Showing posts with label Jesus Identity. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 21, 2023

Jesus is Jehovah

Jesus is Jehovah

Wednesday, January 18, 2023

Response to Two Unitarian Articles on John 8:58

This blog is my Trinitarian response to two Unitarian blogs/articles on the topic of John 8:58 that was recommended to me by a Unitarian on Facebook. I'll post the first half on Facebook what I've posted here. But this blog version will have minor edits and grammatical corrections (etc.) as I discover them. The two Unitarian blogs are:

‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly? (posted 2016)

John 8:58 – An Alternative Approach to Its Role in the Debate Over Christ’s Identity (posted 2020)

The following is my Trinitarian Response:

I did a running commentary starting with the 2016 blog, then continuing with the 2020 blog.

I have to say I REALLY enjoyed those two articles. Truly fun reads. Both were well written and thoroughly ENGAGING. As well as informative with respect to what some Unitarians think and how they reason. However, I think they both clearly fail to address things which make the traditional interpretation more likely.

This begins my running commentary on the FIRST blog:

With respect to your 2016 article titled, "‘Before Abraham was, I’…what, exactly?"

Since my Greek is rudimentary, I grant that McKay's translation is might be correct. Especially in isolation from the rest of GJohn.

But I still think the traditional interpretation of "I AM" makes most sense:

1. GIVEN what White has written in his article. Here's the link again:

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/

2. GIVEN everything else the rest of the Johannine corpus says about the Word/Jesus [e.g. John 1:1ff; 5:18; 10:30; 17:5; 20:28; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 2:23; 3:14; 5:13-14; 17:14; 19:16; 22:12-13]

3. GIVEN that there are other times they tried to kill Jesus in GJohn and more than once it was because they interpreted Him to be claiming to be God or equal to God [John 5:18; John 10:33; John 19:7] . McKay's interpretation/translation would be an unusual exception that doesn't conform to those other times under similar circumstances. Admittedly, there are other times when GJohn says the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead and either don't explain the reason why, or give a different reason. But when it's in CONJUNCTION to something that could be construed as a claim to deity, that IS the reason why according to the Jews themselves. And so, interpreting John 8:58 as a veiled claim to be "I AM" fits better with that PATTERN, than that He's a prophet or "God’s living, breathing power of attorney" (as you put it) who's telling a "preposterous lie."

4. I even think it's possible that a COMBINATION of both McKay's and the traditional interpretation could be true. At the spur of the moment some (or all) of the Jews could have interpreted Jesus to mean what McKay's translation says; but that Jesus and the author of GJohn intended/meant for later hearers and eventual readers of the story (who knew more of the complete life of Jesus, could stand back and could reflect more deeply on His life and sayings) to understand the deeper meaning was a claim to be Yahweh. This is especially true considering the other points in this list. Jesus and/or the author of GJohn could have been intentionally ambiguous so that both senses could and would be interpreted and translated, while expecting the deeper meaning would be caught by careful study and reflection. It's common for Jesus and the Bible in general to have layered and multivalent intended meanings. And different methods are used to do this. Sometimes in idioms, in puns, in figures of speech, in the meaning of names etc.

5. McKay's translation of the beginning of John 8:58 as "The truth is" is unfortunate. The repetition of "Truly, Truly" ("Verily, verily" in the KJV) is intentional on Jesus' part. It's His way of indicating a very solemn statement is about to be made. Translating it as "The truth is..." makes His statement more trivial and detracts from the intended seriousness of His statement. One that (IMO) better fits with Him saying "I AM."

//While that may be true generally speaking, offering such as a response to McKay’s argument is really rather silly. Jesus’ opponents wanted to stone him, not because a claim to be old was blasphemous, but because his claim to have been in existence since before Abraham was born could only have been viewed as a preposterous lie by them,//

If Enoch arrived, he could rightly say he ante-dated Abraham. If Jesus was merely claiming to be older than Abraham, they could have considered him crazy, and left Him alone; or considered Him a false prophet and stoned Him. They would have known about Jesus' childhood. They even insinuated that He was conceived under scandalous circumstances (John 8:41). So Jesus couldn't claim to come straight down from heaven. The Jewish leaders reacting irrationally and wanting to kill Him for no good reason is a possible scenario. However, a more reasonable reaction would have been to ask Him for clarification on what He meant. The fact that they understood Him to possibly be making a veiled claim to deity earlier in the Gospel (John 5:18) makes the traditional interpretation of "I AM" more likely. I mean, the very first verse of the book begins NOT with Yahweh at/in "the beginning" (harkening back to Gen. 1:1), but with the Word. It literally says, "In the beginning was the WORD." Not, "In the beginning was God and with Him was His Word." The fact that the "Word" is first mentioned (before even God [i.e. the Father]) makes sense if the author is trying to convey the full and true Deity of the Word on par with YHWH.

For more on why this IS an allusion to the opening verses of Genesis, see this excerpt of Robert Bowman I typed up here:

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-trinity-at-beginning-of-creation.html

Some Unitarians have denied a connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. Robert M. Bowman gave 5 reasons why such a connection makes sense.

//1. The words en arche occur at the beginning of each book;

2. The name God (ho theos) occurs in the opening sentence in each book, and frequently thereafter as well;

3. Both passages speak about the creation of all things;

4. The name given to the preexistent Christ, "the Word," reminds us of the frequent statement in Genesis, "And God said, 'Let there be...'"—that is, in Genesis God creates by speaking the word, in John he creates through the person of the Word;

5. Both passages in Greek use the words egeneto ("came into existence"), phos ("light") and skotos or skotia ("darkness"), and both contrast light and darkness.

These point of similarity taken together constitute a powerful cumulative case for understanding en arche to be referring to the same beginning in John 1:1 as that of Genesis 1:1—the beginning of time itself. //

// “I am God’s name-bearing agent”//

Given my comprehensive theology of the Malak/Angel/Messenger of YHWH, I think that's a description of a divine figure.

Exo. 23:20 "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.

If this angel had no power to forgive sins, there'd be no point in saying "he will not pardon your sin." YHWH saying His Name is IN this angel implies the divinity of the a/Angel. There are other reasons to think the Angel is divine. See Rogers articles and debates. But specifically in the context of the Name, names in Semitic cultures was very important. They were connected to the actual or hoped for nature of the person named. This was why naming babies were so important. Because Semitic names have meaning. The Name of God refers to the character, nature, attributes and predictable wonted behavior of YHWH.

Prov. 18:10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous man runs into it and is safe.

Psa. 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O LORD, have not forsaken those who seek you.

These passages are not saying the NAME of YHWH is a place one can literally enter. Rather, it saying that God's nature and character is such that you can rely on Him.

Prov. 30:4 Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!

Literally asking what's God's name was was simple for a Jew to answer. It's obviously "YHWH." But it's not ultimately and literally asking that. It's cryptically asking, "What is God's nature?" The answer to that rhetorical question is that it is incomprehensible. The secondary question of "what is His s/Son's name?" hints at the Son's incomprehensibility as well, because both are divine. Being YHWH's agent with His name residing within is therefore a way of saying He's divine. Inanimate objects and cities were named for YHWH. Many OT names are theophoric and have YHWH's name in them. For example, Yirme-𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂 (Jeremiah), 𝗬𝗲𝗵𝗼-natan (Jonathan). Jerusalem will be called Yahweh Tsidkenu (Jer. 33:16) [cf. where I think Jesus is prophetically named the same in Jer. 23:6]. The way YHWH's name is IN the Angel in a special and unique way, and how he is described throughout the OT clearly suggests divinity and ontology on par with YHWH. Again, see Rogers' materials. His debates on numerous YouTube channels, and his own channel. Also his articles here:

https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/rogers.html

This begins my running commentary on the SECOND blog:

With respect to your second blog which was a Guest Post by a friend of your who goes by the online handle/nickname HeKS. My comments here should be read in light of what I said about the first blog. They build on those former comments.

