Dr. Brown Tackles Jewish Objections to Jesus, including Why Jews Reject the Deity of the Messiah

1. Dear Dr. Brown,

   I am sure you would find great interest in this. Because you have a special respect for the ultra-orthodox, specifically Lubavitcher. Maybe you already know of the source that these Chassidic rabbis are drawing from, but, this is an article written by Chabad based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. I think it fits into this topic greatly.

   Thirteen is the numerical value of echad, a word that is the keystone of the Jewish faith. Every morning and evening of his life, the Jew recites the verse Shema Yisrael, Ado-nai Elo-hei-nu, Ado-nai echad — “Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is echad.” The Jewish people are called “an echad nation on earth” because they reveal the echad of G-d in the world. And the era of Moshiach is described as “the day that G-d will be echad, and His name echad.”

   Echad means “one.” The Shema proclaims the oneness and unity of G-d, which the people of Israel are charged to reveal in the world, and which will be fully manifest in the era of Moshiach. But is echad the ideal word to express the divine unity? Like its English equivalent, the word does not preclude the existence of other objects (as in the sequence “one, two, three…”), nor does it preclude its object being composed of parts (we speak of “one nation,” “one forest,” “one person” and “one tree,” despite the fact that each of these consists of many units or components). It would seem that the term yachid, which means “singular” and “only one,” more clearly expresses the “perfect simplicity” of G-d (which Maimonides atates to be the most fundamental principle of the Jewish faith) and the axiom that “there is none else beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35).

   Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality — if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity.

   Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

   Source:
   http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2741/jewish/The-Numerology-of-Redemption.htm

   God bless you!

   I would love to get your feedback on this.

2. Eric, Great link! Thanks!

   While Dr. Brown is answering your question, I would also like Dr. Brown’s opinion of Yoel Nathan’s book – “The Jewish Trinity” (http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Trinity-Yoel-Natan/dp/1593300689)

   Thanks very much.

3. Eric,

   Actually, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen that quote before. Fascinating, and certainly in harmony with Jewish mystical thought. I’ll bounce it off a Lubavitch friend to see what he has to say.

   James,

   I have Yoel Nathan’s book but haven’t gotten into it sufficiently to comment on it.

4. Dear Dr. Brown,

   Awesome! I am excited to hear what your friend has to say.

   I was listening to a sermon via podcast from the King of Kings Church in Jerusalem, the Messianic congregation your friend Ron Cantor was (or still is? – I am unsure) an associate pastor for. It was amazing, I had to replay the sermon and I wrote down word for word what the pastor (Wayne Hilsden) quoted. I was amazed to see the Chabad.org website pop up. Amazing!

   Blessings to you.

5. Hi Dr Brown

   Have you read Alan Segal book “two powers in heaven” Segal is a Jewish Scholar and points out that second temple Judaism didn’t see any problem with there being two Yahwehs in famous passages like Genesis 19:24 and others. The Rabbis had their own opinions who the “second power” was, guesses ranged from Adam, Enoch, Moses to the Arc Angel Michael. This teaching however was deemed to be heretical after a bunch of fisherman started to attribute the “second power” to Jesus of Nazareth and in 2-AD it was deemed heretical. The extra rabbinical material used included Philos use of Deutero Theos in his writings…Any thoughts on this ?

6. @Dr. Michael Brown, Eric (Shwagga) + Nobunaga:

   Wow. Wow. Wow.

7. Nobunaga,

   Segal’s book is important, but I haven’t fully landed in terms of my own views of what he has written. Thanks for the post!

8. I take my wows back, then. lol

9. No problem Dr Brown thank you for answering me, it was an honor to speak with you via the net. I’d be very interested in you view, when your fully landed.

