Have you ever wrestled with God? Gen. 32:22-32 describes the famous incident when Jacob wrestles with God (or with an angel). God (or the angel) appears matter-of-factly in the story: Jacob sends his family and retainers ahead, “[s]o Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak.” (Gen. 32:24.) The “man” “could not overpower” Jacob, but injuries Jacob’s hip with a “touch.” Jacob refuses to let the “man” go until he receives a blessing. The blessing is given, and Jacob’s name is changed to “Israel” “because you have sruggled with God and with men and have overcome.” (Gen. 32:28.) “El” refers to “God,” and the verbal root of “ysr” (“Isra”) apparently refers to “struggle.” After the man leaves, Jacob names the place “Peniel” — meaning “Face of God” — “because I saw God [elohim] face to face, and yet my life was spared.” It seems clear that Jacob realized at some point that this was no ordinary wrestling match.
What are we to make of this story? In his excellent NIV Application Commentary, John Walton explains this incident as relating to Jacob’s need to submit to God’s authority. The ability to change someone’s name, for example, indicates authority in ancient Near Eastern culture.
I like this reading, but the story also resonates with me in other ways. Often I feel that I’m wrestling with God to understand Him, His word, and His ways. The problem of theodicy on a global scale, the problem of understanding scripture and Christian theology in light of human and natural history, the problem of personal identity in a given Christian community, the problem of personal infirmities like my little boy’s speech deficits — all of these are points of contact for wrestling with God. I want God to yield and give me answers that are easy for me to digest. Yet He won’t yield; He makes me wrestle.
I suppose in the wrestling I come to recognize Him, as Jacob recognized, at some point during that long night, that he was tangling with no ordinary “man.” And like Jacob, I don’t leave the contest strong and triumphant. I limp away, broken at the very place God touched me. But I know in the wrestling that I have encountered God.
13 replies on “Wrestling With God”
Did Jacob wrestle with God or with an Angel? God dwells in light which no man can approach so it seems he wrestled with an angel. Yet that angel seems to have been representing God and stood in God’s place like the angel in the burning bush. In these instances the angel is called God but is not really God, only His representative – like an ambassador represents his or her government. In a much greater measure the Lord Jesus Christ was the express image of God. God was in him and when men looked on Him they saw the Father. However did that mean He was God? He was the Son of God, miraculously conceived and at one with His Father, exhibiting His characteristics and completely obedient. But Paul describes the risen Lord as being ”the man Christ Jesus” (1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus). In this passage The Lord Jesus is described as a mediator between God and men. A mediator is a person who acts as a go-between. Why would God act as a go-between between Himself and man? Under the Mosaic covenant the high priest was the go-between. The man Christ Jesus has now taken the place of the high priest. It seems confusing to contend God came to earth in another person called God the Son and that Jesus is actually God. The Lord Jesus does manifest God in His person but looking at scripture like the passages quoted seems to indicate that although Jesus is the exact image of God (Letter to the Hebrews) and manifests God much more perfectly than the angels mentioned did, He is nevertheless the man Christ Jesus. This does not make Him any less a King, Saviour, Redeemer, Lord, High Priest, Son of God and the only means of approaching the Great Creator and Father of all mankind. But eternal life is dependent on knowing God (John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.). Do we really know God and do we really know the Lord Jesus if we think they are one and the same – part of a tri-une God? Did Jesus really come in the flesh (1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:) if He is the second person of a tri-une God? And if we believe that, then can we count ourselves as being among them who ”confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”?
Rex,
These are interesting comments, but I have to say I disagree with you completely. As John 1:1 states, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And as John 1:14 states, “And the Word became flesh and dwelled among us.” The Monophysitist heresy (the teaching that Christ had only one nature, rather than a dual nature as both God and man), was rejected at the Counil of Chalecdon. The orthodox position within both Catholic and Protestant strains of Christianity is that Christ was and is both fully God and fully man, and that is the position to which I adhere. Though this is a mystery we can never fully understand, I don’t think any of the verses you’ve cited cuts against it in any way. Indeed, it is only in being fully God and fully man that Christ could be the “ambassador” to which Paul refers, for no mere man could become the perfect sacrifice that would atone for our sins.
