Worth pondering:
“…to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ does not seem actually to entail saying ‘Caesar is not [Lord].’ Rather, it entails not saying ‘Caesar is Lord.’ This minute grammatical distinction, simply a matter of where the negation is placed, seems to me to explain so much about the New Testament witnesses. The affirmation ‘Jesus is Lord’ requires not so much a strident denunciation of earthly lords as a studied silence concerning their pretensions. The answer to Caesar’s inflated claims of significance is further proclamation of Jesus the Messiah’s real significance.”
– Andy Crouch, Forward to Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies, 13
the archives near Emmaus 
Hi Brian,
I believe at one time you reviewed C. Kavin Rowe’s book “World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age.” He comes to pretty much the same conclusion, and addresses specifically Horsley and Wright, nuancing their takes on the subject.
What I find in my workaday world is the strident claims made from anything that wants to place itself above others in a competing secular society. When the “new Atheists” are strident against the belief in God, they don’t get rid of the “god concept” (that which carries the weight of authority and power), they just lodge it elsewhere – like when they look in the mirror in the morning! That stridency does not have to be answered in an arrogant and ignorant way. A polite response that “Jesus is Lord” will cause that stridency to lash out because people’s fears require some kind of self-preservation response, some kind of freedom from the social engineering agendas of others whose ideas compete with theirs. I find this in mission statements of corporations. I worked for one which had as part of its vision the idea that “whatever we put our minds to, we can accomplish.” If I pointed out that God even affirms this in the story of the Tower of Babel, but that the stridency implied leaves God out as an actor in his creation – therefore requiring that nuance James puts to it (James 4:13-16) – it does not sit well with those who want their employees to stop thinking critically. Companies, as well as governments, know that happens without unqualified allegiance.
One who really brought home to me Jesus’ way with the “Powers” was Hendrick Berkof and his little book “Christ and the Powers.” In summary, by Jesus giving himself into the hands of the Jews and Rome he effectively (by being crucified!) revealed the hypocrisy of their respective claims: the religion nearest God crucifying His own Messiah; and the political system of “justice” (which Maximus in the movie Gladiator calls “the light”, echoing Rome’s own sentiments) crucifying an innocent man.
You’ve got to wonder: if this was the way of Jesus, and he calls us to the same cross, just what does this mean for discipleship? If we can’t see this, then our own walk will be one of self-preservation and the social engineering of the other to maintain it. That, I would suggest, has been the way of the church most of its history.
Mark
Lets assume, for the sake of logic, there can only be LORD, meaning all authority on heaven and earth is vested in this being. Lets also assume that delegated authority, say earthly authority, is just that ‘delegated authority’, so ‘not LORD’; perhaps LORD-appointee, or sub-LORD.
Logically:
“Not ( Caesar is Lord)” IS logically is equivalent to “(Caesar is NOT Lord)”
Doesn’t classical education teach logic and reason any more? Yes, there is a grammatical difference, No, there is no logical difference. For a scholar to make an argument from a grammatical difference where there is no logical difference is simply astounding …. (we’re in worse shape than I thought ..)
Mark
Indeed, Rowe’s book presents Christians as living and promoting an alternative culture, and that culture would clash with many Roman values, but it wasn’t the same as being anti-Rome, as in attempting to establish an alternative empire, per se. It is worth asking if we have the same approach. One thing that is difficult about the NT is it doesn’t depict many of the social elite in the conversion, save the Epistle to Philemon. Even there, Paul nurses change, but doesn’t outright confront the oppressive system, which may be more of a contextual model than a universal one.
Andrew
I see what you are saying, but in Scripture we can speak of God as Master, Father, King, and so forth and that doesn’t deny that there are other masters, fathers, and kings. To have a King of kings and Lord of lords isn’t one and the same as there being no lower case “k” kings and lower case “l” lords if you know what I mean. That is the point being made.
Brian, thanks. Yes, I see Andy Crouch’s point, and agree with it. His conclusion is true, but his premises are false. If nothing we should our conclusions should not be built from weak or fallacious logic, but sound and strong logic. It’s disheartening fighting against that worldly accusation that people of faith are irrational, when we act irrationally. Andy Crouch’s point is worth making, but it’s better to be made rationally.
Saying ‘Jesus’ is Lord does not mean Jesus hasn’t or can’t delegate authority. The issue here isn’t where we put ‘NOT’ in a sentence, rather it is how earthly authority relates to divine authority. We know that all earthly authority is decreed in heaven (from [Rom 13:1]). We also know that the one appointed to make this delegation is Jesus (from [Matt 28:18]).
Understanding this relationship should govern (pardon the pun) how we treat earthly authority, such as Caesar. If Jesus possess all authority, He is Lord ([Matt 28:18]). If he then delegates authority (Rom 13:1]) the delegated authority possess all of the authority of the Lord, but as a steward of the authority of the Lord. Therefore Caesar is a steward of the authority of the Lord (not Lord).
