusalem… the Messiah, as it is written (Jeremiah 23) and this is the name that they will call him: The Lord our Righteousness.

Minor tractate, Soferim 13, Halakha 12:

“We … God our Lord in Elijah the prophet, your servant and in the kingdom of David your Messiah soon he will come and appear to his sons and on his throne will sit no one else and he will give his glory to no other. Because by your holy name you promised him that his lamp will not be put out forever. ‘In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely, and this is the name he will be called: the Lord our Righteousness.’ Blessed be you, o Lord, who raises up a horn of salvation for his people Israel.”

Also here, the Messiah is being identified with “The Lord our Righteousness,” referring to Jeremiah 23.

“When they both confessed their deeds Judah was side by side with Ruben. Since: to one who orders his way rightly I will show the salvation of God Judah confessed and therefore inherited the kingdom and from him will come the Messiah that will save Israel as it is written: ‘In his days Judah will be saved.'” (Tzror Hamor, Genesis Vayechi)

The commentator explains that Judah acted rightly since from him the Messiah will come. He bases this on Jeremiah 23, verse 6. In other words, he too sees in this verse a messianic prophecy that predicts that the Messiah will be God.
In ‘Midrash Tehillim’ it says that God calls the Messiah by his name. And what is his name? The answer is “the Lord of Hosts” and the Messiah we will call “and this is the name he will be called: The Lord our righteousness.”

Therefore, the messianic prophecy found in Jeremiah 23 teaches us that the Messiah will be God himself. The Sages themselves understood and taught this passage in the same way.

By the way, some within the Chabad movement claim that Rabbi Schneerson was the King Messiah, God taking on flesh, based on this passage. Let’s continue.

FROM EVERLASTING, ANCIENT OF DAYS
This time we look at Micah who prophesied that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem and that his origins are from everlasting.

“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” (Micah 5:2)

Rabbi David Kimhi interprets the passage.

“His origins are from old, everlasting. In his time they will say that he is from everlasting… and this is God who is from old, from everlasting.” (RaDaK on Micah 5:2)

This means, that the Messiah always existed.
He’s eternal.
He is God.

PIERCING GOD
Let’s go to the book of Zechariah. We actually made a video on Zechariah chapter 12.
But in brief, in Zechariah 12 God tells the house of David that one day in the future “they will look upon me, whom they have pierced.”

How can God be pierced? Only if he came to us in flesh and blood.

See how even the Babylonian Talmud connects this passage with the Messiah.

“It is said about the Messiah, Son of Joseph, that he will be killed, as it is written in Zechariah 12: ‘They looked on me, whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as for an only child.'” Tractate Sukkah, ch. 5

Let’s continue, our last example: Daniel.

THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN
Here, God comes down in the clouds and appears before us as a man. To him the nations bring sacrifices, him they worship.

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14)

The most interesting conclusions about this passage can be drawn from old writings. Scroll 4Q246, one of the Qumran scrolls, found at the Dead Sea, is dated back to the 3rd century BC. Long before Jesus and the NT. In this scroll, the messianic expectations of the Jews of that time are described. Back then, according to the prophecy of Daniel 7 the Messiah was expected to be the son of God. That means, that according to early Judaism the Messiah was God. And those Jews cannot be labeled as “christian missionaries.”

ONLY GOD CAN SAVE
If seen from a philosophical and theological point of view the Messiah has to be God himself. Since it is the Messiah’s main purpose to bring salvation, the OT tells us that God alone can save.

“I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior.” Isaiah 43:11

“And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.” Isaiah 45:21

“But I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.” Hosea 13:4

Hence, God alone can save. And if salvation is the purpose of the Messiah there is either a contradiction here or the Messiah indeed is God himself, the savior. We could go on and quote endless examples on how God reveals himself to us in the form of a man and especially in the person of the Messiah. These quotes are in the OT but also in the writings of the Sages. But for sure, you’ve already got the idea.
This is not some pagan, idol worshiping concept… it’s not even ‘Christian’.
You’ve got to admit to the idea that (according to God himself) the Creator of the universe loves us so much that he willingly humbled himself and appeared to us as a human, that He lived, suffered and died for us – is simply an amazing thought. It should make us grateful on one hand, and humble us in how we interact with others on the other hand.
If God is perfect and gave his life for us imperfect beings, then how much more should we, imperfect people, be willing to make sacrifices for others?

