MARK’S DIVINE SON OF MAN

A QUICK DEFENSE FOR CHRIST’S DEITY

According to Jesus, the Holy Spirit inspired David to recognize and worship the Messiah as his very own Lord whom God exalts to sit enthroned at his right hand:

“And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, ‘How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.’” David himself calls Him “Lord”; so in what sense is He his son?’ And the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.” Mark 12:35-37

At his trial Jesus confirmed that he is that very Messiah, being the Son of God who sits enthroned at God’s right hand, and that very Son of Man who will come with the clouds of heaven:

“And the high priest stood up in their midst and questioned Jesus, saying, ‘You answer nothing? What are these men testifying against You?’ But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him and said to Him, ‘Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ And Jesus said, ‘I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ And tearing his tunics, the high priest said, ‘What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?’ And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.” Mark 14:60-64   

Jesus attributed to himself the following OT texts to himself:

“You Are a Priest Forever Of David. A Psalm. Yahweh says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand Until I put Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet.’” Psalm 110:1

“As I looked, thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened… In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14 New International Version (NIV)

What makes these OT texts remarkable is that David’s Lord and the One like a Son of Man is depicted as receiving the very worship which only God receives,

“Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.” Daniel 7:27 NIV

Reigns from heaven itself where only God Almighty himself rules from,

“He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord mocks them.” Psalm 2:4

“Yahweh is in His holy temple; Yahweh’s throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men.” Psalm 11:4

“Yahweh has established His throne in the heavens, And His kingdom rules over all.” Psalm 103:19

“Who is like Yahweh our God, The One who sits on high,” Psalm 113:5

“The heavens are the heavens of Yahweh, But the earth He has given to the sons of men.” Psalm 115:16

And rides the clouds of heaven like only God does,

“Wrapping Yourself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out the heavens like a tent curtain. He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He sets up the clouds to be His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind;” Psalm 104:2-3

“Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting. And everyone who sought Yahweh would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. And it happened whenever Moses went out to the tent, that all the people would arise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses until he entered the tent. And it happened whenever Moses entered the tent, that the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and Yahweh would speak with Moses. And all the people would see the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent. And all the people would arise and worship, each at the entrance of his tent. Thus Yahweh used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, and his attendant Joshua the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.” Exodus 33:7-11

“Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud had dwelt on it, and the glory of Yahweh filled the tabernacle. Now throughout all their journeys whenever the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the sons of Israel would set out; but if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out until the day when it was taken up. For throughout all their journeys, the cloud of Yahweh was on the tabernacle by day, and there was fire in it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel.” Exodus 40:34-38

“Now the cloud of Yahweh was over them by day when they set out from the camp.” Numbers 10:34

“Suddenly Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, ‘You three come out to the tent of meeting.’ So the three of them came out. Then Yahweh came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. And then both came forward, and He said, ‘Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, Yahweh, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Indeed clearly, and not in riddles, And he beholds the form of Yahweh. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?’” Numbers 12:4-8

“There is none like the God of Jeshurun, Who rides the heavens to your help, And through the skies in His majesty.” Deuteronomy 33:26 

“The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, Yahweh is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will shake at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.” Isaiah 19:1

“Yahweh is slow to anger and great in power, And Yahweh will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. Beth In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.” Nahum 1:3

At the same time, David’s Lord and the Danielic Son of Man is personally distinguished from YHWH God and the Ancient of Day who, according to the NT, is identified with God the Father.

By ascribing these OT prophecies to his own Person, the Markan Jesus has basically identified himself as the divine Son of Man and the exalted Lord of David who shares in the exclusive worship and everlasting dominion of God Almighty.

In other words, Jesus in Mark claims to be the unique divine Son of God who is essentially one with God the Father.

FURTHER READING

The Son of Man Rides the Clouds Pt. 1a, Pt. 1b, Pt. 2a, Pt. 2b

DAVID’S MULTI-PERSONAL LORD PT. 1, PT. 2

Revisiting the implications that Psalm 110 has on the divine identity of the Messiah Pt. 1, Pt. 2

ENOCH’S MESSIANIC SON OF MAN

JUDAISMS’ VIEWS ON THE MESSIAH’S PREHUMAN EXISTENCE

RABBINIC PERVERSION OF SCRPTURE

Another clear example where the rabbis perverted the explicit, plain reading of the Hebrew Bible is found in the following Talmudic reference:

עָמַד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עַל רַגְלָיו וְאָמַר: ״לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִיא!״ מַאי ״לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא״? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְּנָה תּוֹרָה מֵהַר סִינַי, אֵין אָנוּ מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל, שֶׁכְּבָר כָּתַבְתָּ בְּהַר סִינַי בַּתּוֹרָה ״אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת״. אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ רַבִּי נָתָן לְאֵלִיָּהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי עָבֵיד קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: קָא חָיֵיךְ וְאָמַר, ״נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי! נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי!״

Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: It is written: “It is not in heaven” (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: What is the relevance of the phrase “It is not in heaven” in this context? Rabbi Yirmeya says: Since the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the halakha is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah the prophet and said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me. (Bava Metzia, 59b https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.5?lang=bi)

Here the rabbis extracted a part from Exodus 23:2 to support their position that a person should follow and obey the majority over against the isolated position or opinion of the few or of a single individual.

What makes this so disturbing, in fact shocking, is that this the EXACT OPPOSITE point of the verse!  

Here is what the passage says as I quote from several English translations:

“You are NOT TO FOLLOW THE MAJORITY in doing wrong, and you are not to testify in a lawsuit so as to follow the majority and pervert justice.” International Standard Version (ISV)

You will NOT FOLLOW A MAJORITY for evil, and you will not testify concerning a legal dispute to turn aside after a majority to pervert justice.” Lexham English Bible (LEB)

“You shall NOT FOLLOW A MAJORITY in wrongdoing; when you bear witness in a lawsuit, you shall not side with the majority so as to pervert justice,” New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)

The unambiguous reading is that one should never follow the majority to do evil or pervert justice, and yet the Talmud took the phrase “follow the majority” to mislead folks into following the majority of rabbis when they have decided a matter!  

Even the renowned medieval rabbi Rashi had to candidly admit:

“You shall not follow the majority for evil, and you shall not respond concerning a lawsuit to follow many to pervert [justice].” Exodus 23:2

You shall not follow the majority for evil: There are [halachic] interpretations for this verse given by the Sages of Israel, but the language of the verse does not fit its context according to them. From here they [the Sages] expounded that we may not decide unfavorably [for the defendant] by a majority created by one judge. They interpreted the end of the verse: אַחִרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹת, “after the majority to decide,” [to mean] that if those [judges] voting [that the defendant is] guilty outnumber those voting [that the defendant is] innocent by two, the verdict is to be decided unfavorably according to their [the majority’s] opinion. The text speaks of capital cases [i.e., in regard to the death penalty] (Sanh. 2a). [Note that in monetary cases, the court requires a majority of only one judge in order to convict someone.] The middle of the verse וְלֹא-תַעִנֶה עַל-רִב, they [the Rabbis] interpreted like וְלֹא-תַעִנֶה עַל-רַב [and you shall not speak up against a master], meaning that we may not differ with the greatest of the court. Therefore, in capital cases they [the judges] commence [the roll call] from the side, meaning that they first ask the smallest [least esteemed] of them to express his opinion (Sanh. 32a). According to the words of our Sages, this is the interpretation of the verse: You shall not follow the majority for evil to condemn [a person] to death because of one judge, by whom those who declare [the defendant] guilty outnumber those who declare [him] innocent. And you shall not speak up against a master to deviate from his words. Because the “yud” [of רִיב, meaning quarrel] is missing, they interpreted it (רִב) in this manner [i.e., like (רַב)]. After the majority to decide [signifies that] there is, however, a majority after whom you do decide [the verdict]. When? If those [judges] who declare [the defendant] guilty outnumber by two those who declare him innocent. And since it says: “You shall not follow the majority for evil,” I deduce that you shall follow them [the majority] for good. From here they [the Rabbis] deduced that in capital cases, we decide through [a majority of] one for an acquittal and through [a majority of] two for a conviction. Onkelos renders [this verse]: Do not refrain from teaching what appears to you concerning a judgment. The Hebrew wording according to the Targum is interpreted as follows: And you shall not respond concerning a quarrel by turning away. If someone asks you something concerning the law, do not answer by turning aside and distancing yourself from the quarrel, but judge it honestly. I, however, say, [DIFFERING FROM THE RABBIS AND ONKELOS] that it [the verse] SHOULD BE ACCORDING TO ITS CONTEXT. This is its interpretation:

You shall not follow the majority for evil: If you see wicked people perverting justice, do not say, “Since they are many, I will follow them.”

and you shall not respond concerning a lawsuit to follow, etc.: And if the litigant asks you about that [corrupted] judgment, do not answer him concerning the lawsuit with an answer that follows those many to pervert the judgment from its true ruling But tell the judgment as it is, and let the neck iron hang on the neck of the many. [I.e., let the many bear the punishment for their perversion of justice.] (The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9884/showrashi/true#v2; emphasis mine)

Our risen Lord of glory was right when he castigated the Jews of his day for perverting the inspired Scriptures by their uninspired traditions:

“And the Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with defiled hands, that is, unwashed.(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) ⁵ And the Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, ‘Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?’And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: “This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commands of men.” Leaving the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.’ And He was also saying to them, “You are good at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”; and, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death”; but you say, “If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever you might benefit from me is Corban (that is to say, given to God),” you no longer leave him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.’” Mark 7:1-13 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

FURTHER READING

RABBINIC DISTORTION OF SCRIPTURE

MOSES IS GOD & GOD’S A MAN OF GOD?

