Christ is the Bridegroom; therefore, Jesus is Yahweh

Lamb JesusA Profound Mystery

In Ephesians 5:25-33, Paul the apostle teaches that the union between Adam and Eve, and men and their wives in general, analogically mirrors the union of Christ and his church. The implications of Paul’s paralleling of the marital union and the Christian’s union with Christ are indeed profound, for the Hebrew word for “holding fast” (i.e. union) that is first mentioned in Genesis 2:24 is repeated in several places in the Old Testament when describing the unique relationship of love and service Israel was to have to Yahweh alone. A few verses using the same Hebrew word (דָּבַק, dä·vak’) are demonstrative of this phenomenon.

You shall fear the Lord your God. You shall serve him and hold fast to him, and by his name you shall swear.[1]

…if you will be careful to do all this commandment that I command you to do, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than you.[2]

You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear him and keep his commandments and obey his voice, and you shall serve him and hold fast to him.[3]

…choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.[4]

…be very careful to observe the commandment and the law that Moses the servant of theLord commanded you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways and to keep his commandments and to cling to him and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.[5]

By paralleling the marital union of a man and a woman to the church’s union with Christ, Paul is tying together the marriage union, the union of Israel and Yahweh, and Christ and the Church. He is, in other words, identifying Christ as bridegroom of the Church, even as Yahweh identified himself as the bridegroom of Israel,[6] thereby identifying Jesus Christ as the unique object of service, devotion, love, worship, and obedience of all of the elect constituting the church universal.

Hence, Paul speaks of the profound mystery involved in saying that Adam and Eve prefigure Christ and the church. Mystics have often misused this text in Ephesians to legitimize their heretical notions of ontological union with God (i.e. divinization). Their misreading of the text becomes plain to see when the relationship between Adam and Eve – which is one of cleaving or clinging orholding fast to one another only – is shown to have echoes in the Old Testament in God’s dealing with his people Israel. It is also made clear by the word mystery as it stands in direct relation to the two becoming one flesh. Yahweh commanded his people to cling to him alone, even as Eve was tocling to Adam alone. However, God and Israel would not become one flesh. Rather, God becameone flesh with his people when he “became flesh.”[7] As the Holy Spirit teaches in Hebrews 2:14-15:

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.

Paul identifies this as the great mystery (μέγας, μυστήριον) of God being manifest “in the flesh” in 1st Timothy 3:16, using the same Greek terms in 1st Timothy as he uses in Ephesians 5:32.[8]

The profound mystery of which Paul speaks in Ephesians 5, then, is the incarnation of Yahweh, to whom his people are to cling, and who not only shares in our flesh but will “transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.”[9] As John states in his first epistle:

Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.[10]

Adam and Eve’s clinging to one another is an analogy of how Israel was to cling to Yahweh, and their becoming one flesh is a foreshadowing of the incarnation of our Lord, as well as the redemption and transformation of our bodies.

Christ is God

Thus, the Bridegroom metaphor that Christ uses of himself is a direct self-identification as Yahweh the Bridegroom of Israel. The Church’s monogamous relationship to Christ, as it were, only further serves to solidify this interpretation, as the relationship is one of clinging/absolute fidelity of worship, adoration, allegiance, praise, and so forth. Paul’s identification of Christ as the Last Adam, the Great Bridegroom to whom the Church will be presented at the eschaton, additionally, is an explicit identification of Christ Jesus as Yahweh having partaken of human flesh and, as the firstfruits of the resurrection, calling his elect to believe, be redeemed, and be raised to life eternal with an incorruptible body of flesh and bones that shares in his resurrected human body’s attributes.

Soli. Deo. Gloria.


[1] Deut 10:20.

[2] Deut 11:22-23.

[3] Deut 13:4.

[4] Deut 30:19b-20.

[5] Jos 22:5.

[6] This is done implicitly in the verses mentioned above which command Israel to cling to Yahweh. However, it is also stated explicitly throughout the Old Testament (e.g. Jeremiah 3:1-18; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2; 3:1-5).

[7] See John 1:14.

[8] viz., μέγα and μυστήριον.

[9] Phil 3:21.

[10] 1st John 3:2.

Is the Word of God Impersonal in the OT?

wpid-wp-1433137781246.jpegDenying the Personality of the Word

The assertion that the New Testament does not identify God’s Logos as personal is frequently made by unitarians. A staple belief among unitarians is that the Logos of God was a-personal, but through the influence of Greek philosophical traditions began to be incorrectly identified as a divine personal being. This has been demonstrated to be both exegetically untenable and historically/philosophically wrong (for instance here). There are some unitarians, however, who because of this exegetical and historical/philosophical evidence argue that the a-personality of the Word of God (i.e. the Dabar) is clearly taught in the Old Testament. However, is this true?