Why Messiah must be God!

Our ministry, ONE FOR ISRAEL, is a movement of Jewish and Arab Israeli followers of Jesus with a commission to reach their country and the nations with the Gospel. We see our call to equip believers in Israel and around the world with the tools of ministry through our media outreach, and to...

www.oneforisrael.org

For the readers sake @Matthias.

J.

 

[Matthias]

AND WHAT WILL BE HIS NAME? THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
In the OT no one except for God himself is called YHWH, (LORD) but here the Messiah receives the name “the LORD our righteousness”. As opposed to names like Daniel (the LORD is my judge) or Elinadav (My LORD is gracious) here, the explicit name of God is mentioned. Y-H-W-H.
To make sure you can’t accuse us of using a missionary-christian interpretation let’s see how the Sages interpreted this passage.
In the Midrash Proverbs section 19 it says:

“Rav Huna says: the 7 names of the Messiah are Ynon, the Lord our righteousness, Branch, Consoler, David, Shilo and Elijah.”

And in Midrash Lamentations 1 the passage is interpreted:

“What is the name of the Messiah King? Rabbi Abba Bar Kahana says: ‘The Lord’ is his name, and this is what they will call him: ‘The Lord our Righteousness’.”

According to Rabbi Johanan bar Nappaha the Messiah will be called by the name of God.

“Rabbi Johanan said: ‘Those three will be called by God’s name: The righteous ones, the Messiah and Jerusalem… the Messiah, as it is written (Jeremiah 23) and this is the name that they will call him: The Lord our Righteousness.

Minor tractate, Soferim 13, Halakha 12:

“We … God our Lord in Elijah the prophet, your servant and in the kingdom of David your Messiah soon he will come and appear to his sons and on his throne will sit no one else and he will give his glory to no other. Because by your holy name you promised him that his lamp will not be put out forever. ‘In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell securely, and this is the name he will be called: the Lord our Righteousness.’ Blessed be you, o Lord, who raises up a horn of salvation for his people Israel.”

Also here, the Messiah is being identified with “The Lord our Righteousness,” referring to Jeremiah 23.

“When they both confessed their deeds Judah was side by side with Ruben. Since: to one who orders his way rightly I will show the salvation of God Judah confessed and therefore inherited the kingdom and from him will come the Messiah that will save Israel as it is written: ‘In his days Judah will be saved.'” (Tzror Hamor, Genesis Vayechi)

The commentator explains that Judah acted rightly since from him the Messiah will come. He bases this on Jeremiah 23, verse 6. In other words, he too sees in this verse a messianic prophecy that predicts that the Messiah will be God.
In ‘Midrash Tehillim’ it says that God calls the Messiah by his name. And what is his name? The answer is “the Lord of Hosts” and the Messiah we will call “and this is the name he will be called: The Lord our righteousness.”

Therefore, the messianic prophecy found in Jeremiah 23 teaches us that the Messiah will be God himself. The Sages themselves understood and taught this passage in the same way.

By the way, some within the Chabad movement claim that Rabbi Schneerson was the King Messiah, God taking on flesh, based on this passage. Let’s continue.

FROM EVERLASTING, ANCIENT OF DAYS
This time we look at Micah who prophesied that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem and that his origins are from everlasting.

“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” (Micah 5:2)

Rabbi David Kimhi interprets the passage.

“His origins are from old, everlasting. In his time they will say that he is from everlasting… and this is God who is from old, from everlasting.” (RaDaK on Micah 5:2)

This means, that the Messiah always existed.
He’s eternal.
He is God.

PIERCING GOD
Let’s go to the book of Zechariah. We actually made a video on Zechariah chapter 12.
But in brief, in Zechariah 12 God tells the house of David that one day in the future “they will look upon me, whom they have pierced.”

How can God be pierced? Only if he came to us in flesh and blood.

