Claim: On numerous occations Jesus claimed to be equal with God in other ways than assuming the titles of Deity. Jesus said to the scribes, "That you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins...I say to you [the paralytic], rise, take up your pallet and go home" (Mk 2:10,11). Jesus had just said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven" (v. 5), to which the outraged scribes retorted, "Why does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7). Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins, the scribes
understanding of that calim, and Jesus' healing of the man are all evidence of his authority, and make it clear that Jesus was claiming a power that God alone possessed (Jer. 31:34)
Jesus solemnly claimed another power that God alone possessed, namely, the power to raise and Judge the dead: "Truly, truly, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and has now come, when the dead will hear the voice of the son of God, and those who hear will live...and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the reserrection of judgement" (Jn 5:25, 29). Jesus removed all doubt of the intentions of his claim when he added, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, so also the Son give life to whom HE will" (v.21). According to the OT, however, Jehovah alone is the giver of life (1 Sam 2:6; Deut. 32:39) and can raise men from the dead (Ps 2:7). Hence, you, in the face of orthodox Jewish belief that
God alone could resurrect the dead, Jesus not only boadly proclaimed his ability to bring the dead back to life but also his ability to Judge them. The Scriptures, however, reserved for Jehovah the right to Judge men (Joel 3:12; Deut. 32:35).
Another way in which Jesus claimed Deity for himself was in his statement in Jn 5:23 that "All men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father," adding, "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father." In this same catagory, Jesus exorted his disciples, "believe in God, believe also in me" (Jn 14:1). the pretensions of this claim to a monotheistic people were evident. The Jews knew well that no man should claim honor and belief with God. They reacted with stones (Jn 5:18) You must come face to face with this. Jesus claimed honor with God and belief in himself as on par with the Father. This is very important in light of the aforementioned OT texts.Reply: Let me start right off saying that Jesus absolutely NEVER claims equality with God. Why?
Let us take a look.
Contrast this with, as you rightly stated above, that Jehovah jealously guarded his name and deity. But Jesus said, in the same context that you are trying to use to declare his triunity with the almighty, "I do not seek praise from men." v. 41 NIV But let us take a look at your insistence on using Jn 5:18. John 5:17-19 says "And for this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh even until now, and I work. For this cause therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only brake the sabbath, but also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
About this scripture the Ryrie Study Bible says, "The Jews were perfectly aware that Jesus was claiming full deity" Was this what Jesus was doing though? Remember, these were the Jews talking, and they were saying that Jesus was equal to God because he was calling God his Father. But in John 8:41, the Jews said, "we have one Father, God." Were the Jews then, Equal with God also? Exactly how were the Jews "perfectly aware" in this context of anything. They had a few verses prior to this misapplied the Law as for as doing good deeds on the Sabbath. Jesus had said: "it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day". Matt. 12:10-12 In fact, Jesus had few nice words to say about the Jews/Pharisees in toto:
Matt. 15:6 "And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching [as their] doctrines the precepts of men."
Matt. 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
Matt. 22:29 "But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
Now I hate to belabor the point, but do the Jews, either then or now, believe in a Trinity? You have to admit that a Jewish view of God differs greatly from your own, so it is puzzling to me why you, or anyone else would use Jewish thought to bolster their claims of a Triune God. Having just read Harris's Jesus as God, why does he not use John 5, John 10 or even John 8 for that matter as proof of Jesus as God. My Thayer's Lexicon says, "Whether Christ is called God must be determined from Jn. i.1; xx.28; 1Jn. v. 20 ; Ro. ix. 5; Tit. ii.13; Heb. i.8 sq., etc,; the matter is still in dispute among theologians."
Claim: JESUS' CLAIMS TO BE THE MESSIAH-GOD.
The OT Foreshadowings of the Messiah also point to his Deity. Hence, when Jesus claimed to fulfill the OT messianic
predictions here thereby also claimed the Deity attritbuted to the Messiah in those passages. For example, the famous Christmas texts from Isa. speaks of the Messiah as the "Mighty God" (9:6). The psalmist wrote of the Messiah, "Thy throne o God, is for ever and ever" (45:6 quoted in Heb. 1:8). Psalm 110:1 relates a converstion between the Father and the Son: "Jehovah said unto my Lord (Adonai), sit thou at my right hand." Jesus applied this passage to himself in Matt 22:43-44. Isa. the prophet, in a great majestic prophecy, exhorted Israel, "Behold your God" (40:9). Indeed, the great messianic passage from Dan 7:13, quoted by Jesus at his trial before the high priest, as a text implying the Deity of the massiah. In Daniel's vision, the Son of Man (Messiah) is also called the "ancient of days" (7:22), a phrase that is used twice in the same passage to describe God the Father (vv. 9,13). When Jesus quoted this passage to the high priest who demanded that Jesus whether or not Jesus was Deity, the high priest left no doubt as to how he interpreted Jesus' claim. "Are you the Christ [Messiah], the son of the Blessed?" the high priest asked. "And Jesus said to him, 'I am; and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.'" At this the high priest tore his garment and said, "why do we still need a witness? You have heard his blasphemy!" (Mk 14:61-64).
