Divine Agency in the Scriptures
January 21st, 2010 by Ron S.
Many of us here at Kingdomready have talked about “Agency” in Scripture before and how much it is a part of the Hebrew thought world & the culture of the biblical writers. A “shaliach” or agent/emissary represented someone and was treated as that individual because legally they were. In our modern society, the closest we get to that is to appoint “Power of Attorney” to someone. They can make legally binding decisions for us because we have designated them to serve in that capacity for us. But in ancient Hebrew culture, the shaliach (or sheliah) wasn’t just that person in a legal sense only. They were also respected, treated, and thought of AS THE ONE THEY REPRESENTED. Back in 2005 a man by the name of David Burge of New Zealand wrote a terrific article about how much this Hebrew ”law of agency” plays out in God’s dealing with man throughout Scripture and how vital it is to understand the concept in order to prevent a host of biblical errors. Here’s the article in its entirety. It is long, but extremely well done!
Divine Agency in the Scriptures
by David Burge
In Hebrew thought, the “first cause” is not always distinguished from “intermediate” or “secondary” causes. That is to say: The principal is not always clearly distinguished from the agent, the one commissioned to carry out an act on behalf of another. Sometimes the agent, standing for the principal, is treated as if he or she were the principal him or herself, though this is not literally so. Principal and agent remain two distinct persons but they act in complete harmony. The agent acts and speaks for his principal.
The Principle of Agency in Scripture
In the Bible there are examples of human principals using fellow humans for agents, of God as divine principal using angelic agents, and of God using human agents. This notion of principal and agent is the key to understanding the relationship between the one true God and His Son, Jesus Christ.
Human Principal and Agency in the Gospels
The concept of principal and agency can actually help us to reconcile what appear otherwise to be contradictions in the parallel accounts found in the synoptic Gospels. So in the account of Jesus healing the centurion’s servant, Matthew speaks of a conversation between the centurion himself and Jesus (Mt. 8:5-13). Luke tells us that the centurion did not in fact come personally. He sent some “Jewish elders” and then some “friends” to Jesus with his requests (Luke 7:1-10). The centurion here is the principal; the Jewish elders and the centurion’s friends are his appointed, commissioned agents. Remembering that in Hebrew thought, the principal and the agent are not always clearly distinguished, Matthew mentions only the principal (the centurion) without distinguishing the agent (the Jewish elders and friends). Luke mentions both principal and agents. To put it another way, in Matthew’s account, the elders (agents) stand for and are treated as the centurion (principal), even though this is not literally true.
Similarly, when Jesus was questioned concerning who might sit next to him in his Kingdom, Mark gives us the impression that James and John themselves personally asked whether they might sit next to Jesus in places of royal authority (Mk. 10:35-40). Matthew tells us that in fact it was the mother of Zebedee’s children who actually made the request to Jesus (Mt. 20:20-23). In this case, Matthew gives the agency (the mother), whereas Mark does not. Again, putting it the other way around, in Matthew’s account the mother (as agent) stands for and is treated as James and John (the principal), even though this is not literally true.
Divine Principal and Human Agency
The LORD told Moses that he would be “Elohim [God] to Aaron” (Ex. 4:16). He says, “I have made you Elohim to Pharaoh and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet” (Ex. 7:1). In Exodus 7:17-21 the LORD says: “By this you will know that I am the LORD: With the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water of the Nile, and it will be changed into blood. The fish in the Nile will die, and the river will stink; the Egyptians will not be able to drink its water.” The LORD then says to Moses, “Tell Aaron, ‘Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt — over the streams and canals, over the ponds and all the reservoirs — and they will turn to blood.’” Moses and Aaron did as the LORD had commanded. Aaron raised his staff and struck the water of the Nile “and all the water was changed into blood.”
The LORD had said that He Himself would strike the waters with the staff in his own hand. Yet, it was Aaron’s hand that held the rod, and Aaron who struck the Nile. Clearly, Aaron is not God. Rather, Aaron stands as God’s agent, in the place of God. One might even say he is “God,” not literally, but in a manner of (Hebrew) speaking. One might even say in this case that God (as principal) was represented by Moses (the agent), who in turn was represented by Aaron!
Divine Principal and Angelic Agency
Genesis 18 begins by saying that “the LORD appeared to Abraham” (v. 1). We read that Abraham “looked up and saw three men” (v. 2). The implication is that one of the three is in a sense the LORD. Later it is the LORD who says, “I will surely return to you about this time next year” (vv. 10, 13). When the men get up to leave the LORD speaks yet again (v. 17). Finally, two of the angelic men turn away. As the NIV has it, “Abraham remained standing before the LORD” (v. 22). The alternative, given as a footnote, reads “but the LORD remained standing before Abraham.” It was not literally the LORD (the principal) who appeared to Abraham; it was an angel (His agent). As agent of the LORD, however, the angel is treated as the LORD. We know this must be so because the Bible is adamant: No one has seen God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16). Note too that the one angel who directly represents God is worshiped as God’s agent.
When Jacob wrestled with a heavenly being, he is said to have “seen God face to face.” So Jacob is said to have wrestled with “God” (Gen. 32:24-30). However, we know from the word of the LORD to the prophet Hosea that Jacob in struggling against God actually wrestled with an angel (Hos. 12:3-4). Jacob did not literally wrestle with the LORD (the principal); it was with an angel (His agent) that he wrestled. However as the agent of the LORD the angel is treated as the LORD. Again, we know this is so because the Bible insists: No one has ever seen God (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; 1 Tim. 6:16). So too, when Jacob, as an old man, blessed Joseph’s children he said, “May the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, the Angel who has delivered me from all harm — may he bless these boys” (Gen. 48:15-16). Surely, God Himself is not an angel, but the angel as His agent represented Him.
