1

Double Standards of Religious People By

Charles Nelson

Introduction Religious people, when looking at other religions, easily find contradictions and inconsistencies in them without somehow seeing the same problems in their own religion. This disparity is generally due to the assumption that their religion is the true one, and so all other religions must be false. Such a subjective and double standard, of course, allows any seeming problem in their own religion to be somehow harmonized, rationalized, or called a mystery of God, while in another religion, it shows that God didn’t inspire that religion.

In this essay, although all that I say in general may be applied to the adherents of other religions, I focus on Christianity, simply because I am most familiar with this religion, having once been a Christian, and because I feel that the deification of Jesus is a serious error. As a non-Christian, naturally, I do not consider the Bible to be infallible, although parts of it are reliable and may even be inspired. Even so, I will use it to establish common areas of agreement with Christian readers. Before beginning, let’s review some essentials for determining our approach to religious beliefs. Our beliefs come from what we hear (Romans 10:14-17) and from what we have read. If we mishear or misread something in the Bible, we will misunderstand it, and to the degree that Christians misunderstand the biblical books, to that degree they believe wrongly. Four areas that can cause misunderstanding are traditional interpretation, culture, language, and the nature of the Bible. F. F. Bruce,1 an evangelical Christian and as he says "a man of one book," states that many Christians who supposedly accept only the authority of the Bible and reject the authority of tradition, in fact, have an "unwritten tradition. . . . Indeed, in some more enclosed traditions the authority of Scripture will be identified with the authority of the accepted interpretation and application, because it has never occurred to those inside the enclosure that Scripture could be interpreted or applied otherwise" (p. 14). Bruce gives an anecdote of how, when discussing principles and methods of biblical criticism with some theological students on a section of the Bible, they rejected conclusions which, although they were likely the best and did not contradict other Scripture, were not part of their received interpretation. When Bruce asked what their objection was, one of them finally answered, "What you say seems quite logical, but some of us feel that if we accepted these conclusions we should be letting down the evangelical side" (p. 15). Bruce notes also that "many parts of Scripture mean more to Christians today than they did to their predecessors in the early centuries AD because of what they have meant to intervening generations of Christians. (It is equally true that they often meant something to Christians in the early centuries AD that they could not mean today. . . .)" (167). 1 Tradition Old and New.

2

To become free from the bias of traditional interpretation and understand the Bible more correctly, we must study the culture, language, and nature of the Bible. Even conservative Christian scholars say the same. To understand the Bible, Wilson2 says Christians "need to be familiar with other early Jewish sources which provide linguistic, theological, and historical insight into both Testaments" (pp. 118-119). (In fact, much Hebrew has been interpreted by scholars on the basis of cognates in other Semitic languages.) Concurring, Waltke writes that people must approach the Bible objectively and spiritually. As he notes, though, "relying on the Spirit is no substitute for learning," and states that students of the Bible must understand textual criticism, literary genre, philology, the background of the text including geography, history, culture, and so on, figures of speech, and context. Although not all evangelical Christian scholars agree with Waltke about the need for historical criticism, he cites others who do. I. H. Marshall states that "in reality the Christian cannot deny the legitimacy of historical criticism," and F. F. Bruce asserts that "Doubt comes in at the window, when Inquiry is denied at the door" (p. 119). None of this is to say, of course, that evangelicals need to accept the results of historical criticism when it denies the supernatural working of God in history. One cultural problem is that modern westerners do not think like the people of the Bible. We tend to analyze things, to group or separate things logically. Contradictory ideas bother us. However, what may seem contradictory to us, may, to others, simply be facets of the same truth like different colors coming from one prism. Along these lines, the Essenes—a sect of Jews in Jesus’ time—believed in both predestination and in free will. Likewise, the author of the “Wisdom of Solomon” wrote that wisdom was born (6:22), yet was also “unchanging” (7:27) and the “pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty” (7:25). Similarly, most Christians would not imagine that conservative and monotheistic Jews in the time of Jesus would have images in their synagogues, but as Smith3 notes, the synagogues in Bet Shearim were "freely adorned with drawings and, less freely, even with statues carved in relief . . . a use of animal and human forms in high relief . . . the use of conventional representations of the pagan sun god as the central ornament in the mosaic floors of a number of synagogues" (pp. 184-185). Culture is also important in interpreting the Bible. For instance, many people interpret Mark 7:19 ("Thus he declared all foods clean") to mean that Jesus did away with the dietary laws of the OT. If he had meant that, then he would have violated his own previous statement of people "neglecting the commandment of God, [but holding] to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8). Rabbinic literature shows that the rabbis argued over what defiled food, such as unwashed cups, dishes, and hands (cf. Matthew 23: 25-26; Mark 7:1-5). Without proper washing, clean food became unclean. So when Jesus declared all foods clean, he means that all foods permitted by God are clean, whether or not Jews cleaned their dishes and hands according to tradition.4 Neusner concurs and states that the issue being debated "is not merely a matter of prohibited foods, such as not eating

2Marvin R. Wilson, (1989), Our father Abraham: Jewish roots of the Christian faith, Grand Rapids, MI and Dayton, OH: Eerdmans Publishing Company and Center for Judaic-Christian Studies. 3Morton Smith. Palestinian Judaism in the first century. In Henry A. Fischel (Ed.), Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature. New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1977. 183-197. 4 I’ll cover this topic more thoroughly later, but Jesus never broke any laws of God found in the OT, including the Sabbath. Any disagreements he had with the Pharisees were disputes on how to implement the law, not the law itself.

3

pork or certain kinds of fish. The issue is ritual defilement, and again ritual purity is set into tension with moral rules: evil thoughts, pride, and so on."5 Another problem area is language. Words in Greek and Hebrew do not have exactly the same meaning when translated into English, often resulting in misunderstandings. Even harder to interpret correctly are idiomatic phrases. For a modern example, imagine a Russian listening to two Americans arguing and hearing one of them say, “If you say that again, I’ll give you a knuckle sandwich.” The Russian thinks, “Hmm, I’ve never had pigs’ knuckles on bread before.” Now consider a biblical example (Matthew 6:22, 23): “If your eye is good, you’ll be full of light. If your eye is bad, you’ll be full of darkness.” In Hebrew, a person with a good eye is generous, and a person with an evil eye is greedy or stingy (see a literal translation of Proverb 22:9; 23.6; 28:22). And so Jesus is simply saying that generous people are righteous, but stingy and greedy people are unrighteous. Note how this interpretation fits the context: In the verse before, we read ‘your heart will be where your treasure is,’ and in the following verse we read that you can’t serve God and mammon (riches). To sum up, when reading the Bible, we need to know the culture, language, and nature of the Bible to understand it correctly. With this point in mind, let’s look at Christians’ double standard in three areas: (1) critiquing other religions, (2) comparing the Bible to other holy books, and (3) assigning deity to Jesus but not to other people. And let me emphasize again that, although I am examining the double standards of Christians, almost all religious people do the same. For every point I make about Christians, let my readers (and myself) look in the mirror. Critiquing Other Religions When critiquing another religion, many religious people make comparisons between their religion and the other, generally pointing out their own “positive” points and the other’s “negative” points, while ignoring the other’s positive points and their own “negative” points. Naturally, to illustrate Christians’ double standard, I must make comparisons; however, my intent is not to disparage any of the actions of the culture and people of the Bible. Instead, I simply want to show that there is no real difference between Biblical standards and those of many other religions. A favorite point that Christians like to make is that their founder Jesus was perfect and without sin, while the founders of other religions were not perfect. However, they conveniently ignore the failings of their other prophets and writers of scripture. Jacob stole his brother’s birthright and blessing, and tricked his uncle in their work agreement (Genesis 25:29-34; 27:1-40; 30:27-43). Joseph reduced the people of Egypt to slavery (Genesis 47:21). Moses killed an Egyptian before fleeing to Midian (Exodus 2:12). Samson, a man given miraculous strength by God, seems to be interested in only two things: fighting and women (Judges 14-16). David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband to cover it up (2 Samuel 11). Elijah had a bear kill 40 youngsters who called him baldy (2 Kings 2:23-24). Paul was an accessory to the murder of Stephen (Acts 7:58). Solomon, in his later life, turned away from God (1 Kings 11:4).

5 Jacob Neusner, From politics to piety: The emergence of pharisaic Judaism (p. 73), (2nd Ed.), NY: KTAV, 1979.

4

Yet all of their writings are still considered by Christians to be holy scripture, whether in the Old Testament (OT) or in the New Testament (NT). In other words, by Christian standards, sinning does not change the status of these men as prophets or men of God nor does it nullify their writings as inspired by God. Yet, if there are any seeming faults in the men of another religion, it is assumed that those men could not have been prophets, could not have been inspired by God, and could not have written scripture. Another major point, according to Christians, is that other religions have an inferior standard of morality. For example, when looking at Islam, they often point to a Muslim’s possibility of having more than one wife.6 However, many people in the Bible had more than one wife. Abraham, Christians’ spiritual forefather (Romans 4), had one wife and one concubine.7 His concubine, Hagar, was the slave8 of his wife Sarah, who had given her to him to bear children for her as a surrogate mother according to the customs of that time. Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, married two sisters (Genesis 29:16-28), which is later forbidden in the law (Leviticus 18:18). Solomon is famous for having 1000 wives and concubines. His father David also had quite a few (2 Samuel 5:13; 20:3). In fact, David married one of his wives, Abigail, a woman of considerable wealth, as soon as her husband Nabal died, a man who had refused to give food free to David (1 Samuel 25). If you don’t assume that the Bible is scripture and that David is a man anointed by God, it looks like David’s running a protection racket. Of course, Christians look at it from another point of view, and many Christians simply say that these prophets and kings sinned by having more than one wife. Regardless, the Bible, and therefore God, tacitly approves having more than one wife by giving instructions on how to treat the first wife when a man takes a second one (Exodus 21:10). (Only kings were not supposed to have more than one wife.) Even in the NT, we see implicit acceptance of more than one wife where Paul states that an overseer should have only one wife (1 Timothy 3:2). If having more than one wife was a sin, Paul would have forbidden it not only for overseers, but for all believers. In a related area, Christians like to point to their “higher” standard of marriage since Jesus forbade divorce except for unchastity (Matthew 5:31; Mark 10:11-12). However, Abraham sent Hagar and her boy away into the desert. When Ezra came to Jerusalem, he had all the Jews divorce their foreign wives and send them away with their children (Ezra 10:1-17). A slave had no choice of staying with their wife if she had been given to him by his master. When the slave was freed by his master, God stipulated that the master kept the wife and children (Exodus 21:4). Christians often believe that women are oppressed in other religions. Nevertheless, God Himself says that the husband will rule over his wife (Genesis 3:16). And, although women had some rights in the Bible, they were also considered property to some degree, as can be seen in the fact that God said the Israelites could sell their own

6 A man is permitted to have a maximum of four wives according to the Kur’an. 7 The word in Hebrew for woman can also mean wife or concubine. Context determines the best English word. 8 Many English Bibles translate the word ‘slave’ as ‘maidservant.’ However, ‘slave’ is the better translation and Paul agrees (Galatians 4:22). See pages 112 and 946-47 on maidservants and slaves in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, Archer, and Waltke, published by Moody Bible Institute, a conservative Christian school.

