Is Jesus really God? (part 4)

Whew... it's been a very long day of studying concordances and references, searching Scripture, praying, working out ideas, and writing them here... but it's been an extremely powerful blessing for my faith! Praise be to God for His plan of salvation through Jesus Christ, my Lord!

I only have a couple more important things to say about this topic.

If you took the time to read the first three posts, you have seen that much of the biblical evidence that has been persuasive for me in trying to understand how God's Word depicts the deity of Jesus involves the holy titles that are reserved for Jehovah God, but are also used for Jesus. There are two more important titles, and may be even stronger than the ones I've already looked at.

First, the name "Immanuel". The book of Isaiah is wonderful, and if you haven't had the chance to read it yet, I encourage you to try to do so as soon as you can, because it just screams "Gospel!!" at the top of its lungs. In chapter 7, verse 14, a prophecy of the coming Messiah is made:

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

For some of you reading this, you may know immediately the significance of this name; however, for others, it may pass you by. The name Immanuel literally means "God with us", and this point is made explicit in the beginning of the gospel of Matthew, as Matthew is setting up the genealogy of Jesus, and the prophecies concerning Him:

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."

Now, why would Matthew go through the trouble of transliterating this Hebrew word for Greek readers if it did not hold special importance? And, God be praised, it does! This may be one of the strongest pieces of biblical support for the deity of Jesus yet, since the gospel account of one of His own disciples, a man who spent over three years by his side, begins with an establishment of who Jesus was in his eyes: "God with us"

And yet there remains one more title that is used for Jesus that is the most persuasive for me concerning His deity, and it consists of two famous words: I AM

In Exodus, chapter 3, God (Jehovah God) comes to Moses in the form of a burning bush, calling him to be used as a vessel for God's power and glory, in order to free the Israelites from their slavery in Egypt. Here is just a short portion of this holy interaction, verses 13 and 14:

Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"

And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

This name is about as holy as they come, my friends. I know of no other being in creation who has ever dared claim this title other than Jehovah God... except for One: Jesus

In the gospel of John, chapter 8, verses 48-59, it is recorded that Jesus is speaking with "the Jews", and, in responding to their accusation that He is "a Samaritan and [has] a demon", He speaks of His Father, and honoring Him. In the debate that ensues they ask if He believes that He is greater than their "father Abraham." In responding, He mentions that Abraham saw His day and was glad, to which the Jews respond:

"You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

The response?

Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."

Wow. This is clear as it gets. Jesus didn't claim to be a mere mortal man, nothing more than a good moral teacher. He claimed to be Jehovah God incarnate. And that's what I believe He is.

The New Word Translation translates "I AM" in this verse as "I have been." This is obviously a gross mistranslation of the Greek text, since the original phrase is "ego eimi", which is the present indicative tense and mood, and most definitely not the past progressive, which is the grammatical form of "I have been."

Furthermore, beyond grammatical arguments (which, for a linguist like me, are very strong!!), there is the immediate reaction of the Jews to these two words (beginning of verse 59):

Then they took up stones to throw at Him.

Jesus had said many things up to this point, but nothing to instill this type of spontaneous act of anger from his opponents. As careful as the Jewish leaders were to keep the crowds from turning on them, eventually planning an undercover plot to arrest and kill Jesus, these words from Jesus caused them to lash out in immediate reaction. Simply stating that He was a being who existed before the world began would not have caused these religious leaders to try to kill Jesus, for they believed in the existence of angels in the temporary form of men on earth.

However, the claim to be God Himself... now that's something completely different...

Be blessed, brothers and sisters.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.

Is Jesus really God? (part 3)

To continue with the biblical evidence that Jesus, while being fully man, is also fully God, and is, in His essence, one with Jehovah God, I'd like to look again at Isaiah 44:6-

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: "I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God."

Aside from the points I already mentioned, that both God the Father, and "his Redeemer" refer to Themselves as "the First and the Last" (a title which, as we already have seen, Jesus also uses for Himself in the book of Revelation), and that this two-facet portion of the Godhead says, "besides Me there is no God" (which not only confirms that the "Redeemer" is God, but also that there are not individual, separate gods in heaven), there is also this other interesting title used for the Godhead here: "the Lord of hosts"

According the Strong's concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew words Jehovah ("Lord") and Elohim ("God") occur in some combination with Sabaoth ("hosts") over 285 times in the Bible to refer to God, all of them in the Old Testament, but I would like to look at just a couple of these instances.

Jeremiah 46:25 begins with the following words:

The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, says...

There is absolutely no doubt that "the Lord of hosts" here is Jehovah God, for the title given at its side is that of "God of Israel". Furthermore, the very word used for "Lord" here is Jehovah, which is used in traditional scripture translations, as well as in the New World Translation, to designate God the Father.