//After a lengthy discussion with Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decide in John 8:59 to kill Jesus by stoning him. //

That's a strawman. It's not "all of a sudden." It occured previously in 5:18 when they thought Jesus was claiming to be equal with God. It happens again later in 10:33 and (I would argue in) 19:7. John 8:58 would be just one of a number of instances when the Jews wanted Him dead because He ostensibly claimed to be Deity or equal with Deity.

//The only thing it could possibly be was his use of ego eimi (I am). //

In all three Gospels that record Jesus walking on water, Jesus uses "ego eimi" with divine connotations (Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 & John 6:20). When He walked on the sea it's clearly meant to be understood as a theophany for a number of reasons. The coincidences are WAYYYYYY too many. See my blog, "Brant Pitre on the Divinity of Jesus Revealed When He Walked On Water"

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/brant-pitre-on-divinity-of-jesus.html

//The notion that the Jewish religious leaders suddenly decided to kill Jesus in John 8:59 because of his comment in the prior verse can be dispensed with quickly. After all, it is explicitly contradicted multiple times in the text.//

Yes, that's exactly my point. I'm typing up this response as I'm reading this Unitarian blog. So, I'm glad that the author acknowledges that the Jews were wanting Him dead prior. But why he strawman's the Trinitarian argument instead of steelmanning it is unfortunate. That some Trinitarians think they JUST THEN suddenly wanted to kill Jesus, doesn't mean that all Trinitarians argue that way. Rather than attacking the weaker versions ("weak-manning" so to speak), he should have steelmanned it before critiquing it.

//The desire of the Jewish religious leaders to kill Jesus long predated his discussion with them in John 8.//

HeKS also cites GMark where the religious leaders wanted to kill Jesus. That's fine. But, so far, as I'm reading this blog, there's no acknowledgement of the PATTERNED THEME of (specifically) GJohn of them wanting to kill Jesus when He make apparently veiled divine claims. Sufficiently clear enough that they think they know He is claiming deity, but sufficiently vague that they aren't absolutely certain. Jesus even uses dissembling and prevarication (in a sinless way) to be subtle with His claims to deity (see my blog here: https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2015/07/god-gods-and-jesus-in-john-1030-39.html).

//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument.//

This bypasses the fact of 1. in THIS Gospel (i.e. John) they wanted to kill Him for claiming to be equal with God or God both before and after John chapter 8. But also 2. it bypasses the fact that in this context of John chapter 8 prior to v. 59, and the verses he mentions the Jews wanted to kill Him (vss. 40 and 37), Jesus may have already made other veiled claims to deity in verses 8:24 and 8:28. So that weakens HeKS's claim that it couldn't have been because Jesus was implicitly claiming deity since they were trying to kill Him before v. 58. In other words, his citation of vss. 40, and 37 are STILL AFTER verses 24 and 28. In which case, their intention to kill Him in 40 and 37 could still be due to His veiled claim to Deity.

Notice Jesus' statements:

24I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he [ego eimi] you will die in your sins."

28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he [ego eimi], and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.

IF Jesus is making a veiled claim to deity in His use of ego eimi in both verses, then it should and/or could be translated "I am" or "I AM". I said, "and/or" because, as I said above, I could combine the traditional translation and interpretation with something like McKay's.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗛𝗲𝗞𝗦 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘀:

//The simple fact that the Jewish religious leaders were seeking to kill Jesus long before the discussion in John 8 deals a serious blow to the Verse 59 Argument. To the extent that it relies on the claim that Jesus must have said something so shockingly blasphemous that it ignited in the Jewish religious leaders a spontaneous and novel desire to kill him, it fails utterly. //

I'm glad HeKS makes the following concession:

//With regard to the more basic claim that Jesus must have said something blasphemous within the confines of this conversation for the Jews to now attempt to publicly stone him, it is hard to say with certainty whether or not this is true. It’s certainly possible, but...........//

//...........but it must be remembered that these religious leaders had been seeking to kill Jesus since he healed the man on the Sabbath. On that occasion, Jesus exposed “the insensibility of their hearts”, but they apparently believed that he had broken the Sabbath. Sabbath-breaking was a capital crime under the Law and so, in the eyes of the religious leaders, they would have already had their justification for stoning him. //

It's ironic that he mentions sabbath breaking. Since, earlier the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in THIS Gospel for "breaking" the Sabbath by healing on that day and thus making Himself equal with God, in that He claimed to be able to work on the Sabbath like God does.

John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Jesus Is Equal with God

18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

See my blog "Jesus' "Breaking" the Sabbath as Evidence of His Equality with the Father"

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-breaking-sabbath-as-evidence-of.html

//Second, the specific claim Jesus was making would have been considered blasphemous because he would have appeared to be appropriating for himself the prerogatives of God in the same way as he was earlier accused of doing when he healed a paralytic by saying, “your sins are forgiven.” On that occasion, he was accused of blasphemy, and the same charge would apply here.//

That's ironic for HeKS to say because Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sin IS a veiled claim to deity. Presumably HeKS would prefer citing the Markan version of Jesus forgiving sin. Well, I've argued that GMark has a VERY HIGH Christology and when seen in light of the OT clearly portrays Jesus as Yahweh. See my blogpost titled, "Markan Christology":

https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/03/markan-christology.html

//This single claim, then, if untrue, would represent two separate capital offences. //

It should be noted that HeKS's claims of different capital offenses don't conflict with the Trinitarian interpretation of John 8:58. They could just be added to the charge of the blasphemy of claiming to be God. Proving that the Jews had other offenses in mind does nothing to disprove they *also* had in mind the offense Trinitarians who hold to the traditional view think they had in mind at v. 59.

//On this reading, any basis for the Verse 59 Argument evaporates.//

Not at all, since I said that there can be a combination of 1. "Prior Existence Rendering" & 2. " ‘I AM’ Rendering."

//The interpretation that the Jews tried to stone Jesus in verse 59 because they rightly understood him to be claiming the identity of their God is not and cannot be the simplest interpretation for one reason: It is not a plausible interpretation at all.//

My comments above shows why it's not implausible at all. Because in other locations in GJohn, but before and after John 8, there were attempts and intentions to kill Jesus on account of their impression that Jesus was claiming to be God (John 5:18; 10:33; 19:7).

John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."

Regarding John 19:7, I concede to Unitarians that the phrase "Son of God" with reference to Jesus often (usually?) refers to Jesus as the Messianic Davidic heir (esp. in the Synoptics). However, that can't be the sense here in John 19:7 because it wasn't a capital offense according to the Law to claim to be the messiah. Therefore, in this instance (and in other places in John [though not necessarily all]) the phrase "Son of God" is being used as a title with the connotation of a claim to Deity.

