Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this live debate of May 31, 2019, I argue that according to the New Testament Jesus is a unique man (God’s Messiah), but is not divine. My opponent, apologist and author Chris Date, argues that it teaches Jesus to be human and divine.
In this episode you’ll hear our opening statements and our rebuttals. The next episode will include our mutual interrogations and our answers to questions from the audience.
Which side presented the more convincing case, and why?
Many thanks to the organizers, Kingdom of God Ministry and Missions, to the host church Pine Grove Bible Church, and to the sponsors: Restoration Fellowship, 21st Century Reformation, Restitutio, House Light Ministries, Minnesota Missionary Society, and Icthus Publications.
Links for this episode:
- Kegan Chandler’s blog Buried Deep
- streamed version of the debate by Restoration Fellowship
- podcast 49 – 2 interpretations of Philippians 2 – part 2
- podcast 48 – 2 interpretations of Philippians 2 – part 1
- podcast 11 – Tertullian the unitarian
- podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
- podcast 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1
- This week’s thinking music is “Victoria” by Admiral Bob (featuring Sascha Ende).
Hi 4qmmt. The bible clearly teaches that Jesus died in the place of sinners (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24, 3:18 and Isaiah 53:5). He fulfilled the righteous requirements of the law so that it could be given to us after his condemnation on the cross (Rom 8:3-4). Do you not see the exchange? Christ fills the law perfectly, yet, takes the wages of sin upon Himself. He lives for us, then dies for us so that we can live and not die (permanently). The life of a redeemed sinner is Christ’s life in me (Gal 2:20).
The bible isn’t a love letter. It is a documentation of the covenant of salvation that God established before the foundation of the world. It tells those who are in covenant with the Lord of creation who He is, what He has done and what we are responsible for as His chosen people. You are right that love is the fabric of God’s relationship with creation. However, reducing it to pithy sayings doesn’t do it justice.
Salvation is a matter of God’s covenant through which He placed us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). Loving God and neighbor is not something that happens rightly without God working first. You won’t give love unless God gives it to you first (1 John 4:10-11). That only happens upon “personal salvation” (1 John 4:12-13,19).
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
You keep saying “clearly teaches,” but the reason it is clear to you is that you are reading the text the way you want it to read. You have a system and that governs how you read the text. But there are better readings that are far truer to the actual text.
For example: Isa. 53:5 – the Hebrew text unambiguously says “from” our transgressions and “from” our iniquities, not “for.” The mem prefix in mipeshaeinu and meiavonoteinu means “from, out of,” not “for”. The cause of the actual wounding and crushing was the acts of the people. Why many English translations insist on “for” for such an unambiguous Hebrew prefix is quite telling.
2 Cor. 5:21 – I suggest that you first need to properly define “sin” before you can understand this verse.
1 Peter 2:24 – “bore our sins on his body.” Anaphero (bore) in Greek means “to offer up” as in the “olah” sacrifice in the Tnach (1 Kings 3:4, Lev. 8:28). It is not a substitution, it simply means that his suffering from the violence done against him was done as a willing sacrifice.
1 Peter 3:18 – The word translated “for” in most English bibles is the Greek word “peri” and does not mean “for,” it means “in regard to” the matter of sin or “concerning” sin.
So right off the top the actual Hebrew and Greek texts do not speak of “dying in the place of sinners.” That is a wishful imposition on the text and opposes other passages of Scripture such as Deut. 24:16, 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18.
“The bible isn’t a love letter.”
I didn’t say it was. I said that it is the instructions for how to love God and love people.
“However, reducing it to pithy sayings doesn’t do it justice.”
So are you suggesting that Yeshua’s statement in Matt 22:37-40 was inadequate to explain God’s primary goal? He sums up all Torah and the Prophets with Love God and Love your neighbor.
Hi qmmt. So you think that it should read, “He was pierced from our transgressions”? Ok. The preposition is added for understanding. It was added as ‘for’ because of the context. You have to read the whole passage. “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him. He has put Him to grief.” This is work of YHWH through the people. If you don’t like ‘for’, a better rendering would be ‘because of’. “He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors”. It’s obvious that the Father put a punishment on the Son for the sins of others. IOW, a substitute.
The verb in 1 Peter 2:24 is anenenken, which means “bore”.
I’m not sure how to approach this simplistic view of translation. All the words you are attributing singular meanings to have a semantic domain. Correct translation is done in accordance with the context. 1 Peter 3:18 is understood as Jesus dying for sinners as we suffer for the good of the kingdom.
The passages you cited are in the context of Israel and the Old Covenant where sins aren’t actually forgiven. The ones I cited are in regards to the New Covenant in which sins are actually covered.
Jesus didn’t say that love was God’s primary goal, He said that love is essence of God’s commandments However, that is a reduction of Jesus’ message.
How would you answer this question? “What is the bible?”
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
“The preposition is added for understanding. It was added as ‘for’ because of the context.”
But that’s just it. The preposition isn’t added, the actual preposition is being changed because of an assumption of the context, i.e. in order to try to shape the context. It happens again in verse 8: “’He was cut off out of the land of the living FROM (by) the transgression of my people,” is changed to read “for the transgression” even though the same preposition “min” is translated three more times in that verse as “by” and/or “from.” Note that the same prefix at the beginning of Isa. 53:11 is translated by many as “as a result of.” Though the preposition “min” has a wide range of meanings, it does not ever mean “for.”
IOW, Christian translators are reading a theological conclusion into the text and then declaring that the text means what has already been presumed to be the meaning. Sorry, but that’s just what most Christians do. First determine your metaphysics, then read the Bible in light of that. That’s how Jesus becomes G-d, God becomes omniscient and “timeless,” has all sorts of negative attributes, atonement becomes penal substitutionary, reformers develop TULIP etc. The text is being read to fulfill the desired outcome. Reading the actual text in context is not a priority.
Re: Isa. 53, I am reading the whole passage in context (in Hebrew) and to say anything is perfectly clear is reductionist. Isa. 53 is a not a newspaper report. It is biblical poetry, so it is filled with parallelisms and ellipses, word plays, archaic forms etc. that are notoriously difficult to read and can lead to multiple readings.
But the words you want to read as if he metaphysically/mystically had all the sins of people put on him is simply unsupported by the unambiguous portion of underlying text and as I mentioned, is against the teaching of the Torah and the NT. Therefore, prepositions have to be changed to make it fit the predetermined metaphysics.
It is obviously far too long and complex to analyze all of the context here, but I will address one more example and your comment on Isa. 53:12, which will already be long enough 🙂
In Isa. 53:4, “nasa” (bore) is paralleled with “saval,” which is related to suffering. IOW, he took (suffered) their sickness and their pains he suffered. Now one might say that sounds metaphysical, but then it continues and says that they considered him to be struck by God, i.e., they were doing God’s will to smite him. Now if his bearing their sickness and suffering their pain was meant metaphysically (which the notion of substitution requires), how could they have considered him metaphysically smitten by God? How would they have any knowledge of his metaphysical state?
Re: Isa. 53:12, we again get “v’hu chet rabim nasa,” ‘he carried/took/suffered much sin (or many sins).’ The next portion “v’laposhim yafgia” can be translated: ‘and in regard to sinning he was attacked.’
