|
kings of the earth take their stand, and regents intrigue together against the LORD and against His Mashiach." (Psalm 2:1-2)
|
|
If we accept the Scriptures — Tanakh and New Testament (Covenant) — as our authoritative source for knowing divine truth and hearing the mind and will of God, and view them as our only filter through which we judge all other "truths" (written or oral), then we have to confront the imposition of theoretical Christian theology regarding the Godhead.
What theology often does is exert higher authority than the Scriptures, and it diverts our attention from what is obvious and emphasized in the Bible. It's like going to a stage play and having someone sit down next to you and throughout the performance explain what she thinks is going on Off-stage. She insists the off-stage activities are far more important than what you see right in front of you or what you hear from the actors during the play. She theorizes unknowables, then presses you to believe her fanciful imaginations. If you don't buy her theories, she angrily turns on you with warnings of dire consequences. Afterall, she's a studied expert. Then to all the theater goers around you, she starts rumors about your inability — or obstinate unwillingness — to grasp the eternal truths of Drama. Finally, she goes to theater management to have your season tickets revoked. In protest (and defiance) of her self-assumed authority, it's important for us to affirm that if we believe the Scriptures are God's intentional, authored "script" that he wants human beings to give utmost attention to, then for us the On-stage presentation should be our preoccupation. It's not for us to squander time speculating about what the Actors were doing before the play began, or what costume changes they are making between acts, or which hour we might see them for a final curtain call when this earthly drama ends. The Script does not tell us these things.
[Top]
Systematic theology demands that everyone affirm that "true Christian faith" in summed up in the words "Jesus is God" — and that, with no qualifications. It's the bottom line, last paragraph, red-letter confession that alone will provide admittance into heaven. Yet this demand is really an attempt to convince us that the New Testament requires belief in a doctrine about which it says little — that is, in the language and concepts created by theologians. At the same time, we are subtly urged to ignore what the NT says a great deal about. In the following paragraphs, I'll point to what I think is the Great Deal found in the NT. And I'll describe what we lose whenever we give ear to Interpretive Drama Critics and Whispering Speculators.
Yeshua is called "Son" some 167 times in the NT. He is a son — the son whom God sent because he loved all humankind (John 3:16). He is not the Father; he "belongs to God" (1 Cor 3:23). Prior to Yeshua's birth, "God . . . spoke to the fathers [the patriarchs] by the prophets." Then, when the "Last Days" began, God spoke "by his Son" (Heb 1:1-2). Yeshua's main biblical identity is his sonship, not any abstract co-equal deity. This is important for us as humans, because we are meant to become new-born sons (whether male or female) of his Father, as he is a son himself (Rom 8:29; Heb 2:11). As he is "one" with the Father (John 17:22), so too are we to be "one Spirit" with him (1 Cor 6:17). If we play down this NT emphasis on his sonship, in favor of a more pious but abstract Christology, we'll lose "the Last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45), our model of New Humanness, and thus our own identity as God's children. We'll have no clear picture of what "we shall be like" when he appears because we won't know who he is (1 John 3:2). Christian theology coined the term "the God-Man" to describe the one in whom two natures theoretically reside. The New Testament never uses this hybrid term. Instead, the NT refers to Yeshua as "Son of God" (45 times) and "Son of Man" (86x, his favorite term for himself). What can be wrong or dangerous about calling him the Son of God and Son of man? [Top] Yeshua is called the Anointed One or Messiah [Hebrew, Mashiach; Greek, Christos]. This is the most frequent title for him, second only to "Lord." It's used 529 times in the NT. It must be very important to the Author of Scripture. It eventually became his proper name: Yeshua Messiah or Messiah Yeshua. The NT says "God" anointed Yeshua (Matt 12:18-21; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38). The Messiah was the recipient of this anointing, not the acting agent. This draws our attention: Why are his anointed status and title so important to the NT? With what was he anointed? Why would the NT emphasize his passive position — that is, being the receiver of an act and gift — if he is ultimately (as theologians prefer we call him) "our God"? How can he be Giver and Receiver? Theologians, I think, avoid the word "Messiah/Anointed" because it focuses attention on Yeshua's receiving. They instead push the idea of his deity. Their programmed disconnect between Scripture and theology is reinforced when people simply call him by