Scriptures that Connect Jesus with Jehovah
To be sure, there are scriptures that have indeed connected Jesus with Jehovah. Does this make them the same person though?
Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1:
2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah."
1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
Are we here to conclude that Jehovah and Satan are the same person? These 2 scriptures were handled in the book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible" by John W. Haley, and his comments were:
"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the overruling providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his agency."
Did you understand this? The Jews obviously did.
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
To be sure, there are scriptures that have indeed connected Jesus with Jehovah. Does this make them the same person though?
Let us compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1:
2 Sam reads, "And again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah."
1 Chron reads, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel.
Are we here to conclude that Jehovah and Satan are the same person? These 2 scriptures were handled in the book "Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible" by John W. Haley, and his comments were:
"It is consistent with Hebrew modes of thought that whatever occurs in the world, under the overruling providence of God, what he suffers to take place, should be attributed to his agency."
Did you understand this? The Jews obviously did.
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
GRB Murray (in _Gospel of Life: Theology in the Fourth Gospel_ ) cites the Jewish halachic law as follows: "One sent is as he who sent him." He then adds: "The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him. This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier times the messenger was commonly a slave" (Murray 18).
Jesus holds a unique position in the Bible, a functional equality if you will. Rev 5:13 tells us "Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever."
Also Rev 22:1, 3: "And he showed me a river of water of life, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb... And there shall be no curse any more: and the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be therein: and his servants shall serve him."
Jesus is often portrayed on the "right hand of God." (Ps 110:1; Mt 22:44; 26:64; Acts 7:55)
"He, therefore, can fill any position in the God's universe, and represent his Father in any purpose. This is something to keep in mind when we are looking at the various quotes that are applied to Jesus. As we consider how the NT quotes the OT, we must stress that an "ontological" identity between the persons mentioned in the quotes is not at all obvious." p. 195, Theology and Bias in Bible Translation by Rolf Furuli
Professor Furuli then goes on to point out some examples of this. In Hosea 11:1 the reference is to Israel, but the same words are later applied to Jesus at Matt 2:15. In Jeremiah Rachel is described as weeping over her sons, but this is later applied to the children of Bethlehem.(Mt 2:17, 18) Paul applied Habakkuk 1:5, 6 in his sermon at Acts 13:40, 41, but the earlier application was to the Chaldeans, the later was not.
"Then there is the identification of John the Baptist with the prophet Elijah. Malachi 4:5 prophecied that Elijah the prophet would come before the great and fear-inspiring day of YHWH. Jesus quoted these words in Matthew 17:12 and said that "Elijah has already come." Verse 13 tells us that the disciples perceived that he spoke about John the baptist. In Matthew 11:14 Jesus states the matter clearly, 'He himself is Elijah who is destined to come." There can hardly be a more way to express ontological identity that to say John the baptist is Elijah! But this is not what is meant, because John was neither the resurrected nor the re-incarnated Elijah. But John did the same work as Elijah, under circumstances which were comparable to those of Elijah." Furuli, p 195
Someone wrote to me once about Hebrews 1:10: "Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes the Greek Septuagint version of Psalm 102:25-27 and applies it to Christ: 'You at the beginning, O Lord, laid the foundations of the earth itself, and the heavens are the works of your hands.'"
What of Hebrews 1:10 though? George Wesley Buchanan says,
"The connective "and" relates verses 10-12 to verses 7-9. "Now, (on the other hand,) [with reference] to the angels, it says" (1:7) "but [with reference] to the Son, [it says,]" (1:8) "and" (1:10). The "Lord" in Ps 102 clearly referred to God. Here it might also mean God, with the implication that since the Son was "heir or all" (1:2) and since it was through the Son that the Lord "made the ages" (1:2), any reference to the endurance of God would also be a reference to the endurance of the Son. In other places the author of Hebrews quoted Old Testament passages that mention the name of the Lord, and in every case the author held the same meaning (7:21; 8:8, 10, 11; 10:16, 30; 12:5, 6). On the other hand, the author did use the name "Lord" when referring to Jesus (2:3; 7:14). Like other scholars of his time, the author was also capable of taking an Old Testament passage out of context and attributing it to the Messiah. For example in LXX Deut 32:43, in which the object of worship for the sons of God according to the Proto-Massoretic text was Israel, the author of Hebrews applied it to the first-born, namely Jesus (1:6). Since the term "first-born" could be applied either to Israel (Exod 4:22) or to the Messiah, the author made the shift. By the same logic, since the "Lord" was a title of respect used both for God and for kings, such as Jesus, he may also have made the shift here to apply to Jesus the durability of God in contrast to the temporal nature of the angels. If this were the case, then Jesus would also have been thought of as a sort of demiurge through whom God created the heaven and the earth.as well as the ages (1:2, 10). In either case it does not mean that Jesus was believed to be God or was addressed as God."
