And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:2–4, ESV)

In the previous article (here), we discussed the “sound”. The “sound” is not alone; it is accompanied by the “wind”. In the power of the “wind”, the “sound” of the Gospel has gone forth into all the world, and it has gone out to conquer the hearts of men. The “wind” or the “Spirit of the Lord” is the means by which the “breath” of the Word of God enters our being, breaking our hearts of stone and creating hearts of flesh and giving us life. In the same way that the Spirit of the Lord hovered over the waters and the Word of the Lord spoke creation into existence, and in the same way the breath of God gave life to Adam, so it is also by these means that a new creation is created through the Gospel message. So, you ask for a miracle. Well, this is the miracle, the most powerful miracle: the restoration of humanity and our transformation into sons of God. For as we hear and heed the message of the Gospel, we are transformed. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come!” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Ezekiel gives us this hope, “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26). The prophet Ezekiel gives us insight into this and how the “sound” and “wind” work together to bring life. 

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones. And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry. And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord God, you know.” Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.”  

So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I prophesied, there was a sound, and behold, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them. But there was no breath in them. Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.  

Then he said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say, ‘Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are indeed cut off.’ Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will bring you into the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the Lord.” (Ezekiel 37:1–14, ESV) 

It is the power of the Spirit that brings life into us, though we were dead in our trespasses. And it is the Holy Spirit that brings life whenever the Gospel is preached.

But, as it is written, 

      “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, 
      nor the heart of man imagined, 
      what God has prepared for those who love him”— 

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
      (1 Corinthians 2:9–10, ESV)

We cannot come to God without the Holy Spirit. Though the “sound” works through the preaching of the Gospel, it is not elegant words that convince those who hear to come. Paul describes is proclamation of the Gospel: “and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4–5, ESV).

As Peter spoke the first sermon of the Church, the proclamation of the Gospel through the power of the Holy Spirit brought life to those hearing his words. In his sermon, Peter declared that Jesus is on his throne and has declared war on the kingdom of this world through the preaching of the Gospel (for more on this, go here). The Gospel, with the power of the Holy Spirit, has the power to devastate the kingdom of this world. Those who hold on to this world will be swept away with it. The Gospel is “to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life” (2 Corinthians 2:16, NASB). God is calling humanity to abandon the kingdom of this world, which is given over to total destruction, “blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke”, and come and heed God’s call by calling upon the name of Jesus. From the day Peter preached this first sermon to this day, the Gospel has gone out into the world in the power of the Holy Spirit. Will we resist the Holy Spirit?

Does God do wonders, miracles, and perform signs? The answer is yes. But these things point to the Gospel and are a call to us to listen. But we must be careful to assume we would believe in God if we saw a miracle. Splitting seas, a voice from the sky, healings, God coming down, or whatever your imagination may conjure will not be the means by which your heart is broken. In fact, in the scripture, these things often lead to the heart getting harder. Jesus, in his parable, noted, “If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead” (Luke 16:31). And despite the miracles Jesus performed, most continued to walk in unbelief. “Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him” (John 12:37). Grand things will not move us. Dry bones and the dead are not moved by these things. Something far more intimate is needed. We need to hear the voice of someone who loves us, just as Lazarus, who was dead, heard Jesus’s voice. It is the power that created the world out of nothing that saves us. It is the voice of the one who loves us that calls us out of death. Our hearts can only be moved by hearing the voice of our Lover, the one who pursues his Bride.  

And we know that this salvation does not come through great signs or knowledge or the efforts of men that puff up. Paul writes,

But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); (Romans 10:6–8) 

Paul declares, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (10:17). After Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, the rest of Acts chronicles the story of the Gospel going forth to the world through the power of the Holy Spirit.

To those who demand signs of God’s existence, Jesus replies,

“An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:39–41, ESV)

Even the preaching of a reluctant messenger had more effect than the mighty works that were being done amongst them. God has revealed himself, but in our stubbornness, we choose to harden our hearts to the truth.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:19–21, ESV)

When we stand before the throne of God, no one will accuse God of not revealing himself to them. It will be clear that they have suppressed the light given to them because they loved the darkness more than the light. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. . . . So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18, 20b, ESV). Those who walk in continued willful unbelief and resist the Gospel’s and the Holy Spirit’s call do so to their own peril and shame. Those weary and heavy-laden by the darkness of this world and hear the call of love come into the light without price and shame.

“Come, everyone who thirsts, 
   come to the waters; 
 and he who has no money, 
   come, buy and eat! 
 Come, buy wine and milk 
    without money and without price. 
 Why do you spend your money
   for that which is not bread, 
    and your labor for that
      which does not satisfy? 
 Listen diligently to me, 
     and eat what is good, 
    and delight yourselves in rich food. 
 Incline your ear, and come to me; 
    hear, that your soul may live; 
 and I will make with you 
  an everlasting covenant, 
    my steadfast, sure love for David. 
 Behold, I made him a witness
      to the peoples, 
    a leader and commander
      for the peoples. 
 Behold, you shall call
   a nation that you do not know, 
   and a nation that did not know
    you shall run to you, 
 because of the LORD your God,
   and of the Holy One of Israel, 
    for he has glorified you. 

 “Seek the LORD while he may be found; 
    call upon him while he is near; 
 let the wicked forsake his way, 
    and the unrighteous man his thoughts; 
 let him return to the LORD,
   that he may have compassion on him, 
    and to our God, for he
      will abundantly pardon. 
 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 
    neither are your ways my ways,
     declares the LORD. 
 For as the heavens are higher
      than the earth, 
    so are my ways higher than your ways 
    and my thoughts than your thoughts. 

 “For as the rain and the snow
   come down from heaven 
    and do not return there
       but water the earth, 
 making it bring forth and sprout, 
    giving seed to the sower 
     and bread to the eater, 
 so shall my word be that goes
   out from my mouth; 
    it shall not return to me empty, 
 but it shall accomplish 
  that which I purpose, 
    and shall succeed in the thing
      for which I sent it. 

 “For you shall go out in joy 
    and be led forth in peace; 
 the mountains and the hills before you 
    shall break forth into singing, 
 and all the trees of the field
      shall clap their hands. 
 Instead of the thorn shall
      come up the cypress; 
   instead of the brier shall
      come up the myrtle; 
 and it shall make a name for the LORD, 
    an everlasting sign that
      shall not be cut off.”
               (Isaiah 55, ESV)

When Adam and Eve were created and placed in Eden, God covenentally commissioned humanity to be a people who were a royal priesthood. They were to rule through their relationship with God, spreading God’s glory throughout the world. There is something significant to this relationship, for it is in this relationship that the rule of God was to spread past Eden to the rest of the world as Adam and Eve were commanded “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion” ( Geneses 1:28). God spreads his glory through his relationship with us.

However, the covenant was broken with the fall. Though there were priests after the fall, they could not fully restore humanity to the relationship that they had with God before the fall. But God promised that one day, “the seed of the woman” would come and conquer the serpent, and in doing so conquer sin and death. The Bible tells us a story about how this was accomplished in Jesus. And for those who put their faith in Jesus, they are once again restored into this royal priesthood and God’s glory is spread throughout the world through the preaching of the Gospel.

Who is Melchizedek?

The author of Hebrews is eager to tell us about an enigmatic character called Melchizedek. It is from this priestly line that Jesus has the authority to conquer sin and make the law of Moses obsolete. We must remember that the author of Hebrews deals with the Hebrew context of the Gospel. In the Old Testament, there is a clear intimate and covenantal nature in God’s relationship with mankind. Just as a husband and wife promise to love one another through a covenant, so God establishes his promises with his people. For hundreds of years, those receiving this letter, along with their fathers and their fathers’ fathers, had pursued God legitimately under the Mosaic Covenant. For them, it was a well-worn path, comfortable, and felt secure. And now the author of Hebrews is telling them this is no longer the case. All the practices, rituals, sacrifices, and laws that had become innately a part of who they were were now obsolete and dead works. The law of Moses was no longer a means of repentance and entering God’s presence. What authority and covenant did Jesus have to overturn hundreds of years of covenant practice? The author of Hebrews argues that there is a covenant that both precedes and is greater than the Mosaic covenant, a covenant that the law of Moses itself calls us to. In the words of C.S. Lewis, “there is magic deeper still”.

The Covenant of Peace

While many are familiar with the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, and Davidic covenants in the Old Testament, one covenant relationship is often neglected in these discussions – the Priestly Covenant or the Covenant of Peace. This covenant is given to the Levites during the Exodus, and in the scripture, we find the Levitical Covenant running parallel with the Davidic Covenant. We see glimpses of the Davidic covenant in Judah as he is told, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” From Judah we can follow its progression down through to David and through to its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. And it is the same with the Levitical Covenant.

For this is what the LORD says: David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor will the priests who are Levites ever fail to have a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to present sacrifices.”

And the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “This is what the LORD says: If you can break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, so that day and night cease to occupy their appointed time, then My covenant may also be broken with David My servant and with My ministers the Levites who are priests, so that David will not have a son to reign on his throne. As the hosts of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so too will I multiply the descendants of My servant David and the Levites who minister before Me.”

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: “Have you not noticed what these people are saying: ‘The LORD has rejected the two families He had chosen’? So they despise My people and no longer regard them as a nation. This is what the LORD says: If I have not established My covenant with the day and the night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth, then I would also reject the seed of Jacob and of My servant David, so as not to take from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore them from captivity and have compassion on them.” (Jeremiah 33:14-26)

God’s covenant with Levi was a covenant of peace. Malachi 2:4-7, says,

“So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the Lord of hosts. My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”

We see similar language when God proclaimed a blessing on Phinehas,

“And the Lord said to Moses, “Phinehas the son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to this descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the people of Israel.’” (Numbers 25:10-13)

Covenantal focus: Judah to David and Levi to Zadok

Just as we see glimpses of the Davidic covenant with Judah, when Jacob was pronouncing blessings on his sons, his blessing for Levi, though it had the sounds of a curse rather than a blessing, foreshadowed the Levitical priesthood.

Simeon and Levi are brothers;

weapons of violence are their swords.

Let my soul come not into their council;

O my glory, be not joined to their company.

For in their anger they killed men,

and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.

Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce,

and their wrath, for it is cruel!

I will divide them in Jacob

and scatter them in Israel. (Genesis 49:5-7)

This was meant to be a curse, yet in a profound action of grace, God took this curse, and it became a blessing for Levi. Yes, Levi was divided and scattered among Israel, and they were not allowed to have an inheritance in the land, fulfilling Jacob’s words, but the Levites gained something far greater –

And the LORD said to Aaron, “You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any portion among them. I am your portion and your inheritance among the people of Israel. (Numbers 18:20)

God set Levi apart from the rest of Israel to serve the Lord.

And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose (for Aaron had let them break loose, to the derision of their enemies), then Moses stood in the gate of the camp and said, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And all the sons of Levi gathered around him. And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.’” And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And that day about three thousand men of the people fell. And Moses said, “Today you have been ordained for the service of the Lord, each one at the cost of his son and of his brother, so that he might bestow a blessing upon you this day.” (Exodus 32:25-29)

At that time the Lord set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the ark of the covenant of the Lord to stand before the Lord to minister to him and to bless in his name, to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers. The Lord is his inheritance, as the Lord your God said to him. (Deuteronomy 10:8-9)

And as Judah’s promise would become more narrow in its focus and come to David, among the Levites, Aaron and his descendants were set apart as priests, and this would later be narrowed to the descendants of Zadock.

The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses. Aaron was set apart to dedicate the most holy things, that he and his sons forever should make offerings before the LORD and minister to him and pronounce blessings in his name forever. (1 Chronicles 23:13)

As seen earlier, it is with Aaron’s grandson, Phinehas, that we get the specific wording that the covenant of Levi is a covenant of peace. But after this promise, it is the sons of Ithamar that serve in the High Priest role, not Phinehas’s sons. But this would change. We soon find Eli, a descendant of Ithamar, whose sons have profaned the temple and God. Through Samuel, God tells Eli that his house will decline. And in Solomon’s reign, this is fulfilled, as Zadok, a descendant of Phineas, becomes high priest, and the high priesthood is taken away from the descendants of Ithamar. God fulfills the covenant of peace he made with Phinehas, and later God confirms the Levitical Covenant with Zadok, Phineas’ descendant.

“But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the people of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me. And they shall stand before me to offer me the fat and the blood, declares the Lord God. They shall enter my sanctuary, and they shall approach my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my charge. (Ezekiel 44:15,16)

The King and Priest

After Solomon, Israel went into decline and turned away from the Lord and were eventually sent into Babylon, and the temple was destroyed. However, God brought his people back to Jerusalem, where the temple was rebuilt. The High Priest during this time was a man named Yeshua or Joshua. At this time, God sent the prophet Zechariah with a message concerning Joshua,

The word of the LORD also came to me, saying, “Take an offering from the exiles—from Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon—and go that same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take silver and gold, make an ornate crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak.

And you are to tell him that this is what the LORD of Hosts says: ‘Behold, a man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from His place and build the temple of the LORD. Yes, He will build the temple of the LORD; He will be clothed in splendor and will sit on His throne and rule. There will also be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two of them.

