Who Is Messiah? (Part 6)
March 15th, 2010 by Mark C.
Jesus Had To Be A Man
This is not meant to be an exhaustive consideration of this topic. I refer you to other Biblical Unitarian writers, all of whom back up from Scripture their view that Jesus is the Son of God and not God. It is important to recognize who he is, since his identity as the promised Messiah is part of the Gospel of the coming Kingdom, the acceptance of which is the key to eternal life.
If the Father and the Son are co-equal, co-eternal persons, and one “essence,” how can they have separate wills? Yet Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:30). If Jesus were God, he would have just naturally done His own will. But he made a point of being obedient and always doing the Father’s will. This is a great example to us as well. And when he died on the cross, it was not an automatic action. The Bible tells us that he did not want to die on the cross. He asked the Father if there were any other way besides that torturous death. “Nevertheless,” he said, “Not my will but Thine be done” (Luke 22:42). If he were God he would just be doing his own will. But as God’s Son, he had to choose to do his Father’s will and not his own. Besides, if he were God he could not have been the sacrifice for our sins, since sin came by man, and a man had to be sacrificed.
Another important point is that being a man he did not have immortality inherently. He was given immortality, as the firstborn from the dead. This is significant as he is the first of the new creation of people who will rule on God’s behalf in the Coming Age. If he were God, or if he were some other kind of pre-existent, eternal being, he would have already had immortality, and would not have gained anything. But because he came in the flesh and was truly a human being, his resurrection from the dead is the guarantee that those who believe in him will also be raised up on the last day, and be given eternal life. This gift of life was first bestowed on Jesus when he was raised, as the firstfruits from the dead, and will be given to those believers who are raised when Christ returns.
Many of the obvious differences between God and His Son (such as God cannot die, God cannot be tempted, God knows everything, God is all powerful, etc.) are explained away by Trinitarians by saying that Jesus had two distinct natures: one of them “fully God,” and one of them “fully man.” Thus the “God” part of Jesus did not die, was not tempted, is all-knowing and all-powerful, etc. But the “man” part of him did die, was tempted, is limited in knowledge and power, etc. There are two problems with this. First of all, there is no Scripture that says anything of the kind. Secondly, Trinitarians don’t even claim that he is “half God and half man” but that he is “100% God and 100% man.” But nobody can be 200% of anything. Besides, if Jesus had this (logically impossible) dual nature, how in the world could we identify with him or be imitators of him?
The whole relationship between God and man is exemplified in the relationship between Jesus and his Father. If he were God, or somehow a co-equal person with the Father, how could we hope to emulate that? But we can be imitators of Christ as the Son of God. And because he was a man and experienced the same things we do, he is able to strengthen us. Trinitarians claim that the relationship within the Trinity is supposed to be an example of unity in the Church. But how can that be? Members of the Church are not multiple persons within one being or essence. They are members of a family, and “one in purpose” as Jesus said he and God were. The love of the Father for His Son is our example, not love among “different persons within Himself” (a phrase which doesn’t even make sense).
Trinitarians often make the claim that it doesn’t matter if the doctrine is illogical by our standard of reason, because it is based on God’s higher standard of reason, which we can’t understand. If that were the case, then somewhere in His written revelation to us it would have to be explicitly stated. If it is not based on human reason, then it cannot be reasoned out from any of the supposed “implications” in the Scriptures, as Trinitarians claim it is. God would have to make a specific, though seemingly illogical, statement that he was “three persons, yet one God.” He would have to make such a statement, and perhaps include the statement that it does not fit with our reason, so we must simply accept it on faith. But of course He made no such statement anywhere in Scripture.
This is not to make the claim that we understand everthing about God. Certainly there are things mentioned in the Scriptures that are mysterious to us. But how many God is, is not one of those things, since He repeatedly tells us that he is one. We are told that the Scriptures give us knowledge of “everything that pertains to life and godliness” (II Peter 1:3). Yet they make no explicit statement regarding the Trinity, or the two natures of Jesus which supposedly explain the very clear distinctions between God and His Son.
The very idea of the Trinity didn’t even exist until many years after the Scriptures were completed. How can it be divine revelation? Such an important doctrine would surely need to have been included in the Canon of Scripture, wouldn’t it? We are told by mainstream Christianity that we are not Christian and not saved if we do not believe that God is three persons in one God. But the Bible never makes such a statement. It only says we must believe that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God.”