In this post I will be highlighting some additional examples of rabbinic traditions which are quite baffling to say the least. The examples I present here will show how the rabbis either mishandled the Hebrew Bible or came up with some rather bizarre interpretations that are so far removed from the plain reading of the text.

 Note, for instance, the following Psalm which is said to be composed by Moses:

“A Prayer of Moses, the man of God (ish ha’ elohim). Lord, You have been our dwelling place from generation to generation.”

The phrase ish ha’ Elohim literally means “man, the God.”

Suffice it to say this expression led the rabbis to some rather weird and bizarre explanations

For example, one rabbinic explanation has this Psalm identifying Moses as both man and God!

תפלה למשה איש האלקים. אם איש למה אלקים ואם אלקים למה איש. אלא בשעה שהיה עומד לפני פרעה נקרא אלקים שנאמר (שמות ז א) ראה נתתיך אלקים לפרעה. בשעה שברח מפניו נקרא איש. דבר אחר בשעה שהושלך ליאור נקרא איש וכשהפך אותו לדם נקרא אלקים. דבר אחר כשעלה למעלה נקרא איש מה בוצין טב קומוי מה סומבק טב קומוי. משה בשר ודם עולה לפני הקב”ה שכולו אש ומשרתיו אש כשעלה אצלו נקרא איש וכשירד נקרא אלקים. דבר אחר כשעלה וראה שאין אוכלין ושותין וגם הוא לא אכל ושתה נקרא אלקים. וכשירד ואכל ושתה נקרא איש. א”ר אבין ממחציתו ולמטה נקרא איש. א”ר אלעזר מן מטרופולין היה משה שנאמר (במדבר יב ז) לא כן עבדי משה. דבר אחר איש האלקים. גברא דיינא. שנאמר (דברים לג כא) צדקת ה’ עשה ומשפטיו עם ישראל. שהיה אומר יקוב הדין את ההר. דבר אחר שהטיח דברים כלפי מדת הדין שנאמר (במדבר טז ל) אם בריאה יברא ה’. אמר משה אם בריאה מוטב ואם לאו יברא בשביל קרח ועדתו. ואין איש שהטיח כנגד מדת הדין כמשה. שהקב”ה אמר (שם יד יב) אכנו בדבר ואורישנו. ומשה אמר (שם יט) סלח נא. ומה השיבו (שם כ) ויאמר ה’ סלחתי כדברך:

A prayer for Moshe, the man of God. If he is a man, why God? And if he is God, why a man? Rather, when he stood before Pharaoh, he was called God, as it is said, “See, I have made you a god for Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). When he fled from Pharaoh, he was called a man. Another explanation: when he was thrown into the Nile, he was called a man, and when he turned the water to blood, he was called God. Another explanation: when he ascended on high, he was called a man, as it is said, “What is the manna?” (Exodus 16:15), and when he descended, he was called God. Another explanation: when he went up and saw that they did not eat and drink, and he himself did not eat or drink, he was called God, and when he descended and ate and drank, he was called a man. Rabbi Avin said, “From his waist down, he was called a man.” Rabbi Elazar of Metropolia said, “Moshe was called the man of God,” as it is said, “He performed the Lord’s righteous acts and his ordinances with Israel” (Deuteronomy 33:21), as he would argue with God about the strictness of the law, as it is said, “If you will deal thus with me, kill me” (Numbers 11:15). Another explanation: he was a judge, as it is said, “He executed the judgment of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 33:21), as he would say, “Let the judgment pierce the mountain.” Another explanation: he spoke against the attribute of justice, as it is said, “If it is through creation, let the Lord create” (Numbers 16:30), and Moshe said, “If it is through creation, then it is better, but if not, let Him create for the sake of Korach and his congregation.” And there is no man who spoke against the attribute of justice like Moshe. As the Lord said, “I will destroy them and blot out their name,” and Moshe said, “Please forgive them.” And what did the Lord respond? “I have forgiven them as you have spoken” (Numbers 14:12-20)…. (Talmud, Midrash Tehillim https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tehillim.91.1?lang=bi; emphasis mine)

If this weren’t confusing enough, another interpretation is that the phrase is actually referring to God, and therefore it is God who is being called the man of God!

