Post resurrection, Jesus appeared to a doubting Thomas, and after seeing and touching the glorified Messiah himself, he believed and "said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)
There are two possibilities here. The first one I'll propound would be the most obvious interpretation surface-wise, though not necessarily the most feasible of the two ultimately, since both would make perfectly beautiful sense.
Jesus was simply able to bear the title "God" in his role as Chief agent of the Most High and one with more authority over others than anyone else in the world has with the exception of the one who gave it to him. Many are right in saying Jesus was (a mighty) God because he was and still is the most powerful revealer and emissary of God. He is the "greater Moses", who is also called God. (Ex. 7:1. 14) Powerful men representing Yahweh are sometimes called God. If His spirit is upon them then they are "God with us," doing His will and not their own. No one may see God and yet live! If Jesus stood before me with the spirit of God upon him in the extraordinary capacity that the resurrected and glorified Lord no doubt would, an overwhelming exclamation of "My Lord and God!" would be appropriate and immensely feasible.
Let's examine the lexical possibilities for "elohim" and "theos"("God" in Hebrew and Greek) before we assert that "God" can only mean "Yahweh's first, second, or third person" or "Yahweh's triune being." In fact, where does "God" ever mean such concepts unless you choose to define it by use of a misguided theological presupposition or an abuse of inference?
The "Dictionary of biblical language with Semantic Domains" says that in the Hebrew OT, the word God (אֱלֹהִים (ʾלlō∙hמm) can also mean a "mighty one, i.e., a person who is strong and capable, and so a leader or prominent one" and also "majestic one, i.e., a person of high social status"..even "mighty, majestic things, i.e., things of nature that are awesome and large, majestic, and so awe-inspiring."
Biblically speaking, the semantic range of "Elohim" is larger than the box in which trinitarians and the like would desire to force it. Larry Hurtado notes in "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus":
"Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term up to the end of the first century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics.”
Yes, in the scriptures, judges, kings, angels, and God's representatives are sometimes so termed "elohim." (John 10:35, Ps. 82:1, 6, 97:9, Ex. 4:16, 7:1) Couple more significant quotes, accurate in my opinion because of their scriptural and historical support.:
"As for the way "god" aka "el" or "elohim" or "theos" is used in scripture.. "The root from which the Hebrew "el" is derived indicates "strength or might." We should not be aghast to see it used of men in the OT. There is an element of strength and might associated with human authority."~Ron Frye, from "The father/son relationship"
"As we have seen "theos" may refer to the One True God but it may also be used of other individuals. It refers to other figures, human or heavenly, only when they are understood to exercise some office or function on God's behalf and when assigned that function or office by God."~Marianne Thompson (the God of the gospel of John p.47)
As for Jesus being deity, it depends on what is meant by that. If it means he's glorious and glorified exceedingly, exalted inimitably, and powerful beyond measure, then yes, he is. If it means he's my incomparably extolled Lord, King, and Savior, second only to his father, then yes, he is. If it means he's the perfect reflection and representation of his own God, then yes he is! If it means that God fully lives within him by spirit, then yes he is! If it means he's literally the One God of Deuteronomy 6:4 or a member of that One's eternal essence, then no, he's not.
The New Testament refers to the father alone as "ho theos" 1325 times! So Jesus possibly being referred to as "God" a literal couple to a few times at the most is not surprising given that Moses was twice and Solomon was once in the OT as God's agents and representatives, afforded a measure of authority and power. The lexicons and any reasonable source knows and will proclaim that "god" or "God" could be used of others besides the Most High God in ancient Hebrew times, according to their own cultural heritage which apparently isn't perfectly equivalent to ours, or surely certain trinitarian arguments couldn't be fathomed. There are lesser gods. The scriptures cannot be broken. There are those via the biblical agency principle, standing in for the Supreme God for some grand purpose, who can bear his name or title. The title can also simply be an indication of might, strength, and power. Others can be in possession of those wonders as gifts from God without becoming people in in his "very being." When angels, judges, Moses, and Solomon are called "god" or "gods", no one would imagine they are then a member or members of God's multipersonal homoousios. What desperate reasoning to say Jesus being called God once or twice is any indication of such! A parlous requirement of special pleading, false dilemmas, and inconsistency would be necessary to use such an argument as proof of a trinity.