Thanks for your comments. I accept you are fully committed to the orthodox view and will not be swayed from it. Belief in the trinity is so established there are few who are inclined to really question it. As you know, the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ was debated long and hard in the early centuries of the church but it is interesting that the notion of the trinity was given credence only about 300 years after Christ. It is not plainly taught in the Scriptures. I cannot shake your belief, but I hope you will wrestle with some of these thoughts.
The Word was in the beginning and the Word was with God and the Word was God. But what was this Word? Was it not God’s thoughts, purpose, plan, intention, nature or design for this world expressed in His Word (Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.)? Was not this Word a means of enlightening God’s people? Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path, the psalmist wrote.
This purpose, design, intention for the world focused on the Lord Jesus, was manifested in Him from the beginning, and was fulfilled in Him. And so the Lord Jesus was the Word become flesh.
That the Word is described in personal terms is not unusual. Wisdom is described as “she” and was with God from the beginning – Proverbs 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
Pro 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
Pro 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Pro 8:24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Pro 8:25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
Pro 8:26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world
The great wonder is that the Lord Jesus, being a man, conquered sin and by being perfect was the only sacrifice acceptable to God His Father. No, he was not a mere man. I agree no mere man could be a perfect sacrifice. He was a special Man. He had no human father. He inherited from His Father divine characteristics that enabled Him to do what a mere man cannot – live a life of perfect obedience.
On the other hand God could not be a perfect sacrifice. Perfect yes, but sacrifice no. A sacrifice must die. God cannot die. Jesus did die and was dead for three days. He ceased to exist for three days until His Father raised Him from the dead. The trinity presupposes that the Lord Jesus switched between being man and being God and that the man part of Him died and the God part remained alive. If that were so, would not His sacrificial death be a mere charade? After all, He didn’t really die – part of Him remained alive. And why, after His ascension does Paul call Him the man Christ Jesus? As the second person of the trinity did He not shed the man part of Him after He ascended to Heaven?
As you say, the trinity is a mystery – far too mysterious for us to understand. Did the apostles and the first century Christians believe it? And does the Bible really teach such a mystery?
Rex, thanks for the thoughtful comments. In my view it’s quite a stretch exegetically to make the “logos” of John 1 refer merely to an attribute of God, such as His wisdom.
I also think the most consistent view of all the New Testament texts is that Jesus is claimed to be God. For example, in the gospels Jesus himself claimed divine prerogatives (such as forgiving sins), accepted the disciples’ attribution of deity to him, and did not refute at his trial the charge that he claimed to be God.
In Hebrews 1, Jesus is portrayed as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word,” and is addressed directly as “God” via a quote from Psalm 45.
In Colossians 1, Jesus is called the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” by whom all things were made and all things hold together. In Colossians 2:9 Paul states that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Phil. 2:6 states that Jesus “in very nature God.” There are other similar strands in the Pauline epistles.
Also, the NT writers ascribe the term “Lord” (“kurios”) to Jesus after he rose from the dead. Some of these references are quotations from OT texts that employ one of the Hebrew names for God (e.g., Rom. 10:9-13.)
Finally, the resurrection of Jesus and the prospect of his return as King and Judge, as portrayed vividly in Revelation, strongly suggest the diety of Jesus. Jesus calls himself in Rev. 22 “the Alpha and Omega, the First and Last, the Beginning and the End,” and in verse 21 the Apostle John replies “Amen. Come Lord Jesus.”
These are just snippets and examples, not proof texts. In short, I think there were strong Biblical and theological reasons for the Church fathers’ judgment concerning the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. I don’t view this as a peripheral stream in the tradition that can be easily reevaluated. I think it’s part of the core of the faith.
Hello David
You are far more qualified than I am to expound on the meaning of logos and I’m sure as you say there’s a great deal more to the meaning than one attribute such as wisdom.
I’m sure spending time exploring how logos is used throughout scripture would be extremely rewarding and enlightening.
The whole purpose of God as revealed in the Scripture seems to be encapsulated in the Lord Jesus. Everything centres on Him, the seed promised to Adam and Eve in the garden that was destined to bruise the serpent’s head.