Again, in Psalm 46, the title "the Lord of hosts" is used to refer to Jehovah God, since there is a repetition of the following lines:

The Lord of hosts is with us;
The God of Jacob is our refuge.

So, what I see in comparing these verses is another instance of a term reserved for God the Father being used to refer to Jesus, since "the Lord of hosts" of Isaiah 44:6 refers to the King of Israel's "Redeemer", but hundreds of other times elsewhere to refer to God the Father.

But, again, if this type of connection is not persuasive enough for you, or if you don't believe that the title "the Lord of hosts" in Isaiah 44:6 actually refers to Jesus (the New World Translation is slightly ambiguous here) let's look at one of the other occurrences of this title used in the Bible, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 8, verse 13:

The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.

The use of "Lord" here is, without a doubt, a reference to God the Father, since the Hebrew word is Jehovah. That being said, let's look at the larger context of verses 13-15:

The Lord of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared and taken.

What's important to understand here is that this "stone of stumbling", this "rock of offense" is Jesus Himself! The evidence for this can be taken from the historical context of God's covenants, specifically, in the reason why this stone would be a "snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem"; but it is also explicitly noted in the New Testament. Beginning in Romans 9:32, we see Paul referring to Jesus in this way. After explaining that the Gospel of Jesus as the Messiah does pose a problem for the Jews, since the Gentiles, and not the Jews, have attained righteousness through Him and not through the law, he continues and says:

Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:

"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
and whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

It's true that the verse that Paul references here is not Isaiah 8:14, but, rather, Isaiah 28:16. But this is of no consequence, for, in context of the entire book of Isaiah, the terms "stumbling stone" and "rock of offense" in 28:16 refer, themselves, to the same terms in 8:14!

There's even more convincing references than those that Paul makes. First, Peter groups all of these "stumbling stone" verses together in 1 Peter 2:6-8, using them all in reference to Jesus. And you know what? He groups Isaiah 8:14 with them! Yes, Peter recognized that Jesus, being the "stone of stumbling", is the same God who is referred to in Isaiah 8:14 as "the Lord (Jehovah) of hosts."

Furthermore, if you question the validity of the epistles, Jesus refers to Himself as "this stone" onto which men would fall and be broken in Matthew, chapter 21, verses 42-44:

Jesus said to them*, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:

'The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder."

I hope that these posts are an encouragement to any who read them, and will serve to strengthen your faith in the ability of Jesus to be a propitiation for the sins of man, since it is God, Himself, who fulfills His own righteous requirements of His own law! But, there will be one more post to follow, in which I will try to provide even more encouragement for your faith in this way.


*The "chief priests and Pharisees" (Matthew 21:45)

Is Jesus really God? (part 2)

In the last post, I looked at an evidence of the deity of Jesus in the fact that He refers to Himself as "the First and the Last", a title which is only ever given to God the Father. I focused on some verses in Revelation, and stopped at chapter 1, verse 17:

"Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last."

As clear as this connection maybe be in my mind, it may still be insufficient for others, because Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that all of these verses in Revelation are spoken by Jesus, but that it is rather God the Father who is using these terms for Himself, so there is no problem raised with Him using this title. Okay, fine. Let's look at verse 17 again, but in conjunction with the following verse:

Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Wait... what?! If the title "the First and the Last" is referring to Jehovah God... when did He die? I know that Jesus died and was raised to life, but when did this happen to Jehovah God? This verse makes no sense unless Jesus is, in His very essence, one with God the Father, who is "the First and the Last."

And this is not the only place where this claim appears. Again, Jesus says in chapter 2, verse 8:

And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, "These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life."

What is interesting to me is the fact that - with all of the differences between the New World Translation and the standard, traditional, labored over, and heavily studied translations of the Bible - the New World Translation still contains these words. For one to deny the deity of Jesus, they would have to tackle the issue of God dying... especially if it exists in their own doctrine-specific translation.

Hopefully, this information is even more convincing than the fact that Jesus uses the title "the First and the Last" to refer to Himself, but if not, stay tuned, because there will be more, which, to me, is actually more persuasive still.

Is Jesus really God? (part 1)

Yes. Yes, He is. I'm more convinced now than ever.

I spent another weekend in Tennessee with some of Alli's family. They are Jehovah's Witnesses, and although I disagree to the highest extent with the majority of their doctrines, I do think that they are wonderful people, and I had another great weekend down there!

Sunday morning, before I went to the service at their Kingdom Hall, I got into a discussion with Alli's aunt about the deity of Christ. As I see it, among the many doctrinal heresies, the denial of Jesus as God is the greatest one, and the key that unlocks the rest of what seems to be an extremely legalistic and man-centered religion. I had happened to go through the first few chapters of Revelation during my quite time earlier that morning and read some interesting verses. They spurred me on to do more research when I returned back home... and it turns out that there is more biblical evidence that I had ever imagined! I'd like to present my findings here as a personal reference, but also as a reference that might possibly encourage and help anyone else who might read this.