The LXX similarly reads, “and was delivered because of their iniquities” or “on account of their sins he was betrayed.” This fits the context and parallel structure far better than the notion of interceding, which is a very rare and specific use of the p-g-a verb in hiphil which only occurs with other prepositions and accusatives that are not present in Isa. 53:12.
So if we read the whole context, it is about how this person is despised, attacked, suffers and even dies from the sinful acts of those who despise him. He was innocent, and yet he did not argue, but willingly and obediently allowed them to kill him, and thus God considers his death as an offering, i.e. and act of love, that will have a righteous affect. That might not give you want you want, but it perfectly fits the text and the crucifixion without any need for penal substitution.
Re: 1 Peter 2:24, anaphero is just the lemma of the grammatical form anenegken.
Of course these words all have semantic range. The point is that the context must dictate the meaning. As I said, you are starting with a metaphysical position (e.g. from your reading of John 1, atonement theory, Platonistic perfect being theology etc.) and reading everything in that light. Even if it means “bore,” it does not need to mean mystically bore. Peter is alluding to Isa. 53 and therefore the meaning of bore as I have explained is in the physical sense. That is why he says he carried (bored) them “in” his body. It is physical.
I know people read 1 Peter 3:18 as substitutionary, but again my point was that doing so ignores the actual text. By simply saying people understand it that way proves nothing other than many people understand it that way. But is that the way it was meant to be understood?
I know none of what I am saying will convince you otherwise and that my suggested readings raise more questions, as there is far more that needs to be untangled from the absolute mess that Christianity made of the Bible’s rather straightforward message before it begins to make sense. But I think you at least need to know that there are very legitimate ways to read the text and that claiming that your view is so clear and obvious is neither persuasive nor fundamentally accurate.
“The passages you cited are in the context of Israel and the Old Covenant where sins aren’t actually forgiven”
I believe you need to rethink what you are saying here. Of course sins were forgiven. The Torah is filled with prescriptions for forgiveness and many people are forgiven throughout the Tnach. Even Jesus teaches Israel to pray by asking for forgiveness and even says “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.” (Matt 6:14)
“What is the Bible”?
That’s quite a broad question. I think you have to be more explicit as to what you are getting at.
Hi 4qmmt. Here is what I am getting at with the question of “what is the bible?”. What the bible is will determine how you interpret it. The bible is what is called an “Ancient Near Eastern Treaty” (ANET) covenant in a long form. (When analyzing unearthed Hittite treaties contemporary with the Moses, they line up almost exactly with Deuteronomy and the 10 commandments) These treaty covenants between kings and their vassals were very common, and a basis for daily life in the near east in the time of the Exodus. When a vassal broke the covenant, a sanctioned curse would be born by the vassal or someone else in his place. The Christian bible, as a whole, serves as a treaty covenant between the great King (YHWH) and His vassals (the church/Israel).
God had made a covenant with man in Eden by which man would remain in right relationship with the creator as long as he obey. Obedience makes for blessing/life, and disobedience leads to a curse/death. You know the story. Adam eats of the forbidden tree and brings the curse of death on to himself and all of his offspring. All of us experience the curse of the covenant and is empirically verified every time someone dies.
Enter Jesus. Ask yourself, “why did God have to brutally kill His Son”? Surely there could have been another way to show love other than crucifixion. Apparently not, because that is what God elected to do. What is apparent to me is that the curse (death) of Adam was undone by the second Adam (Romans 5:19). All of whom Christ died for, are no longer under the curse of sin, their own and Adam’s. No matter what language you use (substitution or otherwise), Jesus takes death and suffering so that we can be saved from it. Think about it. Jesus lived a perfect life, yet, died anyway. What could be more unjust than that?
The only sense that could be made of it is understanding it through the context of the covenant. Man is obligated to live a perfect, sinless life before God (Matt 5:48). Man cannot do this (Romans 8:7-8), therefore, we all die and are subject to eternal punishment per the covenant (Gen 2:17). So, God sends a man to live a perfect life and suffer a punishment releasing man from the punishment due. IOW, Jesus lives a perfect life and does a righteous act that is worthy of eternal life, but not for Him because He died anyway. It was obviously for others (Phil 2:5-11). The life He lived is imputed to us by grace. The death He experienced was the death WE deserved. God didn’t have to do this, He chose to because of His great love. Like I said, call it what you want. Substitutionary atonement sums it up quite well. I talk about this in my book, but never use the term “substitutionary atonement”.
Now, reread Isaiah 53 in light of the covenantal context of scripture, and the meaning will be apparent. Because of the sins of the people, YHWH put the Son to death. He died for their sins as opposed to His own, and by His stripes we are healed. There is no grand conspiracy or presuppositional mistakes in the translation of Is 53. The people who translate scripture do so very carefully.
Lastly, sins were not ultimately forgiven in the Mosaic law. They were forgiven in the context of the Old Covenant. The OC was not for eternal salvation, it was for Israel (the vassal) to maintain fellowship with YHWH (the suzerain) in the land of Canaan. The curse for disobedience was forfeiture of the land. Atonement was for a stay in Canaan. Hebrews makes it explicit (Heb 10:1-4). This goes back to typology. The blood atonement provided through animals was just a type of what God would ultimately provide in the body and blood of the Son.
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
I wholeheartedly agree with you that covenant is very important and that much of the Bible revolves around covenantal relationships. Where I disagree with you (wholeheartedly) is in the building blocks of your view and of course the results that flow out from them.
You have a set of presuppositions through which you read the Bible. We all do. Of course, you might have the best presuppositions and you may have the best explanation then for what the Bible is communicating. But how can we test that? Of course, the only way to know if your proposed outline of the Bible has strong explanatory power or is even plausible is to examine your presuppositions and how they are constructed. What are they based upon?
Here’s just a few of the problems I see so far at the foundation of your position(s):
1. Several metaphysical and philosophical positions that are not supported by the Bible, such as Platonic perfect being theology, a human-G-d, a tri-personal G-d, etc.
2. Your readings of texts consistently ignore the immediate and surrounding context. You just presented one more recent example.
“Therefore you are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). You should read the context again. It is a charge to love completely in the same manner God does by loving even His enemies. The God of the Bible has never expected nor demanded that people be perfect as in flawless. The text does not support nor expect such a notion, just the opposite. Thus, one of the pillars of the typical Christian view “Man is obligated to live a perfect, sinless life before God” is simply foreign to the Bible.
3. You ignore what the Torah actually says, e.g. you said ““The passages you cited are in the context of Israel and the Old Covenant where sins aren’t actually forgiven” and then added “sins were not ultimately forgiven in the Mosaic law.” I don’t know how you make sense of what you are saying. If forgiveness is not complete, then it is not true forgiveness.
4. You accept translations (of other Christians) that completely misrepresent the actual text but suit your presupposed readings, as with Isa. 53, and then say we should read it that way because it best suits presuppositions you have.
5. You build strange and contradictory arguments to support your position: e.g. “All of us experience the curse of the covenant and is empirically verified every time someone dies. Jesus lives a perfect life and does a righteous act that is worthy of eternal life, but not for Him because He died anyway.” So everyone dies and Jesus does not have eternal life because he died. So how does that help?