Another very clear example of this type of thinking is as follows. According to Deuteronomy 4:12 it was the LORD who spoke to Israel “out of the fire” to give them His Law at Sinai. It is said to be the LORD’s own voice that they heard. Yet several Scriptures reveal the speaker to have been an angel. Stephen says that “he [Moses] was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai” (Acts 7:38). He told the Jews, “You have received the law that was put into effect through angels, and have not obeyed it” (v. 53). Paul also says, “The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator [Moses]” (Gal. 3:19). Hebrews 2:2 only serves to confirm this point, saying that the message (the law) was “spoken by angels.” This is no contradiction. The LORD did not literally speak “out of the fire.” An angel spoke. However as the agent of the LORD the angel is treated as the LORD. It is as if the LORD actually spoke.
Scripture affirms that it was God who “opened the doors of the heavens” and “rained down manna” for the people of Israel to eat during their wilderness wanderings. He gave them “the grain of heaven” to eat (Ps. 78:23-24). The manna did not literally come down from heaven, the throne of God. It was “from heaven” in that it was a gracious gift of God. So too, the manna is called “the bread of angels” (Ps. 78:25). This is probably not because angels actually have manna for breakfast. God himself provided the food, but he did it through the agency of His angels.
“The Angel of the Lord”
When Hagar saw the angel of the LORD she said, “I have now seen the one who sees me” (Gen. 16:7-14), referring to God. The angel of God said to Jacob, “I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar” (Gen 31:11-13; cf. 28:16). While it is said that “the angel of the LORD” appeared to Moses from within the burning bush, it was God who called to him “from within the bush” (Ex. 3:1-5). Manoah, realizing he had seen “the angel of the LORD,” said to his wife, “We have seen God!” (Jud. 13:20). So too, works attributed to the “angel of the Lord” are attributed to the LORD himself. The angel is said to have brought Israel out of Egypt (Ex. 3:7-8, Jud. 2:1). He is said to have sworn to give the land to the seed of Abraham (Gen. 15:18; Jud. 2:1). It was he who is said to have “cut a covenant” with Israel (Gen. 15:18; Jud. 2:1).
Many suggest that the angel of the LORD is a manifestation of the LORD Himself. Some even suggest that the angel of the Lord is a pre-incarnate (pre-human) form of Jesus Christ. If you believe this—Scripture is clear on this point—we suggest that you are mistaken. The book of Hebrews makes much of the supremacy of the Son and the superiority of his ministry over that of God’s servants, the angels (1:5-14). It is because the ministry of the word in the Son is superior to theirs that it must not be neglected. If the message “spoken by angels” (see the previous section) was binding, the saving Gospel message that comes by the Son is more so (2:1-4). While the Son was “made a little lower than the heavenly beings” (Heb. 2:7, 9), the “angels” of the LXX (Gk version of the OT) (Ps. 8:4-5), he has been exalted far above them by God the Father. He who is so superior to the angels cannot himself be an angel. One of the greatest truths revealed by Hebrews (1:1-2) is that God expressly did not speak through His Son in the Old Testament times. That is because the Son was not yet living. He had not yet been brought into existence (begotten) in Mary’s womb (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:35).
To say that the angel of the LORD is the LORD Himself is inaccurate and imprecise. The angel of the LORD is the agent of the Lord and thus stands for the LORD Himself. Exodus 23:20-21 makes this clear: The LORD says, “See, I am sending an angel ahead of you, to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my name is in him.” As the LORD’s chosen representative, the angel speaks whatever he is told to speak by the LORD. The people are to obey the angel’s voice because “my [God’s] name is in him.” That is, the angel represents God when he is sent on a mission from God.
Has Anyone Ever Seen God?
When God confirmed His covenant with Israel, it is said of Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and the 70 elders that they “saw the God of Israel” (Ex. 24:9-11). So too, in Exodus 33:17-23, Moses is said to have seen God’s “back.” God would not allow Moses to see His face when He passed because “no man can see Me and live.” Note, in verse 20, in God’s own words, “seeing God’s face” and “seeing God” are synonymous. Seeing God’s “back” is akin to seeing “God’s glory” (Ex. 33:18, 22), which Moses did indeed see. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it, Moses “saw Him who is invisible” (Heb. 11:27). How is it then that the Bible is so clear: “No one has ever seen God”? (John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). He “lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see” (1 Tim. 6:16). The only explanation available to us is that none of these worthies ever literally saw God. Rather they saw God’s agent, His chosen representative, who spoke with the authority of the LORD as though he were the LORD. They saw the angel of the LORD. In exactly the same manner Jesus said “He who has seen me has seen my Father” (John 14:9).
The Messiah as God’s Agent
There are a number of texts where titles explicitly referring to God in the Jewish Scriptures are referred to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures. Many take this as proof positive that the two are One in a Trinitarian sense, that is, two Persons in the One Essence of God. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, in line with all that has gone before, it can easily be shown that these verses teach the vital truth that the LORD is the principal and the Messiah is His agent. As His appointed representative Messiah stands in the place of God, but is not literally God any more than Moses, Aaron or any of the angels who stand in the place of God are literally God.