Not for the attentive reader of Scripture. Beginning with the book of Genesis, the attentive reader will note that there are instances in which the Word of God is addressed as Yahweh, as the Lord, as God. And God is hardly an a-personal entity. How then can the unitarian assert that God’s Word in the Old Testament is a-personal? Whatever their reasoning is, they are not deriving it from the Scriptures, as the following article aims to demonstrate.

Here are just a few instances of this phenomenon.

The Voice of the Lord

1. In Genesis 3:8, the Holy Spirit says Adam and Eve heard the “sound” of the Lord God walking in the garden. The word for sound is a Hebrew word which is usually translated as voice. This fact is reflected in the King James Version, where the reader is informed of the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden. This voice calls out to Adam and his wife, who are hiding, and reveals their sin, judges them, and promises them redemption through the Seed of the Woman.

Contextually, Hebrews 4:12-13 echoes this narrative and states that the “Word of God” is “living and active” and “no creature is hidden from his sight.” That is to say, the Word (here, logos) of God is living and active, judging the wicked and saving the elect, and there is no one hidden from his sight. Note how swiftly the writer moves from “Word” (i.e. Logos) to the personal pronouns “his” and “him.” Note further  that before him, i.e. the Logos of God, “all are naked and exposed,” even as Adam and Eve were when the Voice of God walked through the garden and confronted them with judgment and salvation. Hebrews 4:12-13 seems to be directly alluding to the Garden of Eden in which the Voice of the Lord, the Word of God, walked among the trees and called out in judgment and salvation, revealing hidden sinners and exposing them completely. [For a devotional treatment of the same subject, see this previous post].

2. In Psalm 29, the identification of the Voice of the Lord with Yahweh himself is impossible to deny. Specifically, verses 5-9 identify the Voice of the Lord as Yahweh, via the use of parallelisms. Thus, the Voice of the Lord is said to break the cedars in v.5a, but in v.5b the Lord is said to be the one who breaks the cedars. The personalization of the Voice of the Lord, moreover, is carried over into the next verse where the personal pronoun “he” refers back to the Lord, i.e. the Voice of the Lord in v.5a. Likewise, vv.7-8 transition from “the Voice of the Lord” in vv.7-8a to “the Lord” in v.8b. The climax of this worship of the Voice of God can be seen in v.9 where the transition is the smoothest. Psalm 29:9 states that: “the Voice of the Lord makes the deer give birth and strips the forests bare, and in his temple all cry, ‘Glory!’” Note that the transition from “the Voice of the Lord” to “the Lord” is even more explicit. Here the writer says that the temple is the temple of the Voice of the Lord. Do a-personal utterances have temples?

The Word of the Lord

1. Throughout the Old Testament, in addition to the Voice of the Lord propositions identifying that Voice as Yahweh himself, there are also verse which clearly identify the Word of the Lord as Yahweh himself. The first appearance of the phrase, for instance, is in Genesis 15, where “the Word of the Lord” comes to Abraham in a vision, and Abraham responds with these words: “O Lord God…” (Gen 15:1-2) Lest any confusion occur, the Scriptures go on to say that “the Word of the Lord” came to Abram and “brought him outside” (vv.4-6). Throughout this passage, the Word of the Lord is identified specifically as Yahweh and he/him/his.

2. Similarly, in Jeremiah 1 we are told that “the Word of the Lord came to [Jeremiah] and said…” (v.4). Jeremiah’s response is clear: “Ah, Lord God! . . .” (v.6) The prophet clearly identifies the Word as the Lord himself, and this is made evident by the following verse, where we read: “But the Lord said to me…” (v.7) Note the transition from “the Word of the Lord” to “the Lord,” a transition which we have already noted in Ps 29. The identification of the Word of the Lord as Yahweh-in-person, i.e. as a Christophany, is made even clearer when we read that “…the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said to me…” (v.9a)

This Word of the Lord is not a-personal, or even intangible. Rather, the Word is the Lord and he stretches out his hand and touches the mouth of his prophet, Jeremiah.

Concluding Remarks

The Word of the Lord, although primarily a technical formula introducing a prophet’s message as legitimately obtained directly from God, at times designate the Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord God himself: the Logos of John 1. It is simply not the case that the Word of the Lord is a-personal in the Old Testament.


The Exclusive Way of Salvation

HebrewsSalvation is Only Through Explicit Individual Faith in Jesus the Son of God

[Read: John 17]

In my last post, I wrote about the exclusive nature of the first and greatest commandment. Since then, I’ve finished listening to a debate between Dr. James White and Dr. John Sanders titled Is Knowing Jesus the Only Way to Be Saved? (You can watch the debate here.) and wanted to share some more reasons why “Christian” inclusivism is anti-Christian nonsense.