"The sensitive reader of Scripture will be aware that a single text should not be allowed to overthrow the OT's insistence that only one person is truly God. It should not be forgotten that the sacred oracles were committed to the Jews, none of whom thought that a divine title given to the Messianic King meant that he was a member of an eternal Godhead, now composed suddenly and mysteriously of two persons, in contradiction of all that the heritage of Israel had stood for. The "mighty god" of Isaiah 9:6 is defined by the leading Hebrew lexicon as "divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty." The same authority records that the word "god" used by Isaiah is applied elsewhere in scripture to "men of might and rank," as well as to angels." ("Who is Jesus?A plea for a return to belief in Jesus,the Messiah" p. 8 (study booklet available online) by Anthony Buzzard )
Observing Christians' eagerness to deify two in addition to the unipersonal God of the Shema (ie Jesus plus the holy spirit of God), I detect more evidence of the integralness of utilizing God's personal name, or of calling the father alone the Most High God, considering that people sometimes misuse titles like lord and god to mistakenly create a multipersonal being of their own imagination. (John 17:3, 26, Psalm 83:18)
If someone says he can do nothing by himself and has to be gifted every blessing from someone greater, he is trying to inform you that he isn't the One Most High God of the Shema, in the plainest most irrefutable language possible. To disrespect his revelations or to qualify them to their very death is not okay for a Christian whose chief mission in life should be to heed, believe, and apply Jesus's revealed truths to our lives. His overcoming of the world wouldn't be as impressive or inspiring if he was Super Godman!
Another possibility in John 20:28 is that Thomas could be acknowledging Jesus's grand power and glory while simultaneously recognizing who gave that power and glory to Jesus in his excited expression. This view is granted some undeniable merit in the following texts:
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9)
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." (2 Corinthians 5:19)
"For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9)
So Thomas could have been recognizing Jesus as his Lord and quite possibly, in addition to that, God the father in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself in his glorified and resurrected Son! After the resurrection of Christ, how much more would the indwelling of the father, the only true God, within the being of the glorified Messiah be punctuated and apparent?
"Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” (John 11:40)
So again, Thomas may have been heartfeltly recognizing the father's majesty and glory evident in the resurrected Messiah and confessing it enthusiastically! Additionally, in Matthew 9:8, people were in awe when they witnessed Christ's power, miracles, and authority. As they did, in accompaniment with their sheer awe, they glorified God! They recognized God in Christ thoroughly and praised him for working through a man so extraordinarily! How much more would someone be able to recognize the Father indwelling the Son after a literal glorification and immortalization following a miraculous and heartfelt resurrection?
Of one thing we can be certain: Thomas knew that Jesus was a Jew who worshipped the Shema's One God as a servant and Son of that One, even after his resurrection.
"Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17)
God is not a man or a Jew who has a God who is his father. This should be transparent and unmissable. It could only be denied by the detrimental working of some theological hocus pocus. Our goal shouldn't be that, but rather reasonable utilization and clasping of clear revelations, used common sensically and assessed within their historical context. Yes, we can be assured of this:
"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."
Jesus's extraordinary roles, titles, and majesties are gifts from the One God. Not the first person of the One God, but the One God. Period.
There are two possibilities here. The first one I'll propound would be the most obvious interpretation surface-wise, though not necessarily the most feasible of the two ultimately, since both would make perfectly beautiful sense.
Jesus was simply able to bear the title "God" in his role as Chief agent of the Most High and one with more authority over others than anyone else in the world has with the exception of the one who gave it to him. Many are right in saying Jesus was (a mighty) God because he was and still is the most powerful revealer and emissary of God. He is the "greater Moses", who is also called God. (Ex. 7:1. 14) Powerful men representing Yahweh are sometimes called God. If His spirit is upon them then they are "God with us," doing His will and not their own. No one may see God and yet live! If Jesus stood before me with the spirit of God upon him in the extraordinary capacity that the resurrected and glorified Lord no doubt would, an overwhelming exclamation of "My Lord and God!" would be appropriate and immensely feasible.
Let's examine the lexical possibilities for "elohim" and "theos"("God" in Hebrew and Greek) before we assert that "God" can only mean "Yahweh's first, second, or third person" or "Yahweh's triune being." In fact, where does "God" ever mean such concepts unless you choose to define it by use of a misguided theological presupposition or an abuse of inference?
The "Dictionary of biblical language with Semantic Domains" says that in the Hebrew OT, the word God (אֱלֹהִים (ʾלlō∙hמm) can also mean a "mighty one, i.e., a person who is strong and capable, and so a leader or prominent one" and also "majestic one, i.e., a person of high social status"..even "mighty, majestic things, i.e., things of nature that are awesome and large, majestic, and so awe-inspiring."
Biblically speaking, the semantic range of "Elohim" is larger than the box in which trinitarians and the like would desire to force it. Larry Hurtado notes in "How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus":
"Whether one examines the Jewish or the Gentile use of the term up to the end of the first century A.D., there is an occasional application of the term to human beings who perform divine functions or display divine characteristics.”