Jesus as Savior
The Jewish Scriptures are clear on this point: God is the sole Savior of Israel. The LORD says, “I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior” (Is. 43:3); “apart from Me there is no savior” (Is. 43:11; cf. 45:15, 21; 49:26; 60:16; 63:8). Nevertheless, Moses, as God’s agent, is called a savior (Acts 7:35; cp. 27 and Ex. 2:14; 18:13). The judges, as God’s appointed agents, are also called saviors (Jud. 3:9, 15; Neh. 9:27; Ex. 2:14; 18:13, Acts 7:27, 35). The prophets speak of other human agents, yet future, who will save Israel (Is. 19:20, Obad. 21).
Of course the Apostles acknowledge God as their Savior also. They speak of God as “our Savior” (1 Tim. 1:1; Tit. 1:4) and as “the Savior of all men” (1 Tim. 4:10). For them “the grace of God [the Father] brings salvation” (Tit. 2:10). But in true Biblical fashion, they also refer to Jesus, God’s ultimate agent, as Savior. He was born a Savior (Luke 2:10-11) and not just the Savior of Israel but “the world” (John 4:42). “Salvation is found in no one else.” There is “no other name” than that of Jesus “by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). They were eagerly awaiting that Savior, Jesus Christ (Phil. 3:20). This does not however prove that Jesus is the LORD God any more than the fact that Moses and the judges of Israel are called savior, makes them literally Divine. There is indeed only one ultimate Savior who is the God and Father of Jesus. Jesus is also savior as the perfect agent of the One supreme Savior. Salvation derives as Jude 25 says from “the only God” who is our principal savior “through” His agent Jesus Christ.
Jesus as Shepherd
Without doubt God is the principal “shepherd” over Israel (Gen. 49:24; 80:1; Jer. 31:10; Ezek. 34:11-16). David said, “The LORD is my shepherd” (Ps. 23). “We are His people, the sheep of His pasture” (Ps. 100). The prophet Isaiah agrees, saying, “He [the LORD] tends His flock like a shepherd” (Is. 40:11). However He shepherds His people Israel through His agents. Thus the elders of Israel were God’s appointed shepherds (2 Sam. 7:7). David himself was appointed by God to shepherd Israel (2 Sam. 5:1-3; 1 Chr. 11:1-3; Ps. 78:71). Then also a future greater “David,” the Messiah, was predicted to be God’s appointed shepherd over Israel (Ezek. 34:23-24).
Is it any wonder that Jesus, God’s ultimate agent, should refer to himself as “the good shepherd” (John 10:11, 14) or that his Apostles refer to “our Lord Jesus” as “that great shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20) and “the shepherd and overseer [bishop]” of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Nevertheless, this does not prove that Jesus is literally the LORD transmuted into flesh, any more than the fact that the elders of Israel and King David being styled shepherds of Israel proves them to be God incarnate.
Jesus as Judge
God is the principal judge of the whole earth (Gen. 18:25; 1 Sam. 2:10; 1 Chr. 16:33; Ps. 50:3-4; 67:4; 94:1-2; 96:13; 98:9); yet though it is said that God Himself is judge (Ps. 50:6) and that God Himself will bring every deed into judgment, “including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (Ecc. 12:14), God has chosen and commissioned human agents as judges to execute God’s judgment throughout Israel’s history.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture we discover that Jesus, God’s ultimate agent, actually stands for God and will judge all things at the end. “He [Jesus] will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts” (1 Cor. 4:5). “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor. 5:10) when he will judge “the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).
When the Son of Man comes “all the nations will be gathered before him” (Matt. 25:31-46). The Father will actually judge no one. He has “entrusted all judgment to the Son” (John 5:22-27). The Father “has set a day when He will judge the world with justice” but through the agency of “the man He has appointed” (Acts 17:31). Note that the Son does not judge in his own right but only because the Father entrusts judgment to the Son (John 5:22-27). And the Son is styled man and not God. That of course is because there is only One God, and not two!
Jesus as the Rock or Stone of Stumbling
Peter applies to Jesus the text describing the Messiah as “a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall” (Is. 8:14; cp. 1 Pet. 2:8). Again, remember Jesus is God’s agent. Thus when Isaiah says, “The LORD will be a stumbling stone,” he allows for the fact that God causes Israel to stumble over Jesus His agent. “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes” (Ps. 118:22, 23).
Jesus as the Coming One
In Isaiah 40:10 we read, “See, the Sovereign LORD comes with power, and His arm rules for Him. See, His reward is with Him, and His recompense accompanies Him.” Clearly, the Sovereign LORD is the Father. The phrase “His arm” may be taken to refer to Messiah (John 12:38), but “the Sovereign Lord” is the coming one; it is He who brings His reward with Him. Yet the Christian Scriptures repeatedly tell us that Jesus is the coming one (Rev. 22:7, 12, 20). Our reward is with him (Rev. 22:12). This is not because Jesus is God but because Jesus as His representative stands in place of Him.
Zechariah 14:4 should be seen in this light as well. “On that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.” In the Jewish Scriptures “His feet” are the LORD’s feet. Christians believe it is Jesus who is returning to set up his Kingdom upon earth. But rather than jumping to the erroneous conclusion that Jesus is the LORD we should understand that, as the LORD’s agent, Jesus’ feet are spoken of as God’s feet in exactly the same way as Aaron’s hand is spoken of as the LORD’s hand (remember Ex. 7:17-19).