דבר אחר אמר רבי יהודא בר’ סימון בשם ריש לקיש למה נקרא שמו איש האלקים מה האיש אם מבקש להפר נדרי אשתו מפר ואם מבקש מקיים שנאמר (במדבר ל יד) אישה יפירנו וגו’. כך כביכול משה אומר להקב”ה (שם י לה-לו) קומה ה’. שובה ה’:

Another interpretation is given by Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon in the name of Reish Lakish: Why is God called “the Man of God”? Just as a man fulfills his vow whether he chooses to annul it or uphold it, so too, God fulfills His promise. As it says in Numbers 30:3, “He shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” Similarly, Moses tells God in Deuteronomy 10:12, “Arise, O Lord, and return to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your strength.” (Ibid.; emphasis mine)

Talk about confusion!

On top of all this, the rabbis even took this Psalm as actually encouraging prayers to and for Moses!

דבר אחר תפלה למשה. זה שאמר הכתוב (דברים ט יח) ואתנפל לפני ה’ כבראשונה. רבי ברכיה ורבי חלבו בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמרו לא הניח משה זוית ברקיע שלא נתנפל עליו שנאמר ואתנפל לפני ה’. את מוצא שהרבה נביאים והרבה צדיקים נתפללו לפני הקב”ה ולא בא הכתוב לייחס אלא למשה בלבד. ולמה כן לפי שהיו מעשיו משונים מכל הבריות. כיצד אדם עומד ומתפלל שעה אחת או שתי שעות וכשהוא מתפלל הרבה מתפלל יום אחד. אבל משה רבינו (שם) ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה. אמר הקב”ה למלאכי השרת ראיתם גבורתו שנאמר (תהלים קג כ) ברכו ה’ מלאכיו גבורי כח. זה משה שהיה מגיד להן לישראל דבריו של הקב”ה שנאמר (שמות כ טז) דבר אתה עמנו ונשמעה. מה שלא היו יכולין לשמוע ששים רבוא ומגיד להן. הוי תפלה למשה. משל למה הדבר דומה לשלשה בני אדם שבאו ליטול דרור מאת המלך. בא הראשון וכיבדו ואמר לו מה אתה מבקש. ואמר לו בשביל המרד שמרדתי אני מבקש שתתן לי דרור. נתן לו. בא השני ונתן לו. בא השלישי ואמר לו מה אתה מבקש. אמר לו אדני המלך איני מבקש על עצמי דבר אלא מדינה פלונית שהיא חרבה והיא שלך גזור שאבנה אותה. אמר לו המלך וזו עטרה גדולה היא לך. כך בא דוד להתפלל. אמר לו הקב”ה מה אתה מבקש. אמר לפניו שתשמע תפלתי שנאמר (תהלים יז א) שמעה ה’ צדק. בא חבקוק ואמר לו מה אתה מבקש. אמר לפניו מה שאמרתי לפניך בשגגה שראה חנניה וחבריו נשלכין לכבשן האש ונמלטין וראה רבי חנניא בן תרדיון וחבריו נשרפין. כיון שראה כן קרא תגר ואמר רבון כל העולם אלו צדיקים ואלו צדיקים אלו טהורים ואלו קדושים מפני מה אלו ניצולין ואלו נשרפין. (חבקוק א ד) על כן תפוג תורה ולא יצא לנצח משפט כי רשע מכתיר את הצדיק על כן יצא משפט מעוקל (ועל כן תפוג תורה). אלא נבוכדנצר ערל וטמא ודניאל קדוש וטהור הוא מלביש לדניאל ארגונא. אחשורוש ערל וטמא ומרדכי קדוש וטהור והוא ממליך את מרדכי. פרעה ערל וטמא ויוסף קדוש וטהור והוא ממליך את יוסף. (שם) כי רשע מכתיר את הצדיק על כן יצא משפט מעוקל. אותה שעה נגלה עליו הקב”ה ואמר אחרי אתה קורא תגר. לא כך כתיב (דברים לב ד) אל אמונה ואין עול. אותה שעה התחיל אומר בשגגה אמרתי (חבקוק ג א) תפלה לחבקוק הנביא על שגיונות. בא משה ואמר לו מה אתה מבקש. אמר לו (במדבר יד יט) סלח נא לעון העם הזה. אמר לו וזו עטרה גדולה היא לך שאני מעביר רצוני מפניך שנאמר תפלה למשה איש האלקים. לא היה צריך לומר אלא למשה מהו איש האלקים. משל למה הדבר דומה למלך שכעס על בנו ובקש להרגו. אמר לו אוהבו בבקשה ממך מחול לו ואל יהרג. וכן עשה. למחר התחיל המלך ואומר אילו הרגתי את בני לעצמי הייתי מכשיל אלא זכור אוהבי לטוב שבקש עליו רחמים ומה אני עושה לו אני עושה אותו אב למלכים. כך אמר הקב”ה (דברים ט יד) הרף ממני ואשמידם. אמר לו משה (במדבר יא טו) אם ככה את עושה לי הרגני נא הרוג. מהו הרוג. הרוג נא את ההרוג. אם אדבר כנגדן הורגין אותי ואם לא אעשה שליחותך נתחייבתי הריגה לפניך. מכאן ומכאן הרוג אני. הרוג נא את ההרוג. הוי הרגני נא הרוג. מה כתיב (שם יד כ) ויאמר ה’ סלחתי כדברך. אחר כך אמר הקב”ה אילו הרגתי את ישראל הייתי מכשיל לעצמי. מחזיק אני טובה למשה שביקש עליהם רחמים שנאמר (שמות לב יא) ויחל משה. מה אני עושה אותו אב לנביאים. הוי תפלה למשה איש האלקים. כיון שיצאו ישראל ממצרים עמד לו ומתפלל ואומר איני מכיר את הדרך. אמר לו הקב”ה (שם כג כ) הנה אנכי שולח מלאך לפניך. אמר לו משה אפילו אתה שולח כמה מלאכים איני מניח אותך אם אין פניך הולכים. אמר לו חייך אני עושה גזירתך (שם לג יד) פני ילכו והניחותי לך:

Another thing is prayer TO Moses. As it says in Deuteronomy 9:18, “And I fell down before the Lord, as at the first.” Rabbi Berachiah and Rabbi Helbo in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said that Moses did not leave a corner of the heavens without falling on it, as it says, “And I fell down before the Lord.” We find that many prophets and righteous people prayed before the Lord, but the scripture only attributes it to Moses because his actions were unique among all creatures. How does a person stand and pray for an hour or two, and when he prays a lot, he prays for one day? But Moses prayed for forty days and forty nights. The Lord said to the ministering angels, “Have you seen his strength?” As it says in Psalm 103:20, “Bless the Lord, his angels, the mighty in strength.” This is Moses, who told Israel the words of the Lord, as it says in Exodus 20:19, “You speak with us, and we will hear.” What they could not hear, he put forth to them in the tens of thousands. So prayer is like this for Moses. A parable: Three people came to take freedom from the king. The first one came and paid respects and said, “What do you want?” He said, “For the rebellion that I rebelled, I ask that you give me freedom.” He gave it to him. The second one came and he gave it to him. The third one came and said, “What do you want?” He said, “My lord the king, I do not ask for anything for myself, but for a certain country that is desolate and belongs to you, decree that I may build it.” The king said, “This is a great crown for you.” Similarly, David came to pray. The Lord said to him, “What do you want?” He said, “Hear my prayer,” as it says in Psalm 17:1, “Hear my just cause, O Lord.”

Habakkuk came and said, “What do you want?” He said before Him what he said before you by mistake: Hananiah and his companions were thrown into the fiery furnace and escaped, while Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradion and his companions were burned. When he saw this, he exclaimed and said, “Master of the universe, these are righteous and those are righteous, these are pure and those are holy, so why do these escape and those are burned?” (Habakkuk 1:13) Therefore, the law fails, and justice never goes forth, for the wicked surround the righteous, so justice comes out perverted (Habakkuk 1:4). However, Nebuchadnezzar is uncircumcised and impure, while Daniel is holy and pure, so he clothed Daniel in purple (Esther Rabbah 7:14). Ahasuerus is uncircumcised and impure, while Mordecai is holy and pure, so he crowned Mordecai (Esther Rabbah 10:10). Pharaoh is uncircumcised and impure, while Joseph is holy and pure, so he made Joseph ruler (Esther Rabbah 7:12). For the wicked surround the righteous, so justice comes out perverted. At that moment, the Holy One, blessed be He, was revealed to him and said, “After you call out in protest, not so shall it be, for the righteous shall live by faith, but if he shrinks back, My soul shall have no pleasure in him.” (Habakkuk 2:4) At that moment, he began to say by mistake, “I uttered a prayer TO Habakkuk the prophet about my mistakes.” Moses came to him and said, “What do you seek?” He replied, “Please forgive the iniquity of this people.” He said to him, “This is a great crown for you, that I pass over my will before you, as it is said, ‘A prayer of Moses, the man of God.'” He did not need to say, “Moses, the man of God.”