So all of God’s Word throughout the ages culminates in the Word made flesh. God’s purpose, thoughts, plans, intentions (at least those He chooses to reveal to mankind) are expressed through His Word given to the prophets down the ages until the Word became flesh.
When that happened, as you rightly point out, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9). When we look upon Jesus we see God, because as you say, He is the exact image or representation (Hebrews). But it’s significant that the writer says “exact image”. The Lord Jesus reflects God – He is an exact representation. An exact representation implies, I think, an exact likeness rather than the exact same entity. Furthermore He had to learn obedience through suffering (Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;). To me this suggests a gradual development and growth – a learning process that seems inconsistent with the characteristics of a man who is actually God. And could the Lord Jesus really be tempted if He were God? Would He have been “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”(Hebrews 4:15) It’s hard to see how that fits in with the way Scripture describes God’s nature (James 1:13 … for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:)
You quite rightly point out how divine attributes are given to the Lord Jesus and He even bears God’s Name. This is consistent with all power having been given by God to the Lord Jesus to carry out God’s purpose on earth. In 1 Corinthians (15:27) Paul writes: “For he (God)hath put all things under his (Christ’s) feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he (God) is excepted, which did put all things under him.
Paul goes on to say (1Co 15:28) “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” This shows how Christ’s power was given to Him by God and that after He has fulfilled God’s purpose He will then subject Himself to God.
This concept of Jesus manifesting God and as it were standing in the place of God is similar to the concept of Jacob wrestling with God. Jacob did wrestle with God, but it was not the God dwelling in light which no man can approach. It was God manifested in an angel. The angel represented God. Moses spoke to God in the burning bush. (Exo 3:4) “And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush,” But Acts 7:30 says: “… there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.” God was in the bush – manifested in the angel. The Lord Jesus is greater than angels and so manifests His Father infinitely more perfectly than those angels did.
But would one argue that because angels are called God they too are different persons in the Godhead as is argued for Christ?
You say that Jesus did not contradict the Jews when they charged Him with blasphemy. The following passages in John, I think, have some bearing on this: (John 10:30) “I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
The Lord Jesus draws their attention to Psalms (Psa 82:6) “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” Those judges who passed on the word of God to the people are called gods and there is no blasphemy in this. So the Jews were challenged to explain their objection to Christ saying He was the Son of God (and in fact not claiming to be God).
This is a fascinating topic, but I think I know how you feel – that the trinity is the core of your faith and that of millions of believers and how could all those scholars and men steeped in the study of scripture not be right?
Well, I think to see the Lord Jesus as the Conqueror who, having overcome sin, has been given all power and authority to act on God’s behalf and who, like a shining mirror exactly represents God, is seeing Him as divine and yet truly human and is closer to what the Scriptures are really teaching us about His nature and that of His Father.
Rex,
Thanks again for the comments. Just curious, how would you define the views you’re presenting?
You said: This is a fascinating topic, but I think I know how you feel – that the trinity is the core of your faith and that of millions of believers and how could all those scholars and men steeped in the study of scripture not be right?
I wouldn’t say this exactly. The trinity is one of the core doctrines of my faith. I don’t believe that doctrine, however, merely because others have believed it. There are some doctrinal positions I hold despite the fact that millions of other Christians and theologians take other positions. For example, I hold to essentially a Reformed view of justification, even though millions of Catholics hold a somewhat different view. And in light of my current thinking about epistemology and the relationship between faith and science, I probably hold (or at least wouldn’t exclude) some views relating to those topics that differ from some more “traditional” views. I guess I also take a Reformed approach to the tradition, which is that I respect the tradition and don’t deviate from it lightly, but view it as an important guide rather than an infallible rule. I don’t claim to be a trained theologian, but I have examined and continually do examine what I believe and why I believe it very deeply and carefully.
All of this is to say that if I felt something about traditional orthodox Christology were amiss, I wouldn’t be afraid to independently reexamine the tradition. However, I’m convinced that the issue of Jesus’ full divinity and full humanity is strongly supported by the weight of scripture, and that it is sufficiently central to Christian theology such that it should be affirmed by all Christians.
