The Deity of Jesus, Part 1

The Deity of the Messiah, Part 1

Introduction

Today, there is a movement within Christianity to find the ‘historical Jesus’ and to return to ‘historical Christianity’. Within that is a sub-set, if you like, of those who recognise that historically, Christianity was essentially Jewish and that Jesus and the Apostles were Jews. These groups are broadly termed ‘Messianics’, but as with any movement, there are various groups within it, all of which have their differences. In this particular case, you will find such names as:

Jews for Jesus

Messianic Judaism

Messianic Christians

Hebrew Roots Movement (HRM)

Hebraic Roots (yes, they are different!)

Jewish Roots

Sacred Names

Two House

…and so on.

The common denominator of all these groups is that they recognise Jesus (Hebrew name: Yeshua – or variations thereof) as the Messiah of Israel, as prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures (the TaNaKh) and as described in the New Testament. They are all distinctly Jewish in one form or another (even the predominantly Gentile groups within the movement), in that they keep the seventh day Sabbath and the appointed feast days of the Lord, described in Leviticus 23. Most of them eat more or less ‘kosher’ and are known as ‘Torah observant’, that is, they believe and live by the regulations and instructions (‘Torah’) as given in the Books of Moses (Genesis – Deuteronomy), claiming these rules or laws have never been rescinded.

Recently I came across a large discussion group on Facebook. I love a good discussion, so signed up to the group. It quickly became apparent that these were mainly Hebrew Roots adherents and one of their most distinguishing features was that while they believe Jesus (Yeshua) was the promised Messiah, He was not God. He was an ordinary man that God endowed with extra-ordinary powers, through the Holy Spirit.

After a short while, I was invited to a ‘conference’ (Facebook messenger) with the Admin team of this site. They wanted me to join their team as a moderator, but first they needed to check my theology. I was asked directly who I thought Jesus was. My reply: “I believe He is the eternal Son of God, that He pre-existed before His incarnation, that He created the world, and that He is God incarnate.” Needless to say, I was not accepted as a moderator.

However, I was challenged a few days later in a discussion with one of the other moderators, to study this whole issue again. I do not believe I have merely swallowed what I have been taught, without thinking about it, but it is always a good thing to re-evaluate our doctrines, whether they are merely ‘church teaching’ or whether the Bible actually teaches what we think it does. After all, if Jesus is not actually God, it would mean I am worshipping another God or that I believe in polytheism! Many years ago, I had had some dealings with Jehovah’s Witnesses. They too deny the deity of Jesus. So at that time, I had studied the matter in detail. However, which of us has not read a verse or passage in the Bible and declared ‘I never noticed that before’ or understood a part we hadn't really grasped before? But as I said, it is always good to re-evaluate our position in light of further truth we have discovered and our greater maturity.  So I took it upon myself to do just that. This series of blog posts then is the result of several days of intensive study on the subject of the deity of Jesus.

Index to this Study:

1.    Introduction

2.    The Arguments for why Jesus is not God.

3.    Does the Old Testament predict that Messiah would be God?

4.    The Gospels

a.    Did Jesus ever claim to be God, directly or indirectly?

b.    Did the Gospel writers/disciples consider Jesus to be God?

c.    Did the Pharisees believe He was at least claiming to be God?

5.    The Acts of the Apostles, the letters and Revelation

6.    Did the early church ‘fathers’ consider Jesus to be God? Or was the deity of Jesus a man made doctrine invented in the fourth century, as some claim?

7.    Objections answered

a.    God is One: ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one’

b.    God incarnate, or ‘Son of’ God?

c.    Was the Apostle John influenced by the Targums?

d.    Why did Jesus call God ‘my God’?

e.    Why did Jesus say, ‘My Father is greater than I’?

f.     When Jesus prayed to the Father, was He praying to Himself?

g.    If being one with God made Jesus God, then being one with Jesus would make the Apostles Gods as well

h.    Immanuel, means ‘God with us’; if that means Jesus is God, then all names containing the name of God (such as ELiYAH, JeremiYAH, like ImmanuEL) would mean they are God too.

[This Index is a work in progress and might be changed or expanded as the posts are written].

References:

In completing this study, I have of course looked at the Bible – in several translations, better to understand the meaning, but mainly I have used the KJV, NKJV (a modern English rendering of the KJV), ESV, CJB (to understand the scriptures from a Jewish perspective – it was created by a Messianic Jewish Christian) and Young’s Literal Translation. I also looked at an interlinear Bible, with the original Hebrew or Greek with the English written underneath, showing which words were translated as what. In addition, I looked up the references in the Peshitta, which is the Aramaic version of the Bible, used by the Eastern Churches and claimed to be the original writings of the Apostles which were later translated into  the Greek from which most western translations have come.