Yes, in the scriptures, judges, kings, angels, and God's representatives are sometimes so termed "elohim." (John 10:35, Ps. 82:1, 6, 97:9, Ex. 4:16, 7:1) Couple more significant quotes, accurate in my opinion because of their scriptural and historical support.:
"As for the way "god" aka "el" or "elohim" or "theos" is used in scripture.. "The root from which the Hebrew "el" is derived indicates "strength or might." We should not be aghast to see it used of men in the OT. There is an element of strength and might associated with human authority."~Ron Frye, from "The father/son relationship"
"As we have seen "theos" may refer to the One True God but it may also be used of other individuals. It refers to other figures, human or heavenly, only when they are understood to exercise some office or function on God's behalf and when assigned that function or office by God."~Marianne Thompson (the God of the gospel of John p.47)
As for Jesus being deity, it depends on what is meant by that. If it means he's glorious and glorified exceedingly, exalted inimitably, and powerful beyond measure, then yes, he is. If it means he's my incomparably extolled Lord, King, and Savior, second only to his father, then yes, he is. If it means he's the perfect reflection and representation of his own God, then yes he is! If it means that God fully lives within him by spirit, then yes he is! If it means he's literally the One God of Deuteronomy 6:4 or a member of that One's eternal essence, then no, he's not.
The New Testament refers to the father alone as "ho theos" 1325 times! So Jesus possibly being referred to as "God" a literal couple to a few times at the most is not surprising given that Moses was twice and Solomon was once in the OT as God's agents and representatives, afforded a measure of authority and power. The lexicons and any reasonable source knows and will proclaim that "god" or "God" could be used of others besides the Most High God in ancient Hebrew times, according to their own cultural heritage which apparently isn't perfectly equivalent to ours, or surely certain trinitarian arguments couldn't be fathomed. There are lesser gods. The scriptures cannot be broken. There are those via the biblical agency principle, standing in for the Supreme God for some grand purpose, who can bear his name or title. The title can also simply be an indication of might, strength, and power. Others can be in possession of those wonders as gifts from God without becoming people in in his "very being." When angels, judges, Moses, and Solomon are called "god" or "gods", no one would imagine they are then a member or members of God's multipersonal homoousios. What desperate reasoning to say Jesus being called God once or twice is any indication of such! A parlous requirement of special pleading, false dilemmas, and inconsistency would be necessary to use such an argument as proof of a trinity.
"The sensitive reader of Scripture will be aware that a single text should not be allowed to overthrow the OT's insistence that only one person is truly God. It should not be forgotten that the sacred oracles were committed to the Jews, none of whom thought that a divine title given to the Messianic King meant that he was a member of an eternal Godhead, now composed suddenly and mysteriously of two persons, in contradiction of all that the heritage of Israel had stood for. The "mighty god" of Isaiah 9:6 is defined by the leading Hebrew lexicon as "divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty." The same authority records that the word "god" used by Isaiah is applied elsewhere in scripture to "men of might and rank," as well as to angels." ("Who is Jesus?A plea for a return to belief in Jesus,the Messiah" p. 8 (study booklet available online) by Anthony Buzzard )
Observing Christians' eagerness to deify two in addition to the unipersonal God of the Shema (ie Jesus plus the holy spirit of God), I detect more evidence of the integralness of utilizing God's personal name, or of calling the father alone the Most High God, considering that people sometimes misuse titles like lord and god to mistakenly create a multipersonal being of their own imagination. (John 17:3, 26, Psalm 83:18)
If someone says he can do nothing by himself and has to be gifted every blessing from someone greater, he is trying to inform you that he isn't the One Most High God of the Shema, in the plainest most irrefutable language possible. To disrespect his revelations or to qualify them to their very death is not okay for a Christian whose chief mission in life should be to heed, believe, and apply Jesus's revealed truths to our lives. His overcoming of the world wouldn't be as impressive or inspiring if he was Super Godman!
Another possibility in John 20:28 is that Thomas could be acknowledging Jesus's grand power and glory while simultaneously recognizing who gave that power and glory to Jesus in his excited expression. This view is granted some undeniable merit in the following texts:
"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" (John 14:9)
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself." (2 Corinthians 5:19)
"For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9)
So Thomas could have been recognizing Jesus as his Lord and quite possibly, in addition to that, God the father in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself in his glorified and resurrected Son! After the resurrection of Christ, how much more would the indwelling of the father, the only true God, within the being of the glorified Messiah be punctuated and apparent?
"Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” (John 11:40)
So again, Thomas may have been heartfeltly recognizing the father's majesty and glory evident in the resurrected Messiah and confessing it enthusiastically! Additionally, in Matthew 9:8, people were in awe when they witnessed Christ's power, miracles, and authority. As they did, in accompaniment with their sheer awe, they glorified God! They recognized God in Christ thoroughly and praised him for working through a man so extraordinarily! How much more would someone be able to recognize the Father indwelling the Son after a literal glorification and immortalization following a miraculous and heartfelt resurrection?
Of one thing we can be certain: Thomas knew that Jesus was a Jew who worshipped the Shema's One God as a servant and Son of that One, even after his resurrection.
"Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17)
God is not a man or a Jew who has a God who is his father. This should be transparent and unmissable. It could only be denied by the detrimental working of some theological hocus pocus. Our goal shouldn't be that, but rather reasonable utilization and clasping of clear revelations, used common sensically and assessed within their historical context. Yes, we can be assured of this:
"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah."
Jesus's extraordinary roles, titles, and majesties are gifts from the One God. Not the first person of the One God, but the One God. Period.
Comments
Post a Comment