Regarding John 10:33, see this excellent article by Jonathan McLatchie, ""I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" (JOHN 10:30): A CLAIM TO DEITY?"

https://web.archive.org/web/20180806022624/http://apologetics-academy.org/blog/2016/2/19/i-and-the-father-are-one-john-1030-a-claim-to-deity

//However, given the Jews’ conception of God, this interpretation would simply not be possible for them given the content of Jesus’ own statements throughout the dispute.//

I disagree given the "Two Power in Heaven" view popular among many of the Jews prior to and during that time. A view also reflected in the Targums. Rabbinic Judaism is post-Christian. Second Temple Judaism [~500 BCE to ~100 CE] allowed for the orthodoxy of the Two Powers in Heaven doctrine whereby there was a Greater invisible Yahweh in heaven and a Lesser Yahweh who could visit earth and become visible. Some Jews held to it. Only with the popularity of Christianity was the doctrine deemed heretical by Jews in the 2nd century CE. When one examines the OT, the second Yahweh figure is attributed the same honor, worship, attributes, names, deeds & authority the first Yahweh figure does. Rogers makes a great arguments showing the 2nd Yahweh, the Angel of Yahweh is to be the Messiah.

Here's Segal's Two Powers in Heaven online in archive.org: https://archive.org/details/TwoPowersInHeavenEarlyRabSegal

Here's Old Testament scholar Michael Heiser's website where he introduces the Two Powers concept:

http://twopowersinheaven.com/

Word of the Lord in the Targums

http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm

//In all these statements, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his Father, making it plain that they are numerically distinct individuals. Given that the Trinitarian believes God to be one Being, but the Father and Son to be two Persons,...//

As I said, there are different Trinitarian models. Some flirt with nascent tritheism in that they, for all intents and purposes to the contrary, posit the persons of the Trinity as [or almost like] distinct entities with their own beings or substances. As I said, some of the church fathers expressed their Trinitarianism in ways kind of like this [with variations and permutations in both understanding and expression]. I'm open to those type of models, but like the quote says about [modern, usually Evangelical] Trinitarians, they believe the three distinct persons share one divine being [which is my default position]. That seems to better preserve monotheism without going in the other extreme of Modalism.

//While a modern Trinitarian might be able to sustain a belief that Jesus went on to identify himself as the One True God in spite of his explicit statement in this verse, the same could not be said for any ancient Jew. By explicitly identifying his Father, The Father, as the one whom these Jews said was their God, Jesus foreclosed on any possibility that they could then go on to understand him to be claiming the identity of that very same God when he used the utterly common words ego eimi just seconds later.//

ALSO

//It is not remotely plausible to think that an orthodox Jew of the 1st century, after hearing Jesus repeatedly and explicitly distinguish himself from the one he identified as God, would then go on to hear Jesus use the words ego eimi and suddenly place his comment into the context of a multi-personal Godhead, which would have been necessary in order to sustain the interpretation that Trinitarians allege here. Such a concept was simply not within the interpretive toolkit of 1st-century Jewish theology.//

Again, that's a non-sequitur given the Two Powers view. Genesis 19:24 is a classic passage that troubled and perplexed interestamental Jews, and upon which variations of the Two Powers view was grounded. Because it appears to describe two different persons named Yahweh/YHWH/Yehovah.

Gen. 19:24 Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Unitarians often claim this is a case of illeism. Michael R. Burgos Jr. wrote in chapter 2 of "Our God is Triune" regarding Gen. 19:24:

//Malone has attempted to explain the third person reference via illeism.[lxxxii] However, the explicit personal distinction in Genesis 19:24 annuls such a reading: “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven.” The prepositional phrase מֵאֵת יהוה מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם (“from Yahweh from heaven”) indicates via spatial and functional distinction that two persons who are both Yahweh are in view, namely, Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh.[lxxxiii] Aside from these examples, there are several other passages which indicate trinitarian plurality, if taken in tandem with the other biblical data.[lxxxiv]

ENDNOTES:

[lxxxii] Malone, Andrew S. 2009. “God the Illeist: Third Person Self-References and Trinitarian Hints in the Old Testament,” JETS, 52/3, 501. Elledge follows Malone here, and in his dissertation on the subject he completely neglects to assess the significance or impact of the divine Angel. Elledge, E. Roderick, The Illeism of Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of the Use of the Third-Person Self-Reference in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and its Implications for Christology, PhD Diss., 2015, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 4-5; 85-86.

//And if they couldn’t possibly have understood Jesus to be claiming the identity of the Father, then they could not possibly have understood him to be claiming the identity of God at all.//

But THAT'S EXACTLY what happens in the passages I cited and which are never brought up in the entire blog. Namely, John 5:18, 10:33, 19:7. In those passages the Jews see Jesus claiming to be both distinct from God/Father, yet also equal to the Father and in some sense God. It's a SERIOUS DEFECT in HeKS's analysis and interpretation to never bring up those passages. They are bright flashlights shedding much light on the interpretation of John 8:58. ONLY as HeKS interprets John 8 IN ISOLATION from the rest of GJohn, could he make his interpretation seem plausible. But when the rest of GJohn IS taken into consideration, the 'I AM' Rendering, or a combination of the 'I AM' Rendering with the Prior Existence Rendering makes more sense.

//The wholistic interpretation of John 8:58 that has been offered here, which includes the Prior Existence Rendering, shows that Jesus did not claim the identity of God in this verse and that it cannot reasonably be cited in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. However, it does not specifically contradict the Trinity doctrine either. When properly rendered and understood, this verse establishes that Jesus existed prior to his human birth and that his existence extended at least thousands of years into the past. This fact is certainly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity, but it is also consistent with the position of those millions of unitarian Christians around the world who accept Jesus’ preexistence but deny that he is Almighty God or that the Trinity is a properly Biblical doctrine. As such, this verse is actually irrelevant to the disagreement between the two groups on the issue of Christ’s ultimate identity [2].//

I'm glad that he concedes that his interpretation is compatible with Trinitarianism. I said nearly as much before, but I didn't know he would grant it. So then, there are then three options for Trinitarians:

1. the 'I AM' Rendering Alone,

2. the Prior Existence Rendering Alone, and

3. the Combination of both.

I lean toward the 3rd option in the way I explained in point #4 above. I didn't explicitly say earlier that the Prior Existence Rendering Alone was compatible with Trinitarianism, but it's understood given that I think both renderings could be combined. Though, I don't think it's likely given the evidence for the 'I AM' Rendering.

Wednesday, July 6, 2022

Jesus Is Yahweh: The Deity of Christ

Steven Bancarz is a former New Age teacher who converted [reverted back] to Christianity a few years ago. He was well known in the New Age community. He has grown in his understanding of Biblical Christianity to the point that his videos are now fairly orthodox. Here's a recent video of his where he explains and defends the full Deity of Jesus Christ as the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Jesus Is Yahweh: The Deity of Christ
https://youtu.be/tuEtWE2Y5ig

Thursday, July 15, 2021

John 9:9, ἐγὼ εἰμί, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) by Edward Dalcour

John 9:9, ἐγὼ εἰμί, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) by Edward Dalcour
https://christiandefense.org/trinity/john-99-and-the-jws/

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Brant Pitre on the Divinity of Jesus Revealed When He Walked On Water

As a Protestant I would obviously not agree with everything said/taught/written in Catholic scholar Brant Pitre's materials. Nevertheless, some of his arguments are worth sharing. There was a really good video on YouTube where Pitre defended Jesus' full Deity based on His walking on water after having fed the 5000, but the video was taken down. The following videos by Brant aren't as good as that original video, but they include some of his arguments.