This isn’t to say that every question about this doctrine is well settled. I think you raise some interesting questions about Jesus’ self-awareness when he was on Earth. It’s possible that Jesus gradually became aware of his divinity, and indeed in some respects that seems likely, since he began life as an infant.
You also raise some good questions about the meaning of the kenosis, by which Jesus abdicated his rights as God, became a man, and died for us. Phillipians 2, a central passage on the kenosis, certainly tells us that Jesus took on some human limitations when he became incarnate. There’s room to discuss exactly what that means.
Yet, that same passage in Phillipians also contains one of the most powerful statments in the NT of Jesus’ full divinity: Jesus is “in very nature God,” and he is exalted by the Father to the “highest place,” such that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Phil. 2:9-11.
Another significant aspect of this that we haven’t discussed much is the designation of Jesus as “Christ.” This is a consistent theme in the NT. In 1 John, it’s made a central confession of the faith. For example, 1 John 22:
and 1 John 5:1: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.”
So, although I agree with you that the tradition is not inviolable, and that the doctrine of Jesus’ dual humanity and Godhood raises questions that can result in different nuances on the core doctrine, in my judgment the Chalcedonian position essentially is correct.
Hello David
I must apologise for my comment that suggests you believe in the trinity because millions of others do. I was out of line to suggest that because I am sure you have looked at the issue and examined it and thought about it deeply and come to your own conclusions.
And also please bear with me because I lack your scholarship and have not studied widely and deeply as you have and so there will be arguments you present that I will not fully grasp. I am, however, interested in your views and to what extent they follow accepted doctrines.
You ask how I define the views I’m presenting. I’m afraid I wouldn’t really know what definition they fall under. I suppose I fall into the category of fundamentalist with the view that vast areas of church tradition and teaching is suspect. I think the mainstream beliefs of most of the churches are unfortunately astray from the real teaching of the Bible. I think that a great deal of scholarship puts too much emphasis on man’s philosophy and not enough on trying to focus on the essence of what is in the Bible.
I subscribe to the belief that the Bible is wholly inspired and is an accurate representation of God’s Word (apart from some minor defects in translation) and that it should be allowed to interpret itself. We need to be especially careful about placing on passages meanings that reflect what we think is logical. First we should examine how the words are used elsewhere in the Scripture to see if such use can shed light on the passage we want to understand.
As an example: John 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
It is widely assumed the Lord Jesus Christ is talking about Heaven. After all, where does God dwell? In Heaven of course. That’s logical. No argument here. In fact the translators of the NIV write: I go THERE to prepare a place for you (so equating Father’s house with where the Lord Jesus was going). You will be able to go to the Greek and see if THERE is in the original. My understanding is that it isn’t and that there is no implication of it either. In other words, the Lord Jesus is not saying He is going to His Father’s house but is going somewhere and the context suggests He is talking about ascending to Heaven after His resurrection.
If we let the Bible interpret itself and look up in Scripture in both Testaments every instance of the word that refers to God’s house, the interesting thing is that, if I’m not mistaken, it always refers to where God dwells on earth – the tabernacle in the wilderness, the temple and in the body of believers. So, in the above instance is there any justification in saying “my Father’s house” is Heaven? My contention is that is man’s interpretation and is not giving it the meaning the Bible gives it.
I believe that the Lord Jesus is not saying that in Heaven there are many mansions/ dwellings/ abiding places/ rooms/ chambers but that the temple has many rooms and that temple is the body of believers (2Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.)
To interpret passages in this manner seems to me to be a more accurate way of arriving at the true meaning of passages than to place on them what seems a logical explanation but which has no Biblical backing.
The beauty of this method is that anyone can apply it to explore the Bible and get to understand its truth. It is not necessary to be educated or highly intelligent or have access to all the volumes of scholarly writings and commentaries that fill the world’s libraries.
So, as a fundamentalist of a kind, I believe God created this earth for mankind to live in for ever. He created it as a paradise with the tree of life in it. Had Adam and Eve not disobeyed Him they would not have died but have lived in the garden for ever, having access to the tree of life on which they could feed and so keep on living.