It can be compared to a king who was angry with his son and sought to kill him. He said to him, “Please, my love for you, forgive him and do not kill him.” And so he did. The next day, the king began and said, “If I had killed my son myself, I would have stumbled. But remember my loved ones who asked for mercy for him, and what shall I do for him? I shall make him a father to kings.” Thus said the Lord (Deuteronomy 9:14), “Let me alone and I will destroy them.” Moses said to him (Numbers 11:15), “If this is how you treat me, please kill me.” What does “kill me” mean? “Kill the one who kills.” If I speak against them, they will kill me, but if I do not do your bidding, I am obliged to be killed before you. From here and from here I am the one who is killed. Kill the one who kills. Please kill me. What is written (Exodus 32:20), “And God said, ‘I have forgiven according to your word.'” Afterwards, the Lord said, “If I had killed Israel, I would have stumbled myself. I hold good for Moses who asked for mercy for them, as it is said (Exodus 32:11), ‘And Moses pleaded.’ What shall I do for him? I will make him a father to the prophets.” Let there be prayer FOR Moses, the man of God. When Israel came out of Egypt, he stood and prayed, saying, “I do not know the way.” The Lord said to him (Exodus 23:20), “Behold, I send an angel before you.” Moses said to him, “Even if you send many angels, I will not leave you if you are not before me.” He said to him, “I swear by your life, I will do your decree.” (Exodus 33:14) “My presence shall go and I will give you rest.” (Ibid.; emphasis mine)

No wonder that our Lord chided his Jewish opponents for meticulously dissecting the Scriptures but failing to understand them and for their uninspired traditions, which nullified the plain reading of God’s inspired Scriptures:

“Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, ‘Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.’And He answered and said to them, ‘Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?For God said, “Honor your father and mother,” and, “He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.”But you say, “Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever you might benefit from me is given to God,”he need not honor his father. And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you: “This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commands of men.”’” Matthew 15:1-9 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” John 5:39-40 LSB

FURTHER READING

RABBINIC DISTORTION OF SCRIPTURE

RABBINIC PERVERSION OF SCRPTURE

JESUS AS GOD IN THE NT

In this post I will be excerpting sections from the late Dr. Robert A. Morey’s book, The Trinity: Evidence & Issues, published by Christian Scholar’s Press, Las Vegas, Nevada, Part IV: The New Testament Evidence, Chapter 17 God the Son, in relation to specific NT texts which address Jesus as God. The reason why I chose to take excerpts from Morey’s work is because he cited so many grammarians and theologians to support his explanation of these verses.  

Here I will be quoting what Morey wrote in respect to Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8.

Our Great God and Savior

Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus (Titus 2:13)

prosdechomenoi ten makarian elpida kai epiphanian tes doxes tou megalou theou kai soteros hemon ‘Iesou Christou

The issue whether Jesus is here called “our great God and Savior” has been approached in several ways. Since Arians begin with the a priori assumption that the New Testament never speaks of Jesus as God, they must ignore all the grammatical and syntactical evidence of such passages as Titus 2:13. But what else can they do? If they find just one passage which speaks of Christ as God, their entire theology falls to the ground. Their belief system is constantly in peril.

On the other hand, the Trinitarian is not faced with such a terrible dilemma. His belief system us not threatened in the least. He can follow the grammar wherever it leads him: Lenski explains:

As far as we are concerned, it makes no difference whether Jesus is here once more called God or not; deity is ascribed to Jesus in so many Scripture passages that the addition or the subtraction of this passage is immaterial. The grammar and the language decide. Here these are decisive and are supported by the context: it is the epiphany of the deity in Jesus Christ that constitutes our blessed hope.¹⁴⁹   

It is no surprise that grammarians emphatically state that the Greek text clearly indicates that only one person is in view in Titus 2:13: “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”¹⁵⁰ Middleton states, “It is impossible to understand theou and soteros, otherwise than of one person.”¹⁵¹ A.T. Robertson says, “This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and soteros.”¹⁵²… Hendriksen comments:

The article before the first noun is not repeated before the second, and therefore the expression must be rendered “of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus.” no valid reason has ever been found which would show that the (Granville Sharp rule) does not apply in the present case.¹⁵³

Today, the vast majority of commentators and exegetes agree with the grammarians.¹⁵⁴ Even Brown admits, “This is the most obvious meaning of the Greek.”¹⁵⁵

A few commentators have followed Winer in his denial that Jesus is here called God.¹⁵⁶ But Winer was honest in stating that although the grammar of the text was in favor of “our great God” as a reference to Christ, he was forced by his doctrinal commitment to Arianism not to accept it.¹⁵⁷ Once again, it is the anti-Trinitarian who allows his theology to dictate the meaning of a text, instead of allowing the grammar and syntax of the text to determine his theology.  