Note, Jesus says "ego eimi" (I am or I AM) in all three Gospels that record this incident (Mark 6:50, Matt. 14:27 & John 6:20). In the following videos Pitre shows why the incident is meant to be understood to be a theophany. The coincidences are wayyyyy too many.

The first video comes close to addressing everything in the original video that I referred to above. The discussion of Jesus walking on water begins at 7 minutes and 20 seconds. But I recommend listening to the entire video.

The Case for Jesus Course Introduction: Is Jesus Divine in the Synoptic Gospels?
https://youtu.be/PCDXj3uaDC0

The next two videos are supplementary. The first video above expresses most of what I wanted to posted in this blogpost. This second video adds the point about how Jesus' statement "ego eimi" in response to the disciples' fear parallels Old Testament times when Almighty God would say "fear not." As well as how in the Old Testament the common human response to theophanies was for the humans encountering them to be afraid.

https://youtu.be/VB5gJU8s_us

This third video does better in explaining how Jesus meaning to "passing by" the boat is reminiscent of Yahweh passing by Elijah in the Old Testament.

https://youtu.be/P1uPqvaAck0

Friday, July 3, 2020

The Irony of the Jehovah's Witnesses' Name

https://youtu.be/iH2JR0JEnnY

SCREENSHOT

Can Unitarians really fault us Trinitarians for coming to the conclusions that we do given passages like this? There are so many ways the New Testament connects Jesus with Yahweh/Yehovah that it seems to stretch credulity that in every instance its a case of the Law of Agency/Shaliach Principle/agentival representation as Unitarians claim.

See my blogpost where I show many other ways the New Testament connects Jesus with YHVH.

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Friday, January 6, 2017

Bart Ehrman's Current Beliefs Regarding Jesus and His Divinity

click the link below:

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Bart Ehrman's Current Beliefs Regarding Jesus and His Divinity

↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

How Jesus Became God—or How God Became Jesus? A Review of Bart Ehrman’s New Book and a Concurrent Response

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Jesus as Yahweh/Jehovah Resources

This blogpost will be dedicated to collecting resources by other authors that strongly argue for Jesus being identified as Yahweh/Jehovah (at least in some sense). I have already written my own blogpost on the topic: Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

I'll be adding more as I have time.

Lord or Jehovah? Ephesians 6:1-9 in the New World Translation by Robert Bowman

Paul's Christology of Divine Identity by Bauckham
(Read it here or here, or here, or here, or here)

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Paul's Christology of Divine Identity by Richard Bauckham

I highly recommend reading Paul's Christology of Divine Identity by Richard Bauckham
(Read it here or here, or here, or here, or here)

see also my blogpost:

Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Worshipping a Merely Human Jesus Is Wrong No Matter How Exalted

The following is a copy and paste of my comments at Triablogue's blogpost: Dale Tuggy's Da Vinci Code

and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.- Rom. 1:23

Unitarians are so committed to their presuppositions that they're willing to deny the core Jewish and Christian ethic against creature worship based on the 1st & 2nd Commandments. Jews and the early Christians condemned 1. the Pagan use of idols along with the Pagan principle that they weren't worshipping the idols themselves but the gods they image/represent. 2. rejected Pagan Kings claiming to be gods (e.g. the latter Caesars). 3. rejected worship of humans exalted via apotheosis. The Jews & Christians understanding that to promote those would fall into the very lie of the serpent of Genesis that it's possible, regarding humans, that "ye shall be as gods/God/elohim."

The Jews complained to God that they didn't have a human king from among their people like the surrounding nations. God told Samuel, "...'Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them' " (1 Sam. 8:7). In many (not all) forms of Unitarianism Jesus is neither fully God nor fully man (or remains a man). Whereas in the Trinitarian incarnation both are fulfilled in that 1. the Jews do have a Jewish human Messiah as their King, and 2. God himself (the second person of the Trinity) rules over them (and the rest of the world) in a direct theocracy at the eschaton.

In fact, God literally walks among them (via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Christ in the flesh) as Paul quotes the OT in 2 Cor. 6:16, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Similar to how Jehovah/Yahweh was wont to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8), or as He talked with Abraham in bodiy form (Gen. 18:22-33). Solomon said, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" (1 King. 8:27). Yet we know that God's presence entered that temple. Christ the New Temple of the New Covenant is greater than the old temple (Matt. 12:6) because God Himself literally dwells in the body of Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9).

Rev. 21:3 states, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God." Notice that the dwelling place of God is a HE. Who else can that "HE" be but Christ who is "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). The Divine Logos Himself become flesh and taburnacling as God among us (John 1:14). According to 2. Thess. 2:3-4, Satan, wanting to mimic Jesus, attempts to set up a lawless man who proclaims himself to be Almighty God in God's temple (whatever that temple might be, whether a building or within the Church). If the man of lawless is mimicking Jesus by claiming to be Almighty God, then Jesus must be Almighty God. This might be further corroborated if the man of lawless is an or (even THE) anti-Christ. Since, "anti" here most likely means "in the place/stead of" rather than "against" the true Christ.

I mentioned three basic types of pagan idolatries. Most versions of Unitarianism commit one or more of those errors but instead of a pagan God with a pagan image, they attempt to worship the Christian God with Christ as the image. The problem is, unless Jesus is truly God, he would be a false image of God rather than the VERY image of God. Only God can truly and perfectly reflect and reveal God. The whole purpose of the prohibition of creating physical images of Yahweh is that they don't adequately convey the glory, majesty and transcendence of God. This isn't the case under Trinitarian incarnation.

15 "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them....- Deut. 4:15-19a

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Christophaneia, or The Doctrine of the Manifestations of the Son of God Under the Economy of the Old Testament by George Balderston Kidd

Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following work by Walsh has some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

Click on the following link to view Christophaneia, or The Doctrine of the Manifestations of the Son of God Under the Economy of the Old Testament by George Balderston Kidd https://archive.org/details/doctrinemanifes00dobbgoog

The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

The author lived from 1820 to 1902. This is NOT the same person as W. S. Pakenham-Walsh who lived from 1868 to 1960.

Like all older defenses of the doctrine of the Trinity, the following work by Walsh has some deficiencies and problems which I point out in my blog:

Problematic Passages Used In Defense of the Trinity

Click on the following link to view The Angel of the Lord; or Manifestations of Christ in the Old Testament by W. Pakenham Walsh

https://books.google.com/books?id=RKICAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Angel of the LORD by E.W. Hengstenberg

The following is an excerpt from E.W. Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament. The text below is copy and pasted from the version HERE. All four volumes available HERE.

I've highlighted some passages that I felt should be emphasized using two colors. Yellow for passages that would be more consistent with Trinitarianism. Light Purple for passages that would be more consistent with Unitarianism.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IN THE PENTATEUCH, AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.

The New Testament distinguishes between the hidden God and the revealed God—the Son or Logos—who is connected with the former by oneness of nature, and who from everlasting, and even at the creation itself, filled up the immeasurable distance between the Creator and the creation;—who has been the Mediator in all God's relations to the world;—who at all times, and even before He became man in Christ, has been the light of [Pg 116] the world,—and to whom, specially, was committed the direction of the economy of the Old Covenant.