See how even the Babylonian Talmud connects this passage with the Messiah.

“It is said about the Messiah, Son of Joseph, that he will be killed, as it is written in Zechariah 12: ‘They looked on me, whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as for an only child.'” Tractate Sukkah, ch. 5

Let’s continue, our last example: Daniel.

THE SON OF MAN COMING IN THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN
Here, God comes down in the clouds and appears before us as a man. To him the nations bring sacrifices, him they worship.

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7:13-14)

The most interesting conclusions about this passage can be drawn from old writings. Scroll 4Q246, one of the Qumran scrolls, found at the Dead Sea, is dated back to the 3rd century BC. Long before Jesus and the NT. In this scroll, the messianic expectations of the Jews of that time are described. Back then, according to the prophecy of Daniel 7 the Messiah was expected to be the son of God. That means, that according to early Judaism the Messiah was God. And those Jews cannot be labeled as “christian missionaries.”

ONLY GOD CAN SAVE
If seen from a philosophical and theological point of view the Messiah has to be God himself. Since it is the Messiah’s main purpose to bring salvation, the OT tells us that God alone can save.

“I, I am the Lord, and besides me there is no savior.” Isaiah 43:11

“And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me.” Isaiah 45:21

“But I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior.” Hosea 13:4

Hence, God alone can save. And if salvation is the purpose of the Messiah there is either a contradiction here or the Messiah indeed is God himself, the savior. We could go on and quote endless examples on how God reveals himself to us in the form of a man and especially in the person of the Messiah. These quotes are in the OT but also in the writings of the Sages. But for sure, you’ve already got the idea.
This is not some pagan, idol worshiping concept… it’s not even ‘Christian’.
You’ve got to admit to the idea that (according to God himself) the Creator of the universe loves us so much that he willingly humbled himself and appeared to us as a human, that He lived, suffered and died for us – is simply an amazing thought. It should make us grateful on one hand, and humble us in how we interact with others on the other hand.
If God is perfect and gave his life for us imperfect beings, then how much more should we, imperfect people, be willing to make sacrifices for others?

Why Messiah must be God!

Our ministry, ONE FOR ISRAEL, is a movement of Jewish and Arab Israeli followers of Jesus with a commission to reach their country and the nations with the Gospel. We see our call to equip believers in Israel and around the world with the tools of ministry through our media outreach, and to...

www.oneforisrael.org

For the readers sake @Matthias.

J.

Definitely for the sake of other readers. I don’t typically read or respond to long posts. Just between you and me, I don’t think the average person does either. That’s why I try to keep my posts short. What good are long posts if they aren’t being read?

 

[Johann]

Rabbi Tovia Singer says: “Anyone who thinks that God came down to us, manifested as anything, whether as cottage cheese or as Jesus, such person is going to the eternal fire of hell and will not enjoy Heaven.”

Rabbi Daniel Asor adds: “The Old Testament forbids pagan beliefs which evolve around “human idols” a man-god.” And in page 256 in his book, he writes the following: “The Christians lean on Old Testament verses when it comes to the divinity of Jesus.” And then in a condescending and arrogant way, the rabbi suggests you take a look “at a number of verses in the Old Testament on which the missionaries base their Pagan belief.”
So let’s do that.

LET’S LOOK AT WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY, AND AT RABBI ASOR’S OBJECTIONS, AND THEN EXPLAIN WHY EVEN THE ANCIENT JEWISH SAGES THINK HE IS WRONG.
First up is the verse from Jeremiah 23:6:

“In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely, and this is the name by which he will be called: ‘YHWH, Our Righteousness.’”

After Rabbi Asor explains that Christians use this verse as evidence to the divinity of the Messiah, he responds with a similar verse from Jeremiah 33:16:

“In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘YHWH, Our Righteousness.’”

Then he posits:
“Therefore: in this verse, ‘YHWH, Our Righteousness’ is the name of the city Jerusalem. Should we say that the sand and the rocks of Jerusalem are 100% divine for the future to come? Of course not” He adds, “By the way, my name is also divine, Daniel! Am I also divine? Of course not…”
First of all, although the name ‘Daniel’ contains the letters E and L, you will not find a prophet, king or any other person in the whole Old Testament who receives the specific four-letter name of God, YHWH, apart from the Messiah.