10. Dr. Brown,

    In your understanding of the reading of Genesis and Sodom and Gomorrah, which is the same as mine, you discuss the Son as staying and speaking with Abraham while the two angels go on. I’ve read Joel Natan’s book, “The Jewish Trinity” and I think he tries to show a reading of the trinity in verses where it does not apply. And it seems that his idea of the trinity is quite different than mine, in that he says that God, the Father, was literally seen of men–not just the Son. Now, I’m not the language scholar that you are, but, this is what Natan says of those verses in Genesis on pages 84-85, with the Shema coming later in chapter 4. He picks up his discourse on the “presenses” of God as expressed in the plural use of various words which I couldn’t begin to understand the ancient Hebrew meaning of, so I have no way of checking what he claims. This is what he says:

    “Some Encounters with Elyon’s Presenses”

    “Abraham and the Trinity”

    “Gen 18–19 comprise the longest Trinitarian proof text in the Bible. Gen 19 mentions Yshveh’s Presences (Gen 19:13, 27). Yahveh appeared as three men to Abraham (Gen 18:01-02). Moses, the narrator of Genesis, wrote:

    “Yahveh, [the Son] said…”I will go down now, and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry about it that has come to me [the Son]. If not, I will know.” The men [the Son and the Spirit] turned and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before Yahveh [the Father]. Gen 18:20-22).”

    Natan then goes on to say that Yahweh (the Son and the Spirit) carried out the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, not angels. I’ve never, ever heard that interpretation of it before. The more I study his book, the less enclined I am to agree with his other interpretations of Scriptures, but as I said, I don’t know the proper rendering of the plurality or singularity of verbs and nouns and such in the ancient Hebrew language. There are just to many interpretations that don’t ring true in my understanding of things. I think he tries to force the trinity in verses where it just doesn’t belong.

    Once you read the book you’ll see what I’m having trouble with and why it takes a scholar to disect it.

11. Sheila,

    Perhaps it doesn’t take a scholar to dissect the book you mention? Perhaps you can assume that English translations, compared one against another, are fairly reliable and that they are properly rendering the Hebrew? As for the Genesis text cited, the straightforward reading of the text is that Yahweh appeared to Abraham with two angels. Very clear!

12. Yeah, I think I wasted some money that could have gone somewhere else. So, for others considering it–put your money to good use–give it to Dr. Brown rather than buying that book! 🙂

    Well, thanks, I’ll trust the understanding given to me just by reading the plain text. It’s all there for anyone to find if they diligently search the Scriptures!

    What a glorious working our God has worked in His Word! Just awesome. Spirit breathed life found in the pages of the Bible.

    Amen!

13. Dr. B.–

    SIDE NOTE: I just began reading your latest book, “A Queer Thing…”, and I am bookmarking ALMOST EVERY PAGE with notes in my Kindle!!! Really eye opening for those of us who don’t have children in the U.S. school system! I had no idea the depth of their infiltration into the “abc’s” of school children. I don’t remember the exact praseology, but one said, “Whoever captures the children, captures the future.” That gave me cold chills!!!

    Is there a thread where they are discussing that book? I’d like to read what they’re saying.

14. Dr. Brown,

    It seems you believe that no one has seen Yahweh and that all appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament were the preincarnate Christ (please correct me if I’m wrong on your view). In light of this view, please consider Judges 6. Yahweh and the angel of Yahweh are visiting Gideon at the same time, yet it is the angel of Yahweh who receives the offering, indicating that he can accept an offering as Yahweh. The angel of Yahweh vanishes, and then Yahweh tells Gideon he won’t die even though he saw the angel of Yahweh. This seems to confirm (as did receipt of the offering) that the angel of Yahweh was Yahweh, since we know it had been taught that one could not see God and live (cf. Judges 13:21-23). If the appearances of Yahweh in the Old Testament were the preincarnate Christ, who was the angel of Yahweh that received the offering and elicited fear of death in Gideon’s heart from looking at him?

    Thank you so much for any help.

15. I wish I had just borrowed our editors copy because now that I’ve looked more closely into Natan’s book this weekend, I have no earthly idea where he has acquired his interpretation. It just goes to show that the everyday Christian can absolutely trust the plain reading of Scripture and they should not be enamored of, nor be intimidated by “learned men”. No slight to you, Dr. Brown, as I’ve not heard any doctrinal errors coming from you to date. I tested you early on! I agree with your interpretations and support you because I feel you absolutely have it right when you admonish us to “major on the minors” and because I feel the same burden you do in your heart for the state of the Church and for the Jewish people and, indeed, all of the lost souls as is evident in your broadcasts and your literature. The Lord has perfectly equiped you to do the work you do in serving Him and I’m greatful for you.