It is evident that this doctrine stands in the closest connection with the Christology,—that it forms, indeed, its theological foundation and ground-work. Until the Christology has attained to a knowledge of the true divinity of the Saviour, its results cannot be otherwise than very meagre and unsatisfactory. Wheresoever the true state of human nature is seen in the light of Holy Scripture, no high expectations can be entertained from a merely human Saviour, although he were endowed even with as full a measure of the gifts of the Spirit of God as human nature, in its finite and sinful condition, is able to bear. But unless there exist in the one divine Being itself, such a distinction of persons, the divinity of the Saviour cannot be acknowledged, without endangering the unity of God which the Scriptures so emphatically teach. If, however, there be such a distinction,—if the Word be indeed with God, we cannot avoid ascribing to God the desire of revealing Himself; nor, in such a case, can we conceive that He should content Himself with inferior forms of revelation, with merely transitory manifestations. We can recognise in these only preparations, and preludes of the highest and truest revelation.

The question then is, whether any insight into this doctrine is to be found as early as in the Books of the Old Testament. Sound Christian Theology has discovered the outlines of such a distinction betwixt the hidden and the revealed God, in many passages of the Old Testament, in which mention is made of the Angel or Messenger of God. The general tenor of these passages will be best exemplified by the first among them,—the narrative of Hagar in Gen. xvi. In ver. 7, we are told that the Angel of Jehovah found Hagar. In ver. 10, this Angel ascribes to Himself a divine work, viz., the innumerable increase of Hagar's posterity. In ver. 11, He says that Jehovah had heard her distress. He thus asserts of Jehovah what, shortly before. He had said of Himself. Moreover, in ver. 13, Hagar expresses her astonishment that she had seen God, and yet had remained alive.—The opinion that these passages form the Old Testament foundation for the Proemium of St John's Gospel, has not remained uncontroverted. From the very times of the Church-fathers it has been asserted by many, that where the [Pg 117] Angel of the Lord is spoken of, we must not think of a person connected with God by unity of nature, but of a lower angel, by whom God executes His commands, and through whom He acts and speaks. The latest defenders of the view are Hofmann in "Weissagung und Erfüllung" and in the "Schriftbeweis" and Delitzsch in his commentary on Genesis.—Others are of opinion, that the Angel of Jehovah is identical with Jehovah Himself,—not denoting a person distinct from Him, but only the form in which He manifests Himself. We shall not here discuss the question in its whole extent; we shall, in the meantime, consider only what the principal passages of the Pentateuch and of the adjacent Book of Joshua teach upon this point, and how far their teaching coincides with, or is in opposition to, these various views. For it is only to this extent that the inquiry belongs to our present object.

In Gen. xvi. 13, these words are of special importance: "And she called the name of the Lord who spoke unto her, Thou art a God of sight: for she said, Do I now (properly here, in the place where such a sight was vouchsafed to me) still see after my seeing?" "Do I see" is equivalent to, "Do I live," because death threatened, as it were, to enter through the eyes. (Compare the expression, "Mine eyes have seen," in Is. vi.) רֹאִי is the pausal form for רֳאִי; see Job xxxiii. 21, where, however, the accent is on the penultimate. Then follows ver. 14: They called the well, "Well of the living sight;" i.e., where a person had a sight of God, and remained alive.

Hagar must have been convinced that she had seen God without the mediation of a created angel; for, otherwise, she could not have wondered that her life was preserved. Man, entangled by the visible world, is terrified when he comes in contact with the invisible world, even with angels. (Compare Dan. viii. 17, 18; Luke ii. 9.) But this terror rises to fear of death only when man comes into contact with the Lord Himself. (Compare the remarks on Rev. i. 17.) In Gen. xxxii. 31—a passage which bears the closest resemblance to the one now under review, and from which it receives its explanation—it is said: "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, for I have seen God face to face, and my life has been preserved." In Exod. xx. 19, the children of Israel said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear; and let not God speak with us, [Pg 118] lest we die;" compared with Deut. v. 21: "Now therefore why should we die? for this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die." (Compare also Deut. xviii. 16.) And it is Jehovah who, in Exod. xxxiii. 20, says, "There shall no man see Me and live." Israel's Lord and God is, in the absolute energy of His nature, a "consuming fire," Deut. iv. 24. (Compare Deut. ix. 3; Is. xxxiii. 14: "Who among us would dwell with the devouring fire? who among us would dwell with everlasting burning?" Heb. xii. 29.) It is not the reflected light, even in the most exalted creatures, nor the sight of the saints of whom it is said, "Behold, He puts no trust in His servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly,"—but the sight of the thrice Holy One, which makes Isaiah exclaim, "Woe is me, for I am undone; for I am a man of unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips."

So much then is clear,—that the opinion which considers the Angel of the Lord to be a created angel is overthrown by the first passage where that angel is mentioned, if the exposition which we have given of vers. 13, 14—an exposition which is now generally received, and which was last advanced by Knobel—be correct. But Delitzsch gives another exposition: "Thou art a God of sight," i.e., one whose all-seeing eye does not overlook the helpless and destitute, even in the remotest corner of the wilderness." Against this we remark, that ראי never denotes the act of seeing, but the sight itself. "Have I not even here (even in the desert land of destitution) looked after Him who saw me?" "Well of the living one who seeth me," i.e., of the omnipresent divine providence. In opposition to this exposition, however, we must remark, that God is nowhere else in Genesis called the Living One. But our chief objection is, that these expositions destroy the connection which so evidently exists between our passage and those already quoted,—especially Gen. xxxii. 31; Exod. xxxiii. 20. (Compare, moreover, Jud. xiii. 22: "And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.")

It has been asked. Why should the Logos have appeared first to the Egyptian maid? But the low condition of Hagar cannot here come into consideration; for the appearance is in reality intended, not for her, but for Abraham. Immediately [Pg 119] before, in chap. xii. 7, it is said, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham;" and immediately after, in chap. xvii. 1, "And when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to him;" the appearance of the Lord Himself is mentioned in order that every thought of a lower angel may be warded off. The passage under consideration, then, contains the indication, that such appearances must only be conceived of as manifestations of the Deity Himself to the world. Just as our passage is preserved from erroneous interpretations by such passages as Gen. xii. 7, xvii. 1, so these receive from ours, in return, their most distinct definition. We learn from this, that wherever appearances of Jehovah are mentioned, we must conceive of them as effected by the mediation of His Angel. There is no substantial difference betwixt the passages in which Jehovah Himself is mentioned, and those in which the Angel of Jehovah is spoken of. They serve to supplement and to explain one another. The words, "In His Angel," in chap. xvi. 7, furnish us with the supplement to the succeeding statement, "And Jehovah appeared to him" (so, e.g., also in chap. xviii. 1), just as the writer in Gen. chap. ii. iii. makes use of the name Jehovah-Elohim, in order that henceforth every one may understand that where only Jehovah is spoken of. He is yet personally identical with Elohim.

Let us now turn to Gen. xviii. xix. According to Delitzsch. all the three men who appeared to Abraham were "finite spirits made visible." Hofmann (Schriftb. S. 87) says: "Jehovah is present on earth in His angels, in the two with Lot, as in the three with Abraham." We, however, hold fast by the view of the ancient Church, that in chap. xviii. the Logos appeared accompanied by two inferior angels.