5

daughters (Exodus 21:7). Elsewhere in the Bible, we read that, although there may be one upright man in 1000, there are no upright women (Ecclesiastes 7:28). In the NT, although Paul says that there is neither male nor female in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28), he definitely assigns them to an inferior position. Women must pray with their heads covered and must remain silent in church, because it’s disgraceful for them to speak in public (1 Corinthians 11:5; 14:34-35). Besides being silent, women are not permitted to teach or have authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). And although women are the weaker partner (1 Peter 3:7), they will be saved through childbearing (1 Timothy 2:15). According to Paul, one reason women are inferior is that they are the cause of original sin (1 Timothy 2:14). As you can see, the Bible does not accord with modern standards of equality. It must be admitted that most Christians do not follow or believe in those verses, even though they were supposedly inspired by God. However, they do not allow the same latitude to other religions. Not only women have a secondary position in the Bible. The OT permits people to buy slaves (Leviticus 25:44), and the NT enjoins slaves to obey their masters (1 Timothy 6:1). Although Israelite slaves were to be freed after a certain number of years, non-Israelites remained slaves for life and were considered property (Leviticus 25:46). And although Israelite slaves were not to be treated ruthlessly (Leviticus 25:46), no such instruction was given for non-Israelite slaves. Indeed, an Israelite could beat his non-Israelite slave with the only limit being that the slave had to survive a day or two after the beating (Exodus 21:21). Christians like to think of their religion as one of peace and love, and consider Islam, for example, to be a religion of war. However, Christians have inherited a religion and holy book based on blood and war. When the Israelites entered the Holy Land, they slaughtered thousands of people including babies (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:3,6,7; Joshua 6:21; 8:26; 10:28,30,35,38, 40; etc.), supposedly on the orders of God. Indeed, according to the Psalmist (137:9), God commends the dashing of the infants of one’s enemies against rocks! Time and again, they took booty (Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:7; Joshua 8:27; 11:14; etc.) and left no survivors except when they wanted women. They took 32,000 virgins from the Midianites, not to mention hundreds of thousands of animals and gold taken as booty (Numbers 31:25-54). And let us not forget that Jesus, in the Last Days, will wage war, execute judgment, and send unbelievers to Hell on Judgment Day (Revelation 2:16; 19:15,21). The Bible commends the above actions and also some that seem to be treachery. Ehud, a deliverer given to the Jews by God, seems to have treacherously killed Eglon (Judges 3:15-23). Also Jael, supposedly on friendly relations with Sisera, after giving him milk to drink and hiding him, drove a peg into his brain (Judges 4:17-21). And this action was commended by God through the prophetess Deborah (Judges 5:24-27,31). Such actions did not end with the “holy” wars of Israel. While David was taking shelter with Achish, a Philistine king, he raided different peoples that seemed to be under Achish’s protection (1 Samuel 27). To ensure that Achish didn’t find out, he left no survivors, but took plenty of booty. In fact, David is said to have tortured captives of war

6

(2 Samuel 12:31; 1 Chronicles 20:3).9 Such behavior, though, was normal: It was “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth . . .” (Exodus 21:24,25). People were put to death for many different reasons. They were executed for working on the Sabbath, even for just gathering wood (Exodus 31:14; Numbers 15:32-36). They were also stoned for showing disrespect to their parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Again, when looking at the morality found in the Bible, my point is not to judge, but simply to make comparisons and show the double standard used by Christians. That is, much of what Christians denigrate in other religions is found in the Bible. Comparing the Bible to Other Books A major plank in the double standard platform of Christians is their claim concerning the Bible in comparison with other holy writings. That is, the Bible is the Word of God, while other scriptures were really written by men. Thus, for Christians, the Bible is internally consistent and has not been corrupted. Consequently, I shall look at the inconsistencies of the Bible first and then its corruption in transmission. Inconsistencies in the Bible Inconsistencies easy to see are numerical discrepancies. For instance, Solomon’s bath basin contained 2000 baths in 1 Kings 7:26 but 3000 baths in 2 Chronicles 4:5, or the 700 charioteers versus the 7000 (2 Samuel 10:18 vs. 1 Chronicles 19:18), or 7 years of famine vs. 3 (2 Samuel 24:13 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:11), etc.10 Besides the minor numerical inconsistencies, there are many contradictions of facts, prophecies, and theology. A few factual problems occur in Exodus. For example, God supposedly told Moses that he had not made his name Yahweh known to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 6:3); however, this verse conflicts with the use of Yahweh in Genesis 12:8; 15:2,7,8 and elsewhere. Also it seems that the author of Exodus didn’t understand the word all, because after God killed all the livestock of Egypt with one plague (Exodus 9:6), He killed some more (Exodus 9:25), and finally destroyed some more horses in the Red Sea (Exodus 14:9). Another minor problem in Exodus is that Moses seems to have entered the “Tent of Meeting” before it had been made (33:7 vs. 40). In the NT, there are two completely different accounts of the death of Judas: he hanged himself in Matthew (27:5), or he fell down and his bowels spilt open in Acts (1:18). Finally, the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke don’t match, not to mention that Matthew has a problem counting: his first group of names has only 13 generations, although he says each group has 14. And there are many other such discrepancies. 9 Modern translations of these verses say that David put the captives to work, but for more than 2000 years, both Jews and Christians translated that David tortured the captives. The Septuagint also confirms that torture is the correct translation. Even the New American Standard Bible, first published in 1960, translates the verse as one of torture. 10 In some Bibles, the verses agree because they use the numbers found in the Greek Septuagint rather than those in the Hebrew text. Generally, however, these discrepancies will be noted in footnotes.

7

In addition to disagreements of fact, many of the prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled are problematic. For example, in the prophecy on being born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14-17), before the prophesied boy would know enough to discriminate between good and evil, “the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.” Since this destruction occurred before Jesus was born, that prophecy obviously was fulfilled before Jesus was born, and so applied to a different child—which implies that some child in Jewish history besides Jesus was born of a virgin.11 Of course, Christians believe in dual fulfillment of prophecy, which means that it's okay to apply the same prophecy to more than one person, time, and situation. Even so, we still have two virgin births, then. Problems with some prophecies are even noted by Richard Longenecker, a conservative Christian scholar, who writes that “in three instances, however, [Paul] appears to be quoting Scripture quite without regard to the original context.”12 One of those instances deals with Galatians 3:16 and Genesis 12:7; 13:15; 15:18; 17:7f.; 22:17f.; 24:7. “The term ‘seed’ in the Abrahamic promise is a generic singular and refers to the posterity of Abraham as an entity” (p. 123). Another instance is Ephesians 4:8 with Psalm 68:18. “As Paul employs the verse, the reading is ‘he gave gifts to men’ . . . which alters both the MT and LXX text-forms by changing the second person singular to the third person singular and substituting for ‘take’ or ‘receive’ . . . the idea of ‘give’ or ‘apportion’ ... The change of person might not be very significant, but the substitution of ‘gave’ for ‘received’ entirely reverses the idea of the passage in the Hebrew and Greek Bibles” (p. 124). (Longenecker’s other example is Romans 6-8 with Deuteronomy 30:12-14.) Longenecker also asks, “Who would have suspected, for example—apart from a knowledge of Matthew’s Gospel—that anything of messianic significance could be derived from (1) God’s calling Israel’s children out of Egypt, (2) Jeremiah’s reference to Rachel weeping for her children in Rama, (3) a statement regarding the lands of Zebulun and Naphtali, or (4) the payment to Zechariah of thirty pieces of silver and his subsequent action of giving them to the potter” (p. 140-41). In other words, the NT writers were imaginative in finding prophecies and often cited the OT without regard to context or reality. Moving on to theological contradictions, I note that a major one is the requirement of a sacrifice. In the OT, God required sacrifices to atone for sins and to bring forgiveness to the sinner.13 Yet the author of Hebrews (10:3,4,11) says that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin. That author is not alone. Even in the OT, many verses say sacrifices are not required. God forgives people in his faithful love (Numbers 14:19, 20), in His compassion (Psalm 78:38), and for the sake of His name (Psalm 25:11), especially to those who confess their sin to him (Psalm 32:5) and have a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 51:17). Daniel (4:27) teaches that one can atone for sins by doing right and being kind to the oppressed. Both John the Baptist (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3) and Jesus (Luke 24:47) taught repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and the first 11 There is much disagreement on the meaning of the Hebrew word for the woman giving birth. That is, does it mean “virgin” or simply “a young woman”? If the former is assumed, then a second virgin birth must be assumed. 12 Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, p. 121. 13 Leviticus 4:26,31,35; 5:10,13,16; 6:7.

8

sermon at Pentecost agrees (Acts 2:38). In the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus teaches that God forgives the sins of those who truly repent without sacrificial blood (Luke 11:15-32). And since, Jesus tells us to forgive our brothers seventy times seven times in a day without requiring anything analogous to a sacrifice (Matthew 18:21-22), will God be less merciful?14 A second and related contradiction is doing away with sacrifices via the blood of Jesus. First, the sacrifices in the Mosaic law were to be eternal.15 (Eternal is often translated as ‘lasting’ or ‘perpetual,’ but it’s the same word in Hebrew.) Not only that, God through Moses said that the laws he had given16 were not to be added to nor subtracted from (Deuteronomy 4:2). In contrast, the author of Hebrews (8:7-13) writes that God will replace it with a new covenant.17 Then again, if the verses cited in the above paragraph and footnote 8 say that there is no need for a sacrifice, then there seems to be no need for Jesus’ sacrifice, either. That new covenant, of course, is based on the atonement of the blood of Jesus. However, if his blood is all-sufficient, why doesn’t it take care of the sin of not forgiving other people (Matthew 6:15; 18:35)? Or how does turning “a sinner from the error of his way . . . cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20)? How is it that “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8)? That is, if Christians’ sins are already covered, then how does something else also cover them? And if Jesus’ sacrifice was perfect, how could Paul say that he was supplying something lacking in Christ’s affliction (Colossians 1:24). So it seems that the blood of Jesus is not all-sufficient, or at least is not the only factor involved in atonement. Hebrews 10 says that Jesus' sacrifice brings a believer to perfection, removes awareness of sin, and frees the believer from a bad conscience. I've yet to meet the perfect Christian who has no awareness of sin and doesn't have his conscience bother him at times. Perhaps, you'll say that the Christian is perfected when he dies. The author of Hebrews would disagree, because he writes that if a Christian continues to sin, there remains no more sacrifice for sin and the Christian cannot be renewed to repentance (Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26ff.). (Somehow, the author of Hebrews also seems to negate the perfection of Jesus’ sacrifice.) Indeed, the writer of Hebrews has made life even more terrible for believers, because if a person continues to sin after becoming a believer, “no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (Hebrews 10:26). At least with the Law, we could keep offering sacrifices to bring atonement and remain in the favor of God, but the author 14 Read also Psalms 32:1,2,5; 51:1,7,9,10,17; 65:3; 78:38; 103:3,10; 130:3,4; Proverb 28:13; Isaiah 6:7; 55:7; Jeremiah 15:19; 33:8; Ezekiel 18:30-32; 33:11ff.; 36:31-33; Daniel 4:27; 9:24; Jonah 3:5ff., Micah 7:18-20; Zechariah 3:4-6; etc. 15 Leviticus 3:17; 16:29,30,34; 17:7; 23:14,21,31,41; 24:3,8; Numbers 10:8; 19:21. 16 Leviticus 7:38; 26:46; 27:34; Numbers 36:13. 17Although Christians may point out that Jeremiah (31:31-34) also speaks of a new convenant in the OT, it's not clear that it's a different coverant. Jeremiah says that God will write His law into their minds and upon their hearts--not change the law--whereas before the Law had been written on stone tablets and/or other materials. In fact, the adjective "new" in the "new covenant" is derived from the verb hadash, which means to rebuild or restore, which easily lends itself to the idea of restoring the original covenant with Israel, except this time it would be not only letters written into stone and parchment, but the spirit placed into the hearts and minds of the believers.

9

of Hebrews says once we’ve fallen out of favor, that’s it: it's time to go to hell. Regardless, the author of Hebrews disagrees with Leviticus and Jesus, and therefore his writings cannot be considered scripture. Not only were sacrifices done away with, so was the law. Paul says the man who abides by it is cursed (Galatians 3:10) and in many places asserts that Christians must not obey the Mosaic law. However, as noted above, the law was to be eternal and not to be added to or subtracted from. In addition, both the Psalmist and Jesus support the Law: The Psalmist writes that he loves God’s law because it fills him with delight, is sweeter than honey, and is better than gold (Psalm 119:1,45,47,72,97,103); it is pure, refreshes the soul and brings joy to the heart (Psalm 19:7-10); and the man who walks in the law of God is blessed (Psalm 1:1,2). Jesus himself said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill them. Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one jot or tittle will disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but the person who keeps them and teaches them will be considered great in the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19). Somehow Christians claim that since Jesus is the “fulfillment” of the Law, they are not under the Law.18 However, Jesus’ teaching is radically different. First of all, heaven and earth have not yet disappeared, so it seems that nothing has departed from the Law. Second, it's probably a safe bet that not all has been accomplished until at least the second coming and perhaps until Judgment Day. Third, Jewish believers continued to worship and praise God in the temple after the resurrection. Fourth, when Paul came to Jerusalem, all the Jewish Christians were still keeping the Law and Paul himself underwent ritual purification (Acts 21:20ff.) Fifth, even Paul says that a Jew should remain a Jew and circumcised (1 Corinthians 7:17-19), because it's important to keep the commandments of God. Sixth, in rabbinic Hebrew “abolishing the Law” and “fulfilling the Law” mean respectively to misinterpret and interpret correctly the Law.19 These meanings are easily seen in the verses following Matthew 5:19 where Jesus continues and shows how he interprets the Law, and in fact, makes it more difficult to keep, because to keep it is not merely a matter of mechanically obeying the letter of the Law, but seeking and implementing the spirit of the Law:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. � You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' � But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the

18 The issue of law vs. grace is quite complicated, and I can’t go into it in this short essay. 19 W. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jüdischen Traditionsliteratur (Nachdruck Darmstadt 1965), I, pp. 170-172, II pp. 186-189, B Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Uppsala, 1961, p. 287, cited in “An Early Jewish-Christian Document in the Tiburtine Sibyl” in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, David Flusser, p. 378.

10

Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. [Etc.] �

Finally, Jesus clearly says that people who keep and teach the law will be great in God’s sight.20 Attempts to undermine Jesus’ words are mere sophistry and forget that Jesus is the foundation of Christianity (1 Corinthians 3:11-15). Of course, according to Christians, the above theological contradictions do not exist, because in effect God abrogated in the person of Jesus Christ the contradicting verses and virtually whole books in the OT. However, such a claim begs the question. The fact that earlier scriptures had to be canceled shows that they are contradictory. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need to be canceled.21 Related to the canceling of verses is the problem is determining how much of the “inspired” Bible God really wants Christians to follow. Besides the verses already mentioned, Jesus also said that God had permitted the Israelites to divorce their wives on account of the hardness of their hearts (Matthew 19:8), which implies that God inspired scripture that He didn’t agree with and that Jesus canceled (Matthew 19:9). Naturally, then, we might ask how much else of the Bible, including the NT, was written due to the hardness of believers’ hearts and so should be canceled today? The Bible is not a coherent book with an internally consistent theology, as can be seen by the above inconsistencies and contradictions.22 Again, my point is not to speak on whether the Bible is inspired or not. Rather, it is a double standard to insist upon other holy books being perfectly consistent not only with themselves, but also with an inconsistent Bible. Naturally, Christians may say that most of these inconsistencies can be harmonized and that some things are not contradictions but paradoxes. I myself think that some of them can be harmonized and believe that what may seem contradictory may not be. If only we could approach the books belonging to other religions the same way. Corruption of the Bible Not only are there inconsistencies and contradictions, but the Bible has been corrupted in its transmission. Many Christians insist that, although there have been minor transmittal errors, God has preserved His word. For me, it's interesting that if God wanted to preserve "His word," He would use the Masoretic Jews to add the pointing for the vowels in the 10th century, which relies on Jewish, not Christian, tradition. Why

20Some people claim that Jesus himself broke the Law. Actually, if Jesus had broken any part of the Law, then he would have been a hypocrite, or at the minimum, he would have been the least in the kingdom of heaven, because he clearly taught that "anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19). In addition, uite a few scholars knowledgeable in Talmudic literature disagree. For two such scholars see David Flusser, Jewish sources in early Christianity, NY: Adama Books, 1987, and Jacob Neusner, From politics to piety: The emergence of pharisaic Judaism. (2nd Ed). NY: KTAV, 1979. 21 Interestingly, although Christians have no problem with Jesus canceling OT verses, they find it unbelievable that one verse in the Kur’an can cancel another. 22 And these are only a few of the many. To look at some others, see Appendix A.

11

wouldn't He use Christians, in whom His Holy Spirit supposedly dwells? Of course Reformed scholars said that God inspired the pointing of the Masoretes (pp. 160-161).23 Their argument is like that of Hills, who said that "a trustworthy text of the sacred books shall be preserved in His Church down through the ages until the last day." As Bruce notes, "This is doubtful exegesis, but if we grant it for the sake of the argument, we have still to identify this 'trustworthy text'" (p. 158).24 Bruce also notes that Hills is referring to the Byzantine text, which is not the text accepted today as the most authentic and least corrupted. Indeed, Metzger states that the Byzantine text was corrupt (see below). In showing that the Bible has been corrupted, it’s not necessary to show how. That is, if I see a house that has burnt to the ground, I may not know how the fire started, but I can still see that there was a fire. So, returning to corruption of the Bible, let me quote some sources. For the OT, Charles C. Torrey, in Ezra Studies, writes that “Theodotian’s Greek, on the other hand, bears interesting witness to the fact that the masoretic text [the standard text today] is by no means identical with the ‘standard’ text of the second century AD. The manner in which even an official recension can become corrupted, even within a short time, is well illustrated here. The text rendered by Theodotian has suffered many accidental changes, and a few which look like deliberate revision; so also has that of the massoretes” (p. 87). By the way, Jeremiah (8:8) claims that God’s law has been corrupted also.25 For the NT, an authoritative source is A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger “on behalf of and in cooperation with the Editorial Committee of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament . . .” In other words, this is the committee that put together the Greek Text from which translations are made nowadays, and here is what they say: “It was inevitable that such handwritten copies would contain a greater or lesser number of differences in wording from the original. Most of the divergencies arose from quite accidental causes . . .” (p. xv) “Other divergencies in wording arose from deliberate attempts to smooth out grammatical or stylistic harshness, or to eliminate real or imagined obscurities of meaning in the text” (p. xvi). “Thus there grew up several distinctive kinds of New Testament text . . .” (p. xvii). “The chief characteristic of Western readings is fondness for paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences are freely changed, omitted, or inserted. Sometimes the motive appears to have been harmonization, while at other times it was the enrichment of the narrative by the inclusion of traditional or apocryphal material” (p. xviii).

23F. F. Bruce. (1976). Tradition Old & New. Great Britain: The Paternoster Press. 24Ibid. 25 Friedman, Richard Elliott, Who Wrote the Bible, p. 209.

12

“The Byzantine form of the Greek text, reproduced in all early printed editions, was disfigured . . . by the accumulation over the centuries of myriads of scribal alterations, many of minor significance but some of considerable consequence. “It was the corrupt Byzantine form of text that provided the basis for almost all translations of the New Testament into modern languages down to the nineteenth century” (p. xxiii). “Of the approximately five thousand Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree exactly in all particulars” (p. xxiv). “The passage [Mark] 16.9-20 is lacking in the earlier and better manuscripts” (p. 126). Now most of the differences may be minor and insignificant, but some aren’t. Bart D. Ehrbart26 shows how scribes edited different verses of the NT to bring it into conformity with what is today known as orthodoxy. One example he gives is John 1:18, in which editors changed “the unique son” to “the unique God.”27 Another example of how the Bible can be corrupted significantly is 1 John 5:7,8, which reads: “For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” The words in italics are not found in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century; they come from late editions of the Latin Vulgate28 and were included in the Bible up to and including the King James Version. And they are still included in the footnotes of Bibles, even though there is no warrant for doing so. Besides the corruption of the Bible, some of its books seem unlikely to have been inspired by God. For example, it includes a love poem (the Song of Solomon) and a book that doesn’t even mention the name of God (Esther). Then, again, if they were inspired by God, and it is possible, then we should be more tolerant of the books of other religions as having been inspired by God.

Another problem is, Who wrote most of the OT books? Friedman writes that no one knows “with certainty who produced the book.”29 He also states that “there is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses—or by any one person. . . . But the [Documentary Hypothesis] itself continues to be the starting point of research, no serious student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation of the evidence has come close to challenging it” (p. 28). In other words, the Pentateuch was composed by more than one author, and we don’t know who they are. Although Moses supposedly wrote the first five books of the OT (perhaps on the basis of Deuteronomy 31:9, 24), there’s a list of Edomite kings in Genesis 36 who lived after he died. Furthermore, those 26 The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. 27 “Unique” is often badly translated as “only begotten” or “one and only.” According to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2, Ed. Colin Brown, “Lit. it means ‘of a single kind’.... It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of ‘only begotten’ goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg[ate] to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made” (p. 725). Note that the same word is used of Isaac in Hebrews 11:17, although Abraham had seven sons other than Isaac. So, although “one and only” would often be a good translation, since Adam is also called the “son of God” (Luke 3:38), “unique” is the better translation. Note also that Jerome’s change is another example of an editor changing the Bible to fit his own theology. 28 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 715-16. 29 Who Wrote the Bible, p. 15. This book is excellent reading for how the OT may have come together.

13

books were not written by eyewitnesses, as can be seen by Deuteronomy 34:10-12: “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses . . . For no one has ever shown the might power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.” That verse is obviously written by someone who lived long after Moses. And it seems likely that Joshua, Judges (see Judges 18:1), Kings, and Chronicles were also not written by eyewitnesses. Some of the OT books were also disputed by the Jews. Both Esther and Ezekiel were argued about in the third century.30 Ecclesiasticus, which is not today part of the OT, was “quoted three times in the Talmud apparently as Scripture. According to the Gemara, some rabbis still did not admit Proverbs, Esther, Ezekiel, and Ruth.”31 Of course, with respect to the OT, Christians say they have the authority of Jesus. But how do they know that the OT Jesus accepted is exactly the same as what we have today? Jesus spoke about the Law and the Prophets (Luke 20:42; Acts 1:20), and in one place the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24:44). The Hebrew Bible is believed to have been divided into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. Even if the Law and Prophets that Jesus spoke about were the same as that of other Jews, which many scholars believe, although that doesn't make it true, the Psalms and the Writings are not the same.32 Consequently, Jesus never claimed that the following books were scripture: Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and I & II Chronicles. Even Bruce, who believes that Jesus accepted most of the OT, notes that "we cannot say confidently that [Jesus and his Palestinian apostles] accepted Esther, Ecclesiastes or the Song of Songs as scripture, because evidence is not available" (p. 41).33 And the main reason Bruce does believe that Jesus accepted most of the OT is based primarily on one inference where Jesus talks about the blood of Abel and Zechariah (Luke 11:51), Zechariah being mentioned in Chronicles, the last book of the Writings. If we cannot be confident concerning some of these books, how can we be confident that books of other religions are not inspired by God? Turning to the NT, I see no reason to suppose that any of it should be considered scripture. Luke plainly says that since others had written accounts, he would do the same for his friend Theophilus to make sure that everything they had heard was correct. There is no indication that God inspired him or any of the other NT writers. Kelly says that only the OT was considered to be scripture for the first 100 years of the church.34 Bruce Metzger points out that the Apostolic Fathers 'very rarely regarded [the NT] as

30 S. Leiman, The Canonization of the Hebrew Scripture, pp. 120-1; R. Meye, ‘The Canon and the Apocrypha in Judaism’, TDNT iii (1965), 978-87, both cited in The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, p. 76. 31 Hagigah 13a; Yebamoth 63b; Babakama 92b; A. Jeffrey, ‘The Canon of the Old Testament’, The Interpreter’s Bible; G. F. Moore, Judaism, pp. 242-7, all cited in The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, p. 76. 32Christian scholars generally assume that Jesus mentioned Psalms as the beginning of the section called the Writings, but that is an assumption that is pretty weak if you feel that Jesus, as a prophet and inspired by God, said Psalms when he really meant Writings. Bruce himself states that this conclusion is uncertain (Tradition Old & New, p. 133). 33F.F. Bruce. (1988). The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. 34J.N.D. Kelly. (1960). Early Christian Doctrines. (Rev. ed.). NY: Harper & Row.

14

‘Scripture.'”35 (For example, Papias in the early 2nd century preferred oral tradition to written NT sources, including the gospels.) Conservative sources like F.F. Bruce36 and the New Bible Dictionary (p. 172) concur. If the Apostolic Fathers didn’t consider the NT books as scripture, then the NT authors most likely didn’t either. In fact, Paul considered only the OT to be scripture (2 Timothy 3:15). (The scriptures that Timothy were raised upon as a youngster could not have included any of the NT.) Justin Martyr (taught in Rome around AD 150-165) apparently didn’t think that the gospels were scripture as he calls them merely “memoirs” or “reminiscences” every time except once. The Gospel of John seems not to have been known or used by 2nd century Christian writers (except Tatian) and was first used by Gnostic writers.37 Around AD 170, Tatian took the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and some other writings or traditions and made one harmonized version of the them called the Diatessaron. The fact, that he could rearrange these texts quite freely and add other material not found in them shows that he did not consider them as inviolable ‘holy scripture.’38 Besides the NT not being considered as scripture in the beginning, there was disagreement on which books should be considered ‘canonical’, and which shouldn’t. Other gospels not accepted today were in wide use in the first three centuries.39 Furthermore, many NT books were disputed by various orthodox churches at early and late stages of the formation of the canon as being authentic. In the 3rd or 4th century, the Eastern church accepted Hebrews and rejected Revelations, while the Western church accepted Revelations and rejected Hebrews. The Syrian church didn’t accept James, 1 Peter, and 1 John until the fifth century, and 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude were added a century later.40 Eusebius (died 340 AD) rejected Hebrews and said that many rejected Revelations. Books that aren’t accepted today were included in the canon up to and including the fourth century, such as the Shepherd, the Revelation of Peter, 1 and 2 Clement, the Wisdom of Solomon, Barnabas, and the Acts of Paul.41 The Epistle to the Laodicians was in many Bibles up until the eighteenth century.42 Some Lutheran Reformers considered books, such as James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & John, and Revelations as ‘deuterocanonical’ or ‘apocryphal.’43 Even today, the great majority of scholars do not consider 2 Peter to have been written by the Apostle Peter. Many, perhaps most, scholars doubt that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy. And others doubt that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. No one knows who wrote Hebrews. Revelations, according to some scholars like Bousset and Flusser, took material from an earlier Jewish writing. Bruce notes that the Greek Septuagint was considered divinely inspired (p. 152), and the Latin Vulgate in the Roman Catholic church was also considered divinely 35 The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, p. 72. 36F.F. Bruce. (1970). Tradition Old & New, p. 132. 37 See Sanders, 4th Gospel, and Hillman, Gospel of John. 38 Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning, p. 30. 39 The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, p. 100. 40 Ibid., p. 126-27. 41 The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, p. 128. 42 Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, p. 239. 43 Ibid., p. 244.

15

inspired and the only authentic version (p. 155). These include the apocryphal books. As Kelly notes, "in the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books [the Apocrypha] as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture" (p. 54). It was not until "the fourth century, particularly where the scholarly standards of Alexandrian Christianity were influential, that these doubts [concerning the Apocrypha] began to make their mark officially" (p. 54). Even at this time, though, for "the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense" (p. 55), as evidenced by the writings of Augustine, the synods of Hippo (CE 393) and Carthage (CE 397), and Pope Innocent I (CE 405). In fact, the Roman Catholic church still accepts the Apocrypha as inspired, although most Protestant Christians do not. Bruce himself says that the only real reason Christians accept the books they have in the Bible today is because of tradition (pp. 130-131)44 and adds that even if a lost letter of Paul's were recovered today, it is unlikely that it would be added to the canon (p. 148). And as Bruce notes, "tradition may command our respect as that which has been delivered to us, but it cannot be appealed to as an authority" (p. 159). Anyway, many of the NT books have been disputed throughout history, and the formation of the NT was a slow, gradual process of debate and accommodation. There is no evidence that God inspired most of the books that make up the Bible or the process of their coming together. The only reason Christians today accept the books that they have is that they have been conditioned and indoctrinated through tradition to believe that God somehow brought them together.45 Although fundamentalist Christians still believe all of the above books are inspired by God, even they admit that there are errors in the copies, but claim that the originals—which we don’t have—were without error. Of course, if God wanted to have kept the originals free from error, He could have. But what’s the sense in doing so if He’s not going to keep the copies free from error. Some people answer that they are only minor errors, not major ones that change our theology. As shown above, though, some errors and intentional changes are significant and can alter theology. Regardless, assuming that the errors are insignificant is a huge presumption. Jesus himself says, “He who is trustworthy in little things is trustworthy in great; he who is dishonest in little things is dishonest in great” (Luke 16:10). Since God is not dishonest and doesn’t make mistakes, even little ones like those in the manuscripts we have today, we cannot assume that He inspired the original documents without error. Despite any logical reasoning either for or against the inspiration of the original manuscripts, the fact remains that verses in the Bible were edited and changed, sometimes accidentally, sometimes intentionally, so as to present the meaning that the editor, not God, thought it should be. Thus, the Bible has clearly been corrupted in its transmission. Perhaps that’s not a problem. I know of one devout Christian scholar who felt that they could find and know the original message of Jesus despite editing. Again, 44F.F. Bruce. (1970). Tradition Old & New. 45 It should be noted that Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. have different Bibles. For example, Protestants don’t include the Apocryphal books in the Bible while Catholics do. So, even today, people disagree on which books should be included in the Bible.

16

all I ask is that Christians allow other religions to be as imperfect as Christianity.

17

Assigning Deity to Jesus46 Whether or not the books of the Bible are inspired, let’s see what they teach about Jesus. For the most part, I’ll look at the major concepts and verses in these books that most people use to teach his deity and show how they have been misinterpreted due to a lack of knowledge about the language and culture of the Bible. On a parallel line, I also will show how, most, if not all, of the concepts and verses used to prove Jesus is God have been used of other people in the Bible and other Jewish writings, yet, when used of other people, divinity is not conferred. Son of God This designation of Jesus is probably a major reason that Christians believe that Jesus is divine. Somehow, "Son of God" is equated with "God the Son." But this equation was not the original one. Richard A. Norris47 writes: "The earliest Christian literature reveals differing ways of accounting for Jesus in his messianic character. It may well be the case that the earliest Christology simply proclaimed Jesus as the human being who had been marked out by the resurrection as the coming Messiah, that is, as the one through whom God would finally set things right. In such a Christology, the title 'Son of God' would not have referred to any quality of divinity but to the fact that Jesus was called and set apart for a certain function in God's purposes. In fact, however, this way of understanding Jesus was generally supplanted as Christianity spread among Greek-speaking peoples in the Mediterranean world" (p. 2). Longenecker48 writes: "Undoubtedly the title [Son of God] received elaboration and extension of meaning in its use by Christians during the first century. Under the guidance of the Spirit, the church's understanding certainly grew. But while Son of God very soon came to signify divine nature, it was probably used in a more functional manner by the earliest Jewish believers to denote Jesus' unique relationship with God the Father and his obedience to the Father's will. As Israel and her sons were understood to be uniquely God's own among the peoples of the earth and the anointed king God's Son—and in that relationship pledged to loving obedience—so Jesus as Israel's Messiah, who united in his person both the corporate ideal and descent from David and who exempli-fied an unparalleled obedience to the Father's will, was the Son of God par excellence" (p. 98-99). "The Gospels offer little support for an acclamation [deity worshipping] use of 'Lord' in regard to Jesus during his ministry" (p. 129). "It seems fair to say that, especially for Mark, but also for the other Synoptists, the vocative kurie (Greek) had no special significant during Jesus' ministry beyond that of respectful address—often of profound respect, indeed, but not necessarily worshipful acclamation. John's Gospel indicates essentially the same" (p. 130). (Longenecker says only John 9.38 can include an acclamation, but even that is minimal.) Longenecker notes that Mt 28:18-20 need be no more than religious lordship (p. 134).

46 On this topic, I highly recommend that you read One God, One Lord by Larry Hurtado, which is many times more thorough and documented than what I am about to write. 47 The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. 48Richard N. Longenecker. (1970). The Christology of early Jewish Christianity. London: SCM Press.

18

The New Jerusalem Bible concurs and states (footnote d to Matthew 5:1): "During the lifetime of Jesus, it is true, his disciples had no clear conception of his divinity—the texts of 14:33 and 16:16 which add the title 'Son of God' to the more primitive text of Mk reflect, in all probability, a later stage in the faith's development." In other words, Gentiles who did not have a Jewish background interpreted Jewish teachings according to their own Hellenistic perspective, which allowed for people becoming or being gods. When we look at Jewish writings, though, we get a different picture. Starting with the Bible and examining every verse where the term "Son of God" is used, it becomes obvious that it is used of people who enjoy a special relationship with God. Israel is called the son of God in many places, and so is Adam (Luke 3:38). This phrase can also be used to designate the messiah (2 Samuel 7:14). It was used of David and his successors (cf. I Chronicles 22:10; 28:6; Psalm 89:26).49 In Psalm 2:7, it is used for the king of Israel as part of Israel's coronation liturgy.50 In the NT, "Son of God" seems to be used interchangeably with or in apposition to other messianic titles like "son of David," "Son of Man," or "Christ," showing that "Son of God" is merely one of many messianic titles.51 Indeed, if it really meant deity, then we would expect Peter to have fallen flat on his face before Jesus when he exclaimed, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God."52 Furthermore, in rabbinic literature, a divine voice calls Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, "Hanina, my son." ("The whole world is nourished for my son Hanina’s sake; however my son Hanina is content with a loaf of currant bread from one Sabbath eve to the next"(bTaan 24b). R. Meir is marked by God as "my son" (cref. BHag 15b).)And in another place, we read that God says to Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha, "Ishmael, my son, bless me. In other extrabiblical sources, Fredricksen53 notes that the term "son (of God)" is found in various sources of early Judaism. As early as the second or early-first century BCE, "the Hebrew of Sirach 4:10 (in OTA) we confront the statement 'and God (w'l) will call you son (bn).' In the Greek version, this phrase is rendered slightly differently: 'You will then be like a son of the Most High.' . . . In the Epistle of Enoch (in 1En; see OTP 1), written sometime between 125 and 75 BCE, God is reported to have exhorted Enoch to rejoice until 'I and my son' are united with them forever in the upright paths' (1 En 105:2). . . . In Ezekiel the Tragedian (in OTP 2), Moses is called by God 'my son.' According to the Testament of Levi 4:2 (in OTP 1), Levi is to be, or become a son to God.... In the Wisdom of Solomon (in OTA), we learn that the righteous one shall be called 'God's son' (2:18, cf. 2:13-16)" (p. 46-47).

49Waltke, An Evangelical Christian view of the Hebrew scriptures, p. 118. 50Ibid. 51 Matthew 16:16; 22:41-45; 24:23-27; 26:63, 64; Mark 8:29-31; 13:21-27; 14:61-62; etc. 52 Matthew 15:15; 18:21; cf. Mark 7:17; Luke 17:4). 53 Paula Fredricksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, Yale University Press, 1988.

19

The point to be made here is that neither the Bible, the rabbis, nor the authors of other Jewish extrabiblical sources considered the phrase "son of God" to designate divinity. Somewhat related, many Christians talk about how only Jesus used the phrase "my father." Actually, it does appear in other Jewish writings.54 Safrai notes that it appears twice in halachic midrashim, though not in direct address; however, it appears 17 times in Seder Eliyahu, mostly in direct address, for example, "My father in heaven, remember your mercy." Safrai states that the Hasid called God "abba," "my father," or "my father in heaven" (p. 7). Seder Eliyahu is Hasidic literature, whose members saw themselves as sons of God (among whom are Hanina ben Dosa and Ishmael ben Elisha mentioned above) and were known for performing miracles, healing the sick, and casting out demons.55 Glory of the Messiah Some people think that because God doesn’t give His glory to others (Isaiah 42:8; 48:11), Jesus must be God. However, that does not mean that others do not have glory. For example, according to the author of Hebrews (2:10), Jesus brings people to glory. Also, although Jesus has more glory than Moses, Moses still has some (Hebrews 3:3; Exodus 34:29-35). Obviously, since Moses and the children of the kingdom have glory, but are not considered divine, there is no reason to assume that because Jesus has greater glory, that this greater degree of glory designates deity. Moreover, although Jews never considered the messiah to be divine, much of their literature assigns glory to him. In 1 Enoch 49.2, the glory and might of the messiah would be forever. From Pesikta Derav Kahana (Supplement 6), "The splendor of the garment He puts on the messiah will stream forth from world’s end to world’s end. . . . Blessed is the hour in which the messiah was created! Blessed is the womb whence he came . . . whose lips open with blessing and peace, whose diction is pure delight, whose garments are glory and majesty ... the utterance of whose tongue is pardon and forgiveness ... whose supplication during his study is purity and holiness." In the Testament of Levi (18:2-14), "Then the Lord shall raise up a new priest ... And he shall execute righteous judgment. . . . And he shall be magnified in the world. He shall shine forth as the sun on the earth. . . . And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him. . . . And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life." Lord (kurios/ κυριος) “Lord” is similar to “señor” in Spanish. That is, it has a range of meanings from “sir” to “mister” to “master” to “God.” “Lord” is used to address an individual like Philip with respect (John 12:21); it’s used for the master of a servant (John 15:20; Acts 16:16,19), it’s used for the Roman emperor (Acts 25:26); and it’s used to address one’s husband (1 Peter 3:6). Of course, you’ll have to look at the Greek, because the translators usually prefer to use “Sir” if it’s not addressed to Jesus. As a designation of respect, it would be surprising if people did not call a rabbi who healed people or someone considered either a prophet or the messiah, “Lord.”

54 Shmuel Safrai, "Jesus and the Hasidim," Jerusalem Perspective 42,43, & 44 (January/June 1994): 3-17. 55 Ibid.

20

Worship (proskunew/ προσκυνεω) In Jesus’ time, it was customary to fall prostrate/bow down before a king or a representative of God, or simply to show respect. This falling prostrate is often translated as “worship” in English when it refers to Jesus, but as “fall prostrate” or “bow” to other people. We read that Cornelius fell to the ground before Peter (Acts 10:25) because he considered Peter to be God’s representative. The two women at the tomb of Jesus bowed their heads before the angels (Luke 24:5); Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel (2:26); and Obadiah fell on his face before Elijah (1 Kings 18:7); and Joseph showed his father respect by prostrating himself (Genesis 48:12). Interestingly, the translators of the New American Standard Bible (NASB) translated this word as “bow” even when applied to Jesus sometimes (Matthew 8:2; 9:18), which shows that it’s a judgment call on the part of the translators. That is, if you think that the people thought Jesus was divine, then translate the word as “worship.” If you think that they didn’t think so, use “bow.” In other words, the translation depends often on the bias of the translators. Preexistence Some people believe that preexistence implies divinity. In Micah 5:2, the "goings forth [of the messiah] are from long ago, from the days of eternity." In Colossians 1:17, we also see that the messiah existed before anything else. Now let’s look at other Jewish writings that speak about Torah (Law), Wisdom, the messiah, and the Word. In many rabbinic writings, the Torah was the first thing that God created, and according to Rabbi Akiva, it was the instrument through which the world was created. Wisdom in Jewish literature also preexisted the creation of the world: "All wisdom comes from the Lord, she is with him forever . . . wisdom was created before everything" (Ecclesiasticus 1:1,4). This concept may have derived from Proverbs (8:22, 23): "Yahweh created56 me [wisdom], first fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being." Like wisdom, some Jews believed that the messiah existed before the creation of the universe. In a weak form, we read in Pesikta Rab 152b, "From the beginning of the creation of the world king Messiah was born, for he entered the mind (of God) before even the world was created." Philo,57 a Jewish philosopher around the time of Jesus, believed that the Word was a created being that straddled the border separating Creator and creature and was used by God to create the world. This Word interceded for human beings before God, represented God before people, and also ruled over other angels. In all of these writings, we see that Torah, Wisdom, the messiah, and the Word are created entities that God used to create the rest of creation. Melchizedek It’s interesting how people consider Jesus divine, but no one considers Melchizedek divine. Yet, he is “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he abides a priest perpetually” (Hebrews 7:3). In the Dead Sea Scrolls, Melchizedek will be the 56 The Hebrew word for “created” is sometimes translated as “possessed,” but the primary meaning is “create.” 57 Philo, quis rerum divinarum heres 42.205, cited in Paula Fredricksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the new Testament Images of Jesus.

21

eschatological judge and separate the righteous from the wicked. In fact, these writings even call him God (Elohim), although they do not equate him with the Creator. In the “Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” he was begotten in his mother’s womb by the Word of God. That is, he was born of a virgin. Thus, Melchizedek has all the characteristics that Jesus has, but is not considered to be God. Spirit of the Messiah Because of verses like Romans 8:9, some say the spirit of Christ juxtaposed to the spirit of God means Jesus is divine. However, Rabbi Simon ben Lakish identified the spirit of God (Genesis 1:2) with the spirit of the Messiah without considering the messiah to be God. The Ebionites, a Jewish-Christian sect, believed that the entity of the messiah had rested with different people, beginning with Adam and ending with Jesus. This entity is the same spirit that God breathed into Adam (Genesis 2:7). Similarly, in the Clementine Homilies, the Word of God had taken flesh 8 times: in Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally Jesus. Thus, early Jews and Christians believed that God’s Spirit or Word could dwell in men without making them God. Forgiving Sins In some NT verses, a shallow approach makes it appear that Jews felt that only God could forgive sins. However, we should remember that Jews accepted that the high priest and other priests as representatives of God could forgive sin. Jesus was God’s messiah and also His high priest (Hebrews 7:1-12; Psalm 110:4). Consequently, he could pronounce forgiveness like any other priest did during the sacrificial rites of expiation, and as mentioned above (Glory of the Messiah), the messiah could forgive sins without being considered divine. One passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions a Jew forgiving a gentile:58

The words of the prayer uttered by Nabunai king of Babylon, [the great] king, [when he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High God]. I was affected [with an evil ulcer] for seven years . . . and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the [children of the Exile of Judah, and he said], 'Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the Name of the [Most High God].'59

Lindars notes that in this passage that sin and disease are connected, just as forgiveness and healing are, too. Sin causes disease, and forgiveness brings healing. "One who has power to heal also has power to forgive in God's name." This connection between healing and forgiveness is seen in Matthew 9:6 (Mark 2.10f.; Luke 5.24): "But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—then he said to the paralytic—"Rise, take up your bed, and go home."

58 "The connection between illness and sin, and hence healing and the forgiveness of sin, is attested in Judaism both contemporary with and after the lifetime of Jesus. In the context of a cure such a comment would hardly seem remarkable, much less blasphemous" (Fredricksen, p. 105). See also Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A fresh examination of the Son of Man sayings in the gospels in the light of recent research. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983. 59 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, p. 66-67.

22

Initially the scribes called Jesus' forgiving the man blasphemy, not by defaming God, but by claiming a right belonging to God. However, God can delegate that right to men, as He does in the case of the priests who pronounce forgiveness in the name of God. Jesus is not a priest, however, in the eyes of the scribes, and so they are understandably upset. So Jesus responds by healing the man and, in effect, saying that any man60 whom God has given the power to heal also may have the power to forgive. This argument is accepted by them, because the people then praised God for giving the right to forgive sins to men. Finally, Jesus gave his disciples the right to forgive or not forgive sins (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). Having the right to forgive doesn’t make anyone divine. Perfect without sin Jesus, as the messiah, had to be perfect, but other Jews were considered by the rabbis (or some of them) to be perfect, such as the Patriarchs, Elijah, and perhaps Enoch (Mech. 16:10, 48a; Lev. R. 27:4). Noah was also considered perfect (Book of Jubilees 19:17). Zechariah and Elizabeth walked blamelessly in all of the commandments and requirements of the Lord (Luke 1:6), and where there is no law there is no sin (Romans 4:15). Thus, they were without sin.61 When Jesus asked his antagonists, "Who among you convicts me of sin?" (John 8:46), no one accused him of blasphemy by saying only God is without sin. Since his enemies certainly didn’t consider him divine, it is clear that a first century Jew could believe someone was sinless without being God. Atonement Some Jews have believed that “the death of the righteous bring atonement for sins” (M.k. 28a). In 4 Maccabees 17:21-22, seven sons of a Jewish woman, who were tortured for God’s cause, became “a ransom for the sin of [the Jewish] nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an expiation, divine Providence preserved Israel.” These concepts are logical. After all, if the blood of sacrificial animals was considered to atone for sin as prescribed through God’s law, how much more would the blood of a righteous person atone? However, if sacrificial animals are not divine, neither are sacrificial men, including the messiah.62 Atonement, however, is not simply through blood sacrifice. In Midrash Avot de Rabbi Natan, we read:

One time, when Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was walking in Jerusalem with Rabbi Yehoshua, they arrived at where the Temple in Jerusalem now stood in ruins. "Woe to us" cried Rabbi Yehoshua, "for this house where atonement was made for Israel's sins now lies in ruins!" Answered Rabban Yochanan, "We have

60 "The Son of Man" (bar enasha in Aramaic) should be translated as "a man," because as Lindars notes, the article in Aramaic (and Hebrew) represents a generic article, especially with the phrase bar enasha. (It may also be a method of self-reference in some contexts, both generic and self-reference at the same time, or even a title.) This generic article does not mean that just anyone can forgive sins, but the class of men to whom God has delegated it. The response of the people praising God for giving the right to forgive sins to men shows that they understood bar enasha as generic. 61 Although most Christians deny my conclusion that Zechariah and Elizabeth are without sin, "The word amemptos (blameless] occurs in the NT in the sense of moral purity in Lk. 1:6" (p. 144 of The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2). 62 See also page 6, paragraph 1.

23

another, equally important source of atonement, the practice of gemilut hasadim (loving kindness), as it is stated 'I desire loving kindness and not sacrifice'.

Similarly, in the Bible, we see that obedience and a humble heart are what is required:

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams" (I Samuel 15:22) For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51:17)

In fact, we see that people are forgiven without any sacrifice in the books of Jonah and Esther. (See also Psalm 40:6-8; Isaiah 1:11; Ezekiel 18:27, 33:11, 33:19; Jeremiah 36:3; Daniel 9:18; Malachi 3:7.) Isaiah 9:6 "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on his shoulders; And his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty god, eternal father, prince of peace." Because of the four names assigned to the child being born, Christians say that he is God. It's strange, though, how the "Son of God" can also be the "eternal father." As the Interpreter's Bible states (p. 233), the title of "father" refers to his relationship with his people, that of a father who cares for them. The phrase "mighty god" (rwbg la) may also be translated as "mighty hero," as it is done in the Hebrew lexicon by Brown, Driver, & Briggs (BDB) (p. 42b). In fact, the same words, but in plural (µyrwbg yla), are translated by the New American Standard Bible as "mighty ones" (Ezekiel 32:21). "God" (la) may refer to "men of might and rank" (BDB), as in Ezekiel 31:11 and Job 41:25 (41:17 in the Hebrew Bible). In addition, in those times, people often took names that included the name of God, such as "El is my father," "Yah(u) is my father", "God is with us" (Immanuel), etc. Consequently, the messiah will be a wonderful counselor and father to his people, a mighty hero, and bring about peace to his kingdom, but he won't be divine. Matthew 28:18-20 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teach them to observe all the commands I gave you.” Naturally, all authority would be given to the messiah. First, note that this authority was not the messiah's from eternity, but that it was given to Jesus at a particular point in time. Second, the authority given is likely only a religious authority.63 Third, it's interesting that, although there are no extant variants, it’s strange that Eusebius, who lived before the Nicene creed, never used the Trinitarian formula any of the many times he quoted this verse. Instead, he simply writes, "in my name."64 Even stranger is the fact that the apostolic church never uses this formula. On the contrary, they always use "in 63 Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, pp. 134-135. 64 David Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity.

24

the name of Jesus (Christ)."65 It seems unlikely that Jesus’ disciples couldn’t get his final words right or that they disobeyed him on such a simple matter—which means that Jesus probably did not use the Trinitarian formula.66 Even if he had, the phrase still wouldn’t assign deity. In Islam, Allah and His Apostle Muhammed are frequently spoken of together; yet no one assigns deity to Muhammed. (Islam, which although it came into being 600 years after the time of Jesus, was born in a Semitic milieu and shows that some Semitic peoples could place the name of a prophet in conjunction with God without thinking it denoted some sort of deity.) Christians place much emphasis on “in the name of”, noting that “name” is singular, not plural. However, this is another example of needing to know the original language. Although people argue whether Jesus spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, in Hebrew “in the name of” is an idiom meaning “for the sake of.” Consequently, the disciples are asked to baptize others for the sake of God, His Spirit, and His messiah. Luke 8:39 “‘Go back home and report all that God has done for you.’ So the man went off and proclaimed throughout the city all that Jesus had done for him.” For some, this verse equates God and Jesus. Perhaps, but it’s just as likely that the man proclaimed all that God through Jesus had done for him. Similarly, sometimes Jesus says to believe in him (John 3:36), but at other times, he expands it so that you understand that to believe in Jesus means not him, but God (John 12:44). Luke 10:22 "My father has given me all things. No one knows the son like the father and no knows the father like the son. And to whomever he wishes the son can disclose him." Christians often focus on the use of "the" to claim that Jesus is the exclusive son of God, and as mentioned above, therefore having the same nature as God. Lindsey67 says that the use of “the” is a Hebrew idiom to indicate a generic sense as in Ezekiel 18, “Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.” This use can even be seen in English. For example, a dictionary might define a dog by saying, "The dog is an animal with four legs." Anyway, the above passage means a generic father and son, or any father and son, and is not an example of exclusiveness. Gospel of John John seems to support some sort of divine nature for Jesus, although it’s highly unlikely that he considered Jesus to be God in the sense of modern Christianity. (We shouldn’t forget that it took a few centuries to create the Trinitarian formula.) Still let’s look at some other perspectives of the verses in John.

65 Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5. 66 Again, for extra reading on changes in scripture, read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Ehrbart. 67 Robert L. Lindsey, Jesus Rabbi & Lord: The Hebrew Story of Jesus Behind Our Gospels. Lindsey was a Southern Baptist pastor who lived in Israel for 45 years and knew Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek fluently. Let me add that even though this is a generic use of the word "the," Lindsey still considered Jesus to be the Son of God: “Naturally, Jesus is talking about God as his real, special Father but he is illustrating his authority to talk about him by the simple fact that a father and his son have a very special relationship which makes it possible for the son to describe and portray what his father is like to anyone he wishes to do so” (p. 22). I would add to his comment, though, that anyone who has God as their Father has a special relationship with Him and knows Him in ways that others don’t.

25

John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the word; the word was with God, and the word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things came into being, not one thing came into being except through him.” These words are quite common in Jewish writings. “Everything became to be through His word” (m. Ber 6:2-3), and God “has created everything by His word” (Jubilees 12:4).68 Similarly, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1 QS 11.11), “By His knowledge everything came to be, and everything which is happening—He establishes it by His design and without Him [nothing] is done.” Also, “By the wisdom of Thy knowledge Thou didst establish their destiny ere they came into being, and according [to Thy will] everything came to be, and without Thee [nothing] is done” (1 QH 1:19-20). Although these phrases are common, these Jews did not consider the word or wisdom or knowledge to be the same as God. Philo (see Preexistence above) considered the Word to be a created being that created the world and somehow straddled the line dividing the Creator from His creatures. Again, in the Clementine Homilies, the Word of God had taken flesh 8 times. (Also see John 5: 18; 20:28 below.) Almost all of the gentile Church Fathers and Apologists considered Jesus to be divine, but some did not consider Jesus to be fully divine like God the Creator. For Justin Martyr, who taught in Rome around CE 150, Jesus, as the divine word of God, "was derivative, and for that reason inferior to the one God."69 Origen, around the beginning of the third century CE, also believed Jesus to be a "second God," as did Arius around CE 318. 70 Although Origen and Arius may be considered heretics by the "orthodox," Justin is considered to be within orthodoxy. John 1:18 In this verse, Jesus is called the only begotten son. Somehow, Christians claim on the basis of the word "begotten" that Jesus has the same nature as that of God. However, the translation "begotten" is incorrect. According to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2 (Ed. Colin Brown), "Lit. it means ‘of a single kind’. . . . It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of ‘only begotten’ goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg[ate] to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made" (p. 725). Note that the same word is used of Isaac in Hebrews 11:17, although Abraham had seven sons besides Isaac (Ishmael and the six sons from his wife Keturah). So that word obviously doesn’t mean "only begotten"; it means "of a single kind" or "unique." Although some Bibles use "one and only," it’s not as good as "unique," since Adam is also the "son of God" (Luke 3:38). Note also that Jerome’s change is an example of an editor changing the Bible to fit his own theology and affecting Christian theology for more than 1000 years. John 5:18 "He spoke of God as his own Father and so made himself God’s equal." We should remember that people often exaggerate and distort the statements and positions of people they disagree with. Jesus himself notes this when he comments on 68 See also Wisdom of Solomon 9:1. 69 Richard A. Norris, The Christological Controversy, p. 7. 70 Ibid., pp. 15, 17.

26

Pharisees who say John the Baptist has a demon because he fasts so much but say Jesus is a glutton and a drunkard because he does eat and drink with many people (Luke 7:33-34). Naturally, no Christian considers this claim of the Pharisees to be an accurate portrayal of Jesus. Interestingly, Jesus doesn’t reply to the charge of equality here, at least not directly. He’s more direct in John 10:33-36 where he refers them to the Psalms for the correct interpretation of "son of God," saying they are also called gods.71 If Jesus admits the Israelites are gods, it seems to be much ado over nothing on Jesus being called the son of God. John 8:58 “Before Abraham ever was, I am.” Some people feel that Jesus is referring to Exodus 3:14, and is using the name of God. However, it simply does not hold up for both contextual and linguistic reasons. In looking at John 8:58 linguistically, it’s important to remember that Jesus was likely speaking in Hebrew, whose verb system had aspect but not tense. The imperfect aspect (the same aspect as the "I am" of Exodus 3:14) is translated into English as past, present, and future tenses in the Bible.72 In the context of John 8:58, then, the best English translation is a present perfect, that is, "I have been" which is equivalent to "I have existed," and so Jesus is claiming indirectly to be the pre-existent messiah. (In John 15:27, the NASB translates the present tense of "be" into a present perfect: "because you have been [este=are] with Me from the beginning.) On equating "I am" with the name of God, it’s interesting how no one considers the man who had been healed of his blindness and kept responding, "I am"73 (John 9:9) to be claiming that he is God, because they realize that the linguistic and semantic context forbid it—not to mention theological bias. Now, to make this analysis clearer, let’s look at how names work in sentences. For comparison, I’ll use "I am" and "Jim." 1. Jim is a good basketball player. 2. "I am" is a good basketball player. 3. What's your name? Jim. 4. What's your name? "I am." 5. Are you older than Abraham? Before Abraham was, Jim. 6. Are you older than Abraham? Before Abraham was, I am. Notice that replying to question #5 "Are you older than Abraham?" with a name makes no sense at all. For this reason, #6 makes sense only if "I am" is not a name, but a statement of being older than Abraham, that is, preexisting Abraham. More importantly, when God gives his name in Exodus, He had been asked who He was, what was His name. Jesus isn't being asked his name, but he's being asked if he's older than Abraham, albeit somewhat sarcastically. The context demands that Jesus is replying with respect to preexisting Abraham, to how old he is.

71 See Psalms 2:1; 45:6,7; 58:1. 72 In the standard grammar of Gesenius (p. 313), we read that “The imperfect, as opposed to the perfect, represents actions, events, or states which are regarded by the speaker at any moment as still continuing, or in the process of accomplishment, or even as just taking place.” 73 Although most translations use phrases such as “I am the one” or “I am he,” in the Greek there is only εγω ειµι (I am).

27

Some Christians may ask why did the Jews want to stone Jesus if he wasn’t claiming to be God and so committing blasphemy. Well, the fact that some Jews picked up stones does not mean necessarily that Jesus committed blasphemy. If we look at the time in Nazareth (Luke 4:16ff) when Jesus said he was the fulfillment of Isaiah, the people also wanted to kill him by throwing him off a cliff.74 But the context there also has no hint of blasphemy. They were simply angry because they interpreted his claim to be impertinence and arrogance. Likewise, they could be very angry as what they perceive to be arrogance in claiming to be greater than Abraham, which Jesus does by claiming to be older than Abraham. Supporting my position on Luke 4:16ff, Lindsey75 makes several points. First of all, he notes that "divrei chesed" in Hebrew can mean either “words of grace” or “words of disgrace.” Note, for example, Leviticus 20:17, If a man takes his sister ... and they remove their clothes and see each other naked, it is a wicked thing (chesed hu). In Proverbs 14:34, Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach (chesed) to any people. Second, “spoke well” is represented by martureo (µαρτυρεω) in Greek which usually means “testifying in favor”, but in Hebrew it means “testify against” (see 1 Kings 21:10). So Lindsey would translate these verses as, “And all of them spoke critically of him and were astonished at the words of apostasy coming out of his mouth. Then they said, ‘After all, this is Joseph’s son!’” Or in other words, “Good heavens, this is Joseph’s son!”76 So, perhaps they wanted to stone him on the basis of being a false or would-be prophet, as in Deuteronomy 13. However, by the time they got to the cliff, perhaps they realized that he “had not blasphemed or profaned the name of God nor had he called upon the people to follow another God than that of Israel. The people of Nazareth were just being overly sensitive.”77 Finally, contextually, it’s very odd—that is, if his disciples understood "I am" as meaning the name of God—how his own disciples in the very next verse (John 9:1) called him rabbi, implying strongly that they did not consider his previous saying to be a claim to be God. It's also strange that—if everyone understood this saying to be equivalent to claiming to be God—neither Matthew nor Mark nor Luke included such an important announcement in their gospels. John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.” Although some commentaries will say that this verse shows Jesus’ deity, quite a few scholarly commentaries disagree. Beasley-Murray states that the meaning of this verse is that Jesus and the Father are “one in action, not in person.”78 Bernard agrees and writes, “A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel . . . and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia, is to introduce

74 Robert L. Lindsey, Jesus Rabbi & Lord: The Hebrew Story of Jesus Behind Our Gospels, (p. 44) notes that the Mishna recommends throwing someone off a cliff or high place before stoning so the person would not suffer as much pain. 75 Ibid., pp. 44-45. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid., p. 47. 78 George P. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 36, John, p. 174.

28

thoughts which were not present to the theologians of the first century.”79 For comparison, we can look at John 17:21, where Jesus prays “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in us. . . .” Although not identical, the phrasing is similar to John 10:30. Yet if the believers are one even as Jesus and the Father are one, and if the believers are in the Father and in Jesus even as Jesus and the Father are in each other, should we then say that the believers have become divine and equal to God? Naturally, Christians don’t say this, which shows again their double standard in that they treat verses towards Jesus one way, but equivalent verses towards others a different way. John 20:28 “Thomas replied, ‘My Lord and my God!’” If the Bible can call men gods (Exodus 3:17; Psalm 82:6; John 10:33-36), it seems that Thomas can call the messiah, god. ‘God’ is also used for a judge of the Israelites (Exodus 21:6 22:28), and, of course, the Messiah is the judge on judgment day. Both Moses and Melchizedek, too, were called god without becoming divine. Another possibility is that Thomas is simply exclaiming as we do when confronted by a disaster, “My God, my God! (What has happened to me?)” Going somewhat afield, we see that Rumi, a 13th century Sufi, called Shams, his teacher, “My Shams and my God.”80 Brent (p. 219) notes that the disciple may call his teacher God because, while in a state of “ecstatic veneration” for and unity with his teacher, he sees him as “permeated” fully with the divine and as his “channel” to the divine, thus “los[ing] any sense of the difference between the teacher and God.” Even so, “the teacher, however revered, is never thought of as in himself a god.” That is, similarly, Thomas, seeing Jesus as filled with the fullness of God and as his path to God, may have ecstatically called him God, without considering him to be God. Romans 9:5 “Christ . . . who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” Although Christ can be grammatically equated to God here, it’s just as logical to take the latter part to be an exclamation of praise to God.81 Modern Christians speak similarly. For example, someone might exclaim after his friend’s successful operation, "John’s going to be all right. Praise God!" 1 Corinthians 1:24 “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Some people plausibly take ‘power’ and ‘wisdom’ as hypostases of God. But, again, in Proverb 8:22, Wisdom of Solomon 6:22, and Ecclesiasticus 24:8,9, ‘wisdom’—and for now I’ll also assume ‘power’—was created. Philippians 2:6 79 J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Vol. II, p. 366. 80 Peter Brent. “Learning and teaching,” (Chapter 6: The practice of the Sufi), In Idries Shah (Ed.), The World of the Sufi: An anthology of writings about Sufis and their work (pp. 209-222), London: Octagon Press, 1979. 81 Although Longenecker (The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, p. 138) assigns the phrase "God blessed forever" to Jesus, he notes that scholars are divided on whether it should be assigned to Jesus, a description of God, or a doxology to God.

