A fundamental, systematic error pervades most of the standard literature available to Bible students. This has to do with the crucial question of the identity of God and the Messiah Jesus. Just what is the relationship of the Son of God to God?
We make no apology for our continued attention to the matter of “doctrine.” This is a major, major issue which currently helps to keep the entire Muslim and Jewish world away from the Jesus of the Bible. Those of us who claim to follow Jesus and love him and his teaching cannot remain unequipped to deal with this cardinal question of the identity of the God of the Bible and the Messiah Jesus. Jesus himself was doggedly insistent that worship be conducted within the biblically prescribed framework, and not according to tradition, however widespread, respectable or hallowed.
The book of Hebrews chides those who understand Truth for not being well enough instructed to become teachers of others. A Christian has a duty to others in excess of, or at least equal to, his duty to feed himself. Hebrews 5:12: “By this time you ought to be teachers.” Truth is meant to be shared — everywhere (Luke 9:60).
Paul labored in Athens to move his Greek audience away from belief in God as a “What” to belief in the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob who is a “Who,” a Person! Note the subtle approach of Paul: “What you worship but do not know, I am now proclaiming to you: The God who made the world and everything in it” (Acts 17:23, 24).
It is a considerable irony that leading proponents of “orthodoxy” today betray the very same tendency which Paul strove to correct when they inform the Bible-searching public that “God is one What in three Who’s.”[1] Such a definition of God is not from Scripture at all, but from the world of Middle Platonism. It is Greek philosophy which promotes God as a “What,” and it is contemporary fundamentalism which (often heavy-handedly) requires church members to acknowledge the “one What” presented as what they call the “Triune God.” That God was not known to Jesus or Paul.
Doctrine in some quarters is held to be a bad thing! It is supposed to divide believers and distract from what is held to be vastly more important: the cultivation of Christian character. Carried to its logical conclusion, this (very false) argument leads to the notion that all that matters in the Christian faith is the exercise of “love.” Issues of “theology” would then fall into the category of “intellectual” non-essentials. They should be relegated (so goes this misleading line of thinking) to the province of academic discussion only.
In no other field of human endeavor would anyone argue that theory is unimportant — that practice is all that counts! Jesus was a rabbi and teacher and insisted at all times on right understanding. He also pointed to the fatal dangers of “tradition” mounted against the truth of Scripture (see Mark 7:6-13). Jesus was the ultimate system-bucker and whistle-blower. He suffered the fate of all those who expose the errors of large monopolies, which regard themselves as custodians of unimpeachable truth. Jesus’ opposition came mainly from the established religious authorities of his day.
Would he be any less at loggerheads with unbiblical “tradition” today? We suggest that the Bible elevates “theory” to the highest possible position. The Bible never says that we should just “love” and not worry about “doctrine.” Paul constantly urged that “coming to the knowledge of truth” is the way to salvation. In fact “coming to the knowledge of truth” is an alternative way of describing what is necessary to be saved. “God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth, namely that there is One God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Messiah Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). Peter made “obedience to the truth” a necessary foundation for “fervent love” (I Pet. 1:22). Jesus came indeed “to give us an understanding so that we could come to know God” (I John 5:20). Paul warned that those who do not “love truth” will not be saved (II Thess. 2:10ff. etc.). Jesus, in the most alarming of all his teachings, predicted that the majority believe themselves to be following him when in fact he does not recognize them at all: “Many will declare to me in that future day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, did we not exorcise demons in your name, did we not perform many wonderful works in your name?’ And I will respond to them: ‘Depart from my presence, you evildoers: I never recognized you’” (Matt. 7:21ff.). The only way Jesus offered for avoiding such a catastrophic outcome was that we pay attention to “these words of mine” (Matt. 7:24), “me and my words” (Mark 8:38), “me and the Gospel” (Mark 8:35).
These words, surely, invite us to profound self-examination. It is entirely possible, Jesus said, to imagine that one has the faith of Jesus when one does not possess it at all. How could this be? Jesus went on immediately to warn of false teachings, teachings offered as Christian, which are not Christian at all.