In short, the OT not only predicted the Messiah but also proclaimed him to be God. And when Jesus claimed to be a fulfullment of the OT messianic passages, he laid claim to possessing the Deity in these passages ascribed to the Messiah. Jesus removed all doubts of his intentions by his answer before the high priest at his trial.
Reply: First, let us look at Isaiah 9:6. For the sake of time I will let a friend handle this one: "I don't believe that it can be stated with any conviction that this offers support to trinitarianism, for, Jesus is called 'G-god' in a limited sense, bearing reference to his role as Messiah. This is not just the opinion of [some], but of some fairly reputable trinitarian scholars. Raymond Brown, the renowned Catholic scholar, said of the "Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "'God' may have been looked on simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah"–(Jesus, God and Man, New York: Macmillan, 1967, p. 24,25).
Interestingly, this verse has not been understood by all trinitarians 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 trinitarians 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])
Moffatt
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he bears––"A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince!"
Steven T. Byington
"For we have a child born to us, a son given to us,––and dominion rests on his shoulder, and he is named Wonder-Counselor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace, for ample dominion and for endless peace"
Revised English Bible
"For a child has been born to us, a son is given to us; he will bear the symbol of dominion on his shoulder, and his title will be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
New Revised Standard Version
"For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty god, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (notice the small "g")
Other translations might be offered, but these should be adequate to show how the words of Isaiah have been understood. It will be noted that Christ is considered a 'divine' or 'mighty hero' or 'champion' in some cases."
Now on to Ps. 45:6/Heb 1:8. I am always surprised that Trinitarians use this to prop up support for your triune deity. Heb. 1:8 is earlier applied to King Solomon in Ps 45:6. What that means is that Jesus is God insofar as as King Solomon is. I do not remember King Solomon sharing a triune nature/essence/homoousian with anyone. Even the Jews, whom you understand as having a special knowledge of God have translated Ps. 45:6(7) as "Your divine throne is everlasting;"(JPS) with a c.f. to 1Chron 29:23.
Again, I will let a friend handle the rest:
Hebrews 1:8, as you well know, is a quotation taken from Psalms 45:6. There are two problems with asserting that these verses are calling Jesus *God*, at least in the trinitarian sense. One problem is the rendering itself, which is either "Thy throne, O God" (a vocative), or "God is thy throne" (God as subject), or "Thy throne is God" (God as predicate). In favor of the non-vocative are The Twentieth Century New Testament,Goodspeed, Moffatt, Byington, RSV footnote, NRSV footnote, Alternate rendering offered in the Translator's NT (p 523), NEB footnote, REB, Harkavy, Gerard Wallis, F. Fenton, Andy Gaus (translator of "The Unvarnished NT), Newcome (the Improved Version), Cassirer, and B.F. Wescott (no doubt there are others). If we accept "God" as either the subject or the predicate, these verses do not call Jesus God. However, even if we take "God" as a vocative, nothing astonishing need be inferred; certainly nothing comparable to trinitarianism. Indeed, as B.F. Wescott acknowledged (see his "The Epistle to the Hebrews" ad loc cit), the Psalm is a reference to an earthly King (probably Solomon), so if this verse requires that Jesus be God Almighty, then we have no choice but to conclude that Solomon was also God Almighty. A far more reasonable understanding of these texts was expressed by Vincent Taylor, as referred to by Raymond Brown --to wit:
"Vincent Taylor admits that in v. 8 the expression "O God" is
vocative spoken of Jesus, but he says that the author of
Hebrews was merely citing the Psalm and using its
terminology without any deliberate intention of suggesting
that Jesus is God. It is true that the main point of citing the
Psalm was to contrast the Son with angels and to show that the
Son enjoys eternal domination, while the angels were but
servants. Therefore in the citation no major point was being
made of the fact that the Son can be addressed as God. Yet
we cannot presume that the author did not notice that his
citation had this effect. We can say at least, that the author saw
nothing wrong in this address, and we can call upon a similar
situation in Heb. 1:10, where the application to the Son of
Psalm 102:25-27 has the effect of addressing Jesus as Lord. Of
course, we have no way of knowing what the "O God" of
Psalm meant to the author of Hebrews when he applies it to
Jesus. Psalm 45 is a royal Psalm; and on the analogy of the
"Mighty God" of Isaiah 9:6, "God" may have been looked on
simply as a royal title and hence applicable to Jesus as the
Davidic Messiah."--Taken from Jesus, God and Man (New
York: Macmillian, 1967, pg 24 & 25.)
You may also find George Wesley Buchanan's remarks on these verses
interesting, which are found in his "To The Hebrews", part of the superb
Anchor Bible series.
No comments:
Post a Comment