A NECESSARY INTERLUDE
I am back again and I think it is worthwhile commenting on the comments from Corey, whom I have known for quite some time as he is married to the daughter of longstanding friends. He clearly rejects the deity of Jesus the Messiah and has some comprehensive responses to my blog, which may be challenging for uniformed readers, but truth must stand the test of opposition.
Despite significant differences, Corey and I strongly agree on the humanity of Jesus, which has a beginning, being at the virgin conception. That is why the New Testament often refers to Jesus in that context and those descriptions necessitate the limitations of humanity. Jesus as human is dependent on God the Father, is obedient to God the Father, is able to die, rise from the dead and be rewarded by God the Father. None of these realities prohibit nor contradict Jesus' identity as God.
Certainly, we cannot comprehend the joining of an infinite God with a finite humanity, which our human logic would easily dismiss, but it would also dismiss creation from nothing, biblical miracles and even the existence of God. Logic has never been the basis of the acceptance of biblical revelation. The Scriptures declare that faith is the basis (Hebrews 11:1, 3) and we are to walk by faith not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Our human intellect is not adequate for this task, especially considering its fallen condition.
Rather than respond to each of Corey's comments, which I have done in another platform, I wanted to put forth the fundamental difference between us. I am convinced the Bible teaches Jesus the Messiah is both man and God, existed as God prior to the incarnation as the second member of the Trinity, and must be both God and man for the salvation of humanity. This is the historical, evangelical Church's teaching concerning Jesus and any deviation from it is a serious matter. It is not an invention of Church councils or tradition, but a close examination of the Scriptures, which are the final authority.
I should add that Corey's position demands that Jesus has no pre-existence, which is why passages such as John 1:1-14 are interpreted in the way that he presents to avoid pre-existence, as well as divine identity. John makes several statements that are problematic if Jesus did not pre-exist. In recording the words of John the Baptizer in John 1:15, "He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me", we see a reference to Jesus' pre-existence. Jesus was conceived months later than John the Baptizer (see Luke's account) and therefore would not have been before him if only human, but as God preceded him by eternity.
Later, John records Jesus's response to the Jewish religious leaders regarding his relationship to Abraham, in which Jesus states, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). This claim of existing before Abraham provoked them to stone Jesus but he escaped their hostility. John also records that Isaiah saw Jesus when he saw the glory of God in the temple vision (John 12:41 cf. Isaiah 6), which also requires Jesus' pre-existence and even more so, His deity. More could be added, but this is sufficient support for Jesus' pre-existence.
I hope this brief interlude is helpful. No doubt, Corey will have responses, but remember what is at stake. Only a person as genuinely valuable as Jesus in His deity and humanity can take the place of humanity for the payment of sin, providing salvation for many people not just one. A mere human, even a perfect one, could be a substitute for one human in taking the punishment for sin, but not many. Until next time, be thankful for the gift of Jesus.
❝Corey and I strongly agree on the humanity of Jesus, which has a beginning, being at the virgin conception. That is why the New Testament often refers to Jesus in that context and those descriptions necessitate the limitations of humanity. Jesus as human is dependent on God the Father, is obedient to God the Father, is able to die, rise from the dead and be rewarded by God the Father. None of these realities prohibit nor contradict Jesus' identity as God.❞
ReplyDeletePART 1
Yes, you are correct. I take the position that the Son of God, the Messiah, is a human. Not just a human by nature but also a human by person. Jesus is a human person whose beginnings began in His mother’s womb when the spirit of God overshadowed her and she was found to be with child. Jesus then grew in favour with God and men.
Luke 1:35 - The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child will be called the Son of God.
Luke 2:52 - And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.
We should take a moment to consider Luke 1:35. In this text we find a statement that goes against the Trinitarian idea of a Jesus who is eternally the Son of God. The angel Gabriel states: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and ๐for that reason๐ the holy child shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). We see that Christ is not “the Son of God” due to his eternal pre-existence as God the Son, nor due to any “eternal begetting.” He is not here eternally God’s Son; he is only the Son of God after a particular moment in time: his conception within Mary by way of miracle. After this we see the Son of God growing in favour with God. Why would the eternal Son need to grow in favour with God? Someone who is God does not need to grow in favour with God.