All the Second Coming passages in the OT are referred to God, but in the NT to Jesus. Since there is only one God, we know that Jesus cannot be God (which would make two!). The principle of agency steps in to provide a wonderfully satisfying solution to the apparent puzzle. God acts through and in His beloved Son and also in His sons.
Jesus as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc.
Surely, the same reasoning applies to Jesus’ being called “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” (1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:16), King or Lord of glory (Ps. 24:7, 10; 1 Cor. 2:8), the first and the last (Isa. 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 1:17; Rev. 22:13), the Rock (1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 18:2; 31:2; 89:26; Is. 17:10-11; Mt. 16:16; 1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:4, 6) and so on. Jesus stands in this relationship to the LORD not because he is the LORD in a literal sense, but because as God’s ultimate agent he stands for the Lord in a way that supersedes the status of Moses and Aaron or any of the angels, even the angel of the LORD, who preceded the time of Jesus.
Zechariah and the “Thirty Pieces of Silver”
Perhaps one more example will drive the point home. The prophet Zechariah, speaking about himself and recording an event in his own life, pictures his prophetic ministry as the shepherding of sheep. When he challenged the leaders of Israel to give him the wages due him, they gave him instead the price of a slave (30 pieces of silver). This surely was an insult worse than if they had not paid him at all. So the LORD told the prophet to throw it to the potter.
“And the LORD said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter, the handsome price at which they priced Me!’ So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter” (11:13). It may be that the LORD Himself speaks of being priced at 30 pieces of silver, but it was Zechariah who was so paid. Are we to assume that Zechariah is Almighty God? Not at all! Rather, in so pricing Zechariah the LORD’s agent, they thus priced the LORD Himself. So when Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Mt. 26:14-15; 27:3-10) they betrayed the LORD for 30 pieces of silver. We need no more conclude, therefore, that Jesus is the LORD in a Trinitarian sense, than we would conclude that Zechariah is the LORD. The Trinitarian idea of God in three Persons had not been imagined in NT times. A fine recent study by a German scholar, One or Three? by Karl-Heinz Ohlig, says, “The Trinity possesses no biblical foundation whatsoever” (p. 130).
Conclusion
A Jewish understanding of the law of agency is expressed in the dictum: “A person’s agent is regarded as the person himself.” God appointed Jesus the Messiah as His agent. As such anything he does is regarded as though the Almighty Himself did it. One trusts the principal in trusting the agent. This notion of principal and agency helps us to understand why if you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father (John 5:23; 15:23). By refusing to honor and love the agent you are refusing to honor and love the principal. We see in Jesus a perfect reflection of his principal. He who has seen and heard Jesus has seen and heard the Father (John 14:9, 10; 10:38). And remember that people should be able to see God and Jesus in you, since Christians are also God’s agents to bear the saving Gospel of the Kingdom to others.
BTW, another man by the name of Bruce Barham wrote on this exact same subject on his own website (TorahofMessiah.com). He makes many of the same excellent points along with a few others. You can read it here: http://www.torahofmessiah.com/shaliach.htm
Hi Ron S
Excellent article, and so clearly explained that even dimwits like me could understand perfectly. Thanks for that.I will have a look at the other article on torahofmessiah as well
Fiona
Great study, also check out A.E. Harvey’s Jesus and the Constraints of History, “Son of God: the constraint of Monotheism”, 1980:
http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/01/jesus-and-constraints-of-history.html
Could anyone comment on Anthony Buzzard’s dissertation of Hebrews 1.10, regarding Jesus’ “co-creator” role in the Millenium? Agree or disagree?
I agree fully with everything Anthony said. As with Colossians 1 and Ephesians 1, Jesus is the Owner of the New Creation, through whom we’re in union with God.
Great, great post!
I’m just still having trouble understanding how or in what way the Messiah is said “in the beginning [to have] laid the foundation of the heavens and the earth”, when this is clearly referring to the Genesis 1.1 creation that appears in every OT reference [Ps 102.25-27; 104.2; Job 9.8; 26.7; 38:4-7; Isa 42.5; 44.24; 45.18; Jer 10.12; 51.12; Zech 12.1].
In other words, by this interpreation of the most difficult verse when it comes to our Socinian Christology, in the parousia the Messiah will recreate a “new heavens and earth” for the Millenium? And then these will be destroyed to make way for the final New Heavens and New Earth of Rev 21-22?
Xaiver,
But is the “in the beginning…” part of verse 10 really referring to the original creation?
If the context is defined as “the world to come, concerning which we are speaking” (just a scant nine verses further in Hebrews 2:5), then why couldn’t it be referring to Jesus as laying the foundation at the “beginning” of the future Messianic age - the “olam ha-ba”?
I view it that way so I’m inclined to agree with Anthony.
Our friends over at BiblicalUnitarian.com also agree with that assessment, but also present others who see a 2nd possibility. See here: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=139
Ron S.
The problem for me is that there’s really no precedent for interpreting “in the beginning you laid the foundation of the heavens and earth…” as referring to the Messianic age.
Like I stated above, in every one of its OT usage, this phrase is always used [it seems] for the Genesis creation. Whilst I appreciate the interpretation, it sounds like a long shot to me. Too many acrobatics to explain this one verse out of its Biblical context.
I heard the book of Hebrew is highly in question to it’s credibility as to it’s authorship. What is everyone’s thoughts on this?
Joseph
Hello,
I can understand how the shaliach principle destroys some of the traditional proof-texts used by trinitarians to support their view that Jesus is God. But I find it difficult to square the shaliach principle with some passages that describe God the Father and Jesus acting as co-executors. As a shaliach of God I would expect Jesus’ works to be described as what God did through Jesus or as what Jesus did on behalf of God, but not as what both God and Jesus did working side-by-side.
