Composed by: Rev. Chris Pickens
Who
was Jesus?
The
actual name of Jesus did NOT exist! There never WAS a Jesus as we
know of him in today's time.
And
the name of Jesus did not actually exist. His name would have been in
Greek as Iesus, or Lesus, not Jesus as
there was no "J" in the Greek language when the Bible was
written. Also remember, the religion that Jesus was taught growing up
was Judaism. He was Jewish! His name was NOT even Iesus, or Lesus,
but Yeshua. Yeshua translated into English is Joshua. The New
Testament was written in Greek originally. In Aramaic, his name was
Yeshua. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Yiddish all seem to follow roughly the
same phonetic pronunciations as German. Such as in the same way the
we think of "Ya" in English, it would be pronounced as "Ja"
in Aramaic, Hebrew, Yiddish, and German. The letter "Y"
has/had a "J" sound, "W" had/has a "V"
sound, etc. Thus Yeshua would actually be pronounced Jeshua. If you
actually translate the name of Jeshua into English, you get Joshua!
In Biblical times, he would have not been known as Jesus. This name
is actually a mistranslated from one language to another to another.
The person of "Jesus" as we know him was actually named
Joshua!
It's
not the first time this happened in translations of biblical texts.
In
the Old Testament, the God named Yahweh in some translations is
called Jehovah. Give the "J" a "Y" sound, and the
"V" a "W" sound, play with the phonetic sounding
with the word, and you get something that would sound similar to
"Yaovey" which would be Yahweh. The "H" in either
case would be silent.
Also
remember, the Hebrew language is read from right to left, not left to
right. Thus Jesus Christ would in fact be Christ Jesus.
Another
thing too, "Christ" is not a name, it is in fact a title,
like Reverand or Pope. Translated, it means "Anointed One".
As such, his name should be translated as The Christ Jesus, or Jesus
the Christ.
John
10:36~ "Whom the Father hath sanctified"
- The word sanctify” with us means to make holy; but this is not
its meaning here, for the Son of God was always holy. The original
word means to set apart from a common to a sacred use; to devote to a
sacred purpose, and to designate or consecrate to a holy office. This
is the meaning here. God has consecrated or appointed his Son to be
his Messenger or Messiah to mankind.
________________________________________________________
Did
the Christ have long hair?
Christ
DID have long hair, but it does not go about telling you in detail
about that. Try looking for a verse that tells you this. You will not
find it. It was thought that having long hair was a disgrace to men.
Please turn to 1 Corinthians 9:1 and notice the Apostle Paul states
in this verse that he has seen the Lord.
Two
chapters later in 11:14-15 he states,
"Doth
not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair it is
a shame unto him? But if the woman have long hair, it is a glory to
her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."
However,
May I remind everyone of the Vow of the Nazirite?
The
Nazirite/Nazarite vow is taken by individuals who have voluntarily
dedicated themselves to God. The vow is a decision, action, and
desire on the part of people whose desire is to yield themselves to
God completely. By definition, the Hebrew word nazir, simply means
“to be separated or consecrated.” The man or woman who took the
Nazirite vow took an oath to separate himself or herself from the
world, and even at times from close kinship affiliation, to serve
only Yahweh. The Bible says, "Speak to the
Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a
special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite.’”
~Numbers 6:2.
This
shows that it is individuals who take the initiative to consecrate
themselves to the Lord. There is no divine command involved. Numbers
continues with verse 5: "While he is under
the Nazirite Vow, no razor shall touch his head. Until the period of
his dedication to the Lord is over, he shall be sacred and Holy, and
shall let the locks of his hair grow freely."
There
are other stipulations too. The Nazirite was forbidden to eat or
drink anything from the grape vine; this was a form of self-denial
connected with the idea of a special consecration to God. One under
the vow should abstain from drinking wine and fermented liquor,
including vinegar derived from either wine or any fermented liquor,
and will abstain from eating grapes fresh or dried or eat anything
that comes from the vine. However, According to traditional Rabbinic
interpretation, there is no prohibition for the Nazirite to drink
alcoholic beverages not derived from grapes. And to me, the strangest
one: For the entire period of the vow, he must not come in contact
with a corpse. He is to remain ritually clean and cannot defile his
ritual cleanliness even in the event a parent or sibling dies.