My Greek is very limited (I studied some about forty years ago and have forgotten most of what I learned, which wasn’t much to start with!). My Hebrew is even more limited – maybe a few transliterated words, but no more. And my Aramaic is non-existent. So I relied heavily on Strong’s Analytical concordance and the website BibleHub. I did read some commentaries, but more to understand the context, or the nuances of a particular word, rather than to get a man made perspective on the subject. Finally, but not least, I prayed and asked the Holy Spirit to guide my studies, for He is the one who will ‘guide (us) into all truth’ (John 16v13). 

A Journey

A Journey

Life is a journey. It is not static. Things change. People change, their understanding of the world changes, they mature, they see new things in the old, or see them from a different perspective. This is also true of the Christian walk. We see things differently; we see new truths we hadn’t noticed before; we mature in the faith and gain deeper insights.

At the beginning of 2016, I started to read my New Testament in chronological order by event. I looked out a ‘harmony of the Gospels’ which listed all the events of the New Testament in historical order, with the references from the Gospels next to each event. It meant a lot of flicking from one part of the Gospels to another, but it was worth the effort and I enjoyed reading how it all happened. I was struck by just how Jewish it all was!

At the end of that, I wanted to find a Bible or a book that wrote the life of Jesus, using the information from all the Gospels in chronological order, and set within the cultural and historical timeframe of first century Israel and the surrounding nations. I found one that had been written in 1867 or thereabouts; it was a struggle to read it and was very wordy – a common method of writing in those days. But I was hard pressed to find another, more up to date version. So, because I enjoy writing, I set about researching the details and writing one of my own (it is still to be finished – watch this space!) Again, because the life of Jesus did not happen in a vacuum, it became apparent how much a man of His time and culture Jesus actually was.

Finally, I also read a book, ‘The Master’ by John Pollock, which is a life of Jesus, based on the Gospel of John. My first surprise was in his opening sentences. He referred to John as a cousin of Jesus. I presumed he was writing about John the Baptist. But then he mentioned John’s parents – Zebedee and Salome. I thought, ‘Hang on! We know John’s parents were Zechariah and Elizabeth. Where do you get Zebedee and Salome from?’ That sent me scurrying for my books and the computer to discover that yes indeed, John and James were probably cousins of Jesus; their father was Zebedee and their mother was Salome, who was probably the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. I began to realise how many hints we are given throughout the four Gospels of when and how events took place and who was involved. I had ‘matured’ in my way of approaching the Bible – check the details was my new watchword and also, check the accounts as given in all the Gospels, not just one at a time.

Thus my studies had led me to understand just how Jewish the whole New Testament really was. I had long thought (and frequently said in the past) that Christianity is much more Jewish than we in the west give it credit for, but I had never really studied that. As far as I was concerned, it didn’t actually much matter. I am a 21^st Century Christian, living in the western hemisphere – why did the fact that Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish actually matter. The answer is: Context is everything! Understanding the New Testament hinges on understanding the culture and history, the politics and religion at the time the words were spoken. Knowing Hebrew idiom helps us understand what Jesus was actually saying. I used to think that putting the Bible into its first century context was a pretext for saying it doesn’t apply to us today. For instance, the issue of women’s head coverings for prayer is often said to have been something cultural for that day, time and place – therefore we today do not need to comply. For that reason, I had been hesitant to accept anything that called for cultural context, in case the next step meant we were going to be told to abandon whatever teaching it was. I now understand clearly that context really is everything! Looking at the Gospels in their proper cultural setting does not mean we must abandon the teachings contained therein; rather it enhances our understanding. For instance, Jesus said ‘I have not come to destroy the law…I have come to fulfil it’. That is Hebrew idiom (did you know? I certainly didn’t!) To destroy the law means to teach against it; to fulfil the law means to teach its proper observance – which makes perfect sense when we know that on the end of that particular bit of teaching, Jesus added ‘Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5v19). And this reflects the Old Testament teaching (and remember, Jesus and the Apostles didn’t have the New Testament!) in Deuteronomy 27v26:

Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. 

See how knowing the cultural, religious and historical context actually aids our understanding?

My final ‘revelation’ this year was to realise (and finally fully understand) that the Lord and the Apostles really didn’t have a New Testament! That might seem obvious, but it came as a ‘revelation’ in that we always interpret the teachings of Christ in the light of what is written in the New Testament – the writings of Paul and Peter, the Gospels and so on. But Jesus and the Apostles actually only had the Old Testament – which meant that all the teachings of the New Testament can be found and understood with only an Old Testament in our possession! Wow! That was a real eye opener!

So my journey started along the path to understanding the Hebrew origins, the Jewish origins, of our Christian faith. And the journey continues….

Hand-washing

[Image from www.sciencebuzz.org]

Mark 7:1-23

Hand-washing. We take it for granted that we wash our hands numerous times a day. Probably our parents taught us to wash our hands before each meal and after using the bathroom. But did you know that the Jews of Jesus' day and Jesus Himself had something to say about it too? 

In Vienna in the 19th Century, many newborn babies and mothers were dying while they were still in the hospital. One doctor realised that doctors who were looking after these new babies were coming from another patient who was either very ill, or had even died, and were examining the mothers and babies without washing their hands. He started asking the doctors to wash their hands between seeing one patient and the next - and the death rate amongst newborns and their mothers dropped dramatically. [George A. Bender: Great Moments in Medicine, 1965]. Today, we take it for granted that doctors should wash their hands between patients as we are aware that germs spread from one person to another if they do not.