Abraham's regards are, from the very first, involuntarily directed to one from among the three, and whom he addresses by אֲדוֹנָי, O Lord (xviii. 3); the two others are considered by him as companions only. But Lot has to do with both equally, and addresses them first by אֲדוֹנַי, my Lords.—In chap. xviii., it is always one only of the three who speaks; the two others are mute;^[1] while in chap. xix. everything comes from the two [Pg 120] equally. He with whom Abraham has to do, always, and without exception, speaks as God Himself; while the two with whom Lot has to do speak at first, as λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα, distinguishing themselves from the Lord who sent them (compare ver. 13); and it is only after they have thus drawn the line of separation between themselves and Jehovah, that they appear, in vers. 21, 22, as speaking in His name. They do so, moreover, only after Lot, in the anxiety of his heart and in his excitement, had previously addressed, in them, Him who sent them, and with whom he desired to have to do as immediately as possible. The scene bears, throughout, a character of excitement, and is not fitted to afford data for general conclusions. We cannot infer from it that it was, in general, customary to address, in the angels, the Lord who sent them, or that the angels acted in the name of the Lord. In chap. xviii., from ver. 1, where the narrative begins with the words, "And Jehovah appeared unto him," Moses always speaks of him with whom Abraham had to do as Jehovah only, excepting where he introduces the three men. (He with whom Abraham has to do is called, not fewer than eight times, Jehovah, and six times אֲדוֹנָי.) But in chap. xix., Jehovah, who is concealed behind the two angels, appears only twice in the expression, "And He said," in vers. 17, 21, for which ver. 13 suggests the supplement: "through His two angels."—Even in ver. 16, the narrative distinguishes Jehovah from the two men,—and all this in an exciting scene which must have influenced even the narrator. If he who spoke to Abraham was an angel like the other two, we could scarcely perceive any reason why he should not have taken part in the mission to Sodom; but if he was the Angel of the Lord κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, the reason is quite obvious; it would have been inconsistent with divine propriety.—In chap. xviii. Moses speaks of three men; it is evidently on [Pg 121] purpose that he avoids speaking of three angels. In chap. xix. 1, on the contrary, we are at once told: "And there came the two angels." (Compare ver. 15.) The reason why in chap. xviii. the use of the name angels is avoided can only be, because it might easily have led to a misunderstanding, if the Angel of the Lord had been comprehended in that one designation along with the two inferior angels, although it would not, in itself, have been inadmissible.—If we suppose that he, with whom Abraham had to do, was some created angel, we cannot well understand how, in chap. xviii. 17 seq., the judgment over Sodom could, throughout, be ascribed to him. He could not, in the name of the Lord, speak of that judgment, as not he, but the two other angels who went to Sodom, were the instruments of its execution. Hence it only remains to ascribe the judgment to him as the causa principalis.—If the three angels were equals, it would be impossible to explain the adversative clause in chap. xviii. 22: "And the men turned from thence and went to Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the Lord." Jehovah and the two angels are here contrasted. It is true that, in the two angels also, it is Jehovah who acts. This is evident from xviii. 21: "I will go down and see"—where the going down does not refer to descending to the valley of Jordan, the position of which was lower (thus Delitzsch); but, according to xi. 7, it refers to a descent from heaven to earth. That Jehovah, though on earth, should declare His resolution to go down, as in xi. 7, may be explained from the ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ in John iii. 13. God, even when He is on earth, remains in heaven, and it is thence that He manifests Himself. Moreover, the words immediately following show in what sense this going down is to be understood,—that it is not in His own person, but through the medium of His messengers. The resolution, "I will go down," is carried into effect by the going down of the angels to Sodom.

By the Jehovah who, from Jehovah out of heaven, caused brimstone and fire to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah (xix. 24), we are not at liberty to understand the two angels only,^[2] but, [Pg 122] agreeably to the views of sound Christian expositors generally, Christ,—with this modification, however, that the two angels are to be considered as His servants, and that what they do is His work also. It is true that the angels say, in xix. 13, "We will destroy," etc.; but much more emphatically and frequently does he with whom Abraham has to do, ascribe the work of destruction to himself. (Compare xviii. 17, where Jehovah says, "How can I hide from Abraham that thing which I am doing?" vers. 24-28, etc.) If in xix. 24 there be involved the contrast between, so to speak, the heavenly and earthly Jehovah,—between the hidden God and Him who manifests Himself on earth,—then so much the more must we seek the latter in chap. xviii., as in ver. 22, compared with ver. 21, the angels are distinctly pointed out as His Messengers.

Delitzsch asserts that in Heb. xiii. 2, the words, ἔλαθόν τινες ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους, clearly indicate that "all three were finite spirits made visible." This assertion, however, which was long before made by the Socinian Crellius, has been sufficiently refuted by Ode de Angelis, p. 1001. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews intends to connect the events which happened to Abraham and Lot equally—τίνες; and for this reason he did not go beyond what was common to them both. Moreover, the Angel of the Lord is likewise comprehended in the appellation "angels," for the name has no reference to the nature, but to the mission.

^[1] The words in ver. 9, "And they said to him," are to be understood only thus:—that one spoke at the same time in the name of the others; in the question thus put, it is, in the first instance, only the general relation of the guests to the hostess that comes into consideration. That such is the case, appears from ver. 10, where the use of the plural could not be continued, because a work was on hand which was peculiar to the one among them, and in which the others were not equally concerned. If the words in ver. 9 were spoken by all the three, then the one in ver. 10 ought to have been singled out thus: "And one from among them thus spoke." On account of the suffix in אחריו, "And the door was behind him," the ויאמר in ver. 10 can be referred only to the one, and not to the Jehovah concealed behind all the three. This shows how the preceding, "And they said," is to be understood.

^[2] Delitzsch says: "As the two are really sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, it is evident that Jehovah, in ver. 24, who causes brimstone and fire to rain from Jehovah out of heaven, is viewed as being present in the two on earth, but in such a manner that, nevertheless, His real judicial throne is in heaven."

Of no less importance and significance is the passage Gen. xxxi. 11 seq. According to ver. 11, the Angel of God, מלאך האלהים, appears to Jacob in a dream. In ver. 13, the same person calls himself the God of Bethel, with reference to the event recorded in chap. xxviii. 11-22. It cannot be supposed that in chap xxviii. the mediation of a common angel took place, who, however, had not been expressly mentioned; for Jehovah is there contrasted with the angels. In ver. 12, we read: "And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it." In ver. 13, there is another sight: "And behold Jehovah stood by him and said, I am Jehovah, the God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed."

[Pg 123]

This passage is also in so far of importance, because, agreeably to what has been remarked in p. 119, it follows from it that even there, where Jehovah simply is mentioned, the mediation through His Angel is to be assumed.

