Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Micah 5:2-4 An Exegesis

Micah 5:2-4
An Exegesis

“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. 3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. 4 And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.”

The Madaba Map is part of a mosaic floor in the early Byzantine church of Saint George at MadabaJordan. It is a map of the Middle East. Part of it contains the oldest surviving original cartographic depiction of the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem. It dates to the 6th century AD.  What makes it interesting for this article is its inclusion of Ephratah below Bethlehem.

But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, ...”
Ephratah is the ancient name of Bethlehem. When they are mentioned together it seems that Ephratah references the region and Bethlehem the town. Moreover, when Ruth 1:2 is considered one may conclude that apart from being a place name, Ephratah referenced a family name of some ancient residents; notice: “And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. ...” And I Samuel 17:12 “Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse...” (See also 1 Chronicles 2:50-51 where Bethlehem is a personal name of a descendent of Ephratah. This leads some to suppose that Micah’s prophecy is a reference to the clan of Ephratah through Bethlehem as opposed to the town: especially when the word translated "thousands" in the KJV rendering of Micah 5:2 is elsewhere used in the sense of "clans" (Joshua 22:30). Most modern versions translate this phrase in Micah as "...though you are little among the clans of Judah..." (this includes the NASB). This adds a deeper dimension to the prophecy.) Both names are a reference to the fertility of the area: Bethlehem means house of bread, and Ephratah means fertile.

[Though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, ...”
The New Testament commentary on this text, given by Matthew, is somewhat different; notice: “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda:” (Mt 2:6). First Matthew omits the name Ephratah; second, he casts the prophecy with a different emphasis than it appears in the prophet Micah. The prophet has: “[Though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] ...”, while the Evangelist has: “Art not the least...” So, the questions are asked: Why does Matthew not mention Ephratah? and,Why does Matthew declare Bethlehem NOT to be the least/little, when the prophet Micah said it was?  To begin with Matthew is most likely quoting from memory - which would account for the absence of the word “Ephratah.”  The answer to the second question may be found in the fact that the words “Though” and “yet” from the Old Testament text are interpolations. They appear in the KJV in italicized characters. The capable Bible commentator and theologian John Gill (November 23, 1697 – October  14,1771) suggested that the Micah text could very well be an interregation: 
“... the words may be rendered with an interrogation, "art thou little?" &c.; thou art not: or thus, it is a "little [thing] to be among the thousands of Judah"; a greater honour shall be put upon thee, by being the place of the Messiah's birth. Moreover, Mr, Pocock has shown out of R. Tanchum, both in his commentary on this place, and elsewhere, that the word (ryeu) signifies both "little" and "great", or of great note and esteem.” 
This is certainly the sense in which Matthew presents the text.
Another difference between the Micah and Matthew texts is this: Micah has “among the thousands of Judah,” while Matthew has “among the princes of Juda.” Israel was organized in groups of tens, hundreds, and thousands, with a princes being placed over the thousands (Ex 18:25). In that Matthew is most likely quoting from memory and is not concerned about exact word order, but is content to state the meaning of the text, “thousands” of the Micah text becomes “princes” in the Matthew text.

Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.” 
Here the messianic note is sounded for this text. The Messiah was to come from Bethlehem. “Out of thee (Bethlehem) shall he (Messiah) come forth unto me (Yahweh) that is to be ruler (King) in Israel.” See the proclamation of Nathaniel from John 1:49,  “... Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.”  Not of national Israel who rejected and crucified Him, but of the Israel of Promise, namely, the Church. The Church is called the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), and the twelve tribes of Israel (James 1:1), over which Jesus reigns as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Whose goings forth have been from of old,  from everlasting.”
A review of our text shows the coming Messiah to have two sources of origin: 1. a temporal, Earthly origin, i.e. Bethlehem, and 2. from of old, from everlasting, i.e. a Heavenly origin; here, the Hebrew reads “from days of eternity,” the RS has, “from ancient days.” That this is referencing the eternity past and not just from a long time ago, is obvious since Daniel calls Yahweh, the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:9). This, Micah passage, shows the pre-existence of Jesus to be an eternal pre-existence; moving Him effectively beyond the realm of created beings. Thusly, Micah demonstrates the human and deity origins of the Messiah. So, that, both Peter and Paul would be able to speak of Jesus’ birth with such terms as, “according to the flesh;” as opposed to the Spirit (Acts 2:30; Rom 1:3-4). Thus,  demonstrating that there was much more to Jesus’ genesis than just His flesh (humanity).
Jesus did not have pre-existence as the Christ for Christ references the incarnation: anointed man; but, He did have pre-existence as God. In His pre-existence He was not called “Jesus” - Jesus is the New Covenant name of YHWH. Jesus is true God from true God. He is Light from Light. Not as one would light one torch from another; but, as the sun light proceeds from the sun. Throughout the Old Testament the visible manifestation of the invisible God (Col. 1:15 i.e. Jesus) was called the Angel of the LORD. The Angel of the LORD was not another person/being from the LORD (YHWH); but, was His tabernacled presence (Gen 16:7, 13; 48:15-16; Ex 3:2-14; 23:20-23; Josh 5:13-15; Jud 113:15-18; Isa 63:9). “From of old” is a Hebrew idiom meaning from eternity, as the very next clause states: “From everlasting”, i.e. eternity past. According to the prophet Micah, the Messiah (Who would be born in Bethlehem) would be God. For Who else would have existence from eternity past? There can be but one Eternal!
The opposition to biblical Modalism suggests that the Hebrew word “olám” translated here as “everlasting” simply means an indefinite period of time and should not be understood in the sense of eternity. To this charge we off the following:

This is a false assumption being make out of bias and the fact that the word olám may be used in such a way, but rarely does so in the OT. But the question is, is that the meaning here. Eternal and eternity, are words that have a particular meaning in the English language. We could not confuse the meaning for the word. True, the word eternal, or the expression, “for ever” could be used in a metaphorical way. But the meaning is still understood to be always, time without end.

e·ter·ni·ty [ih-tur-ni-tee]
noun, plural e·ter·ni·ties.
1. infinite time; duration without beginning or end.
eternal existence, especially as contrasted with mortal life: the eternity of God.
e·ter·nal [ih-tur-nl]
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.