In
terms of separation from one's family in service to Yahweh the term
nazir is used of Joseph, son of Jacob/Israel, in Genesis 49:26
and in Deuteronomy 33:16, and therefore the special service of a
Nazirite may very well predate the Sinai Covenant:
"...blessings
of the grain and flowers, blessings of the eternal mountains, bounty
of the everlasting hills, may they descend on Joseph's head, on the
crown of the one dedicated (or consecrated, nazir)
from among his brothers!" ~Genesis 49:26
"May
the hair grow thick on the head of Joseph, on the brow of the
consecrated (nazir)
one among his brothers!" ~Deuteronomy 33:16
If
the call of the Nazirite existed before the Exodus event, it is
defined, regulated, and expanded as part of the Law of the Sinai
Covenant, allowing one who is not a hereditary member of the
ministerial priesthood through the line of Aaron to offer special
service to Yahweh. The vow of a Nazirite could be a special service
performed for a certain length of time or the vow could tie the
Nazirite to a lifetime of service.
Not
cutting the hair, the "crown", of one's head becomes a
visible sign of the Nazirite's sworn oath and consecration to Yahweh
who is his or her strength. The hair uncut showed an unrestrained
comment to ones vow, only allowing divine power to act in him and
confidence in God's promise of strength to fulfill it. Samson's long
hair was his God ordained strength as found in Judges 13:5 "For
lo, thou shalt conceive and bear a son. And no razor shall come on
his head, for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb,
and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the
Philistines." In the case of Samson, his strength came
from his Nazirite’s vow of consecration and separation to God. "So
he took her completely into his confidence and told her, 'No razor
has touched my head, for I have been consecrated to God from my
mother's womb. If I am shaved, my strength will leave me, and I shall
be as weak as any other man.” ~Judges
16:17
- so when Delilah cut his hair (the most publicly, visible example of the vow), his strength was lost.
According
to the book 1 Samuel, even Hannah, whom of which was unable to have
children, prayed to God asking for a child, and made a Nazarite vow.
. . "and she made a vow, promising: Oh
Lord of hosts, if you look with pity on the misery of your handmaid a
male child, I will give him to the Lord for as long as he lives;
neither wine nor strong drink shall he drink, and no razor shall ever
touch his head." ~1 Samuel 1:11 She ended up conceiving a
baby boy, to whose name the book is actually named after, Samuel.
Although
the Nazirite vow is an Old Testament concept, there is a New
Testament parallel to the Nazirite vow.
In
the beginning of Luke, we find Zechariah and Elizabeth. An older
couple unable to have children, or had previously thought. These two
were the parents of the one named John. He was later to be known as
John the Baptist. Luke the Evangelist clearly was aware that wine was
forbidden in this practice, for the angel (Luke 1:13–15) that
announces the birth of John the Baptist foretells that "he
shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine
nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even
from his mother's womb", in other words, a Nazirite from
birth, the implication being that John had been given a lifelong
Nazirite vow.
And
in Acts 18:18, Paul cut off his hair because of a vow he had taken,
we learn that the early Jewish Christians occasionally took the
temporary Nazarite vow, and it is probable that the vow of St. Paul
mentioned in Acts 18:18, was of a similar nature, although the
shaving of his head in Cenchræ, outside of Palestine, was not in
conformity with the rules laid down in the sixth chapter of Numbers,
nor with the interpretation of them by the Rabbinical schools of that
period.
In
Acts 21:18-26, James, the first Christian Bishop of Jerusalem,
requested that St. Paul, as a sign of good faith and solidarity with
his Jewish brethren, sponsor 4 Nazirites who had completed their vow
period: "So the next day Paul took the men
along and was purified with them, and he visited the Temple to give
notice of the time when the period of purification would be over, and
the offering would have to be presented on behalf of each of them."
This stratagem only delayed the inevitable mob assault on him. This
event brought about the accusation in Acts 24:5–18 that Paul was
the "ringleader of the sect of the
Nazarenes" (this is an improper rendering as it should
read as Nazarites and not Nazarenes), and thus provides further
verification that the term Nazarene was a mistranslated form of the
term Nazirite.