Our only recourse is a passionate examination of the teaching of Jesus and the development of skills of discernment which will equip us to tell the difference between what is true and what is false (II John 4:1-6). If we do not follow this advice, we may repeat the very mistake made by Adam and Eve. As we remember, they were more attracted to the persuasive, twisted arguments of the Devil than they were to the Creator’s Truth.
Such an exercise in discernment requires dedication and persistence. It would be folly to begin by assuming that majorities are bound to be right. For well over 1000 years the Roman Catholic system of belief was held as the only “gospel truth” over wide areas of the earth. But Protestants are committed to the belief that such teaching was and is not biblical. The question is, did mainstream Protestantism really recover the faith once and for all delivered to the saints? (Jude 3). Should one have such unquestioning confidence in a Luther or Calvin? Many do.
In Muslim countries there is only one main option in terms of a belief system: Anyone who questions the all-pervasive teachings of Mohammed runs the risk of rejection. But does that majority really possess truth?
We suggest that a reasonable investigation of the biblical faith will begin with the fundamental question about who God is. Jesus after all agreed with his Jewish compatriots that defining God properly was the object of the first and most important commandment of all. “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.” Jesus presented a supreme proposition and urged us to grasp its meaning (Mark 12:28ff.).
A massive, contrary, Greek-influenced tradition developed from the second century onwards. This was later built into the great creeds of the mainstream Roman Catholic Church (at Nicea, 325, and Chalcedon, 451). It required Christians to submit to the dogma that God is “three Persons in One God.”
Was this development a faithful reflection of the belief of Jesus, or was it a departure into paganism and mysticism? In reply, we propose to demonstrate that current theological systems overlook an obvious fact. They do this by their dogmatic insistence that since Jesus is called “Lord” he must also be Deity, the One God. The argument is repeated over and over again. It appears in literature both scholarly and popular. Jesus is Lord. Therefore he must be God.
The facts of the Bible, however, require a more careful analysis. Does it really follow logically and necessarily that calling Jesus “Lord” means calling him the supreme God? Or does the current theological theory simply read that idea into the Bible? Does it impose itself upon Scripture, instead of reading Truth out of Scripture?
An outspoken defender of what he thought was the only orthodoxy was Dr. Gordon Clark. In a number of vigorously written booklets he defends the Westminster Confession, believing that it faithfully relays the teaching of the Bible. Dr. Clark’s insistence on the need for intelligent investigation of the Bible is beyond praise. We agree with him wholeheartedly that the following verses require of the Christian a wholehearted commitment to reading, studying and meditating on the Bible:
“These words are to be in your heart, and you are to teach them diligently to your children, and you are to talk about them…” (Deut. 6:6, 7).
“He [the king] is to read from the book of the Law every day of his life…” (Deut. 17:9).
“His delight is in God’s instruction [the Torah] and in that instruction he meditates day and night” (Ps. 1:2).
“O how I love your instruction. It is my meditation day and night” (Ps. 119:97).
“My eyes precede the night watches so that I may meditate on Your word” (Ps. 119:148).
“Search the Scriptures” (John 5:39).
“Make them holy through Your truth; Your word is the truth” (John 17:17).
“These were more noble-minded and they searched the Scriptures daily to see if what they were hearing was true” (Acts 17:11).
“Let the word of the Messiah dwell in you richly with all wisdom” (Col. 3:16).
“Jesus Christ came to give us an understanding [Clark calls this the most intellectual word found in the Greek language] that we might know God” (I John 5:20).
“I can vouch for them [the Jews] that they have an enthusiasm for God, but it is an enthusiasm without understanding” (Rom. 10:2).
The exhortation provided by this sampling of Scripture is unmistakable. A Christian cannot afford to be neglecting his primary duty before God: to read and study and think about what he believes.
Urged on by the Westminster Confession and unable to break away from the tradition which molded his thinking, Clark then gives us his understanding of who Jesus is. He quotes this critically important testimony: “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ And Jesus replied, ‘You are blessed, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.’”