Only the Messiah is called by God’s explicit name.

Second, what about the claim that the prophet Jeremiah calls Jerusalem by the name “YHWH, Our Righteousness”, since it’s impossible, as the Rabbi claims, to call a city after God’s name? Those who don’t have a biblical background might think this makes sense, but the truth is that naming a city after its ruler is a well-known biblical custom, and has remained so since the earliest generations.
Even with Cain, in Genesis 4, Cain built a city and named it after his son ‘Enoch’. When we read through the book of Genesis, we see that throughout the generations, cities were named after their rulers. Therefore, it is of no surprise that Jerusalem would also be given the name of its king and ruler – after the name of the One who chose her to be His eternal spiritual dwelling – God. This actually supports our point, and is not a contradiction to our claim, that the Messiah King will be called by God’s name. His capital city will also be called after His name ‘YHWH, Our Righteousness’; the city which He chose as His dwelling place.
And now to the main point… Pay attention to the bias and lack of honesty of Rabbi Daniel Asor, who insists that the suggestion that Jeremiah 23:6 speaks of the deity of the Messiah was a claim first made by Christians, and an expression of their pagan belief. As a Rabbi, he should advocate the ‘Oral Law’, but in reality, he doesn’t hesitate to contradict what the Sages have said, and to trample the Oral Law just to try and keep Jesus out of the picture.

LET’S SEE HOW THE SAGES INTERPRETED ‘YHWH, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS’ IN JEREMIAH 23:6 AS A PROPHECY ABOUT THE MESSIAH:
Babylonian Talmud Baba Bathra 75 72: “Said Rabbi Yohanan: ‘Three will be named with the name of the Holy One, blessed be he, and they are: The Upright, the Messiah, and Jerusalem… Messiah, as it is written (Jer. 23) ‘And this is His name whereby He shell be called: YHWH, Our Righteousness”

Minor Tractate, Sofrim 13, Rule 12: “Gladden us, O Lord our God, with Elijah the prophet, thy servant, and with the kingdom of the house of David, thine anointed. Soon may he come and rejoice our hearts. Suffer not a stranger to sit upon his throne, nor let others any longer inherit his glory; for by thy holy name thou didst swear unto him, that his light should not be quenched for ever. “In His days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which He will be called; The Lord, Our Righteousness. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who sprouts a horn of salvation for His people, Israel.” Here, Messiah Son of David is identified with the figure mentioned in Jeremiah 23, ‘YHWH, Our Righteousness’.

“Tzror Hamor” Genesis, Parashat Vayechi”: “As they both confessed to the wrong they had done, Judah juxtaposed Reuben… Oh, I will show him the salvation of God! Since he admitted, he received the kingship and from him came a Messiah who will save Israel, as it is written: ‘In His days, Judah will be saved.’”

Here the commentator explains Judah’s privilege – that the Messiah would come from him, and is basing his words on Jeremiah 23:6, meaning that he also saw this verse as a Messianic prophecy which claims that the Messiah will be God.

In Midrash Mishle (Proverbs), Rabbi Hona names seven names for the Messiah: “Yinnon, YHWH Our Righteousness, Shoot, Comforter, David, Shiloh, and Elijah.”

In Midrash Eichah 1 it says about this verse: “What is the name of the Messiah King?” Rabbi Abba Bar-Kahana said: ‘The Lord’ is his name, and that is the name by which He will be called, The LORD, Our Righteousness”.

In Midrash Tehilim (Psalms) it is written that God calls the Messiah by His name, and what is His name? The answer given is: “YHWH, Man of War” (Exodus 15:3). And about the Messiah we read: “And that is His name by which He will be called: YHWH, Our Righteousness”

Did you get it? The Sages attributed “YHWH, Our Righteousness” in Jeremiah 23:6 to be speaking about the Messiah.

Now all we have left to do is to ask Rabbi Asor if he intends to also accuse Rabbi Yohanan, the writer of the minor tractates, and Rabbi Abraham of having pagan Christian beliefs?