The crown will reside in the temple of the LORD as a memorial to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hene son of Zephaniah. Even those far away will come and build the temple of the LORD, and you will know that the LORD of Hosts has sent Me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God.” (Zechariah 6:9-15)

In this prophecy, we get elements of both the Davidic and Levitical Covenants. A crown is set on Joshua’s head, and then Zechariah cries out, “Behold, a man whose name is the Branch”. Both these are symbols of the Davidic covenant.

Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a Righteous Branch, and He will reign wisely as king and administer justice and righteousness in the land. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is His name by which He will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness. (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

But Joshua was a Levite and not a descendant of David, so what is going on? The prophesy then goes on and describes both a king and a priest being on one throne, and that “the counsel of peace will be between the two”, echoing the covenant of peace that God made with Phinehas and the Levitical covenant.

The greatest of all men

And then the New Testament opens up and Mary and Joseph are told they are going to have a baby, who is a descendant of David, and they are to name this baby Yeshua, the same name of the High Priest that Zechariah prophesied over saying that both the Levitical and Davidic covenants would come together. We also learn about Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, a descendent of Aaron, and of the miraculous birth of John the Baptist, born to a couple who, like Abraham and Sarah, were too old to have children. Though we cannot say with certainty that he was a descendant of Zadock or Joshua, it is likely. We can say with certainty that he was a descendant of Aaron and born to a priest named Zechariah, coincidently the same name as the prophet who prophesied the uniting of these two covenants.

And then in the wilderness (where the Levites were set apart in the Exodus), John the Baptist, a priest (descended from Aaron) and a prophet wearing the garments of Elijah, calls Israel to prepare the way for the Lord. In the midst of John’s ministry, Jesus comes to John to be baptized. John the Baptist at first relents, saying he is not worthy to baptize Jesus. But Jesus asks John to do this to fulfill all righteousness. On hearing this, John relents, obeys, and baptizes Jesus. This moment is significant.

For someone to become a priest, according to the law of Moses, they had to fulfill certain requirements.¹

• A Priest could not begin their ministry and service till they were 25-30 years of age. Jesus was 30 when he came to be baptized by John.
• They had to be called by God. Aaron and his descendants were called by God. God says of Jesus, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek” and “You are my beloved son, with you I am well pleased.”
• They had to be without physical defect. Jesus was without spot or blemish. He had no sin.
• They had to be male. Jesus was male.
• They had to be washed in the water of ordination and then clothed in priestly garments. Jesus was baptized, and the Holy Spirit descended on him.
• They had to be ordained by someone who was already a priest. John was a descendant of Aaron and rightly could ordain Jesus into the priesthood.
• They began ministering after the ordination. Jesus’ ministry began after his baptism.

It was also necessary for a prophet to anoint a king when a new line was being established. When John baptizes Jesus, he is anointed by the Holy Spirit and it is said that the Holy Spirit remained on him. This is foreshadowed when Samuel anoints David as king. “Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed [David] in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon David from that day forward” (1 Samuel 16:13).

In his baptism, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law and its requirements for becoming a priest and king. He fulfilled all that the law demanded. He fulfilled all righteousness. This is why he tells John, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).

John also had the right to pass on his mantle of prophet as Elijah did with Elisha. And in Jesus’ baptism he became the final word of God. As the writer of Hebrews states, “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Hebrews 1:1,2).

In this, Jesus did not presume to take these roles upon himself though it was his right to do so, but he humbled himself allowing these roles to come to him the appropriate way, “fulfilling all righteousness”. In every way, Jesus submitted himself to the law.

Jesus says of John, “I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he” (Luke 7:28). On person of John rested the mantals of both high priest and Elijah the prophet. There was no higher authority under the law of Moses. He had the right to declare Jesus the final prophet, priest, and king.

When John, an Aaronite priest whose name means “God is gracious”, baptized Jesus, he was transferring the Levitical covenant to Jesus. John could do this not only because he had the authority to do so, but because there was a covenant of peace before God’s promise to Phineas, through Abraham and Melchizedek.

For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you.” And thus Abraham, having patiently waited, obtained the promise. For people swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first, by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace. He is without father or mother or genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God he continues a priest forever.

See how great this man was to whom Abraham the patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils! And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, though these also are descended from Abraham. But this man who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives. One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. (Hebrews 6:13–7:10, ESV)

Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”, but he was also the king of Salem, which means “peace”, and therefore, the covenant of peace was rightly his. And so, Jesus was able to become a priest under the order of Melchizedek, who also was under the covenant of peace, whom the scripture states Levi in the loins of Abraham served. Truly there is a majic even deeper than the law of Moses.

And the priesthood rightly belongs to Jesus as Hebrews continues to argue,

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

“You are a priest forever,

    after the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:

“The Lord has sworn

    and will not change his mind,

‘You are a priest forever.’”

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever. (Hebrews 7:11-28)

As our high priest, Jesus has once and for all conquered sin and death. He has fully redeemed those who come to him in faith. In Jesus, the prophesy is fulfilled, “And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved” (Joel 2:32). And is now sitting at the right hand of God, the Father where “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Jesus]” (Matthew 28:18).

It is clear that Jesus had the authority to render the Law of Moses obsolute and to allow us to enter a new and better covenant of a royal priesthood, restoring what was lost by Adam at the fall. And He has called us once again to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion”, to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:19)

Restoration of the royal priesthood and the Temple of God

In Jesus humanity is restored once again to their proper place as a royal priesthood. In Zechariah’s prophesy to Joshua, he says, “Even those far away will come and build the temple of the LORD.” Peter says, “As you come to [Jesus], the living stone, rejected by men, but chosen and precious in God’s sight, you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:4,5). As Jesus, when we are baptized, under Christ’s headship, Zechariah’s prophecy is fulfilled, and we are brought into the Covenant of peace under the order of Melchizedek.

[For] you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. (1 Peter 2:9, bold added)

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Revelation 1:5b-6)

 Interestingly, when the Bible speaks of Levi’s name, it says,

Again she conceived and bore a son, and said, “Now this time my husband will be attached to me, because I have borne him three sons.” Therefore his name was called Levi. (Genesis 29:34)

Through the Gospel, we become attached to our husband. Peter goes on to say, “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy”  (1 Peter 2:10).  Hosea prophesies, “I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God’” (Hosea 2:23). We are not only a royal priesthood, we are the bride of Jesus.

After Jesus says of John the Baptist, “among those born of women there has risen no greater than John the Baptist”, he continues, “Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matthew 11:11). We truly are under a deeper and richer covenant that the Law of Moses, with stronger and more sure promises.

Incline your ear, and come to me;
hear, that your soul may live;
and I will make with you
an everlasting covenant,
my steadfast, sure love for David.
(Isaiah 55:3, ESV)

Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5–6, ESV)

More on this:

Galatians argues that the law of Moses cannot save us. While Galatians was written to the Gentiles, the book of Hebrews is the Galatians’ argument for the Jewish people. Because of the Melchizedek covenant, faith alone can save us, not the works of the law. Read more on this here: There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgement

To learn how Jesus also held the role of Firstborn, read this article: The firstborn and the beginning of God’s creation

¹ adapted from “Waters of Creation” by Douglas Van Dorn pg7

The Word and the Spirit conquers

Regardless of the myriads of eschatological positions and arguments that are out there, there are things we can know with certainty. We can know that his covenant love for his people will not fail. We can know that Christ is our conquering King, and he will put all his enemies under his feet. We also know that whether spiritually or corporally the means by which Jesus conquers his enemies is by the Word of God.

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV) (Revelation 19:11-16, ESV, bold added)

In this passage whether symbolic or not, it is only the Word of God that conquers and destroys the enemies of God, although we are brought alongside Jesus as he accomplishes this. The sword in Revelation and in other scriptures are associated with the words of Jesus.

The Word of God conquers through the Gospel

When Jesus spoke of the end times, he said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14, ESV). When speaking with Pilate,

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:36–37, ESV)

And how did Jesus say this Kingdom would conquer. On his ascension, Jesus spoke to those around him and said,

 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Paul in Romans 10, states that it is through the proclamation of the Gospel, that the word of Christ is heard, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (vs 7). What Paul is saying here is not that they are hearing us speak the Gospel, but they are hearing Christ, himself, as we proclaim the Gospel. As we proclaim the Gospel the sword of the Lord goes out to conquer his enemies, and thankfully the hearts of those who have come to trust in Jesus and call upon the name of the LORD. It is through the proclamation of the Gospel that the Kingdom of God conquers the kingdoms of this world and Jesus puts his enemies under his feet.

The first proclamation of the church

Though we might find apprehension in speaking about apocalyptic scriptures, this was not the case with Peter. Peter understood the power of the Gospel both to save and put its enemies under its feet. And so, as he stepped out and preach the first message of the church. he knew the world would not be the same. And because of this, he begins his sermon by quoting of all things apocalyptic scriptures. Is it not interesting, with all the hubbub and confusion we have over these writings today, that the first words spoken in proclamation by the church were apocalyptic scriptures? And they were spoken with surety.

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,

              that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,

and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

                             and your young men shall see visions,

                             and your old men shall dream dreams;

even on my male servants and female servants

                             in those days I will pour out my Spirit,

and they shall prophesy.

And I will show wonders in the heavens above

                             and signs on the earth below,

                             blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;

        the sun shall be turned to darkness

                             and the moon to blood,

                             before the day of the Lord comes,

the great and magnificent day.

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

(Acts 2:17–21, ESV)

Peter was bold, announcing that these scriptures were being fulfilled in the midst of them both in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and in the proclamation of the Gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit, who had been poured out on them in the wind and fire. For it had been so from after the fall when the sound of the LORD came in the spirit of the day, that it is through the power of the Word of God and the Spirit of the Lord that God both reveals himself and invades this world to conquer it. Peter understood, that as the Gospel is spoken to the world, just as the fire consumed the enemies of God in Revelation 20, the fire of the Holy Spirit conquers our own hearts and as the Gospel is preached the world is turned upside down.

Total Destruction of God’s enemies

When an army came in devastating force to utterly destroy a city, they would raise it and set it on fire. The dense smoke would fill the air billowing as a scroll being rolled up. As it spread the dense darkness would come over the land darkening the sun, the darkness being penetrated by falling ash with the appearance of falling stars. In the filter of this smoke the moon would appear blood red. This imagery made an indelible mark on the culture of the Biblical world. When the Bible uses this imagery within eschatology, it is speaking whether literally or symbolically of the total destruction of the kingdom of this world. The Gospel has not come to play nice with the kingdom of this world. The Gospel seeks out the utter destruction of the kingdom of this world. Peter in his proclamation of the Gospel was declaring no quarter no hope for those who continued to reject the message and hold on to the kingdom of this world. Paul does the same,

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:14–17, ESV)

The Gospel message both brings forth the Kingdom of God in the hearts of those who hear and obey the Gospel, but also tramples under the feet of Jesus those who refuse to hear the gracious call and insist on holding to their own kingdom.

Enemies under His feet

In a letter to Hiram king of Tyre, Solomon describes the transition of the kingdom of Israel from David to Solomon and the building of the house for the name of the LORD.

“You know that David my father could not build a house for the name of the LORD his God because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet. But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side. There is neither adversary nor misfortune. And so I intend to build a house for the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD said to David my father, ‘Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, shall build the house for my name.’ (1 Kings 5:3–5, ESV)

Paul gives a similar description of Jesus,

[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. [24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. [25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death. [27] For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. [28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:22–28, ESV, see also Hebrews 2:5–18)

Before the consummation of the Kingdom of God, Jesus who sits on the throne of David as our human representative (see more on this here) must put all his enemies under his feet. But also, as Peter says the purpose is also to bring the people of God into the Kingdom for “the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9, ESV). Isaiah echoes this sentiment, “Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.”

Two kingdoms

              When Jesus told to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he was making clear that we are currently in a time of two worlds or two kingdoms and that the Kingdom of God would conquer as Christ speaks and bears witness to the truth. We spoke of how Paul in Romans 10 talks about how when we proclaim the Gospel it is Christ himself speaking. Luke confirms this. He starts of in Acts saying, “In my first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach . . . (Acts 1:1, ESV). In other words, the works of Christ are still active in our world both in Acts and in our world today.  When Peter stood before the crowd during the first proclamation of the church, he predicated all that he said on this fact, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Acts 2:34, ESV) This comes from Psalm 110:1 which is the most quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament. Peter and the apostles had a boldness to proclaim the Gospel because they understood that Jesus sat on the right hand of God on the throne of David as the rightful king of God’s people. Christ is ruling over his Kingdom here and now and is turning the kingdom of this world upside down through the proclamation of the Gospel. So yes, we live in a world where there are two kingdoms that are at war with each other. God is both building his Kingdom and calling a people to himself and treading underfoot the kingdom of this world through the Word of God. And despite appearances at times, the war is not one sided, Jesus is both bringing people to himself through his word and through his word putting his enemies under his feet. Jesus only suffers his enemies long enough to bring us into his Kingdom.

