Reply: 1 Cor 8:6 says "there is only one God, the Father," which pretty much excludes the Son, Jesus. The context of Isaiah 4x deals with the pagan gods of the nations, and as we know from the Bible, men and angels can be called God as well. It is interesting how other versions have handled this verse at Isaiah 9:6:
"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English Bible
Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all as a reference to Christ at all, but, rather, to King Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz; or to Hezekiah initially and Christ finally. Note what some from former years have said regarding this account:
"Hezekiah, who was very unlike his father Ahaz. This passage is acknowledged, not only by Christians, but by the Chaldee interpreter, to relate in the same manner, but in a more excellent sense, to the Messiah––(Annotationes ad vetus et Novum Testamentum, by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch Arminian, 1583-1645).
"In several places of his Expositions and Sermons, he [LUTHER] maintains that the epithets belong, not to the person of Christ, but to his work and office. He understands [ale; Strongs 410] in the sense of power or ability, citing for his authority Deut. Xxviii. 32, where, as in about four other places, the expression occurs of an action's being or not being "in the power of the hand,"––(Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Third ed. Lond. 1837, 3 vol., by Dr. J.P. Smith [it should fairly be noted that Dr. Smith disapproves of Luther's rendering])
"The word la [ale] here used is applicable, not only to God, but to angels and men worthy of admiration. Whence it does not appear, that the Deity of Christ can be effectually gathered from this passage."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, SASBOUT [as quoted in Concession, by Wilson])
"The words of Isaiah, Deus fortis, "strong God," have been differently interpreted. It is evident, that the term God is in Hebrew applied figuratively to those who excel – to angels, heroes, and magistrates; and some render it here, not God, but brave or hero."––(apud Sandium, p. 118, Esromus Rudingerus [as quoted in Concessions, by Wilson])
"It is evident that la [ale] properly denotes strong, powerful, and is used in Ezek. Xxxi. 11, of king Nebuchadnezzar, who is called... "the mighty one of the heathen."––(Scholia in Vetus Testamentum. Lips. 1828-36, 6 vol, E.F.C. Rosenmuller [Prof. of the Arabic Language at Leipzig; d. 1836])
The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" (estin) as "is" in almost every instance in the New Testament (Mt26:18,38, Mk14:44, Lk22:38, etc.). See Greek-English Interlinear. Why does the NWT translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24, and Lk 22:19? Why the inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was consistent and translated the Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses say?
Reply: Actually, the Greek word ESTIN occurs almost 1000 times in the NT, and it is rendered as "means" about 49% of the time in the NWT, not just in the few isolated cases as mentioned above. "Means" falls within the allowable lexical range of meaning for this word, as is evident in Matthew 1:23 in most versions. [Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God is with us.] NAB
"The broken bread is a symbol of Christ's body." NASB Zondervan Study Bible, 1Cor 1:24 ftn.
In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai ho theos moy". This translates literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord and THE God of Thomas, why didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a blasphemous statement?
Reply: Some have taken Thomas's exclamation as directed towards the Father, hence you have, "My Master, and my God" as in the 20th Century NT.
Winer , as does Beza, thinks it is simply an exclamation, not an address. (see G.B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 1872, p. 183
Brown reads it as "my divine one" The Gospel According to John, 1966
Fortna finds a problem with the high Christology of v.28 and the more primitive messianism of v.31. (see The Gospel of Signs, 1970, pp. 197, 198
Burkitt paraphrases it as "It is Jesus himself, and now I recognize him as divine."
While I may not agree with Harris on everything, he does say, "Although in customary Johannine and NT usage (O) QEOS refers to the father, it is impossible that Thomas and John would be personally equating Jesus with the Father, for in the immediate historical and literary context Jesus himself has explicitly distinguished himself from God his Father." p. 124
John Martin Creed, as Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, observed: "The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas 'my Lord and my God' (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (v. Joh 20:17): 'Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'"
The translator Hugh J. Schonfield doubts that Thomas said: "My Lord and my God!" And so in a footnote 6 on John 20:28 Schonfield says: "The author may have put this expression into the mouth of Thomas in response to the fact that the Emperor Domitian had insisted on having himself addressed as 'Our Lord and God', Suetonius' Domitian xiii."—See The Authentic New Testament, page 503.