6. You assert that the God of the Bible is incapable of simply forgiving people and instead must satisfy His wrath that He has against all mankind by killing Jesus, a righteous person. That is a characterization of God I find quite illogical, foreign to the Bible and particularly repulsive, as it makes Him out to be a monster.
I understand your position. I understand your metaphysics, ANE references, and readings etc. and I certainly do not doubt your sincerity. The primary reason I cannot agree with your proposals and conclusions is simply because the text of the Bible does not support them. When you say that your conclusions are derived from what the Bible “clearly” says and then do not engage in the text or at least acknowledge that the text is not so “clear,” and rather appeal to more grand schemes based upon those “clear” readings, or throw out a verse and say it proves your point, it simply does not present a strong case.
Hi 4qmmt. The building blocks of my view are covenant theology. The bible is a covenant document, and not one of the texts therein should be interpreted without this context in mind. IMHO, this is not debatable. The framework for all of my operating assumptions are the two main themes of scripture, revelation and covenant, which go hand in hand. God reveals Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God fulfills His covenant(s) as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are all demonstrably true and I have written a 200 pg book proving it.
1) The bible doesn’t support God being a perfect being? Can one not extrapolate through reason and scripture what a perfect being would be like? Again, having things in common with “Platonism” or philosophical theology doesn’t make them wrong. This is a genetic fallacy unless you can prove them to contradict reason or scripture.
2) I did not ignore the context of anything. Matthew 5:48 should be interpreted by all of what Jesus has been saying so far in the sermon on the mount. He has “uped the ante” on the law. It’s not enough to not break the commandments outwardly, but one must conform to them inwardly as well. (Jesus also said that it is not what comes out of a man that make him unclean, but what is already inside of him) After all of that, Jesus says that you must be perfect as God is perfect. You have isolated 5:48 and only interpreted it by one portion of the SOTM, therefore, you have ignored the context, not me.
Are you seriously saying that humans are not obligated to keep God’s law without infraction? Do you really think that there are any sins that God winks at?
3) I make sense of what I am saying by interpreting Old Covenant passages in the context of the OC. The forgiveness offered per the sacrificial system are for the nation and individuals within the framework of the covenant. The Mosaic covenant was NOT for the salvation of souls, but for remaining under God’s blessing in the land of Canaan. God “forgave” the sins of Israel so that they would not forfeit the land. As the author of Hebrews said, “It’s impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” Because of Ithe great sin of Israle and Judah, God exiled the nation. Even after the Babylonian exile, God’s presence/Shekinah was no longer in Israel, at least not as it had been. After the rejection of Messiah, the Jews were booted from the land permanently.
4) I’m sorry, but you are just wrong about Isaiah 53. Your supposed “better” translation of “for” to “from” is not represented by any Jewish translation into English that I can find. Basically, you made that up. One says “for our iniquities”, one says “because of our iniquities” and another says “as a result of our iniquities”. These represent a distinction without a difference once you read the whole passage. Why would one man’s would heal anothers without some exchange or substitution going on? Especially when the passage says in vs 11, “…for he shall bear their iniquities…” and in vs 12 “and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Both of those quotes are from the Jewish Virtual Library which translates vs 5, “But he was wounded FOR our transgressions, he was bruised FOR our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”
5) Sorry if I wasn’t clear. All humans are under the curse, as it is written “in Adam all die”. We justly die per the conditions of the Edenic covenant. Despite being sinless, Jesus dies so that others can live. Do you not see the exchange? We deserve “the wages of sin”, yet we receive life. Jesus did not deserve “the wages of sin”, yet He was killed.
6) I’m sorry if you don’t like what the bible teaches. God killed His Son (John 3:16, Acts 4:28) so that others can live. That is a biblical fact. Atheists hate this and call it “cosmic child abuse”. Please answer this, If God can “simply forgive sins”, why would He have His own Son brutally murdered by a bunch of unbelieving Jews and wicked heathens? And in what way is that “foreign to the bible”? It’s bible 101.
In conclusion, you have not shown any of my presuppositions or interpretations to be wrong, either by reason or scripture. What are your metaphysics? What is your overall framework for understanding the bible? You seem to have a “if it’s not written explicitly in the bible, it’s not true” way of thinking. Where is that explicitly in the bible? Of course, it’s not. I would assert that it is you that has the faulty reasoning and no biblical support for your general understanding of the bible, unless you can prove otherwise…
In Christ
Andrew,
“The Bible is a covenant document, and not one of the texts therein should be interpreted without this context in mind. IMHO, this is not debatable.”
I would agree with you that the Bible documents and refers to covenants and those covenants have an impact throughout the majority of the Bible. But your statement suggests that you read some of the text, decided what it was about, and then used that decision to guide your understanding of the rest of the text. Thus, your reading of your presuppositions into the text rule your understanding of the text. That has been my argument all along. The fact that is non-debatable also demonstrates that you are married to the position for reasons other than logic.
1) “The bible doesn’t support God being a perfect being? Can one not extrapolate through reason and scripture what a perfect being would be like? Again, having things in common with “Platonism” or philosophical theology doesn’t make them wrong. This is a genetic fallacy unless you can prove them to contradict reason or scripture.”
For starters, the Bible contradicts the Christian notion of God’s omniscience (Gen. 20:21, Jer. 32:35, Psalm 33), immutability (Gen 6:6, 2 Sam. 24:16, Jer. 18). Your own Trinitarian theology contradicts the Christian concept of simplicity, as you would have us believe that God is made of at least three ‘somethings’ that are not all equal or perfectly identical.
Here is what James White says:
“1. One essence, substance, or ousia.
2. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. 3 subsistences – “personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence.” 3 modes of existence – there are personal relations between the three.”
So there are three of something. That means parts.
2) “You have isolated 5:48 and only interpreted it by one portion of the SOTM, therefore, you have ignored the context, not me.”
Sorry, that does not to support your claim that God demands perfection. The context is love and the word you want to think of perfect/flawless is the Greek word “teleios’ which is akin to the Hebrew words “tamim” and “shalem” which more often means complete, not flawless in every way.
“Are you seriously saying that humans are not obligated to keep God’s law without infraction? Do you really think that there are any sins that God winks at?”
I don’t know how you can make such a statement other than from your Christian assumptions/presuppositions, as the Bible completely contradicts what you are saying. God has always provided means of forgiveness. The expectation that people would transgress statutes or instructions in the Torah was built into the Torah and the Torah contains remedies for them. Furthermore, read the prophets. How many times does God say He would forgive Israel’s sins if they returned to Him? Was G-d lying?
4) “I’m sorry, but you are just wrong about Isaiah 53. Your supposed “better” translation of “for” to “from” is not represented by any Jewish translation into English that I can find.”
So learn Hebrew then 🙂
5) I understand what you are saying, but it is illogical and impugns the character of God that you want to portray. It would be perfectly unjust to kill one human being for the crime of another. Such a notion is contradicted by the Torah. (Deut. 24:16) That is why Jews completely reject such a notion.
6) “I’m sorry if you don’t like what the bible teaches.”
I love what the Bible teaches. I disagree with what you think the Bible teaches and have demonstrated multiple times how there is a significant difference. You have provided one more example here:
“God killed His Son” : That is absurd. ‘Gave His son’ is not = ‘killed His son.’