What is the practical application?

There was a bible study on the end times, and when I heard of one approach they were going to take, I asked the person leading if it in if I could come in one of the days and present the alternative view and he agreed. As I was preparing for this study, God humbled me and completely changed my plans. He pointed me to those who were faithful when Jesus came to earth the first time as a baby and contrasted them with the leaders at this time. When the magi were brought before Herod, Herod “was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: “’And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel’”’” (Matthew 2:3-5). The chief priests and scribes understood what scripture had to say on this topic and got it right! They understood the prophesy but missed the coming of their Messiah all the same. But there were two, who did not miss his coming, an old man named Simeon, and an old woman named Anna, who were described as faithful and waiting for the redemption and consolation of God’s people.

When Jesus spoke of the end times, he didn’t ask his disciples to have it all figured out, he called them to be faithful, to stand, to watch, to pray, and proclaim the gospel. In doing this we are the good and faithful servant, with whom Jesus will not be ashamed to call his own. Knowing the exact details of the end times will not get you closer to the Kingdom of God. Being a faithful servant with the treasure of the Gospel will. We must remember that the power of the Kingdom of God comes from the Word of God alone and the Word of God enters our world and the world around us through the proclamation of the Gospel. So, if we want to know what to do in this interim of two ages before the consummation, it is to be faithful to this and enter the work that Jesus is doing now in this world as our rightful king. And so, as we wait for Jesus’ coming, come close to Jesus, behold him, and walk with Jesus as he speaks to the world (for he is with us to the end of the age) through the proclamation of the Gospel.

 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Our king has told us what to do till the end of the age, so we don’t have to wonder. And more than that he has promised to be with us.

Does this mean we can’t talk about eschatology? As controversial as it is, it is when we can talk about our differences amiably that the love of Christ is shown. If we only talked as a church with those who agree with us, well even the pagans can do that. As we love each other in hardy disagreements the love of Christ is demonstrated to the world. But it is the solid commitment to the understanding that the Word of God alone conquers in the Gospel that can give us this stability to love one another, for this grand story is so bold and bright that all the different ideas on eschatology pale in comparison.

It is in our testimony that we conquer the devil, “And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death” (Revelation 12:11, ESV).

Finally, I will leave you with this, . . . in the Word of God, we will not be shaken. We are a part of a grand story of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

[18] For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest [19] and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. [20] For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” [21] Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” [22] But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, [23] and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, [24] and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

[25] See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. [26] At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” [27] This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. [28] Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, [29] for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:18–29, ESV)

“Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people. Remember and do not forget how you provoked the LORD your God to wrath in the wilderness. From the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the LORD.

(Deuteronomy 9:6–7, ESV)

We understand that we cannot have friendship and relationship without vulnerability. But we are all stubborn and tend to put up walls to protect ourselves, not letting others come near. And with these walls we not only keep others away, but the LORD as well.

The LORD’s presence was amongst the Israelites as they encamped and wandered through the wilderness, and yet in their pride they did not understand their need for him, that he was more than the bread they ate or the water they drank, and so that generation could not enter his rest.

As with the Israelites pride keeps us from the LORD though he is not far off. The very thing we do to protect ourselves limits our ability to feel loved, because we are rejecting the very thing that would bring healing and restoration – the exposing our sin and the downfall of our pride. In our pride, we want to present ourselves to the world as something, concerned with the opinions of men. We become trapped in our own pride, trapped in the walls of our own making, instead of trusting and coming to the God who is near, because we are afraid of being exposed and naked. It was the pride of the religious leaders that kept them from seeing Jesus, though he was near and walking in their midst. Pride makes us blind guides, keeping us from seeing the truth. Instead of embracing love, we grumble, and hide from or attack those who would expose our nakedness.

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” (John 3:19–2, ESV)

We are “like a horse or a mule, without understanding, which must be curbed with bit and bridle, or it will not stay near you. [And so,] Many are the sorrows of the wicked, but steadfast love surrounds the one who trusts in the LORD” (Psalm 32:9,10 ESV, brackets added text). In our madness, to protect ourselves, we chose the darkness and the sorrows of the wicked, rather than the light of the LORD, that exposes and heals our sin.

When the Israelites are standing at the border and are on the precipice of entering the Promised Land, the LORD is clear it is not because of their righteousness that they are able to enter the land. They are still a rebellious people. “Do not say in your heart, after the LORD your God has thrust them out before you, It is because of my righteousness that the LORD has brought me in to possess this land, . . . Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going to be able to possess their land, but . . .that he may confirm the word that the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob’” (Deuteronomy 9:4). There is no place for boasting are pride as we enter the Kingdom of God. No reason to hide that we are rebellious, sinful, and unworthy. God rescues us and drives out our pride because he swore an oath to Jesus. “Know, therefore, that the LORD your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people.” When we seek our own worth, or seek to be seen well by others, we are in rebellion against the Gospel. We miss the point of the Gospel. We are foolish, stubborn, blind, rebellious, mad and we must die to ourselves, we must die to our own efforts. The LORD, alone has conquered the promised land. Instead of pride, we are called to allow others to speak the Gospel into our lives, to expose our sin, and to break down our walls of pride. “Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” (James 5:16a, ESV). It is as our sin is exposed that we find healing, not in building walls. And as we cease striving, the wonder that we are more than conquerors as we walk in the light shall be evident, not because of anything we have done, for we are a rebellious and foolish people, but because God through Jesus has sworn to give us the land. It is in vulnerability and nakedness that we can experience friendship, intimacy, and love and are clothed in Christ. God is near, not far away. Let us not shrink back in pride, but instead come to him and be held in his embrace.

Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience. For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:11–16, ESV)

and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23, ESV)

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.  (Matthew 16:13–20, ESV)

The focal point

These verses have caused a lot of tension among the Catholics and Protestants. The Catholics believe that this verse signifies the affirmation of Jesus for the pope and the Catholic structure, Peter being the first of the popes, and through this structure the church expands into the world. Protestants do not believe that this verse separates Peter as a pope-like figure, but instead displays the power of the proclamation of the Gospel as it ushers in the Kingdom of God and conquers the kingdom of this world. So, does this refer to Peter to whom Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” or to the one Peter calls the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls? Or perhaps both?

Whatever conclusion we come to on what Jesus says here must all come together to describe and focus in on that conclusion. The rock, the gates of hell not prevailing against it, the keys of the kingdom, and the binding and loosing all describe and surround one focal point.

After this, Jesus then goes on to speak of his death, his resurrection, and his second coming and the need for us to die to ourselves. These things too are related. And all this is surrounds and centers in on two confessions – Peter’s confession and God the Father’s confession of who Jesus is.

When Peter gives his confession, they are near Mount Herman. Six days later, after Peter gives his famous confession near the foot of Mount Hermon, we are brought to the top of a mountain, where we find once again Peter is with Jesus and we once again hear another confession, this time from God, the Father, “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him” (Matthew 17:5). Both confessions speak to who Jesus is as the son of God and the Christ.

When Peter has just declared, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, Jesus takes hold of what Peter has said. What Jesus goes on to say next centers on this confession. And so, whatever our understanding of what is being said, the conclusion must center around this proclamation. And as we explore the depths of these description in this series, we will find a glorious and beautiful picture of a Church whose foundation stands on this confession of Peter and the wonderous story of the Gospel breaking through to the world and of conquering love.

The death of Shemei

Solomon looked at the man standing before his throne and proclaimed, “You know in your own heart all the harm that you did to David my father. So, the LORD will bring back your harm on your own head. But King Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD forever” (1 Kings 2:44-45, ESV). After the king spoke these words, Benaiah the son of Jehoiada drew his sword and struck him down. . . Shimei was dead.

Three years earlier, before he died, Shimei had stood before Solomon and Solomon had warned him, “on the day you go out and cross the brook Kidron, know for certain that you shall die” (1 Kings 2:37, ESV). Shimei replied, “What you say is good; as my lord the king has said, so will your servant do” (38). But Shimei did not take these words to heart, for before being brought before Solomon’s throne to be sentenced, he had crossed the Kidron to retrieve two of his servants who had fled to Gath. And just as Solomon had promised, the moment he stepped across the Kidron, that very day, his death was certain.

“The day”

This event is reminiscent of God’s command to Adam, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16–17, ESV). Both Solomon and God gave the edict “for in the day”. But neither Shimei nor Adam were put to death on the exact same day they violated the command. Did God fail to keep his promise that “in the day” Adam ate of the tree he would “surely die”?

After Shimei stepped on the other side of the Kidron, he traveled to Gath, obtained his servants, and returned home. The average day’s journey for a donkey is 15-20 miles, but possibly 30 (donkeyonfarm.com). The trip to Gath and back would have been around 50-60 miles there and back. Shimei would also have had to take the time to retrieve his servants. Therefore, it is improbable that Shimei left Jerusalem, found his servants in Gath, returned to Jerusalem, and was summoned by Solomon on the same day. On the day Shimei crossed the Kidron his death was certain, but his death did not occur until he was brought before the throne room and saw Solomon face to face, and judgment was pronounced.

Sound and Wind

After Adam sinned and God comes to meet with Adam we find an interesting phrase, “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the [wind] of the day” (Genesis 3:8, [added]). Notice it doesn’t say the LORD God walked, but instead “the sound of the Lord God” and this walking was in “the wind of the day”. In the rest of the Bible, we have similar language. It is the word of the LORD that met with Abraham in Genesis 15 and spoke through the prophets. We also see a similar description at the end of Job when the LORD comes to speak. And when God comes, he comes cloaked in clouds. We see a vivid picture of this when God comes to Mount Sinai: “there were thunders and lightnings and a thick cloud on the mountain and a very loud trumpet blast, so that all the people in the camp trembled. Then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain. Now Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke because the LORD had descended on it in fire. The smoke of it went up like the smoke of a kiln, and the whole mountain trembled greatly. And as the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke, and God answered him in thunder” (Exodus 19:16–19, ESV). It is no surprise that Adam and Eve, on hearing God come into the garden of Eden after they had broken God’s command, shrunk back and hid themselves from the presence of the LORD among the trees of the garden, just as the Israelites trembled at Sinai.

Man shall not see God’s face and live

Though this image of God coming into the Garden and meeting with the Israelites at Mount Sinai is powerful, it is a picture of a God who has hidden himself, who has hidden his face. When Moses asked to see God’s glory, he was told, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.’” (Exodus 33:19–20, ESV). Remember, Shimei’s death did not occur till he stood before the throne and saw Solomon face to face. Coming before the throne and seeing the king face to face meant judgment, and the penalty had already been proclaimed – death. When God came to meet Adam in the Garden, he hid his face and promptly escorted Adam and Eve out of Eden, and the sword, instead of putting Adam and Eve to death, prevented them from entering the throne room of God. Just as Shimei’s death was certain when he passed over the Kidron, so Adam’s death was certain, but unlike Shimei, Adam’s day before the throne was postponed.

In that crucial point in history, if Adam and Eve had stood before the throne of God and saw God’s face that very day, their judgment would have been proclaimed, and they would have died. If God had not hidden himself and driven Adam and Eve out, humanity would have ended there. You and I would not exist.

An all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly-loving God will hide himself

The question is often asked why would an all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly-loving God hide himself from us, if he wants us to know him. Why does he not reveal himself clearly? The simple answer is because he is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving, he has in love chosen to hide himself so that he can postpone the day of our judgment. He does this so that during this postponement, he can rescue and bring a people to himself. We are in the period between when Shemei placed one foot across the Kidron and before he came before the throne of Solomon. Make no mistake, just as Shemei’s death was certain the moment he passed the Kidron, so our death is certain, and that “day” will come . . .

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:11–15, ESV)

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. (2 Peter 3:8–10, ESV)

And this is our hope . . . On this day, the day of the great white throne judgement evil will finally be destroyed, and no longer cause harm and on that day the final enemy will be destroyed, death itself. And yet, because God hid himself, not all of humanity will be destroyed. He made a way through his son, Jesus, the son of David.

On that day, the throne of the son of David will prosper and be established forever, and the people of the son of David will stand victorious. For God has made another day called “Today”. On this day, called “Today”, Jesus, the final Adam, in his humanity stood before the throne of God. On the cross, he bore the wrath of God in our place. The punishment that should have fallen on us fell on him. As our great high priest took upon himself the wrath of God and died in our place. But Jesus did not stay in the grave and could not be held in Sheol; he conquered death and the gates of Hades in his resurrection. The bondage of death can no longer hold us. When we call upon the name of the Lord and put our trust in the work and worth of Jesus alone, we have our day before the throne of God, but just as the ark and the Passover lamb protected them from the wrath of God, we are bound to Christ, and God’s presence instead of destroying us purifies us and makes us whole. We are not like Adam and Eve or the Israelites who shrunk back and hid themselves in God’s presence, but instead, we “with confidence draw near to the throne of grace” (Hebrews 4:16). We stand before the throne, and the King declares us righteous. For those of the Kingdom of David, “No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Revelation 22: 3-4, ESV).