An honest question one should ask one’s self is: If the Hebrew wanted to say “time without end,” or, “For ever,” what word would be used. The following is the meaning of the olám,: 

‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm 
o-lawm', o-lawm' 
From St’s #H5769; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always
KJV Usage: always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).
Compare H5331, H5703

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
עלם עולם
1. long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world;  a. ancient time, long time (of past);  b. (of future)  1. for ever, always  2. continuous existence, perpetual  3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

Hebrew Dictionary (Lexicon-Concordance)
—Hebrew Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)
 1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting,  evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
    1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
    1b) (of future)
        1b1) for ever, always
        1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
        1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

—Brown-Driver-Briggs (Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon)
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always:—always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

—Strong's (Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament)
  • #5769.
  • עוֹלָם
  • olam or
  • [or] עֹלָם
  • olam (761d); from an unused word; long duration, antiquity, futurity:—
  • NASB - ages(1), all successive(1), always(1), ancient(13), ancient times(3), continual(1), days of old(1), eternal(2), eternity(3), ever(10), Everlasting(2), everlasting(110), forever(136), forever and ever(1), forever*(70), forevermore*(1), lasting(1), long(2), long ago(3), long past(1), long time(3), never*(17), old(11), permanent(10), permanently(1), perpetual(29), perpetually(1).

—NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries
Copyright © 1981, 1998 by The Lockman Foundation — All rights reserved — http://www.lockman.org
This list is the times olám  is used in the AV (KJV), and how: 
Job 7:16. Psalms 119:112.
Genesis 6:3. 1 Chronicles 16:15. Jeremiah 20:17.
Proverbs 22:28. Isaiah 44:7. Jeremiah 5:15; 18:15. Ezekiel 36:2.
Isaiah 64:5.
Isaiah 60:15.
Genesis 3:22; 13:15. Exodus 3:15; 12:14, 17, 24; 14:13; 15:18; 19:9; 21:6; 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:17; 32:13. Leviticus 6:18, 22; 7:34, 36; 10:9, 15; 16:29, 31; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 31, 41; 24:3; 25:46. Numbers 10:8; 15:15; 18:8, 11, 19, 19, 23; 19:10. Deuteronomy 5:29; 12:28; 13:16; 15:17; 23:3, 6; 28:46; 29:29; 32:40. Joshua 4:7; 8:28; 14:9. 1 Samuel 1:22; 2:30; 3:13, 14; 13:13; 20:15, 23, 42; 27:12. 2 Samuel 3:28; 7:13, 16, 16, 24, 25, 26, 29, 29. 1 Kings 1:31; 2:33, 33, 45; 8:13; 9:3, 5; 10:9. 2 Kings 5:27; 21:7. 1 Chronicles 15:2; 16:34, 36, 36, 41; 17:12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 27, 27; 22:10; 23:13, 13, 25; 28:4, 7, 8; 29:10, 10, 18. 2 Chronicles 2:4; 5:13; 6:2; 7:3, 6, 16; 9:8; 13:5; 20:7, 21; 30:8; 33:4. Ezra 3:11; 9:12, 12. Nehemiah 2:3; 9:5, 5; 13:1. Job 41:4. Psalms 5:11; 9:5, 7; 10:16; 12:7; 21:4; 28:9; 29:10; 30:12; 33:11; 37:18, 28; 41:12; 44:8; 45:2, 6, 17; 48:8, 14; 49:8, 11; 52:8, 9; 61:4, 7; 66:7; 72:17, 19; 73:26; 75:9; 77:7; 78:69; 79:13; 81:15; 85:5; 89:1, 2, 4, 36, 37; 102:12; 103:9; 104:31; 105:8; 106:1; 107:1; 110:4; 111:5, 8, 9; 112:6; 117:2; 118:1, 2, 3, 4, 29; 119:44, 89, 98, 111, 152, 160; 125:1, 2; 131:3; 135:13; 136:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; 138:8; 145:1, 2, 21; 146:6, 10; 148:6. Proverbs 27:24. Ecclesiastes 1:4; 2:16; 3:14; 9:6. Isaiah 9:7; 30:8; 32:14, 17; 34:10, 17; 40:8; 47:7; 51:6, 8; 57:16; 59:21; 60:21. Jeremiah 3:5, 12; 7:7, 7; 17:4, 25; 25:5, 5; 31:40; 33:11; 35:6; 49:33; 51:26, 62. Lamentations 3:31; 5:19. Ezekiel 37:25, 25; 43:7, 9. Daniel 12:3, 7. Hosea 2:19. Joel 2:2; 3:20. Obadiah 1:10. Jonah 2:6. Micah 2:9; 4:5, 7. Zechariah 1:5. Malachi 1:4.
Genesis 9:16; 17:7, 8, 13, 19; 21:33; 48:4; 49:26. Exodus 40:15. Leviticus 16:34; 24:8. Numbers 25:13. Deuteronomy 33:27. 2 Samuel 23:5. 1 Chronicles 16:17. Psalms 24:7, 9; 41:13, 13; 90:2, 2; 93:2; 100:5; 103:17, 17; 105:10; 106:48, 48; 112:6; 119:142, 144; 139:24; 145:13. Proverbs 8:23; 10:25. Isaiah 24:5; 26:4; 33:14; 35:10; 40:28; 45:17; 51:11; 54:8; 55:3, 13; 56:5; 60:19, 20; 61:7, 8; 63:12, 16. Jeremiah 10:10; 20:11; 23:40; 31:3; 32:40. Ezekiel 16:60; 37:26. Daniel 9:24; 12:2, 2. Habakkuk 3:6.
2 Samuel 22:51. 1 Chronicles 17:14. Psalms 18:50; 37:27; 86:12; 89:28, 52; 92:8; 106:31; 113:2; 115:18; 121:8; 133:3. Ezekiel 37:26, 28.
Deuteronomy 33:15.
Psalms 143:3. Ecclesiastes 12:5.
Judges 2:1. Psalms 15:5; 30:6; 55:22; 119:93. Proverbs 10:30. Isaiah 14:20; 25:2; 63:19. Ezekiel 26:21. Joel 2:26, 27.
Genesis 6:4. Deuteronomy 32:7. 1 Samuel 27:8. Job 22:15. Psalms 25:6; 119:52. Proverbs 23:10. Isaiah 46:9; 51:9; 57:11; 58:12; 61:4; 63:9, 11. Jeremiah 6:16; 28:8. Lamentations 3:6. Ezekiel 25:15; 26:20. Amos 9:11. Micah 7:14. Malachi 3:4.
Genesis 9:12. Exodus 29:9; 31:16. Leviticus 3:17; 24:9; 25:34. Numbers 19:21. Psalms 78:66. Jeremiah 5:22; 18:16; 23:40; 25:9, 12; 49:13; 50:5; 51:39, 57. Ezekiel 35:5, 9; 46:14. Habakkuk 3:6.
Leviticus 25:32. Joshua 24:2. Ecclesiastes 1:10. Isaiah 42:14. Jeremiah 2:20. Ezekiel 26:20.
Psalms 77:5.
Psalms 73:12. Ecclesiastes 3:11. Isaiah 45:17; 64:4.
The following translates multiple Hebrew or Aramaic words:
Jeremiah 49:36.
Psalms 104:5.
Micah 5:2.
Ezekiel 27:36; 28:19.
2 Samuel 12:10. Psalms 31:1; 71:1.
Zephaniah 2:9.