So Ceasar is NOT Lord because his authority is not his own. However just as a Governor General stands in for a monarch, and is entitled to be treated as a monarch (in lieu of the monarch), we should treat Caesar as we would the Lord Himself (and no less), as our Lord’s delegated representative (a task for which they will be held accountable, incidentally).
Speaking of this – it absolutely drives me crazy when people speak ill of the elected officials in ‘the other party’ they didn’t (or wouldn’t) vote for. Whether or not we agree with the politics of those who possess authority, once they possess authority, they merit the consistent respect due all those in authority. If we, as Christian’s, have two standards of respect, that makes us hypocrites.
Doing a book review soon. Can’t wait.
Andrew
What do you make of Paul’s use of theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4 to describe a person with great power to blind?
Should we also respect this person because it must have been given to do so by the Most High?
Robert, good question. Admittedly, the use of theos (θεός) raises eyebrows and begs explanation. The problem stems from the use of a Greek word (θεός) to represent a Hebrew idea. Look at the full expression “ ἐν οἷς ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος ( aiōn or ‘eon’ meaning age, period) τούτου ἐτύφλωσεν τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων …”
Given Paul’s reference to ‘αἰών’ in [2 Cor 4:4], I don’t believe Paul is taking about a human power such as Caesar, but a spiritual one. Even apart from the Greek sense here, there are linguistic Hebrew reasons to think this. Look at [Psa 82:1] which says “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the GODS (from אֵל or el) he holds judgement”.
Basically I think Paul is using θεός for אֵל. The question then is are we to respect all authority unconditionally? Brian has explored this theme in previous posts. We are never to respect authority when it compels us to sin. Respect for earthly authority is always subordinate to respect for God’s authority.
Andrew
I agree this verse is speaking of temporary or limited authority of a being higher than humans and angels. I think respect should be earned not some automatic result of democracy or dictatorship . When the Most High appoints us leaders these leader will be recognized by their deeds and others will be just allowed as stumbling blocks such as Caesar and many more throughout history in the church and political dynasties . Yahshua said give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to The Elyon what belongs to him.
At first I had a question about the original post that I came to ask, but these last two posts have brought up another question. I suppose I will simply ask both.
What about the places where Paul says that there is “one Lord”? (1 Corinthians 8 and Ephesians 4). Not that the quote is still worth pondering. Indeed we should still respect our leaders. Unless showing proper respect and submission is perhaps different than submitting to lordship?
Also…
In reading these last two comments I was reminded of a statement in John that I don’t hear talked about often perhaps because it too raises eyebrows and makes for awkward christian political theory. But what did Jesus mean in John 10:34-36?
“But what did Jesus mean in John 10:34-36?”
Shane
The key in that verse is “your law” not YAH’s law . I am certain the “your law” refers to the authority of the Sanhedrin in 2nd temple judaism.
Agree with Robert above.
Regarding Jesus is Lord. Surely it means more than that. Far more than Caesar ever was even though they made him a god. Sugustus made sure that his adoptive ‘father’ was worshipped very low key and the Romans were very carefu only to worship’Caesar’s Genius’. this became less important as the empire declined.
Ephesians 2:11 tells us that the lord Jesus is not only exalted but that every knee is to bow to Him and every tongue will confess “that Jesus Christ is Lord”. The is even more here, it may be just impicit but I think that it may be more. Isaiah for instance has the very same wording and it is Jehovah (YHVH) speaking. “The word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness and shall not return, that every knee shall bow and every tongue shal swear.” So we might legitimately say that Paul wrote that “Jesus is Yehovah”.
But Jesus is quoting Ps. 82. I understand that it is not Torah. But it is still in the Scriptures. Even if it were in the Sanhedrin’s law in the Second Temple Period it still is referring to some sort of earlier, perhaps even scriptural, tradition. Right?
Shane
So says orthodoxy but Ps. 82 can not be speaking of mortals because they are punished by dying as a mortal. Ps. 82 should to read in light of Deuteronomy 32:8
NRSV ©
When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;
The Sanhedrin claims the authority from Moses being called a God over the affairs of Israel in the wilderness in which he set up judges to help.
When the Lord Jesus quoted the Psalm He said that these ‘elohim’ were the ones to whom the word of God came. On the other hand it was a discussion concering the Lord Jesus being the Son of God. So because often it was angels who communicated the Word of God, He is referring to them. However I concede it is a difficult passage and it could have included ‘prophets’ and ‘men of God’ as Moses who were in that sense also ‘mighty ones’.
That said I am then horrified that the quote is then misquoted form Deuteronomy. Since Wescott and Hort we have been treated to versions based on uncial manuscripts and worse still very free translations. The Masoretic text is clearly that The Most High. “divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam,(bene Adam) he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of israel. (bene Yesrl
The NRSV is clearly deficient as a translation yet it has been chosen to make a point as if it were as good, say as Tyndale or before him the Masoretes.
“Even if it were in the Sanhedrin’s law in the Second Temple Period it still is referring to some sort of earlier, perhaps even scriptural, tradition. Right?”