“You (Israel) nailed (Jesus) to a cross by the hands of godless men (Romans) and put Him to death.” (Acts 2:22-24)
Acts 4:27-28 (NIV): “the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.”
That God allowed it does not make responsible for it any more than you would say that God is responsible for all sin that happened because He allowed it.
“In conclusion, you have not shown any of my presuppositions or interpretations to be wrong, either by reason or scripture.”
Sorry Andrew, I don’t believe this is either an accurate or honest statement. I have repeatedly demonstrated through interaction with the text a number of significant flaws in your interpretation and reasoning. You, in turn, have repeatedly answered with grand hand-waving claims and further assertions based upon your overall concept of what the Bible is or what you want it to say. My argument is that the Bible is first and foremost a collection of texts, and if you are going to make claims about the meaning of the texts, then it is vital to understand the actual texts. To simply say “it is clear to me,” especially when reading translations, is not a serious argument for your case. Passion is great, but it cannot overcome the facts.
I would greatly encourage you, if you are serious about what the texts say, learn the original languages; not to simply understand the text better, but to be able to think about the texts yourself, and not rely on someone else’s translation/commentary.
I already told you that I believe that the Bible is essentially God’s instructions for living in the amazing environment He created for that purpose. The heart of those instructions is how to love God and other people and trust that God knows best and indeed cares. Sure the Bible contains many complexities, but the goal is simple to define. To be perfectly frank, Christianity has turned this basic concept into just the opposite: a sales pitch for “personal salvation,” which plays on people’s self-centeredness in order to gain recruits.
Hi 4qmmt. Again, my framework for interpretation is demonstrably accurate. All of the texts fit into the treaty covenant structure of a) Preamble b) Historical prologue c) Stipulations d) Blessings and curses e) Deposit of the text and f) Witnesses. There is a Lord and a servant, and in the case of the Old and New Covenants, a Mediator.
1) I, YHWH, do not change. No variation or shadow due to change. Mal 3:6 James 1:17. The lot is cast but every decision is from YHWH. Prov 16:33. Either the bible contradicts itself, or God condescends to meet with His people on their level. That’s what Jesus did.
“All that God is, just is God.” That is the meaning of Simplicity. God is wise, good and love. All three are identical with the being of God, but not identical with each other. Same as the persons of the Trinity.
2) Completion means perfection. They are used as synonyms.
3) All of the sins that were atoned for in the OC required the death of an animal. In the NC, the death of a human. Without blood, there is no remission of sins.
4) I don’t need to. There are reliable translations and lexicons to help with translation issues. You are still wrong about Isaiah 53. 🙂 No Jewish translations into English translate it the way you say it should be translated.
5) I have not impugned the character of God, just the character you presume Him to have. Our concepts of good are different from His. Deut 29:29
6) God’s will was for Jesus to go to the cross. He even predestined it for His purpose. IOW, God killed the Son through the means of wicked men. It’s right there in black and white.
You have yet to demonstrate anything other than confusion between the OC and the NC and what either one is truly about. I probably haven’t been clear, operating in such a small space.
The bible is not the “owners guide to life”. It is a document that tells us who we are and how we relate to God. That relationship is covenantal. One is either cursed in Adam or redeemed in Christ. One is either saved from death (in the NC) or cursed for eternity per the fall and for our own sins.
Blessings…
Andrew,
I am once again tempted to point out to you that your use of the Scripture is wanting. For example, you have quoted Mal. 3:6 to “prove”| that God does not change, yet you have once again:
a) Ignored the context
b) Ignored the actual text which says “ani YHVH lo shaniti” which means I YHVH have not changed (See TNK, YLT, NETS, LEE, ROT, or CSB17 English translations for example).
c) Have taken a single statement with limited context and made it into a proof of your grand metaphysics.
Since you have already made it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind with regard to all that the Bible is about and how to interpret all passages, to say that I have not proved anything only states the obvious, which is that nothing outside of your predetermined understanding can ever be “proved.” However, I would appeal to you one last time to think more deeply about your claims before making such bold and blanket statements.
Hi 4qmmt.
a) How have I ignored the context? That is an unsubstantiated claim. The context is about YHWH’s relationship with Israel, which is covenantal. The reason that God keeps His word is because He is immutable. He doesn’t change His mind, which is why He had not wiped out Israel for her constant breaking of the covenant.
b) The perfect tense of the verb, which can be translated with a past completed action like “have not”, is not necessarily how it should be translated. Most translations have it, “do not change” or “change not”.
c) The metaphysics are perfectly reasonable considering a God who exists transcendentally. If you believe that God is finite, we have bigger problems than the trinity or atonement.
On my “mind being made up”, you could point that finger at yourself as much as you point it at me. You have given no framework for you interpretations, where I have given mine and can demonstrate them quite easily. I use reason and the coventant theology that serves as a skeletal structure on which biblical exegesis should be founded. I have yet to make a bold or blanket statement that I cannot back up with scripture and reason. Unless you can prove otherwise….
God bless…
Jesus was a man and not a hypostatic union. But he was not created either and he was not from Mary´s flesh. He was God´s Word that became flesh, real flesh, not by an act of creation, but by becoming. He came out of the Father (Jn 16:28, 8:42, 13:3) and became flesh (Jn 1:14, 6:51, 1 John 1:1)
Had a chance to hear the whole debate on Youtube and thought it was quite good, even better than most such debates. I think Dr. Tuggy did a great job and made the stronger case by far, but both gentlemen are articulate, well-mannered, and presented well-crafted arguments without nearly as much ethical appeal from Mr. Date as we see from the like’s of M. Brown or J. White, who Mr. Date considers to be great apologists.
I have listened to Chris Date’s podcast in the past and found him to be quite humble and personable and have appreciated his general openness and desire to fairly discuss ‘hereitcal’ views. I had not listened to him in quite a while and so it was only recently that I learned that he was a Trinitarian/Calvinist, and I was surprised as he seemed too humble:)
However, his presentation had quite a few hallmarks of Reformed thinking and while some may find his plethora of lexical/grammatical analysis and appeals to authority impressive and convincing, I found it to expose a great weakness in his case. As Dr. Tuggy pointed out, for true discerment of meaning, context reigns surpreme, and Mr. Date failed to engage it. Instead, Mr Date’s presentation was filled with a lot of grand presuppositions, gnat straining and camel swallowing. I do however have much respect for him in that, unlike some of those he admires, he never tried to b.s. or bluster in order to prevent admitting that he did not know something or to prevent his debate opponent for scoring a point; something many people find appealing about Dr. Tuggy as well.
I think what also became clear, but was not addressed, was that the real reason for trinitarianism is to provide a foundation/excuse for the Reformed atonement theory that Mr. Date espouses. I was glad that Dr. Tuggy made a few passing remarks about the nonsense of such ideas, but the subject was never addressed in any depth.
Perhaps in some future debate Dr. Tuggy will consider spending a significant amount of time exploring the connection between the trinitarians’ need for Jesus to be God due to their atonement theory(ies). In my view, that is why they torture the text so badly; they simply must do so in order to get support for their obsession with personal “salvation” which they think is the point of the Bible.
A human Jesus who is the model of a righteous man is a great threat to that.