From the above information on the Hebrew word olám, it seems very clear that this is the go-to word if one wishes to express eternity, eternal, or “for ever and ever - time with out end.” The Hebrew is a simple and basic language and as such is limited in many ways. For instance, Hebrew could not show comparative degree, such as good, better, and best; or, much, more, or most. In the same way Hebrew could not say ‘everlasting;’ instead it would often say, “of days of old,” or “ancient times/days.”  For the Hebrew language to show superlative degree it made the word plural. It is true that in the limited ability of the Hebrew “days of old” may mean the “days of our forefathers” (which it rarely did), or “eternity past” (as it most usually did) - depending on the context of the passage. The context of Micah identifies olám with the Heavenly origin of Jesus - therefore, eternity.

Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth.” 
The Jews will be given to their enemies until... .  The image of a woman travailing in birth is tempting to assign to the virgin Mary - that would be a mistake. Biblically, this is referencing the commonwealth of the Israel of Promise bringing the Messiah/Christ into the world. This is presaging the account rehearsed in Revelation 12:1-17,
And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; 2 she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. 3 And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; 5 she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
7 “Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they were defeated and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11 And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 12 Rejoice then, O heaven and you that dwell therein! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
13 “And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.” (RSV)
The “woman” is the Israel of Promise that becomes the Church through her rebirth at Pentecost AD 30

V3. “Then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.”
That the “brethren” of the Christ is referenced here demonstrates that the humanity of the Messiah is in view. God does not have “brethren.” As v2 introduces the Dual Nature aspect of the Messiah by showing His Heavenly and Earthly origins, v3 magnifies His Jewish humanity by introducing His “brethren.” The reference to “the remnant” has a NT commentary in Romans 11: 1-7. Here the Apostle Paul writes that the “remnant” had obtained the promise of everlasting life in Christ Jesus.
“I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” (Romans 11:1-7)
The prophet Jeremiah foretold of a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah (Jer 31:31) which is a sister passage to this Micah prophecy. Christianity is the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophetic promise of a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah. That being true, one must see all twelve tribes represented in Jerusalem on the feast of Pentecost, in that the author of Hebrews, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, identifies A.D. 30 (see Acts 2:5-11) as the establishing of Jeremiah’s new covenant. Indeed, the Assyrians and Babylonians had scattered the house of Israel and the house of Judah over the earth, but in A. D. 30 they returned from the Parthian Empire, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylis, Egypt, Cyrene, Rome, Crete, and Arabia to Jerusalem for the establishing of Jeremiah’s “new covenant”. (“Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth.”) On that day 3,000 were baptized into the covenant name of Jesus (Acts 2:41
); all 3,000 were Jews of the house of Israel and the house of Judah – the twelve tribes. Later, as a result of the healing of the lame man (Acts 3:1-16), and the preaching of Peter, 5,000 men believed (Acts 4:4
); add to that number their women and children – all were Jews of the houses of Israel and Judah (the twelve tribes). By Acts 5:14 the disciples became too numerous to count and are referenced simply as “multitudes”
 – all were Jews of the houses of Israel and Judah (the twelve tribes). These are the “elect” the “remnant” that Paul and Micah write of; Paul, in Romans 11:1-5,7, and Micah, here, in our text under discussion. this “remnant” is the spiritual olive tree that was “born again” (John 3:3-10) from its former state as a natural tree. These are the Israel of promise (Romans 9:6-8; see Galatians 3:16-18; 4:22-31).

V4. “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD.
The image of the Shepherd is prominent in Micah (4:8; 5:5; and 7:14 are examples).“And he shall stand and feed (or rule) in the strength of the LORD (Yahweh).”  This speaks to the INCARNATION of the Father in the humanity of Jesus. Jesus said: “ ... the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (Jn 14:10). Which, truth, is reflected in the theology of the Apostle Paul - when he wrote: ... God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). 

In the majesty of the name of his God;” There are two things about this statement that must be addressed: 
  1. It speaks to the majesty of the name Christ manifested to the world. Jesus said, “I have manifested thy (the Father’s) name ...” (Jn 17:6). It is certain that this saying of Jesus is but an echo of Jn 2:23 and 14:13. The name that Jesus manifested was the one given to Him by the Angel, i.e. Jesus (Matthew 1:21). He had acquired this name by inheritance (Hebrews 1:4), therefore, the NT covenant name of His Father. 
  2. It speaks of the humanity of the Messiah by indicating that the Messiah would have a God, as such passages as John 20:17 implies. In the biblical teaching of the Dual Nature of the Messiah (that He would be both God and man) it is clearly within  the realm of the Messiah’s humanity that He would have a God, and in the mystery of the incarnation that He would be that God (i.e. the Spirit) manifested in the flesh (1 Tim 3:16).
Here some get tripped up because they refuse to accept the fullness of the Dual Nature of Jesus. Christ (Messiah) means the anointed of God. It is true that the “anointed” is not the Anointer. But, there is no difference between the Anointer and the Anointing. The Anointing is the Spirit of the Anointer: Acts 10:38 “Now God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: ...” Because He was the Messiah (the Christ) He was anointed with the Spirit of the Father without measure: Jn 3:34 “For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” The Spirit (anointing) given to Jesus was the fullness of the Godhead: Col. 2:9 “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

And they shall abide.” 
The flock, i.e. the Israel of God, shall abide in safety. See, 
Mt 16:18 ”And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
1 Pt 1:5 “Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.”
Jude v1 “Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:”

For now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.”
 The prophet Malachi has a like statement;
Malachi 1:11For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same My name shall be great among the gentiles; And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: For my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.”