Shane the word translated scriptures is the greek word graphe which in greek culture denotes a legal writing and the word translated broken is luo which means loosened . Yahshua could not have been referring to a Psalm but could only be referring to a law or a writ
“The NRSV is clearly deficient as a translation yet it has been chosen to make a point as if it were as good, say as Tyndale or before him the Masoretes.”
Roger
The NRSV is just using the oldest witness found in the DSS, before this discovery scholars were divided between LXX and MT after most agree the MT reading is corruption.
The word Graphe is here in reference to Scripture that is how it is used and it is usage and not what it meant at other times and in other places. The word is used referring to the sacred writings in all the following, and they are only a small example as consulting a concordance will show.
Mt. 21:42. 22:29. 26:54, 56. Lk.4:21. 24:27, 32, 45. Jn.2:22. 7:18. 13:15.
Shane asked “But what did Jesus mean in John 10:34-36?“. Another great question!
Shane are human’s animals? (I’ll assume you’d say ‘yes’). Are we only animals (which is the same as asking ‘What distinguishes us from animals’)? (I’ll assume you’ll provide some answer that more or less captures the notion that we were created in the image of God).
In the beginning, God created not only the universe, but the solar system, and the earth. This planet, Eden, he populated with vegetation, and animals, creatures of all sorts. However he elected one animal to exercise dominion over the rest of creation. Appointed God’s steward, he exercise authority which rightfully belonged to God, over the dominion; this one animal gave all others names, and they were subject to his stewardship.
Clothed for a while with a little of God’s authority, this stewardship is in some sense contingent upon obeying God, since the minute he disobeyed God, he lost complete dominion, for death obtained power over his stewardship [Gen 2:7] and since then all of creation has groaned and travailed for man’s redemption [Rom 8:22] and eagerly awaits the complete restoration of God’s authority manifest in man [Rom 8:19].
To be clothed in God’s authority is to be a Son of God. When we had not sinned we were ‘Sons, and Daughters of God’. When we are saved by the redeeming blood of Christ that authority is restored to us, which is why spirits flee, and mountains move; because we are again Sons and Daughters of God.
By this authority the Lord also judges among the sons of men through the restoration of the dominion of the Son of man. It is not man the animal delegated ‘gods’, but the Sons of God delegated ‘gods’,
Roger
Believe it or not the greek word graphe existed long before the NT unless you are claiming it was created for the soul purpose to denote sacred writings and became part of the vocabulary of NT writers by divine inspiration . Most concordances and lexicons reflect the doctrinal beliefs of those who created it and they usually ignore anything outside the bible when it disagrees. Today we have more resources available then the early translators had , one being the Earliest known Hebrew MSS found in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Robert, its true that the Greek word doesn’t belong to the bible solely, as you say. I also agree that NT translators take ownership over Greek words all-too-often and violently make them ‘mean’ something they didn’t.
The issue here seems to be whether or not the γράφω (graphō) was quoting scripture. Notwithstanding the violence we normally see done to Greek by NT translators, Yahshua is citing scripture (almost precisely). Both [John 9:31] and [John 10:34] quote [Psa 82:6].
Andrew
It is evident that the MT was corrupted for a reason which may have been to defend their authority in the Sanhedrin to judge as gods over the People. Yahshua was probably quoting there claim that Ps. 82 called them gods but Yahshua saying it was written in THEIR LAW is the key to this verse. Maybe the reason they corrupted Duet 32 was to provide proof they were gods but I doubt it ,more than likely it was to hide the existence of the lessor gods the Elohim commanded them not to put before them
Robert, I’m trying to follow your logic. You don’t like the reading so you suggest two things:
1. The Sanhedrin had some (hypothetical) law apart from the one given to Israel?
2. The MT was corrupted.
About 1. Yahshua reference ‘THEIR LAW’ because the law they were citing was given to Israel. From [Rom 9:4] “THEY are Israelites, and to THEM belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, THE GIVING OF THE LAW, the worship, and the promises. How was THE LAW not THEIR LAW?
About 2. although I agree translators do as you suggest, imparting false meaning to Greek where Greek meaning is otherwise clear – what makes you think this is true in this John citation?
Andrew
Why would Yahshua who was an Israelite say Your law, plus there is not one other instance where nomos refers to a psalm. Matter of fact it was the habit to separate law and prophets and also psalm throughout the NT.
Do you not know there was extra biblical scribal laws and also an oral law of 2nd temple judaism ? Ask a jew about them.
The Hebrew Yeshua vs. The Greek Jesus
Are you saying the Psalms were not νόμος (nomos)? Would you say the prophets also were not νόμος (nomos)?
Andrew
I am saying the NT says that by example
What would you make of the use of νόμος (nomos) in [John 15:25] which cites [Psa 35:19][Psa 69:4] and [Psa 109:3]? I’d also ask about [John 12:34]’s use of νόμος (nomos) to cite [Psa 89:30, 36-37][Psa 110:4] and [Isa 9:7]?