When God banished them from the garden and set an angel to guard the way to the tree of life He promised there would be a seed of the woman that would bruise the serpent on the head – ie destroy sin and its consequence, which is death.
All descendants of Adam die, because they inherit a sinful nature and the wages of sin are death. I don’t believe the Bible teaches man has an immortal soul. However, because the promised seed of the woman, the Lord Jesus, did not sin, He was not deserving of the punishment of death. Sin had no power over Him and so death could not prevail. God therefore raised Him from the dead. And so far, no one else has been raised. He is the firstfruits of them that slept (1Corinthians 15:20). All who have died remain in the grave until Christ’s return.
In the unfolding of God’s Word over the ages we learn that this seed would restore the paradise God created and would be the Tree of Life. He would be the Saviour, the King, the High Priest ruling on the throne of His father David.
So I look ahead to the return of the Lord Jesus to rule in Jerusalem, where the throne of His father David was centred, until the last enemy is conquered, which is death, and then He will give back to the Father all authority given to Him and God will be all and in all.
I believe the faithful will be raised from the dead at His return to this earth and those who are judged worthy of eternal life will live for ever and will reign with Him on earth (over those mortals alive at His return and who because of their lack of knowledge of Jesus are not called to judgement) until the last enemy is conquered and God is all and in all.
To some this sounds too literal, simplistic and naive but I believe when Scripture is examined carefully and is allowed to interpret itself, this very brief and curtailed view of the message in the Bible reflects teaching that is consistent throughout the Scriptures.
There is much to expand on this curtailed account above and of course I have not answered the objections you raise. This must be left for later if you are inclined to read more of my attempts to set out what I think the Bible is really telling us.
Thank you again for your comments. I look forward to reading about how your views diverge from the mainstream.
Hello David
You mentioned Phil. 2:9-11: Going back a verse or two to verse 5:
5 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;
8 and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;
10 that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Verse 6 says the Lord Jesus was in the form of God. (G3444 μορφή morphē Perhaps from the base of G3313 – through the idea of adjustment of parts; shape; figuratively nature: – form.)
I list below passages where the word “form” is used:
Mar 16:12 After3326 that5023 he appeared5319 in1722 another2087 form3444 unto two1417 of1537 them,846 as they walked,4043 and went4198 into1519 the country.68
Rom 2:20 An instructor3810 of the foolish,878 a teacher1320 of babes,3516 which hast2192 the3588 form3446 of knowledge1108 and2532 of the3588 truth225 in1722 the3588 law.3551
Rom 6:17 But1161 God be thanked,2316, 5485 that3754 ye were2258 the servants1401 of sin,266 but1161 ye have obeyed5219 from1537 the heart2588 that form5179 of doctrine1322, (1519) which3739 was delivered3860 you.
Phi 2:7 But235 made himself of no reputation,2758, 1438 and took2983 upon him the form3444 of a servant,1401 and was made1096 in1722 the likeness3667 of men:444
2Ti 1:13 Hold fast2192 the form5296 of sound5198 words,3056 which3739 thou hast heard191 of3844 me,1700 in1722 faith4102 and2532 love26 which3588 is in1722 Christ5547 Jesus.2424
2Ti 3:5 Having2192 a form3446 of godliness,2150 but1161 denying720 the3588 power1411 thereof:846 from such turn away.665, 5128
Looking at the way other parts of the Bible use the word “form” it doesn’t seem to me to suggest anything more than that the Lord Jesus in His nature reflected God, being the exact image of His Father. He manifested God as did the angel wrestler and the angel in the bush but in a far superior way than they did. Philippians also says the Lord Jesus took upon Him the form of a servant. So He was in the form of God and took on the form of a servant because unlike Adam and Eve who wanted to have the wisdom of God the Lord Jesus “counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,” (Phil 2:6). He did not seek to be equal with God. That’s why when He was tempted in the wilderness He resisted the temptation to seize control of all the kingdoms of the world, even though God (who ruleth in the kingdoms of men) had given Him the power to do so.