Hi 4qmmt,
What parts (if any) of the New Testament do you believe? If I am not mistaken, I think you at least believe Jesus was the Messiah, correct?
Based on the Gospels, he was conceived though the Holy Spirit and “the power of the Most High”, it would then follow at minimum, some part of his being would be divine and thus more than an exalted (ordinary) man.
As most arguments are so focused on tying to prove/disprove the full divinity of Jesus, this simple point is not often not discussed.
Jesus claimed to be both the Son of God and the Son of Man. While “son of” could mean things other than biological, the most obvious and straight forward that these mean true son of both.
Hi Buddy,
I believe Yeshua was who he said was, the man anointed to teach Israel the true meaning of the Torah (i.e. reveal the heart of God – John 18:37) and to call Israel to repentance.
I don’t believe that he was conceived by some mystical union of the Holy Spirit and Mary. The text does not explicitly say that, it simply says that the child that is conceived in her is from the holy Spirit, and that could and almost certainly does point to agency. Of course, such a concept is already in the Bible as we see with Isaac or Samuel or any number of people for which God intervened (i.e. did a miracle) in order for them to become pregnant. And if you think that the fact that she was a virgin requires God to have impregnated her with something other than human sperm, then there are at least two questions you should answer:
1. Whose chromosones and DNA did he have and would he even be human if he did not have only pure human chromosones DNA?
2. What do you do about the first recorded case in Isa. 7:14 in which the virgin also got pregnant? Was her son God also? After all, he was to be called Emmanuel.
Yeshua himself says that many will be called sons of God (Matt 5:9, Luke 20:36). Paul, also makes this explicit (Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26, Rom. 9:26 which is quoting Hosea 1:10). By their own definition, a son of God is one who is a reflection of the Father. That is, a person whose life reflects the will of God (i.e., teaching of the Torah). That is what it means that Yeshua is the image.
His miraculous birth is a sign that he is special, not that he is G-d. It fits in with the rest of all that he did and the arguments that took place with regard to his authority to teach as he did. Jews are interested in how to live, not how to “get saved.” The Messiah is the anointed one who has the authority of God to teach the true meaning of the Torah.
4gmmt,
I frankly can’t answer either of your 2 questions. There are many theories on this, but they are all just theories.
Consider this passage (??Luke? ?22:67-71? ?ESV??)
“If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.” So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.” Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.”
Do you think in this case Jesus was only affirming that he was the “Son of God” figuratively? I don’t think so.
With that being said, I will agree that being the true “Son of God” does that make him fully equal, in all aspects, to the Father either.
However also, (as being His son) Jesus did claim to have the full authority of the Father and power to give life from the Father.
“Do you think in this case Jesus was only affirming that he was the “Son of God” figuratively? ”
Sorry, I’m not sure what you man by figuratively. In contrast to what?
‘Son of God’ is a messianic title which you can see from the passage in Luke you quoted. The son of man is the Dan. 7 reference of the messianic figure.
The Father gives authority to this son (sit at the right hand) that no one else has. That makes him a unique son, in fact, we see elswhere that he is unique in that he is the firstborn from the dead (Rev. 1:5). Paul even calls him firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:28), and there will be other sons of God.
“With that being said, I will agree that being the true “Son of God” does that make him fully equal, in all aspects, to the Father either.”
Sorry, I didn’t understand exactly what you meant here.
The fact that Yeshua has been given authority by God tells us that he is not God. That Yeshua sits at the right hand of God tells us that he is not God. That Yeshua is the anointed of God tells us that he is not God etc. He is the human that God chose for that position. That does not make him equal with God in any way other than authority over men (Phil. 2), and yet, 1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Cor. 15:7 tell us that God still has authority over Yeshua. That’s why most early Christians (BTW not Jewish followers) were subordinationalists.
Think about the picture of Joseph in Egypt. He had all authority from the Pharaoh but was not Pharaoh. He was due all the respect that Pharaoh was due from the people as he was the #2 man, but no one thought of Joseph as divine as they did Pharoah, and certainly Pharaoh still had authority over Jospeh.
4qmmt,
Thanks again for the comments.
I think we are in partial agreement in the second part of your comments. Even being a physical son does not make one fully equal to a physical father. That is really all I meant. I don’t see that he is fully equal to the one true God, but also I don’t see that he is fully human. I keep thinking about the phrase Jesus said in John (though quite a different context) “that which is born of the spirit is spirit and that which is born of flesh is flesh”. I have been thinking lately about how that might apply to Jesus?
I try to consider term “God” more of a terms of authority and not substance. Jesus was given fully authority (and thus fully God in that manner). But is many cases it refers to “The God” (the only true God), the one who has ultimate authority.
Referring back the the first part of your comment: “Figurative” sense meaning his is “son of God” in authority. I don’t think that’s what they were asking. He was crucified for blasphemy because he claimed to be the literal “son of God”. They first asked if he was the Christ (the Messiah), they then asked if the was the “son of God”. If he simply claimed to just be the Messiah, would they have crucified him?
Hey Buddy,
“that which is born of the spirit is spirit and that which is born of flesh is flesh”.
I would encourage to think along the lines of resurrection. Compare Jesus’ statements about born from above (from Spirit etc.) to his description of the status of a person in the resurrection. When does someone become a son of God. i.e. born from God? Don’t be confused by what Nicodemus thought Jesus was talking about. What was it that Jesus calls out Nicodemus (the Pharisee), a teacher of Israel, for not knowing?
“He was crucified for blasphemy because he claimed to be the literal “son of God””
Moderns have given blasphemy a different meaning than it had before. Do a little search on what blasphemy was at that time. In general it was more aligned with slander (Mark 7:21 Eph. 4:31) and/or a reproach, contempt or stand against recognized authority. Of course God is the main authority, but derivative authorities counted as well.
For example, Luke 5:21, Act. 6:11, Acts 13:45, (religious Jews were blaspheming?), 2 Maccabees 8:4, Eze. 35:12. I think you will find that their claim of blasphemy against Yeshua did not at all need to imply that they thought he claimed to actually be G-d. It was enough to claim authority over and against Moses or the seat of Moses, the established (God ordained) priesthood and the Sanhedrin. As you say, sitting at the right hand of God = authority of God (not over Him). That is an outrageous and bold claim, no? Thus, just like Moses did, Jesus did miracles to attest to his claim.
The Jewish battle was primarily over who had the authority to speak on God’s behalf and interpret His word. We see this reflected very heavily in the Qumran literature as well and it continues to this day.
Of course, Catholics/Christians have historically been no different 🙂
Hi 4qmmt,
Good observations, especially about “context reigns supreme” (Phil 2 dialogue). I’m always telling folks on CARM that the meaning of a ‘word’ or ‘phrase’ is always determined by its “immediate context.” Indeed, one of the more egregious of Hermeneutical errors is the assumption that because a word has one meaning in a given text, it must always have the same meaning in every text. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I think the “fulfillment” fallacy is also another big hermeneutical error commonly committed by Trins in their zeal to prove Jesus’ deity. I’ve encountered (and still do) this fallacy countless times on CARM.
Again, if the application of an OT text to someone in the NT arbitrarily makes them that SAME person/thing, then we are forced to conclude that Jesus is the nation of Israel (Hosea 11:1; Mt 2:15), Jesus is David (Ps 16:8-10; Acts 2:25-28) Jesus is Solomon (2 Sa 7:14; Heb 1:5), and Paul and Silas are the Messiah (Isa 49:6; Acts 14:47).