Your claim ‘there is not one other instance where nomos refers to a psalm’ is not true.
Andrew
i would study the Psalms and quotes to see if the source was actually in the law aka books of Moses or maybe search Justin for the reason
Andrew,
Thanks. I think I lean towards something similar to what you were saying. However, I hear this commented about so little in the church except as a possible proof-text for Jesus’ divinity. I tend to think of Jesus’ treatment of this section as a good guiding middle way to treat authority. Again, it is talked about too little to know if I am off base or not.
Robert,
Thank you as well. If I follow your understanding correctly I think you are saying that YHWH has a sort of hegemony over other gods in Dt. and in the Psalms it fleshes this out more? I am not quite sure I grasp the argument. Sorry. But thank you also.
Robert, I share your cynicism about the Hellenising influence of the Church Fathers, believe me, but I don’t believe your scepticism is founded here.
I can find examples in the NT where the Psalms were called ‘law’ νόμος, where the writings of Major prophets were included as νόμος (this even though they were sometimes delineated as ‘law and prophets’, and where other other non-pentateuchal references are also included. Futhermore, I’ve examined the DSS’s (which pre-dated the MT, and Justin) to see how Psalm 82 reads, particularly the two scrolls found at Masada, MasPs-a and MasPs-b (M1103-1742), and it verifies that no corruption has occurred due to Hellenising influence.
So without further evidence it seems unreasonable to suggest the text we have is corrupted, and that some mother hypothetical law was being referenced.
However you ask a question: Why did Jesus call it THEIR LAW?
Far be it from me to defend the Sanhedrin, it was THEIR LAW because “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the GIVING OF THE LAW, the worship, and the promises.” [Rom 9:4]
Suppose you accused me of some breach in law, say polygamy, saying it was not permitted according to scripture (you deemed authoritative). If I were to point out that YOUR own scripture (which you deem authoritative) contains patriarchs (such as Jacob) who had many wives, who were polygamous?
Does my argument to you, logically imply YOUR scripture was not God-given? No, that would be a fallacious argument. There’s no logical connection between Yahshua’s use of possessive pronoun to denote YOUR ‘law’ and whether or not that body of text was of YAH, so divine or not.
Andrew
I am not accusing hellenist of corrupting Duet32 , I am accusing rabbinical judaism .
So you see no conflict at all between DSS,LXX And MT so you accepted sons of Elohim as the same as sons of Israel who received an inheritance along with YHWH who kept Jacob as his own. Oh well if that makes sense to you then hold on to it.
Andrew
I think you misunderstood my reference to justin. I think Justin was the source of many NT quotes in Matt,Luke and John especially the ones based on mistranslations and false interpretations of the OT Passages. Almost everyone of them use the very same form of the greek word for fulfilled plhrwyh, this is very strange given the number of different forms for this word in greek. The real odd thing is in all 3 gospels the writers choose the other forms when it is not referring to an OT Quote going against their vocabulary .
Deut32? I must have missed something. I thought we were talking about [Psa 82] and [John 10] ..
Do I see a conflict between DSS, LXX, and MT with respect to [John 10:34-36]’s use of [Psa 82:6]? As far as I can tell the DSS, LXX, and MT all say pretty much the same thing in [Psa 82:6] and in each case [John 10:34-36] uses it correctly contextually. That isn’t to say I’d make the claim DSS, LXX, and MT don’t have differences, however we weren’t talking the whole thing. That there isn’t complete agreement betwixt the texts doesn’t mean there isn’t agreement.
I can see how [Deut 32] would come into this, specifically [Deut 32:5-6]. Since you brought it up, what do you believe [Deut 32] is saying? [Deut 32:5-6] specifically suggests that ‘they are not his children’ meaning ‘the generation crooked and perverse’. This is not Elohim casting aside all of the Sons of Jacob (i.e. the whole tree), but branches. God will never cast away the whole tree, Israel will never lose that status [Jer 31:35-37]. If I don’t otherwise understand how you see [Deut 32] relating, please let me know.
With respect to the ‘sons of Elohim’, I’ve posted above how I understand it … I look forward to your comments if my above post is not biblical or theologically sound.
Andrew
My whole argument was Psalm 82 should be read in the light of Duet32;8,9 not the supposed quote in John which could be referring to scribal and rabbinical law that refers to judges as elohim in Ex 21,22. . There also may have been a rabbinical interpretation in the scribal law of Ps 82 that Yahshua was referring . But a True reading of the hebrew of Ps 82 makes it impossible these were humans being judged and sentenced . As fas as Duet 32:8,9 goes if the true reading is sons of Israel then explain when Israel possesed all the nations and how YHWH retained a specific portion for himself and that PORTION was Israel
I see what I as missing now from your posts, and I agree (with what you’ve written).
You’re seeing [Deut 32:8-9] as referencing the divine council. I have no problem with that, just as I accept [Ps 82] as not speaking of humans. Therefore I agree [Ps 82] should be read against [Deut 32:8-9].