During the years of the plague in Europe during the Middle Ages, the Jewish communities were relatively free from the disease. Their neighbours began to think the Jews must be bewitched, as few if any of them died; and rather than discover the reason, they began to persecute them. What was the reason? The Jews held to a strict regime of hygiene and hand-washing. 

Getting back to the passage under consideration, a group of Pharisees and Scribes - the strictest and most religious people of the day - noticed that Jesus and His disciples were eating bread, but they had not washed their hands beforehand. The subject of hand-washing had taken on ritualistic proportions and the Jews had created many rules about how and when hands were to be washed. Eating with unwashed hands meant the food could be contaminated and thus rendered unfit for human consumption - it was 'common' or 'unclean'. Eating such foods (those that were common or unclean) then rendered the person who ate them unclean also. These rules, created by men, had become as significant (or in some cases even more significant) than the law of God itself (see vv 10-13). And they were numerous - they did not stop at the washing of hands, but included the washing of pots, cups and other receptacles (v 4). So when this group of religious leaders saw Jesus and His disciples eating without having washed their hands, they were indignant. Jesus was making Himself unclean! Jesus was breaking 'the law' - except this particular 'law' is nowhere found in the Law of God as given to Moses; it was a man made law. The Pharisees admitted as much:

"Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands" (v 5)

Being aware of their heart attitude, Jesus was quick to point out that these 'traditions of the elders' were not for the good of man, but in order that they might be seen to be 'holy' - they were holy outwardly, but their heart was not right with God. They were proud of their religious observance. He called them hypocrites (v 6) and condemned them for teaching man's traditions as if they were the oracles of God (v 7). In fact, the Jews had even come to believe that God had given these traditions to Moses on Mount Sinai, along with the Law, but Moses had not been instructed to write them down! Jesus then went on to say that while they do all this ceremonial washing, they have in fact rejected the commandments of God, in favour of the traditions (v 9).

By way of explanation, Jesus then gathered the people round Him and said:

"Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without (outside) a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile a man" (v 14-15)

The disciples must have been a bit slow, because they still did not understand what He was talking about, so they asked Him for further explanation, which He duly gave:

"Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him: because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?...

That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man" (vv 18-23)

Jesus was proclaiming that true religion is a matter of the heart, not keeping the rules and traditions of men. If a person washes his hands and his pots and cups, he will still be defiled if he has evil thoughts like those mentioned. Washing the outward is not going to make the inward clean.

In the Old Testament, God had declared that certain things were not to be eaten - such as pork or shellfish, and there was a manner in which they were not to be eaten - such as if they had died naturally, or been torn by other animals, or if the blood had not been drained. These animals were declared 'unclean'. Any 'clean' foods that had come into contact with something 'unclean' was also not fit to be eaten and was 'common'. Many have taken these words of Jesus to say that Jesus thereby declared all foods clean. Even some translators have rendered the words ''purging all meats' as 'thus He declared all foods clean'. So let's look at that a little more closely.

Jesus was speaking to the most religious people of His day. If He had meant that they could now eat pork and shellfish, the Pharisees would have stoned Him. While Jesus was not slow to condemn man made rules and regulations, nowhere did He ever contradict God's law. So I suggest that this is not the meaning of this passage at all.

Neither did the disciples understand Him to have been saying that all meat was now fit to be eaten - they were still puzzled, even after Jesus had explained it to the people.

Furthermore, the subject of the passage is not about what could or could not be eaten, but is about whether or not it was wrong to eat without washing your hands beforehand.

Finally, looking at the words carefully, it does not actually say that meats were declared clean - it says that if you eat food with unwashed hands, it goes into your stomach, passes through the digestive system, and out into the toilet (the 'draught'). The digestive system is what 'purges' the food, not Jesus' declaration.

How do I know that this is true? Well, one rule of Biblical interpretation is that we should allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. So is there another passage we can look at that will shed any light on this? Yes, there is - Matthew 15:1-20 is a parallel passage. It gives the same account, with added detail. Having given the list of things that come from the heart and defile a person, Jesus concludes:

"These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands, defileth not a man" (Matthew 15:20)

So you can clearly see that Jesus is not speaking about the types of foods that can be eaten, He is not giving a blanket approval for His followers to eat pork and shellfish, but is actually speaking about the manner in which the eating is done - namely, whether or not it is absolutely necessary to wash your hands before you eat your food. And the spiritual significance of the passage is that man made laws are not equal to or greater than the law of God.

Whatever you think of Christians following the food laws of the Old Testament (and I am not making any judgment about that here), the passage in Mark 7 cannot be used to support the view that Christians (whether Jew or Gentile) can now eat anything we want to.

There is a new discussion group page on Facebook for 'Radical Discipleship': https://www.facebook.com/groups/888893724571959/