Firstly, in Jesus’ high priestly prayer recorded in John 17, he says that he has been given authority over all flesh in order to give eternal life to all whom the Father has given him (vv.1-2). Note that Christ does not lack authority over any flesh (i.e. people from all places at all times and under all circumstances). Note, furthermore, that Christ says that this authority has been given to him for the sake of his giving life to a specific class of people among the larger set of “flesh” over which he has been given authority. There is, therefore, no one that is unreached by accident. Christ is Sovereign over all flesh. There are, therefore, no persons who are unbelievers due to some oversight by the Triune God! This is clearly seen to be the case given Christ’s identification of those whom the Father has given to him. Because no one escapes the Sovereign rule of Christ Jesus, all the saved and unsaved are what they are by virtue of Christ the Lord’s Sovereign decree.

Secondly, in the same high priestly prayer of John 17, Christ Jesus defines eternal life as knowing the only true God and his Christ whom he has sent (cf. John 17:3). This means that there are no Christians who do not know God and the Savior whom he sent to die for their sins. To suggest that there are is to contradict Jesus’ words. If one does not know the one true God (i.e. the God of Israel who revealed himself explicitly only to Israel), and if one does not know his Son whom he has sent (i.e. Jesus Christ the Spotless Lamb of God for sinners crucified and raised again three days later), then one is not in possession of eternal life.

Thirdly, lest the inclusivist say “ Ah, yes, but this knowing that Jesus talks about is non-propositional, emotive, mystical…” Jesus anticipates the words of his enemies who argue thus and so says:

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.” (John 17:6-8)

Jesus explicitly defines knowledge of the only true God and his Son as consisting of names, words, truth, understanding – i.e. propositional revelation. One cannot claim, therefore, that there are people who know God and Christ in some non-propositional way. All men are born with an innate knowledge of God, yes; however, knowledge of who this God is and what he demands of them, knowledge of how they are sinners in need of a divine Savior, and knowledge of that Savior’s coming to live, die, and rise again for the salvation of such sinners – this knowledge only comes through the preaching of the Gospel from the Scriptures.

It is, therefore, only through an explicit knowledge of the  one true God and his Son the Sacrificed Lamb for sinners that sinners can be saved. The tribesmen in the middle of nowhere, in other words, who have not had the Gospel proclaimed to them will not be saved. For faith in the one true God, as I pointed out in my last post, is very specifically identified by Scripture as faith in Yahweh who revealed himself propositionally in the books of Scripture. And, moreover, faith in the Savior comes through the very specific revelation of God in Christ as recorded in the Gospels, as Jesus clearly states.

There is no such thing as Christian inclusivism, brothers and sisters. God is Sovereign over whom he saves. Therefore, those who perish have not perished unjustly or apart from his knowledge. The Triune King of all things does not need an irrational theologian to serve as his public relations consultant. If the tribesmen in the middle of nowhere are not saved, that is God’s prerogative. If they are saved, however, they will be saved through the preaching of the Gospel and not through faith in some unknown deity. Scripture does not identify theological ignorance as a virtue but as an indication that one is on his or her way to everlasting destruction. Don’t be deceived.

Soli Deo Gloria!


The Part that Dawkins Left Out

DawkyAtheist Richard Dawkins has become famous by hating the One True God who reveals himself in the pages of the Old and New Testament. He, like many other so-called New Atheists, attempts to level the charge of immorality against God. Despite the obvious category errors that such accusations necessarily exhibit, the same old complaints continue to flow from Dawkins and those who follow him. How a creature whose most valued moral sentiments are nothing more than “the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms” (to quote Bertrand Russell) thinks he has the right to judge the behaviors of another person is an inexplicable mystery. How this creature thinks he has the authority to judge the behaviors of God is even more impossible to comprehend! Nevertheless, as I read Scripture some time ago I stumbled into that part of the Old Testament that Dawkins & Co. have left out of their analyses of God’s moral character.

In particular, I was reading through Exodus 22 and came across the following commands.

“You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.

“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him. If ever you take your neighbor’s cloak in pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down, for that is his only covering, and it is his cloak for his body; in what else shall he sleep? And if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.” (vv.21-27)

God commands the Israelites to not wrong a sojourner, and to not oppress him. God commands Israel to not mistreat any widow. God commands Israel to not mistreat any fatherless child. God commands Israel to be compassionate to the poor, not demanding interest from him or repossessing the only cloak that he owns. And God promises to pour out his wrath on all those who break these laws.

I’ve never seen an atheist comment on these laws. Why? Perhaps atheists haven’t read them. Perhaps atheists have, in a fit of blind fury and mouth frothing, read past these verses in search of something they could misinterpret as immoral. Perhaps God has blinded their eyes to these words in order that these atheists will continue in their unbelief and hatred of God and so heap up wrath for the day of judgment.

Perhaps their intention is to accuse God of sin, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.