“To begin with, it is noticed that this phrase (“For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same.”) brackets the book of Malachi by appearing here and at chapter 4 and verse 2. It is an ancient metaphor that normally references the universal rule of God, and is common in the Old Testament (see Psalms 50:1; 113:3; Isaiah 41:25; 45:6). Malachi is using it to reference the Messianic period, as seen in the context of chapter 4, and verse 2,  “But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.”
“The metaphor of a ruler rising like the sun is ancient, and is used here for the Messiah. The Messiah and His Gospel of salvation would be a “light of” (to) “the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6). Thus, Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the “sunrise” from heaven (see Luke 1:78-79, also Isaiah 9-2).
v11 “My name shall be great among the Gentiles.” 
“The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with prophecy concerning the nations of the earth being blessed through the coming of a Jewish sovereign called the “Messiah” (the anointed One). Under His reign all nations would learn to serve the one true God (see Isaiah 2:2; 11:10), and live in peace with one another. A time when swords will be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks (see Isaiah 2:4
); under the rule of the Messiah the earth and nature would cease all animosity so that: “The Wolf... shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatlings together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; the young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat grass like the ox, and the sucking child shall play on the whole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:6 and following). Such is the language describing the kingdom of the Messiah. 
“If one would like to get a better picture of the Messianic Kingdom, the following Scriptures should be read and meditated upon: Genesis 2:3; Isaiah 9:2, 6; see also chapter 11; Micah 5:2; Psalms 2:8-9; Daniel 7:13-14, 18, 22; Galatians 3:16, 19.
v11 “And in every place.” 
“The idea is: throughout the entire world. See the statement before: “My name shall be great among the Gentiles,” and the statement after: “For my name shall be great among the heathen.” The “gentiles” and “heathen” have all nations in view. The Lord God will be known during the kingdom of the Messiah outside the borders of national Israel as well as he is known inside them.

v11 “Incense shall be offered unto my name.” 
“The imagery here is of the golden altar of incense (this altar is described in the book of Exodus 30:1-10) with its smoke, which symbolizes the prayers of God’s people (see Psalms 141:2; Luke 1:10; Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4). In this messianic kingdom, prayer to Yahweh would be a sweet smelling savor sent up from “among the Gentiles ... in every place.”
v11 “And a pure offering.” 
“The imagery here is of the altar of Holocaust; namely the bronze altar of burnt offering (Exodus 27:1-8). It is here that sacrifice was made for sin. Verse 12 of our text identifies this altar and its offerings as the “table of the LORD.” In the messianic kingdom “a pure offering” will be made for trespasses and sins “among the Gentiles ... in every place.” Malachi sets this prophecy against the “polluted” offerings being made in the Jerusalem Temple (see verses 12 through 14).
“Throughout holy Scripture Jesus is shown as the “pure offering” for sin (see 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:14, 28; 10:14). Jesus accomplished through his sinlessness, what the blood of mere animals could not do (Hebrews 9:13-14).
“All Christians acknowledge the sacrifice of Christ on the cross: outside the walls of Jerusalem, at nine o’clock in the morning of Nisan 14, AD 30. But to most it is an event locked in space and time. But ... Malachi speaks of this “pure offering” (sacrifice) being executed “in every place.” Therefore, unlocked from space and time: Of what could Malachi have been speaking?
“The answer is, the Lord’s Supper of the Christian community.
“When the prophets wrote of the altar of Holocaust they spoke of it as “the table of the Lord” (see verse 12). In Hebrews 13:10-11 the author parallels the altar of holocaust to the Lord’s Table of the Christian Eucharist. This teaching is Pauline. For Paul wrote, accusingly, concerning those who would partake of the Christian covenant meal (namely, the Eucharist) and eat at a pagan feast, those things offered to idols: “ye can not be partakers of the Lord’s table, and the table of devils,” he told them (1 Corinthians 10:21). Paul, further, told the Gentile Christians that “as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” Thus, through the weekly observance of the Eucharist (Acts 20:7-11) throughout the earth, it is declared that the Messianic Kingdom of the Davidic king is established. The “pure” (sinless-spotless) “offering” has been unlocked from time and space, and is now manifested in the breaking of the bread and the sharing of the Eucharistic cup (1 Corinthians 11:26).
“In relation to this “pure offering” being offered “among the Gentiles ... in every place,” we should look to Romans 15:16.
 Here, when Paul writes of “ministering the Gospel,” he employs the Greek word herourgounta (used only here in the New Testament), which refers to ministering as a priest. Paul references his priestly functions in presenting the Gentiles as an offering to God. To understand his meaning, a comparison should be made with 1 Corinthians 10:17-18;
 which teaches that those who partake of the covenant meal of bread and wine take on an oneness with the sacrifice of Christ: just as those who partake of the sacrifice from the altar of holocausts (namely, the Old Testament Lord’s table) have an identity with the altar (namely, the sacrifice). Therefore, Paul sees himself functioning as a Christian priest, officiating at the Lord’s table of the messianic kingdom, as the communicants identify (vicariously) with the “pure offering” of Christ; Who is made present through the bread and the wine—“in every place.”” (Excerpted from “Letters to My Children on Apostolic Kingdom Theology;” by Bishop Jerry Hayes; Seventh Millennium Publications)

 Rev 11:15 “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”

The End

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Godhead Discussion With Bishop Hayes, Drew Ayers, Michael Burgos, William Vincent; also including Joey Felts, Paul Yaddow, and Bill Lee.

Bishop Jerry Hayes Sr:
Trinitarians asks petitions of, and offer praise to three separate and distinct persons. each with an individual center of intellect, will and emotion; and each being fully God separate and apart from the other two? Does any trinitarian out there want to deny this - or defend it?
2012 September 22 at 8:34pm

Drew Ayers: Don't have time for straw burning...:) September 22 at 9:46pm 

Joey Felts: @Drew, I take that to mean you will not deny, nor are you able to defend said statement

September 22 at 10:38

Drew Ayers:  Obviously if I think it contains a straw man argument, I'm denying it... September 22 at 10:39pm

Drew Ayers: ...separate persons?...separately God from one another?...I would never try to defend tri-theism....

September 22 at 10:44pm 

Joey Felts: So you deny the statement? The above is indeed the teaching of trinitarians September 22 at 10:53pm

Drew Ayers: Trinitarianism does not teach separate persons nor Gods.... September 22 at 10:57pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: LOL. Drew, you know that you are to the wall on this one. LOL September 23 at 12:22am 

Drew Ayers:  No sir, you are grossly misinformed.... September 23 at 12:23am

Jerry Hayes Sr:  Drew, you expect me to think you are sober when you say that the Trinity does not teach three separate and distict persons? Really?