Even if so in [Ps 82], and assuming you’re correct about [Deut 32:8-9], does that mean ‘sons of elohim’ are necessarily non-human (in every case)? No; at least not logically.
Before your reference to Deut32, I understood ‘sons of elohim’ to be an ex-officio privileged of a God ordained office. If spiritual members of the divine council were appointed to nations, they fit the bill. If prophets are appointed to speak for Elohim to His people, again .. they fit the bill. Even Adam was appointed to excise divine dominion subject, of course, to obedience, this too, would make him a ‘son of elohim’.
That said you raise another good point – such an interpretation as I describe above is biblical. You ask “Is it a rabbinical interpretation in the scribal law?”
Good question. Simply pointing out [Deut 32] doesn’t make it so, so what other evidence is there that might answer the question?
Andrew
Given the references in Ex 21, 22 could John 10:34-36 not be quoting Ps 82 as orthodoxy suggest.? Almost every conflict Yahshua had with the scribes and pharisees was over their traditions and interpretations . If you didnt get the chance to watch video I would recommend watching it when you get the time.
Robert, I’m not quite seeing the references you’re talking about in Ex 21,22, and by Orthodoxy, do you mean true biblical orthodoxy (with rabbinical influenced removed) or do you mean orthodoxy in the traditional Christian sense, Hellenised and corrupted by rabbinical blindness?
( I will watch the video when time permits )
Andrew by orthodoxy I mean christianity
Exodus 21:6
NET © then his master must bring him to the judges, 1 and he will bring him to the door or the doorposts, and his master will pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.
NIV ©
then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the door-post and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.
NASB ©
then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.
1. Elohim
Exodus 22:8,9
Robert, I don’t see a relationship between [Exo 21:6] and [John 10:34-36]’s use of [Ps 82] (which doesn’t mean there isn’t one, only that I don’t see it).
Andrew
My point is could those in 2nd temple judaism use these passages in Ex 21,22 to claim the right to judged Judea by setting up high courts and lower courts and call themselves gods ? Could this authority to rule as gods be what Yahshua is referencing in John.
I myself can not see Yahshua quoting Ps 82 out of context thinking that judges in Israel ever ruled over all the nations on earth. I realize you havent studied scribal and rabbinical law of late 2nd temple judaism which many confuse with Torah law in the clashes between Yahshua and certain men of Judea.
Robert – thank you for your patience. What you suggest is plausible, but still speculative. Do you have evidence the Sanhedrin called themselves ‘gods’? If so your suggest would not be speculative.
I accept that Ex 21,22 could be used to rationalize abuse – certainly. Was it? How do we know? If so – than your suggestion may make sense. I’m not being picky on your suggestion. Given the language and a comparison of [John 10:34-36] to [Ps 82]) the evidence plainly suggests John was simply quoting Psalms (Occams razor?).
Your suggestion, though plausible, still appears speculative. I have no doubt the Sanhedrin subsumed authority they weren’t entitled to (I’m no fan of the Edomization of Israel), however is there proof they did it as ‘gods’?
With respect to John using Ps 82 out of context, you haven’t addressed the assertion that if ‘sons of elohim’ was a ex-officio privileged of a God ordained office Ps 82, John’s use of Ps 82 would make perfect sense. (Our understanding of the meaning of ‘sons of elohim’ contexts how we read the text).
(You’re right, I haven’t studied 2nd temple rabbinic law, and what I do know, I know through a critical lens)
Andrew
If I am to accept this passage as authentic then I must accept this was Yahshua quoting it out of context in which no Israelite judges have ruled over all the nations making Yahshua look like a fool or I must seek a different source .
I realize I cant prove with hard evidence but I can use my research to deduct a reasonable understanding using textual,historical and cultural context.
I’m suggesting Yahshua wasn’t quoting it out of context though …
Andrew
I realize you feel it is a quote of a verse not the whole Psalm but what purpose would it serve if its use by Yahshua didnt fit the texual context it was set in.Yes I understand that Priest,Prophets,Kings and righteous Israelites were called sons of the Elohim and was the context of claim of Yahshua using it for himself but he never claimed to be a god so why not use the quote to show they were called sons of the Elohim if Yahshua was actually quoting this verse in the Psalm
Robert, I’m suggesting Yahshua did fit the textual context in his use of it (given the meaning of ‘sons of elohim’). I don’t believe His use of it was necessarily out of context …
I understand that you’re saying this particular John quote isn’t of itself a divine claim on the part of Yahshua however do you believe Yahshua to be divine? How do you see [John 10:30]?
Sure graphe existed before the New Testament. I am saying that words and the meaning of words are not fixed. Take ‘gay’ for instance. Graphe is used in the New Testament to mean the sacred writings, the Bible. That is consistently so all the way throught he Bible as I gave examples of this consistency. Maybe in Socratic Athens it did mean something diferent. Maybe even in Hasmonean times it meant something different.