Because the Lord Jesus humbled Himself in this way, “God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;” Phil 2:9
It was God who exalted Him, because He had refused to exalt Himself. And this elevation to the position where every knee would bow to Him was in order to glorify God (verse 11).
Everything in this passage seems to me to indicate that God the Father glorified the Son on account of the Son’s obedience and humility before His Father. I don’t see it as indicating that the Lord Jesus is a co-equal partner with the Father in a trinity.
David, enough for now. I would like to come back to this another time. It is now after 3.30am here and I ought to get some shut-eye.
God be with you
Rex
Rex, I think you’re being a little coy with me about your background. Can you be a little more specific? What denomination are you? Are you a Jehova’s Witness? You’ve obviously studied this material extensively. If you don’t want to let on more, I understand, but it might help grease the discussion.
I have a response to the exegesis of Phil. 2. You are correct that the word “form” can be read in various ways. However, given the context of Phil 2 and the grammatical construction of the passage, it seems that there’s a strong argument for the trinitarian reading. I’m no Greek scholar by any means, but I’ll try to develop this another time based on what I’ve read about it — I need to go to bed now too!
Hello David, Well you didn’t specifically ask what denomination so rather than give you a name to label me with (and so be subject to possible assumptions and misconceptions) I explained very briefly some aspects of what I believe the Bible teaches.
I was baptised by Christadelphians and attended their meetings for years but am no longer in fellowship with them although I think their understanding of the Scripture is sound and is the closest to what I think is the correct understanding of God’s Word. I did study with Jehovah’s Witnesses but did not join them because I disagreed with many of their interpretations.
What occupies a lot of my thinking is how close does the believer have to get to the true teaching of the Scripture to be acceptable to the Lord. There are numerous passages that indicate correct doctrine is essential _ eg: we must worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:9
As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Scripture such as the above suggest it is vital to have the correct understanding of the Bible and there will be those who will say ”Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” and the Lord will tell them He never knew them
Matthew 7: 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
It seems if we don’t get it right, we could end up thinking we have been accepted and then find out that the Lord never knew us. This puzzles me because where is the line drawn? Do we have to be hundred percent correct in our understanding and if not, where is the dividing line between those whose understanding is acceptable and those whose understanding is not?
David, I’d be interested in your views on the importance of correct doctrine if you have time to devote to this.
God be with you and your family.
Rex
Rex, thanks for the clarification. As to PHil. 2, as I said, I’m not a Greek scholar by any means, but here’s my best shot. First, I’m not sure that your derivation of “morphe” from “meros” (3313)(a part, a share) is correct. My Word Study Dictionary by Zodhiates says “morphe” (3444) is derived from “morphoo” (3445) (to form, fashion) and summorphos (4832) (conformed to). Other related words are metamorphoo (3339) (to transform) and morphosis (3445) (formulation, impression, embodiment). All of these words relate to the fundmental nature of a thing, not merely a part of the thing or a part of its nature. As Zodhiates puts it, “Morphe in Phil. 2:6-8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphe) of God who was not God.”
In Mark 16:12, en hetera morphe refers to Jesus after the transfiguration. The transfiguration didn’t result in Jesus merely adopting some different outward form; it was a sort of metamorphasis from to the type of resurrection body all believers will receive one day.
In Romans 2:20, “morphosis” is used to describe the relation between the Law, knowledge and truth. The Law is propery described as the “form” or “embodiment” (NIV translation) of knowledge and truth. Again, the meaning relates to the thing’s essential nature, not merely its appearance or part of its nature.
In Romans 6:17, the word you have translated “form” is “tupto” (5180), which is unrleated to “morphe” and its roots. “Tupto” can mean a “type” or “pattern.” Perhaps it’s significant that Paul chose to use “morphe” when referring to Jesus being in the “form” of God rather than merely using “tupto.”
In Phil 2:7, “morphe” is properly used to indicate that Jesus in fact became a servant. Jesus didn’t merely imitate or look like a servant; he in fact became one in his essential nature (what I’ve referred to earlier as the kenosis).