September 23 at 12:25am 

Drew Ayers: Distinct is accurate but separate is your vocabulary not mine... September 23 at 12:26am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  If you will not defend this charge, will you deny it. Why is it not true. September 23 at 12:26am 

Drew Ayers: Even your Oneness buddy William Vincent concedes this.... September 23 at 12:27am 

Drew Ayers: It is not descriptive of the Biblical doctrine of the trinity... September 23 at 12:27am 

Drew Ayers: I will only defend what I affirm... September 23 at 12:28am 

Michael Burgos: "Personally distinct" is not synonymous with "ontologically separate" September 23 at 12:28am 

Drew Ayers: ...and of course Michael and I are in unison on the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity September 23 at 12:29am

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  O.K. Lets break it down> Do you believe in three persons in the Godhead? You know, we have your statements saying you do. Have you converted?

September 23 at 12:29am 

Drew Ayers: God exists as three persons...yes...no I haven't backslid... September 23 at 12:30am

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Do your persons have separate centers of intellect, will, and emotion? September 23 at 12:31am 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, the only way in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct is in the way they relate to each other and to creation.  September 23 at 12:32am

Drew Ayers: John 6:38 New King James Version (NKJV)
38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me...............    September 23 at 12:32am 

Michael Burgos: Centers of intellect, etc, is loaded language intended to introduce a bloated separation where there isn't one.    September 23 at 12:33am

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael, that is oneness. So, you are saying that they are not separate persons that have separate centers of intellect, will and emotion?

September 23 at 12:33am 

Michael Burgos: No it is not. I refer you to a similar statement in Grudem's Systematic theology, around p. 241 if I remember correctly.     September 23 at 12:34am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  What say you?     September 23 at 12:35am

Drew Ayers: Are you suggesting separate as Jerry has a brain and Michael has a brain and Drew has is own brain?        September 23 at 12:35am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Yes, absolutly. September 23 at 12:36am

Drew Ayers: I would have to say no...the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are not persons in the human sense of the word..nor are they separate as we three are...

September 23 at 12:37am · Like

Drew Ayers: Person is what makes someone 'who' they are... September 23 at 12:37am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: You do not have this, you do not have three person in any real sense; you have three manifestations of one person - God. Welcome to the Onness camp.

September 23 at 12:37am

Drew Ayers: A manifestation is not truly a relational essence in this sense of love etc. September 23 at 12:38am 

Drew Ayers: God truly is the Father, Son and H.S......God truly loves His Son who has eternal existence      September 23 at 12:39am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: How are you using the word essence? September 23 at 12:39am 

Michael Burgos: Here is what Grudem stated exactly: "The only distinction between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to the creation." Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, Zondervan, p. 250 September 23 at 12:40am

Paul Yaddow: Its very simple, there is One God and Father of all, and one Lord Jesus Christ, and that was a quote from the bible and not a socian website. September 23 at 12:40am

Michael Burgos: It would seem Jerry, that you don't quite understand Trinitarian theology. September 23 at 12:41am 

Drew Ayers: In the sense of 'actual' existence....a manifestation is nothing more than the actors mask...at least in the sense of the Oneness' usage...September 23 at 12:41am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: You want essences that have relationship. You must have separate intellect to desire relationship, separate will to engage in relationship, and separate emotion to share and respond to relationship.     September 23 at 12:41am 

Paul Yaddow: Is that better Michael?     September 23 at 12:41am

Drew Ayers: For instance, has God always been the Father?  September 23 at 12:41am 

Drew Ayers: ?               September 23 at 12:41am 

Drew Ayers:  Drop essence, it is a poor word choice on my part...September 23 at 12:42am 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, you deny a relational God? So your God was in solitude previous to creation? Sounds terrible.      September 23 at 12:42am 

Drew Ayers: There is only ONE essence, I use the term being...and this being is love September 23 at 12:43am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: With out separate intellect there can be no Persons in relationship. September 23 at 12:43am

Drew Ayers: He didn't think about one day loving his Son? September 23 at 12:43am 

Drew Ayers: I love myself... September 23 at 12:44am 

Drew Ayers :)   September 23 at 12:44am 

Michael Burgos: Intellect refers to the capacity for conceptual knowledge, and not ontological separation Jerry.       September 23 at 12:44am

Drew Ayers: What do you mean by separate intellect? September 23 at 12:44am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Mickael, what does that mean? September 23 at 12:45am 

Drew Ayers: I'm certain the Father, Son and H.S. are self aware... September 23 at 12:45am

Michael Burgos: It's Michael, and it means that your barking up the wrong tree. September 23 at 12:46am

Drew Ayers: We are in the Monotheistic tree...you know the foundational truth to the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity     September 23 at 12:47am 

Michael Burgos: Your trying to take a relational identity and make it an ontological distinction- which is a logical fallacy commonly known as a category error.
September 23 at 12:47am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Is the Father self aware? So He is. Thanks Drew. So you pary to and offer praise to three self aware persons and each of the three are God in His own right apart from the other two. Tritheism!      September 23 at 12:48am

Michael Burgos: You've begged the question Jerry- you've presupposed unitarianism as the only form of monotheism.   September 23 at 12:49am 

Drew Ayers: And you've resurrected a straw man which we deny. September 23 at 12:49am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Michael, I asked you to explain what you mean by: Intellect refers to the capacity for conceptual knowledge, and not ontological separation Jerry.

September 23 at 12:50am 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, try to grab hold of this: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same God- but not the same person. September 23 at 12:50am 

Drew Ayers: God is not God without the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...we are not dividing God into thirds     September 23 at 12:50am

Drew Ayers: Very simple concept... September 23 at 12:51am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Brother, you can not claim monothesim when you pray to and offer praise to three separate self aware persons, each one God by himself. September 23 at 12:51am 

Drew Ayers: The Son is 100% God, yet for you he is only a man... September 23 at 12:51

Michael Burgos: I clarified the statement already Jerry: "You are trying to take a relational identity and make it an ontological distinction- which is a logical fallacy commonly known as a category error."    September 23 at 12:52am 

Drew Ayers: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.   September 23 at 12:52am 

Michael Burgos: Your begging the question Jerry. Ever read anything on logic? September 23 at 12:53am 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, I've got a question for you. September 23 at 12:54am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Now my original question was; Does any trinitarian out there want to deny this - or defend it? Obviousely, you deny it; but then tomorrow you will be defending this very charge.    September 23 at 12:54am 