I think we have differing ideas of the Bible. I prefer Paul’s view that. “All Scripture is God breathed…” (2Tim.3:16) The only way to resolve this is to read and to see how it all hangs together, answers the big questions and works in practice. Yu see contradictions, I do not. Since My 1956 when I came to the Lord Jesus and asked God to take me on as a disciple I have read all of the Bible. I was just a common sailor then and I supose I still am. However I have not found contradictions nor has the Bible ever failed me nor has the God of the Bible.
Since the Lord Jesus believed the Old Testament to be the Word of God, saying. “The Scripture cannot be broken ” (Jn. 10:35) I would be interested if you could show any contradictions or inconsistencies betwene the Old and New Testaments.
Andrew
The question is not if Yahshua is divine but when he became divine which I see this was achieved through rebirth by the resurrection of the dead as the firstborn of a new creation. While the term divine really doesnt fit my view I lack the proper term for a being higher than Angels but lower then The Elohim. As far as the term son of the Elohim being used by Yahshua during his ministry I see it pertaining to the adoption at the time of his baptism.
Roger
Outside of the first two chapters of Matt and Luke and large portions of John I find very little contradictions as long as I make sure it has been properly translated or is the best and earliest reading.
“I and the Father are one.”
Andrew
I see this verse as it is, a statement of unity,a statement of agreement,a statement of a covenant relationship as a marriage covenant ,like willed,like minded.
Are you trying to say this statement is claiming Yahshua divine , if so does a man become a woman when he enters a covenant in which they become one. Yahshua explained that the father was greater than All, no equal whatsoever and Yahshua also explained he could do knowing on his own which doesnt seem divine to me. Now post resurrection is a different story.
Robert – yes. The Hebrew concept of ‘one’ meant indivisible, without distinction or variation. I believe that’s the strongest claim Yahshua made that he was ‘divine.
With respect to man and woman, unlike modern society, the bible is not democratic. The smallest forensic unit is ‘family’. From that everything is built. Nation is built from family. The smallest ‘family’ is either a widowed woman or a man and woman united in marriage (meaning ‘one flesh’).
Andrew
I dont follow your logic but its seems to say that YHWH and Yahshua are indivisible yet they are 2. Actually a man and a woman become one in will but not one flesh. we know this from biology .
Dont suppose you would see John 17:21 as a problem with your definition but I do by reading the actual wording in the greek.
But who knows maybe we are all divine.
Robert, we’re not divine – that property belongs to YHWH alone, even if we’re created in the image of divine.
Likewise, I don’t believe a man and a women in marriage become one in will alone (at least not a consummated marriage), just as I don’t believe Yehshua and YHWH are two. A man and women struggle to be ‘one’ in will, perhaps, but most married people I know have no trouble becoming ‘one flesh’.
Besides the bible doesn’t say a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife as ‘one spirit’ or in ‘one will’, it says ‘one flesh’, so your suggesting does not conform to the text. The straight forward reading is preferred. So I believe Yehshua was YHWH manifest in time.
Given that I said the ‘smallest’ forensic unit of the bible was the family, and it was built up from there – of course I see no problem with [John 17:21]. Unity in Yeshua means we are grafted into the root.
Andrew
Are you reading a translation by orthodoxy or the greek. If being one with the Father makes one divine why dont this passage say that Yahshua was praying for divinity of each. How does this passage not create a massive problem with your understanding of John 10:30? How can they be both in the Father and in Yahshua without becoming divine ?
Rather than dance around translation, why don’t you provide the source of Greek text you prefer. You know as a general rule I try to discard ‘orthodoxy’. I just don’t see how John 10:30 should (create a problem for my reading of the text).
Andrew all sources are fine. This verse has Yahshua praying to the Father that those that believe may become one with the Father just as Yahshua is one with the Father.
That we become one with the father neither diminish Yahshua’s relationship to the father, nor does it grant us attributes we don’t natively possess. Becoming ‘one’ with the father doesn’t mean one becomes the ‘father’. An eye is ‘part’ of the body, but an eye is not the body. You seem to be suggesting becoming one with the divine makes one divine. That doesn’t follow logically.
I would put it another way, does being created in the ‘image’ of a thing, makes one the thing itself?
With respect to Christ, recall that we cannot compare our relationship to YHWH to Yahshua’s in some sense. Yashua had no earthly faither, whereas you and I both do (as far as I know). So, in this sense, Yashua represents the archetype, whereas the rest of us are mere types. There is a different between signifier and signified.
Andrew
No one implied it diminishedany relationship ,it just takes away the exclusiveness of it. If you mean virgin birth by nativity possess you already know I find no support of that claim till mid 2nd century when it was added.
According to this chapter it was Yahshua wish that believer had the exact relationship as he did with the father
You’ve asserted that claim before except provided no evidence the biblical narrative is a 2nd century addition.
Similarly, I don’t see that Yahshua subordinating himself to YHWH, makes him any less divine as evidence.