Additional to these thoughts we see that the Messiah has a God pre and post resurrection, which I’ve mentioned previously. This is noteworthy because it demonstrates that the Son of God has a God. Now I understand that to explain this the Trinitarian creates a categorical distinction between the natures of the Messiah and states that as a man He has a God, but as God He does not. I would challenge this way of thinking and ask where exactly do we see this idea in the Apostolic writings? What Apostle says that this is how we should think of the Son having a God? I’m not aware of any Apostle stating such a categorical distinction. What we constantly see is that it is the Lord Jesus Messiah, a person, who has a God. No reference to any natures is mentioned to create any distinctions.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteI did want to mention what may be a contradiction in your thoughts, so if you feel the need to clarify this then please do. As mentioned above you believe Jesus only has a God from the perspective as a man, but as God He does not have a God. You have also mentioned that you hold to the view that the designation “Lord” (kyrios) is equally divine as the designation “God”. Full quote below.
The use of "God" and "Lord" do not necessitate two differing levels with respect to deity or authority, rather they maintain distinctions between the persons without creating inequality between them. I would argue that the designation "Lord" is equally divine as "God" in this context and whenever it is used of Jesus.
With this in mind, I think this creates a contradiction for your view because it is the ๐Lord๐ Jesus that has a God.
Rom 15:6 - the God and Father of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 1:3 - the God and Father of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 11:31 - The God and Father of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:3 - the God and Father of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
Eph 1:17 - the God of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
Col 1:3 - the God and Father of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
1 Pet 1:3 - the God and Father of our ๐Lord๐ Jesus Christ.
Here is what I’m seeing as the contradiction. You believe the proposition that Jesus as God doesn’t have a God. You also believe the proposition that the designation “Lord” is a designation of deity. The above verses show that it is the “Lord” Jesus that has a God. Based upon these propositions you hold and what scripture states, this communicates the idea that Jesus as God does have a God. But this conclusion goes against one of your underlying beliefs. Do you see this as a contradiction?
❝Certainly, we cannot comprehend the joining of an infinite God with a finite humanity, which our human logic would easily dismiss, but it would also dismiss creation from nothing, biblical miracles and even the existence of God. Logic has never been the basis of the acceptance of biblical revelation. The Scriptures declare that faith is the basis (Hebrews 11:1, 3) and we are to walk by faith not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). Our human intellect is not adequate for this task, especially considering its fallen condition.❞
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on the logic of creation from nothing and biblical miracles. How God can do things is truly remarkable, and the best is yet to come! I do think that if something as important as a 2 natured person is required for salvation then such a doctrine should be more explicit in the Apostolic writings. I find it lacking explicit scriptural substance.
As mentioned in previous comments, if it wasn’t clear, I do not deny that Jesus is called God. He clearly is in some verses (John 1 and Hebrews 1). Where we differ is how that should be interpreted. You take the ontological interpretation and I take the functional interpretation. Jesus, as the Messianic Son, has been granted by the invisible God divine prerogatives so that the Son then represents the invisible God functionally. I think the functional interpretation has a far better framework established for it in the data. What I’m seeing in the biblical data is that men (Moses, the judges, and the king of Israel) are called elohim / theos without making them ontologically God. This was culturally acceptable to the Israelites. It’s only when we get some 300+ years after the Apostles that we begin to see the ontological and dual natured Messiah interpretation pop up in theology. The Greek philosophers in Nicea, in my opinion, missed an important Hebraic concept in their discussions and from this error was born a 3 person God with 1 person possessing 2 natures.
Why do you believe the ontological framework is the better interpretation and not the functional framework which has been established in the OT?
I think that some of the most explicit detail about who God is can be found in the pronouns He uses. Humans and God are presented in the same terms without qualification: they are described in the way that we ordinarily speak about single persons. God is constantly spoken of as a He, Him, I, Me, Myself, Himself etc. This is what we would expect from a single person when communicating with us. You’ve mentioned in a previous discussion that you believe these pronouns are only there to prevent the reader falling into Tri-theism. But I would challenge that presupposition and ask, how would a single person communicate if wanting to do so? By suggesting that singular personal pronouns don’t mean what they mean it renders it impossible for God to ever communicate the idea that He is a single person.
