The Shema vs the Trinity.
The Shema begins with the most succinct and famous Jewish and Christian statement of Monotheism.
"Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad."
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
Some people take this verse, and suggest that it contradicts the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
Most people who use this arguement also misrepresent the Trinity as being a polytheistic belief system, which it most cirtainly is not. Belief in the Trinity, is a belief that:
- God is three persons; The Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost.
- Each person is divine; Each of these if fuly God and not simply a part of God or different manifestation of God.
- There is only one God; Belief in the Trinity is wholly monotheistic.
Even the Shema however, supports the Trinity! Firstly it supports that there is indeed one and only one God. But also the deliberate and divinely inspired use of the Hebrew word Echad, is in support of the Trinity doctorine.
The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates a compound unity of oneness. Some specific examples of how echad demonstrates compound unity are found below:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
Now the whole world had one [echad] language and a common [echad] speach. (Genesis 11:1)
The LORD said, "If as one [echad] people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)
Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)
When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one [echad] voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." (Exodus 24:3)
When they reached the Valley of Eshcol, they cut off a branch bearing a single [echad] cluster of grapes. Two of them carried it on a pole between them, along with some pomegranates and figs. (Numbers 13:23)
The whole [echad] company numbered 42,360, (Ezra 2:64)
They will be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness [echad] of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. (Jeremiah 32:38-39)
These are but a few of the many examples of how echad is used to show the unity of oneness or a compound unity.
One may ask "How would the Hebrew be different if God had wanted to express absolute, numerical oneness?" The answer is that there is another Hebrew word, yachid, that is used to express the idea of absolute, numerical oneness. Examples of "yachid" are shown below:
Then God said, "Take your son, your only [yachid] son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." (Genesis 22:2)
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only [yachid] son." (Genesis 22:12)
The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, (Genesis 22:15-16;)
When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only [yachid] child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:34)
Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely [yachid] and afflicted. (Psalms 25:16)
God sets the lonely [yachid] in families, he leads forth the prisoners with singing; but the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land. (Psalms 68:6)
When I was a boy in my father's house, still tender, and an only [yachid] child of my mother, (Proverbs 4:3)
O my people, put on sackcloth and roll in ashes; mourn with bitter wailing as for an only [yachid] son, for suddenly the destroyer will come upon us. (Jeremiah 6:26)
I will turn your religious feasts into mourning and all your singing into weeping. I will make all of you wear sackcloth and shave your heads. I will make that time like mourning for an only [yachid] son and the end of it like a bitter day.
"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication. They will look on Me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only [yachid] child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.(Zechariah 12:10)
If the Shema had intended to express absolute oneness, it would have used the Hebrew word yachid instead of echad. However, the word yachid is NEVER used in reference to God, while echad is!
Since Scripture is the Word of God, and since God both says what He means and means what He says, it is reasonable to say that God intended to use the word Echad because it correctly destcribes the type of oneness found in God. Yachid is not used to describe God, because it would be an incorrect description. Since Echad (compound unity) is an accurate description of God and Yachid (absolute, numerical 'one') is not, the Shema gives more support to the Trinity than being a contradiction of it.
From Strongs Dictionary: We can see that both echad and yachid are correctly translated as 'one'. However, echad tends toward a connotation of unity or a compound oneness while yachid has conotations of singularity and an absolute numerical oneness.
259. 'echad (ekh-awd')
A numeral from 'achad; properly, united, i.e. One; or (as an ordinal) first
a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together,
258. 'achad (aw-khad')
Perhaps a primitive root; to unify, i.e. (figuratively) collect (one's thoughts), go one way or other.
(yachid is spelled yachad in Strong's Dictionary)
3161. yachad (yaw-khad')
A primitive root; to be (or become) one, join, unite.