Hi John. Just a quick comment on “fulfillment fallacies”. With the exception of the Acts passage you mentioned; Israel, David and Solomon are types of Christ. They are “sign posts” that point to a coming or current reality that is greater than they are. I see no correlation between them and the usage of YHWH passages about Jesus. YHWH is not a type of Christ as that would make Christ greater than YHWH. The parallel isn’t there.
The words of Paul in Acts 13:47 simply don’t have the magnitude that Philippians 2’s use of Psalm 45:23 (Isaiah 45 is about worshiping the one true God). Paul is showing how the arrogance of Israel has again proven God’s word correct. After the “preserved ones of Israel” are brought in, the word of Messiah would also be a light unto the Gentiles. God has always intended for the gospel to go to all nations, not just Israel. Jesus (ho kurios) commanded His apostles to go to the Gentiles, and so they went, in accordance with the scripture.
In short, the idea that pointing to YHWH passages being used of Christ as evidence that the NT writers saw Jesus as YHWH is a “fulfillment fallacy”, is itself fallacious. It’s a wave of the hand dismissal of good evidence and a bad excuse for ignoring it.
Blessings…
Andrew,
How are any of these types of Messiah if Messiah is divine?
Hi qmmt. They are types because they represent something greater themselves that will come later. The greater than David Mashiach is Christ, the greater son of David is Christ. One way in which Jesus is greater than David and Solomon is that He is divine and able to accomplish the work of the preist/king perfectly, resulting in our salvation.
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
This is Dale’s definition of the “fulfillment fallacy” that I found at https://trinities.org/blog/worship-of-jesus-worship-of-god-and-the-fulfillment-fallacy/
“Notice how this scholar avoids what I call the fulfillment fallacy, which is inferring that because the New Testament author *applies* in Old Testament text about Yahweh to Jesus, then that author is asserting the numerical sameness of Yahweh and Jesus, i.e. that Jesus just is Yahweh himself.”
Perhaps “application fallacy” might be a little more accurate, rather than “fulfillment fallacy,” but that’s my two cents.
I’ll grant you ‘Israel’ was a *type* of Christ and that he as a man (not as God or God-Man) is ‘representative’ Israel, especially given Matthew’s words, “that it might be fulfilled,” and thus Matt 2;15 can be said to “fulfill” Hosea 11:1. That said, I don’t understand Peter or the writer to the Hebrews to be using David and Solomon as “types” [i.e., as “sign posts” that point to a coming or current reality that is greater than they are] of Christ in Acts 2 and Heb 1:5. IOW, I don’t think Peter nor the Hebrew’s author intended God’s Son to be the *complete* fulfillment of what was only *partially* true of David and Solomon in these respective texts.
I suppose my argument is along the same lines as Greg Stafford’s, as quoted by Rob Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski in their book, “Putting Jesus in His Place,” p. 193:
“Second, Stafford points out that Hebrews 1 also applies to Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:8-9; quoting Ps. 45:6-7) what Psalm 45 says about the Israelite king (usually identified as Solomon). He [Stafford] argues that if the *application* of Psalm 45 to Christ does not proves that he is Solomon, the *application* of Psalm 102 to Christ does not prove that he is God. He quotes with approval the comment of a Watchtower publication: “Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application to it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is ‘greater than Solomon’ and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.”
Greg was doing fine until he quoted the Watchtower publication. The writer to the Hebrews isn’t citing Ps. 45 to show that Solomon was merely a lesser “type” of The Son, as if what was only ‘partially’ true of Solomon in the OT, is ‘fully’ true of The Son in the NT. The reason for this is because he isn’t quoting Ps 45 for the purpose of *contrasting* Solomon with The Son, in order to show the Son’s superiority to Solomon. Rather he is applying the words in Ps. 45 of God’s address to Solomon of “my Son” to Christ, not to show that Jesus is somehow the same person/being as Solomon because what was said about Solomon, was also said about Christ (the words, “my son”), but rather to show Jesus’ superiority to the angels, as demonstrated by the fact that he alone is addressed by God as “My Son,” and thus stands in a superior relationship to God, than the angels, who are merely called “the sons of God” collectively.
The important point I want to make here is that both Solomon and Christ could be addressed by God as “my son,” without having to be the *same* person/being.
In short, the author of Hebrews is merely making an “application,” not an “identification.” IOW, just because a writer in the NT makes an application of an OT text to someone in the NT, doesn’t arbitrarily mean he is doing so for the purpose of making an identification.
Regarding your words, “I see no correlation between them and the usage of YHWH passages about Jesus. YHWH is not a type of Christ as that would make Christ greater than YHWH. The parallel isn’t there.” Since I don’t understand either Acts 2:25-28 or Heb 1:5, 8-9 as intimating David and Solomon as a “type” of Christ, your argument is not applicable.
I will address your comments on the application of Is. 49:6 to Paul and Acts 13:47 in a separate post, if that’s ok. I suppose we’ll eventually have to address the OT application of Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son in Heb. 1:10-12, as well.
Blessings
Hi John. I’m not sure I’m understanding you, so if my reply is off, that’s why. David is a type of Christ because he was the anointed king of God’s earthly people, Israel. Jesus is the anointed king of of God’s heavenly people. Solomon is a type of Christ as he is the son of David through whom the earthly dynasty would be cemented. Jesus, the heavenly.
In Eden, God promised a Seed that would crush the serpent. All the scriptural covenants are administrations in the outworking of that promise. David and Solomon were the objects of the Davidic covenant, but only in typology. David and Solomon are not the final thing, Christ is. That is the framework from which I believe the citations in Hebrews find their purpose.
Yes, Jesus is better than the angels. However, the epistle as a whole is showing why the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. Therefore, the manner in which the Davidic covenant is part of Israel and the Mosaic economy, is inferior to the manner in which it is connected with Christ and the church. That is the culmination of all of the work done by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. First in Israel as a type, then in the church as a realization. As far as the application of of psalm 102 is concerned, the author of Hebrews can use typology or identification through typology in one case and identification in another and not be a problem.
I don’t think the attribution of YHWH texts are arbitrary. They are often and wide ranging. All the OT themes of YHWH’s relationship to Israel are directly given to Christ in the NT. He is called “God”. He claims to be the Son of God in a way that was seen as blasphemous to people who called God “father”. He is said to be the active agent of creation, and is given heavenly, cultic worship. It just seems pretty obvious to me who the NT writers think Jesus is.
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
Regarding your objection that Paul’s application of Isa 49:6 to himself and Barnabus in Acts 13:47 doesn’t have the same *magnitude* as the application of Isa 45:23 to Jesus in Phil 2, you are aware, right, that Paul goes on to state, “to the glory of God the Father!” (Phl 2:11). It would be one thing if Paul, after quoting or alluding to Isa 45:23, would have said, “to the glory of God the Father AND God the Son,” or “to the glory of the Triune God,” but such is not the case.
Secondly, it seems clear, at least to me, that Jesus’ *lordship* in Phil 2 is not something that is innate or intrinsic to him, but rather is something that is *conferred* upon him as a reward for his humility and obedience unto the death of the cross.