Michael Burgos:  Ready?    September 23 at 12:54am

Michael Burgos: Ready for a simple question Jerry?  September 23 at 12:55am 

Jerry Hayes Sr. I have asked the question tonight. Answer my qestion honestly and I will answer yours.    September 23 at 12:55am

Michael Burgos: I can't answer your question as it doesn't accurately reflect my position. September 23 at 12:55am 

Drew Ayers: I think Michael is wanting you to understand our position more accurately... September 23 at 12:55am

Drew Ayers: We simply deny the charge...but we are willing to share what we truly believe the scripture to say September 23 at 12:56am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: O.K. Good. What ever your position is it it is not The classical trinity I then forgive the late night post,  September 23 at 12:57am

Michael Burgos: Your statement, "each being fully God separate apart from the other two" is not compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy.  September 23 at 12:58am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Have to run. September 23 at 12:58am

Michael Burgos: Yea sure Jerry, your telling us our position on the Trinity isn't orthodox? Lol!

September 23 at 12:58am 

Drew Ayers: Well, be sure to come back now, ya hear? September 23 at 12:59am 

Michael Burgos: That question will be waiting for you Jerry. September 23 at 12:59am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Brothers, here is a statement from the Athanasian Creed which is the "orthodox" creedal statement on the trinity: "...we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God"   September 23 at 11:19pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael you wrote: [Your statement, "each being fully God separate apart from the other two" is not compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy".] The Athanaaian Creed proves you wrong. I have the orthodox right. You wrote that I did not understand the Trinity - Well, does the Athanasian Creed understand the Trinity? Both you and Drew have some mutated belief other than the orthodox view. Of course, most do. But I will help you...
September 23 at 11:20pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.: It is no wonder that you guys will not agree to a written debate on this topic: you are all mixed up and not in agreement with the faith you claim to hold.

September 23 at 11:14pm

Jerry Hayes Sr. I said I would help you so here is the true trinity. I would suggest you guys conform one way or the other.

1."Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic* Faith.
2.Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3.And the Catholic* Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.
4.Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
5.For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
6.But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.
7.Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
8.The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate.
9.The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible.
10.The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral.
11. And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal.
12. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. 14. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God.
16. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord.
18. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord.
19. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic* Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three
21.The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
22.The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.
23.The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24."So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts.
25.And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another.
26. But the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal.
27. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped.
28.He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity." (The Athanasian Creed.)
September 23 at 11:24pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Anyone who bothers to read the above Athanasian Creed can see that it is a masterpiece of double-speak. However, the key to understanding why the creed teaches three gods but declares One is found in the 20th clause which states: "For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic* Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords." We can teach three, believe three, but are forbidden to say three Gods. Dear reader, you must determine if this is doctrinal honesty or no. September 23 at 11:32pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Drew you wrote: "Trinitarianism does not teach separate persons..." Well, how does your understanding of Trinitarianism compare to The Athanasian Creed which states: "For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost."? If I were you I would not want to debate me either. September 23 at 11:38pm

Paul Yaddow: And what I also understand about the trinity through the mind of Athanasius is that trinity is incomprehensible,which Paul the apostle teaches that the deity some will come to understand, which means the claim Athanasius made for his creed differs from the gospel. 

September 24 at 6:28am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Yes Paul, of course. I need to point out that Athanasius did not write this creed. It was given his name.  September 24 at 8:07am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Drew and Michael; you know, the remarks above about debating me in a formal written debate are made in light hearted fun. Hope you guys do not take offense. However, the body of Christ would profit from a written debate on this issue and I do wish you would reconsider.

September 24 at 12:07pm

William Vincent: Drew I appreciate, and agree with, your rejection of the term separate persons, but I assure you that Trinitarians of an early generation used the term "separate and distinct persons." In fact E. G. Reynolds of the Church of God uses this exact phrase in his affirmation during the debate with M. Hicks. (I have posted an audio link here on the forum).

September 24 at 8:28am 

Drew Ayers: Jerry, I would recommend my friend Michael for anything written, he is more than able and I'm more than taxed on schedule September 24 at 8:40am 

William Vincent: As I have researched the issue, I find that this particular issue may be the result of a heavily used study Bible among certain Pentecostals called Dake's Annotated Study Bible(1963) - these are some quotes from Dake:
"What we mean by Divine Trinity is that there are three separate and distinct persons in the Godhead, each one having His own personal spirit body, personal soul, and personal spirit in the same sense each human being, angel, or any other being has his own body, soul, and spirit." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, N.T. pg. 280, column 1)
"Is God only one being made up of several persons or beings in the one being? If so, we can conclude that man is one person or being made up of many."
(Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, N.T. pg. 280, column 2)

"The Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God. As individual persons each can be called God and collectively they can be spoken of as one God because of their perfect unity. The word God is used either as a singular or a plural word, like sheep." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, N.T. pg. 280, column 2)
"Is it any wonder that the Godhead, the Trinity, and the unity of God are so mysterious when we force separate persons to become only one person, all because we do not want to recognize the true meaning of the word one as referring to unity, not to individuality in some scriptures? Men would be just as great a mystery if we forced the meaning of all men to refer to one person." (Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, N.T. pg. 281, column 3)
"Christ received all power in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18). Someone had to be greater than He was to give Him that power. Who was it (Jn. 14:28)?"
(Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, N.T. pg. 280, column 2)

Dake was actually a tri-theist, and his teachings are rejected by Trinitarians as well as Oneness. But this kind of terminology went a long way to convince Oneness folk that Trinitarians believed in three Gods. I personally heard rural Trinitarian Pentecostal preachers use this very kind of terminology. I also heard my Grandfather (a Trinitarian) preach against these concepts and be labeled "Jesus only" because of it.
Also this is an example of hyper Trinitarianism, which was actively debating hyper oneness ... what a mess LOL      September 24 at 8:48am 

Drew Ayers: Dake was a tri-theist....little known fact among inquiring minds... September 24 at 8:50am 

William Vincent: I agree Drew, unfortunately my Pentecostal forefathers both Oneness and Trinitarians thought anything noted in a study Bible had to be true lol