Even the few commentators who followed Winer, cannot get the facts straight. In an attempt to avoid Sharp’s rule, Dean Alford claims:

soter was one of those words which gradually dropped the article and became a quasi proper name.¹⁵⁸

Timothy Dwight, past president of Yale, answers Alford:

This answer is not to be regarded as satisfactory, for though soter apparently came to be used as a proper name in this way, at a latter time, it cannot be affirmed that the apostolic authors so used it.¹⁵⁰

Modern research has confirmed that the phrase “our great God and Savior” was understood by both the Greek and Latin Fathers as a reference to Jesus Christ.¹⁶⁰ This is what Trinitarians would expect to find. Also, the words “God and Savior” were used in the first century by both Jews and pagans as a title of divinity. Murray Harris explains:

The expression theos kai soteros was a stereotyped formula common in first-century religious terminology (see Wendlad), was (apparently) used by both Diaspora and Palestinian Jews in reference to Yahweh, and invariably denoted one deity, not two. If the name ‘Iesou Christou did not follow the expression, undoubtedly it would be taken to refer to one person.¹⁶¹

Moulton points out that in Titus 2:13:

A curious echo is found in the Ptolemaic formula applied to the deified kings: thus GH 15 (ii/B.C.), tou megalou … kai soteros … The phrase here is, of course, applied to one person.¹⁶²…

These reasons given above explain why most modern liberals no longer deny that “our great God and Savior” apply to Jesus in Titus 2:13. It also underscores the importance of not relying on the arguments advanced by nineteenth century liberals. Modern Arians such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have yet to learn this lesson: Jesus is “our great God and Savior.” (Morey, pp. 344-347)

Thy Throne, O God

But of the Son He says, “THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.” (Heb. 1:8)

pros de ton hyion ho thronos sou ho theos eis ton aiona tou aionas kai he rhabdos tes euthytetos rhabdos tes basileias sou

This text is the first passage set forth by Reymond [sic] Brown under section III, “Texts Where Jesus Is Clearly Called God.”¹⁶⁵ Oscar Cullman states, “Hebrews unequivocally applies the title ‘God’ to Jesus.”¹⁶⁶ Brown and Cullman are perfect examples of the difference between what Warfield calls the “Old Liberal School” and the “New Liberal School.”¹⁶⁷

Eighteenth and nineteenth century liberals did their best to overturn Hebrews 1:8 as a proof text for the deity of Christ by giving it various novel translations. In his classic commentary on Hebrews, John Brown explains:

Those who deny our Lord’s divinity have been greatly perplexed by this passage and have attempted to get rid of the argument by rendering the words, “God is Thy throne for ever and ever.” But this is not only contrary to the usage of the language, but it would utterly destroy the force of the Apostle’s argument. ¹⁶⁸

B.B. Warfield was perturbed by the attempts of liberals to wiggle out of Hebrews 1:8 by retranslating it in such a way to avoid the deity of Christ:

It undoubtedly does not make for edification to observe the expedients which have been resorted to by expositors to escape recognizing that these Psalms do ascribe a superhuman nature and superhuman powers to the Messiah. What they have done with Ps. xlv. 6–to take it as an example. Rather than take it as it stands, they would prefer it seems to translate vilely, “Thy throne is God,” “Thy throne of God,” Thy throne is of God,” or rewrite the text and make it say something else, “Thy throne [its throne is firmly fixed], God [established it],” “Thy throne [shall be] forever.”¹⁶⁹

These novel translations were “violent avoidance’s” as well as ”vile,” according to Warfield. Such strong emotive utterances seem strange in today’s climate of relativism. But we must remember that the nineteenth century Unitarian debates were hot and heavy. The debate generated over five thousand books, pamphlets, and tracts as it raged in Europe as well as in North America.   

The old liberals knew that if Hebrews 1:8 was translated in the vocative, i.e., Christ was being addressed by the Father as “God,” then their dogma that Jesus was never called theos in the New Testament would fall to the ground. In their desperation to avoid this, they went so far as to add words to the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6, even though they did not have a single manuscript to back them up!  

With the appearance of the Werde-Boussett thesis, modern liberalism changed its mind and now readily admits that Jesus was called theos in the New Testament. Thus, Hebrews 1:8 was just one more such place. Trinitarian scholars had won the day when it came to the grammar and syntax of these passages. But this did not mean that modern liberals are ready to convert to Christianity.