In 2 Titus 1:3, the word translated form is “hupotuposis,” again not related to “morphe.” “Hupotuposis” is a “sketch, “image,” or “example,” as when a painter makes a sketch as a first draft before completing a painting. Again, perhaps it’s important that Paul did not choose this more limited word to describe Jesus being in the “form” of God. Jesus is in “morphe” — very nature — God, not merely a “hupotuposis” — sketch or example — of God.
Finally, the usage of “morphosis” in 2 Tim 3:5 is probably an example of irony. That’s how Zodihiates sees it.
From the word study you’ve provided, then, I don’t think your conclusion that “morphe” in Phil. 2 means merely a “reflection” or “type” is warranted. It seems to me that the root meaning of morphe, as well as the weight of its usage in the NT, indicates something far more substantial — that Jesus was in very nature God.
I also think this reading of “morphe” in Phil 2 is strongly supported by the ascription of the term “Lord” (“kurios” 2962) to Jesus in verse 11. “Kurios,” as we’ve noted earlier, means “Lord” or “master,” signifies authority and dominion, and corresponds to the OT Jehova. Jesus cannot be truly “Lord” in the sense used by the NT if he is not God.
Now, as to your question about how far off the mark one can be while still being “Christian”: I don’t know that I’m qualified to answer that. As we look at scripture, I think there are certain things that are absolutely central to Biblical faith. I would venture to say that acknowledging Jesus as “Lord” in the full sense of that word as used in scripture — in other words, acknowledging that Jesus is God — is one of those things. Though one may not fully understand all the implications of that doctrine, and though faith in Christ ultimately is relational rather than primarily propostional, it is impossible to genuinely believe in Christ and trust him for salvation without in some way coming to him as he truly is.
I do think that one way to examine whether a particular doctrine is within that central core, apart from the primary step of a careful study of scripture, is to examine Church history and the Christian tradition. While the tradition is by no means perfect or authoritative, it does help us identify key questions that have been identified as critical to the core of the faith over the ages. Again, I think Christ’s nature as God is one of those things.
Blessings to you.
Hello David
Thanks for your views on doctrine. I also think it is essential to understand what the Bible teaches about the Lord Jesus and His relationship with the Father. But as I have said before, I am wary of church tradition because at an early stage apostasy was at work as we know from the writings of the apostles, and the doctrine of the trinity was only accepted about 300 years after the apostles. It is significant that the Apostles Creed does not mention it at all.
Thanks also for following up on morphe and explaining the different meanings. I see that Young lists the three occurrences of morphe as you point out, namely Mark 16:12 and Phil 2: 6,7.
In Mark, the Lord Jesus appeared to the disciples in another form. As you say, He had risen from the dead and therefore His resurrected form was different from the form He had before His death. But before He appeared to the two disciples He appeared to Mary Magdelene. In that instance she mistook Him for a gardener. On the road to Emmaus the disciples mistook Him for a traveller, In other words He appeared to the disciples in another form from the one in which He appeared to Mary. Could it be that Mark is referring to these different forms? In which case it is the outward appearance that is being referred to and not fundamental nature.
However, assuming that ”another form” refers to His resurrected body as opposed to His mortal body, it is true that the bodies are different, but are these bodies not in essence mere shells and that the fundamental nature of the Lord Jesus did not change after His resurrection?
The point I am trying to make is that if morphe in Mark does not mean ”fundamental nature” then we should be suspicious of suggestions it means something different in Phil 2:6. Not being knowlegable about Greek I can’t speak authoritatively but could it not be argued that if Paul wanted to convey the idea of fundamental nature he would have used “eidos” and not morphe?
Another consideration is the use of morphe in Phil 2:7. You say morphe means fundamental nature and that the Lord Jesus became a true slave. If He did become an actual slave, would He not require an earthly master who owned him and would He not have to be completely subject to that master and be unable to do anything except what his master told him to do?
I think that if He had taken on the fundamental nature of a slave – as opposed to the characteristics of a slave (eg when He washed His disciples’ feet) it could be argued this would contradict Scripture. Could the Son of God also be in His fundamental nature a slave when Galatians 4:7 says: ”Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” In other words being a servant and a son are mutually exclusive and incompatible in Scripture.