Clark then says: “Note here not only that Peter asserts Christ’s Deity; and not only that Jesus accepts Peter’s confession and indeed calls it a direct revelation from the Father, but note also that Matthew as author records the event, and this recording is inspired — the words God breathed out onto the manuscripts. There is another form of phraseology that supports Jesus’ preexistence and Deity. Matthew 22:44 with its parallels and Acts 2:34-36 quote Psalm 110:1: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.’ Many other verses refer to Jesus as Lord. They are too numerous to list and too well known. But two will be given nonetheless. Rom. 10:9: ‘If you will confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord…’ II Cor. 13:14: ‘The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ…’”
Clark then goes on: “About two centuries before the birth of Jesus, the Rabbis in Alexandria, where the large Jewish population had largely forgotten Hebrew, translated the Old Testament into Greek. This translation, called the Septuagint [LXX], uses the Greek word Kurios [Lord] of the Hebrew JHVH [Yahweh]. The New Testament, which frequently uses the Septuagint translation, applies this Greek title to Jesus, the Lord Jesus. Thus the authors of the New Testament books identify Jesus as Jehovah” (The Atonement, pp. 28-30).
This argument appears repeatedly in standard textbooks defending the traditional teaching that Jesus is Jehovah (Yahweh). It suffers however from a fatal flaw. It entirely omits to tell the reader that the Greek word Kurios (Lord) does not in fact, in the Bible, apply only to God, but designates equally human beings, who certainly are not Deity. The quotation from Clark above invites the reader to follow a simply syllogism: Kurios (Lord) is the word for the Lord God in the Old Testament. Jesus is called Lord in the New Testament. Therefore Jesus is God.
The facts are quite otherwise. And the whole theory of the “Deity” of Jesus collapses when it is understood that Kurios (Lord) is the official designation of Jesus as the human Messiah. Both Jesus and Paul would be alarmed to hear that some were proposing that Jesus is God. They would greet with an amazed horror the common notion that God is more than one Person — that He is really three Persons. Such a theory would destroy the foundations of revealed religion (Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29ff.).
“Jesus is Lord” positively does not mean that Jesus is God. The reason is simple. There is only one Person who is God, in the absolute sense. Thousands of Bible verses designate God as one Person and Jesus described Him, in good Jewish fashion, as “the only one who is truly God” (John 17:3). Paul, echoing Jesus, set forth the clearest declaration “that there is one God — the Father” (I Cor. 8:4-6.). That text should surely silence all objections.
Astonishingly many Bible readers appear unwilling to accept the simplicity of the biblical creed. Another voice has somehow intervened to drown out the plain words of Jesus and Paul. What has happened is the unfortunate imposition of a chilling dogma (chilling because it has frequently been enforced with threats of death), that belief in God as Three Persons — eternally Triune — is absolutely necessary for salvation. Failure to subscribe to this enigmatic proposition about God, of which Jesus and Paul knew nothing, is widely announced as a failure worthy of eternal torture in hell!
This magazine hopes to encourage a growing concern that Christianity’s central dogma about God is not in fact the product of good Bible study but rather a curious novelty developed from the early second century under the baneful influence of Greek philosophical thinking centered in Alexandria, Egypt. In that learned city the Jews had already compromised their Hebrew-based faith by mixing it with Hellenism. The post-biblical church fell for the same trap and combined Greek cosmological thinking with the theology of the Bible, producing a hybrid notion of God. Later this was imposed on all believers. Dissidents and non-conformists were banned and banished, and sometimes murdered for their protests.
Professor J.H. Ellens of the University of Michigan provides the information needed for understanding that unfortunate historical development in his booklet The Ancient Library of Alexandria and Early Christian Theological Development (The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, at the Claremont Graduate School, Occasional Papers, No. 27). Ellens summarizes his findings: “It seems patently true that the agenda of the ecumenical councils of the Christian Church, which permanently shaped the dogmatic tradition of the Christian faith [in terms of the doctrine of the Trinity]…was not a biblical agenda. It was rather a special type of Hellenistic and Neo-Platonist agenda…It is time, therefore, for the Christian Church to acknowledge that it has a very special type of material which constitutes its creedal tradition. It is not a creedal tradition of Biblical Theology. It is not a unique, inspired, and authoritative word from God. It is, rather, a special kind of Greek religio-philosophical mythology…It should be candidly admitted by the Church, then, that its roots are not in Jesus of Nazareth…Its roots are in Philonic, Hellenistic Judaism and in the Christianized Neo-Platonism of the second to the fifth century” (pp. 38, 39).