YHWH is YHWH’s true form. Yahshua is YHWH’s true form confined in space/time (so certainly not equal in ontological sense). The idea that YHWH had to limit His own power and form to enter space-time adorned in the form of a mere human is not unbliblical [Phil 2:6].
If you’ve ever read ‘Flatland’ by Edwin Abbott Abbott you’ll have encountered the idea that a 3D ball who enters himself into 2D space is perceive differently than his true form, just as when he enters 1D space is perceived differently yet again – yet he is still no less a ball even if his 1D form is subordinate to his 2D form which is subordinate to his 3D form …
But back to your point – do you have evidence that Yahweh prior to adorning a form lower than The Elohim was not in the form of Elohim? Do you have evidence that Yahweh had an earthly father?
Andrew
This would not be up to me to prove false but there is no proof whatsoever that it existed before that unless you count pagan beliefs. I am assuming your mean Yahshua so yes I have all the prophesies about him, the requirement for him to be the Messiah, the references in the NT that he was the son of Joseph,son of david according to flesh, born of a woman meaning 200% human as was John the baptist and every man and woman ever born Hebrew, a human sinned and caused The Elohim to look upon all mankind as sinful and the need for a human to restore the relationship by being perfect in the Commandments as it applied to him..
Plus my understanding of the plan set forth in the whole Word of the Elohim. Philosophy is just that ,philosophy.
Respectfully, I disagree.
You’re all but saying the Christian concept of Yeshua being YHWH is wrong. The Christian concept of Yeshua being YHWH is not based upon a single proof-text, but a cumulative reading of a number of texts, and by the example of His early disciples ultimately worshipping Him.
Takes the claim of [Phi 2:6-7] – it is a positive assertion that Yeshua “.. though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men.”
This is a clear claim of Yeshua’s divinity prior to his baptism, or resurrection. If Yeshua was in the form of God, he was not at that point subordinate to God, which means you’re really not off the hook in your claim, since your claim (as far as I understand it) rejects this …
With respect to your use of genealogy to suggest Yeshua’s father was Joseph, the text says more that he was the son of David, but clearly he wasn’t David’s son. We have to read genealogies in context, and we can’t stretch them to say what they don’t actually say. Jesus’s mother was Mary, the head of Mary’s family was Joseph. The minute Joseph decided to marry Mary (whoever had given her Jesus), Joseph, as head of the house, was Jesus legal father (which is why Joseph’s decision to marry Mary was amazing!).
The evidence is that Joseph was not Jesus’ father, and clearly had a dilemma in his decision to marry Mary. To gloss over this detail is a selective reading of the text.
Andrew
I know of no concept that existed before late 2nd century.
Phi 2:6-7 I have no problem with this verse understanding the power of The Holy Spirit that life in him bodily did not make him conceited or prideful.
I see absolutely no divinity at all before but do see the manifestations and gifts of the Holy Spirit appearing after his anointing by water and spirit.
I am sorry to tell you that Joseph was the only way he could of been the Messiah . Nowhere does it state Mary was even of the tribe of Judah much less in the line of David.
WHAT EVIDENCE???
The genealogy of [Luke 3:23-38] is Mary’s lineage back to David. [Luke 3:23] makes it clear people suppose Yahshua’s was related to Yosef. If Yahshua was really the son of Yoseph, this expectation would not be supposed.
Robert, you’ve suggested many things without proof, and you’ve questioned established theology without proving sufficient reason to doubt its veracity. I’m certainly open to ides, given sound premises and logic, but when I ask for evidence and you provide more speculation, it doesn’t really advance dialogue.
You’ve argued following:
– John’s use of ‘your law’ in [John 10:34-36] was not Yah’s law but some hypothetical scribal or rabbinic law even though the language of [John 10:34] clearly originates in [Psa 82]. Is there evidence ‘your law’ was not the one given by Yah?
-The Sanhedrin corrupted Duet 32 to provide proof they were gods, or to claim the right to judged Judea by setting up high courts and lower courts and the call themselves gods. Is there evidence?
-Yahshua was not divine before his resurrection. Except, this assertion requires the rejection of a plain reading of scripture in favour of yet more speculation.
-Yahshua was not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but was instead Yoseph’s natural son. This claim not only contracts the beliefs of John the Baptist [John 1:18], Paul and Barnabas [Acts 13:33][Gal 4:4], and Yahshua’s own words that he was of Yah [John 14:9][John 6:38-40][John 10:36][Luke 22:70] etc. but you are also contradicting second century manuscripts, P4 containing [Luke 3:23], P1 containing [Matt 1:18], and hundreds of others which document His virgin birth, and which establish the foundation for later Christian belief. The evidence for a virgin birth is simply so strong, your counter evidence must be stronger, yet you provide none.
Even without the ample literary evidence establishing Jesus’ virgin birth, if your primary criteria is based upon the earliest age of the NT fragments, according to that standard we should thrown out most of the NT – which is simply an unreasonable position.