3162. yachad (yakh'-ad)
From yachad; properly, a unit, i.e. (adverb) unitedly
alike, at all (once), both, likewise, only, (al-)together, withal.
posted by Modern Day Magi @ 5:13 pm
31 Comments:
At 10/09/2006 09:33:00 am,
Adam Pastor said…
Greetings
The simple reason why echad is used in Deut 6.4 as oppose to yachid is because when one counts in Hebrew one begins with echad.
echad means Numeral One ... the Number One!
Yachid is not a number, echad is!
Therefore to describe in the clearest & simplest way that there is solely ONE ALMIGHTY GOD,
the Scriptures declare that YAHWEH OUR GOD IS echad i.e. ONE!! NUMERAL ONE GOD!!
ONE means ONE. ONE does not mean '3 in 1' !?!?
So, the Shema never has & never will support the trinity.
Also, the suggestion that the Hebrew word echad is a so-called compound unity is another manmade fallacy.
Echad means ONE & ONE means ONE!
Echad appears 960 times in the Hebrew Bible (the OT) and in no case does the word itself carry a hint of plurality. Echad is a numerical adjective and naturally enough is sometimes found modifying a collective noun e.g. one family, one herd, one bunch. However, the sense of plurality is in the corresponding collective noun (family/herd/bunch) and not in the word echad (one).
So in the examples that you give ...
man & woman become one flesh not two fleshes; there was one language not two; one speech, one people, one voice not two; one cluster of grapes, not two clusters; one company, etc.
In each case, echad means numeral one, a single item.
Any plurality is in the collective nouns e.g. people, cluster, company; however in each case echad is used to describe a single item.
To say that echad means a compound noun is simply a manmade linguistic fallacy.
GOD who communicated to us through language could not describe His oneness/singleness any better than saying that He is solely echad / one!!
For more info on echad I suggest the following articles ...
Elohim and Echad
Mathematics Gone Mad: When One is Supposed to Mean Three
Elohim and Other Key Terms
Yours In Messiah
Adam Pastor
At 10/09/2006 04:49:00 pm,
Modern Day Magi said…
Thanks for stopping by Adam,
Thanks for the comments and the links, I'll read them before I address or refute/argue with your comments as this post is based upon what I have read about the terms 'echad' and 'yachid' and not any knowledge of the Hebrew language of my own.
The sources I looked at seemed valid though.
From a quick perusal of your blog it becomes apparent that you do not consider Jesus to be God.
This is in stark contrast to the Biblical account and as such in stark contrast to what I believe.
I would welcome you to revisit and comment here at my blog but know that Jesus IS indeed God, and that the Trinity IS indeed supported by scripture as the correct view of exactly who YHWH/ELOHIM/ADONAI/YESHUA/etc. is.
See John 1:1-14
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
MDM
At 10/09/2006 08:49:00 pm,
Modern Day Magi said…
Adam,
In each of the three articles you linked to the authors blasphemously claimed that Jesus ia not God. May I remind you of John 20:24-29.
Jesus is indeed "My Lord and my God!"
Adam please read
Is the deity of Christ Biblical?
and
Is Jesus God?
MDM
At 10/11/2006 09:04:00 am,
Joe said…
mdm: You are absolutely correct and "adam pastor" is absolutely wrong. He is only spouting what he has been taught by teachers who were as wrong as he is.
He is right when he says one means one and not three in one, but that is the only thing he is right about.
The concept of three in one comes not from a prooftexting of scripture, but in understanding the whole of scripture and interpreting its parts in terms of its whole.
The only reason the pharasees wanted Jesus executed was that they understood very, very clearly His claim to be God.
They gave Him several opportunities to recant His claim. He chose not to do so and was thus executed.
Good post!
At 10/11/2006 11:34:00 pm,
Gordon said…
Outstanding post, MDM. This is an apologetic article that is very well done.
At 10/12/2006 02:47:00 pm,
Theophilus said…
MDM -- It is clear you have taken the time to deeply consider the Triune nature of God. Perhaps it has something to do with conversations you have had elsewhere... *S* Well Said.