    The review of Natan’s book came down weeks ago as soon as I began looking into it and it’s led to a new book review policy. We won’t post any reviews until two or more of us have read it and are in agreement. A lesson in humility for me. And a lesson to be more vigilant as well as to trust the leading of the Holy Spirit and to stay focused on our calling and on what is truly important. And while I feel ultimately responsible for the content, I can’t afford for it to sap my confidence, we’ve to much work to do. The error was discovered, corrected and I feel we are back on track!

    Thank you, Dr. Brown, for your work, your admonishment and your encouragement!

16. It seems to me as we push forward in where the Lord wants us to go, our enemy lays many land mines in our path.

    Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might.

    Eph 6:11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil.

    Psa 46:1 To the choirmaster. Of the Sons of Korah. According to Alamoth. A Song. God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in times of trouble.

    46:7 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah

    46:10 “Be still, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth!”

    Psa 46:11 The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah

17. Sheila,

    Daniel 7:9-14 Says that Daniel saw the manifestation of the Father. AKA the Ancient of Days. We know that this is the manifestation of the Father and not the manifestation of the Son because he describes the Son of Man approaching the Ancient of Days.

18. Dr Brown,

    May I put this to you about the Shema.

    Pro-trinititarian Bowman says:

    The Shema in 1st century Judaism was the affirmation of One God, One Lord. These terms being synanomous…YHWH was the One Lord and God, the God of the patriarchs, of Moses and of the prophets…Jesus affirmed the Shema as the first and greatest commandment and in that regard Jesus’ view was in the mainstream of Judaism. Putting Jesus in His Place, p 166.

    I am not convinced that your view alignes with “the mainstream of Judaism” and thus with Jesus.

    From New International Dictionary of NT Theology, p 73:

    Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Judaism his own and expressly quoted the Shema. This guaranteed continuity between the Old and the New Covenant.

    Fair challenge?

    Anthony

19. Sir Anthony,

    I wholeheartedly affirm the Shema as Jesus did! Also, are you saying that Bowman is claiming that his views are different from those of Jesus?

20. @Sir Anthony,

    Do you acknowledge that Yeshua existed before the virgin birth? As the מלאך ה׳?

21. Btw,

    The long awaited (for me anyway) paperback reprint of Alan Segal’s “Two Powers in Heaven…” is now available at Amazon.

22. Sir Anthony–

    ” Putting Jesus in His Place, p 166.”

    Jesus’ place, (“being found in the likeness of men”) was that of a servant. He never deviated from His role as a servant unless it was given to Him by the Father is how I read the totality of the New Testament in light of the First. Micah 5:2 together with John 17 seem clear to me.

    More supporting Scripture: Jhn 8:28, Jhn 12:49, Jhn 14:10

23. Hello to you, btw.

24. Sir Anthony,

    Have you ever had occasion to speak with, in any forums at all, Dr. Michael Heiser?

25. Michael, thanks so much.

    I am claiming only that Bowman makes Jesus into a Trinitarian! Or else admits that Jesus was not a trinitarian.

    First he admits that Jesus is in “the mainstream of Judaism”. Is that a claim then that Jesus was a Trinitarian based on Judaism?

    You must spell out to all the scholars your conviction that the Shema of Israel is a Trinitarian creed! Will you do this for us in greater detail?

    You know of the countless learned material on Judaism (for example Hodgson lecturing at Oxford on the Trinity) and many others, who know that
    Judaism never held a Trinitiarian creed! Jesus held that Jewish creed.

    But you are quite clear below: you insist that Deut 6:4 is a Trinitarian creed. Many Trinitarians will disagree with you, I am sure you know.

    Why does Hurtado say that “the Shema is Pre-Christian”?

    Why does a standard commentary on Mark (Anderson) say that the “church ceased to recite the Shema”?
    You are now in disagreement with James Dunn who says that in the NT “Jesus is NOT YHVH, not the God of Isreal” (Did the Earliest Christians Worship Jesus? p 144.)