For example, Jesus said: “Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me” (John 14:1).
As God’s shaliach, it would seem more natural to me for him to have said the following instead:
“Believe in me, because by so doing you will effectively be believing in God”
or
“Believe in God, which you can accomplish in practice by believing in me.”
Another example: “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)
But why not the following instead?
“This is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, which they can achieve by getting to know me whom you have sent”
or
“And this is eternal life, that they know me whom you have sent, because doing so is tantamount to knowing you the only true God.”
“If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23).
But why not the following instead?
“If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. Then I will come to him and make my home with him, and my presence with him will be just as if the Father himself was dwelling with him”
or
“If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and will send me to make my home with him so that the Father will virtually reside with him too.”
Paul’s letters also describe the Father and Jesus working side-by-side rather than one of them acting in the other’s stead:
No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. (Ephesians 5:5)
Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you. (1 Thessalonians 3:11)
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17)
Ditto with the apostle John:
The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. (Revelation 20:6)
I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. (Revelation 21:22)
The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. (Revelation 22:3)
I would be very interested to read your comments to this please. Thank you and kind regards.
Phil
I would suggest you have a close look and study this Jewish principle in such passages as Ex 23.20f. where God uses an angel as His own Personal representative.
YHWH God works alongside as well as through His chosen agents. This does not do away with the fundamental Jewish-Christian creed of the Shema.
Thank you very much, Xavier.
I have read Exodus 23:20ff as you suggested but I don’t think it speaks of both God and the angel acting as the executors. For example, it says:
I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.
But it does not say:
I and an angel will go ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place we have prepared.
Contrast this with:
Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you. (1 Thessalonians 3:11)
and
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17)
When the Israelites celebrated their deliverance from Egypt, they did not praise both God and Moses for liberating them, even though (in different senses) both God and Moses delievered the Israelites from Egypt. The Israelites recognised that God was the first cause and chief executive of their deliverance, while Moses was merely an instrument in God’s hands. Moses’s willing cooperation was an important ingredient in the successful deliverance, and no doubt many of the Israelites revered Moses and celebrated him as a hero (at least initially). But after escaping from the pursuing Egyptians through the Red Sea, it seems to me highly unlikely that the Israelites would have sung:
“I will sing to the LORD and to Moses, for they are highly exalted. The horse and its rider the LORD has hurled into the sea, after Moses stretched out his staff over the sea so that the waters flowed back over the Egyptians.”
Instead the Israelites (including Moses) sang:
“I will sing to the LORD, for he is highly exalted. The horse and its rider he has hurled into the sea.” (Exodus 15:1)
Contrast this with:
If many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. (Romans 5:15)
Paul does not speak of ‘the grace of God through Jesus Christ’ but of the grace of both of them. And it is clear that ‘the grace of Jesus Christ’ is a genitive of possession rather than a genitive of association since it is juxtaposed with the grace of God rather than added as a sub-clause to define it.
Here Paul is attributing our salvation equally to the grace of God and to the grace of Jesus Christ. If God conveys or expresses his gracious love to mankind through a shaliach, it would always remain God’s own love and not the shaliach’s love, despite any loving intentions in the mind of the shaliach. Although God may perform loving actions through a shaliach, it is difficult to conceive how a shaliach can function as a *source* of the love that stems from God. At most the shaliach would be a conduit of God’s love but would not be worthy of being thanked alongside God for choosing to be gracious.
… according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12)
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:2)
If Jesus were merely a shaliach of God, I would expect this verse to read:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
or
Grace to you and peace from God our Father through the Lord Jesus Christ.
or
Grace to you and peace from the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the channel of God’s grace & peace to the world.
But Ephesians 1:2 is saying that the grace comes dually from both God and Jesus.
If a shaliach receives praise, he is not receiving glory due to himself per se but he is receiving glory vicariously on behalf of the one who sent him. Afterwards when the shaliach returns to the one who sent him with the wreaths, titles, and medals he has received, he would lay them down at the feet of the one who sent him and then step back out of the limelight. Those honours are the rightful property of the one who sent him. The glory is not to be shared between them, despite the shaliach’s faithfulness in prosecuting the commission entrusted to him.
Contrast that with:
And they cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Revelation 7:10)
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever!” The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshipped. (Revelation 5:13-14)
And neither would the shaliach share his sender’s glory before being commissioned to act as a shaliach. But Jesus spoke of the glory he shared with his Father before coming into the world.
Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5)
I am not denying that Jesus is a shaliach of God. It’s just that I don’t think that alone can adequately explain all the biblical data. There seems to me a much stronger ontological link between the Father and Jesus than merely a sender-shaliach relationship.
Mr McCheddar
Thank you for your well thought-out post.
What needs to be kept in mind here is not sh’liach alone. Sh’liach plays an over-arching role, as it were, in a complex set of relationships between Yahweh, Christ, and man. Christ does not act as messenger alone, as in the case of Ex. 23:20f. He acts as messenger (see John ch. 5-7) and son and heir and saviour and second Adam and king and priest. But altogether, as is seen in the Gospels, Jesus was a willing son, heir, saviour, second Adam, king and priest. Heb. 3:1 calls Jesus an Apostle. That is one of the most explicitly stated remarks on agency in the NT. Apostle is simply the Greek for sh’liach. See also the parable in Mt. 21:33-44.