Another multi-post series. Consider it a short "Why I am not Jehovah's Witness" series to precede my soon-to-be-completed "Why I am not Catholic" series!

---------------------

The first point from the first two chapters of Revelation deals with the names that Jesus uses for Himself, and then a certain claim that He makes. Chapter 1, verse 8 reads (NKJV):

"I am the Alpha the Omega, the Beginning and the End," says the Lord, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."

The New World Translation, which is used exclusively by the Jehovah's Witness organization, leaves out "the Beginning and the End", and translates "Lord" as "Jehovah God". Now, I'm not quite sure why this is the case, since archē ("beginning") and tělŏs ("end") exist in the primary manuscripts, and the word used for "Lord" is kurios, which is used to designate Christ, not God the Father. Regardless, we'll move on with the word study...

Again, in verse 11, Jesus says:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last."

The New World Translation has taken this entire sentence out of the text, and claim that this is still Jehovah God speaking, but we'll leave that alone for the sake of argument, because I believe that my point will still hold true. The word here for "First" is prōtŏs, and the word for "Last" is ěschatŏs.

Now, in verse 17, Jesus says:

"Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last."

The New World Translation does also keep in these words "First" and "Last", which are the same Greek words used in verse 11, and recognizes that these are the words of Jesus, which is important. Jesus is naming Himself as "the First and the Last."

We're almost at the interesting part here, but let's first consider why the fact that Jesus refers to Himself as "the First and the Last" is important. Let's read a passage from the Old Testament, Isaiah, chapter 44, verse 6:

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: "I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God."

Now, it is true that the words for "First" and "Last" here are not the same as those found in Revelation, but this is no solid argument against this connection because... well... the words are from different languages! What is also true, however, is that the Hebrew words used here are only found two other places in the Bible: both also in the book of Isaiah, and both also used to refer to God the Father, Jehovah. Furthermore, the verse states that it is not only Jehovah God, but also his Redeemer who say this about Themselves. And what do They say next, after They claim this holy title?...

"Besides Me there is no God."

So much for Jesus just being a separate god-man beside Jehovah. And yes... the New World Translation retains all of this valuable insight in Isaiah... :o)

In naming Himself "the First and the Last", Jesus is claiming a relationship that is much closer than being only the Son of God. He is using specific language that is reserved for Jehovah God, the King of Israel. In doing so, He reveals that He is, in fact, God Himself at the same time that He is also His Son.

Stop the presses!!!

I know that this may come as a shock to anyone who has read my posts before, so you may want to sit down before you read this next part.

Are you sitting down? Okay... here goes...

I may disagree with John Piper on something.

Now... get the smelling salts, clear your head, and continue on reading, if you can muster the energy.

Now that classes are over, I'm trying to get back to reading Piper's "The Pleasures of God", and I just finished chapter 5, titled "The Pleasure of God in Election". Toward the end of the chapter (pp. 150-151), Piper discusses that our assurance of salvation is ultimately rooted in our election. I agree with this. However, I don't think I agree with why Piper says that this is the case. According to Piper, our assurance is rooted in our election because:

"Divine election is the guarantee that God will undertake to complete by sanctifying grace what his electing grace has begun... Election is the final ground of assurance because, since it is God's commitment to save, it is also God's commitment to enable all that is necessary for salvation." (P. 150, emphases mine)

I most certainly agree that God will surely sanctify those which He has justified, and that this will be done unto perfection for each one of God's children, continued until the day when he or she enters the presence of God, and perfected there. This is the biblically sound teaching of a perseverance of faith, which I have posted about before, and will write about more extensively in the last of my series of posts on "Why I am not Catholic".

So, it is true that I believe that God will slowly, but surely, mold me into the image of His Son. With all the sin that is still in me, I love God, and strive to follow His will, more today than a year ago, and pray in faith that I will do this more a year from now than I do today.

However, I do not believe that my continued sanctification is what "is necessary for salvation." I believe that I am no more justified, or even assured, today than I was a year ago, nor do I believe that I will be any more justified or assured a year from now than I am today. If I were to drop everything I am doing right now to become a lifelong missionary in some foreign land, I do not believe that this work for God's kingdom would make me any more justified in His sight than if I continue to work in research as a phonetician. If God were ever to call me to become a missionary my response would be, "Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:8). But if that were to be the case, my salvation would be no more secure than that of the thief on the cross.

Rather, as I have written about many times, I believe that the assurance of my salvation is rooted in my election because it is in my election that God has chosen to open my eyes and ears to receive the truth of the Gospel, has given me the ability to repent of my sin, and has given me the desire to turn to Him by my own free will. And it is through all of this that my justification comes, because, by the power of God, I have turned to Christ to receive His righteousness, which clothes me in a spotless garment, and I know that my salvation is assured, not because I see the daily evidence of sanctification in my life (although it's true that this is a very real evidence of my justification), but because the wrath of God toward my sin has already been poured out on Christ, and it is His righteousness, and His holy obedience to the law, not my own imperfect sanctification, that assures that I will one day see Him in glory.