    What about this from the NID NTH: The New International Dictionary of NT Theology, Vol. 2, p. 73 ed. Colin Brown:

    The New Testament rests firmly on the foundation of the Old Testament, when it speaks about God. But its emphases are new. He is the God who is near, the Father of Jesus Christ who justifies freely by his grace. His action in election bursts all claims to exclusiveness. But it is the same God who reveals Himself here as in the Old Testament, and whose plan of salvation, there promised, comes to fulfillment here. The one God. o theos, is the most frequent designation of God in the New Testament. Belief in the one, only and unique God (Matthew 23:9; Romans 3:30; I Corinthians 8:4, 6; Galatians 3:20; I Timothy 2:5; James 2:19) is an established part of primitive Christian tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Judaism his own and expressly quoted the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4ff.; Mark 12:29ff. cf. Matthew 22:37; Luke 10:27). This guaranteed continuity between the Old and the New Covenant. For the God whom Christians worship [do they?] is the God of the Fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), the God of Abraham, of Isaac and Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37), the God of Israel (Matthew 15:31; Luke 1:68; Acts 13:17:cf. II Corinthians 6:16; Hebrews 11:16), and the God of Jesus Christ (II Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:3; I Peter. 1:3).

    You, Michael, are claiming that the God of Israel, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob who raised Jesus from the dead was the Triune God of your faith. Yet you cite no verse out of 1300+ refs., to GOD in the NT which means a Triune God. Where is 1?

    These issues need lot of airing,

    Anthony

26. Dear Michael, I offer you this for your interaction, because I think you are on weak ground with Jews and many, many scholars in maintaining that Judaism in Deut 6:4 held a Trinitarian creed.

    Hodgson, Regius Prof at Oxford first:

    Dr. Leonard Hodgson on Trinity.

    Perhaps the most significant of all admissions about the attempt to base the Trinity on the Bible comes from a leading Trinitarian theologian of this century. Leonard Hodgson informs us that in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century debates between unitarians and Trinitarians, both parties “accepted the Bible as containing revelation given in the form of propositions.

    He then concludes that “on the basis of argument which both sides held in common, the unitarians had the better case.”[1]

    This observation deserves careful consideration by all Trinitarians.

    Trinitarianism arose within Judaism and the monotheism of Judaism was then, as it is still, unitarian, How Was the Church to express a theology adequate to the new knowledge of God which had come to it through Jesus Christ [this is false! Jesus had given them the unitarian creed of Israel, Mk 12:29] In what terms could the Christians think of God as He was revealed to them in the practice of religion? [Why not follow Jesus whom they claimed to be following, by reciting Jesus’ own creed?] Were they to repudiate monotheism and assert a tritheistic theology? [this is what happened covertly.

    Polytheism entered the church camouflaged]? Or could the monotheism be revised so as to include the new revelation without ceasing to be monotheistic? That was the problem with which the church was wrestling in those centuries in which the creeds were formulated.

    Last week we saw that Christian thought [which had not followed Christ!] developed through the intercourse of its religious beliefs inherited from Judaism with the Greek tradition of philosophical thinking [Oh, so clever! Paul had warned ‘Beware of philosophy’] I shall now try to show that the upshot of this development was a revision both of the theological idea of monotheism [so they adopted a revised version of Jesus’ monotheism and a revised Christianity] and of the philosophical idea of unity. Dr. L Hodgson, Christian Faith and Practice, 1952, p. 74

    [Who said that Jesus’ teaching can be revised?]

    Hurtado speaks of a MUTATION in the creed and certainly does not argue that Judaism was Trinitarian!

    Then from the top of evangelical scholars: Heresies, by Harold OJ Brown, 1984, p. 431:

    …the transition within biblical monotheism, from the unitary monotheism of Israel [and Jesus!] to the Trinitarianism of the Council of Chalcedon. The difference is symbolized by the transition from the prayer Shema Israel of Deut. 6:4, “Hear O Israel the Lord our God is One Lord…” to the confession of the Athanasian Creed, “We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity” [which symbolizes the exclusion of Jesus from the Church, a permanent lapse into paganism].

    Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tripersonal theism of Nicea a legitimate development of OT revelation?

    Christians affirm that it is, holding that Nicea represents a fuller unfolding, not a distortion of the self-disclosure of the God of Israel [and the God of Jesus]. Indeed the Trinitarianism of Nicea and the Christological definition of Chalcedon are seen as the valid and necessary interpretation of the claims of Jesus [the Jesus whose major claim was that his own creed and the creed of Israel was the most important consideration of all!] in the context of the OT witness to the God who is One.