his English proper name "Christ" (or equivalent in other languages), without knowing the original Hebraic meaning behind his title Mashiach-Messiah — mentioned 529 times. [Top] The most common title for Yeshua is "Lord." Psalm 110:1 has two Hebrew words translated "Lord." The first is the Name of Four Letters or the Tetragrammaton: Y-H-V-H. Most versions print it with the form "LORD," as a euphemism. The other word is Adon. Thus: The LORD said to my LordThis verse from Psalm 110 is the most often quoted or alluded to passage from the Hebrew Bible in all the NT. [Psalm 110:1 in NT.] It was the major proof-text that Yeshua quoted in defending his messianic mission (Matt 22:41-46; 26:64). And it became the signature Hebrew "Shema" for his followers: Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah — this Yeshua whom you crucified. (Acts 2:36)Accordingly, the letters of the Jewish apostles usually begin with the greeting: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Yeshua Messiah." The tiny letter of Judah (Eng. Jude) ends with the blessing: "To the only God our Savior, through Yeshua Messiah, our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever" (v. 25). The Messiah is God's Lord. He is the Prince who sits at "the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Heb 1:3), at "the right hand of God" (Col 3:1), and administers the kingdom. He has been doing this since his resurrection. And he will continue in that duty-office until one day "he delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father" (1 Cor 15:24). [Top] In the NT, Yeshua is also the God-provided Mediator, Intercessor, and Interpreter. He interprets God to us (John 1:18b). He stands and "intercedes for us" as defense attorney (Rom 8:34). He doesn't mediate between people and himself. In the early years of the Roman Catholic Church, when the Trinity Doctrine expanded its definition of the deity of Jesus, his role as mediator disappeared because, in a sense, he was "promoted" by theologians. In his stead, his mother was given his intercessory task by the Church. Catholics say she now intercedes for Christians with her Son. In the NT, she is never given that role. It is an act that clearly usurps his biblical position. Eventually, innumerable dead but living-in-heaven saints were added by the Roman Church to expand the mediatorial options to include a host of interceding witnesses. Yet the Scripture is eternally clear: "There is one mediator between God and mankind: the man Messiah Yeshua" (1 Tim 2:5). If we can no longer go to Yeshua the Messiah as mediator between us and God the Father, all those Scriptures about his intercessory work are meaningless. And we are left standing, under a cloud of Church-created alternatives. [Top] Following the inspired patterns given to Moses, Yeshua is called our "High Priest" (Heb 4:14), "through" whom we may "draw near to God" (Heb 7:25a), because he "offered himself without blemish to God" (Heb 9:14a) to purchase our redemption and "cleanse" our "conscience[s] from dead works to serve the Living God" (Heb 9:14b). This High Priest did not relinquish his role when he died and was resurrected. He "always lives to make intercession" for us (Heb 7:25b). Always lives. And in response to his efforts, we are to "offer up a sacrifice of praise to God . . . through [Yeshua]" (Heb 13:15). Like the high priests of old, Yeshua stands for us, in the presence of God, to represent us and to make kipper for our sins. If we lose our interceding Priest in a cloud of pious theological mystery (or a host of human usurpers), just who will offer himself for us, that we might come boldly to the throne of grace: to the Father's throne? [Top] Yeshua is "the Way" through whom everyone must ultimately come "to the Father" (John 14:6). He is the way, not the destination. Comparing the patterns of mediation represented by the Mishkan (Tabernacle) in the days of ancient Israel, we find that: Yeshua is the Kohen Gadol or High Priest. He is also the altar in front of the Mishkan upon which he offers himself as sacrifice. He is the menorah that lights up the inner Holy Place and the bread of the Presence that provides sustenance to enable us to pass through the veil or curtain (of his "flesh" Heb 10:20) and then enter into the Most Holy Place where he sprinkled his own blood on the kipporet or place of atonement, so that we (in his person) may enter into the presence of the Holy One himself: "the God and Father of our Lord Yeshua Messiah" (Rom 15:6). If we lose this Way to God, the Father, what other way is there? And where would it lead? [Top] I have a copy of a Christmas newsletter from the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). On its front page in bold letters are the words: "God is Jesus — Amen!" Regardless of the sincerity of the author's belief, the theology embedded in this phrase is unbiblical. The NT never says such a thing. If historical Christian theology is true, if Jesus is the absolute sum total of "God," then logically, there's no need to call him the Son . . . of God. (How could he be his own son?) And if there is no Son, why is there a Father? No need to imagine one; what's the point? If we have the fullness of the incarnate Godhead in Jesus, what could we possibly be missing? Yet the NT repeatedly distinguishes between the Son (Yeshua) and God (his Father). Why is that? Is the NT playing a shell-game? The NT says Yeshua is "the first-born among many brethren" (Rom 8:29). His "brothers" (a term that includes females) are those to whom "he gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12). We share a common Father with him. We, however, are adopted and our re-birthing is contrary to nature. In contrast, he was not adopted. He is "the one and only" or "unique" son of his father (John 1:18; 3:16, 18). Though a unique son (Grk, monogenes), Yeshua "learned obedience from the things he suffered" (Heb 5:8), for "he had to made like his brethren" (Heb 2:17). He too submitted himself to the discipline of "the Father of spirits" (Heb 12:9). In the Gospels, Yeshua refers to "Father" some 180 times; 112 in John alone. The focus of his work, ministry, and redemptive purpose is to bring all people to the Father, to bring Israel back to the Father of their fathers. What impressed me as I was studying to understand the nature of Yeshua was that he doesn't talk as though he were God. He doesn't talk about himself as though he alone is deity. He is God's son. In his teachings and prayers, he always, eventually includes his Father in all that he does and say. I am not alone, because the Father is with me. (John 16:32) But when theology presumptuously exalts the Son so that he eclipses the Father, the doctrinal consequences are demonstrably catastrophic. [Top] On a general human level, history itself reveals the earth-shattering effects of absent or dead fathers. Following the Sho'ah, the German pastor and theologian Helmut Thieleke wrote of "the dreadful lawlessness of a fatherless world" (Silence of God, p. 6). Historian Paul Vitz tracks the consequences of fatherlessness in the lives of destructive atheists such as Adolf Hitler, as well as Friedrich Nietsche, Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong (Faith of the Fatherless, 1999). We could also cite the fatherless Saddam Hussein. Contempt for fathers is a pillar in secular liberalism's worldview. Liberal feminist Christianity and Judaism also nurture a similar contempt. Within conservative Christianity (Catholic or Protestant) disregard of Father is also common, but theirs is more the unexamnined result of pious theology that seeks to defend and exalt Christ against attacks from his enemies. But a defensive reaction to protect and proclaim a "Christ-centered" faith has a potentially negative effect. For when God the Father disappears behind the Son's exalted status ("Jesus is God" or "God is Jesus"), a destructive progression of Patricide or Deicide begins. And that inevitablly leads to expulsion and denial of the Son himself. And once the Son is gone from our attention, his place will be filled by a Successor of some kind. [Top] Over time, the creators of the Trinity doctrine/theory focused on the office and deity of the Third Person, about whom Scripture is "mysterious" (as many have said). He became critical to them, however, for he was (they said) the inspiring Source of their doctrines. This is how their logic worked and where it leads: As the successor to Jesus and an independent agent with his own will, the Spirit can reveal new truth. He is not bound to written Scripture (which he in fact wrote). The Spirit can update previously known truth, even if his revisions and updates steer the people of God into new — even contradictory — paths from those taken by previous generations of believers. In this scenario the Spirit has replaced both the Father and the Son. And in so doing, he fulfills the biblical prophecy about the spirit of antichrist who "denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). [Consider the essays: Spiritanity and The Personhood of the Holy Spirit.] [Top] The ancient theological Speculators and their heirs opened a backdoor through which a dark Presence entered. This Presence took advantage of the cloud of mystery and the fear of blasphemy created in the minds of Christians regarding the Godhead. By exploiting Christians' taught habit of avoiding the written, on-stage play in favor of mirky wonderings about off-stage divine realities, this Presence further interposes his mind into their interpretations of Scripture. Then it (he) pushes men to evolve their doctrines, then directs their actions to fulfill his purposes. The modus operandi of this dark Presence is to appear as "an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14) — as the Holy Ghost — not as an anti-Christ figure with demon eyes. And yet his insidious, demonic goal is to neutralize God and Messiah, to overthrow the Throne in a final coup de grâce and become the sole "God of this age" (2 Cor 4:4). The indwelling presence of this Presence among his agents and servants is well-known in Scripture:
The kings of the earth take their stand,
But . . . as the original Play script affirms: On that day, says the LORD of hosts . . . [Top]
|
|
|