❝Rather than respond to each of Corey's comments, which I have done in another platform, I wanted to put forth the fundamental difference between us. I am convinced the Bible teaches Jesus the Messiah is both man and God, existed as God prior to the incarnation as the second member of the Trinity, and must be both God and man for the salvation of humanity.This is the historical, evangelical Church's teaching concerning Jesus and any deviation from it is a serious matter. It is not an invention of Church councils or tradition, but a close examination of the Scriptures, which are the final authority.❞
ReplyDeleteWhat I’m seeing and what I’m not seeing: I’m not seeing a 3 person God, nor do I think that Jesus saw a 3 person God. The God of Jesus is explicitly called the only true God (John 17:3). The God of Jesus is explicitly spoken of as a single person. I think logically then that it follows that the only true God is a single person. This makes sense in light of the 20,000+ singular personal pronouns used to refer to God. All of this coupled with the functional God interpretation which we get from the Old Testament convinces me that there is no good reason to have a 3 person God. Also keeping in mind that there is no explicit statement(s) explaining that God is Three persons. No Apostle takes the time to unpack in a chapter or single verse that God is composed of 3 persons. I don’t think the Apostle Paul could have made it any more explicit for us either regarding who the Christian’s God is.
1 Cor 8:5-6 - For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— ๐yet for us there is one God, the Father,๐ from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
The Christian’s God is the Father, that is our only God. We do not have 3 persons who are our God. It’s only after the Apostles that we start to see a 3 person God idea emerge.
❝I should add that Corey's position demands that Jesus has no pre-existence, which is why passages such as John 1:1-14 are interpreted in the way that he presents to avoid pre-existence, as well as divine identity. John makes several statements that are problematic if Jesus did not pre-exist. In recording the words of John the Baptizer in John 1:15, "He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me", we see a reference to Jesus' pre-existence. Jesus was conceived months later than John the Baptizer (see Luke's account) and therefore would not have been before him if only human, but as God preceded him by eternity.❞
ReplyDeleteJohn 1:15 - (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
To be honest and transparent I’m unsure what the most likely interpretation of this verse is. On the face of the language, “He was before (prลtos) me”, it could very well mean that Jesus preexisted John. Surveying the way that the Gospel of John uses the word “prลtos” we can see that it almost always relates to a reference of time with John 20:4 possibly meaning first place. Broadening our view of the relevant texts the same statement is also used in John 1:30.
John 1:30 - This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.’
In these verses we have almost parallel statements. One of them mentions “He” and the other mentions “a man”. In verse 30 he states that “He” was before him, with the “He” referring back to “a man”. Key to understanding this is to recognize that John is speaking about a man. It is a man that is before John! With our view broadened I think it’s unlikely that the interpretation is one of preexistence with one man preexisting another man. The context is about a man that was before John. There are 3 possible interpretations to this language, maybe others that I’m not aware of.
The before relates to preeminence.
The before relates to prophecy.
The before relates to being sent.
Point 1: Some take the position that John is saying that Jesus is preeminent, that His rank is before John. I find this view tough to swallow due to the imperfect indicative of ฤn (แผฆฮฝ).
Point 2: Some take the position that this relates to the man Jesus being prophesied before John in scripture as the one who would have the spirit rest upon Him and who would baptise with the holy spirit.
Point 3: Some take the position that this relates to the man Jesus being sent before John to be revealed. John’s ministry is all about revealing who the Messiah is. To put it another way, the sending of the Messiah, to be revealed, began its journey before (protos) John's ministry began. In this way the Messiah is before (protos) John. The sending process was underway. John then is sent (John 1:6), propelled in a way, in front of / ahead of (emprosthen) the Messiah (John 3:28) to prepare the way of the Lord because the Messiah was in their midst (John 1:26) ready to be revealed, having been sent before (protos) John.
These are the 3 alternate views I’m aware of and as I mentioned I’m unsure what is the most likely. There may be others too. With the context being “a man” I think it’s unlikely that John was thinking in terms of a man pre existing.