God owned the idea of hiddenness before the atheists

Throughout the Bible, God is seen as being surrounded or cloaked in clouds or veiled. The idea of a hidden God does not come first from atheists questioning God; it comes from the story of the Gospel and is an important concept in understanding this redemption story. An old lady once said to King David, “We must all die; we are like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. But God will not take away life, and he devises means so that the banished one will not remain an outcast” (2 Samuel 14:14). And this is the purpose in God hiding himself – because God so loved this world, he made a Way and had a plan to bring us back to himself, so that one day we might stand before his throne, in his presence and see his face. For those who are in Christ, when we stand before God, his judgment passes over us while we remain unscathed, for our judgment is dealt with on the cross and is conquered in Jesus’s resurrection. So, the atheist may ask the question, “Why is God hidden?” but it is only because God is hidden that they can even ask the question. The only reason you and I are alive and able to read this is because a perfectly loving God hid himself, postponing our judgment day.

Come!

The LORD has called out to you and I to “Come!”. Be assured of this, though our judgment and fate our certain, if we do not heed the call of the Gospel. Do not fool yourself by thinking you will be able to say to God, “a perfectly-loving God would not hide himself, therefore I ought not be judged”. This call has gone out to the whole world. His call has gone out to you.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

          But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for 
     “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, 
          and their words to the ends of the world.” 
          (Romans 10:17–18, ESV) 

We may believe that we can be children and claim we just didn’t hear God, and feel like we can make excuses, but our excuses will expose us for who we are and will suddenly become feeble, and our mouths will be shut when we stand before God’s throne. Our own words will condemn us. The scripture warns us instead of refusing to listen, “Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.”

     Be not like a horse or a mule, without understanding, 
          which must be curbed with bit and bridle, 
          or it will not stay near you. 
            (Psalm 32:9, ESV) 

Instead, hear and listen to the call and come,

The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take of the water of life without price. (Revelation 22:17

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28–30, ESV)

You might still say, “But why does God not reveal himself like he did to the Israelites in the desert? Surely, if he did this, I would believe”. We will deal with this in later posts.

The story of hiddenness

Questions often have presumptions

We all have heard that “there is no such thing as a bad question.” Though in an important sense this is true, this phrase is not about the questions themselves, but about the dangers of refraining from inquiry. If we have questions, we ought to ask them because if we are silent, we cannot learn. For even if one has a bad question, knowledge cannot be had if questions are not asked. But as we grow in wisdom, we understand that though we ought to continue to ask questions, our questions are often indicators of our presumptions on a subject. This is because our questions often come with baggage. We see the situation from our perspective, and it takes a lot of work to step outside that perspective. Often, our presumptions are wrong.

We see this clearly in our relationships for many of us know what it is to hurt someone by asking a question that implied certain assumptions about the person, only to find out that we were way off base. We end up finding ourselves profusely apologizing for our ungrounded and incompetent question. Often, in these cases, we do this because we don’t have the full picture or context, or story. Though it is still better to ask a question in this situation than to hold on to false ideas about a person, we are aware that are question was one based on ignorance rather than truth. This humility is important if we desire to pursue truth.

We must be willing to scrutinize and discern both the answers as well as our questions. For we also understand that sometimes questions, if not scrutinized, can be used to limit our ability to learn. Lawyers, for example, use this fact to their advantage to get the outcome they desire. When we are more interested in winning an argument than the truth, questions can become a dangerous tool for closing our minds and blinding us to the evidence. If, when confronted with the presumptions of our questions, we insist that our presumptions are true, then we will never learn. In our relationships, we will only be building walls that separate us from knowing those around us. And in our pursuit of knowledge, we will only end up falling into a pit of our own foolishness.

Asking bad questions can lead us down the wrong path. Sometimes, when we can’t get the puzzle to come together, it is because we are so determined to get a square peg into the circular hole. But often, when we step back and see things from a proper perspective, the puzzle easily falls into place. This is often what happens when people struggle with the hiddenness of God. They bring their baggage to the story, filtering it and distorting it to match their preconceived ideas instead of pausing and listening and letting the story speak for itself.

A God who pursues unashamedly

One of the presumptions we make is that if knowing God is what it takes to be saved from our sin and the wrath of God, then all God would have to do is make himself clearly known with some show of extraordinary evidence. We might argue,

All it would take is for God to just show up and say, “Hi”. That would be powerful and convincing evidence. I would believe in him and so would the rest of the world. If God is loving, surely, he would do what it takes to bring us to himself. . ..

If this were the case, and this is all it would take, it is clear from the Bible that God would not hesitate for a second to make this happen. Our loving Father would not only be willing but also eager to run to our rescue. The Bible gives us imagery of his desire to bring us to himself and shelter us under his wings and to envelope us in the Father’s embrace as we are lavished by his kisses. Indeed, his love and longing for us is deeper than the father of the prodigal son in Luke 15.

The parables of Luke 15 show a God who is desperately and actively seeking the lost. In the parables of the lost sheep, coin, and son, we find someone who will face the dangers of the open country and one who leaves no stone or pillow unturned as they sweep the house and seek diligently till what was lost is found. We see this theme as well in Proverbs 1,

     Wisdom cries aloud in the street, 
	in the markets she raises her voice; 
     at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; 
	at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: 
               (Proverbs 1:20,21)

God is not aloof but is active in his pursuit of the lost. These parables describe God’s joy over just one sheep, one coin, one prodigal son . . . “one sinner who repents”. If this is his pursuit and passion for one sinner, what can we say of his pursuit of all humanity?

Pursuit of the two sons

But there is more, for in these parables, we also see with what abandonment God pursues us, particularly in the parable of the two sons. In that culture, when a son asked for his inheritance while his father was alive, it was the same as the son saying, “Father, you are dead to me.” And this was indeed true, for he forgot his father and went off to a faraway country, abandoning both his father and home. This son had spat in his father’s face, heaping insult upon his father. He then squanders his father’s hard work, making his father’s years of labor amount to nothing.

Despite what his son had done to him, we see the father, having seen his son from afar off, girding up his loins, exposing his bare legs, and running toward his son. And when he reaches his son, he embraces him with kisses. In that culture, a father running and exposing his legs would have been a shameful and disgraceful act. And his running was not a private act. Because the father had to run quite a distance, his shame was probably seen by many and possibly the village as well. But we can feel the joy he had, despising the shame, so he could embrace his beloved son.

Some have speculated that the father ran so urgently because the son being far off might have also been noticed by those in the village before he had a chance to reach his father. Those in the village would have been well aware of who he was and the shame he had brought on his father. If this was the case, the father would have worried that those in the village might intercept his son and having intercepted his son, brought him before the village in a ceremony known as Kezazah and pronounced official judgment on him for the shame he had brought to his father and the village, a judgment that would have cut off the son from the community and declared him to be dead from that point on. The father, in urgent haste to prevent this, was willing to be seen with bare legs running for all to see to reach his son. Regardless, the emphasis of the parable is that the father ran because he loved and longed for his son in the deepest parts of who he was. Though his son had already shamed him and spit in his face, he was more than willing to take upon himself even more shame and public humiliation if that is what it meant to have his son back. In this act, he declares his son alive, not dead, for all to see. In his act of shame, he takes away the reproach of his son, giving his son the honor he does not deserve. And instead of a Kezazah, the whole village rejoices and celebrates with the father that his son is alive.

We ought not think that God is not above shaming himself to receive us back into his arms. God took upon himself the ultimate shame to win us back.

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5–8, ESV)

looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Galatians 3:13)

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

If God is not above shaming himself, he is not above showing up, making himself bare and fully evident, and saying, “hi”. This realization ought to make us pause . . . and think about our questions. Do we understand what we are asking? Do we know the whole picture? Could we be wrong in our assumptions? Maybe there is more to the story. . .. Maybe there is more to the heart of God and his love for us . . .. He cries out to us, “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37).

If there were another way

Now, let us look at a pinnacle moment in the life of Jesus that gets to the heart of the question of whether there was another way. In the Garden of Gethsemane, in anguish and wrestling to the point of sweating blood, Jesus “prayed, saying, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.’” Do not read this too quickly. . .. Jesus, while teaching during his ministry, is clear that the Father always listens to him. Jesus is asking, “if it is possible”. This was not a shallow request on the part of Jesus, this was a request coming from deep in the bowels and the heart and soul of Jesus. And this was not the request of a passerby, this was a request of a much beloved son. The Father deeply loves the Son. His son was in deep agony and was sweating blood. We who are evil would not hesitate to heed the call of our child in this situation. Make no mistake, neither would the Father. Jesus said, “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” If it were possible, if there were even some remote prospect of another way to redeem humanity, his father would not have hesitated to answer this request from his son.

Maybe there is more to the story

And so, once again, these things ought to make us stop, pause, and look at the presumptions of our questions. What baggage or assumptions are we bringing? Is it not human nature to think we understand the story or situation well, even when we don’t? Yet, we often don’t know as much as we think we do. And as we often bring poor questions in our relationships with others due to our misunderstandings, perhaps we are doing the same with God. And because we do this in everyday life, this should not surprise us. Despite this, the scripture invites us to ask these questions. The scripture does not ignore them. But we must also be willing to cast off our presumptions and have ears to listen. When we listen, we will find that when it comes to the hiddenness of God, there is more to the story . . ..                                                  

An objection to the historical accuracy of Matthew’s account of Jesus’s birth is that there are no historical records outside the Bible of Herod killing infant sons in the city of Bethlehem. However, though this is a valid question, this is not proof that the account in Matthew did not happen.

Bethlehem as prophesied in Micah 5:2 was a small village with a small population at the time of Jesus’ birth. The population is estimated to have been around 300-1500, the number of boys under two years in a population this size would not be that many, some estimates being around 7-50, and this in a time where young children died at young ages more often than they do now. If Herod wanted to hide this by threatening families to silence it may have not been widely known. Josephus also was writing with a Greco-Roman culture in mind where infanticide was a form of birth control, he may have thought that it would have seemed insignificant to his audience and therefore did not include it. (Paul L. Maier, 1998:179) We also know that Josephus did not write an exhaustive list of Herod’s atrocities and this one would not be surprising for him to have left out, since it probably would not have mattered much to his audience.

We however know that this event is well within Herod’s personality. Herod violently reacting to a rumor over the threat to his throne was a pattern. We also know that in the last four years of his life when this event is claimed to have occurred, he was at his worst. It is an event that fits well with his character at the time. In the article The Slaughter of the Innocents: Historical Fact or Legendary Fiction? it states:

In 1988 I was attending a lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies by Dr. Isaiah Gafni, a leading authority on the Second Temple period at the Hebrew University. His topic was the life of Herod the Great. Sitting next to me was Dr. Bruce Narramore, a Christian psychologist from Biola University.

Dr. Gafni recounted a seminar that was held at Hebrew University a few years before. Attending it were historians and archaeologists of the Second Temple period as well as psychiatrists and psychologists. They laid out (figuratively speaking) Herod the Great on the psychiatric couch and preceded to psychoanalyze him. The historians explained a recurring pattern in the life of Herod. He would hear a rumor that somebody was going to bump him off and take over his throne, but Herod would kill that person first. He would then go into depression. After awhile he would come out of his depression and would build, build, build. He would hear another rumor and would kill that person, then go into another depression. After awhile he would come out of this depression and would build, build, build. This cycle repeated itself a number of times in which numerous people were killed, including one of his ten wives as well as three of his sons! The shrinks diagnosed Herod the Great as a paranoid schizophrenic.

After the lecture I turned to Dr. Narramore and asked his analysis of Herod: “Well, do you think he was a paranoid schizophrenic?” Bruce laughed and said, “No, he was a jerk!” [That is a direct quote!]. Recently a historical / psychological analysis was done on Herod the Great and he was diagnosed with Paranoid Personality Disorder (Kasher and Witztum 2007:431).

The time before Herod’s death was full of uncertainty about who would inherit his kingdom and uncertainty about his status within the Roman empire. It was also a time of unrest with “messiahs” rising up and unrest and rebellion. So, for a man who did not want the eye of the empire on him and already was paranoid about being usurped, the news the Magi brought him that the king of the Jews had been born would have been disturbing. Not only would it have been disturbing to him, but also to Jerusalem which had already experienced his reactions to rumors of another king rising not in his line. Herod around this time killed Pharisees who had prophesied that Herod’s line would decline and the line of Pheroras would rise after Pheroras’ wife paid a fine placed on the Pharisees. So, we have a time when anticipation for the Messiah was high, there was instability in Herod’s own house, there was tension for Herod to please Rome, and Jerusalem had already seen how Herod had responded to potential threats to his kingdom. So, it is no wonder that Matthew used the word “troubled” to describe the mood when this news was brought to Herod. Herod would not only want to kill these infants who he saw as a potential threat to his throne but seeing that the rumor extended outside his court would also want to squash any rumors of a possible king of the Jews.  We know historically that fear can be a powerful motivation in keeping people silent. Even without any interference, there would be fear to talk about another king, not in Herod’s line. Squashing the rumor would not be out of the realm of possibility.