The primary key that was constantly stressed in the first century was believing in who Jesus was, as the Messiah and promised king of the Kingdom. When the understanding of who Jesus was became muddled, so also did the understanding of his primary message, the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the ultimate goal of believers, God’s Kingdom on earth. The whole interconnected message of Christianity has become muddled in the Christian Church, and the doctrine of the Trinity is one part of that muddle. I encourage the reader to search the Scriptures diligently to see whether these things are so.
For further study:
- “The Human Jesus” video: http://www.jesusishuman.com
- Articles about God and Jesus, by Anthony Buzzard on his site: http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles.html
- Various resources on Christian Monotheism: http://www.christianmonotheism.com/
just heard an interesting little story about two elderly women who met outside a computer store. one of the ladies had just bought a new computer and was proudly announcing to her friend that her new computer had “7 windows”
It reminded me of those folks who claim that “Son of God” is the same as “God the Son” ….
Is anyone familiar with Gwen Shamblin’s story? She is the founder of the Weigh Down Diet. After her initial success, she publicly denounced the doctrine of the trinity and the attacks ensued. It’s sad how many Christians select doctrinal creeds over biblical truth.
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/301-the-gwen-shamblin-controversy
What does “Son of God” mean? And if Jesus Christ has exclusive rights to the term, why does the Bible record, “…for I (God) am a father to Israel, and Ephraim (i.e. Israel) is my firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9) and, “…Israel is My son, even my firstborn” (Exodus 4:22)? Taken in the context of Romans 8:14, which reads, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” many scholars conclude that “Son of God” is metaphorical and, as with christos, doesn’t imply exclusivity. After all, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion confirms that in Jewish idiom “Son of God” is clearly metaphorical. To quote, “Son of God, term occasionally found in Jewish literature, biblical and post-biblical, but nowhere implying physical descent from the Godhead.” Hasting’s Bible Dictionary comments:
“In Semitic usage “sonship” is a conception somewhat loosely employed to denote moral rather than physical or metaphysical relationship. Thus “sons of Belial” are wicked men, not descendants of Belial; and in the NT the “children of the bridechamber” are wedding guests. So a “son of God” is a man, or even a people, who reflect the character of God. There is little evidence that the title was used in Jewish circles of the Messiah, and a sonship which implied more than a moral relationship would be contrary to Jewish monotheism.”
And in any case, the list of candidates for “son of God” begins with Adam, as per Luke 3:38: “…Adam, which was the son of God.”
Those who rebut by quoting Matthew 3:17 (“And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved son, in whom I am well pleased’”) have overlooked the point that the Bible describes many people, Israel and Adam included, as “sons of God.” Both II Samuel 7:13-14 and I Chronicles 22:10 read, “He (Solomon) shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son.”
Entire nations are referred to as sons, or children of God. Examples include:
Genesis 6:2, “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men…”
Genesis 6:4, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men…”
Deuteronomy 14:1, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God.”
Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD…”
Job 2:1, “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD…”
Job 38:7, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Philippians 2:15, “that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation…”
1 John 3:1-2, “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! … Beloved, now we are children of God…”
In Matthew 5:9 Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Later in Matthew 5:45, Jesus prescribed to his followers the attainment of noble attributes, “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” Not exclusively his Father, but their Father …
Christian clergy openly acknowledge that Jesus never called himself “son of God,” however they claim that others did. This too has an answer.
Investigating the manuscripts that make up the New Testament, one finds that the alleged “sonship” of Jesus is based upon the mistranslation of two Greek words�pais and huios, both of which are translated as “son.” However, this translation appears disingenuous. The Greek word pais derives from the Hebrew ebed, which bears the primary meaning of servant, or slave. Hence, the primary translation of pais theou is “servant of God,” with “child” or “son of God” being an extravagant embellishment. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “The Hebrew original of pais in the phrase pais theou, i.e., ebed, carries a stress on personal relationship and has first the sense of ‘slave.’” This is all the more interesting because it dovetails perfectly with the prophecy of Isaiah 42:1, upheld in Matthew 12:18: “Behold, My servant [i.e., from the Greek pais] whom I have chosen, My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased …” Whether a person reads the King James Version, New King James Version, New Revised Standard Version, or New International Version, the word is “servant” in all cases. Considering that the purpose of revelation is to make the truth of God clear, one might think this passage an unsightly mole on the face of the doctrine of divine sonship. After all, what better place for God to have declared Jesus His son? What better place to have said, “Behold, My son whom I have begotten …”? But He didn’t say that. For that matter, the doctrine lacks biblical support in the recorded words of both Jesus and God, and there is good reason to wonder why. Unless, that is, Jesus was nothing more than the servant of God this passage describes.