All -- If any deny/wonder about Christ's divinity and/or the Triune nature of God, go to a Bible resource site. Once there, do a search on 'Begotten'. (KJV is probably the easiest to search.) These verses, properly considered, acknowlege Jesus' divinity, yet also underscore an identifiable nature within the Trinity, separate from the Father who Sent the Son.
At 12/13/2006 06:36:00 am,
undertaker said…
I am doing a paper in a religion class to get a reciprcal funeral director license. One of the questions is "why was the Shema such a radical notion in the ancient world." Having trouble with this one in reasearch. thanks
At 9/28/2007 09:32:00 am,
Ronald Day said…
Jesus is not his God. This can be seen all through the scriptures. Jesus is very definitely *not* "God" whom he was with in the beginning spoken, before the world of mankind was made. (John 1:1,2; 17:1,3,5) In those very, very few instances in which the words EL, ELOHIM, or THEOS are applied to Jesus, then, rather than reading into the verses that Jesus is his God, we should apply spiritual revealement with spiritual revealment to see how these words apply to Jesus.
http://godandson.reslight.net/hebraictitles.html
http://godandson.reslight.net/john-1.html
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?board=100.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/john-20-28.html
Likewise, in none of the scriptures given concerning the word ECHAD do we find any usage that could possible be applied to the trinitarian concept that says that the Father is not a part of God, but all of God, the Son is not a part of God, but all of God, and the the holy spirit is not a part of God, but all of God. According to the trinitarian dogman, God is not in three parts, for that would mean that each part is not "God", but would all have to be combined together to be "God". The Hebrew word ECHAD does not support such a doctrine, nor do any of the scriptures cited support such a doctrine. For instance, only if we could find a cluster of grapes that each and every grape is not a part of the cluster, but *is* the entire cluster, could one find support for the trinity dogma in the usage of the word "echad".
http://reslight.net/forum/index.php?topic=137.0
http://godandson.reslight.net/echad-one.html
In service of Jesus and his God,
Ronald
At 9/30/2007 06:35:00 am,
Modern Day Magi said…
Thanks Roland,
However your starting position that Jesus is NOT god is quite incorrect.
Jesus IS God.
Jesus IS ALSO the son of God.
Jesus IS ALSO filled with the Spirit of God.
The only doctrine which explains all three of these biblical truths is the Trinity doctrine.
Thanks again for you taking the time to comment.
MDM
At 11/01/2007 01:43:00 pm,
Anonymous said…
God is three FULL persons, just as in marriage people are two FULL people, however as they unite and become ONE they are both retain personhood, yet, in their unity, they are ONE. As Adam said, one cluster, one people, etc. So they don't have to be referred to as parts. But the words parts are sometimes used, out of weakness, to describe that compound unity.
Even if echad is used because Hebrew numberical system begins with echad, that doesn't prove Adam's point, because as we know, things start with what they start with, and everything starts with God, just as in the created world he made, compound unity came first, such as when the first Adam was made, not as a single cell, but a FULL whole person, but compound. Its like the chicken and the egg. Well, the chicken ( very compound) came first, before the egg. Just as God came first before all the singularity, that came later, the numberical one. This kind of goes with how the first people dated themselves...look at the time of Noah and his descendants who are dated in the year of Noah, their birthday year not counting, until they get into a new year of Noah's years counting from his birth, etc. History was dated through genealogy, ages were by the times of family patriarchs. Even the year of our Lord is this way, but what Lord ( seeing as we use a Roman calendar) but that is another story. The real years go by the festivals, when they came along, after the patriarchs.
Echad comes first by the same logic. God is first. He is the beginning and the end.
At 12/18/2007 07:23:00 am,
Anonymous said…
Another thing that points to the Trinity in Judaism is the priestly blessing.
1) The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
2) The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
3) The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
While saying the blessing, the priest would also hold his hands together with the thumbs and index fingers touching and thus forming a triangle.