❝Later, John records Jesus's response to the Jewish religious leaders regarding his relationship to Abraham, in which Jesus states, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). This claim of existing before Abraham provoked them to stone Jesus but he escaped their hostility.❞
ReplyDeletePART 1
There are multiple reasons why I think the traditional Trinitarian interpretation of this verse is unlikely. These reasons I’ll list below.
⭐ Reason 1 - ego eimi
The phrase “ego eimi” was a common expression in Greek used to refer to oneself. We see this being used by the blind man in the next chapter.
John 9:8-9 - Therefore the neighbours, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, “Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?” Others were saying, “This is he,” still others were saying, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, "I am (ego eimi)"
No one would think that the blind man is claiming to be God. He is referring to himself with the phrase ego eimi. The phrase can be used to connect a previously mentioned title, in the above case it’s “the one who used to sit and beg.”
⭐ Reason 2 - Jesus’ identity
In verse 40 of John 8 we see that Jesus identifies as a man.
John 8:40 - but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.
Not only does Jesus identify as a man but also claims that the truth He has heard comes from God. Here we see a clear distinction between Jesus, a man, and who God is. It seems unlikely that Jesus is switching between natures when He’s speaking. Commenting as a man in verse 40 but then switching natures and commenting as God in verse 58 is an interpretive stretch in my opinion.
⭐ Reason 3 - Peter’s Belief
We have an explicit statement from the Apostle Peter that the God of Abraham, the God who revealed Himself to Moses, has a servant named Jesus.
Acts 3:13 - The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.
In Exodus 3 we see God revealing Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham.
Exodus 3:6 - Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.
The God of Abraham, who revealed Himself to Moses, is the same God who has a servant named Jesus according to Peter. The servant named Jesus did not reveal Himself to Moses at the burning bush. The servant named Jesus is not the God of Abraham. A clear distinction between the God of Abraham and the servant Jesus is made in Peter’s speech.
PART 2
ReplyDelete⭐ Reason 4 - Stephen’s Belief
In Acts 7 we see Stephen recounting the history of the Jewish people. In his recalling of their history he mentions that God visited Abraham (v. 2), and how God visited Moses (v. 32). We see that God introduces Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, which is the same report we see from Peter in my previous reason. For the sake of space I will not paste the entire chapter of Acts 7 due to its length. Moving on we see that Moses states that God will raise up a prophet like him from their brothers (v. 37). Towards the end of the chapter we see Stephen charging the people with betraying and murdering the Righteous One (v. 52). What’s important in this history of Israel is where the Righteous One is placed. He is not mentioned as being present at the beginning where Abraham is mentioned, or even where Moses is mentioned. Jesus is never mentioned as speaking to Moses or Abraham. The Messiah is mentioned way at the bottom of Israel’s history (from the 1st century time frame). So based on this history of Israel it’s unlikely that Jesus is the God who spoke to Moses since the God who spoke to Moses promised Moses that a prophet would be raised up from his people.
⭐ Reason 5 - Jesus’ Belief
We also have evidence from Jesus regarding His view on the burning bush event.
Mark 12:26-27 - And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
Here we see Jesus teaching that God is an “I” and a “He”. We also see Jesus teaching that it wasn’t Himself that spoke to Moses but how God spoke to Moses. Jesus’ views align with Peter’s and Stephen’s.
⭐ Reason 6 - When the Son spoke
The writer of the letter Hebrews gives us explicit insight as to when the Son spoke.
Hebrews 1:1-2 - In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son…
In this verse we have a clear statement that it was in the “last days” that the Son spoke. The writer of Hebrews view of when the Son spoke also agrees with Peter’s and Stephen’s views. Unless one is willing to say that the last days span from Moses to the 1st century then we have clear evidence demonstrating that it wasn’t Jesus speaking to Moses in the burning bush.
⭐ Reason 7 - When the Son appeared
We also have explicit insight into when the Son appeared from the writer of Hebrews.
Hebrews 9:26-28 - for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Verse 26 states that Christ, the Son of God, had only appeared once and will return a second time. Both time frames are the same for when the Son spoke and when the Son appeared. The Son spoke in the last days and the Son has appeared once at the end of the ages. These time frames both agree with Peter and Stephen’s views about when the Messiah shows up in Israel’s history.