For the readers sake @Matthias

The Messiah is God

Our ministry, ONE FOR ISRAEL, is a movement of Jewish and Arab Israeli followers of Jesus with a commission to reach their country and the nations with the Gospel. We see our call to equip believers in Israel and around the world with the tools of ministry through our media outreach, and to...

www.oneforisrael.org

J.

 

[Johann]

Definitely for the sake of other readers. I don’t typically read or respond to long posts. Just between you and me, I don’t think the average person does either. That’s why I try to keep my posts short. What good are long posts if they aren’t being read?

You're such a prolific reader of books, yet you can't take a moment to read this short post?

J.

 

[Matthias]

You're such a prolific reader of books …

Yes. Most pastors and professors are. I’m not unique in the field.

… yet you can't take a moment to read this short post?

J.

I read this short post. In regard to the writers you’ve quoted so far, I’ve read all of them.

P.S.

This is a good place for me to add my old classroom sign:

Read widely. Read deeply. Read thoughtfully. Read critically.

 

[Johann]

Yes. Most pastors and professors are. I’m not unique in the field.



I read this short post. In regard to the writers you’ve quoted so far, I’ve read all of them.

P.S.

This is a good place for me to add my old classroom sign:

Read widely. Read deeply. Read thoughtfully. Read critically.

Targum Jonathan on Jeremiah 23:5-6
The Targum (an ancient Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible) explicitly interprets Jeremiah 23:5-6 as Messianic:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous Messiah, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: The Lord, our righteousness."

This paraphrase identifies the figure as the Messiah and directly attributes the divine title "YHWH, Our Righteousness" to him.

2. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b
In discussing the name of the Messiah, this passage states:
"And what is his name? The school of Rabbi Yannai said: His name is 'YHWH is our righteousness,' as it is stated: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called: The Lord is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

Here, the Talmud directly applies Jeremiah 23:6 to the Messiah, affirming his connection to the divine name.

3. Pesikta Rabbati 152b
The Pesikta Rabbati, a Midrashic text, includes a passage that refers to the Messiah as carrying the name of God:
"The Messiah—what is his name?... YHWH is his name, for it is written: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

This statement highlights the belief that the Messiah bears the divine name, a strong connection to the idea of his divinity.

4. Zohar, Volume II, 40b
The Zohar, a foundational text of Jewish mysticism, says:
"The Messiah is called by the name of God, for it is written: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

The Zohar reflects an esoteric understanding of the Messiah's divine status, indicating his unique role in salvation and his identification with God.

5. Midrash on Psalms (Midrash Tehillim), Psalm 21
"The King Messiah, who is to arise from the house of David, is called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

The Messiah is explicitly connected to the divine name, underscoring the theological understanding of his exalted nature.

6. Tzror HaMor on Genesis 49:8
"Judah’s kingship is tied to the Messiah, who is called 'YHWH, Our Righteousness,' as written in Jeremiah 23:6."

This commentary reinforces the view that the Messiah, from the line of Judah, fulfills the prophecy in Jeremiah and is identified with God.

7. Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:6
"Another explanation [of Ruth 2:14]: 'Come hither'—this refers to King Messiah. 'And eat of the bread'—this refers to the bread of the kingdom; 'and dip your morsel in the vinegar'—this refers to the sufferings, as it is said: But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5)... and why is his name called 'The Lord Our Righteousness'? Because he is the righteousness of the Lord for all generations."

This Midrash links the Messiah’s role as a suffering servant with his title “YHWH, Our Righteousness,” drawing a theological connection between his suffering and his divine mission.

8. Midrash Lamentations (Eichah Rabbah) 1:51
"Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: What is the name of the King Messiah? YHWH is his name, as it is stated: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called: The Lord is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

This explicitly identifies the Messiah with the divine name, affirming the Messianic interpretation of Jeremiah 23:6.

Summary
These Jewish sources-including Talmudic, Midrashic, and mystical writings—consistently interpret Jeremiah 23:6 as Messianic. The Messiah is often described as bearing God's name, "YHWH," and being intrinsically tied to divine righteousness. While interpretations vary, the connection between the Messiah and God's divine attributes is a recurring theme,showing the Messiah's unique and exalted status in Jewish tradition.