Paul
in obedience to James submitted to a Old Covenant ritual which no
longer had any real meaning in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ for
every Christian had now been consecrated to accepting a lifetime vow
of service in the royal priesthood of believers who received the
sacrament of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. The Latin word
sacramentum is translated as "oath". In the
Sacraments, we swear our oath of consecrated service to the Most Holy
Trinity and claim that one perfect sacrifice that is ours for all
time and eternity.
In
the Book of Hebrews, St. Paul writes: "He
says first You did not want what the Law lays down as the things to
be offered, that is: the sacrifices, the cereal offerings, the burnt
offerings and the sacrifices for sin, and you took no pleasure in
them; and then he says: 'Here I am! I am coming to do your will.' He
is abolishing the first sort to establish the second. And this will
was for us to be made holy by the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ made once and for all." Hebrews 10:8-10.
Might
I now take you back a bit to Jesus. The question that everyone wants
to know: Did Jesus have long hair?
In
the order of the Nazirite, there is not only the concept of
separation and consecration of an individual to God, but also the
concept of ministerial service, and perhaps a link to the royal
priesthood as found in the High Priest's vow of service. The Hebrew
nazir, which also means
"consecrated", is inscribed:
1.)
On the holy crown worn on the mitre of
the High Priest
[Exodus 29:6; 39:30; Leviticus
8:9];
Throughout
the scriptures much is made of the fact that Jesus Christ was born
into the tribe of Judah, the house of David. But there is another
side of the linage of Christ that is just as important as His Davidic
ancestry. In Jeremiah 33:17-21, the eternal promise is made,
“For
thus saith Yahweh; David shall never want a man to sit upon the
throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites
want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat
offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of Yahweh
came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith Yahweh; If ye can break my
covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there
should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my
covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a
son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my
ministers.”
Since
the covenant with day and night have not been broken, then neither is
the covenant with David and the Levites broken, and it is in Jesus
Christ that both covenants are fulfilled – King and Priest. It is
known from the genealogies in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 that
Jesus was of the linage of David. If anyone is in doubt of this then
Revelation 22:16 will have the final say. “I
Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the
churches.
I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning
star.”
According
to Matthew's genealogy there were three Davidic Kings who had Levite
mothers. They are as follows:
(1)
Abijah whose mother was Michaiah the daughter of the Levite Uriel - 2
Chronicles 13:1-2,
(2)
Jatham whose mother was Jerushah the daughter of the Levite Zadok - 2
Chronicles 27:1, and
(3)
Hezekiah whose mother was Abijah the daughter of the Levite Zechariah
- 2 Chronicles 29:1.
It
was as a Levitical priest that Jesus performed 2,000 years ago, and
that was why He went to Jerusalem in the Kingdom of Judah to make the
priestly sacrifice. All this was foretold over a 1,000 years before
in Psalm 114:2. “Judah was his sanctuary
(Temple), and Israel his dominion (Kingdom).” Everyone
wanted Jesus to be the Davidic King, and set up the nation of Israel
to rule over the whole world. They did not know He was a Levitical
Priest to offer up a blood sacrifice for sin. Israel wanted something
different than what they got, just as Israel today wants something
different than what it will get.
Where
does the Bible give the proof that Jesus was a descendant of the
PRIEST line of Aaron. Luke 1:5 gives the names of John the baptist’s
parents. “THERE was in the days of Herod, the
king of Judaea, a certain priest name Zacharias, of the course
of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name
was Elizabeth.” This woman who was of the linage of Aaron
was also the cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus. Luke 1:35-36 “And
the angel answered and said unto her
(Mary), The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold,
thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived
a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was
called barren.” Mary even went and lived with Elisabeth for
3 months, and returned home just before the birth of John the second
cousin of Jesus.
2.)