Hebrews 1:10 Anchor Bible/Buchanan
Hebrews 1 and 2 is stressing the superiority of Jesus over the angels, something that almighty God does not have to defend nor explain.
Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology; _Type, Typology_
“The "type" is perhaps the least understood but most important concept in the hermeneutics of biblical prophecy. Typological prophecy occurs throughout the Bible and can be considered the "normal" way that the prophets, including Jesus, spoke of the future. Failure to take this method of speaking into account can lead to gross distortions of the prophetic message. The non-Christian biblical interpreters of the NT era accepted and used typological perspectives in their hermeneutical work. The NT writers are accordingly using STANDARD approaches of their day to understanding the OT. The typological interpretation of prophecy asserts that the prophets did not so much make singular predictions as proclaim certain theological themes or patterns and that these themes often have several manifestations or fulfillments in the course of human history. The type may have its own place and meaning, independently of that which it prefigures. Typology differs from prophecy in the strict sense of the term only in the means of prediction. Prophecy predicts mainly by means of the word, whereas typology predicts by institution, act or person.”
Scofield and others new about typology and they described in terms like "Type of Christ."
John MacArthur in his NKJV Study Bible describes Joseph as a "Type of Christ."
He provides the following of similarities between Joseph and Jesus:
Both Joseph and Jesus were A SHEPHERD OF HIS FATHERS SHEEP (Gen 37:2/Jn 10:11,27-29)
Both Joseph and Jesus were LOVED DEARLY BY THEIR FATHER (Gen 37:3/Mt 3:17
Both Joseph and Jesus were HATED BY THEIR BROTHERS (Gen 37:4/Jn 7:45)
Both Joseph and Jesus were SENT BY FATHER TO BROTHERS (Gen 37:13,14/Heb 2:11)
Both Joseph and Jesus had OTHERS TO HARM THEM (Gen 37:20/Jn 11:53)
Both Joseph and Jesus had ROBES TAKEN FROM THEM (Gen 37:23/Jn 19:23,24)
Both Joseph and Jesus were TAKEN TO EGYPT (Gen 37:26/Mt 2:14,15)
Both Joseph and Jesus were SOLD FOR A PRICE OF A SLAVE (Gen 37:28/Mt 26:15)
Both Joseph and Jesus were TEMPTED (GEN 39:7/mT 4:1)
Both Joseph and Jesus were FALSELY ACCUSED (Gen 39:16-18/Mt 26:59,60)
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOUND IN CHAINS (Gen 39:20/Mt 27:2)
Both Joseph and Jesus were PLACED WITH 2 OTHER PRISONERS, ONE WHO WAS SAVED AND THE OTHER LOST (Gen 40:2,3/Lu 23:32)
Both Joseph and Jesus were EXALTED AFTER SUFFERING (Gen 41:41/Phil 2:9-11)
Both Joseph and Jesus were BOTH 30 YEARS OLD AT THE BEGINNING OF PUBLIC RECOGNITION (Gen 41:46/Lu 3:23)
Both Joseph and Jesus BOTH WEPT (Gen 42:24; 45:2, 14, 15; 46:29/Jn 11:35)
Both Joseph and Jesus FORGAVE THOSE WHO WRONGED THEM (Gen 45:1-15/Lu 23:34)
Both Joseph and Jesus SAVED THEIR NATION (Gen 45:7/Mt 1:21)
Both Joseph and Jesus had WHAT MEN DID TO HURT THEM, GOD TURNED TO GOOD (Gen 50:20/ 1Cor 2:7,8
Does this mean Jesus must be Joseph? Of course not.
No comments:
Post a Comment