He with whom Jacob wrestles, in Gen. xxxii. 24, makes himself known as God, partly by giving him the name Israel, i.e., one who wrestles with God, and partly by bestowing a blessing upon him. Jacob calls the place Peniel, i.e., face of God, because he had seen God face to face, and wonders that his life was preserved. The answer which Elohim gives here to Jacob's question regarding His name, remarkably coincides with that which in Judges xiii. 17, 18, is given by the Angel of the Lord to a similar question. In Hosea xii. 4 (comp. the remarks on this passage in the Author's "Genuineness of the Pentateuch," vol. i. p. 128 ff.), he who wrestled with Jacob is called Elohim, as in Genesis; but in ver. 5, he is called מלאך, a word which is more distinctly defined by the preceding Elohim; so that we can, accordingly, think only of the Angel of God. As it was certainly not the intention of the prophet to state a new historical circumstance, the mention of the Angel must be founded upon the supposition, that all revelations of God are made by the mediation of His Angel,—a supposition which we have already proved to have its foundation in the book of Genesis itself.

Delitzsch says, S. 256, "Jehovah reveals Himself in the מלאך, but just by means of a finite spirit becoming visible, and therefore in a manner more tolerable to him who occupies a lower place of communion with God." And similarly, Hofmann expresses himself, S. 335: "It is quite the same thing whether it be said, he saw God, or an angel, as is testified by Hosea also; and nowhere have we less right to explain it as if it were an appearance of God the Son, in contrast with the appearance of an angel."

But since it is an essentially different matter, whether Jacob wrestled with God Himself, or, in the first instance, with an ordinary angel merely, we have, as regards this opinion, only the choice between accusing the prophet Hosea, who brought in the angel, of an Euhemerismus, or of raising against sacred history the charge that it cannot be relied on, because it omitted so important [Pg 124] a circumstance. The name Israel, by which, "at the same time, the innermost nature of the covenant-people was fixed, and the divine law of their history was established" (Delitzsch), is, in that case, a falsehood. Jacob has overcome omnipotence, and, in this one adversary, all others who might oppose him,—as he is expressly assured in ver. 29: "Thou hast wrestled with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Can God invest a creature with omnipotence? Jacob would certainly not have gone so cheerfully to meet Esau, if in Him over whom he prevailed with weeping and supplication, he himself had recognised only an angel, and not Jehovah the God of hosts, as Hosea, in ver. 6, calls the very same, of whom in ver. 5 he had spoken as the angel. The consolatory import of the event for the Church of all times is destroyed, if Jacob had to do with a created angel only. With such an one, Jacob had not to reckon on account of his sinfulness, and it is just the humiliating consciousness of this his sinfulness which forms the point at issue in his wrestling. Moreover, with such a view, the New Testament Antitype would be altogether lost. Jesus, the true Israel, does not wrestle with an angel,—such an one only appears to strengthen Him in His struggle, Luke xxii. 43—but with God, Heb. v. 7.—The occurrence would, according to this opinion, furnish a strong argument for the worship of angels: "He wept and made supplication unto him," Hos. xii. 5 (compare Deut. iii. 23). The ἀγωνίζεσθαι ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς, mentioned in Col. iv. 12, in allusion to our passage, would, in that case, besides God, have the angels for its object.

If an ordinary angel were here to be understood, we must likewise believe that an angel is spoken of in Gen. xxxv. 9 seq. For, of the same angel with whom Jacob wrestled, Hosea says that Jacob found him in Bethel: "And he wrestled with the Angel and prevailed, he wept and made supplication unto him; he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us." (Tarnov: "Nobiscum qui in lumbis Jacobi hærebamus.") Then, it must have been a common angel, too, who appeared to Jacob in Gen. xxviii. 10 ff.; for chap. xxxv. 9, compared with ver. 7, does not allow us to doubt of the identity of him who appeared on these two occasions. But such an idea cannot be entertained for a moment; for in chap. xxviii. 13, Jehovah is contrasted with the angels ascending and descending on the ladder.

[Pg 125]

In Gen. xlviii. 15, 16, we read of Jacob: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, and the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads."

In this passage, God first appears, twice in the indefiniteness of His nature, and then, specially, as the Angel concerned for Jacob and his posterity.

By the Angel, we cannot here understand a divine emanation and messenger, because no permanent character belongs to such; while here the whole sum of the preservations of Jacob, and of the blessings upon Ephraim and Manasseh, is derived from the Angel. And just as little can we thereby understand a created angel, according to the view of Hofmann, who, in S. 87, says: "Jacob here makes mention of God, not thrice, but twice only; first as the God of his fathers, and then as the God of his own experience, but in such a way that in ver. 16 he names, instead of God, the Angel who watched over him; and he does so for the purpose of denoting the special providence of which he had been the object."

The analogy of the threefold blessing of Aaron in Num. vi. 24-26 would lead us to expect that the name of God should be three times mentioned. No created angel could in this manner be placed by the side of God, or be introduced as being independent of, and co-ordinate with, Him. Such an angel can only be meant as is connected with God by oneness of nature, and whose activity is implied in that of God. The singular יברך is here of very special significance. It indicates that the Angel is joined to God by an inseparable oneness, and that his territory is just as wide as that of Elohim.^[1] If by the angel we understand some created one, we cannot then avoid the startling inference, that God is, in all His manifestations, bound [Pg 126] absolutely to the mediation of the lower angels. In the history upon which Jacob looks back, the inferior angels do not appear at all as taking any part in all the preservations of Jacob. Twice only are they mentioned in his whole history,—in chap. xxviii. 12, and xxxii. 2. Lastly,—The angel cannot well be a collective noun; for we nowhere meet with the ideal person of the angel, as comprehending within himself a real plurality. (Compare remarks on Ps. xxxiv. 8.) We should therefore be compelled to think of Jacob's protecting angel. But this, again, would be in opposition to the fact, that Scripture nowhere says anything of the guardian angels of any individual. Moreover, it is a plurality of angels that in xxviii. 12, xxxii. 2, serves for the protection of Jacob, and we nowhere find the slightest trace of one inferior angel being attached to Jacob for his protection.

^[1] This significance of the singular was pointed out as early as in the third century by Novatianus, who, de Trinitate c. xv. (p. 1016 in Ode), says: "So constant is he in mentioning that Angel whom he had called God, that even at the close of his speech he again refers, in an emphatic manner, to the same person, by saying, 'God bless these lads.' For had he intended that some other angel should be understood, he would have used the plural number in order to comprehend the two persons. But since, in his blessing, he made use of the singular, he would have us to understand that God and the Angel are quite identical."

In Exod. xxiii. 20, 21, Jehovah says to the children of Israel: "Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions: for My name is in him."

As the people are here told to beware of the Angel, because he will not pardon their transgressions, so Joshua xxiv. 19 warns them as regards the most high God: "Ye will not be able to serve Jehovah: for He is a holy (i.e., a glorious, exalted) God; He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins." The energetic character of the reaction proceeding from the angel against all violations of His honour, is founded upon the words, "For My name is in him." By the "name of God" all His deeds are understood and comprehended, His glory testified by history, the display and testimony of His nature which history gives. (Compare the remarks in my commentary on Ps. xxiii. 2, xlviii. 11, lxxxiii. 17-19, lxxxvi. 11.) "My name is him;" i.e., according to Calvin, "My glory and majesty dwell in him." Compare here what in the New Testament is said of Christ: ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ, John v. 19; ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα, John v. 23; ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν, John x. 30; ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κᾀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ, [Pg 127] John x. 38; οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστι, John xiv. 10; καθὼς σὺ πάτερ ἐν ἐμοὶ κᾀγὼ ἐν σοί, John xvii. 21; ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, Col. ii. 9.—It is impossible that the name of God could be communicated to any other, Is. xlii. 8. The name of God can dwell in Him only, who is originally of the same nature with God.