I think it is also helpful to look at the Septuagint’s use of morphe. Apparently it is used in the following passages:
Judges 8:18 Then said he unto Zebah and Zalmunna, What manner of men were they whom ye slew at Tabor? And they answered, As thou art, so were they; each one resembled the children of a king.
Job 4:16 It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
Isaiah 44:13 The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
Daniel 3:19 Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.
The way I see it, morphe is used to indicate appearance, which is the meaning given to it in Liddell and Scott’s lexicon (form, shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance).
The use of it in this sense seems to me to agree with Hebrews 1:3 ”express image” or ”exact representation” of God. When we look on the Lord Jesus, we see the Father, for He and the Father are one.
As mentioned before, the judges were called gods (elohim) and the angels through whom God spoke to Jacob and Moses were called God. The idea of God being manifested in His representatives seems established in Scripture. This manifestation achieved its zenith, however, in the Lord Jesus Christ. ”For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9)
I agree with you David that we need to know who the Lord Jesus really is and keep wrestling until we’re sure we have the answer.
God bless
Rex
Rex,
As to Mark 16:12, first, I should have mentioned earlier that this pericope is not in the earliest and best manuscripts, and most Bible scholars believe it is not part of the original gospel. Regardless, I don’t think the resurrection body is merely a different “shell.” In the Biblical understanding, the resurrection body is a true and fundamental transformation.
As to Phil. 2, you still haven’t addressed one of the most important aspects of the context, which is the ascription of the term “Lord” (kurios) to Jesus. You also haven’t addressed the extensive and repeated use of kurios in relation to Jesus throughout the New Testament. I don’t think there can be any reasonable doubt, given this context, that Phil. 2 resoundingly affirms Jesus’ deity.
As to Gal. 4:7, your argument misses a great deal of important context. In Romans 6:18, Paul says of those of us who have faith in Christ (and who, according to Gal. 4:7, are thereby adopted by God as sons), “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” Later in verse 22 he says “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” Thus, there is no contradiction in saying that one can be a “slave / servant” as well as a “son.” Indeed, Paul develops this theme extensively in Romans 5-7. Whereas we previously were slaves to the Law and to sin, we have been set free through faith in Christ to live righteously, and are now “slaves” to righteousness and to God. True freedom comes from loving God so much that we desire to serve Him. Our very natures are changed and we become “new creations” in Christ. (Cf. 2 Cor. 5:17.) That theme is also developed throughout Galations, including in the passage you cited. By becoming a man and dying for our sins, Jesus took on the fundamental nature of a “servant.” It was not a mere external form, nor is it in any way inconsistent with his sonship in relation to God.
As to the Apostle’s Creed, your comment is simply wrong. Three of the cardinal affirmations of the Apostle’s Creed are belief in the “Father Almighty,” “Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,” and the “Holy Spirit.” The Creed is clearly Trinitarian in focus and structure.
As to the Septuagint’s translation of certain Hebrew words as “morphe,” you are correct that on a handful of occasions the Septuagint chooses “morphe” where “eikon” might be more appropriate from the context. This is best viewed as a mistranslation. The Septuagint’s rendering of Hebrew into Greek obviously isn’t binding on either the proper understanding of the Hebrew OT or Greek NT. The classical meaning of “morphe” is “essential substance,” not merely “external form.” (For more on the issue relating to the Septuagint, see the chapter on Christology in Millard Erickson’s Systematic Theology).
It seems clear to me that, although you might quibble with the meaning of a word here or there, the New Testament overwhelmingly affirms that Jesus truly is Lord — meaning that he is God. This comes from multiple places throughout scripture and through multiple lines of evidence. Moreover, the affirmation that Jesus is God is the only way to make sense of Christian theology, from its roots in the Old Testament prophecies and foreshadowings of the coming savior, to the atonement, through the second coming and the eschaton. Finally, the historical affirmations of the Church throughout the ages and the focus of its faith and practice has centered on the belief that Jesus is God. In my view, although I believe faith in Christ is primarily relational rather than propositional, the basic affirmation that Jesus is God must be made by anyone claiming the name “Christian.”
Rex, I’ve enjoyed this discussion, but at this point I need to close the comments on this thread. Blessings to you.