29

Jesus "who, although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." The ‘form of God’ is a synonym for ‘image of God.’ Adam was created in the image of God, and Paul is often comparing Adam (the first man) to Jesus (the second man).82 Adam, and his wife Eve (Genesis 3:5), wanted to be like God, that is, equal to God, and tried to attain this equality by grasping the apple and eating it. Jesus, unlike Adam, does not seek to attain equality with God. Some scholars, following the lead of the early Greek church fathers, take "grasp" to mean "hold onto something already obtained." But the primary reaming is "robbery" or a "prize to be grasped." To use the "hold onto" meaning destroys the comparison between Adam and Jesus. Also, as far as I know, the "hold onto" meaning is found only in church writings, which are naturally quite biased and want the meaning to fit their theology, rather than take the normal meaning that fits the context. Even if it were a legitimate meaning in some contexts, in this context, it’s similar to saying, and just as absurd, that the money a bank robber seized from the bank was not to be seized because he already owned it. Colossians 1:15-18 “And he is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. For by him all things were created . . . and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Whole commentaries have been written on this verse, I’m sure, but I’ll just point out a few things. As Adam was created in the image of God, so was Jesus. As first-born, of course, the messiah is both preeminent and the first created being of all creation. Again, remember Philo’s Word, the Torah, Wisdom, etc. are created beings used by God to create the world. Again, Rabbi Akiva says that the Torah was the instrument through which the world was created, and Rabbi Yudan states that the world was created for the sake of the Torah. Paul, a student of Gamaliel, obviously identifies Christ as both Wisdom and Torah, and likely presumes with his teacher and other rabbis that the messiah is a created being. Colossians 2:9 (also 1:19) “For in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.” Paul also prays that all believers “may be filled up to all the fullness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). It seems unlikely that Paul would pray for something blasphemous or for something that God wouldn’t grant. However, if granted, no Christian would consider such believers to be divine, and so there is no reason to assume this verse assigns deity to Jesus, either. Titus 2:13 “glory of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” The grammar allows this verse to have two interpretations. Christ Jesus equals “our great God and Savior” or he equals “glory.” The latter interpretation excludes divinity. Hebrews 1:3

82 See 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 45-49; Romans 5:12ff.

30

“He is the reflection of God’s glory and expression of His nature.” In the Wisdom of Solomon (7:25,26), Wisdom, a created being, is “a breath of the power of God, pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty . . . a reflection of the eternal light, untarnished mirror of God’s active power, and image of his goodness.” If this had been written about Jesus, all Christians would say, “See, this shows Jesus to be God.” However, the writer of Wisdom considered wisdom to be created and not God. I’ve talked about ‘glory’ above. For me, ‘expression of His nature’ is the same as Adam being created in His ‘image’ (Genesis 1:26) —not to mention that all men reflect God’s glory (1 Corinthians 11:7). But it should be remembered that a reflection is never the source. Throughout this letter, the unknown author argues that Christ is superior to the angels, to Moses, and to the Aaronic priesthood. Similarly, the rabbis argued who was greater: Man or the angels? The messiah or Moses? Moses or the Patriarchs? And so on. More importantly, though, the need to demonstrate and argue that Jesus is greater than the angels, the priests, and Moses proves that the author did not consider Jesus to be God or to be equal to God because there is no need to prove that God is greater than the angels, the priests, and Moses. Hebrews 1:8 “Your throne, God, is forever and ever.” This can also be translated as “Your throne is God forever and ever.” More importantly, let’s look at the context of the original passage in Psalms: 45:6 Thy throne, O god, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Thy kingdom. 45:7 Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 45:8 All thy garments are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia; Out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad. 45:9 Kings’ daughters are among thy noble ladies; At thy right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir. First, note that god in 45:6 is anointed by God, who is his God in 45:7. Thus, one god has his own God. Second, the context of this god having kings’ daughters among his ladies and a queen in gold shows that the god in this passage is a human king that was called god, much as Moses was and so were the Israelites (see above). Thus, there is no reason at all to identify the god of 45:6 with the Creator. 2 Peter 1:1 “. . .of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” Almost all major scholars consider 2 Peter to have been written in the early half of the second century and not to have been written by Peter himself. The fact that someone who wrote about 100 years after the death of Jesus thought that Jesus was God is irrelevant. All that matters is what did Jesus himself teach considering himself. (Naturally, conservative evangelical scholars disagree, but their bias requires them to do so.)

31

As you can see, there are no verses said by Jesus that unequivocally demonstrate his divinity. There are some verses associated with John83 that, if you first assume his deity, then they can imply it (not clearly demonstrate it). If you don't assume his deity, then they simply show a glorified messiah. In general, the verses that supposedly show his divinity are based upon pre- and misconceptions that many first century Jews did not hold, such as God not delegating the authority to forgive. Opposed to the few implicit verses in John, the overwhelming majority of verses explicitly support the concept of a glorious, created messiah. Even in Paul’s writings, Jesus remains a man (1 Timothy 2:5) who someday will surrender his glory and status to God and be subjected to God (1 Corinthians 15:27, 27). Even in John’s writings (14:28), Jesus plainly states that the Father is greater than he is. To say that the Father is greater only in His role rejects the plain meaning of the verse. For the average Christian, it is not well-known that the concept of Jesus as God is one that developed with time after the resurrection and ascension. Longenecker, a conservative Christian scholar, writes:

the christology of early Jewish Christianity (1) found its initial point of departure in the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus; (2) gained support from the remembrance of Jesus' own teaching and consciousness, though neither were properly understood until after the resurrection; (3) derived substantiation from the Old Testament Scriptures, as those biblical portions to which it looked were christocentrically understood; (4) received development through the guidance of the Spirit employing circumstances to deepen reflection; and (5) faced a situation in the Jewish mission of the church which caused it to develop and express itself along certain lines and tended to retard it along others. Although a breath of conviction existed from the very first, undoubtedly containing within it also some diversity of opinion, a christological consensus forming the mainstream of Christian thought seems to have been formed very early. Under pressure, especially during the fifties and sixties of the first century, this consensus may at times have been more formal than real. But before the silencing of the Jerusalem church's effective ministry in the events of the sixties, the Gentile ministry of the church had taken root and was flourishing. And although the terminology was necessarily transposed to meet the concerns of another audience, it was the christology of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, which continued the main convictions of that earlier mainstream faith. (pp. 155-156).

Note especially points (2) and (4) that Jesus' teaching was not understood until after the resurrection and that christology developed through guidance by the Holy Spirit. In other words, while Jesus was alive, his disciples did not understand that he was claiming to be divine. Also, since christology "developed" through the "Spirit," Jesus did

83 Some of the verses in the Book of Revelations are explicit, but David Flusser shows that the author of Revelations likely plagiarized from an earlier Jewish work called Oracles of Hystaspes in “Hystaspes and John of Patmos,” Judaism and the Origins of Christianity.

32

not teach this "development." Rather, through "reflection," people read new concepts into the teachings of Jesus. The concept of the nature of Jesus must derive from the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11), that is, Jesus. Nowhere in Matthew, Mark, or Luke does Jesus teach that he is God, which is quite clear in Luke 24:19, where after the crucifixion two disciples of Jesus give their understanding of Jesus' position and/or authority by saying, he was "a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people." And even at this time in the following verses where Jesus explains to them what the scriptures say about him and yet there is still no mention of deity. And still at his ascension, he said nothing about his divinity. Instead he told them to proclaim the gospel (Mark 16:15), or how to enter God’s kingdom. He told them to make disciples and to teach all of his commandments (Matthew 28:19, 20), and he told them to teach repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24:47). In his final words to his disciples, he’s acting like a good rabbi, telling them to "raise up many disciples" (Avoth 1.1) that would follow his teachings. And his disciples remembered what he had said and in the first sermon at Pentecost at which 3000 souls were saved, Peter said nothing about any deity. Instead we read (Acts 2:22-41): "Jesus the Nazarene was a man . . . crucified . .. raised to life by God . . . made Lord and messiah by God" and for the Jews to repent for the forgiveness of their sins. In fact, throughout Acts, we see the early believers teaching repentance for the forgiveness of sins and trying to demonstrate that Jesus was the messiah,84 but nowhere do they teach that Jesus is God. Throughout the OT we read clearly that God is one. In the NT, if one assumes deity, then one can find, at the most, hints. If the Bible was truly inspired by God, it seems unlikely that God would play riddles or a guessing game about His nature that we must induce via inference. If nothing else, the verse "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) should prove that Jesus was not divine. As can be seen, the misconceptions about Jesus, almost everything said about Jesus is also said about other people and other created beings in the Bible and in other Jewish writings. If the same concepts and verses do not make others divine, then they should not make Jesus divine. Summary To sum up, Christians are rather normal people, much like most people of other religions: They do not apply the same scrutinizing eye for detail to the Bible and their own beliefs that they do to other religions. In part, this is due to their lack of understanding the culture, language, and nature of the Bible, and, in part, it is due to the assumption that only their religion is true. Such an assumption naturally leads Christians (and people of other religions) to treat other books and prophets in different ways from their own book and prophets. For example, although they try to resolve possible contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible, pray for guidance in resolving them, and simply give them the benefit of the doubt

84 See Acts 3:13; 4:28, 31; 5:30-32; 9:21, 22; 10:36-43; 13:31-38; 17:3, 18, 31; 18: 28; 26: 23; 28:31.

33

if they can’t resolve them, they do very little, if any, of the same with other holy books. Instead, they only call them false books and the books’ prophets, false.85 Regardless, Christianity, like other religions, has its own inconsistencies in its holy book and has its prophets who were less than perfect. If such faults do not necessarily nullify these people from being prophets and men of God or cancel their writings as scripture, then neither should such faults nullify other people from being prophets and their writings as scripture. To do otherwise is simply to use a double standard. Unfortunately, as Jesus implies (John 10:38), belief often blinds people to facts.

85 The words of Jesus still apply: “If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?” (Matthew 12:24-34; see also Mark 3:22-30 and Luke 11:15-23).