I would submit that if Paul and Barnabus could be cast into the role of being a light that leads to the salvation to the Gentiles, that was formerly Messiah’s role, then I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to think that the exalted man Jesus could also be cast into the role of universal Lordship in the NT, that was formerly Yahweh’s in the OT, especially since this was Yahweh’s doing (Mark 12:10-11).
Hi John. The thing is, Jesus was Lord before the cross and I would argue was never NOT Lord. He only took the role of a servant in the covenant with creation, then became “Lord” in that context.
Blessings…
Hi Andrew,
Yes, he was “lord” before the cross, but not in the “fullest” sense (i.e., cosmic or universal sense), since God didn’t put all things under his feet [rule] until after He raised and exalted him to His right hand (Ps 110:1; Acts 2:34-36; Eph 1:20-21; Heb 1:3d-4; 1 Pet 3:21c-22).
Blessings…
The word ‘Lord’ as a translation word for kurios or kurie is used differently ways:
(1) with anarthrous noun it is equivalent to ‘the LORD’ in the OT of most Bible translations except in some (e.g. ASV, JB, NJB, NWT);
(2) when it is otherwise in reference to ‘Yeshua’ (aka Jesus), it is in the sense of ‘Master’ as a title of him to his disciples and people. It is quite different from its use in reference to the risen and exalted Jesus (e.g. ‘Yeshua is Lord!’ in Pauline writing. There is no confession ‘Jesus is God’ in the New Testament’)
FYI: see a new translation of the NT, IRENT at http://tiny.cc/bostonreaders
Hi John. In what sense was Jesus Lord before the resurrection and ascension? He said, “All things have been handed over to me by my Father” in Matthew 11. Who or what is the “all things handed over” according to Jesus?
Hi Andrew,
I would submit that Jesus’ lordship *before* his resurrection-ascension entailed him exercising God’s rule over all ‘other’ humans on earth. Since his resurrection and ascension, Jesus has assumed his appointed role as “heir” of all things, and thus now possesses all-encompassing authority in heaven and earth as God’s co-regent.
Hi John. Other than a general relationship of Rabbi and disciple that Jesus had with those who followed Him, I don’t see Him exercising a Lordship over anyone. He took the role of a servant, not a king. He washed the feet of His disciples, even Judas. He submitted to a pagan prefect and was led to be hung on a cross. IOW, I don’t see him acting as Lord, even though He says that He is (Matt 11:27, John 13:13).
So, when He says “all things have been handed over to me”, the “all things” are a different set of things than that which encompasses “all authority on earth and in heaven”? If so, on what basis?
Hi Andrew,
In stating that *prior* to his resurrection, Jesus was exercising God’s rule over others on earth; I probably should have better clarified what I meant by “rule.” My present understanding (although this could certainly change after further study), is that I tend to understand “rule” as the exercising of God’s authority.
Here are some comments by J. R. Daniel Kirk (“A Man Attested by God”) with respect Jesus being kurios that I think speak to this understanding.
Commenting on Luke 1:41-45, Kirk says, “Jesus is Lord of other humans inasmuch as he is God’s anointed King; Davidic kingship provides the context within the conjunction of Jesus as Lord and God as Lord cohere in the high human Christology that I see Luke offering his readers,” p. 394.
Commenting on Luke 2:4 & 11: “Jesus is kurios on earth, even from birth, solely because O’ Kurios in heaven is the one who has selected, created, and empowered him to exercise lorship and bring about salvation on God’s behalf,” p. 397
Commenting on Mark 1:2-3 (Isaiah 40:3): “In the latter, the one for whom the way is prepared is the “Lord” (kurios). This is a reference to Jesus, a title that, throughout the Gospel, indicates Jesus’s authority to exercise God’s rule over the earth will still functioning as one who is distinct from God. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28, a claim, as we saw above, of his being an idealized, representative human figure); he is either the Lord who showed mercy to the Gerasene demoniac or else the agent through whom it came (5:19-20); he is the Lord who can command use of a colt (11:3),” p. 495
That said, I certainly agree that Jesus did not exercise “lordship” over other human beings on earth in the same sense as the Gentiles do (Luke 22:27), especially as you rightly pointed out, he took on the form of a servant (Phil 2).
With regard to “all things” in Mt 11:27. The NIV Study Bible understands “all things” as the *full revelation of God*. Other commentators understand it as having to do with “authority.”
If the latter, then perhaps the Fourfold Gospel commentary on the Studylight Commentaries best captures this thought when it says,
“All things have been delivered unto me of my Father. See as Lord of the kingdom were entrusted to Jesus, but for the present only potentially. The actual investiture of authority did not take place until the glorification of Jesus (Matthew 28:18; Colossians 1:16-19; Hebrews 1:8). The authority thus delivered shall be eventually returned again (1 Corinthians 15:28).”
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/11-27.html
Regarding Phil 2: I agree that context is key in this passage. Since this passage is about the topic of “considering others more important than oneself” and “humility”, could these verses be paraphrased as follows; “who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider his equality with God some that could be taken from him, but he choose own by his own will to give that form up and take on the form of a servant”. Jesus is then the ultimate example of this charge. As God can’t change/morph , this does not presume that Jesus was God (in the same sense as the Father), but was in form of God. Thought, it also does indicate some type preexistence (for something to be to be changed, it must have existed).
Hey Buddy,
I would agree with your assessment of Phil. 2. As you pointed out, the context of the statements is enouraging people to look to Messiah as an example of humility and sacrifice. It is a simple “how much more so” formulation. If Yeshua, who had all authority from God, chose not to exercise his authority but rather humbled himself and served others even unto death, how much more should all of us humble ourselves to serve one another.
The morphe and equality phrases can easily be understood in terms of authority. Notice that the morphe is used of both his representing God and beng a bondservant. So it is not speaking of his substance, it is speaking of his position of authority. Nothing here requires or even indicates his pre-existence.
Hi 4qmmt,
I tend to agree, as the Trin position imho is problematic, aside from the fact that the Greek hyperyps?sen (superexalted) in Phil 2:9 clearly suggests more than Jesus simply being exalted to where he was before [restored], and aside from the fact that “servanthood” is not a nature, but a “function or station in life” (I think Vines makes reference to this), since the *direct contrast* is not between “form of God” and “form of man,” but between “form of God” and “form of servant.”
IOW, as I understand it, the time sequence should be “form of God” > “form of man” (“found in human form” [ESV]) > “form of a servant.”
“Servanthood” doesn’t precede been born a human being. One is first born a human being, and then servanthood follows.
Again, if Paul intended to teach the Incarnation in Phil 2, it would make much better sense that he would have changed the sequence of events to have reflected this, as I noted above. Instead he has “form of God” > “form of a servant” > “form of man” (“found in human form” [ESV]).
4gmmt/John B.
Language can be so tricky sometimes. I am just beginning to study Greek and Hebrew so I can’t comment much on word order in these complex phrases. So, I use Concordant Literal Version (CLV) often.
CLV states v7-8 it like this: nevertheless empties Himself, taking the form of a slave, coming to be in the likeness of humanity, and, being found in fashion as a human, He humbles Himself, becoming obedient unto death, yet even the death of the cross.