    [This in an amazing obfuscation, since it is precisely the witness to the unitary monotheism of the OT which Jesus makes the true basis of true faith! Mark 12:29; John 17:3]

    Without Nicea and Chalcedon, it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion, the legitimate daughter of OT Judaism. Today the clarity and necessity of Chalcedon, if not refuted and disproved, has been widely forgotten and ignored [or has the unitary monotheism of Jesus been widely forgotten and ignored?]

    Christianity took four centuries to formulate its witness to the deity and humanity of Christ in the context of the One God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in such a way that it preserved a coherent approach to the unity of truth. It has taken fifteen centuries more to forget Chalcedon again; as it loses touch with Chalcedon [as once it lost touch with its founder, the unitarian monotheist Jesus], the Christian world is in the process of losing its coherence. It is in fact losing the conviction that that there is any final truth about the one who said, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6) [Yes, the very same, Jesus who, as the ultimate teacher of truth, said that the unitary, non Trinitarian monotheism of his Hebrew heritage was the indispensable foundation of true belief and worship!]

    Christianity thus turns out to be the only world-religion which begins by discarding its own founder’s creed! This is the real incoherence.

    [1] The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nisbet, 1943), 220, 223, emphasis added. The “unitarian” understanding of the nature of God which we propose in the following chapters should not be confused with contemporary Unitarian Universalist theology.

27. David Roberts

    Thanks, Jesus was never an angel!

    Certainly not the angel of the Lord.

    There whole point of the Son of God is spelled out by Ps 2:7 which fixes the decree of the begetting of the Son.

    Matthew and Luke obviously pick up the begetting of the Son and explain it lucidly in Matt 1:18, 20 “begotten, fathered IN her”.

    And of course Luke 1:35 the child to be begotten/born is the result of the creative act of the One God.

    None of this is comlex, as in post-biblical centuries it became!

28. Then do angels receive worship in the unitarian view? Anyone know?

29. Sheila

    Then do angels receive worship in the unitarian view?

    Many people, including angels, are “worshipped” in the scriptures. The question is whether these are worshipped as the one YHWH God of Israel.

30. Thanks Benei. How do you understand Judges 6:11-23 and Judges 13 in light of the Angel of the LORD? Should we make anything of the
    מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה which is the angel of the LORD?

    Does your name have a specific meaning? I’ve not encountered anyone else with that name.

31. Benjamin maybe?

32. Sheila

    Benei is Hebrew for “son”. 😉

    As to your queries, are you familiar with the term Shaliah?

    http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/jesus-christ/divine-agents-speaking-and-acting-in-gods-stead

33. Sheila, thanks. I do not know that scholar.

    What exactly is your point below, please?

    We know that Jesus was always the servant of YHVH.

    Jesus is the Son of God as defined by Luke 1:35.

    There is only one YHVH and so Jesus cannot BE YHVH– that would make two and Ps. 110:1 would be contradicted!

    Hope this helps.

    By no means forget the 1300 verses in the NT which say that the Father is GOD, not Jesus.

    Jesus claimed to be the Messiah when he said “I am he” (badly translated in some versions).

    The key is John where the first I am HE occurs– I am the Messiah.

    None of this is so hard if one is prepared to believe the creed of Jesus in Mark 12:29.

34. Shaliah as in emissary, disciple, messenger, an agent or such. (love Google)

    Is the Angel of Gen 18, 19 the LORD or not?

35. Sir Anthony,

    It was in answer to your quotes concerning the shema. I think it was the title of the book that struck me more than anything you said.

    “Pro-trinititarian Bowman says:

    “The Shema in 1st century Judaism was the affirmation of One God, One Lord. These terms being synanomous…YHWH was the One Lord and God, the God of the patriarchs, of Moses and of the prophets…Jesus affirmed the Shema as the first and greatest commandment and in that regard Jesus’ view was in the mainstream of Judaism. Putting Jesus in His Place, p 166.”

    I understand you but I don’t agree with your putting Him in a much inferior position and then worshipping Him as a man.

    What “glory” was it that the Lord had with the Father “before the world began” do you think? (John 17:5)

    Glory in what sense of the word?