The story would however have been known to Jesus and his family. Both Jesus and his family walked intimately with those who would become the church and would have been asked to tell their story. Thus, this becoming common knowledge in the church would be expected. And through the church, this event became common knowledge to the world. Since this story came early in church history, those that were still alive would have been able to discredit it if it were not true. And even after this, those who had known the family of Jesus and had heard the stories firsthand would have been able to discredit the story. Yet you see no early writing questioning this account. But then I would suppose this would be an argument from silence, which cannot be used to discredit this story.

It might be argued that Matthew made up the story to fit it into prophecy. But why would he need to do that? His gospel alludes to many prophesies already, and there are other prophesies he did not include that he could have used. Matthew’s account is not an exhaustive study of how Jesus fulfilled all the prophesies. Why add a made-up story when it would not be necessary? And if you are going to make up a story, why add in the Magi? Magi would have been controversial. They weren’t just “wise men” for the word magi refer to people who practice magic or astrology, something contrary to the Jewish culture. If the Jewish scribes were able to ascertain the place of the messiah’s birth, why have a heathen magi come and determine the timing of the birth? Many of the day were already anticipating that the messiah was near. Why not use a wise Jew, after all, Jesus said that the scribes and Pharisees ought to have understood the signs of the time? Why not use Simeon and Anna who were aware of the coming birth of Jesus, and even proclaimed it to others? Why not have Herod hear these rumors after Anna and Simeon told others and then . . .?

The silence found in history is not proof that it didn’t happen, it is a question to be addressed, but not proof. Anyone purporting it to be such is claiming to know more than reason can allow. Claiming it as proof creates its own questions that have to be ignored in order to hold on to that stance as absolute fact. The argument of silence has been used many times before only later to find evidence to validate the Biblical account. I am not saying that the argument of silence cannot ever be used, but it must be used carefully. It is within reason and probable for the story to come out and to have been told in history the way it did through the gospel of Matthew. Therefore, there is no proof whatsoever that this account is false or a contradiction in the Bible.

Video to watch:

• Matthew Didn’t Invent the Massacre of the Innocents – YouTube
• Refuting Biblical Arguments from Silence – YouTube

Mark and John seem to give two different hours for the death of Jesus.

“And it was the third hour when they crucified him.” (Mark 15:25)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. Pilot said to the Jews, ‘Behold your King!’” (John 19:14)

The Jews broke up the twelve-hour night into four watches from sunset to sunrise each lasting about three hours. We see this idea possibly in Mark 13:35-36, “Therefore stay awake – for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning – lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.” Likewise, during the daytime, the twelve hours (“Are there not twelve hours in the day?” (John 11:9)) were broken into four periods. When stating times in the Gospels, we see that they generalized those times to these three-hour periods of the day and spoke of the “third”, “sixth”, and “ninth” hours (Matt. 20:3, 5; 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34; Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3,9, 30; 23:23). Mark says Jesus’ crucifixion occurred in the third hour. John says, it was “about the sixth hour” which could mean it was coming up or approaching on the sixth hour, meaning Jesus’ crucifixion probably occurred near the end of the third hour quarter of day, so during the transition from the third hour quarter and the sixth hour quarter. Each of these accounts rounding off to on or the other quarter of the day and are consistent with how one spoke of time. These statements also help us to narrow down when Jesus died to the latter part of the third hour.

In the previous article we tackle whether or not John agrees with the synoptic Gospels on the day of Jesus’ death: The day of Jesus’ death

Articles to read:

• You Asked: What Time Did Jesus Die? (thegospelcoalition.org)
• Is there a Bible contradiction in Mark 15:25 (cf. John 19:14)? (defendinginerrancy.com)
• When was Jesus Crucified: Supposed Bible Contradiction #21 – YouTube

                The question arises, did Jesus eat the Passover meal and as a consequence what day of the Passover week did Jesus die? The Synoptic Gospels speak of Jesus eating the Passover with his disciples on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed

“And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12)

“Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed” (Luke 22:7)

“Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus saying, “Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the Passover?” (Matthew 26:17)

However some have claimed that John gives a different account, implying that instead of eating the Passover meal on the day the Passover Lamb was sacrificed, Jesus ate the meal the day before and died when the Passover Lamb was sacrificed. Below are the passages they use to support this claim.

“Now before the Feast of Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.” (John 13:1)

“It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” (John 18:28)

“Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 19:14)

Can John be reconciled with the Synoptic Gospels? We will look at John’s account to determine whether John is claiming that Jesus died at the same time as the Passover lamb. Is the claim of a contradiction valid?

The Day of Preparation

                Both John and the Synoptic Gospels record that Jesus died on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath. They also agree that the day before Jesus’s death, Jesus ate his last meal with his disciples in the upper room and in between these they were on the Mount of Olives where Jesus was arrested and taken trial and brought before Pilot to be crucified.

“And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath.” (Mark 15:42)

“It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning.” (Luke 23:54)

”The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, ‘Sir, we remember how that imposter said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise’.” (Matthew 27:62-63)

“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day),” (John 19:31)

“So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:42)

We can see that there is not discrepancy on what day of the week Jesus died and was buried. Each of the Gospel’s states that this occurred on the day of Preparation before the Sabbath.

The term “Passover” is used to refer to the whole week of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So in order to know what part of this week “Passover” is referring to one must look at the context. Below are examples of “Passover” referring to the whole week.

“The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem” (John 2:13)

“Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews was at hand” (John 6:14)

“many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.” (John 11:55)

Intune with this, the phrase “the day of Preparation” refers to the day before the Sabbath. When John states, “Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover.” He is not talking about the day when the Passover lamb was slain, but the day before the Sabbath, or “the day of Preparation” during the Passover week. Notice John highlights the Sabbath as a “high day”, also emphasizing its occurrence during the Passover. So each of the Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation.

We can further provide support that this is the case because John records, “It was early morning. They themselves did not enter the governor’s headquarters, so that they would not be defiled, but could eat the Passover.” Now if this was the day the Passover lamb was slain there would not be a problem since they could have bathed and at evening, they would have been ritually clean and could have participated in the Passover meal (Leviticus 11:24-28; 15:5-11; 17:15; 19:7-8). They would have been able to participate even if they had entered Pilot’s court. But is there a meal before evening that they would have wanted to remain clean for? And does that give us a clue to the day John record’s Jesus’ death? After the Passover lamb was slain and the Seder meal was eaten in the evening and night, during the day there was another meal that was part of the Passover celebration called the Hagigah, which occurred the midday after the Seder. It appears this is what John was referring to and if so John, like the Synoptic Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day after the Passover. And this makes sense because John does not explicitly try to synchronize the death of Jesus with the slaying of the Passover lamb as some have claimed. John who loves symbolism probably would not have been shy to have done so, if these two events occurred simultaneously. So the synoptic Gospels and John all agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation which was after the Passover lamb was slain.

John 13:1

                So, some will question, but John says that Jesus had the last meal before the Feast of Passover? Did he? Since it is clear that all four Gospels agree that Jesus died on the day of Preparation, lets now look at John 13:1 and the phrase, “Now before the Feast of Passover”. This phrase is qualified by “when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world, he loved them to the end.” The Passover marked the beginning of the last hours of Jesus’ life.  John is stating that before this very moment of time as Jesus knew his death was approaching, that he was about to have his last meal with his disciples, he did not panic, but loved and fully gave of himself to his disciples till the very end. Notice this includes Judas. John is emphasizing that though Jesus knew what would soon take place, even though he knew this would be his last meal with his disciples, his focus was love. And he continues to model that love as in verse 2, as we have a transition, “During supper”, referring to the Seder meal. The final acts before his death had begun. In order to express his love, during the supper, Jesus knowing who he was and having loved his own, humbled himself and took on himself the role of a servant, in contrast to those who around him who were arguing who was the greatest. There is no reason to assume that this “supper” is not the Passover meal. John 13:1 states that Jesus had loved them before this meal, John 13:2 states that love for them continued as Jesus continued to serve and be focused on caring for his disciples, rather than caring for his own needs, despite knowing the suffering he was about to endure. And based on the evidence already given, this is the reading that makes the most sense. The synoptic Gospels and John are telling the same story and give the same timing for Jesus’ death. In the next article we will look at whether the Gospels of Mark and John agree on the hour of Jesus’ death: The Hour of Jesus’ Death

Articles to read:

• The Timing of Jesus’ Death | Catholic Answers
• What Day Did Jesus die? – Bible Contradiction #20 – YouTube

Johnathan MS Pearce an atheist in his dialogue with Dave Armstrong gives ways hew believes would reconcile Luke in his comments on the proposed discrepancy between Luke 2:1-2 and Matthew 2:1-4 and the census of Quirinius and Herod. He states, “The Christian is left with several options: either question the date that Herod died, or that the census took place, or claim that Quirinius knocked around twice in the area, or had two censuses.” (Reply to Atheist JMS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions)

Introduction

In Luke 2:2, we read, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria”. These words have caused many to assume that the Christian claim to the inerrancy of scripture cannot be true. For here it fails the test. They claim that the census of Quirinius would have occurred in A.D. 6 after he became governor of Syria, which is years out of range for the most accepted dates for the birth of Jesus. When trying to pinpoint the date of Jesus’ birth, we have both more precise dates and dates that are vague. This leaves us with ranges and probabilities rather than a precise date that everyone can agree on. But what we must prove is not a precise date but given the information we have could Luke’s writing about Quirinius have been accurate. In this writing, we will look at some of the possible solutions to show that Luke most likely documented history accurately and fits within what we know from Josephus’ writing. In this writing, I will not argue for a specific date or solution to this question but will show possible ways that would allow Luke to be consistent with the data that we have at this point as he is throughout his writing.

Dating Jesus’s Birth

Scholars use textual evidence within the Gospels and historical references outside the Bible to estimate the date of the birth of Jesus. It is noted that in Matthew, Herod on finding out about the birth of the King of the Jews, ascertained when the star appeared and killed all the boys in Bethlehem two years or younger. Since Herod would have been conservative in trying to destroy his rival, Jesus would have been born no more than two years before this event. Luke, in his Gospel, claims that John the Baptist began his ministry in “the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar” (Luke 3:1-2). We don’t know how long John ministered before Jesus was baptized. And we do not know the exact age of Jesus when he started his ministry, but we know that he was “about thirty years of age”. So, subtracting the “about 30 years” from the 15^th year of Tiberius Caesar helps to narrow down the time frame of the birth of Jesus. Another textual evidence, though more controversial is Luke 2:1-2 which discusses a census that was taken and Quirinius being in Syria. So, it is indicators like these that help us to get a range of when events could have occurred, but getting the exact dating of Jesus’ birth is not as easy.

For example, with “the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar”, when is a reign judged to begin? If a reign starts part way through a year, what year do you count as the first year? Or what about if there is a period of co-regency? For Jesus’ age when starting his ministry, what does “about 30” mean? How long after John started his ministry did Jesus’s ministry begin? How long before Herod’s death did the Magi come to Jerusalem? Based on the data through the range of years, people estimate for Jesus’s birth is 8 B.C. – 1 A.D, with the most likely candidates being 6-4 B.C, 3-1 B.C.

Dates Historically Proposed

Historically the most popular date options for Jesus’ birth have been 6-4 B.C., 3/2 B.C, and 1 B.C. Below is a chart adapted from Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology from the article What year was Jesus born? The answer may surprise you by Jimmy Akin. The dates of 3/2 B.C. fit with what many of the early church fathers believed was the date of Jesus’ birth. The date 1 B.C. was made popular through Dionysius Exiguus’ calculations and his popularizing of the B.C./A.D. calendar system.

In the 1800s a German scholar Emil Schürer looked at the fact that Herod died in between a lunar eclipse and the Passover. He found that there had been a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. that was visible from Jerusalem and so proposed 4 B.C. as the date of Herod’s death. Since Mathew has Jesus being born before Herod’s death and the fact that Matthew says he killed the boys in Bethlehem two years and younger Jesus’ birth was estimated to be around 6-4 B.C. His work on this and his dating has been popular thought in modern times.

15^th year of Tiberius’ reign

We will first look at Luke’s dating of the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry which he ties in with the 15^th year of Tiberius’ reign and how it ties into the timing for Jesus’ birth. In Luke 3:1-2 we read,

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. (Luke 3:1-2, ESV)

Augustus the Caesar prior to Tiberius died on August 19^th, A.D. 14, however, Tiberius co-ruled with Augustus as an equal starting in A.D. 12. So, depending on which of these points Luke saw as the starting point of Tiberius’s reign we are looking at a range of somewhere near A.D. 26 or A.D. 29 for the beginning of the ministry of John the Baptist. If we assume that Jesus’ ministry started immediately after the start of John’s ministry when he was about “about 30 years” and with that assumption subtract 30 years from those dates, we are left with an approximate date of 6-4 B.C. and 3/2 B.C. for Jesus’ birth, respectively. Because of the room for Jesus’ age and not knowing how long in between the dates John and Jesus started their ministries, there is room for a range of dates allowing 1 B.C as a valid date for Jesus’ birth based on this information. We will see that these dates also work with the proposed dates for Herod’s death as well. Interestingly, Pilot who is also mentioned came into Judea and Samaria in A.D. 25. He along with the other historical figures listed by Luke also fit within the range of the most likely dates for the birth of Jesus, as well as the start of his ministry.

We can rule out, A.D. 6 timing for Jesus’ birth as some have suggested in order to have it reconcile with Luke’s statement about Quirinius. This would make Jesus 23 years old is not near 30 years and is also younger than 25 years old, the age necessary for someone to start their service as priest (see here). We get the same issue if we attempt to get a later date for Jesus’ birth by assuming the Herod of Luke 1:5 is Archelaus instead of Herod the Great.

So, at this point, we still left with likely ranges of 6-4 B.C and 3/2 B.C with some wiggle room. Next, we will look at Herod’s Death.

Herod’s Death

Because both Mathew and Luke have Herod still alive at the time of the birth of Jesus (Matthew 2:1, Luke 1:5) knowing when he died would give us a date by which Jesus had to have been born. Matthew gives us the account of the Magi visiting Herod in order to find the King of the Jews. Since as we noted earlier Herod would have been conservative in trying to destroy his rival, we can assume that Jesus was born no more than 2 years before the visit from the Magi. Although Mathew does not say how long before the death of Herod the account of the Magi occurred, if we estimate around 30 years before Tiberius’ fifteenth year reign, we get within the range of around two years before Herod’s death. Josephus said that during the time of Herod’s death there was a lunar eclipse (Antiquities 17.6.4) and that Herod died sometime in between this eclipse and the next Passover. If we know which eclipse Josephus is talking about then this would help to provide an anchor date that we could use to help understand the timing of other events. There were only 4 lunar eclipses visible in Jerusalem during this time frame. They are listed in the table below with their attributes.

The eclipse that is most popularly assumed to be associated with Herod’s death in modern times is the 4 B.C. eclipse. The 4 B.C. eclipse on March 12-13^th was not complete, its maximum shadow only being 36%, and occurred late at night near the feast of Purim and was 29 days before the Passover. The March 4 B.C. eclipse has been questioned because Josephus gives us an account of several things that occurred after the eclipse and 29 days does not seem to be enough time to accomplish all that Josephus stated happened between the eclipse and Passover. Andrew Stienmann states that it “would have taken a minimum of 41 days” to accomplish these tasks (From Abraham to Paul, 231). These events are listed below.

1. Herod’s illness declined, with sores putrefied and breeding worms
2. Herod was taken to get treatments in warm baths about 10 miles away. After these treatments were unsuccessful, he returned home.
3. He ordered important men from the area to come to him, they arrived some coming from 70-80 miles away.
4. Five days before Herod’s death he executes his son Antipater.
5. After his death, his body was taken about 23 miles away to be buried.
6. A 7-day period of mourning occurred, followed by a feast
7. Another public morning also occurred to commemorate those who were killed by Herod on the night preceding the eclipse

The other three eclipses have more time for these events to have occurred. Given this and its maximum shadow being 36%, the March 4 B.C. date is not the most likely candidate. The eclipse on September 15^th, 5 B.C. was a total eclipse occurring near Yom Kippur, seven months before the Passover. This eclipse would render a death date for Herod of around 4 B.C. There were also two eclipses in 1 B.C. The January 10^th eclipse occurred near midnight and was a total eclipse. It occurred 89 days before the Passover.  Later that year, on December 29^th, there was an eclipse at moonrise with a maximum shadow of 53% and was most visible at around 6 p.m. This eclipse occurred around 101 days before the next Passover. Both of these eclipses would be viable candidates for the eclipse described before Herod’s Death.

Basically, with this information, the most likely points of both Herod’s Death and Jesus’s birth again fit within the 6-4 B.C., 3/2 B.C., and 1 B.C range.

Could the eclipse assumption be wrong?

                Here is a link to an interesting paper by Duncan Cameron that discusses the possibility that the eclipse may not be a proper event to use to help establish an anchor date: Target Fixation and the Eclipse of Josephus: towards a redating of Herod’s death | Duncan Cameron – Academia.edu

Conclusion

I am still reading on this subject, not sure where I stand on specifically which lunar eclipse occurred before Herod’s death. There are other criteria I want to look at more. However, all these eclipses fall within the range of the accepted possibilities of Jesus’s birth. We will continue to see that these dates fit within other expected criteria as well.

Articles to read:

• Herod’s Death, Jesus’ Birth and a Lunar Eclipse – Biblical Archaeology Society
• Reply to Atheist JMS Pearce: Herod’s Death & Alleged “Contradictions” | Dave Armstrong (patheos.com)
• The 100-year old *mistake* about the Birth of Jesus| National Catholic Register (ncregister.com)
• Jesus’ birth and when Herod the Great *really* died – Jimmy Akin
• Does Luke Contradict Himself on When Jesus Was Born? | Catholic Answers
• Ormond Edwards, “Herodian Chronology,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly  114 (1982): 29-42
• Andrew Steinmann, “When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009) 1-29
• Microsoft Word download – ElapsedTimes with section 9 corrected (rcyoung.org)
• King Herod’s Death Year – 4 BC or 1 BC? | The Odds
• On the Time of Herod’s death (expreso.co.cr)
• The Beginning of the Christian Era Revisited: New Findings (semanticscholar.org)
• Yet Another Eclipse for Herod (johnpratt.com)
• Target Fixation and the Eclipse of Josephus: towards a redating of Herod’s death | Duncan Cameron – Academia.edu

Side note: Objection that there are no records of a massacre of infants by Herod. I deal with that in this post: Massacre of the innocents.

So, what about Quirinius?

Now, we come to the controversial passage of Luke 2:1-2.

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

This passage regarding the timing of the birth of Jesus states, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria” (ESV). Objections have been raised by scholars that make them and others question the accuracy of these two verses. The objections are as follows,

• No known empire-wide census occurred under Augustus
• No census would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem
• Mary would have not been required to be part of the census
• No census occurred under King Herod in Palestine
• Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6
• There are no known records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth

The most important of these objections is the timing of Quirinius and his involvement in a census occurring in Palestine during this time. There are no records of Quirinius as legate over Syria during the times given for Jesus’ birth. The only records we have that show Quirinius serving as legate over Syria is starting A.D. 6, after the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus. Josephus also records a census occurring in A.D. 6. Quirinius starting as Legate over Syria and this census is seen to be in direct contradiction to the fact that Herod the Great is said to be alive during the birth of Jesus. And as we have seen, Herod the Great died well before A.D. 6.

Matthew 2:1 states,

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem”.

And not only does Matthew states that Herod was alive during Jesus’ birth, but Luke also supports Matthew’s claim in Luke 1:5 when he says, “In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah”. And so, it appears that not only does Luke 2:1-2 seem to be in direct contradiction with Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth, but that this statement also contradicts Luke’s own statement only shortly before. But would Luke make such an error only one chapter apart?

Luke seems to be aware of the intricacies of the politics during the time between Herod’s death and Quirinius’s governorship over Syria in A.D. 6 (Luke 3:1-2). He is also aware of the census Josephus describes along with the rebellion that had occurred with Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:37). Luke would have known that Herod’s rule over Judea and Quirinius A.D. 6 rule over Judea could not have occurred simultaneously. So why would Luke who is so careful in his writings miss such an obvious error and even contradict himself? Or would he? It would be a bold statement to say that Luke who proves himself diligent would be so egregiously careless. That being the case, we ourselves should not be careless by rejecting it only after taking a cursory reading of this passage, but instead should carefully and diligently investigate how Luke meticulously words his description of the events. He carefully uses words such as “protos” and “hegemoneuo” along with grammar style to express these events. The wording Luke uses in this passage is unusual, but as we look closer, we will discover possible solutions to this dilemma and proposed contradiction.

protos

Luke uses the Greek word “protos”, which is translated above as “first”, to qualify his statement about the census. He also uses a curious grammatical structure that presents interesting possible implications into what Luke is referring to. Because the phrasing and grammar Luke uses in constructing his sentence in Luke 2:2 is unusual and odd. He uses the genitive structure and odd grammar. If Luke was merely speaking of the census that occurred under Quirinius in A.D. there are simpler ways to say this. Why use a more difficult structure when a simpler sentence would suffice? Because of this, Scholars have suggested that this passage could be translated differently. The main alternative proponents are understanding “protos” to mean either “before” or “became prominent”. Each of these possibilities including as we will see translating it as “first” demonstrates that Luke was distinguishing this census from the A.D. 6 census.

So, in summary, the Greek allows for three possible translations for the qualifying word “protos”,

• this is the “first” of more than one census taken while Quirinius was serving in a government role while in Syria
• this is a census conducted “before” the census of Quirinius in A.D. 6.
• The census began earlier but became prominent later and was completed when Quirinius was governor of Syria

Each of these readings has evidence that supports these possible interpretations. Those who believe Luke is wrong would have to show in what sense Luke is using the word, “protos” and how Luke’s use of the genitive structure and odd grammar fits within this interpretive structure, and why Luke has chosen a more cumbersome way of saying this, when there are simpler options in the Greek.

“before”

NT Wright in his book, Who is Jesus? (pp 98-99) argues that in the specific use here “protos” can rightly be translated as “before”

In the Greek of the time, as the standard major Greek lexicons point out, the word protos came sometimes to be used to mean ‘before’, when followed (as this is) by the genitive case. A good example is in John 1.15, where John the Baptist says of Jesus “he was before me”, with the Greek being again protos followed by the genitive of “me”.[18] I suggest, therefore, that actually the most natural reading of the verse is: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.”…

My guess is that Luke knew a tradition in which Jesus was born during some sort of census, and that Luke knew as well as we do that it couldn’t have been the one conducted under Quirinius, because by then Jesus was about ten years old. That is why he wrote that the census was the one before that conducted by Quirinius.

This is also discussed in an article by James Keifer in The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (rowan.edu),

Turning to the word PROTOS, translated “first,” we note that it means “earliest,” but is also sometimes used to mean “earlier, prior, previous.” John the Baptist says (John 1:15,30), “he was first of me”, meaning, “he was earlier than I.” Greek regularly uses “of” (the genitive case) rather than “than” to express comparison. So that Luke’s words can be translated: “This enrollment occurred earlier than Quirinius governing Syria,” meaning, “This was the census just before the big one (the one that everyone knows about, because it started a rebellion) under Quirinius.” There are in fact three plausible ways of parsing the phrase: (1) We can read it as “the first census, Quirinius being governor of Syria.” This treats “Quirinius governing Syria” as a genitive absolute, similar to the Latin ablative absolute or the English nominative absolute as in “Jones took notes, the regular secretary being absent,” or the more frequent, “The picnic will be on Tuesday, weather permitting”. This is the construction assumed by most English translators. (2) We can read it as “the census earlier than Quirinius governing Syria.” This treats “Quirinius governing Syria” as a genitive of comparison. (3) We can read it as “the census earlier (than the census) of Quirinius governing Syria.” This assumes that Luke omits the second occurrence of the word “census”, as if I were to say, “My dog is smarter than his,” expecting people to understand that I meant, “My dog is smarter than his dog.” Such omissions of repeated words are standard in many languages. In John 5:36, we have, “The testimony I have is greater than (the testimony) of John.” In 1 Corinthians 1:25, we have “The foolishness of God is wiser than (the wisdom) of men, and the weakness of God is stronger than (the power) of men.” If this is the construction Luke intended, then “Quirinius” is an ordinary genitive of possession, modifying “census” understood. On either the second or the third interpretation, all difficulties vanish. George Ogg, who thinks that Luke is wrong about Quirinius, objects that there are no undisputed passages in which PROTOS followed by a participial phrase in the genitive case clearly means “before.” I think this is unreasonable. He does not deny that PROTOS often means “before,” or that participial phrases can occur in the genitive of comparison. I think his objection is little like questioning the authenticity of the Gettysburg Address on the grounds that Lincoln nowhere else uses “fourscore” to mean “eighty.” Even granted that he is right, this would eliminate the second construction listed above, but leave the third (which he does not consider) as a perfectly good possibility.

If this is true, then Luke can be read as having said that this census occurred before Quirinius was governor in Syria and the conflict is solved. Wallace argues against this in his article, The Problem of Luke 2:2 “This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria” | Bible.org, but he doesn’t say that it is an impossible interpretation. I am not an expert on Greek, so cannot comment.

Articles to read:

• CADRE Comments (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• The Lucan Censuses, Revisited on JSTOR

“prominent”

The other possibility argued for is that the grammar implies that the census became prominent while Quirinius was governor in Syria. Below is a quote from two articles. The first is, Did Luke get his nativity history wrong? by Ian Paul:

Intriguingly, this ties in well with a quite separate argument about Luke’s language here. Marshall notes that ‘the form of the sentence is in any case odd’ (p 104); why say something was ‘first’ when there is nothing to compare it with? Stephen Carlson has looked even more closely, and also noted that the verb egeneto also seems strange; why suggest the census ‘became’ something, rather than that it simply ‘was’? Carlson suggests that prote, rather than ‘first’ numerically, should be read as ‘of most importance’—much as we might say ‘so-and-so is Arsenal’s Number One player.’ This would then give the translation as:

This registration became most prominent when Quirinius was governing Syria.

or

This [decree to get registered] became the/a most important registration when Quirinius was governing Syria.

In the end, the mystery of the conflict between Luke and Josephus remains unsolved and (as Marshall puts it) ‘can hardly be solved without the discovery of fresh evidence.’ But these arguments at least offer a plausible explanation—and when considering questions of history, proof is rarely possible, but plausibility is an important measure. It certainly offers no grounds to write off Luke’s account, think it unhistorical or a fabrication, or see it as in conflict with Matthew. (Paul, Ian; Did Luke get his nativity history wrong?)

Here is the other quote from The Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (rowan.edu):

Instead of supposing that Luke, or at least our present version of Luke, is wrong, we may question whether Luke has been correctly understood. The Greek reads: “This enrollment first occurred of Quirinius governing Syria.” Two words here require careful examination: (1) EGENETO, meaning “occurred” or “came to pass,” and (2) PROTOS, meaning “first” or “earliest.”

Luke uses EGENETO again in Acts 11:28, where a prophet predicts a famine, which Luke explains “occurred” (later) under the emperor Claudius. Thus, it is suggested, Luke may have meant that the census was commanded by Augustus and begun in about 7 BC, but completed under Quirinius, and hence known to historians as the census of Quirinius, or the census of 6 AD, or the like. The objection to this is that if Luke had meant “completed,” he should have said so. A strong objection, but not, I think, a fatal one. Luke may have been thinking in terms of a command by Augustus: “I want a list given me of all the property in the empire and who owns it.” A dozen years later, Quirinius says: “Here is the list, all checked out.” If one is thinking of the result (the whole empire organized on a rational, businesslike, efficient, bureaucratic basis), and not of the process of organization, the expression “occurred” is perfectly natural. Suppose that a speaker says, “Sports fans have long been waiting to see whether Hank Aaron would hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth, and this finally occurred on September 12, 1977.” No one takes this to mean that Aaron hit more than seven hundred home runs on the day mentioned, or that in place of “this finally occurred” the speaker ought to have said, “this feat was finally completed,” or something of the sort. I maintain that a perfectly possible interpretation of Luke’s statement is: “In those days, Caesar Augustus expressed a wish that the domains of King Herod might be completely surveyed and added to the tax rolls. In the days when Quirinius was governor of Syria, his wish was fulfilled.” Alternatively, we may suppose that Luke is using the word APOGRAPHE to refer, not to the preliminary surveying, registration, and assessment of real estate, but to the collecting of the taxes. In this case, we translate he statement somewhat as follows: “In those days, Augustus commanded that real estate everywhere should be taxed, and that the preliminary surveying and registration should begin at once. The tax was actually collected (in Palestine) in AD 6 when Quirinius was governor of Syria.” This interpretation has Luke using the same term for the registration and for the taxation, but this is not surprising in anyone not a tax lawyer. Given this interpretation, Luke’s use of “occurred” rather than “completed” for the events of AD 6 is above even the most nit-picking criticism.

If “became prominent” is the proper understanding of this verse, once again there is no contradiction.

Articles to read:

• Luke 2:2 and the Census (hypotyposeis.org)
• Parsing Luke 2:2 (hypotyposeis.org)
• Putting Luke 2:2 in context (hypotyposeis.org)

Conclusion to alternate Greek interpretations

Again, since I am not an expert on koine Greek and this is well beyond what I have learned so far, I cannot comment, but only present the data. But what I understand from what I have read, Luke’s use of grammar in this passage is quite unique with few examples of similar syntax in known koine Greek literature, and so the debate on the exact meaning of this phrase may have to continue or be on hold till we find more koine Greek literature that uses the same structure which will allow us to better support a specific interpretation. So, until we know for sure let’s move forward and look at what if “first” is the correct translation.

“first”

If we take “protos” to mean “first, then the phrase “This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria” assumes that there was at least one other census while Quirinius officiated over Syria. Josephus writes about the census in A.D. 6 under Quirinius, and this is what is used to show that Luke is in error. It is assumed that this is the only census or at least the first under Quirinius and since it is well past the time of Jesus’ birth, it in no way can be reconciled with the claim that Herod was still alive at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, Luke is not claiming that he is referring to the census in A.D. 6, which we have seen he was aware of. He is claiming that he is referring to the “first” census when Quirinius officiated in Syria. He could have used this term to clarify and distinguish it from the well-known census of A.D. 6. So rather than being evidence for the A.D. 6 census it is actually possibly evidence against it.

hegemoneouo

You might say, well we know that Quirinius was Legate over Syria starting A.D. 6 so that verifies that this must be the census. Not so fast. Luke doesn’t say the Quirinius was Legate over Syria. Luke is very careful in his terminology. The term he uses is “hegemoneouo”. The term “hegemoneouo” can be used to refer to more than one type of officiating office. So not only are we asking, was there a previous census, but also did Quirinius serve in any officiating compacity in Syria before A.D. 6? And since Quirinius was a high-ranking official, basically all that we need to show is that he could have been in Syria at this time. Thought we don’t have a definitive record of all his dealings with this area, this is an area he frequented and so it is reasonable to assume that this could have been the case. Again, Luke could be using the term, “hegemoneouo” to distinguish this role from when Quirinius was Legate in A.D. 6. Providing evidence that the census occurred at an earlier date.

So, in other words, the burden of proof is not to show that the census of A.D. 6 while Quirinius was Legate coincides with Jesus’ birth, any such effort is only sidetracking the issue, but rather for this to be a contradiction it must be shown that no other census occurred before A.D. 6 while Quirinius was in the area. And this is only if “first” is the correct translation for “protos”.

What Luke does not say about the census

Many of us have heard the passage in Luke 2 read many times. It is a popular passage during the telling of the Christmas story. As we hear this passage many of us have pictures in our minds of what the journey was about and what it was like for Mary and Joseph. As these issues are discussed it is important to not bring our assumptions into this passage. There are things that Luke does not say, and we should not assume.

• We should not assume that this census was for taxation purposes. The word Luke uses for “registration” could refer simply to a counting or a call for an oath of loyalty to Ceasar. And we will see that such a thing did take place during this time in Judea while Herod the Great was king.
• We should not assume that Mary was going with Joseph because she too was a part of the census. Luke does not state that. He only states that she went with him. We also see that they remained in Bethlehem for some time. If they were using this opportunity to make a move, it would make sense to take Mary.
• We should not assume that “each to his own town”, refers to everyone in the empire returning to the home of their ancestry. The passage doesn’t say that this was the case for all the empire, only that Joseph in this case went to Bethlehem because he was of the house and lineage of David, which could be based on lineage or family property in Bethlehem.
• We cannot assume that the census happened everywhere in the empire at the same time. It may have been decreed by Augustine at a time for the whole empire, but history shows that censuses could take years to complete. Transportation and communication did not occur as fast as they do, today. Also, we know that Augustine had a general policy of census taking, which this alone would fit in with what Luke wrote.
• Assume that Mary was at the final stages of her pregnancy. We don’t know how long Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem before she gave birth. They could have left any time after three months into her pregnancy.

Was there a census before A.D. 6?

Since Augustus had an overall policy of registration and understanding the accounting of the Roman Empire, creating a culture where this was conducted throughout the empire, it would not be unusual for Luke to be referring any registration that occurred with Augustus and his policies. Augustus in his work Res Gestae describes how he initiated the taking of empire-wide censuses in the years 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and A.D. 14. Also, another census was taken throughout the empire culminating in Augustus being declared the “Father of the Country” on February 5^th, 2 B.C. Because censuses took years to complete and were conducted differently in different areas, the 8 B.C. census and the census declaring allegiance to Augustus fit well within a birth date of Jesus being around 6/5 B.C or 3/2 B.C. Would these censuses have affected Judea? Possibly. For a short time around 9 B.C. Herod lost favor with Augustus and Augustus for a short time took away Herod’s title as “friend of Caesar”. Herod also during this time had struggles within his family and assigning the heirs to his throne, something that required the consent and approval of Rome. So, even though he was a client kingdom and not necessarily required to participate, it is possible he did so to win favor with Augustus. Also, we know that at times censuses were imposed on client-states by Rome.

Dr. Jack Finegan, professor of New Testament history and archaeology and director of the Palestine Institute of Archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA, writes:

The question has been raised whether the Romans would have instituted census and taxation procedures in Palestine while Herod the Great was ruling as king of the Jews. That they would not have hesitated to do so is suggested by comparison with Apamea on the Orontes in Syria. The autonomy of this city-state is shown by the fact that it minted its own coins, yet Quirinius himself had a census taken there. A gravestone found in Venice carries the inscription of a Roman officer named Q. Aemilius Secundus. He states that by order of P. Sulpicius Quirinius, whom he calls legatus Caesaris Syriae, he himself conducted a census of Apamea, a city-state of 117,000 citizens. As for Herod, Josephus reports that in the time when Saturninus and Volumnius were the presidents of Syria, Caesar Augustus demoted him from ‘friend’ (φ?λος= amicus) to ‘subject.’ Saturninus was listed above as governor of Syria in 9-6 BC, and Volumnius was evidently associated with him. By comparison with Apamea and specially from the time of Herod’s demotion by Augustus, Palestine would scarcely be exempt from any census and taxation procedures the Romans wished to institute. (Finegan, J. 1964. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 237). (A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Not only do we know that there were empire-wide censuses in general, but we also know that a census initiated by Augustus and requiring an oath of allegiance to Caesar and Herod was conducted in Judea about this time in the last years of Herod’s life for Josephus discusses it in Antiquities XVII.41-45:

There was moreover a certain sect of Jews who valued themselves highly for their exact knowledge of the law; and talking much of their contact with God, were greatly in favor with the women of Herod’s court. They are called Pharisees. They are men who had it in their power to control kings; extremely subtle, and ready to attempt anything against those whom they did not like. When therefore the whole Jewish nation took and oath to be faithful to Caesar, and to the interests of the king Herod, these men, to the number above six thousand, refused to swear.

This event could have occurred during either of these two census times, depending on when Herod’s death is dated. So, in fact, we do know that there were censuses conducted during the most likely time frames for Jesus’ birth and we know for at least one of them the region ruled by Herod participated.

Empire-wide census

Luke states, “In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” It must be noted that if Luke is claiming that this was an empire-wide census, none of these empire-wide censuses that we mentioned above were anywhere near the timeframe of A.D. 6. In fact the A.D. 6 census was a regional census following a transition in power, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus. It was sort of a settlement of Herod’s estate after his banishment and as it was being transferred to the Romans under Quirinius. Again, it was not an empire-wide census, which is contradictory to what Luke states. Because Luke is describing a world-wide census, this rules out the census in A.D. 6. Added to this, the A.D. 6 census also did not concern the province of Galilee, which was not under Herod Archelaus’s domain. Galilee is where both Joseph and Mary originally lived at the time of the census described by Luke. You would have to show why they would be required to take part in a census that was occurring in a region they did not live in. We have to remember Luke is a very careful historian and here we have not just one mistake but many. With the information Luke provides there is very little correlation with the census in A.D. 6. The reliance on this passage with the A.D. 6 census requires a lot of assumptions that are just unlikely given what Luke has said. It is much more likely that in Luke 2:2, Luke being aware of the A.D. 6 census is giving us ways to distinguish the census at Jesus’ birth from the more famous one in A.D. 6.

Therefore, saying that Luke is referring to the census in A.D. 6 doesn’t fit the description Luke gives nor would we expect it to if Luke understood the history of this time. So, to those saying it is contradictory to the A.D. 6 census, the answer is “Yes, it is. Didn’t you already understand that from reading the description Luke gave, for this is exactly the point Luke is trying to make?”

Traveling to one’s city of ancestry

It is also argued that no census required traveling to one’s city of ancestry and no census that required a woman to participate. But is this true? Were there occasions where this occurred. In fact, there are accounts of both people being required to go to their home city and women giving an account in a census. Below is a quote from the article, A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2:

Early in the twentieth century, a papyrus was discovered which contained an edict by G. Vibius Maximus, the Roman governor of Egypt, stating:

Since the enrollment by households is approaching, it is necessary to command all who for any reason are out of their own district to return to their own home, in order to perform the usual business of the taxation… (Cobern, C.M. 1929. The New Archeological Discoveries and their Bearing upon the New Testament. New York and London: Funk & Wagnalls, p. 47; Unger, M.F. 1962. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, p. 64).

The same papyrus also confirms Luke’s assertion that a man had to bring his family with him when he traveled to his place of ancestry in order to be properly counted by the Roman authorities (Lk. 2:5). The document reads:

I register Pakebkis, the son born to me and my wife, Taas-­ies and Taopis in the 10th year of Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus Imperator [Emperor], and request that the name of my aforesaid son Pakeb[k]is be entered on the list’ (Boyd, R.T. 1991. World’s Bible Handbook. Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, p. 415).