On the "crown" of the holy anointing oil used to sanctify
people and objects to Yahweh [Leviticus 21:12];
The
word “sanctify” means to make holy; but this is not its meaning
here, for the Son of Man was always holy. The original word means to
set apart from a common to a sacred use; to devote to a sacred
purpose, and to designate or consecrate to a holy office. This is the
meaning here. God has consecrated or appointed Jesus to be his
Messenger or Messiah to mankind. It was not however uncommon practice
to anoint with oil as per what the Levitical law states, upon doing
so, the person anointed becomes a special servant to God.
“He
poured some of the anointing oil on Aaron’s head, and anointed
him, to sanctify him.” ~Leviticus 8:12
"At
the time of Jesus' birth, gold, frankincense and myrrh were
traditional gifts given to royalty in the Middle East," says
Fred Horton, John T. Albritton Professor of the Bible at Wake Forest.
"Though they were presented to a baby born in a Bethlehem stable
instead of one born in a royal palace, the presents signified loyalty
and reverence for a king. Gold, frankincense and myrrh were very
highly valued in Middle Eastern culture at that time. Most
Palestinian Jews of the first century would have been unable to
afford such gifts."
First
you have Gold, which is frequently mentioned as a gift for kings in
the Hebrew Bible, was as precious in the first century as it is
today.
Then
Frankincense.
And
finally, Myrrh, that Is fragrant gum resins which comes from the stem
of a low, thorny, ragged tree, that grows in Arabia Felix and Eastern
Africa. Myrrh was among the ancients in high
request as a spice. It was used by the Egyptians for embalming (Herod
2.86), in Persia as an odour; by the Greeks for incense and in
unguents; by the later Jews in funerals (John 19:39);
and was largely exported from Arabia and Ethiopia into various parts
of Asia and Europe. It is called by botanists Balsamodendron
myrrha. The word here rendered pure, is literally, “freely
flowing”, an epithet which is explained by the fact that the best
myrrh is said to exude spontaneously from the bark, while that of
extracted inferior quality oozes out in greater quantity from
incisions made in the bark.
Frankincense
and Myrrh were used to make fine perfumes and anointing oils during
the era of Jesus' birth in the Middle East.
“Then
you shall take the anointing oil, and pour it on his head, and anoint
him.”
~Exodus 29:7
Oils
were also used extensively in the Middle East to restore moisture
after bathing and to protect skin from the dangerous rays of the
Middle Eastern sun.
May
I remind you what you know him as: Jesus Christ. As it is improperly
translated it should really read as Jesus the Christ. Christ
in ancient Greek is Christós, meaning "anointed" and was
used originally as a title, namely, Jesus the Christ, yet later
became part of the name through translation as "Jesus
Christ". The Messiah, or Son of Man, was consecrated to the
great office of Redeemer; called the Lord's anointed. Cyrus is also
called the Lord's anointed in Isaiah 45.
3.)
And later in the days of the monarchy the term is applied to the
royal crown of the Kings of Israel [see 2 Samuel 1:10; 2 Kings 11:12;
Zechariah 9:16];
After
Jesus’ sham trials and subsequent flogging, and before He was
crucified, the Roman soldiers “twisted
together a crown of thorns and set it on
His head. They put a staff in His right hand and knelt in front of
Him and mocked Him. ‘Hail, king of the
Jews!’ they said” (Matthew 27:29; see also John 19:2-5).
While a crown of thorns would be exceedingly painful, the crown of
thorns was more about mockery than it was about pain. Here was the
“King of the Jews” being beaten, spit upon, and insulted by
presumably low-level Roman soldiers. The crown of thorns was the
finalizing of their mockery, taking a symbol of royalty/majesty, a
crown, and turning it into something painful and degrading.
In
this sense all New Covenant believers serve God as perpetual
Nazirites who are not defiled by death for our Savior has conquered
death. In our vow of holiness we offer our lives as a living
sacrifice in service to Christ. In Romans 12:1-2 Paul states,
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of
God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and
pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not
conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed
by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and
approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.”
For Christians, the ancient Nazirite vow symbolizes the need to be
separate from this world, a holy people consecrated to God.