At 12/04/2010 07:28:00 pm,
John Abel said…
The debate on the Doctrine of the Trinity always comes back to two choices
(i)Accept the non-trinitarian view that there is ONE supreme God and that Christ is his Son and our Messiah OR
(ii)Accept the full Trinitarian doctrine
I personally find the Non-Trinitarian view to be simple, logical and unambiguous.
I, and an increasing number of friends, find the Trinitarian view makes nonsense of the meaning of language and logic - and requires 'gymnastic after gymnastic' to explain.
The "Modern Day Magi's paper does just this!
He asserts what the Shema supports the D.O.T. - and to his cerdit acknowledges that the word 'echad'
can be employed in a singular sense - as well as denoting a compound unity.
There is no magic here- the eNglish language employs the same rules. Meaning is derived from context and by reference to the connecting noun - and not a number!
Magi then delves into the use of 'yachid' which he correctly observes means 'only', 'one alone'
'lonely'. He correctly observes that 'yashid' is never used to denote "God" - and this is for a very good reason-
(i) The one thing the Hebrews were emphatic about was that there is only ONE GOD - no need to name him as he is God and there is no other.
(ii)"Yashid' is used to add specificity -where required - i.e. the child is an 'only' child etc.
No need for that here - theres only one God
I don't want to labour the point, but consider Deuteronomy 6v4 as is repeated by Christ in the New Testament (Mark 12 v 29)
The word used to denote 'one' is "eic" (sorry no Greek keyboard)which is pronounced 'ice'
The same word is used to mean 'one' in 1 Corinthians 9 v 24
"Do you not know that the runners in a stadium run a race but only one "Eic" wins the prize.
One = One = One- ad nauseum!
Why do we even need to argue these things? Why not accept the Apostles Creed and call it a day?
Blessings
John Abel
At 5/25/2013 03:01:00 pm,
BB said…
So as man we " make God simple "? His ways are NOT our ways and His THOUGHTS not our thoughts.
I find that these statements usually come from Ex JW's or so called " Bible Students ( Russellites )
1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.
The NWT states in Gen. 19 Then Jehovah made it rain sulphur and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens, upon Sod′om and upon Go‧mor′rah.
Two Jehovahs!!!!!
It gets worse when you read Psalm 102:25-26 and then read Hebrews 1 where it has the father saying to the Son.
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.”
Why not flush the Cultic teaching and believe the Word of God?
At 5/26/2013 01:54:00 am,
John Abel said…
Hi BB
Thanks for that!
It is interesting to note that in Psalm 102 the Psalmist is addressing YHWH as the creator of the heavens and the earth.
In Hebrews 1:10 the unknown writer has God addressing 'the Lord' as the creator of the heavens and the earth. Trinitarians of course claim that 'the Lord' is Christ.
The writer of Hebrews was using the Septuagint Bible as his 'base' - but of course the Septuagint is not a true reflection of the original Hebrew scripture
An earlier post mentioned 1 Timothy 3:16
Most scholarly Bibles now use the words " ... he who was manifest in the flesh..."
A footnote to the Catholic NAB Bible notes " 'God was inserted into later (eighth and nineth century )Byzantine texts -presumably for theological reasons"
Thank God for people of integrity.!!
Thank God too that the light of truth is starting to penetrate the dark recess called the Doctrine of the Trinity - and it will soon be no more.
Blessings
John Abel
At 5/26/2013 12:09:00 pm,
BB said…
Hi John, You might want to re-read Heb 1 again.
Verse 8 But to the Son He says:
Verse 10 And:
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up,
And they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not fail.
It is totally obvious that the speaker ( God ) is addressing ( Toward the son ) Jesus and then applying Ps 102 to Jesus (The Son )
As to 1 Tim 3:16 perhaps a little read of what the NET Bible has to say about the Text.
https://net.bible.org/#!bible/1+Timothy+3:16
http://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ibnanwar/1tim316_1.html
BB
At 5/26/2013 02:50:00 pm,
John Abel said…
Hi BB
Obviously you did not read my comments thoroughly.!
In Psalm 102 the Psalmist is addressing YHWH and crediting him with the foundations of thje heavens and the earth.