AS Margret Davies says in her book RHETORIC AND REFERENCE IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL, 125-126,
"Naturally, the interpretation of Thomas's words was hotly debated by early church theologians who wanted to use it in support of their own christological definitions. Those who understood "My Lord' to refer to Jesus, and 'my God' to refer to God[the Father], were suspected of heresy in the 5th cent CE. Many modern commentators have also rejected that interpretation and instead they understand the confession as an assertion that Jesus is both Lord and God. In doing so they are forced to interpret 'God' as a reference to LOGOS. But it is perfectly for Thomas to respond to Jesus' resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus. Interpreting the confession in this way actually makes much better sense in the context of the 4th gospel. In 14:1 belief in both God and in Jesus is encouraged, in a context in which Thomas is particularly singled out.... If we understand Thomas's confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20:31 becomes an anti-climax."
Does Jn 20:28 say what trinitarians think it says? No. There is nothing there that talks of Jesus as being God the Son, the second person of a consubstantial Trinity.
"For any Jew or Greek in the first century A.D. who was acquainted with the OT in Greek, the term QEOS would have seemed rich in content since it signified the Deity, the Creator of heaven and earth, and also could render the ineffable sacred name, Yahweh, the covenantal God, and yet was able of extremely diverse application, ranging from the images of pagan deities to the One true God of Israel, from heroic people to angelic beings. Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term QEOS up to the end of the 1st century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics." Harris' Jesus as God, p.270
Don Cupitt describes the relationship between God and Jesus as "something like that between King and ambassador, employer and omnicompetent secretary, or Sultan and Grand Vizier. Christ's is God's right hand man; all God does he does through Christ, and all approach to God is through Christ. All traffic, both ways, between God and the world is routed through Christ." The Debate about Christ, p. 30
"The NT designation of Jesus as QEOS bears no relation to later Greek speculation about substance and natures." O. Cullman's Christology of the New Testament as quoted in Harris' Jesus as God, p.289.
If Thomas was actually calling Jesus hO QEOS and hO KURIOS--it is strange that Thomas used the nominative forms of KURIOS and QEOS instead of the vocative. So it still seems that Theodore of Mopsuestia could have been correct. The Father may well be the referent in John 20:28.
This brings us to Smart's Rule as discussed on B-Greek. The rule is stated as: "In native [not translation] KOINE Greek when the copulative KAI connects two substantives of personal description in regimen [i.e. both or neither have articles] and the first substantive alone is modified by the personal pronoun in the genitive or repeated for perspicuity [Winer 147-148;155] two persons or groups of persons are in view."
Possessive pronoun repeated for perspicuity (21) - (Mt 12:47,49;
Mk 3:31 ,32 ,33 ,34 ; 6:4 7:10 ; 8:20, 21 Lu 8:21 ; Jn 2:12;
4:12; Ac 2:17; Ro 16:21 ; 1Th 3:11 ; 2Th 2:16 ; 1Ti 1:1;
2Ti 1:5; Heb 8:11; Re 6:11) [Heb 1:7 is a LXX quote and is
therefore translation Greek.]
Single possessive - both substantives anarthrous (10) - (Mk 3:35;
Ro 1:7; 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Ep 1:2; Php 1:2; 2Th 1:1,2;
Phil 1:3)
Single possessive pronoun - both substantives arthrous (12) -
(Mk 6:21; 10:7,19; 16:7; Lk 2:23; 14:26; 18:20; Jn 11:5; Eph 6:2;
Ac 7:14; 10:24; Re 11:18)
If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he: Be referred to as "he" and "him" in Jn 16:7-8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness-Jn 15:26; feel hurt- Isa 63:10; Be blasphemed against- Mk 3:29; Say things- Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 21:11, Heb 10:15-17, Rev 2:7, Desire- Gal 5:17; Be outraged- Heb 10:29; Search- 1 Cor2:10; Comfort- Acts 9:31; Be loved- Rom 15:30; Be lied to and be God- Acts 5:3-4?