At
the end of the Nazirite period the Nazirite brings three sacrifices
in the Temple in Jerusalem. The practice of a Nazirite vow is part of
the ambiguity of the Greek term "Nazarene" that appears in
the New Testament; the sacrifice of a lamb and the offering of bread
does suggest a relationship with Christian symbolism (then again,
these are the two most frequent offerings prescribed in Leviticus, so
no definitive conclusions can be drawn). Traditionally, one may say,
'Jesus was not a Nazarite, he was a Nazarene', but it's obvious that
with issues of translation, it can be misconstrued otherwise. Thus
making Jesus NOT a Nazarene, but a Nazarite, consecrated from birth.
The
requirements of the Nazirite are in fact similar to those of the
Levitical priesthood. A priest had to abstain from wine during his
period of service in the Sanctuary and he was to avoid all defilement
from coming in contact with the dead except in the case of his
nearest relatives. The difference is that the Nazirite's vow imposed
a more sever obligation in that the Nazirite had to abstain from wine
and all products of the vine for the entire length of his oath; like
a High Priest he could not even bury his parents [Leviticus 21:11;
Numbers 6:7]; and he could not cut his hair for the length of the
vow.
The
two major things that seem to trick people about Jesus' being a
Nazarite are drinking of wine and being around dead bodies. These two
things are easily explained if one actually reads the Bible on a
regular basis.
Dead
bodies - even those of a close relative - were not to be approached
during the vow of a Nazirite. Separation from death - the effect of
sin - was essential during the period of the vow. Where in the Bible
did Jesus EVER come in contact with a dead body that he did not raise
from the dead? Doing so would not break the vow, but the laws of
physics!! As for drinking of wine, nothing has really been documented
of this for the exception of the last supper, not more than 24 hours
before he was crucified, which means he was at the end of his
original vow bestowed upon him from birth!
________________________________________________________
Was
Jesus God in the flesh?
Jesus
said about himself:
"My
teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me."~
John 7:16
"All
things have been delivered to me by my father"~ Matthew
11:17
"All
power has been given me in heaven and upon earth."~
Matthew 28:18
"I
can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is
just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father
which has sent me."~ John 5:30
"For
I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but to do the will
of Him who sent me"~ John 6:38
"My
father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me."~
John 8:54
"Say
you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world,
You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?"
~John 10:36
"Because
I have not spoken of myself; but the Father that sent me, HE gave me
a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know
that HIS commandment is Life Age-Lasting, whatever I speak therefore,
even as the Father said to me, so I speak." ~John
12:49-50
"No
one takes it away from me , but I lay it down by myself. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this
commandment from my Father.” ~ John 10:18
"And
it was at Jerusalem, the Feast of the Dedication, and it was winter.
And Jesus walked in the Temple in Solomon's Porch. Then came the Jews
around him and said to him, How long do
you make us to doubt? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.
Jesus answered them, I
told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father's
Name, they bear witness of me. But you believe not, because you are
not of my sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My Voice, and I know
them, and they follow me: And I give to them Age-Lasting Life; and
they will never perish, neither will anyone pluck them out of my
hand. My Father that gave them to me is greater than all; and no one
is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are
one. Then the Jews took up stones again
to stone Him. Jesus answered them, Many
good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works
do you stone me? You question whether I am the Father’s Agent: does
not the benignity of the works I have done prove Me such? Do not My
works evince the indwelling power of the Father? The
Jews answered him saying, For a good
work we do not stone you; but for blasphemy; and because you, being a
man, make yourself God. Jesus answered
them, Is it not written in your Law, 'I
said, You are Gods?' If He called them Gods, to who the Word of God
came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Say you of Him, who the
Father has consecrated and sent into the cosmos, you blaspheme,
because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my
Father, believe me not. But if I do, though you do not believe me,
believe the works: that you may know and believe, that the Father is
in me, and I in HIM. Therefore they
sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand, And went
away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized;
and there He stayed. And many came to him and said, John did no
miracle: but all things that John spoke of this man were true. And
many believed on Him there." ~John 10:22-42
After
our Lord’ visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, and owing
to His collision with the authorities in regard to the blind man whom
He healed, He seems to have retired from the metropolis for some
weeks, until the Feast of the Dedication. This Feast had been
instituted by the Maccabees to celebrate the Purification of the
Temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes. It began about
the 20th December, and lasted eight days. As it was winter, possibly
raining, and certainly cold, Jesus walked about in Solomon’ Porch,
where at all events He was under cover and had some shelter. Here the
Jews gradually gathered, until at length He found Himself ringed
round by hostile questioners, who bluntly, almost threateningly asked
Him, “How long do you make us to
doubt? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly,”
a question which shows that, although they inferred from the
assertions He had made regarding Himself that He claimed to be the
Messiah, He had not directly and explicitly proclaimed Himself in
terms no one could misunderstand.