The systematic flaw to which we referred at the beginning of this article can be readily detected and abandoned. It is a matter of a devastatingly important distinction. The New Testament from cover to cover insists on belief in Jesus as the Lord Messiah, who is not the Lord God. That distinction is plainly stated in a solemn divine utterance about the dignity of the Messiah. Psalm 110:1 sets the stage for the whole New Testament picture of who Jesus is. And that Psalm was designed as a safeguard against any confusion. The one God, the LORD (Yahweh) speaks to another individual who is called adoni (my lord). Readers should be alerted to the misleading capital letter (in some versions — the error is corrected in RV, RSV, NRSV, NAB, NEB, JPS) on that second “lord.” The capital letter invites the reader to think that this second “lord” is in fact the Lord God! The original, adoni, however, is invariably a title which tells us that its recipient is not God, but a human superior. It is this non-Deity title for the Messiah which attracted the interest also of Jesus in his discussion in Mark 12:35-37. Jesus instructed his Pharisaic audience to ponder in what sense the Messiah can be at the same time the son of David and the lord of David. We today must urge readers to consider in what sense the Messiah is the lord of David. The wrong answer to the question appears in those translations which write “Lord,” giving the impression that the original was ADONAI (which it is not) meaning always “the Lord God” (all 449 times in the OT).
The right answer is found in the 195 occurrences of this Hebrew word “my lord” (ADONI). In no case is it ever a form of address to Deity. Therefore Jesus is the human lord Messiah, not Deity, but the “man Messiah,” the unique mediator between the One God, his Father, and mankind (I Tim. 2:5). Such is the most fundamental of all biblical truths, and it provides a guide to the whole divine story encompassed by Scripture. Psalm 110:1 should be pondered and understood at all costs. Christians should verify these facts and be prepared to share them with others.
How then was this precious truth about the identity and relationship of God and the Messiah eclipsed? The culprit is Greek philosophy, blended — no doubt in the interests of being “ecumenical” — with the unique Hebrew-based faith of Jesus and the Apostles.
It was the Greek intellectuals who surmised that there was an ultimate God who was far too removed from the world to have created it (He could not sully his hands with “wicked” matter!). So then, there must be a “second god,” who performed the actual creation of the world. From the second century AD, from the school of philosophically trained “church fathers” there emerged the idea that the Son of God must be that preexisting creator of the world. It is not by chance that the leading neo-Platonist of the second century, Numenius, uses exactly the same language as the church father (ostensibly teaching the Bible) Justin Martyr. Both speak of “another God,” a non-human intermediary between the ultimate, distant God and the world.
With this theory, the shape of Christianity was permanently altered. Furthermore, the results were later forced upon the believers. With this view of the cosmos, Jesus was for the first time presented as preexisting as “another God” (the language of Justin Martyr). If this were so, then he could no longer be the Son of God who came into existence for the first and only time in his mother’s womb (see Matt. 1:18, 20, “begotten”; Luke 1:35).
With the new philosophically conceived model of the universe, Jesus was no longer the human Messiah. An imaginative, fictional “halo” was added to him, and he ceased to be the man Messiah, the promised descendant of David, the prophet to arise in the House of Israel as brother to Israel. Moses had declared expressly that the Messiah would not be the God of Israel! (Deut. 18:15-18; Acts 3:22; 7:37 make the point unmistakably — the Messiah cannot possibly be God.)
Christian Bible readers need this most fundamental insight — that Jesus was truly a man, not, as the official creeds say, most philosophically and confusingly, “man,” but not “a man.” Did you know that your Trinitarian church is committed officially to the belief that Jesus was “man” but not “a man”? The matter deserves careful investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment