Monday, September 26, 2022

Law Of Physics Disproves The Trinity

(A White Paper by Bishop Jerry L Hayes)


The Law: Any number beyond 1 of the same thing denotes either division or progenity.


View the video version of this essay at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc5qY67C9_0&ab_channel=BishopJerryLHayes



Natural laws have been discovered throughout the known universe that are constant. Because of these “laws” mankind can study and do real science. Said another way, science is possible because natural laws exist that are unchanging. It is important to acknowledge that the human mind has not invented nor created the laws of nature but has only discovered them. If these laws were not consistent no real science could be performed. But because said laws are consistent men and women of Science can perform experiments based on certain fundamental truths, because there are laws that can be counted on. For example: water freezes at 32°F and boils at 212°F; water expands when frozen, air expands when heated.  Such laws are a major proof of the existence of God. This is true because, where there are laws there must be a Law-Giver. The laws, then, of the Law-Giver, are a reflection of His wisdom and nature. His laws reflect, not violate, His nature. Thereby, we know good from evil, right from wrong, love from hate, beauty from ugly. We can predict how certain elements of nature will respond according to the laws inherent within it.

Here, I am concerned with an observable law of physics that demonstrates the following: Any number beyond 1 of the same thing denotes either division or progenity; and how that law would apply to our understanding of God. In the Christological debate over the identity of Jesus, the friction (between the ancient Hebraic Christology of Modalism and the more recent Logos Christology of Societal Trinitarianism) may be removed by an honest application of this observable and factual natural law of physics. Modalism asserts that the Son of God (Jesus), as to His deity, is not another rational person from the Father, but is, in very fact, the Father in another way of being. Societal Trinitarianism, on the other hand, asserts that the Son of God (Jesus), as to His deity,  is, in very fact, another rational person from the Father with His own center of self-consciousness, will, and emotion. This modal of the Trinity further asserts that this other rational person from the Father shares an identical oneness of Godhood with Him and a third rational person called the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Societal Trinitarianism asserts that all three of these rational persons are co-equal and co-eternal (See the Athanasian Creed.).

So, the question this essay asks is: “How do these two opposing Christological views fare in light of our observable law of physics: Any number beyond 1 of the same thing denotes either division or progenity?” 

The Modalism of ancient Hebraic Christology does not see the Son of God (Jesus), as to His deity, as another rational person from the Father (and the Holy Spirit) who is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father (and the Holy Spirit). Modalism affirms the Son of God (Jesus), as to His deity, to be the self-same Father (and, or, the Holy Spirit) in another way of being. Therefore, our stated law of physics (Any number beyond 1 of the same thing denotes either division or progenity.) in no manner militates against modalistic Christology, in that Modalism affirms the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be the self-same rational Being (Person), albeit, in different ways of being. 

Let us now consider Societal Trinitarianism. This model of the Trinity claims monotheism on the strength of their belief that the one God of Holy Scripture is a one God-nature that is shared by three distinct God-persons, each with their own centers of consciousness, will, and emotion. This model of the Trinity affirms that the deity of the three god-persons is exactly the same; it is further asserted that all three persons are co-equal and co-eternal. Ergo, the three rational god-persons are exactly equal in Godhood and have always existed—according to this Godhead paradigm. There never was a time when each did not  exist and never a time they did not share the exact deity nature. It does not take but a quick minute to see the problem this Trinitarian modal presents to the law, which is here under consideration. In the case of the Societal Trinity there are three things that are exactly the same in Godhood. Our stated “law” declares that this could only come about through an original undergoing division, or an original reproducing another like itself. An example in nature is cell duplication from one original by division, or human multiplication from an original: (Adam) by both division (Eve from Adam: thus producing two humans) and procreation, thereafter. I employ these examples for the apparent reason that the human person was created in the image and likeness of his Creator-God (See Genesis 1:27.). However, Societal Trinitarian theology defies our discovered law. Or more exactly, our discovered law (Any number beyond 1 of the same thing denotes either division or progenity.) defies Societal Trinitarianism. This modal of the Trinity states that three of the same thing has had eternal existence; our stated law of physics militates against such a possibility. This is true because Societal Trinitarianism posits three exact same things (God-persons) which they claim to have had on beginning, yet our law of physics demonstrates this to be untrue. Our discovered natural law posits that there was a first which either divided or generated another like Himself, or in the case of the Societal Trinity, two others like Himself.

Above, I drew a parallel between the existence of God and the human race. This is often done by both Christological paradigms: Modalism and Societal Trinitarianism, and for good reason. This reason being: the Bible clearly states that Adam was made in the likeness and image of God. Modalism will point to Genesis 1:27, where we are told that man was made in the likeness and image of his Creator-God, and declare that in the making of Adam with three elements (body, soul, and spirit), God, thusly, demonstrated that He, Himself, was three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) — yet one rational person, just as Adam. Societal Trinitarianism, on the other hand, will point to the creation of mankind and draw a parallel in this manner: God is one, they would say, in the sense that there is but one God-nature; just like mankind is one in the sense that there is but one human-nature. So then, they would say: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct rational God-persons who share the one God-nature, just as all rational humans share but one human-nature. The obvious conclusion of this parallelism, to the Modalist (and, indeed, to any thinking person), is that the many humans who share the one human-nature produces many human beings, therefore, the comparison would seem to imply that the three rational God-persons sharing the same God-nature would produce three Gods — if their argument would be consistent. Furthermore, if their parallel is valid, and if words mean anything at all, the fact that the one human-nature, to which they parallel with the one God-nature, is not sentient, thus, neither is their one God-nature sentient. So their modal of monotheism has a one non-sentient God. To which accusation, they call foul. Their inconsistency in this matter is apparent; and, inconsistency is the pitfall of all false doctrine. Furthermore, the creation of man and the manner of proliferation of the human species over the earth validates the law of nature suggested in this writing.

If one would attempt to escape the argument presented by this text by saying that “God is God and not bound by the laws of physics,” I would humbly suggest that we only know God through His laws, whether they be His laws of nature or His written precepts found in the Holy Bible. The laws of nature are the laws of the Creator-God which is one way by which He has made His wisdom and nature known. They reflect Him! The laws of nature do not bind God, but God binds the laws of nature to Himself.



Amen

Monday, August 29, 2022

Exegesis Vs Eisegesis As Validated By Cardinal John Henry Newman

 A White Paper by Bishop Jerry Lynn Hayes

View the video version of this Epistle at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJI4sSlUlY


At some point during the year of 2012 a statement made by Cardinal John Henry Newman(1) was brought to my attention concerning the presence of Modalistic Monarchianism during the second and third centuries. The eminent Cardinal had made a statement in a book entitled Essays and Sketches that the Trinitarian faith was hardly preached at all in Christendom during  this time. Newman wrote that Modalism dominated the geography of the Christian world. I made a search for the book and found it being sold by a used book seller who had required it from the Queenswood Library, Victoria, British Columbia. I purchased the book and have it in my personal library.

A second book by Newman came into my possession just recently entitled Apologia Pro Vita Sua. The title simply means: In defense of my life. Newman had converted to Roman Catholicism after being a celebrated churchman of the Church of England. This particular book was written as his autobiography tracing his spiritual and doctrinal development. 

These two books have become very important to me in the debate between the Oneness (also called the Modalistic Monarchian faith) and the Trinitarian faith, in an historical sense. This essay will explain why that is true. 


At the heart of the Christological debate of oneness versus trinitarianism is the subject of hermeneutics. It is often been postulated that the Oneness and Trinitarian schools employ different hermeneutics to arrive at their Christology. At the heart of this essay is the subject of a hermeneutic involving the proper way to research a doctrinal matter. Thus we will look at: exegesis versus eisegesis.

One thing that both camps can agree upon is that exegesis is the proper hermeneutic for biblical research, while eisegesis is not only faulty but in many cases down right dishonest. If I may give the definition of these two words in laymans terms, I would say: exegesis is approaching Holy Scripture with no pre-conceived notion or opinion but permitting the texts to speak for themselves; eisegesis, on the other hand is holding a pre-conceived notion, or opinion, on a matter and going to Holy Scripture to find evidence for one’s pre-held notion.

In the running debate, both the Oneness and the Trinitarian camps have accused the other of attempting to prove their opposing positions through eisegesis methods instead of the more honest and correct method of exegesis. In the name to transparency, I will admit that as a Oneness apologist I will be renewing that accusation in this writing.

The reason that Cardinal John Henry Newman figures so central in this discussion (concerning exegesis and eisegesis) are admissions that he has made in his writings which unmask the Trinitarian church’s hermeneutic of eisegesis.


To The Point

In the Cardinal’s book Essays and Sketches, Volume I, on pages 151/2 he writes that the received Godhead doctrine of the third century throughout Asia Minor, Rome and Africa was what historians call Modalism and moderns call Oneness. Newman admits that the Trinity (which he calls “the true faith”) “was hardly preached in the churches”. He writes it this way: “… Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius in the third (century)  protest against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity. … Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay, we read that in the latter country their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier time, to a very great extent, and that the truth was hardly preached in the churches.” 

Newman writes of “the truth” that was “hardly preached in the churches”. Of course he referenced this “truth” as the modal of the Trinity set forth in the Athanasian Creed (of which the noble Athanasius knew nothing). We would ask: how did the few, the very few, arrive at this “true faith” of which the vast majority knew nothing? Was it the proper hermeneutic of exegesis of Holy Scripture, or the mischievous method of eisegesis?

Strange as it seems, in his book entitled Apologia Pro Vita Sua the Cardinal tells us the method by which the Trinity was arrived. In my 2005 Dover Edition of Apologia Pro Vita Sua, page 6, Newman writes of a sermon preached by a Dr Hawkins, with which he agrees, thusly: “he lays down a proposition, self evident as soon as stated, to those who have at all examined the structure of Scripture, vis. That the sacred text was never intended to teach doctrine, but only to prove it, and that, if we would learn doctrine, we must have recourse to the formularies of the Church; for instance to the Catechism, and to the Creeds. He considers, that, after learning from them the doctrines of Christianity, the inquirer must verify them by the Scripture. This view, most true in its outlined, most fruitful in its consequences, opened upon me a large field of thought. Doctor Whately helted it too.” 

The above text from Newman establishes the fact, as he understood it, that the “true faith” is only discovered in Holy Scripture by an eisegesis mode of research. In other words the true doctrine is learned through and by the Catechism, and the Creeds (trinitarianism’s Third Testament); sources exterior to the Bible. Only then, is the Bible consulted for evidence of beliefs established apart from it. This, to any thinking person is the quintessential definition of eisegesis. Thus, my question previously asked, I.e. “How did the few, the very few, arrive at this “true faith” of which the vast majority knew nothing? Was it the proper hermeneutic of exegesis of Holy Scripture, or the mischievous method of eisegesis?” Is answered by Newman himself. It was through “ the mischievous method of eisegesis”!

Whenever, Trinitarian apologists deny the use of eisegesis to establish their various heresies (which they call the “true faith”) we only ned to point them to Newman, Hawkins, and Whately.


Footnote (1): John Henry Newman  (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890) was an English theologian, academic, intellectual, philosopher, polymath, historian, writer, scholar and poet, first an Anglican priest and later a Catholic priest and cardinal, who was an important and controversial figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s,[11] and was canonised as a saint in the Catholic Church in 2019.


Apostolically Speaking

☩Jerry l Hayes


Please "Like," "Subscribe," and "Share". YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheJlhsr... Blog site: http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/ Please partner with us in this ministry You may make your donation at: PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC Venmo: 409-789-1785 Givelify: Disciples of the Way Apostolic Zelle: Consider become a member of "The Company of the 100" by partnering with us by giving a recurring donation each month of ten dollars or more, as the Lord allows. Contact us with your prayer request, questions and/or comments at: disciplesofway@yahoo.com

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Philippians 2:6-9, Exegeted (Part II)

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, —Philippians 2:6-8.

You may view the video version of this epistle at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ6aEdhKLnI&t=11s


I. Pluralists’ Objection

The Pluralists’ understanding of this text is that: First, the word “God” (with which Jesus is referenced) is qualitative and, thus, is identifying Him only as deity and not as the Father; Second, the Second Person of the Trinity divested Himself of His deity, either totally or in part (A. T. Robertson, seems to think only in part: see Word Pictures on Phil 2:7.), in order to come to earth and die for the sins of mankind. 


II. Modalism’s Response

Defending Against the Pluralists’ Understanding of Philippians 2:6-8.

The Trinitarian understanding of Philippians 2:6-8 challenges at least three fundamentals of New Testament Godhead theology. First, the Monotheism of the Bible is challenged by the introduction of the plurality of persons concept; secondly, the Trinitarian willingness to accept the idea of a person of God divesting Himself of His deity brings into question the doctrine of the Incarnation; thirdly, the integrity of the teaching of the Immutability of God is brought into dispute. We will look at these three points in turn.

A.  Denies the Radical Monotheism of the Bible.

First, the way they present ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων (existing in the form  of God) is that Jesus as God the Son shared the essence of deity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Thus, the word for God (theou, genitive form of theos) is presented as qualitative. Not that Jesus existed from eternity in the form of the Father, but only that He manifested the quality of being God, which quality was shared by two other god-persons

The Pluralists’ understanding is debunked by observing how the author of the Epistle to the Philippians employed the Greek word for “God” - Theos. We have already presented this information in Part I of this exegesis, but will review it here.

The word Theos occurs 602 times in the writings of Paul, if we include the book of Hebrews (1,330 times in the Greek NT) as a title for the Deity (Father). Theos is definitely used of Christ in John 1:1, 20:28, Rom 9:5, 1 Tim 3:16; Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, John 1:18, Acts 20:28, and 1 John 5:20. There are 3 unchallenged times when theos is a reference to Christ in the writings of Paul (Rom 9:5, 1 Tim 3:16; Titus 2:13).

The manner in which theos is used in the Epistle to the Philippians is important in understanding the Apostle’s intent concerning Christ, in v6. Paul employs theos (God) 23 times; 22 in reference to the Father and 1 time to reference the idol of one’s belly (3:19): even when the Apostle employs “theos” to reference one’s own belly, he is employing it in the same manner as he does in all other places, e.i. one’s supreme God. 

Philippians 1:2 and 4:20 form bookends to Paul’s use of the word theos (God). 

  • 1:2, Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father (θεοῦ πατρὸς), and from the Lord Jesus Christ. And, 
  • 4:20, Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Though it may be a bit tedious I will present each place theos is used in the Epistle to the Philippians:

1:2  Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father (θεοῦ πατρὸς), and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

1:3  I thank my God (Εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου) upon every remembrance of you,

1:8 For God is my record (μάρτυς γάρ μου ὁ θεός), how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.

1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God (εἰς δόξαν καὶ ἔπαινον θεοῦ.) 

1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that (or this) of God (καὶ τοῦτο ἀπὸ θεοῦ:)  .

2:6 Who, being in the form of God (ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων), thought it not robbery to be equal with God (εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,):

2:9  Wherefore God also (διὸ καὶ ὁ θεὸς) hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

2:11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός).

2:13 For it is God (θεὸς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ [the ONE]) which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

2:27 For indeed he (Epaphroditus) was sick nigh unto death: but God (ἀλλὰ ὁ θεὸς) had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit (οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες), and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God (ἐκ θεοῦ) by faith:

3:14  I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God (τοῦ θεοῦ) in Christ Jesus.

3:15  Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God (ὁ θεὸς) shall reveal even this unto you.

3:18-19  (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 Whose end is destruction, whose God (ὁ θεὸς) is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

4:7  And the peace of God (καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ), which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace (καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης) shall be with you.

4:19 But my God (ὁ δὲ θεός μου) shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

4:20 Now unto God and our Father (τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν) be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It seems to be clear that the Apostle’s use of theos is always a reference to the Father.


Second, In the Pluralists’ understanding, v6 identifies Jesus as another person from God the Father, Who was equal with God the Father; i.e. “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This understanding presents a theological problem, in view of the many Scriptures which show clearly that the equality of another person with God is anathema to Holy Scripture. Notice the following texts carefully: 

  • “That thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God”  — Exodus 8:10.
  • In Exodus 15:11 Moses sings out this question, “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?”  To his own question, Moses gives the answer, “There is none like unto the God of Jeshurum” (a symbolic name for Israel, means Upright) —Deuteronomy 33:26.  
  • Furthermore, David declared in 2 Samuel 7:22, “Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee ... .” 
  • Then there is 1 Kings 8:23, “LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath ... .”  
  • The Psalmist asked, “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD?” — Psalms 89:6. 
  • Isaiah asked a like question, “To whom will ye liken unto God?” —Isaiah 40:18.  
  • The LORD God asked the same question Himself, “To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” —Isaiah 46:5.  
  • Finally, the scribe concurs with Christ when he says, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:” —Mark 12:32.


B.  A Person of God divesting (emptying) Himself of Deity Denies the Incarnation.

The second challenge presented by the Pluralists’ view is to the integrity of Yahweh Himself, and is found in vv7-8, “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a  servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”  It is alleged by Pluralists that the second person of God, i.e. Jesus Christ, “emptied” Himself of His deity in order to live and die as a man, thereby, becoming inferior to the Father. The theological problem with this interpretation is that Apostle Paul teaches that just the opposite is true: “For in him (Jesus Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power” — Colossians 2:9-10. Thus the doctrine of the Incarnation as is demonstrated, not only by 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, but also by John 1:14 (“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, … full of grace and truth.”) is undermined by the understanding that Jesus, while on earth, was not fully and completely God Almighty. (If the Pluralists object to this assertion, we would point out that they have no other way of explaining the diminutive knowledge and power of the Son—unless they will embrace the Modalists’ understanding of the Dual Nature of Christ and assign the subornation of the Son to the Father to the locus of the humanity of Christ. Which position they are loath to do.

Thus, the doctrine of the Incarnation (enfleshing) of the Almighty God is actually denied by the Pluralists’ interpretation of Philippians 2:6-8.

Paul’s statement, as it appears in English, is: “But make himself of no reputation ...” This statement in the Greek is: ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν, (alla eauton ekenōsen). While the Pluralists want to interpret this as “poured out (or empitied) himself” (and by that, implying that the second person of the Godhead emptied Himself of deity in order to suffer as a man), the testimony of holy Scripture just will not allow it. The word ekenōsen is kenoō (Strong’s #G2758 from #G2756; to make empty, i.e. [figuratively] to abase, neutralize, falsify:-make (of none effect, of no reputation, void), be in vain.)  Although the root of this Greek word (kenos) has as one of its meaning “to make empty,” our word “kenoō” is never so translated in the New Testament.  Kenoō is used four other times in the New Testament, and that, by the same writer, Paul: 

Romans 4:14 “... faith is made void.” 

1 Corinthians 1:17 “lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” 

1 Corinthians 9:15 “should make my glorying void.” 

2 Corinthians 9:3 “lest our boasting of you should be in vain.”

In our text (Phil 2:7) kenoō is used in the same context as its other uses, and is so translated by the KJV translators as “no reputation.” The kenosis, then, was a self-renunciation, not an emptying Himself of deity nor an exchange of deity for humanity. During His sojourn on Earth as a man, Jesus did not cease being God.

Not only does the “divesting” interpretation go counter to Colossians 2:9-10, but it, also, is a denial of the Incarnation of the Mighty God in Christ. In this understanding of Philippians 2:2-8, which takes the imagined second person of Deity and empties Him of His God-ness, we do not have Yahweh God manifest in flesh, as 1 Timothy 3:16 would teach. But instead, we have a God that has divested (emptied) Himself of His deity in order to BECOME human. The problem exists in the fact that the Scripture states: “To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).  Now the question, simply put, is: “Was Jesus Christ, God IN man? Or, was Jesus Christ, God BECOME man?” For the integrity of the Incarnation to remain intact, it must be admitted that Jesus was God IN man.

Some Pluralists will deny that they teach the emptying of deity from the Second Person of the Trinity. Yet, they argue for the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) whenever it is pointed out that Jesus was not equal to the Father in  either knowledge (Mark 13:32) or power (John 14:28). This is a case of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too. However, such an illustrious Trinitarian personality as A. T. Robertson seems to support the teaching of the actual kenosis: “Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct.”  —A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures (Bolding and underlining mine.)

“(The Biblical manner of explaining this subordination of the Son is to acknowledge the Dual Nature and thereby locate the subordination in the humanity of Christ.) 

Moreover, the duplicity of Trinitarianism is seen in living color in the manner in which they deal with John 17:5 in light of Philippians 2:7.  In John 17:5 Jesus says: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” They often present this text to assert that Jesus is another god-person from the Father who is praying to the Father asking to be restored to the glory of deity that He had with the Father before the world was created but does not now (when He prayed this prayer) have. At this point they will point to Philippians 2:6-8 as evidence for the emptying of deity that He is NOW praying to have returned to Him. The problem is: When exegeting Philippians 2:7 they denied that Jesus REALLY emptied Himself of deity, but only chose not to function in His God prerogatives. But, when interpreting John 17:5 they argue just the opposite by having a diminutive Son of God praying to receive His deity back again. We point out that this would not make sense IF He never lost it in the first place. The meaning of duplicity is: deceitfulness; double-dealing—surely the Pluralists demonstrate the very meaning of the word in their dealing with Philippians 2:7 as they relate it to John 17:5. 

(The Biblical way to interpret John 17:5 is: The human Christ is praying to His Father to receive the glory He (the human Christ) had in the plan of God in eternity past. The human Christ was crucified before the world began. It is that glory He is not praying to receive.)


C.  Does Violence to the Immutability of God.

Another part of this problem is that if Jesus, as God, divested Himself of Deity in order to become a man, it would require a change in the nature of God. It would be God giving up what He was, in order to become what He was not: which is to say that God, who IS not and WAS not human, became human; He became something that He was not before. This presents a problem of some magnitude, in that the Word of God states emphatically: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither a shadow of turning” (James 1:17).  Furthermore, God says of Himself: “For I am the LORD, I change not” (Mal 3:6).  So, not only is the emptying, or divesting, interpretation of Philippians 2:6-8 a denial of the Incarnation of the Mighty God in Christ, but it is, in the same instance, a rejection of the Immutability (the impossibility of change) of God, which doctrine is taught clearly in Scripture. 


Conclusion

So, by consideration of Part I and Part II of our exegesis of Philippians 2:6-8 we, now, face the text in its proper context. (This will avoid the pretext of the Pluralists.) That is, although Jesus was All Important, All Superior, All God, Almighty (Rev 1:8), He did not display His importance, His superiority or His deity before men. Instead, He appeared as a servant. This, however, did not lessen His importance, His superiority, His deity, but rather, exalted it.  Notice the spiritual principle of holy Scripture, “So the last shall be first and the first last ...” (Matt 20:16). The Christian gets by giving (Luke 6:38), lives by dying (Matt 16:25), is exalted by being abased (Matt 23:12).


Apostolically Speaking,

Bp. Jerry L Hayes


Read Part I of this epistle at the following link:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1382446098927616078/2284811500726155476

Saturday, June 4, 2022

BIBLICAL CHRISTOLOGY



“For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” —Ephesians 2:18-20.

Here, you may view the video of this epistle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K12K8FOk1ec&t=1393s


In this second chapter of Ephesians, Paul is writing about the Jews and Gentiles being one Body, being one Church. There is not one Covenant for the Church and another for the Jews. We are all one in Christ Jesus. The Lord has broken down the middle wall of partition (Eph 2:14) that was between us. We do live, however, in a time when some Bible teachers (so-called) attempt to make a drastic (I emphasize the word drastic) difference between the Jews and the Lord’s church. They say that the Jews are God’s earthly people, while the Church is God’s heavenly people. We do not understand the Scripture to teach that proposition. Passages, such as this second chapter to the Ephesians, tell us clearly that the Lord’s church is made up of both Jew and Gentile, that the saints of the Old Covenant and the saints of the New Covenant are members of the same Church. We are, further, told by the Apostle that our doctrine (which includes Christology) is to rest on the biblical foundation that is made of material from both Testaments. 

In Ephesians 2:18-20 Paul writes: “...through him we both” (by both, he means Jew and Gentile) “have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers” (“ye” meaning: “you all Gentiles.” Paul was a Jew, so he said, you all are no more strangers) “and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” We are going to look closely at v20 which states: “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;”

The Apostle tells us that we “are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone.” In the previous verse, v19, he tells us that we Gentiles are no more strangers and foreigners to the Common-wealth of Israel, but are now citizens of that Commonwealth – and also with the saints. When he speaks of the saints, he is referencing the patriarchs of the Old Testament, and by that, Paul is saying that those of the Old Covenant and we of the New Covenant make but one Church. The Bible teaches us that in heaven we will sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; in other words, there is a commonality between the saints of the Old and the New Testa-ments.

In v20, where he writes about being built upon a certain foundation, the Apostle makes us aware of the need to concern ourselves with the foundation upon which we are built. We are to be built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself, being the chief cornerstone. I would suppose that by his mention of prophets, the Apostle Paul had the Old Testament prophets in view. I say this because he had just instructed the New Testament Christians of the commonality between themselves and the saints of the Old Testament. The Apostle teaches, in so many words, that there is but one Church, made up of the believers of both the Old and New Covenants. The Pauline teaching is that the New Testament is, in fact, the fruition of the Old Testament. In one place, the same writer says that the Old Testament is a schoolmaster, whose purpose is to bring us to Christ. Therefore, the foundation of the Lord’s church is seen in the Scriptures of the Old Covenant, as well as in the New. The prophets of the Old Covenant are to be considered as part of our foundation, doctrinally. So, then, it is to the Old Testament prophets that we will look in this study, along with the apostles of our Lord, and, also, to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. We will review what these three witnesses (the prophets of the Old Testament, the apostles of the New Testament, and Christ Himself) have to say about the Christ.

Fundamental to this chapter is the word Christ. Christ, is an anglicizing of the Greek word Christos. Christos is the Greek of the Hebrew מָשִׁ֫יחַ mashiach, or Messiah (Strong’s #H4899). So, when we say Christ, what we are saying is “Messiah.” When we say Jesus Christ, we are saying Jesus Messiah. When we say Christ Jesus, we are saying Messiah Jesus. Therefore, when we read the prophecies of the Old Testament prophets concerning the Messiah, we are reading prophecies concerning Jesus.

Now, permit me to say a few words concerning the word “christology.” This would seem important, since this chapter concerns Biblical Christology. Christology is a formal term for the “study of Christ.” Ology, comes into English from French, and means: a subject of study; or, a branch of knowledge. We speak of geology as the study of the earth; we speak of biology as the study of living organisms. When we talk about theology we are speaking of the study of God. So, here, we speak of Christology as the study of Christ. In this chapter we will see some of what the Bible has to say about Christ. I must confess that this chapter will only address this issue in a very limited way. It will be but a thumbnail sketch of what the Bible has to say concerning Christ. In fact, we intend to review only five points of interest. But these are vital points to Whom the Christ is. Not to fear, however, concerning the very few points covered in this chapter; because, after all, the purpose of this work, in its entirety, is to examine the biblical Jesus. Therefore, His revelation comes clearer into view with the turning of each page.

When we develop our belief system concerning Jesus the Messiah, we must only say what the Bible says about Him. We must not develop our belief system out of our own imagination. To say it another way, We must never stretch the Bible to fit our theology of choice, but we must always stretch our theology to fit the Bible. Since we are to be built upon that particular foundation, which is the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief corner stone, then, it behooves us to understand and believe what the prophets had to say concerning Christ; what the apostles had to say concerning Christ; and what Christ had to say concerning  Himself. That we will do, with God’s help.


The Christology of the Prophets

First we look to the prophets of the Old Testament. We are told that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21). We go, then, to the book of Isaiah, as he was one of the Old Testament prophets who wrote much about Christ. Many call this book the Gospel of Isaiah, because Isaiah wrote so much about the coming Messiah. 

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” —Isaiah 7:14.

Here, Isaiah tells us two things concerning the Messiah that was to come: First, that He would be born of a virgin; and second, that His name would be Immanuel. Which, we will learn later on in the holy Scripture, means: “God with us.” It is of great interest that the prophet said of the Messiah, that He would be born of a virgin. Throughout the millennia the teaching of the “Virgin Birth” has come under attack. Isaiah’s prophecy, in particular, is under question. It is said that Isaiah was not speaking of a virgin, in the sense of a female who has not known a man in sexual relations. They continue to say that the Hebrew word translated here as “virgin” is the word used for any young woman. (See on this subject, pages 183&184.) Well, a young woman giving birth to a child is not anything that is sign-worthy. But, it is pointed out that this passage announces: “the Lord himself shall give you a sign.” Now, a young woman who has never known a man (a young woman who is a virgin) giving birth to a child is indeed a “sign.” This is the word of the prophet concerning the Messiah that was to come.

We next come to the book of Micah. Here we see what this prophet has to say concerning the Messiah. In Micah 5:2 the seer writes the following concerning the Christ that is to come: 

“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.” 

In this text, when the English has “everlasting” it means “from eternity.”According to the prophet Micah, then, this Ruler that was to be born in Bethlehem was from “everlasting.” Here Micah is speaking of the Incarnation of the eternal God into a child that would be born in Bethlehem. According to Micah, the Christ was going to be the Eternal One. Now, there is only one Eternal One. All of creation had a beginning. There is only one Uncaused First Cause – and that is the Almighty God, from Whom all life proceeds. According to the prophet Micah, this Antecedent of all things was going to be the Christ.

Next, we pay the prophet Isaiah a return visit. We go to Isaiah 9:6. Here, this prophet writes concerning the Christ, 

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” 

The prophet speaks of Christ, and declares that He will be “the Mighty God… the Everlasting Father;” but He would also be a human child. So, in Isaiah 9:6 the prophet says of Jesus, of the Christ, that he would be, at the same moment, both Father God and, also, a human child. 

Staying with the prophet Isaiah, we go to his Chapter 53, where he gives the world a word picture of the suffering Christ – the suffering Messiah. He writes of it this way: 

“Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” 

Isaiah continues throughout the chapter to talk about the Christ who would bear the iniquities of the fallen race of man.

We now go to the writings of the prophet Zechariah. What does this prophet say about the Christ? It is actually very exciting to read Zechariah’s predictions concerning the coming Messiah. In Zechariah 12:10 this prophet adds to the messianic tapestry of Isaiah. As Isaiah gives us the image of a suffering Christ, Zechariah goes further and shows his readers the dark hues and intense emotions of the crucifixion. One reads in Zechariah 12:10, 

“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications:” (that is good, for it speaks of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit) “and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” 

You are asked, dear reader, to notice the piercing, and notice the first person singular pronoun “me.”  “And they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” With these words Zechariah is painting a word picture of one who is, indeed, being pierced through. The one who is being pierced is speaking in the first person singular, and refers to Himself as “me.” Who is this one of whom the prophet prophesied would be pierced? Of course, all agree, this text is addressing the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. It is speaking of the Messiah Himself, being pierced. We know that Christ was pierced with nails, he was pierced also with a spear. The “me” in our text is none other than Christ! It is the Messiah! But, what is interesting is, beginning at verse 10 and going antecedently back up into the chapter we discover who the “me” is. Through this method, we arrive at the introduction of the speaker. The speaker is introduced in v4: “In that day, saith the LORD (YHWH), I will smite every horse with astonishment.” Then, as we read on down through the chapter, the speaker does not change; so the speaker in v10 is the speaker Who was introduced in v4. In v10 the speaker says: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” We know that the speaker is Yahweh from v4. There (v4),  the “LORD” begins to speak and continues speaking down through v10 – the word “LORD” is in all capital letters. What that means is: The Hebrew text has the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) which has been rendered, or represented, as Adonai, thus in our English Bibles as “LORD.” The Tetragrammaton is the four letters YHWH which are the conso-nants of the proper name of the Almighty. Here, then, the Almighty Yahweh is saying: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” So, then, according to the prophet Zechariah the One Who was to be pierced (the suffering Messiah that is crucified on the cross) would be Yahweh Himself. 

From the Christology of the prophets, we have seen five things foretold. We could list many more items about the Christ from the prophets; however, we have chosen these five things, because we want to follow these five items through to the Apostles, and from the Apostles, on to Christ Himself. So, these five things the pro-phets have foretold  concerning the Christ. 

This is what we have seen: 

  1. The prophets say that Christ would be born of a virgin: Isaiah 7:14; 
  2. The prophets say that Christ would be God: Micah 5:2;
  3. The prophets say that Christ would be Father God, and also human: Isaiah 9:6;
  4. The prophets say that Christ would suffer: Isaiah ch 53; 
  5. The prophets say that Christ would be Yahweh pierced: Zechariah 12:10.

Paul tells us, in his letter to the Ephesians, that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20).


The Christology of the Apostles

Next, we will examine what the Apostles have to say concerning the Christ. What is the Apostolic-Christology of Jesus Christ? In Matthew 1:18 we have the Apostle Matthew’s account of the circumstances of Mary’s pregnancy. This is what Matthew records: 

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” 

In this passage of Matthew’s Gospel, the Apostle states that Jesus was born of a virgin: that before Joseph and Mary came together, Mary was found with child, and that this child was fathered by the Holy Spirit. Matthew’s testimony is that Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and not by any man. Therefore, the prophets and the apostles agree on this issue: that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. The prophet foretold it in Isaiah 7:14 – the apostle confirmed it in Matthew 1:18. 

Let us also consider Matthew 1:23; here is another testimony from the apostle that agrees with the prophecy of the prophets. Remember that the prophet Micah said the Messiah which would come from Bethlehem was going to be from eternity. Said another way: He would be God. In Matthew 1:23 we read this statement (Matthew is quoting the prophet Isaiah): 

“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” 

When Isaiah gave the prophecy (Isa 7:14) he did not give the interpretation of the name Immanuel; but, here, Matthew gives the interpretation as “God with us.” According to the apostle Matthew, Jesus was God, Who had come among His people. He truly was Immanuel—“God with us.” This is in agreement with what Micah said: The Messiah who would be born in Bethlehem “was from of old.” His existence was not just from Bethlehem, but he had duration from eternity. Only one has existence from eternity—that is the Eternal One. Matthew is in agreement with that. Matthew writes that this One is Emmanuel – He is “God with us.” 

Now, the prophet had written in Isaiah 9:6 that the Christ would be both Father God and man, but what do the apostles have to say about that point? In John’s gospel, Chapter 1 and v1, we read this, 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  (John 1:1)

Apostle John, here, identifies God as the “Word.” In the 14th verse of his first chapter he writes: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” Here we have the Apostle John saying that God was made flesh; God came to the earth as a man and we beheld His glory—the glory of God—as the Glory of the only begotten. John speaks, here, of the flesh, the humanity, that is the Son of God. So, according to John, God (John 1:1 “the Word was God”) was made flesh. Now this is in agreement with the prophet Isaiah (in 9:6) where he writes: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:...” This child that was born, and this Son Who was given, is speaking of the humanity of Christ. Then Isaiah goes on to say that this Christ, that was to be born, is not only a human child and son, but, He, also, is the Mighty God and the Everlasting Father. That is in agreement with the Apostle John; when he said, “In the beginning was the Word ...  and the Word was God,” then he continued on to say that this God “was made flesh” (John 1:14). The Christ, then, was both God and man. 

We now move on to see what else the apostles have to say about the Lord. We have seen that the prophets said that he would be a suffering Messiah (Isaiah ch 53). According to Matthew Chapter 27 and John Chapter 19, Jesus, indeed, did suffer. In Matthew 27 and John 19 we have the crucifixion account. In these two chapters, and from these two apostles (Matthew and John), we have the account of Christ’s arrest, the account of His trials before the high priests, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, and then Pilate, again. We read about His beatings, we read about the thorns, we read about the whip, the spittle, we read about the crucifixion, about the nails, the rough timber on His beaten back, the vinegar to drink, and of His lonely death on Golgotha. Surely, this is in agreement with everything the prophet had to say concerning Jesus in Isaiah Chapter 53.

We have seen how the prophet Zechariah, in Zechariah 12:10, wrote about the piercing of Yahweh. He wrote in the first person singular of Yahweh, and Yahweh said: “They shall look upon me whom they have pierced.” It is interesting (Is it not?) that here the Messiah is not only portrayed as a suffering Messiah, but, also, that He would be pierced; this speaks to His crucifixion. Not only does Zechariah say that the Messiah would be pierced, but he said, specifically, that it would be Yahweh who would be pierced. However, we must ask: “Do the Apostles agree?” To determine the answer to this question, we look to the Apostle John to see what he has to say concerning the piercing of Yahweh. This is what we find: 

“Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20:27)

What is actually going on here? Thomas, we discover, was not with the apostles when Christ first appeared to them the day of His resurrection. Now, seven days later, when Thomas had returned to their company, the disciples told him that Jesus had risen. He said that he would not believe unless he could see the material evidence: “Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe,” Thomas said. When, that same day, Jesus appeared, He said: “Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands.” In other words, Run your fingers over the holes in my hands and reach hither your hand and thrust it in my side. There, in the side of Christ was a cavity into which Thomas could put his whole hand. This was a Christ that had been pierced through. This was a Christ that had done to him what the prophet  Zechariah said would be done. But that only proves half of what the prophet Zechariah foretold. The other half of the question is: Was this pierced Christ, Yahweh? For the answer to this, we need to go to the book of Revelation, and to the same author (John) who wrote the Gospel. We look, then, to Revelation 1:8, John records that Jesus says of Himself: 

“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” 

And then again in v11 John pens the words of Jesus: 

“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; ... .” 

In v11 the apostle John writes that Jesus says this of Himself again. So, again, according to Apostle John, Jesus was the Almighty God (Rev 1:8). Further, according to the same apostle, Jesus was pierced – He had holes in his hands and side large enough for Thomas to insert his fingers and hand, respectively. We are told that when Thomas actually saw this, he bowed before Jesus and said, “My Lord, and my God.” The Greek reads very forcibly here: “Ὁ κύριός μου, καὶ ὁ θεός μου.” English: “The Lord of me, and the God of me!” 

The Apostles, also, agree with the Prophets. The five things the Prophets foretold of Christ, to which the Apostles agreed are:  

  1. Christ would be born of a virgin (Isa 7:14)—the Apostles agree, Matthew 1:18. 
  2. Christ would be God (Micah 5:2)—the Apostles agree, Matthew 1:23. 
  3. Christ would be both God and man (Isa 9:6)—the Apostles agree, John 1:1, 14. 
  4. Christ would be a suffering Messiah (Isa 53)—the Apostles agree, Matthew 27; John 19. 
  5. Christ would be Yahweh pierced (Zech 12:10)—the Apostles agree, John 20:27 cf Revelation 1:8.


The Christology of Jesus the Messiah (Christ)

We come now to the cornerstone, the most important stone of our doctrinal foundation. Having reviewed five things the Prophets had to say about Christ, we have discovered that the Apostles, also, said those same five things concerning Him. We are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets; but, not them alone, there  is one other witness to consider: the chief cornerstone Himself. So what did Jesus have to say about Himself, concerning these five points?

We look first to John 10:36. Here Jesus acknowledges that he was the Son of God; consequently, then, He had no earthly father. Then in Luke 2:49 the same is verified. In these two passages Jesus acknowledges His virgin birth. Let us look to John 10:36, here Jesus has this to say, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” In this place Jesus declared Himself to be the Son of God – not as many supposed, the son of Joseph. Then there is the testimony from Luke 2:49, “And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?” This text gives the account of Joseph finding Jesus in the temple, teaching the teachers of Israel. Jesus recognized that another was his Father besides Joseph – the Other being Yahweh God, the Holy Spirit. Jesus acknowledged His virgin birth. He acknowledged that Mary was, indeed, “found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

What about the second item to which both the Prophets and Apostles testified? Namely, that the Messiah/Christ would be God, the one who had existence from eternity? For the answer to this, we look to the words of Jesus from John 10:30. In order to get the complete feel for the event, we need to go back to v22 and pick up the storyline there: 

“And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.” 

Jesus acknowledges His oneness with Father God. He clearly says to the Jews, “I and my Father are one.” How did Jesus mean that? We can be sure the Jews, to whom He spoke those words, understood Him clearly. We today, 2000 years removed from His statement, and blinded with the fog of human tradition, may have a difficult time understanding the meaning of His words. But those Jews, to whom He spake, did not misunderstand Him. His words did not drift away on the wind that day. We are made to know that the Jews took up stones to stone Him. Jesus challenged them with: “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Now, beloved, the Jews did NOT understand Jesus to be saying that He was one in agreement and unity with God: Any Rabbi could have made that statement, and the Jews would have applauded him. But Jesus said “I and my Father are one” making Himself one with the Father. Jesus made the statement in the context of their challenge to him: “If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” He said “I and my Father are one.” This statement must have been of great concern to the Jews; for, you see, the Old Testament prophets – their own prophets – had written that the Messiah would be their God; they knew this. And now, here, standing before them, is this man from Nazareth laying claim to those credentials. In so many words, not very covertly we might add, Jesus is saying: Your prophets said your Messiah would be your God; I am He! That, at least, is what the Jews heard Him say.  The Jews challenged, “If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly!” He then said, “I and my Father are one.” What they really wanted from Him, was an admission to being the Christ; if He did that, they could accuse Him of blaspheming. Then, when He told them that He and the Father were one, they did, indeed, take up stones to stone Him; for they understood Him to be saying that He was in very fact God. To make this clearer, we look to John 14: 8-9, where Philip made a request of Jesus, that was similar to the challenge of the Jews. In v8 Philip says to him: “Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” Or, If you will show us the Father, we will be satisfied.  “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” Jesus said clearly: You want to see the Father? How is it that I have been with you all this time and you do not know me? If you have seen me, Phillip, you have seen the Father.


Here, a word must be said concerning the Greek neuter word "hen" in that it is used for the word "one" in John 10:30. The subject of the passage is the hand of the Father and the hand of Jesus (vv28-29). Because the hand is a part of the body and not a person, the word one, in verse 30, is neuter and not masculine. Jesus is saying that the Father's hand and His hand are the self same hand. Moreover the Jews would have recognized that Jesus' reference to the hand of God was taken from the Hebrew scriptures which demonstrate the surety of God's hand in preserving and protecting his people: E.g. Isaiah 41:10, 49:14-16. No, the Jews did not misunderstand Jesus' words. They understood clearly that He was laying claim to being God Almighty.

 

So, then, just as the Prophet Micah prophesied that the Messiah would be the Eternal One, and just as Matthew the apostle said that He was Emmanuel (which by interpretation is “God with us”), so too, does Jesus, the great chief cornerstone, say that He is, in fact, the Father. He says clearly enough, for a blind man to see, and for a deaf man to hear, that if His disciples had seen Him they had seen the Father; and, quite frankly, He was surprised that they did not understand that. That same amazement should be on us today when people do not see the Almighty God in Jesus Christ.

Our next point of review is how the prophets said that the Messiah would be both God the Father, and man. We saw this in Isaiah 9:6. Also we saw that the apostles agreed and gave testimony to this very truth in John 1:1 and 14. But does Jesus verify this point of the dual nature? Actually he does. And he verifies it in living color.