Edit 5/20/08: Well, now I'm just confused. Piper definitely believes in the doctrine of imputation (i.e. Christ's righteousness imputed, through faith, to God's elect), so I'm not quite sure what he was talking about here...

Where are all the yellow stripes?!

Well. Everything's finally wrapping up to a close this semester... and this has definitely been the veritable semester from "you-know-where"! Sooooo glad it's just about over!

But that means that I'll have more time on my hands now. And you know what that leads to? Right! More blogging! I'll finally finish the series of posts on Protestantism (I promise), but I'll first give just a little sump'n sump'n today.
------------

Charles Spurgeon (Go, C.H.! Go!), a firm believer in Paul's view of election, was known to say the following in response to the common question "If God elects people unto faith, then why bother evangelizing?":

"If God would have painted a yellow stripe on the backs of the elect I would go around lifting shirts. But since He didn’t I must preach 'whosoever will' and when 'whosoever' believes I know he is one of the elect."

I just read 1 Thessalonians yesterday, and this last point that Spurgeon makes - that he would know the elect by their belief in the Gospel - is a clear allusion to 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5a-

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.

It is interesting that Paul (along with Silvanus and Timothy) does not say "We know that God has chosen you because you live a good Christian life, and He owes it to you", nor does he say "We know that God has chosen you because you first chose Him". No, Paul says that he recognized that the members of the church at Thessalonica were first chosen by God because they believed in the Gospel.

But look closely at the way that Paul says this. What is the root of the act of believing in the Gospel, according to Paul? Power, and that, through the Holy Spirit. The Gospel was preached to many people in Paul's age, as it is today. However, Paul recognized that to some, it only came "in word". It fell on deaf ears. Empty words falling on dry soil. However, to others, as was the case for the church at Thessalonica, the Gospel came in power. And how was this power able to be recognized? Because the fruit of this power working in the elect was full conviction. And where did this power come from? The Holy Spirit gave men the ability to do that which they were incapable of doing on their own: namely, repenting of their sin, and accepting the Gospel.

If sin has corrupted the heart of man to the point that he is unable to choose God over sin (which I believe the Bible clearly shows) then repentance and faith are not something that man can give to God by his own ability. Man cannot reach into the treasure chest of his heart and pull out faith... because it simply isn't there to pull out! If we, on our own, do not possess the ability to choose to love God, then it is rather God who chooses to first love us:

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
-1 John 4:10

A propitiation for whose sins? The sins of the elect, for this epistle is written to the believing Jews (2:7), but includes believers from all nations (2:2). And what is the initial sign of this electing love? Belief in the Gospel, plain and simple. For belief in the Gospel requires full repentance and love toward God... two things which are impossible for man to do without the power of the Holy Spirit.

The elect show themselves to be the elect by believing in the Gospel.
-Mike Shea

Standing before God clothed in the righteousness that is our own faith?

Mike Shea on Romans 5:1 and 5:9-

Faith does not merit you justification on some kindler and gentler New Testament sliding scale. No, faith receives the gift of perfect righteousness, purchased for you by the blood of Christ. Faith doesn't purchase the righteousness, faith doesn't merit the righteousness, faith simply receives the gift of righteousness purchased by the blood of Christ, and so Paul can say we are justified by His blood. We do not stand before God clothed in the righteousness that is our own faith; we stand before God clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ, received through faith. And it makes a difference! If you don't get this, you'll have a very shaky assurance, because you'll be in danger of trusting in your own faith, rather than trusting in Christ. If you think that your faith merits the justification, that God's lowered His standards and says, "Okay, just believe," and you worry, "Well... do I believe enough? Is my faith strong enough?!" Your assurance will only be as stable as your own faith, rather than your assurance being as stable as the faithfulness of Christ.

I just threw up in my mouth...

Ugh.

I think I'm gonna be sick.

Click here... if you dare...

Justifequation

Here are some simple equations from one of pastor Mike's earlier sermons on Romans. They are given as an illustration to rectify the seemingly incompatible views of faith and works given by Paul and James. I've already talked a little bit about this in this post.


F= faith
W= works
J= justification

F + W --> J ?
false (Paul)

F - W --> J ?
false (James)

J --> F + W ?
TRUE (Paul and James)


I won't comment on these illustrations other than to say this: somehow, somewhere in the Church's history, the understanding of the order of these three elements got switched around in general American Christian doctrine. I'm not sure how, why, or when this happened, but don't you think it's about time we return to the roots of the Gospel?

(edit: 100th post! Woo hoo!)