Modern liberals were now willing to admit that the Messiah was called “God” in such places as Psalms 45:6; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8, etc., but the word “God” did not mean true deity but only a “divine hero” like the ones found in pagan mythology. Having failed to get rid of the offending word “God,” they weakened its meaning into something less than God.

Today there are two different kinds of anti-Trinitarians. First, there are those like Jehovah’s Witnesses who still depend on the arguments of nineteenth century liberalism. They retranslate both Psalms 45:6 and Hebrews 1:8 to escape Christ being called “God.” Second, there are the modern liberals who admit that Jesus is called “God,” but then water down the word until it no longer means true deity.

We have already exegeted the Hebrew text of Psalms 45:6 and established that it should be translated in the vocative, “Thy throne, O God.” As we demonstrated in the section on early Jewish literature, the Septuagint, the Targums, and indeed, all the ancient versions translate it that way. The Midrash (Gen. Rabbah 99:8), the Pseudepigrapha (The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [Judah 24:11]), and the Talmud (Shab. 63a) all see the Messiah as the One to whom Psalm 45:6 is addressed. Lenski comments:

Here we have a vocative even in the Hebrew as well as in the LXX and in Hebrews, and only the unwillingness of commentators to have the Son addressed so directly as ‘Elohim, ho theos (the article with the nominative is used as a vocative), “God,” causes the search for a different construction.¹⁷¹

Ho theos is found sixty-three times in the vocative in the Psalms. Why then deny it here? Nowhere in scripture is God ever said to be someone’s throne. The language “God is your throne” is rather odd and out of place in Psalm 45 and Hebrews 1. How does such a phrase prove that Jesus has a superior name and nature to the angels?

Please also notice that the word “God” has the definite article in Hebrews 1:8 (ho theos). A comparison of what anti-Trinitarians say on the significance of the presence or absence of the article before theos reveals an astounding contradiction. They assure us that the lack of the article before theos in John 1:1c “the Word was God” (theos een ho logos) signifies that the word theos refers to something less than true deity. Thus Jesus is only “a god” and not really “God.” If theos had the article, they tell us, it would mean true deity. While their understanding of the presence or absence of the article is erroneous, nevertheless, it is what they claim to believe.

Given their view, what should they say about such passages as John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and Hebrews 1:8, which all have the article before theos? Do they acknowledge that Jesus is true deity because theos has the article? No. They either ignore the presence of the article or state that its presence does not imply true deity!

They try the same contradictory approach with the Hebrew word elohim. Since it does have the article in Psalm 45:6, then it does not mean true deity. But the fact is that the lack of the article before elohim is quite normal in Hebrew poetry.¹⁷²  

From the analysis of five proposed translations of Psalm 45:7a, we reached the conclusion that that traditional rendering “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” is not simply readily defensible but remains the most satisfactory solution to the exegetical problems posed by the verse.¹⁷³

The context of Hebrews 1:8 is the final proof. The point of the author is that Jesus has a “more excellent name” than the angels (v.4). What could that name be? It could not be “Jesus” because there was nothing special about that name. The “more excellent name” has to be so special that causes all the angels to worship him (v.5).

What name could be so wonderful that the angels would bow down and worship? The only name given to Jesus in the immediate context is “God” in verse 8. A.W. Pink explains:

This supplies us with one of the most emphatic and unequivocal proofs of the Deity of Christ to be found in the Scriptures. It is the Father Himself testifying to the Godhead of Him who was despised and rejected of men. And how fittingly is this quotation from Psalm 45 introduced at the point it is in Heb. 1. In v.6 we are told that the all the angels of God have received the command to “worship” the Mediator. Now we are shown the propriety of them so doing. He is “God!” They must render Divine honors to Him because of His very nature. Thus we admire, once more, the perfect order of Scripture.¹⁷⁴

The modern attempt to lessen the impact of the vocative in Psalms 45:6 or Hebrews 1:8 by reducing the word “God” to “divine hero” is no longer possible. Since both old and new liberalism developed their respective interpretations of these passages without knowledge of the literature of early Judaism in general and the Dead Sea Scrolls in particular, their claim that we must look to pagan Greek mythology for the source of such language is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

It has now been established beyond all doubt that the background, themes, imagery, and vocabulary of the book of Hebrews is Semitic, and not Greek. For example, the references in the dead Sea Scrolls to Melchizedek may explain why so much attention is paid to him in Hebrews.¹⁷⁵ (Ibid., pp. 347-350)

FURTHER READING

GOD THE SON IN THE OLD TESTAMENT