September 24 at 8:57am

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  William and Drew, First: Praise the Lord. I love you both in Christ. Having said that permit me: William you are very kind, however, it is being too light handed to lay the blame for the trinitarian termology of three separate and distinct persons on Dake when I have shown above that the Athanasian Creed establishes that for Trinitarianism. Dake was just tring to be an honest Athanasian. Truly, Brothers, we are not talking about a particular "generation" we are speaking of, at, least, 1500 years. Now, if Drew and Michael are saying that there is a retreat from that ground, then - Praise to God. But, I feel it is a mistake to praise them too much for their half stepping as though it is not really that important. Jesus did say: Unless you believe that I Am you will die in your sins.   September 24 at 12:05pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr:  Folks, in the 20+ public formal Godhead debates I have had over the years, the Trinitarian ALWAYS affirmed this proposition with the wording, sometimes, repositioned: "Be it resolved that the Scriptures teach that there are three separate and distinct co-equal and co-eternal persons in the Godhead; namely the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Now, I would ask both Drew and Michael if they would be willing to sign to affirm this proposition? If not, then who are they? Are they somewhere in the Valley between the two great mountain tops that are Oneness and Trinitarianism?    September 24 at 1:08pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael, when you say that God is ontologically one, are you using the term ontologial as species or being?

September 24 at 12:47pm · Like
Jerry Hayes Sr. Drew, Michael, when yo use the word Persons, Are you using it as a persona or being?       September 24 at 12:48pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  William, I very much enjoyed your post  in this thread on Dake. Thanks.

September 24 at 1:05pm 

Drew Ayers:  Jerry Hayes Sr. I would defend the following resolution, "The Bible teaches the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity"....Of course as the affirmative I would define my terms and you would as the Negative, deny.....I'm sure that if you could attain a debate partner, that Michael Burgos and I could meet you in the southeast anywhere from the Atlanta area to the Virginia area?      September 24 at 4:00pm 

William Vincent:  Jerry and I ... the original good cop, bad cop of Oneness Apologetics LOL
September 24 at 4:13pm 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, person refers to that which makes someone who they are. Whereas being refers to what makes something what it is.  September 24 at 7:46pm 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, in theology and philosophy, ontology refers to the essential nature of something.     September 24 at 7:47pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Didn't answer my question. Would, say, humanity be the ontology of humans?     September 24 at 9:33pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: You see the dictionary defines ontology as theory, so you need to explain the way you are theoretically using it.     September 24 at 9:35pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.: If the "nature" of humans is humanity, then would not the "nature" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be deity? So, then, there is One God nature manifested in three God Persons. Do I have it right?       September 24 at 9:43pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: I am doing my best to get inside your thinking so as to unhderstand. How am I doing?      September 24 at 9:44pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Drew, a debate is only as good as the proposition. The proposition needs to state exactly what you intend to prove. Just to say you are proving the Trinity is too ambiguous. For instance, I could say that I am proving the Trinity and be meaning something entirely different from you. You would need a very discriptive proposition. However, I would not be interested in an oral debate because of the expenses and all. I just could not afford it. Then too, I am concernd with the number of people reached. A written debate would continue reaching thousands in the future. I have PM'ed Michael on this matter.

September 25 at 9:48am 

Michael Burgos: Yes, human-ness would be an accurate description of human ontology. However, ontology is easily quantified to being. Thus when we speak of being, we speak of a central (perhaps the most central) aspect of the ontology of a thing. For example, the human being (i.e., the flesh) is a central part of human ontology. An important distinction in Trinitarian theology is the distinction between person and being. Jerry, judging by your previous comments, I think that you should invest into a decent Evangelical Trinitarian systematic theology (e.g., the aforementioned Wayne Grudem, Hodge, Horton, etc), or a dogmatics text on theology proper. Or more pertinently, my book will be available in about a month's time. I think these will provide you with a sufficient basis to grasp Trinitarian orthodoxy.        September 25 at 5:56pm 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, the nature of God refers to that which makes God what God is. You could say deity, however nowadays that can be a slippery an ambiguous term for certain people.     September 25 at 5:57pm 

Paul Yaddow:  (Morphe) nature,,the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision external appearance.      September 25 at 6:46pm 

William Vincent: Yes Jerry the problem is that you have read your Bible too much, and not enough theology books. You should know that the rules of logic do not apply to Trinitarian theology. They can create any kind of logical fallacy that they want as long as they cover it with some sort of vague terminology.      September 25 at 7:19pm 

William Vincent: The question is whether or not the distinction between person and being is found anywhere in the scripture. Perhaps Michael could show us how such a distinction can be demonstrated in scripture.     September 25 at 7:20pm 

Michael Burgos: William, both Trinitarian and Oneness recognize the said distinction. If you didn't, you couldn't affirm the incarnation. Your pejorative nonsense is tiring.

September 25 at 7:27pm 

William Vincent: Or in other words: "I cannot demonstrate it to you in the Bible." Your dodging the issue is equally tiring.    September 25 at 7:29pm 

William Vincent:  I will agree with you in one point however. The incarnation is the very reason for any distinction between Father and Son. I am glad you can at least admit that.

September 25 at 7:40pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael, you truly understand little of the art of debate. My whole set of exchanges with you and Drew have been to probe your position. I know the orthodox view of the trinity. I have met the most advanced minds of this doctrine in debate since before you were born. Son, you have not lived long enough to aquire one tenth of the knowledge you think you have.      September 25 at 9:47pm

Drew Ayers: Yeah Michael Burgos Son, we are idiots and don't know anything. We gotta become real old to overcome stupidity    September 25 at 9:49pm

Drew Ayers ...and who is to say that I wouldn't have bought Jerry's plane ticket and paid for his Hotel room for the debate?    September 25 at 9:54pm 

William Vincent: Are you offereing Drew? September 25 at 10:46pm 

William Vincent:  Jerry, but Michael has Greek grammar books and can insult people lol

I feel that the problem with the Trinitarian error persists here. They are consumed in their presumptions and blinded by their arrogance. Slaves to Rome.
September 25 at 10:51pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael/Drew, honestly guys, your poistion of the Godhead seems to be neo-trinitarianism when compared to the Athanasian Creed. I see that neither of you commented on my posts above that references the Creed. Why is that. Of course the Creed contradicts your position of persons, and each person being fully God distinct
from the other two; but, I would have thought you would have had S O M E comment. It is not too late.       September 25 at 10:51pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.: William, I was told once: The Trinity is a mystery; if you try to understand it you will lose your mind; but if you don't believe it you will lose your soul. I honestly believe that the Trinitarian world has been scaried by the first statement of the Athanasian Creed: "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity".        September 25 at 11:01pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Tomorrow, guys; hope you come back. September 25 at 11:19pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Michael, you wrote: "An important distinction in Trinitarian theology is the distinction between person and being." Now, so I can understand: Is this distinction between person and being unique to the Trinity? I ask this because no one would consider there being a difference between, say, ..a human person or a human being.