36. @Sir Anthony,

    How to you explain:

    This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He (Yeshua) was before me (Yoḥanan).’ John 1:30

    When we know that Yoḥanan was born six months prior to Yeshua? And Yoḥanan also started his ministry before Yeshua, yet Yeshua is before him?

    and the classic verse

    Yeshua said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58

    I understand how people can hold to the position that Yeshua was the first created being through whom the university was made, but not God, but I don’t see scripturally how people can say he never was until the first century.

37. Sheila

    Is the Angel of Gen 18, 19 the LORD or not?

    Judaism has understood it as an angel representing YHWH as His Shaliah.

    But if you believe it is YHWH Himself does that make God an angel?

38. David Roberts

    Thanks, that is not so hard. First understand Luke and Matthew and the whole OT prediction of the Messiah as the descendant of David.

    Then be aware that “orthodoxy” (in translation) will want you to find a pre-human Jesus there! Check about 30 translations if necessary to see if there are any clues.

    Just look at some good commentary, by Trinitarians too, and see that the sense is
    “the one who came after me has now advanced ahead of me, because he always was my superior” (nothing to do with being older than one born 6 months earlier than you are!)

    Why are you playing on one ambiguous word (protos) to secure an essentially non-human Jesus (you are not human if you are pre-human!).

    Please do some thorough work in the Greek and the commentaries (we dealt with this in two full books: The Doctrine of the Trinity; Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian on Amazon, Kindle).

    I am surprised you do not search out the journal articles on the “I am HE” statements. See from John 4 what John means by “I am HE”.

    Hope this is helpful.

    Again, start with the easy material in Matthew and Luke to find out who Jesus is–the Messiah, Son of God.

    When do Matthew [1.18-20] and Luke [1.30-35] say he was “brought INTO existence”, “begotten”. Then leave John 8 for your further study, for further light if necessary.

    In hope.

39. Sheila

    Are you are aware of other commentary too which points out that this is glory in promise as in John 17.22, 24? Glory planned.

    Even Augustine and Calvin’s theologian read it that way.

    We dealt with this more extensively in two books [see above].

    Jesus is worshiped as the Man Messiah, not a second GOD. The Shema need not be “mutated”!

    David was worshiped of course and saints are worshiped, not of course as the unique Son of God.

40. Benei,

    God is sometimes represented as a “Man”, an “Angel” and “YHWH” on earth if Scripture is to be believed as written. (on earth as it is in Heaven Matt. 6:10)

    I don’t believe God is out to trick us by having the peshat say one thing when He meant for it to say something else.

    There is no “Metatron” except in the pages of the Rabbi’s writings. And if there was, according to Scripture, Yes, he is also God.

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

    Gen 19:25 And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

    What we have is the “Man/Angel/YHWH who was recently communing with Abraham now come to overthrow the cities of the plain. The Man/Angel/YHWH on earth rains down fire and brimstone from YHWH in Heaven. Where’s the problem in reading and understanding it as written? If there is a contradiction between what you were taught by someone and what the text actually says, I would go with the text in the Bible as being what God wanted it to say.

41. Sheila

    Agreed: “God is sometimes REPRESENTED as a ‘Man’, an ‘Angel'”; it doesn’t mean God is an angel or man.

    If God is some type of “Man/Angel/YHWH” as you suggest, it contradicts many verses where He says He is not a human being [Num 23.19; 1Sam 15.29].

42. Folks, Sir Anthony still owes us solid answers to the most basic of passages, like Hebrews 1 and John 12 (in light of Isaiah 6). And his rejection of the Son’s preexistence requires massive eisegesis of passage after passage. Since none of these points — and others — have been answered in the least coherent way, there’s no reason for me to engage him here at all. Others, of course, are quite welcome to do so.

43. Dr Brown

    As you know, there are many Evangelicals & scholars against the eternal generation doctrine of the Son. The most recent being Mark Driscoll:

    …begotten unavoidably implies a beginning of the one begotten. That would certainly lend support to the the Arian heresy that the Son is a created being and not the Creator God.

    For these reasons it is best to omit the creedal terms “begotten” and “proceeds” from our definition of the Trinity. Our authority is not in creeds but in Scripture. DoctrDoctrine: What Christians Should Believe, Driscoll, Breshears, 2010, pp 27-28

    What say you?

44. Benei,

    Not a man “that He should lie.” Like we do. He has no sin.

    No contadiction. He doesn’t lie.