At
first sight their request seems fair and reasonable. In fact it is
neither. The mere affirmation that He was the Christ would not have
helped those whom His works and words had only prejudiced against
Him. As He at once explained to them, He had made the affirmation in
the only way possible, and their unbelief arose not from any want of
explicitness on His part, but because they were not of His sheep
(John 10:26). “My sheep hear My Voice,
and I know them, and they follow me”
Here, as elsewhere, He points in confirmation of His claim to the
works His Father had given Him to do, and to the response His
manifestation awakened in those who were hungering for truth and for
God. Those who were given to Him by the Father, who were taught and
led by God, acknowledged Him, and to such He imparted all those
eternal and supreme blessings He was commissioned to bestow upon men.
But
in describing the safety of those who believe in Him, Jesus uses an
expression which gives umbrage to those who hear it - “I
and my Father are one.” Those who
trust themselves to Christ shall not be plucked out of His hand: they
are eternally secure. The guarantee of this is, that those who thus
trust in Him are given to Him by the
Father for this very purpose of
safe-keeping: the Father Himself therefore watches over and protects
them. “no one is able to pluck them
out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.”
In this matter Christ acts merely as
the Father’ agent. The Pharisees
might excommunicate the blind man and threaten him with penalties
present and to come, but he is absolutely beyond their reach. Their
threats are as the pattering of hail on a bomb-proof shelter. The man
is in Christ’ keeping, and thereby is in God’ keeping.
But
this assertion the Jews at once construed into blasphemy, and took up
stones to stone Him. With marvelous calmness Jesus arrests their
murderous intention with the quiet question: “Many
good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works
do you stone me? You question whether I am the Father’ Agent: does
not the benignity of the works I have done prove Me such? Do not My
works evince the indwelling power of the Father?”
The Jews reply, and from their point of view quite reasonably: “For
a good work we do not stone you; but for blasphemy; and because you,
being a man, make yourself God.” How
far they were justified in this charge we must inquire.
In
this conversation two points are of the utmost significance:
1.
The comparative equanimity with which they consider the claim of
Jesus to be the Messiah is changed into fury when they imagine that
He claims also equality with God. Their first appeal, “How long do
you make us to doubt? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly,” is
calm; and His answer, though it distinctly involved an affirmation
that He was the Christ, was received without any violent
demonstration of rage or of excitement. But their attitude towards
Him changes in a moment and their calmness gives place to
uncontrollable indignation as soon as it appears that He believes
Himself to be one with the Father. They themselves would not have
dreamed of putting such a question to Him: the idea of any man being
equal with God was too abhorrent to the rigid monotheism of the
Jewish mind. And when it dawned upon them that this was what Jesus
claimed, they could do nothing but stop their ears and lift stones to
end such blasphemy. No incident could more distinctly prove that the
claim to be the Messiah was in their judgment one thing, the claim to
be Divine another thing.
2.
The contrast our Lord draws between Himself and those who had in
Scripture been called “gods” is significant. It is the
eighty-second Psalm He cites; and in it the judges of Israel are
rebuked for abusing their office. It is of these unjust judges the
psalm represents God as saying, “I have said, You are gods, and all
of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men, and
fall like one of the princes.” To these judges this word of God,
“You are gods,” had come at their consecration to their office.