So, yes, your examples could be taken into account, but in no way do they violate the central notion of agency in the NT. As the kings of the OT were exulted for their might and valour as executors of God’s will, Jesus, as the willing and obedient executor of the central will of God deserves our praise all the more; and as such as to ultimately exalt the Almighty Father and Originator of our Hero, Adonai Yehovah (Php 2:11)
Jaco
Phil writes…I am not denying that Jesus is a shaliach of God. It’s just that I don’t think that alone can adequately explain all the biblical data. There seems to me a much stronger ontological link between the Father and Jesus than merely a sender-shaliach relationship.
Response- Your observation is correct and the answer is found in how Jesus is the Son of God. Unitarians use words like literal and biological to describe a relationship of how Jesus originated from God yet deny an ontological connection reducing the term “Son of God” to a title only.
But most Unitarians will not openly state that Jesus as the Son of God is a title only because they can feel that the relationship between God and His Son is not merely a sender-shaliach relationship.
You have sensed that there is “a much stronger ontological link between the Father and Jesus” but how can there be only a link when it comes to an ontological connection between a father and son?
If one is the son of a father then there is ontological unity and that is the apparent paradox.
Michael
You said, “Unitarians use words like literal and biological to describe a relationship of how Jesus originated from God yet deny an ontological connection reducing the term “Son of God” to a title only.”
I’ve only been on this site since Christmas, but I’ve never once heard any Unitarian describe the relationship of how Jesus originated from God as biological. Unitarians believe Jesus was human (God is not human). Since you refuse to tell us what you believe, we have no idea if you believe Jesus was human or if you are even actually a Unitarian (all you ever do is come on this website and insult Unitarians and their beliefs while at the same time hiding behind your own secretive beliefs).
You continued to say, “If one is the son of a father then there is ontological unity and that is the apparent paradox.”
The paradox only exists in your mind and it will remain there until you are ready to share (in detail) what it is you believe. I clearly pointed out to you that I believe that God was Jesus’ spiritual father just like he was Adam’s spiritual father. Spiritually speaking they are ontologically the same, sharing the same spiritual make-up as one another.
There is no paradox and there never has been a paradox!!!
“I’ve only been on this site since Christmas, but I’ve never once heard any Unitarian describe the relationship of how Jesus originated from God as biological. Unitarians believe Jesus was human (God is not human).”
Thomas
just about all the unitarians here believe that Jesus was the biological son of God. The matter of fact is the other day Ron used the term God’s sperm as being used in the conception. I dont remember what thread.
As far as michael goes he must be atleast a oneness but more likely a twinitarian or trinitarian who sees the flaw in there claim but goes about in a very immature way to try to get them to admit it.
I wouldnt let him get to you
Robert
I didn’t realize that. I had never thought of Jesus as the (physical) biological Son of God. I always thought that we were his children in a spiritual sense. I still say there is no paradox and there never was a paradox. At least from my perspective anywaze…
Thomas
Michael has an agenda when he comes here.
I understand how you define it and spiritual sense does do justice to the relationship of Jesus to His father,our father, his God ,our God.
Hello everyone,
As a newcomer I ought to introduce myself as someone who believes the doctrine of the trinity but who rejects some of the evidence popularly cited for it and who is uncomfortable with the way this doctrine is commonly expressed eg. the Nicean creed. I am not here to attack anyone but to re-examine the validity of my beliefs by exposing them to your criticism, in case I may have made some wrong assumptions in the past.
Jaco, thanks for your comments. You wrote:
[i]As the kings of the OT were exulted for their might and valour as executors of God’s will, Jesus, as the willing and obedient executor of the central will of God deserves our praise all the more; and as such as to ultimately exalt the Almighty Father and Originator of our Hero, Adonai Yehovah (Php 2:11)[/i]
I agree with all that. But the NT does more than just praise Jesus as an obedient agent. It heaps honours on him that would not be appropriate for anyone to be given except Adonai Yehovah. 2 Cor.11:3 speaks about “our sincere and pure devotion to Christ” like a pure virgin belonging to one husband. Rev.14:4 says that we “were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God [b]and[/b] the Lamb”. And Paul declared he was “ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 21:13).
I can’t imagine that sort of language being used about Moses or Elijah or Gabriel. When Samson’s father wanted to offer a gift to the angel of the Lord, the angel self-effacingly replied: “Even though you detain me, I will not eat any of your food. But if you prepare a burnt offering, offer it to Yehovah.” (Judges 13:16) The message of Moses, Isaiah, and the other OT prophets was: “Come to God. Follow God. Obey God.” But Jesus’ message was thoroughly egocentric: “Come to me. Follow me. Obey me.”
Mr McCheddar,
Thanks for your reply and also for your good spirit.
It is interesting to hear that you do not accept some of the evidence in support of the trinity, including the Nicene Creed. I’m very curious to hear which of those you don’t accept and how you would “correct” the Nicene Creed.
You say,
Mr McCheddar, for us to accurately grasp the role Jesus plays in the outworking of God’s purpose, we have consider the bigger picture, instead of taking puzzle pieces, as it were, and divorce them from their whole. Crucial to this are direct statements, even those elaborated upon in confessional material. On two different occasions did the True God say of His son:
Mt. 3:17 “‘This is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’” (also 17:5)
Here we see approval by God Himself.