45. Sir Anthony,

    Messiah is from “eternity” and came to earth as sent by the Father, God, in Heaven, being at once the Man/Angel/YHWH, the Son, equal yet separate as written in the First Testament and as it clearly says “someone” was. He was leaving earth and “returning to the Father” who “loved Him ‘before’ the world began.” Sounds explicit to me. They were in “communion with each other” “before” He came to take away the sins of the world. Before “God was ‘in Messiah, Jesus, reconciling the world to Himself” that God will one day be “all in all” as it was “in the beginning.” I believe that is the Glory He spoke of. The Son put off His glory for a time and I’ve wondered if the transfiguration wasn’t, in a way, a great temptation for Him. In any case, we see Him putting on His glorified body for a brief moment before the crucifixtion and His glorious resurrection.

    I believe the Scriptures must all be true in order for any of it to be true. It’s up to us to work out the mystery that is Messiah, Jesus. He is more than we can fathom. That’s what keeps me reading the Bible. Messiah is in type as “Melchizedek,” “a priest who abides forever” who has made “atonement” for us as our “propitiation for sin,” being the “spotless subsititute” for our sins who is “risen for our justification” and is making “intercession for us in Heaven.” He is in type as Joseph, Isaac and the Lamb of God and you probably know the types and antitypes better than me. How is it He can be all of those supernatural things at once but not as the one we see in the First Testament as unequivacably One with YHWH in heaven? He always does the Father’s will even while “He found himself” “clothed in sinful flesh” but “without sin Himself” just as He previously did in the first testament, (albeit in a glorified body) as in Genesis 18, 19, and dozens and dozens of other places, with special attention being given to Gen. 19:24. There are “two” YHWH’s acting in concert just as Jesus says He always does. No contradiction. He always “has” done the will of God in Heaven — who “is Spirit.” No contradiction other than the one you propose.

    The elders of first century Galilee, while holding their own interpretation and traditions as equal to the Word of God, had forgotten (?) about the “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Or most had anyway. They’d forgotten about Abraham and his encounter with a “second” YHWH. They’d left off looking for the antitype of Isaac, as being bound up as a sacrifice, and they’d most likely forgotten about the fear of Isaac by which Jacob swore. They most definitely forgotten about the coming of Messiah as written in the five books of Moses, in the Psalms and in all the prophets, in particular, of the prophet Daniel. How do you explain them not recognizing the times; the time of Messiah, Jesus? I think it was because they had their heads bent over their own writings and teachings and I believe perhaps they moved “too far” away from the original source, the plain text as written in the First Testament.

    The LORD in His infinite wisdom gives us mysteries to explore because He knows us and He loves us. That’s a beautiful thing! There’s enough in the pages of the Bible to keep mankind busy forevermore.

    Benei,
    The other angels are not “named” YHWH. They don’t claim LORDship as it appears One of them does

46. Sheila

    Yes, God is not a man.

    But just to be clear: you believe God is some type of “Man/Angel/YHWH” Being?

    Was God always that or did this happen when “God the Son” added humanity to Deity?

47. Benei,

    God is not a man like you. You still have sin until the Lord returns.

    “God the Son” didn’t add humanity to Deity, God the Father did. God, the Father, and God, the Son are always in agreement; it was spoken and it was so. He doesn’t lie. God, the Father says it is He who has saved us from our sins; He says it is He who is our only Messiah. He doesn’t lie. God indeed saved us!

    “you believe God is some type of “Man/Angel/YHWH” Being?”

    No Benei, I believe God is “who and what” He is. He is that He is and if He chooses to manifest Himself to mankind through His Son, who is sometimes in appearance as an Angel or a Man, who am I to change the Word of God as written in the Bible? I believe this because the Bible tells me so. 🙂

48. Sheila

    So God the Father took on flesh? Are you Oneness?

    Ad what do you mean by God being a “who and what”? Both a thing and a being?

49. Benei,

    Have you thought on this question? “Is the Angel of Gen 18, 19 the LORD or not?”

    Is the one talking to Abraham a Man?

    Is He an Angel?

    Is He who the Bible says He is?

    There is One in particular that stands as YHWH on earth. I didn’t make it up. Maybe you could more fully explain the messenger role of the specific Angel of the LORD who bears His Name.

50. Benei,

    As in being “what” His Name means. That’s a mystery.

Comments are closed.