Having been occupied with other work they were now set apart to
represent to men the authority and justice of God. But, argues our
Lord, if men were called gods, to whom God’ word came,-and they are
so called in Scripture, which cannot be broken,-appointing them to
their office, may He not rightly be called Son of God who is Himself
sent to men; whose original and sole destiny it was to come into the
world to represent the Father? The words are over-weighted with
manifold contrast. The judges were persons “to whom” the word of
God came, as from without; Jesus was a person Himself “sent into
the world” from God, therefore surely more akin to God than they
were. The judges represented God by virtue of a commission received
in the course of their career - the word of God came to them: Jesus,
on the other hand, represented God because “sanctified,” that is,
set apart or consecrated for this purpose before He came into the
world, and therefore obviously occupying a higher and more important
position than they. But, especially, the judges were appointed to
discharge one limited and temporary function, for the discharge of
which it was sufficient that they should know the law of God; whereas
it was “the Father,” the God of universal relation and love, who
consecrated Jesus and sent Him into the world, meaning now to reveal
to men what lies deepest in His nature, His
love,
His fatherhood. The idea of the purpose for which Christ was sent
into the world is indicated in the emphatic use of “the Father.”
He was sent to do the works of the Father (John 10:37); to manifest
to men the benignity, tenderness, compassion of the Father; to
encourage them to believe that the Father, the Source of all life,
was in their midst accessible to them. If Jesus failed to reveal the
Father, He had no claim to make. “If
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.”
But if He did such works as declared the Father to be in their midst,
then, as bearing the Father in Him and doing the Father’ will, He
might well be called “the Son of God.” “If
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though
you do not believe me, believe the works: that you may know and
believe, that the Father is in me, and I in HIM.”
There
can be no question, then, of the conclusiveness with which our Lord
rebutted the charge of blasphemy. By a single sentence, He put them
in the position of presumptuously contradicting their own Scriptures.
But weightier questions remain behind. Did Jesus merely seek to parry
their thrust, or did He mean positively to affirm that He was God?
His words do not carry a direct and explicit affirmation of His
Divinity. Indeed, to a hearer His comparison of Himself with the
judges would necessarily rather tend to veil the full meaning of His
previous claims to pre-existence and superhuman dignity. On
reflection, no doubt the hearers might see that a claim to Divinity
was implied in His words; but even in the saying which first gave
them offense, “I and my Father are
one,” it is rather what is implied
than what is expressed that carries with it such a claim. For Calvin
is unquestionably right in maintaining that these words were not
intended to affirm identity of substance with the Father. An
ambassador whose actions or claims were contested might very
naturally say, “I and my Sovereign are One”; not meaning thereby
to claim royal dignity, but meaning to assert that what he did, his
Sovereign did; that his signature carried his Sovereign’ guarantee,
and that his pledges would be fulfilled by the entire resources of
his Sovereign. And as God’ delegate, as the great Messianic Viceroy
among men, it was no doubt this that our Lord wished in the first
place to affirm, that He was the representative of God, doing His
will, and backed by all His authority. “See
the Father in Me,” was His constant
demand. All His self-assertion and self-revelation were meant to
reveal the Father.
But
although He does not directly and explicitly say, “I
am God”; although He does not even use
such language of Himself as John uses, when he says, “The
Word was God”; yet is not His Divine
nature a reasonable inference from such affirmations as that which we
are here considering? Some interpreters very decidedly maintain that
when Christ says, “I and the Father
are one,” He means one in power. They
affirm that this assertion is made to prove that none of His sheep
will be plucked out of His hand, and that this is secured because His
Father is “greater than all,”
and He and His Father are one. Accordingly they hold that neither the
old orthodox interpretation nor the Arian is correct: not the
orthodox, because not unity of essence but unity of power is meant;
not the Arian, because something more is meant than moral harmony.
This, however, is difficult to maintain, and it is safer to abide by
Calvin’s interpretation, and believe that what Jesus means is that
what He does will be confirmed by the Father. It is the Father’
power He introduces as the final guarantee, not His own power.