The unknown writer of Hebrews has God addressing Jesus and applying Psalm 102 - as you say.
The point is that the writer of Hebrews got it wrong since he used the Greek Septuagint.
The Greek Septuagint is NOT a faithful representation of the Hebrew scriptures THERE IS AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
To be absolutely blunt the Book of Hebrews Chapter 1 cannot be read as trinitarians do.
The unknown author was
(i) Using information that was in the public domain at the time
(ii) It is most unlikely that he had some sort of 'window into heaven'
(iii) He was SURMISING what Christ's arrival in heaven was like using anthromorphic terms
(iv)He used words and imagery with which his target audience would have been familiar
(v)Christ would have been an honoured guest and seated on Gods right hand
(vi)While Jews regarded angels as superior to angels, the newly risen Christ would now be higher than angels
(vii)The words used by God would be similar to those used at enthronement ceremonies of Davidic kings in which the candidate was ordained as priest, made God's adoptive son and crowned.
(viii) Therefore he 'cut and pasted' words from Psalms 2,45,102 and 110-- these were the TYPE OF words which God would have used.
TO IMAGINE THAT THESE WERE GOD'S ACTUAL WORDS TO CHRIST IS LUDICROUS.
To believe this is seeing only what one wants to see.
My only thought re 1 John 3:16 is that the human mind is capable of infinite rationalisation.
Time for humanity to 'come out of the nursery'
Blessings
John Abel
At 5/27/2013 04:20:00 am,
BB said…
Hi John, So the bottom line is you don't believe the Word of God?
Hebrews should taken out and burned?
When I die I will meet my Maker. According to your theology I would have to meet my Makers.
Since we agree ( I think )that the writer of Hebrews has God addressing Jesus as the same creator and sustainer of life in Ps 102 He must be our maker.
Did the writer of Colossians get it wrong too?
1:16 For by Him all ( EVERYTHING)things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.
( FOR HIM ) WE were created BY HIM and FOR HIM )
17 And He is before all things,( Being their Creator He precedes His Creation ) and in Him all things consist. ( In other words " In Him " ( Jesus ) all things consist or are held together.
NOTE: A thing, is anything that relys on something or someone for their existence.
Before adding Humanity to His Eternal nature as the Word of God the Son of God was above His creation ( being creator ) He then lowered Himself by becoming a servant in Human form ( His previous form being God ) to accomplish the will of the Father being made sin for you and I.
Phil 2 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
It would seem to me that Paul would have known Isaiah 45:22,23 and is now applying it to Jesus in His Exaltation above all things.
22 “Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
23 I have sworn by Myself;
The word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
And shall not return,
That to Me every knee shall bow,
Every tongue shall take an oath.
If there are blatant errors in Hebrews why trust anything in the book? ( The Bible )
BB
At 5/27/2013 04:21:00 am,
John Abel said…
Hi BB
Sorry about my 'gaffe' above!
Obviously (iv) should read
" while angels regarded angels as superior to humans..."
Blessings
John
At 5/27/2013 05:21:00 am,
John Abel said…
Hi BB
You still don't get it!
The writer of Hebrews was 'cutting and pasteing' verses from various Psalms to SURMISE what words God used when greeting the newly risen Christ.
The problem for the writer of Hebrews was that HE was NOT using God's word -for the reason that he used the Sptuagint Bible which erroneously translated the Hebrew scriptures.
Let's look again at Psalm 102v24
The speaker is the Psalmist NOT -YHWH .
He is begging God not to cut his life short.
The writer od Hebrews now says that God was speaking and addressing 'his Lord'
To be brutally honest
(i) No rational person can say that the writer of Hebrews was saying that God used these actual words to Christ.
They were the TYPE OF WORDS God would use when meeting him in heaven... using the words used at coronation ceremonies of the Davidic Kings.
(ii) The Septuagint Bible got it wrong. Hebrews 1:10 is not a faithful copy of the original Hebrew text So the writer of Hebrews was in any case using 'faulty' base material.