Regarding the religious use of the word ebed, “The term serves as an expression of humility used by the righteous before God.” Furthermore, “After 100 B.C. pais theou more often means “servant of God,” as when applied to Moses, the prophets, or the three children (Bar. 1:20; 2:20; Dan. 9:35).” A person can easily get into doctrinal quicksand: “Of eight instances of this phrase, one refers to Israel (Lk. 1:54), two refer to David (Lk 1:69; Acts 4:25), and the other five to Jesus (Mt. 12:18; Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27, 30)…. In the few instances in which Jesus is called pais theou we obviously have early tradition.” So Jesus did not have exclusive rights to this term, and where it was employed the term “obviously” stemmed from “early tradition.” Furthermore, the translation, if impartial, should identify all individuals to whom the phrase was applied in similar manner. Such, however, has not been the case. Whereas pais has been translated “servant” in reference to David (Acts 4:25 and Luke 1:69) and Israel (Luke 1:54), it is translated “Son” or “holy child” in reference to Jesus (Acts 3:13; 3:26; 4:27; 4:30). Such preferential treatment is canonically consistent, but logically flawed.
Translation of the New Testament Greek huios to “son” (in the literal meaning of the word) is similarly flawed. On page 1210 of Kittel and Friedrich’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the meaning of huios journeys from the literal (Jesus the son of Mary), to mildly metaphorical (believers as sons of the king [Matt. 17:25-26]), to politely metaphorical (God’s elect being sons of Abraham [Luke 19:9]), to colloquially metaphorical (believers as God’s sons [Matt. 7:9 and Heb 12:5]), to spiritually metaphorical (students as sons of the Pharisees [Matt. 12:27, Acts 23:6]), to biologically metaphorical (as in John 19:26, where Jesus describes his favorite disciple to Mary as “her son”), to blindingly metaphorical as “sons of the kingdom” (Matt. 8:12), “sons of peace” (Luke. 10:6), “sons of light” (Luke. 16:8), and of everything from “sons of this world” (Luke 16:8) to “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17). It is as if this misunderstood word for “son” is waving a big sign on which is painted in bold letters: METAPHOR! Or, as some scholars eloquently put it, “Most scholars agree that the Aramaic or Hebrew word behind ‘son’ is ‘servant.’ So as the Spirit descends on Jesus at his baptism, Jesus is addressed by the voice from heaven in terms of Isaiah 42:1: ‘Behold my servant … my chosen … I have put my Spirit upon him.’ So although Mark 1:11 and 9:7 affirm that Jesus is called by God to a special messianic task, the emphasis is on Jesus’ role as the anointed servant, rather than as Son of God.”
Robert
I like to think of myself as one of the sons (children) of God, one of the servants of God and one of the sons of Zion. I believe all these terms are interchangeable at least from my perspective anywaze…
Thomas
I believe that you strive to be what Jesus was when he walked the earth. Since Jesus fulfilled perfection our short falls to be perfect will be forgiving.
Yes i believe all 3 are the same with the ultimate goal to be anointed with the holy spirit as Jesus was
Robert
You said that I strive to be what Jesus was when he walked the earth. This is true. When I was a young atheist John Wayne was my role model. My idea of what the perfect man would be like. Much later when I became a Christian, Jesus became my role model. My idea of what the perfect man REALLY was like.
Jesus got up early every morning morning while it was still dark to pray. I am not that self disciplined. But I do pray every day (at least once). The great advantage that Jesus had (I believe) was that God actually spoke with him (because he was anointed without measure with the holy spirit).
I do believe that God speaks to me but it is much more subtle. I have to be aware of my surroundings looking for any sign that God might be trying to tell me something. That’s one of the reasons why I love talking to people that speak from their hearts. I believe the holy spirit speaks to all of us through our hearts.
I am always open to learning God’s wisdom from others…