Still,
although the very terms He here uses may not even by implication
affirm His Divinity, it remains to be asked whether there are not
parts of Christ’ work as God’ commissioner on earth which could
be accomplished by no one who was not Himself Divine. An ambassador
may recommend his offers and guarantees by affirming that his power
and that of his Sovereign are one, but in many cases he must have
actual power on the spot. If a commissioner is sent to reduce a
mutinous army or a large warlike tribe in rebellion, or to define a
frontier in the face of an armed claimant, he must in such cases be
no mere lay-figure, whose uniform tells what country he belongs to,
but he must be a man of audacity and resource, able to act for
himself without telegraphing for orders, and he must be backed by
sufficient military force on the spot. It comes therefore to be a
question whether the work on which Christ was sent was a work which
could be accomplished by a man however fully equipped? Jesus though
nothing more than human might have said, if commissioned by God to
say so, “The promises I make, God will
perform. The guarantees I give, God will respect.” But is it
possible that a man, however holy, however wise, however fully
possessed by the Holy Spirit, could reveal the Father to men and
adequately represent God? Could He influence, guide, and uplift
individuals? Could He give life to men, could He assume the function
of judging, could He bear the responsibility of being sole mediator
between God and men?
Must
we not believe that for the work Christ came to do it was needful
that He should be truly Divine?
While
therefore it is quite true that Christ here rebuts the charge of
blasphemy in His usual manner, not by directly affirming His Divine
nature, but only by declaring that His office as God’
representative gave Him as just a claim to the Divine name as the
judges had, this circumstance cannot lead us to doubt the Divine
nature of Christ, or prompt us to suppose He Himself was shy in
affirming it, because the question is at once suggested whether the
office He assumed is not one which only a Divine Person could
undertake. It need not stumble our faith, if we find that not only in
this passage but everywhere Jesus refrains from explicitly saying: “I
am God.”
In
the paragraph we are considering a very needful reminder is given us
that the Jews of our Lord’ time used the terms “God” and “Son
of God” in a loose and inexact manner. Where the sense was not
likely to be misunderstood, they did not scruple to apply these terms
to officials and dignitaries. The angels they called sons of God;
their own judges they called by the same name. The whole people
considered collectively was called “God’ son.” And in the 2nd
Psalm, speaking of the Messianic King, God says, “You
are my Son; today I have begotten you.”
It was therefore natural that the Jews should think of the Messiah
not as properly Divine, but merely as being of such surpassing
dignity as to be worthily though loosely called “Son of God.” No
doubt there are passages in the Old Testament which intimate with
sufficient clearness that the Messiah would be truly Divine: “Your
seat of power, O God, is for ever and ever;”
“For to us a child is born, to us a
son is given... and His name shall be called the Mighty God;”
“Behold, the days are coming, declares
the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch,. . .
This is the name by which he will be known: 'The LORD Our
Righteousness.'”
But
though these passages seem decisive to us, looking on the fulfillment
of them in Christ, we must consider that the Jewish Bible did not lie
on every table for consultation as our Bibles do, and also that it
was easy for the Jews to put a figurative sense on all such passages.
In
a word, it was a Messiah the Jews looked for, not the Son of God.
They looked for one with Divine powers, the delegate of God, sent to
accomplish His will and to establish His kingdom, the representative
among them of the Divine presence; but they did not look for a real
dwelling of a Divine Person among them. It is quite certain that the
Jews of the second century thought it silly of the Christians to hold
that the Christ pre-existed from eternity as God, and condescended to
be born as man. “No Jew would allow,” says a writer of that time,
“that any prophet ever said that a Son of God would come; but what
the Jews do say is that the Christ of God will come.”
Show
me a scripture where Jesus actually said "I am God". You
will not find it. The scripture most commonly used here is: "He
who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the
Father?’" ~ John 14:9
And
this is horribly misinterpreted, misquoted, and misunderstood. For
one, Jesus was sent as an example for us to follow.
"So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created
him." ~Genesis 1:27
We
are not to worship Jesus. By worshiping him, even though he taught to
worship the Father, then Christianity becomes Polytheism, the
worshiping of more than one God. You are then in threat of the same
condemnation as the rest of the world if this is the case.
"'And
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men."
~ Matthew 15:9
"You
never knew how beautiful you were, for you never really looked at
yourself. You never looked at who you are and what you are. You want
to see what God looks like? Go and look in a reflector or mirror. You
are looking him straight in the face.” - Ramtha
No comments:
Post a Comment