Though we’ve come this far, it’s still not been resolved Yahshua was referencing some hypothetical scribal law, or that the Sanhedrin corrupted Deut 32 so they could call themselves gods, or that the early Christian claim Yahshua was divine is incorrect. Nor has the virgin birth claim been shown false, or even in doubt. Accordingly, I think this dialogue has run its course.
We’re going further and further down a rabbit hole, hopping from one speculative claim to the next, all without sufficient evidence to justify following the rabbit. So thank you for clarifying your beliefs, but I remain convinced they are baseless.
The genealogy of [Luke 3:23-38] is Mary’s lineage back to David. [Luke 3:23] makes it clear people suppose Yahshua’s was related to Yosef. If Yahshua was really the son of Yoseph, this expectation would not be supposed.”
No where does it state that . Plus the uncorrupted Gospel of Luke that Marcion brought to the church in Rome was without a birth narrative, quess who had his hands on it first, Justin who sole purpose was to prove he was actually always a christian by incorporating his Pagan beliefs into Roman Christianity . The proto evangeline was the source of both additions of birth narratives and misquotes of OT verses.
Robert, you’ve suggested many things without proof, and you’ve questioned established theology without proving sufficient reason to doubt its veracity. I’m certainly open to ides, given sound premises and logic, but when I ask for evidence and you provide more speculation, it doesn’t really advance dialogue.”
I have provide more evidence in support of my view than you have provided for yours and questioning established theology that claims almost everything by mystery and unbiblical doctrines is not a shame. Proof and reproof is the only method to judge the truth by.
I am not concerned with convincing you of anything but am concerned with understanding other beliefs better and understanding when and where they come from.
With that said I thank you for trying to help me understand why you believe what you do.
Robert wrote “No where does it state that”.
Robert, that’s false. It does. [Luke 3:23] – YAHSHUA, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli … “ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ” in Greek.
You say you’ve provided proof, but what you’ve provided is mere speculation (and in some cases false speculation).
Referencing Marcion’s gospel of Luke as uncorrupted is yet another example of an unfounded assertion. The Gospel of Luke contradicts your claim so you throw it out in favour of one edited by Marcion. Marcion rejected both the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel, and it’s long been shown that the bulk of Marcion’s beliefs about Yahshua are contradicted by the NT text itself, and the apostolic views represented therein. So his views are more a better example of gnosticism than early apostolic Yahshua followers. Yet more speculation.
This ‘proof’ is a house of cards built up from speculation upon speculation.
Andrew
Have you ever took the time to compare the 2 gospels or are you just believing what your told. Thanks to some of the church fathers we are able to reconstruct it. If you did you just might find to say Marcion edited it while leaving verses after verse that witnessed against his belief and removing verse after verse that supported his belief is the absolute ridiculous statement orthodoxy has ever made. As for the “as was supposed ” Statement show me a 2nd century ms or fragment with it, dont pass off a 4th century orthodox one. My evidence is just not considered evidence because you choose to see it that way
Robert, yes of course, I know what Marcion’s claims were (from reconstructions). The early church was right to treat him a heretic.
Besides I favour the thousands of manuscripts we actually have, that are in stunning agreement about the Messiah (from faithful in Asia Minor, from Alexandria, all over), over what we need to ‘reconstruct’ from a single mistaken critic who was openly critical of the God of the Hebrew bible. Marcion didn’t like the full witness of the Gospel so his solution was to be ‘selective’ in his use of the ‘evidence’, cutting out the parts he didn’t like. This effort was simply another way of twisting truth.
Thankfully, his malicious attempts to corrupt the text resulted in the early ekklesia having necessary discussions about what did constitute canon. As always, YHWH uses even evil acts to His great glory. Regardless, having arrived at a silly discussion about Marcion – I’ll go no further.
Andrew
I can see you actually have no idea of the differences between the 2 gospels. which is your right. Also you have no idea that the thousands are just copies upon copies are just one witness of one manuscript.
“Tertullian and Epiphanius agree in affirming that Marcion altered the text of the books which he received, to suit his own views; and they quote many various readings in support of the assertion. Those which they cite from the epistles, are certainly insufficient to prove the point; and on the contrary, they go to show that Marcion preserved without alteration, the text which he found in his manuscript. Of the seven readings noticed by Epiphanius, only two are unsupported by other authority: and it is altogether unlikely that Marcion changed other passages, when, as Epiphanius himself shows, he left untouched those which are most directly opposed to his system.” -[Canon Westcott, History of the Canon, p.284].
Andrew
I find it amazing that you question the motives of the early church fathers yet you hold on to poorly told lies of Tertullian and Epiphanius about what Marcion believed. I believe in a 100% human hebrew Yahshua yet find nothing in the reconstructed gospel of the lord that goes against it anyway it is translated. Now considering Marcion was also the deliverer of 10 letters of Pauls and there are many verses that could be interpreted to support Marcion belief which most oneness,binitarians and trinitarians twist to fit then maybe Marcion actually did shape orthodoxy’s belief.
Btw there are dozens of well known scholars that agree with Westcotts conclusion