Guess the ECF's could not be that far wrong @Matthias.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Targum Jonathan on Jeremiah 23:5-6
The Targum (an ancient Aramaic paraphrase of the Hebrew Bible) explicitly interprets Jeremiah 23:5-6 as Messianic:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, that I will raise up for David a righteous Messiah, and he shall reign as king and prosper, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: The Lord, our righteousness."

This paraphrase identifies the figure as the Messiah and directly attributes the divine title "YHWH, Our Righteousness" to him.

2. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b
In discussing the name of the Messiah, this passage states:
"And what is his name? The school of Rabbi Yannai said: His name is 'YHWH is our righteousness,' as it is stated: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called: The Lord is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

Here, the Talmud directly applies Jeremiah 23:6 to the Messiah, affirming his connection to the divine name.

3. Pesikta Rabbati 152b
The Pesikta Rabbati, a Midrashic text, includes a passage that refers to the Messiah as carrying the name of God:
"The Messiah—what is his name?... YHWH is his name, for it is written: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

This statement highlights the belief that the Messiah bears the divine name, a strong connection to the idea of his divinity.

4. Zohar, Volume II, 40b
The Zohar, a foundational text of Jewish mysticism, says:
"The Messiah is called by the name of God, for it is written: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

The Zohar reflects an esoteric understanding of the Messiah's divine status, indicating his unique role in salvation and his identification with God.

5. Midrash on Psalms (Midrash Tehillim), Psalm 21
"The King Messiah, who is to arise from the house of David, is called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called, YHWH is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

The Messiah is explicitly connected to the divine name, underscoring the theological understanding of his exalted nature.

6. Tzror HaMor on Genesis 49:8
"Judah’s kingship is tied to the Messiah, who is called 'YHWH, Our Righteousness,' as written in Jeremiah 23:6."

This commentary reinforces the view that the Messiah, from the line of Judah, fulfills the prophecy in Jeremiah and is identified with God.

7. Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5:6
"Another explanation [of Ruth 2:14]: 'Come hither'—this refers to King Messiah. 'And eat of the bread'—this refers to the bread of the kingdom; 'and dip your morsel in the vinegar'—this refers to the sufferings, as it is said: But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5)... and why is his name called 'The Lord Our Righteousness'? Because he is the righteousness of the Lord for all generations."

This Midrash links the Messiah’s role as a suffering servant with his title “YHWH, Our Righteousness,” drawing a theological connection between his suffering and his divine mission.

8. Midrash Lamentations (Eichah Rabbah) 1:51
"Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: What is the name of the King Messiah? YHWH is his name, as it is stated: 'This is his name whereby he shall be called: The Lord is our righteousness' (Jeremiah 23:6)."

This explicitly identifies the Messiah with the divine name, affirming the Messianic interpretation of Jeremiah 23:6.

Summary
These Jewish sources-including Talmudic, Midrashic, and mystical writings—consistently interpret Jeremiah 23:6 as Messianic. The Messiah is often described as bearing God's name, "YHWH," and being intrinsically tied to divine righteousness. While interpretations vary, the connection between the Messiah and God's divine attributes is a recurring theme,showing the Messiah's unique and exalted status in Jewish tradition.

Guess the ECF's could not be that far wrong @Matthias.

J.

The ECF’s are transitionary figures. They aren’t Jewish monotheists, nor are they Nicenes.

 

[Johann]

The ECF’s are transitionary figures. They aren’t Jewish monotheists, nor are they Nicenes.

The ECFs were not transitional figures in a pejorative sense but pivotal theologians who preserved Jewish monotheism while elucidating the divine nature of Christ. Their writings are evidence of an organic and faithful development of early Christian doctrine, culminating in the formalization of the Nicene Creed.

But then, I have my Bible and writings of the Sages-early Jewish sources brother.

Shalom.

J.

 

[Matthias]

“Unitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.”

(“Unitarianism,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1956, Vol. 27, p. 294L)

Okay, but does that prove that it is wrong?