On the Divine Name December 9, 2009

An error that I frequently encounter in discussions regarding the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ is one related to the “name of the Father.”Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cults would like to attribute to God the Father, alone, the divine name YHWH. By so doing, they seek to affirm their presupposed unitarian monotheism on a biblical basis.

Now, seeing as they aren’t professing to be in line with traditional orthodoxy (or, just orthodoxy, to avoid any misconceptions arising from the use of the word “traditional”), their mishandling of the Word of God is not very shocking. What I do find problematic, however, is when professing believers state the same thing.

The Divine Name, YHWH, is not the name of the Father alone – it is the Name of the Triune God of the Bible – each member of the Trinity is addressed as YHWH.

Contrary to other erroneous teachings on the matter, Jesus held the name YHWH prior to His redemptive work, as Paul the apostle makes clear in Ephesians 4:7-10. He writes:

⁷But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. ⁸This is why it says:

“When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men.”

⁹(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions^{? 10}He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

Paul’s quotation is from Psalm 68, a Psalm about YHWH God’s victory procession. Christ is identified in His descending (i.e. kenosis/voluntary incarnating and living in full submission to the Father for the purposes of redemption) and ascending (i.e. returning to the glory which He shared with the Father) as YHWH God.

Psalm 68, then, for Paul is a Messianic Psalm. And if a Messianic Psalm, then an explicit reference to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and an indirect attribution of the Divine Name to Him. Christ, in Paul’s theology, was, is, and always will be – even as the distinct Second Person of the Trinity – YHWH God.

Another instance of this can be seen in the Gospel of Mark in its opening lines:

¹The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

²It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way” —
³“a voice of one calling in the desert,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’ “

⁴And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

- Mark 1:1-4

How scholars miss this one is baffling to me. But it’s clear as day that Mark is identifying Jesus as “the Lord”, or as the Hebrew has it “YHWH.” John the Baptist is the messenger, and Jesus is the LORD, or Jesus is YHWH God. Seeing as Mark only quotes part of Isaiah 40:3, let’s look at the entire verse.

³ The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

“ Prepare the way of the LORD;
Make straight in the desert
A highway for our God.

John the Baptist himself, therefore, is identifying Jesus as YHWH Elohim (LORD God), when John reports on his interaction with the Pharisees just prior to Jesus’ appearance. We read:

²² Then they [the Pharisees] said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”

²³ He said: “I am

‘ The voice of one crying in the wilderness:

“ Make straight the way of the LORD,”’
as the prophet Isaiah said.”

- John 1:22-23

Jesus didn’t take the name of the Father, for the name was not simply the name of the Father. YHWH is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (cf. Hebrews 3:7-11 & Psalm 95).

This doesn’t diminish the personal distinctions within the Godhead, but emphasizes their Tri-unity.

Let me know your thoughts…

-h

Jesus Vs. The Scribes December 5, 2009

²⁸ Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
²⁹ Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. ³⁰ And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. ³¹ And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
³² So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. ³³ And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
³⁴ Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”
But after that no one dared question Him.

³⁵ Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? ³⁶ For David himself said by the Holy Spirit:

‘ The LORD said to my Lord,

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”’
³⁷ Therefore David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”
And the common people heard Him gladly.

A Brief Foreword

Once upon a time, I didn’t feel that the need to defend the doctrine of the Trinity among my brothers and sisters was of first importance. But about two weeks ago, tons of questions began springing into my mind. The problem I now faced wasn’t so much that I couldn’t answer the questions, but that I couldn’t sweep them under “practical” matters anymore. So I decided to pick up a book I came across while I perused the theology section at my local bookstore. The book?

Kevin Giles’ is concerned that modern evangelicals have begun to embrace a modified version of Arianism in their uncritical acceptance of the eternal subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit to God the Father. He goes over the orthodox creeds (i.e. the Athanasian Creed, the Nicene Creed, etc), and compares the contemporary teachings of men like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware, in order to identify for the reader where these men are beginning to depart from traditional orthodoxy. He maintains that their position on the eternal subordination of God the Son to God the Father (as opposed to His temporal/incarnational subordination for the purposes of redemption) is neither biblical nor supported by any of the traditional orthodox creeds.

I’m not finished with the book yet, so I won’t be addressing its content here. Instead, what I want to address is another question that arose while I read Giles’ explanation of his theological method (i.e. proper exegesis + comparison with the orthodox tradition [beginning with The Apologists running down through Karl Barth and Millard Erickson]):

Was the doctrine of the Trinity gradually reached via reflection spurred on by historical necessity? Or are we just slow on the uptake?

In John’s gospel, the Lord Jesus articulates the doctrine of the Trinity (cf. John 14-17, The Upper Room Discourse), but can we find Him doing this, implicitly or explicitly, anywhere else?

How is He his Lord? Mark 12:28-37

Looking at Mark’s gospel, we see that what was at stake in Jesus’ exchange with the scribes was not simply whether or not He would accurately answer their question regarding the first commandment, but the question of His divinity in light of the form of monotheism held by the scribes. Rather than seeing the Lord’s statement regarding their misinformed Messianic theology (vv. 35-37) as being a narratively abrupt aside, its relationship to the first commandment question, I think, can be seen in their response to His answer. They exclaim:

³² “So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He.”