As King Designate, Jesus remained true to his calling. He knew that the prophecy in Ps. 2 would be fulfilled in him. Nations would be given him as his inheritance (Ps. 2:8). Jesus himself acknowledged also the prophecy of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52 and 53,
Mt. 12:18-21 “Look! My servant whom I chose, my beloved, whom my soul approved! I will put my spirit upon him, and what justice is he will make clear to the nations. He will not wrangle, nor cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the broadways. No bruised reed will he crush, and no smoldering flaxen wick will he extinguish, until he sends out justice with success. Indeed, in his name nations will hope.”
Take also the parable I referred to in Lu. 20:13, 14:
“At this the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my son the beloved. Likely they will respect this one.’ When the cultivators caught sight of him they went reasoning with one another, saying, ‘This is the heir; let us kill him, that the inheritance may become ours.’”
In all the confessional statements in Acts, Jesus is depicted, not as God or Yahweh or even an “aspect” of God (how confusing), but as the purposed and achieved obedient servant of Yahweh, the one who became the Saviour Yahweh intended him to be. Note the distinction in the following:
Acts. 2:22 “…Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.”
Acts. 3:13-16 “The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers [Adonai Yehovah], has glorified his servant, Jesus, whom you, for your part delivered up and disowned before Pilate’s face…You disowned that holy and righteous one…[and] killed the Chief Agent of life. Consequently his name, by our faith in his name, as made this man strong whom you behold and know, and the faith that is through him has given the man this complete soundness in the sight of all of you.”
Acts. 5:30, 31 “The God of our forefathers [Adonai Yehovah] raised up Jesus, whom you slew, hanging him upon a stake. God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. ”
Mr McCheddar, did you see the antecedent to Jesus’ glorious name? Because of his righteousness, his obedience, and what this servant’s death achieved, namely life through his agency. Because of all these reasons - reasons making Jesus irrevocably subordinate, unequal, and distinct from, not only God the Father (which trinitarians readily accept), but Yahweh! The distinction in being is thus fully articulated.
True, there are many texts that can be sited showing Jesus as the one to be glorified and honored. These are all fair. But these do not by necessity prove Jesus to be Almighty God. In fact, the context of many confessional statements put these statements of honor nicely in context, showing Jesus to be an integral part of the Big Picture, while not the Ultimate or the Sovereign One in the Picture. So, while all the texts commonly used by trinitarians may prove an aspect of the trinity when these are divorced from their immediate and extended contexts, as well as their linguistic, cultural and anthropomorphic meanings, the opposite – namely, the evidence against the trinity – is not met without much innovation, logical and linguistic acrobatics and strained interpretation. You can compare the installments by Dave Burke and Robert Bowman over at Parchment and Pen, and see their respective approaches for yourself. That is from a purely logical and formal reasoning point of view.
Take for instance your reference to the words in 2 Cor. 11:3
Divorcing this from the greater picture of Jesus’ saving work and the Church being the bride, we could conclude that this Christ can be God here. But, see this piece of the puzzle as part of the greater picture. The following texts should create the setting of this piece:
1 Cor. 6:15, 17, 19, 20 – “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I, then, take the members of the Christ away and make them members of a harlot?…But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Do you not know that the body of you people is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God? Also, you do not belong to yourselves for you were bought with a price.”
Also, Jude 4 – “…certain men have slipped in…turning the undeserved kindness of our God in to an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ.” How did Jude view the relation of God to Christ? vs. 25 “…to the only God our Saviour through Jesus Christ our Lord, be the glory, majesty, might and authority for all…”
These texts greatly put the text in 2 Cor. 11:3 in clear context. This will also answer the question regarding Rev. 14.
Also take your reference to Jesus saying, Come to me. Follow me. Obey me. Jesus also said that he would be the Way and the Truth and the Life. Even in this context of Jesus’ Upper Room Discourse did he say:
John 14:6b, 13 “No one comes to the Father except through me. Also, whatever it is that you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son.”
As the prophet like Moses (Deut. 18) Jesus had to be the one whose example and commands we are to follow.
So, the overall picture presents Jesus as someone superior to anyone who ever lived. He is thus a greater reality of types of people and roles already established in the OT. As with the kings of Israel and Judah, Jesus would receive honor and glory as a King who conquered, not only human rulers (Re. 16:14, 16), but also our ultimate enemies, Satan, demons, sin and death. He deserves greater honor for doing that. The kind of death we are redeemed from is not natural death - although his saving work will have us eat from “trees of life” (Re. 22:2) – but eternal death. He is our eternal father, the Second Adam, in the real sense of the word, in that he ensured regeneration of our human lives. He is the victorious long-awaited Messiah…so I can go on and on, describing the superlative roles Jesus fulfills and the exaltation he receives for those. But all these are allowed within the frame and setting the Bible allows for Jesus. That frame and setting excludes his being God Almighty, but consistently presents him as God Almighty’s faithful representative and son.
Regards,
Jaco
P.S. Mr McCheddar, you are welcome to read our comments on the Burke/Bowman debate under the article, “Another Trinity/Monotheism Debate”
Hello Jaco,
Thank you for taking the time to write me a thoughtful, lengthy reply. I am mulling over what you said and will re-read it carefully.
I read elsewhere on this blog about some hostile attitudes by trinitarians towards unitarians. I certainly do not regard you that way and I wince at the thought of how intolerant and hurtful some Christians are. As a member of ‘the other side’, I am grateful for your warm welcome here on this blog.