This just does not seem to be a time sequence but a repetition of the statements for emphasis:
empties Himself=taking the form of a slave=coming to be in the likeness of humanity=and being found in fashion as human….
Regarding the use “morphe” to represent authority rather than substance:
Morphe typically refers to a change in an object, does it not? I tend prefer the most obvious interpretation unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. Jesus taught in parables, Paul did not. Paul tried to make things as simple and understandable. It would seem he would use another word if this meant attitude/authority. It’s an interesting possibility, but does not seem like the obvious one. The idea of this applying to his “authority” does seem to fit as his authority was never diminished, (e.g. “The word became flesh”). And, neither has his humility. He is, has, and always will be humble in spirit. His character did not and does not change. The only thing he could then humble was to become a physical man in form. Am I missing the point?
Hi Buddy,
“Paul tried to make things as simple and understandable.”
While I generally agree with that that was his aim, we must ask ourselves why people have such a difficult time understanding him. Here are a few suggestions:
1. He is a devout Torah observant Jew whose thinking, reasoning, and rhetoric flow out of that perspective, rather than a Western/Greek philosophical perspective. Many of the ideas that Christians think he was promoting would be completely foreign to him, not the least of which would be Jesus is G-d.
2. He was not a Greek linguist/lexicographer/grammarian etc. His choice of Greek words (if they are in fact his choice or that of an amanuensis we don’t even know) are often related to the LXX and thus only Greek translations of the underlying Hebrew (often itself polysemous), and thus not always precise in their representation. Therefore, it is far more important to grab the meaning of what he is saying from the greater context.
3. His letters were meant to be read to the audience by a “reader.” They are oral presentations and likely dictated, not written as a dissertation or thesis. The letters are only a small snapshot of what he would have already said verbally to most of the communities that he wrote to, and thus, his audience already had a great contextual history in which to understand his references, allusions, and most importantly, his vocabulary. In addition, his readers would have had a lot of background of the intention of the letter and Paul’s positions and would be able to explain them to his audience if they had questions about what they heard. In other words, his letters were not written to us and we are missing a lot of detail that is assummed. We should therefore read his letters cautiously against the greater contextual background and his broader positions.
4. While Paul does not “teach” in parables the way Jesus did and no doubt uses some common Hellenistic-style rhetoric devices, he uses a lot of other techniques and rhetorical methods and devices which are very Jewish in form and substance, such as halakhic and aggadic midrash, allegory, parallelism, mashal (usually translated as parable), the “how much more so” type arguments we see in Phil. 2 etc..
Bottom line: he was not a systematic theologian and did not “do theology” the way Christians have. Thus, reading him as if he was a Western theologian/theoretician will naturally lead to lots of confusion. Trying to parse his words in Greek (let alone English) as if they were meant to be atomistically precise and formulaic is far too often straining gnats at the expense of swallowing camels.
With regard to “morphe,” we find it used to translate the Hebrew word “tmunah” (Job 4:16) and the Aramaic “tselem” (Dan. 3:19) which is an image, and if you read Dan. 4:36, you will see that it translates the Aramaic “zir” which is connected to radiance/brightness and is there speaking of the sense of status/authority. It is used to translate the Hebrew “kmo” or its prefix equivalent which means “like” or “as” as in Judges 8:18. The point here being that reading “morphe” as if it has some precise meaning of physical form is not warranted by its Jewish historical use or more importantly by the context of Phil. 2
I would encourage you to read the letter from the beginning and follow the flow of the overarching argument. It is a grand-view argument to a community struggling to love one another. It is a plea to stop being selfish and serve one another. He simply uses Jesus as the prime example of what that means in Phil 2. He then repeatedly uses himself (and his giving up his right and authority) as an example after that in chapters 2-4. He is arguing for selflessness, which is at the core of love.
Furthermore, note that immediately following Phil. 6-8 (that everyone wants to focus on) Paul makes the explicit point in Phil. 9-11 that Jesus has all authority from God and that everyone will one day acknowledge that fact (“name” is a standard metonymy for “authority”). Phil. 2:12-16 then sums up the expected response to his pleading.
In my view, the biggest problem for Trinitarians/Christians in reading the Bible is that they read it with a “need” for Jesus to be G-d based upon the notion that the Bible is a recipe book for how to get saved instead of how to live. But look at Philippians for example, Paul spends his time pleading with them about how to live, not how to get saved (thus Luke 17:33). If it is about how to live, then the manner of living of a divine Jesus is neither a helpful nor hopeful example for humans.
BTW, I applaud you for diving into to the original languages, as that is a lot of work, but I think you will find that it is immensely rewarding, as well as eye-opening. After all, every translation is really a commentary. 🙂
Shabbat Shalom
Hi Buddy,
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing that Paul is laying out a chronological sequence of events in Phil 2, and that the incarnation only works if Paul follows my particular time sequence “form of God” = “form of man” = “form of servant.” I was only arguing that is what we should have expected if he were making that argument. Hope that brings some clarification.
Regarding “morphe,” I understand this term to mean “status” or “condition,” not “authority.”
My present understanding of this term in Phil 2 is that Paul is saying Christ (God’s anointed) was existing in the “status” of God, but chose not to exploit or take advantage of this status, but rather chose to take on or assume another “status,” namely, that of “servanthood.”
<>
‘The practical use of the Greek New Testament.’ p 84 Kenneth
Wuest.
That said, I understand “name” in the phrase, “and has bestowed upon him the NAME above all names” to mean [ruling] authority. IOW, by virtue of humbling himself to the point of death, even the death of a cross, *universal* or *cosmic* lordship [ruling authority] has now been conferred upon him.
Hi 4qmmt. What “reformed atonement theory” are you speaking of? Also, if the bible isn’t about “personal salvation”, what is it about?
Blessings…
Generally all satisfaction and/or substitution based models, but of course penal substitutionary atonement is at the head of the list of Reform atonement theories.
“Also, if the bible isn’t about “personal salvation”, what is it about?”
How about learning what it means to love God and love thy neighbor 🙂
Does the bible not have a more overarching theme of that of the history/establishment of the Eternal Kingdom of God (of which one part is redemptive story)?
The gospel Jesus proclaimed was the immanence of the Kingdom of God and all revolved around that.
“Does the bible not have a more overarching theme of that of the history/establishment of the Eternal Kingdom of God (of which one part is redemptive story)?”
Yes, but what is the KOG and how is it established? Isn’t the KOG the place where God is King? That kingdom was first established with the people of Israel at Sinai.
Very briefly:
God was exclusively their King and they alone had received His instructions for living in the kingdom. Non-Israelites were also welcome in the kingdom, but it was limited to those who dwelt among the Israelites, and they lived by the same instructions (with few exceptions).
We see in Acts 10 that life in the kingdom was no longer limited to Israel and that membership expanded to include all in the world who wish to live in the kingdom. With the exception of being an Israelite, the same entrance requirements exist as before: Put your full trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and choose to live by His instructions, which boil down to love God and love your neighbor. Of course, this is neither trivial nor easy.
But imagine if people all over world did live that way. Would it not be “heaven on earth”? 🙂
Thanks to Brandon for the correction – 263 not 293! Apparently, I’m so tired I’m not seeing or counting straight. :-/
Comments are closed.