You threw a lot of verses at me - as if they are so meaningful.
I shall revert to you in another post!
At 5/27/2013 06:08:00 am,
BB said…
I Would also mention that both Hebrew and Greek words translated " angel" can refer to God,human beings and messengers.
The OT expression " the angel of the LORD ( sometimes "of God" ) " usually implies Deity in angelic form sometimes even appearing in Human form.
Gen 16;1-13,21:17-19,22:11-16,31:11-13, Ex 3:2-4 Judg 2:1-4,6:11-23,13:3-23
angel used of Humans Luke 7:24,James 2:25 ( of the spirit of man ) Acts 12:15
BB
At 5/27/2013 03:06:00 pm,
John Abel said…
Hi BB.
Can you 'look me in the eye' and tell me that -
(i) In Psalm 82:23&24 YHWH is addressing Christ ? and
(ii)The words used in Hebrews 1
verses 4-9 used are the actual words used by God to address Christ? Or 'typology'
If you insist on literalism, then you might explain how the original Hebrew text differs in a critical way, from Hebrews 1:10.
Every Blessing
John Abel
At 5/27/2013 09:47:00 pm,
BB said…
Hi John, ( You must mean 102:24,24 not 82:23,24 )
I believe that ALL Scripture ( that would include Hebrews ) is inspired by God. In other words like a person who uses different pens to write ( say a black pen and a blue marker ) God is the author of ALL Scripture. It is He who does the actual writing using say the black pen which we will say is Peter and the blue marker we will say is John etc. With Hebrews we don't know the human author ( pen ) but we do know the divine author of ALL Scripture. So it is God who is saying just that to His Son.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture ( Including Hebrews ) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The Purpose of Hebrews is this Christ is Superior to the all things the prophets,the covenant,the high priests,the angels, etc. In using Ps 1023,24 the writer is giving the reason He is superior to the angels HE MADE THEM.
By the way in verse 3 " who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power,"
The writer uses a term " Express image" which gives us a picture of who Christ is " Express image" is a term that a king who's ring is pushed into wax leaving the exact image of the ring in the wax. Christ is the exact image of God press into human flesh, the brightness of God's glory contained in humanity.
Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
Hallelujah what a Saviour!!!!
BB
At 5/28/2013 05:25:00 am,
Anonymous said…
Hi BB
Your response is a string of verses and affirmations.
Please tell me-
If the original Hebrew scripture says "X"
and the Septuagint says "Y"
and the NT says "Y"
Which scripture is God's word
Blessings
John Abel
At 5/28/2013 10:54:00 am,
BB said…
Hi John, Since the OT and the NT are ALL God's Word BOTH.
Example:
OT verse Isaiah 61:1,2
61 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”
( something is missing here from Is 61? )
" and the day of Vengeance of our God "
( Also which manuscript is right the oldest manuscripts do not contain " to heal the broken hearted ". Did Jesus have a bad memory and forget the last part of the verse from Isaiah?
BB
At 5/28/2013 04:22:00 pm,
John Abel said…
Hi BB
Life becomes very difficult if one is a strict literalist.!
If one looks at any scholarly Bible and reads the preface to each book - and then reads to footnotes one will find a myriad of reasons not to be a complete 'literalist'.
My friends then complain "Well, do we just throw the bible out'?
Of course not , but one has to use one's God given intellect and decide what it all means!
I firse encountered this problem while reviewing certain 'prophetic' scriptures in the synoptic gospels. I found that they did not always match up with the OT scripture.
I then found the story of Judas differs between two gospels, and that the first eleven verses of John Chapter 8 were not in ANY Greek or Aramaic scriptures but in second century Latin notes.
It's all very difficult!
But there is a 'golden thread' which flows through the scriptures.
Possibly God made it so, so that we should not become 'parrots', as many Moslems are.
Blessings
John Abel
At 5/28/2013 10:29:00 pm,
BB said…
Hi John, Just a little note on the 2 accounts of Judas.