Reply: Let's start with the last one. Is the spirit God in Acts 5:3-4? Let us see what it says:
"But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, did it not remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? How is it that thou hast conceived this thing in thy heart? thou has not lied unto men, but unto God." ASV
Do you notice that the last part is directed towards Peter when it says, "thou has not lied unto men?" See, they lied to Peter, who was "filled with holy spirit" Acts 4:8
And when they lied to Peter, they lied to God. Later on, in the same chapter, we have a similar situation in vss 38 and 39 where these words were directed towards Peter and the disciples, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God." Peter and his men were not God, but representative standing in place of God, and when something is done against them, it is done against God. "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own eye." Zech 2:8 New Jewish Publication Society/ Tanakh That is why the Scofield Study Bible cross-references Acts 5:4 to Scriptures like Numbers 16:11, 1Samuel 8:7 and 1 Thess 4:8 which says, " Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you." ASV
Another interesting statement:
"First, then, it is usual to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit on the ground, that the name of God seems to be attributed to the Spirit: Acts 5:3, 4, "why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?...thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." But if attention be paid to what has been stated respecting the Holy Ghost on the authority of the Son, this passage will appear too weak for the support of so great a doctrinal mystery. For since the Spirit is expressly said to be sent by the Father, and in the name of the Son, he who lies to the Spirit must lie to God, in the same sense as he who receives an apostle, receives God who sent him, Matt. 10:40, John 13:20. St. Paul himself removes all ground of controversy from this passage, and explains it most appositely by implication, 1 Thess. 4:8, where his intention is evidently to express the same truth more at large: "he therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his Holy Spirit." Besides, it may be doubted whether the Holy Spirit in this passage does not signify God the Father; for Peter afterwards says, Acts 5:9, "How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?" that is, God the Father himself, and his divine intelligence, which no one can elude or deceive. And in Acts 5:32 the Holy Spirit is not called God, but a witness of Christ with the apostles, "whom God hath given to them that obey him." So also Acts 2:38, "ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," the gift, that is, of God. But how can the gift of God be himself God, much more the supreme God?"
Of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit, by John Milton
What of the rest though? The Bible employs terms that are descriptive, and often personifies the impersonal.
Sheol/Hell has a mouth and can swallow people (Numbers 16:30), it has ropes (2 Samuel 22:6), and it has soul (Isaiah 5:14).
"Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire" (Gen 4:7 KJV). Here SIN is given desire, it lies and it is referred to as "HIS."
Blood cries out (Gen 4:10).
Names can rot (Pr 10:7)
Land can be punished for its sins (Lev 18:25)
Land can vomit (Lev 18:25)
A man of wisdom will see God's name (Mic 6:9)
God's name is near (Ps 75:1)
Wisdom cries...she has a voice (Prov 1:20)
Wisdom speaks (Prov 1:21)
Babylon is a whore (Rev 17:5)
The apostle Paul personalized sin and death and also undeserved kindness as "kings." (Ro 5:14, 17, 21; 6:12) He writes of sin as "receiving an inducement," 'working out covetousness,' 'seducing,' and 'killing.' (Ro 7:8-11)
Since Jesus is claiming to be the "first and the last" in Rev 22:12,13 and since Isa records Jehovah as saying, "I am the first and the last; apart from me there is no God", who is "the first and the last"?
Reply: Let us look at this reasoning:
We can look at it like this:
Jehovah is the first and the last
Jesus is the first and the last
Jesus is Jehovah
But then, with the same reasoning, we can say:
All dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
My cat is a dog
When we look closely at the use of the term "first and the last," we see that it has limitations when used of Jesus. When used of Jesus, it always in reference to his death and resurrection. We must remember that God cannot die (Hab 1:12 NJB). Jesus however is the "the firstborn from the dead." Interestingly, the Codex Alexandrinus [usually indicated by the letter "A"], uses the word "firstborn" instead of "first" at Rev 1:17 and 2:8, but at Rev 22:13, where it refers to the Alpha and Omega, this codex uses the word "first" instead of "firstborn." Even this scribe recognized the difference. As we have seen above with the word "saviour", simply sharing titles does not make you the same person.
I often get people who try to find similarities in what Jesus and Jehovah did, and the remarking that this should mean that they are the same being. But should this be the case? Let us take alook at Joseph. The NKJV MacArthur Study 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?
Isaiah 9:6 says He will be called Eternal Father. There is only one Father, yet this passage is about Jesus. God says only one shall be named Father.
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/12nJ2p11ejFQGwDUyxlNcZyMNmQVaaHXm/view?usp=drivesdk
Delete