In John 10:30 we saw that Christ professed to be ONE with the Father. Again, in John 14:9 He professed that He and the Father were ONE and the same. That Jesus confessed that He was the Father is half of our scenario; but the other half (that Jesus is man) can be found in John 14:28. Here Jesus says: 

“Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” 

In this instance Jesus is speaking as the Son of Man. He confessed that the Father was greater than Himself. Jesus as God, is the Father, so He is equal to the Father in every way. But when He says, “My Father is greater than I,” He is speaking from His humanity, and in His humanity; in His Son of Man status, He is inferior to the Father. You see, if it were not that way, the only alternative would be: Jesus as the divine Son of God, inferior to God the Father. God the Father would be the superior God, while God the Son would be a junior god. A god who is not the Almighty is only a demigod: he is no God at all. But Jesus clearly stated that He and the Father were One. Jesus clearly stated: When you see Me you have seen the Father. The Prophets foretold this as the way it would be when the Messiah came; the Apostles said that was the way it was; and Jesus, Himself acknowledges that to be the way it is. Now, however, Christ is adding another dimension to his existence. He is not only God the Father, but he is also a human being. And as a human being He is less then God the Father. Jesus has existence on two planes: divinity and humanity.

When Jesus spoke of His return, He said that no man knows the day nor the hour, only the Father knows. In Matthew 24:36 Jesus said, “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.”  In other words, the Son does not know. (A problem for the Pluralists: If the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father, neither does He know; which militates against the co-equality of the Trinity.) The Son does not have the knowledge the Father has, therefore the Son (the humanity of Christ, in this case) is that which originated from a woman. God the Father incarnated (enfleshed) Himself in the process of Mary's conception. In the one person of the Son of God, there exists both God and man. We call this the Dual Nature of Christ. (We will devote an entire chapter to the Dual Nature at a later time in this work.)

Before we move from this point, a few words should be said concerning John 15:24. Here, Jesus is speaking concerning the Jews; he says, “If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” Since we have the understanding that Jesus was both God and a human being, we understand better this statement, where Jesus declares that the Jews had both seen and hated, both Him and the Father. We might, however, ask the question: When did the Jews see the Father? When did they both see and hate Jesus and the Father? The answer, of course, is in the person of Jesus Christ. When they saw Jesus the Christ, they had seen both the human Son of God and God the Father in the one individual – Jesus. So, when they hated Jesus, they, in point of fact, did hate the Father. When they had seen Jesus, they, in point of fact, had seen the Father. 

The fourth item in our list of five is that He would be a suffering Messiah (Isaiah chapter 53). The apostles gave testimony to His suffering. Both Matthew and Luke record the suffering of Christ. Jesus, Himself, declares His own suffering in Matthew 16:21, “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” From this passage we know that Jesus taught His disciples about His coming suffering, and tried to prepare them for that time. We are told two things in this passage: first, that Jesus was self-aware that He was the Messiah; and second, that He also knew His mission included suffering. When Jesus asked, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Matt 16:13), it was blundering, blustering Peter that  answered. Simon Peter, who was a mixture of mud and stardust—profound one moment, profane the next; but this day, when he answered Jesus’ question, he hung his coat on the  Milky Way, when he said: “Thou art the Christ  the Son of the living God.” Jesus commended him and said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Therefore, when Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, Jesus confirmed that it was true. So Jesus had a self-awareness of who He was. This is seen again and again in the New Testament. Another example is: Jesus said to the woman at the well, “‘If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.’ Then the woman said, ‘I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when He comes, He will tell us all things.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He.’” So Jesus had the self-awareness that He was the Christ. And here, in v21 of Matthew chapter 16, He has the self-awareness that, as the Christ, He would suffer.

This, then, is sound Biblical Christology: it is what the prophets taught concerning the Christ, it is what the apostles understood and taught concerning their Lord, and this is what Jesus understood and taught concerning Himself.

Lastly we come to the fifth point: The prophets foretold that the Christ would be the pierced Yahweh. The apostles agreed that this is so (Rev 1:7-8). John recognizes Jesus crucified as the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10, and quotes the passage, associating it with Christ; he then calls Jesus the Almighty (Rev 1:7-8). The prophet said it would happen, and the apostle said it did happen.  But what was Jesus’s thoughts concerning the piercing of Yahweh?

My friends, Jesus knew who He was. He possessed full self-awareness of His person, and His mission. He knew His mission would take Him to the cross, and to the piercing Zechariah said would happen, and that the apostle said did happen. Let us examine carefully the next two texts: John 20:27 as we compare it to Revelation 1:8. First, then, in John’s Gospel 20:27, “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” Jesus was showcasing (if you would), He was putting on display (if you would) for Thomas’ sake—His crucified flesh—His body that had been pierced. Now we see Revelation 1:8 where John is referencing the one who was pierced (v7), then Jesus said, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” From Jesus’ own testimony, then, we are assured He was the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty, who was pierced.

____________________________

What more, then, could we say, beloved? We have taken five points and examined what the prophets had to say concerning them, what the apostles had to say about all five, and what Jesus Himself said about the same points. We have built this study from Ephesians 2:20 which states that we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. 

Our five points speak to us of Christ. When viewed together they present us with the picture of the Jesus of the Bible. It is this Jesus we preach—this Jesus that is presented to the world for its salvation! 


Biblical Christology                             

Christ, born of a virgin;          

Christ, God come to earth in flesh;                                   

Christ, who is both God and Man;                      

Christ, who would suffer:        

Christ, Yahweh pierced:          


Here we have examined Biblical Christology. We have viewed what the prophets said about Him, we have viewed what the apostles said about Him, and we have viewed what Jesus said about Himself. In the five points under examination, they (prophets, apostles, and Jesus) are all in agreement. The Christology presented in this chapter rests solidly on the one true foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Therefore, when we come to you and preach this Christ who was born of a virgin, when we preach this Christ who is Yahweh come to earth in flesh, when we preach this Christ who was at the same moment the Father and a human being, when we preach this Christ who was the suffering Messiah, when we preach this Christ who is Yahweh pierced, we are preaching the Christ of the holy Bible. Any other Christ is “another Jesus” that must not be preached. There is no other Christ we know. No other Christ could be the Savior of the world.



Apostolically Speaking

Bp. Jerry L Hayes


this epistle is adapted from the author's book "Godhead Theology". You may acquire this classic work on the Godhead from: https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UGLEWFG3HWG3&keywords=Godhead+Theology%2C+hayes&qid=1654380023&s=books&sprefix=godhead+theology%2C+hayes%2Cstripbooks%2C92&sr=1-1