Much like looking through reports of an accident or students home work, if every thing reads EXACTLY the same my guess is that there has been a little cheating going on.
I find if you look at the 2 accounts of Judas they are very Complimentary!!
In Matt 27 we are told Judas hanged himself.
And in Acts 1 (not another gospel )we are told "falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails "
It would seem to me that rather than contradict each other they complement each other.
Perhaps each account at differing times. One simply makes the statement " he hung himself " while the other perhaps after arriving on the scene sees that the branch on which he hung himself has broken and Judas on the rocks below guts exposed.
No matter what one must see from reading scripture that the OT is full of references to plurality of God and the full deity of the Lord Jesus.
BB
At 5/29/2013 04:47:00 pm,
John Abel said…
Hi BB
Regarding the Judas Iscariot 'incident' , there are many other differences between the two versions. For example, who bought the land? etc. etc.
You mentioned Philippians 2 in an earlier post.
The footnotes to the NAB Bible read
".. the short rhythmic lines fall into two parts. vs 6-8 where the subject of every verb is Christ, and vs 9-11 where the subject is God"
"Many see an allusion to the Genesis story : unlike Adam, Jesus, though in the form of God
(Gen 1 vs 26 and 27) did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the First Adam (Genesis 3 vs 5-6.)"
So Christ (who is the subject of every verb in vs 6-8 ) emptied himself of his human weakness, principally ego, and became obedient even unto death on the cross.
For which God,( the subject of verses 9-11) has exalted him.
This nicely overcomes all the nonsensical arguments which arise from the trinitarian interpretation.
Lee Strobel has tried valiantly but failed miserably.
You will also note the problems Trinitarians have - which "God' is the writer thinking of
The God Adam..of Abraham and Isaac... Moses.. and our LOrd Jesus Christ.
OR
The 'God' consisting of three pesons sharing one substance one of whom has a double nature?
Try substituting the latter into verse 9 - makes no sense.!
You also mentioned Colossians 2:9
"For in him dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
Absolutely, but we are also told that this fullness is available to believers in verse 10 and Ephesians 3:19 "... so that you may be filled with the fullness of God"
Every best wish
John Abel
At 5/30/2013 12:56:00 pm,
BB said…
Hi John, Once again I read complimentary accounts when I read both accounts.
3 Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.”
And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!”
5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6 But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood.” 7 And they consulted together and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 8 Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
9 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, 10 and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me.”
Acts 1
18 (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out. 19 And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Here we have Judas not paying with silver but " with the wages of iniquity "
Judas bought his own death bed with " the wages of iniquity ".
Romans 6:23 " For the wages of Sin is death "
You might be interested in knowing who was sold for 30 pieces of silver by reading Zech 11 & 12
Zech 11:12 Then I said to them, “If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.” So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.
13 And the LORD said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—that princely price they set on me. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.
Zech 12:10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
Who is the ME in both passages?
BB
At 5/30/2013 05:28:00 pm,
John Abel said…
Hi ME
So many things pulled together in a highly speculative manner!
Have you checked these back to the original OT scriptures in the Hebrew bible.
Tenuous stringing together at best. You would not get away with this in any serious academic debate - but this is 'religion' so normal rules don't seem to apply.
However, you still do not seem to have noted that in the one version of the 'Judas story' it was the temple priests who bought the land, while in the other (Acts) Judas himself bought the land.
Very Best wishes
John Abel
At 5/30/2013 09:23:00 pm,
BB said…
Hi John, Well I am finished at this point with conversation with you. I leave you with my last post to you.
It such a no brainer that the money was Judas' and that the priests used that money to buy the land. Whose money Judas' but it's refereed to as " the wages of iniquity ".
I hear an old familar voice behind your posts one that said " Did God really say? "
So I am done throwing pearls before swine.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
BB
At 5/31/2013 01:03:00 am,
John Abel said…
BB
Thanks for your pearls !
God Bless You
John Abel
Post a Comment
<< Home