By the way, if I am wrong to worship Jesus of Nazareth as God, surely I am guilty of breaking the 1st commandment and of committing idolatry, a sin so heinous that God threatened to destroy the nation of Israel if they did it. Does it not follow therefore that you shouldn’t regard me as a true Christian but as an unbeliever on the road to hell? I ask this because I have noticed some of you on this blog refer to trinitarians as ‘fellow Christians’.
You asked me which popular ‘proofs’ of Jesus’ deity I reject. Several examples were cited in the lead article at the top of this thread, such as Jesus being called Saviour, Judge, Shepherd, etc. Also Jesus’ claim “I and the Father are one”. I don’t know how I would re-word the Nicene creed. To be honest I find it virtually impossible to define my understanding of the relationship between the Father and Son taking into account all the biblical data. Also I find myself torn between different viewpoints and in a state of flux at the moment. Both sides of the debate seem to have plausible arguments!
I have a few questions which are not related directly to agency (the subject of the lead article at the top of this thread). I hope you don’t mind if I tag those questions on to the comments here.
Where do you draw the line between honouring Jesus as highly as he deserves and idolising him? How far is too far? When does your praise for Jesus overstep the mark and begin to glorify the creature instead of the Creator? What behaviour do you render towards God Almighty that you would not render towards Jesus? Why do you think the bible never gives any indication that God Almighty feels jealous if too much adoration is bestowed on Jesus - for example, the Father does not feel slighted or snubbed but rather is glorified when every knee bows to Jesus?
Respectfully,
Phil
Mr McCheddar
To be honest, at times my own temper has gotten the better of me. Even though the resolve is there to keep one’s cool in the face of malice, snide and sarcasm, there were times I terminated a conversation very harshly. That’s my part in this.
I agree with the article on many trinitarians’ aggressive reaction without even the willingness to at least consider the other one’s reason for his/her belief. Popular trinitarian sites are simply drenched in unbelievably demeaning and judgmental remarks. I cannot accept that. Speaking of judgment:
Mr McCheddar, I cannot estimate anybody’s fate. Our eternal fate can simply not be determined this side of the Judgment. All we can do is to be honest, receptive for truth and willing to hear the other person’s views. As soon as one gains knowledge, Mr McCheddar, one becomes responsible and accountable. That is what makes these issues so serious. Then we have worldviews and dogmas engrained into our minds by our parents, life-long religion, media and even idiom. These are all impediments to accurately living the truth. Our merciful Judge will take all these factors into account when rendering judgment (Isaiah ch. 11). In the mean time we are all at different places in our spiritual journey and we have to grant each one his direction and rate of growth.
I think a major issue may come in when one wants to use communion. How do I distinguish who to include in a meal that signifies unity and peace among us? Here everyone has to decide for himself. I won’t be allowed to use communion among Christadelphians. I will gladly share communion with them, however. Although I would be counted as among the “users of the emblems” by the Watchtower (or most probably be suspected of apostasy instead), I do not feel at peace with them, so I cannot do that. The way I feel now, I won’t use communion with characters like Robert Morey, Michael Brown or even Robert Bowman. Not because I have made a judgment on their eternal fate, but because of certain utterances and statements toward Biblical Unitarianism that I find nothing less than blasphemous.
Mr McCheddar, I can fully relate to what you’re saying here. My spiritual journey has had its moments, let me tell you! My search included questioning my traditional beliefs as a youngster, becoming a Jehovah’s Witness, questioning Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, even atheism, every time finding myself stuck with truth, as revealed in the Bible, and now being a Biblical Unitarian. As hard and even painful as it may sound, flux and change…is good.
Mr McCheddar, these are such difficult questions! I’d say, from a more psychological point of view, that the line is drawn when an accurate cognitive understanding is achieved. If I realise that astrology does nothing for me, I will start to lose my devotion to it. If I’m a Buddhist and I realise that the Dalai Lama is a mere human, I will continue to honor and respect him for his superlative devotion to goodness, but my own realisation will limit the extent to that honor and respect. The same goes with realising the position of both Yahweh and Jesus. One’s reaction to that realisation will gradually take shape.
I suggest one starts by calling them differently. I call Jesus “my King.” I call God “my Father Jehovah.” The distinction in nomination will cognitively create the distinction among the referents. What can also help is to meditate on each One’s distinct role and to do so especially before prayer. I pray to Jesus, Mr McCheddar. He is alive and involved with his body of followers. I have to pray to him if I want to know him! I need to know him, not as my God, Almighty, but as my helper and hero. I obviously pray to Almighty God, Yahweh, and I thank him and glorify him for being the Originator and Facilitator of all of this.
I cannot really answer this by direct evidence, since the Bible does not address it directly. All I can say is that Jesus humbled himself before God. He did not even consider snatching at something not rightfully his (divine independence from God). Since that pleased God and was one of the greatest conditions for Jesus’ exaltation, failure to do so would have met with Divine disapproval and retribution. God has confidence in Jesus’ subordinate role he plays. Bowing the knee in Jesus name has a purpose. It is also stated in a purposive clause in Php 2:11, namely to glorify God the Father.
God bless you, Mr McCheddar,
Jaco
P.S. I will share communion with you, Mr McCheddar.
Jaco
I believe all good people who love their fellow human as they love themself will receive salvation and I see them as the multitude washed clean by Jesus.
This group includes trinitarians, unitarians ,atheist, muslums and any other religion if you take into account they are all deceived in their on way by satan.
so i see no reason not to communion with people who possess the qualities of the teachings of Jesus reguardless of their doctrines.
God can show Grace to whomever He choses.
Jaco
When’s your book coming out?