-End of Reasons-
With these reasons above I think it’s very unlikely that Jesus is claiming to be the one who spoke to Moses at the burning bush. In light of these reasons I think the Trinitarian explanation needs to overlook many other verses of scripture to make their interpretation work.
❝John also records that Isaiah saw Jesus when he saw the glory of God in the temple vision (John 12:41 cf. Isaiah 6), which also requires Jesus' pre-existence and even more so, His deity. More could be added, but this is sufficient support for Jesus' pre-existence.❞
ReplyDeleteJohn 12:38-41 - This happened so that the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke would be fulfilled: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they will not see with their eyes and understand with their heart, and be converted, and so I will not heal them.” These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke about Him.
Isaiah saw the Messiah's glory in many different ways throughout his ministry, to name a few: Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1, 10-12; 16:5; 32:1; 42:1-7; 49:1-7; 50:4-9; 52:12-15; 53:1-12: 55:4-5; 61:1-2. But let's break it down to see what's going on here.
John is talking about the fact that people were not believing in Jesus, this detail is mentioned in verse 37.
John 12:37 - But though He had performed so many signs in their sight, they still were not believing in Him.
V. 38 - And all this happened to fulfil the word spoken by Isaiah.
Isaiah 53:1 - "Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" quoted in John 12:38.
John then goes on to say that for this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,
Isaiah 6:10 - "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them." quoted in John 12:39-40
John then goes on to say that "these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory, and he spoke of him." quoted in John 12:41
So the passages have John quoting 2 verses from Isaiah which prophesied the Jewish unbelief to show that these prophecies were now being fulfilled.
The immediate context is about belief vs. unbelief. It's important to also note what follows this in John 12
John 12:44-45 - And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in the One who sent me. And he who sees me sees the One who sent me."
So putting all of this together, Jesus was performing many signs to the crowd and there were some who would believe in him and some who did not believe in him. Those who did not believe in him had been prophesied about long ago by Isaiah, even though he manifested his glory through signs to them as proof of Him being the sent one of God. It was in these prophecies that Isaiah saw the Messiah. The entire account is about fulfilment of prophecy, not something Isaiah saw in the Temple at Isaiah 6:1. Isaiah saw a vision of Adonai in the Temple, he did not see Adoni in the Temple. Once again, John quotes two passages from Isaiah to show how his prophecies were fulfilled by the Jewish unbelief in response to the manifestation of his glory in the signs Jesus did. The facts tell us that the signs which the Messiah was doing manifested his glory, this is the glory of the future Messiah which Isaiah saw, he prophesied how these Jews would still not believe in response to seeing this glory, and John is showing us how these prophecies of Isaiah were now being fulfilled. This has nothing to do with Jesus being called God or preexisting.
❝I hope this brief interlude is helpful. No doubt, Corey will have responses, but remember what is at stake. Only a person as genuinely valuable as Jesus in His deity and humanity can take the place of humanity for the payment of sin, providing salvation for many people not just one. A mere human, even a perfect one, could be a substitute for one human in taking the punishment for sin, but not many. Until next time, be thankful for the gift of Jesus.❞
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Jesus needs to be more than a human to provide atonement is an idea I’m not seeing in the Apostolic writings. In each verse or chapter that discusses the atonement we see that it is the death of a man that paves the way for reconciliation to take place.
You stated in your above comment that “a mere human, even a perfect one, could be a substitute for one human in taking the punishment for sin, BUT NOT MANY.” This thought goes against what Paul has taught regarding the atonement in Romans 5. Paul contrasts the man Adam with the man Jesus. Through one man comes sin and death, but through another man comes righteousness and life.
Romans 5:19 - for as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners: so also through the obedience of the one, shall the ๐many๐ be constituted righteous.
The one in verse 19 refers back to the man Jesus Christ who is in contrast to the man Adam. There are many other verses that demonstrate that the atonement is brought about by a man shedding His blood unto death. I’d be interested to see what verses are used to justify that the atonement requires some additional “deity value” to make it sufficient.
Thanks for taking the time to read this Les. It’s a blessing to discuss these wonderful topics with you. May the God of our Lord Jesus grant us both wisdom and knowledge. Until next time brother.