Jesus’ response establishes that the Word of God teaches monotheism. However, what does that entail precisely? For the scribes, the Messiah was simply the son of David. But as, Jesus points out, if David calls Him “Lord” how then can He be his Son? Yes, there is but one God. However, but how are we to understand this in light of David’s presentation of the Messiah as his descendant and Lord (God)?

In the Jesus’ response, we see that He contrasts the authority of the scribes over and against the authority, not of Himself, but of the Holy Spirit.We read in vv. 35b-36:

…“How is it that the scribes say [...]? ³⁶ For David himself said by the Holy Spirit…

The Messianic theology of the scribes is shown to be seriously flawed, for although “the scribes say,” David said “by the Holy Spirit.” Jesus is appealing to the Old Testament to underline His divinity as being clearly taught, although obviously not very well understood by the scribes. The Father is God, the Messiah is also God, yet, Jesus maintains, there is but one God.

But more implicitly, Jesus is appealing to the authority that David has by the Holy Spirit. David isn’t speaking on his own, the Holy Spirit is speaking through him, although he was obviously aware of what he was saying (cf. v. 38). What we see in this response, therefore, isn’t just an aside, but a detailed response to the unitarian monotheism of the scribes.

Jesus gives a compact, dense picture of the Trinity in co-equal operation with respect to the establishment of the Kingdom of God:

1. The coronation of the King Messiah by the Father

2. The Son’s Acceptance of the Kingdom from the Father’s hand

3. The Holy Spirit’s Revelation of the Redemptive Drama through His prophet (king David)

When we read the words “You are not far from the kingdom of God” we typically think that Jesus is giving them a positive appraisal for their extended response to His answer (vv. 32-33), but He then goes on to expose their flawed unitarian doctrine and their hypocrisy.

But why?

Because while they are not far from the Kingdom of God, that is Jesus Himself, they cannot see or enter the kingdom of God. There is a parallel structure that occurs here.

A. God is One (vv. 28-30)

B. Love Your Neighbor (v. 31)

[C. Superficial Agreement With Jesus (vv. 32-33)]

D. God is Holy Spirit, Father, and Son (vv. 35-37)

E. The Teachers of the Law Do Not Love Their Neighbors (vv. 38-40)

Ever wonder how the subjects Jesus is dealing with in Mark 12 are connected? Well, reading the question of the first commandment as an indirect way of dealing with the doctrine of the divinity of the Messiah sorta ties things together very neatly. doesn’t it?

What is at stake is Who God is. Is God One? Yes. But He is also Spirit, Father, and Son. In particular, the Messiah is God – He is the kingdom of God. And those who adamantly reject the divine Messiahship of Christ, Jesus’ words imply, do so not on theological grounds but on moral ones (cf. 12:38-40).

The doctrine of the Trinity is a difficult doctrine, no doubt; it is also one that we will always have a hard time wrapping our minds around. However, let’s not forget that it wasn’t the early church fathers who first taught it. Christ Himself expounded on the doctrine as early as Mark’s gospel.

-h

Jacob’s Trinitarian Blessing November 10, 2009

I’m currently finishing up my readings in Genesis, jotting down whatever comes to mind as I pore over the text. What I love about the Old Testament is that it in no way conflicts with the New Testament, but merely speaks the same doctrinal truths in a different way (e.g. typology, symbolism, prophecy, etc).

One such doctrinal truth is the doctrine of the Trinity. There are some who would like to attribute the doctrine to the early church fathers, labeling it a “tradition of men” that is not rooted in Scripture. Those who make these claims – some examples include: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, and Muslims – do not let Scripture speak for itself in a systematic fashion, but manipulate the Word of God so as to suit their own agenda.

However, the basic problem they face is that in spite of  how much of they attempt to discredit re-”translate” (i.e. blatantly mis-translate) or call “corrupt”, the remaining portions of the Word of God still attest to the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity.

A perfect case in point: Jacob’s blessing on Joseph’s sons in Genesis 48.

The passage marks the ending of Jacob’s life, and as he gets ready to “be gathered to his people,” he first blesses Joseph’s two sons. Here is the blessing:

¹⁵ And he blessed Joseph, and said:

“God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
The God who has fed me all my life long to this day,

¹⁶ The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil,
Bless the lads;
Let my name be named upon them,
And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

- Genesis 48:15-16

Jacob references One God three times, each time differentiating God’s relation to him.

1. God, before whom my fathers [...] walked… – God the Father

2. God who has fed me all my life long to this day – God the Holy Spirit

3. The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil - The “Angel of the LORD”, Jesus Christ – God the Son (For a more thorough look into The Angel of the Lord’s equation with Christ Jesus click here).

The blessing is singular, as is the Being who is being addressed, yet the persons mentioned are Three – equal as God, differentiated by role/relation/person. The Father is worshiped and “walked before”, the Spirit leads and feeds and guides His children, while the Angel of the LORD, the Son of God is, always has been, and always will be the Redeemer.

Amen.