September 25 at 11:29pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Machael, what is the earliest date you can find for this theory (distinction between person and being in the the Godhead)?   September 25 at 11:33pm

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael, you wrote: "Yes, human-ness would be an accurate description of human ontology." So, you and I, two human-beings would not be separate ontologically. Got it. This is the problem I see ......         September 26 at 9:56am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: The problem I see with your neo-trinitarianism is this: Your one God is one God-nature (the WHAT) just as humanity is the nature of being human. Therefore, it could not be said that your God is the Almighty Being, in any real sense. You want to say that your one God is a being, but it just does not compute logically. It seems, logically, that you have ONE God-nature, or One God-quality. We keep falling deeper and deeper into the abyss.......     September 26 at 10:18am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Further into the abyss we go: Now, we know from Scripture that we may know God by understanding the truth of His creation, and by knowing man inparticular. Therefore, there is one ontology (species) of human-ness that is shared by a race of humans which number over six billion alive today; by extrapulating this to God (Ge 1:26-27; Ro 1:20) we have the one God-nature, or God-quality (the What), that is ontologically one, which is a species that is shared by a race of three god-persons. Now, Michael/Drew if you deny that your principle doctrinal points do not lead to this logical conclusion, then, we will walk up through this thread and point out your posts that dump us out at this point.

September 26 at 10:34am

Paul Yaddow: I feel I can mediate on this subject because I'm neither oneness nor trinitarian, but when the term God in three persons is used. some believe within the
trinity belief that God is used as the invisible God manifesting in three beings that someday will be visible in heaven and some believe that.   September 26 at 10:37am

Paul Yaddow: Instead of God in three persons but more God as three persons. September 26 at 10:38am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Yes, as Dake who taught three thrones with three spirit bodies on the three thrones.         September 26 at 10:39am 

Paul Yaddow: Both of which is still incomprehensible. September 26 at 10:40am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Paul, I really believe the argument I presented above is the Waterlou of their position. With what has been said by Michael and Drew, though they will never admit it, is that they have a god-race that is eternally limited to three persons, or gods.

September 26 at 10:42am 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, your assertions about the creed and about Trinitarianism are so poor that I really find it hard to believe that you have done any reading of Trinitarian scholarship. Thus, until you demonstrate somekind of basic understanding, your
opinions about Trinitarianism are about as authoritative as Obama is conservative. Time to hit the books Jerry, as you've spoken foolishly.           September 26 at 10:42am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Michael, the Creed is there to read. One with elementary school education can understand this statement: "...as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, ..." Michael do you deny that you denied this? Your view is clearly neo-trinitarianism. Unless you want to advocate that your view is the orthodox one as opposed to the Creed. Do you? September 26 at 10:50am

Paul Yaddow: Michael are you criticising or explaining the trinity so jerry could have understanding?     September 26 at 10:50am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.:  Paul, Michael is doing what he has always done - criticising. I have had to spend weeks now poking and proding him with questions to get any info from him. But, we'll see.        September 26 at 10:52am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Neo-trinitarianism: The One God is the God-Nature which is eternaly shared by three God-Persons. Therefore God is a species with a race of three gods. Much as humanity is a species with a race of 6,000,000,000 humans. There you have it folks.

September 26 at 10:55am 

Michael Burgos: Jerry, I affirm the creed, and have even written on that creed in a published scholarly article. The error that you are making is one that is common, basic, and obvious. Your presupposing a unitarian defintion of God upon the creed in order to make it contradict itself. Your assertions are proposterous, and in my opinion, based upon a great deal of ignorance. I'm sorry, but I refuse to spend my time with someone who refuses to correctly and accurately represent opposing views, and who displays utter confusion and yet espouses a wealth of knowledge.               September 26 at 10:57am 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Michael, come on now. We both know that you are whistling in the grave yard to keep your courage up. Your view has two categories within the Godhead. Where is this taught in Scripture or history?       September 26 at 11:38am

Jerry Hayes Sr.: Michael, are you denying that you wrote: "[Your statement, "each being fully God separate apart from the other two is not compatible with Trinitarian orthodoxy".] ? Or are you denying that the Creed states: ""...as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, ..." ? I have a question for you Michael, Were you ingnorant of this creedal statement and made an honest mistake?; Or, did you know what the Creed said and chose to pervert it anyway? Which is it? One might think the latter since you claim intimate knowledge of the Creed. Quicumque vult, Michael, Quicumque vult!        September 26 at 11:25am

Paul Yaddow: I think u dazed him with that upper cut, Jerry, but be ready for Michael's right hook.                September 26 at 12:35pm 

Bill Lee:  Yeah - he is gonna stick his tongue out at you and call you a name lol 

September 26 at 12:38pm 

Paul Yaddow: lol    September 26 at 12:45pm

William Vincent: LOL             September 26 at 12:46pm 

Paul Yaddow: Pretty soon they might say, my daddy can beat up your daddy. September 26 at 12:47pm

Paul Yaddow: Wow, I think Michael is not getting up from that upper cut, I think old man Jerry sent Michael back to pre school.  September 26 at 1:25pm

William Vincent:  I dont know I only have one Daddy, and Michael has three ;)
September 26 at 1:44pm 

William Vincent: Tommy we simply ask Trinitarians to face the illogical statements they sometimes make, and the obvious contradictions of the same. If what you believe agrees with scripture, I could care less what it is called :)  September 26 at 1:48pm 

Ron Haley: Drew Ayers, as much as I love you brother, your statement, "Trinitarianism does not teach separate persons nor Gods...."
You know this is not a true statement. Correct? Trintarianism teaches exactly 3 "separate" persons.          September 26 at 3:09pm

Paul Yaddow: Tommy in the Athianasis creed, it states the Trinity is incomprehensible, read it for yourself, so should we rely on creeds from Rome or should we rely and what the bible says about the father, son and holy spirit.       September 26 at 10:13pm 

Jerry Hayes Sr.: So, here is the conclusion of what has been posted on this thread so far: "Trinitarians asks petitions of, and offer praise to three separate and distinct persons. each with an individual center of intellect, will and emotion; and each being fully God separate and apart from the other two?" Peace to Your houses.            September 26 at 10:16pm