After Israel had contracted guilt by the worship of the golden calf. He who had hitherto led them—Jehovah = the Angel of Jehovah—says, in Exod. xxxii. 34, that He would no more lead them Himself, but send before them His Angel, מלאכי: "For I (myself) will not go up in the midst of thee, for thou art a stiff-necked people, lest I consume thee in the way;" xxxiii. 3, compared with xxiii. 21. The people are quite inconsolable on account of this sad intelligence, ver. 4.

The threatening of the Lord becomes unintelligible, and the grief of the people incomprehensible, if by the Angel in chap. xxiii. an ordinary angel be understood. But everything becomes clear and intelligible, if we admit that in chap. xxiii. there is an allusion to the Angel of the Lord κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, who is connected with Him by oneness of nature, and who, because the name of God is in Him, is as zealous as Himself in inflicting punishment as well as in bestowing salvation; whilst in chap. xxxii. 34, the allusion is to an inferior angel, who is added to the highest revealer of God as His companion and messenger, and who appears in the Book of Daniel under the name of Gabriel, while the Angel of the Lord appears under the name of Michael.

On account of the sincere repentance of the people, and the intercession of Moses, the Lord revokes the threatening, and says in xxxiii. 14, "My face shall go." But Moses said unto Him, "If Thy face go not, carry us not up hence."

That פנים, face, signifies here the person, is granted by Gesenius: "The face of some one means often his personal presence,—himself in his own person." A similar use of the word occurs in 2 Sam. xvii. 11: "Thy face go to battle" (Michaelis: "Thou thyself be present, not some commander only"); and in Deut. iv. 37, where בפניו means in, or with, his personal presence: "He [Pg 128] brought them out with His face, with His mighty power out of Egypt."

The state of things has in xxxiii. 14, 15, evidently become again what it was in xxiii. 20, 21. The face of the Lord in the former passage, is the Angel of the Lord in the latter. Hence, we cannot here admit the idea of some inferior angel; we can think only of that Angel who is connected with the Lord by oneness of nature.

The connection between the face of the Lord in xxxiii. 14, 15, and the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord, in xxiii., becomes still more evident by Is. lxiii. 8, 9: "And He (Jehovah) became their Saviour. In all their affliction (they were) not afflicted, and the Angel of His face saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them, and He bore and carried them all the days of old." The Angel of the face, in this text, is an expression which, by its very darkness, points back to some fundamental passage—a passage, too, in the Pentateuch—as facts are alluded to, of which the authentic report is given in that book. The expression, "Angel of the face," arose from a combination of Exod. xxiii. 20—from which the "Angel" is taken—and Exod. xxxiii. 14, whence he took the "face." To explain "Angel of the face" by "the angel who sees His face," as several have done, would give an inadequate meaning; for by the whole context, an expression is demanded which would elevate the angel to the height of God. Now, as in Exod. xxxiii. 14, "the face of Jehovah" is tantamount to "Jehovah in His own person," the Angel of the face can be none other than He in whom Jehovah appeal's [typo correction: should read "appears"] personally, in contrast with inferior created angels. The Angel of the face is the Angel in whom is the name of the Lord.

When Joshua was standing with the army before Jericho, in a state of despondency at the sight of the strongly fortified city, a man appeared to him, with his sword drawn; and when he was asked by Joshua, "Art thou for us or for our adversaries?" he answers, in chap. v. 14, "Nay, for I am the Captain of the host of Jehovah, שר צבא יהוה, now I have come." This Captain claims for himself divine honour, in ver. 15, precisely in the same manner as the Angel of Jehovah in Exod. iii., by commanding [Pg 129] Joshua to put off his shoes, because the place on which he stood was holy. In chap. vi. 2 he is called Jehovah. For it is evident that we are not to think of another divine revelation there given to Joshua in any other way—as some interpreters suppose; because, in that case, the appearance of the Captain, who only now gives command to Joshua, would have been without an object. In chap. v. the directions would be wanting; in chap. vi. we should have no report of the appearance.

There can be no doubt that, by the host of the Lord, the heavenly host is to be understood; and Hofmann (S. 291) has not done well in reviving the opinion of some older expositors (Calvin, Masius) which has been long ago refuted, viz., that the host of the Lord is "Israel standing at the beginning of his warfare," and in asserting that the prince of this host is some inferior angel. The Israelites cannot be the host of the Lord, that explanation is excluded by the comparison with the host of the Lord mentioned at the very threshold of revelation, in Gen. ii. 1; that which is commonly (Gen. xxxii. 2; 1 Kings xxii. 19; Neh. ix. 6; Ps. ciii. 21, cxlviii. 2, compared with 2 Kings vi. 27) so called, infinitely surpasses the earthly one in glory, and of it the Lord has the name Jehovah Zebaoth. It is only in two isolated passages of the Pentateuch that the appellation which properly belongs to the heavenly hosts of God is transferred to the earthly ones; and that is done in order to point out their correspondence, and thereby to elevate the mind. In the first of these passages, Exod. vii. 4, the "host of the Lord" is not spoken of absolutely, but it is expressly said what host is intended: "And I bring forth My host. My people, the children of Israel." The second passage, in Exod. xii. 41, is similarly qualified, and refers to the first. According to this view of Hofmann, the words, "now I have come," are quite inexplicable.^[1] The Captain of the host of the Lord expresses Himself in such a manner as if, by His coming, everything were accomplished. But if he was only the commander of Israel—an inferior [Pg 130] angel—his coming was no guarantee for success, for his limited power might be checked by a higher one. But if the Captain of the host of Jehovah be the Prince of angels, we cannot by any means refer the divine honour which He demands and receives, to Him who sent Him, in contrast with Him who is sent; the higher the dignity, the more necessary is the limitation. If the honour be ascribed to Him, He must be a partaker of a divine nature.

Jesus not at all indistinctly designates Himself as the Captain of the Lord's host spoken of in our passage, in Matt. xxvi. 53: Ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι ἄρτι παρακαλέσαι τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ παραστήσει μοι πλείους ἢ δώδεκα λεγεῶνας ἀγγέλων; This passage alone would be sufficient to refute the view which conceives of the Angel of the Lord as a mere emanation and messenger. It also overthrows the opinion that he is an inferior angel, inasmuch as the Angel of the Lord here appears as raised above all inferior angels.

Thus there existed, even in the time of Moses, the most important foundation for the doctrine concerning Christ. He who knows the general relation which the Pentateuch bears to the later development of doctrine, will, a priori, think it impossible that it should have been otherwise; and, instead of neglecting these small beginnings, appearing, as it were, in the shape of germs, he will cultivate them with love and care.

It is only at a late period, in Malachi iii. 1, that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord is expressly brought into connection with that of Christ. But a knowledge of the divine nature of the Messiah is found at a much earlier period; and we can certainly not suppose that the doctrine of the Angel of the Lord, and that of a truly divine Saviour, should have existed by the side of each other, and yet that manifold forebodings regarding their close obvious connection should not have been awakened in the mind.

^[1] Seb. Schmid says: "I have now come with my heavenly host to attack the Canaanites, and to help thee and thy people. Be thou of good cheer; prepare thyself for war along with me, and I will now explain to thee in what manner thou must carry it on;" vi. 2 ff.

See also the following blogposts:

Table Trinity Notes