This sheds light on why Joseph had to bring his highly pregnant wife along with him when he went to Bethle­hem. Such discoveries caused the late George A. Barton, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages at Bryn Mawr and former Director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, to comment:

Luke’s statement, that Joseph went up from Nazareth to Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to enroll himself with Mary (Luke 2:4, 5), turns out to be in exact accord with the governmental regulations as we now know them from the papyri. (Barton, G.A. 1917. Archaeology and the Bible. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, p. 435).”( A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Even though this is an example of a wife coming alongside her husband for a census, these things are not necessary for Luke never says that Mary participated in the census. And based on the account it appears that Joseph and Mary already had the intention before leaving Nazareth of staying in Bethlehem after the census if anything at least for the sacrifices after the birth and to fulfill everything required by the Law of Moses. Perhaps Joseph’s family was in Bethlehem making it a good place for the wedding since Luke says they were still betrothed. There is good evidence is that the original plan was to stay in the area of Bethlehem, for after their flight to Egypt, on their return it appears that they originally were coming back to Bethlehem to live only to change their plans after being warned in a dream.

But when Herod died, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” And he rose and took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, and being warned in a dream he withdrew to the district of Galilee. And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene. (Matthew 2:19-23)

So, it would not have been unusual for Mary to have accompanied Joseph, her betrothed on his journey to Bethlehem as they start their new life in a new place. Joseph may have also taken her with him because they were only betrothed, and her pregnancy would have been a scandal, he may have not felt safe leaving her behind with the possibility of her being punished as an adulterer. And this too may have been a motive to move to Bethlehem and leave Nazareth where the scandal was known. Since he was marrying a wife, we can assume that Joseph would have been able to have a home though probably not one of much means. Though we can’t know with 100% certainty why they stayed in Bethlehem, it is more likely than not that Mary would have come with Joseph on the trip.

Evidence shows that at times people did go back to the place of the ancestry for a census in local regions. Also, because the idea of a census would be odious to many Jews, Herod, having some autonomy as a city-state king, would have wanted to conduct the census in a way that made it more palatable for the Jew. Since historically and traditionally the Jews were numbered by their tribes and family, rather than the place of residence, Herod may have conducted the census with this format. This extra requirement could have only been a requirement in the Herod-ruled areas since the wording of Luke does not require it elsewhere. Another possibility is that Joseph’s family-owned property in Bethlehem and Luke is only giving us insight into why his family-owned property in Bethlehem and using this opportunity to add that Joseph was of the line of David adding this tidbit to our knowledge of the background of Jesus and the fulfillment of prophecy.

Conclusion on the census

In the end, based on the evidence it is unlikely that the A.D. 6 census is the census Luke is referring to. This leaves us with the censuses of 8 B.C. and 3/2 B.C. which both fit within the range we have been looking at for Jesus’ birth.

Articles:

• Non Issues in the Lukan Birth Narrative — Augustus’s Decree (Part 1) (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• CADRE Comments (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• Non Issues in the Lukan Birth Narrative — Registration in Bethlehem (christiancadre.blogspot.com)
• Is the Census in Luke’s Infancy Narrative Historical or Literary? (missiodeicatholic.org)
• An Unusual Roman Census Decree By Caesar Augustus | The Odds
• Did Augustus Tax the World? | Smoodock’s Blog (wordpress.com)
• Worldwide Census | Smoodock’s Blog (wordpress.com)
• The Enrollment of Jesus’ Birth – Jimmy Akin
• King Herod’s Enrollment (biblehub.com)
• Was Apamea subject to the Census as a free-city? (christian-thinktank.com)
• The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say? on JSTOR

Could Quirinius have officiated in Syria before A.D. 6?

The fact that there was a census around the time of the birth of Jesus fits with the information we have both from Josephus and Luke, but we are still left with understanding Luke’s statement that the census was conducted while Quirinius was governing in Syria. Could Quirinius have had an officiating role in Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth? Below is a list of the Legates of Syria and the time frame they served in.

Based on this, there is missing information between the years 4 B.C when Varus’ term ends, and 1 A.D when Gaius took over as Legate. However, we are also told that Varus was around after Herod’s death and if Herod’s death was in 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. does that change what this chart would look like? If Herod’s death is considered an anchor date, what other things would be changed? Even if this were not so, we are still left with the earlier dates for Jesus’ birth.

So, what do we know about Quirinius during this time frame? From 12 B.C. to 1 B.C. Quirinius directed a campaign against the Homanades in the mountains of Galatia and Cilicia. He was possibly Legate of Galatia between 5-3 B.C. And around A.D. 1 he was appointed to tutor Augustus’ grandson Gaius Caesar while Gaius was Legate of Syria. In the dates most probable for Jesus’ birth his exact whereabouts are uncertain. Is it possible that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Legate during part of or all of 4/3 B.C. to 1 A.D.? Perhaps and we must consider this a possibility, but having Quirinius serving as a legate of Syria is also not necessary to still make Luke’s statement about Quirinius accurate.

As noted earlier, the term for governor in Luke 2:2 is “hegemoneuo”. “Hegemoneuo” does not refer to a specific position within the Roman government but is a general term that can be used to refer to different positions within Roman leadership. Both Luke, Josephus, and even Caesar use this term this way (see: Quirinius, Governor of Syria When Jesus Was Born? | The Odds). Luke also does not directly say that Quirinius oversaw the census, just that it happened while he was in Syria. So, it is not necessary to prove that Quirinius was the Legate of Syria at this time, it only needs to be shown that he was in Syria in an official governing role. Also, we know that it is possible that more than one person could be “hegemoneuo” in Syria at one time. Josephus describes in one incident two governors of Syria, “Caesar had ordered the court to be assembled…The presidents set first, as Caesar’s letters had appointed, who were Saturninus, and Pedanius, and their lieutenants that were with them, with whom was the procurator Volumnius.” Tacitus states “Each province had its equestrian procurator who in the eyes of the provincials was almost as important as the governor himself.” (Tacitus, Aric., 15). So Quirinius could have had a role as a “hegemoneuo” even during the known periods where someone else was Legate of Syria. Luke who is careful with his terms may have used “hegemoneuo” instead of legate purposefully to distinguish between Quirinius’ two terms, the first term being one of an official position but not a legate and not referring to Quirinius time as Legate in A.D. 6.

The circumstances allow for Quirinius to have been serving in an official position in Syria at this time. Because the staging of the war with the Homandes could have been staged from more than one location, it is possible that one of those locations was Syria, where Quirinius could have been conducting other official business as well. The war was one of attrition, and so did not necessarily require local governance. We know it is probable from 5-3 B.C. that the Quirinius’ location was Galatia, for it is believed that in addition to his role in the war, Quirinius served as Legate of Galatia during this time. But since he was not legate before 5 B. C. and did not continue as Legate of Galatia after 3 B.C., we are still within the range for the possible dates for Jesus’ birth. Military facilities were only located in imperial provinces. It would not be unusual for a high-ranking officer to be stationed in these facilities. Syria hosted a sixth of the Roman Army and was an imperial province and the defense center for the eastern front of the Roman Empire. It also hosted a large army (the 3^rd largest). Syria would have been a good location for headquarters in a war in Asia Minor. We also know that Quirinius won the war with the Homandes through attrition, allowing him to have had time to help with other matters, such as overseeing a census. After all, he was both Legate of Galatia and conducted the war at the same time. We also know that Augustine would assign special assignments to people who were not legates, so that the legate would not gain to much power. So, it is possible that Quirinius played a part in the census conducted in Judea during Jesus’ birth at any point during this time. Having already had experience directing a census in a client-state and having had to deal with rebels unsatisfied with Rome, he may have been asked to help with a census in Judea during this time. His experience in this matter is also why he was probably entrusted to conduct the census in A.D. 6 as well. After the war, we know that he was assigned as tutor to Gaius during his Legate term in Syria. So, we are missing the exact whereabouts of Quirinius during the dates most likely associated with the birth of Jesus, and therefore cannot assume that Luke was wrong. Even, if we take out the possible time Quirinius served as Legate over Galatia, though he could have still helped with the census during this time, we can see that he could have served in an officiating role in Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

• Quirinius, Governor of Syria When Jesus Was Born? | The Odds
• Augustus – More than Just the Nativity Story | The Odds
• Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report
• A Brief Comment on the Census in Luke 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org)
• Dating the two Censuses of Quirinius | Gerard GERTOUX – Academia.edu
• W.M. Ramsay: Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? – Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)
• REFUTING Bible Contradiction #1: Jesus’ Birth Narratives, Herod and Quirinius – YouTube
• Quirinius – Encyclopedia of The Bible – Bible Gateway

Was Josephus wrong?

Due to Josephus occasionally conflating events he tells about in his histories, and there being three separate stories at three different times about a rebellion by Judas each with similar details that eerily match up, the question arises of whether or not these descriptions of a rebellion by Judas are based on one event. If this is the case, what does this mean for the timing of the census? Rhodes describes this,

During the last twenty-five years, Daniel Schwartz and others have developed some fruitful insights into the historiography of Josephus which have highlighted the susceptibility of Josephus to mistaken duplications and to reporting contemporaneous events from different sources as if they happened at different times.

In reviewing Andrew Steinmann’s book From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, Rodger Young states,

The material on the Quirinius census should change forever the way this topic is dealt with by scholars. The problem is well known: Luke presumably made a mistake when he stated that Quirinius (Cyrenius) was governor of Judea when a census was taken that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. However, it is “known” from Josephus that Quirinius did not come to Judea until A.D. 6. The approach of FATP is once again to start by examining the text. Luke does not strictly say that Quirinius was governor; the verb used means that he had governmental authority, not necessarily that he was the official governor of the province. After establishing the proper understanding of the text, Roman records are cited that are consistent with an empire-wide census taking place in 3 B.C. More significantly, Josephus gives contradictory information regarding Quirinius. He dates the coming of Quirinius to Judea just after the exile of Archelaus (A.D. 6) in Antiquities 18.1,2 (18.1.1) and 18.26 (18.2.1), but these passages also say that one of the acts after his coming was to depose the high priest Joazar from office. Joazar was installed by Herod the Great a few weeks before his (Herod’s) death in response to the golden eagle crisis, because Joazar cooperated with authorities in the matter of a census, and with Herod regarding his handling of the golden eagle incident. This made Joazar extremely unpopular with the people, and after the death of Herod they demanded that Joazar be removed from the high priesthood. This was done within a few months of Herod’s death, which means that Joazar, Quirinius, and the census are all associated together in the time shortly before the death of Herod and the time immediately thereafter, contradicting the A.D. 6 date for the coming of Quirinius to Judea. The internal contradictions of Josephus in these matters were pointed out years ago by Zahn, Lodder and other scholars, but new insights that help in unraveling the contradictory accounts of Josephus have been given by Dr. Steinmann’s colleague John Rhoads. FATP devotes 11 pages to sorting out the correct order of events and explaining why Josephus made the mistakes that he did in dating Quirinius and the census. These pages may require several readings to understand all the issues, but once this is done it is clear that the preponderance of evidence favors the enrollment associated with Quirinius to have been in 3 B.C., and perhaps continuing into early 2 B.C.” (Book Review: From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology: Part 2 – Associates for Biblical Research (biblearchaeology.org))

Are Sabinus and Quirinius the same person?

Rhodes also argues that Sabinus and Quirinius are the same person and that “Sabinus is a cognomen. The name Quirinius comes from the Sabine god of war. And Quirinius is from an area with a population of Sabines. There are also striking similarities between the two. They both were procurators and most likely both had consular rank. Both were concerned about the evaluation of the tax value of Judea, and both were sent by Augustus to secure and assess the value of Herod’s/Archelaus’ estate. If this is true it would provide evidence that Quirinius was in Judea and Syria regions at this time.

Census timing

Analyzing these passages of Josephus shows the possibility that the census done by Quirinius happened before Herod’s death and not in A.D. 6. Rhodes did a study ignoring the Luke account and only analyzing the data from Josephus to see what the likelihood of these accounts being the same event and if they are what is the most likely time frame they would fall into and it would fall within the 4 B.C. – 1 B.C. dates for Jesus’ birth.

Articles to read:

• JETS_54-1_65-87_Rhoads.pdf (etsjets.org)
• Did Luke Misdate the Census of Quirinius? – YouTube
• The Census of Quirinius – Biblical Error #1 – YouTube

What if the anchor date of 4 B.C. is wrong?

Though not a part of Rhode’s article, it is interesting to note that there is a gap in what we know about the Legates of Syria between 4 B.C. and A.D. 1, if we use the 4 B.C. date for the death of Herod. Since Varus was Legate of Syria during and after Herod’s death, for he put down a rebellion in Judea when Herod Archelaus failed to control it. Varus then crucified 2,000 people and destroyed the cities of Sepphoris and Emmaus. Soon after this Varus returns to Rome. If Herod’s death was around 1 B.C., which would mean that Varus’ governance ended in 1 B.C, or perhaps was his governance split with Quirinius ruling for a short time. This might explain the gap. Since we know Quirinius was in Syria in 1 B.C., this would put Quirinius in Syria around the 3/2 B.C. dates of Jesus’ birth. Basically, what if the anchor date of 4 B.C. is wrong how does this affect the dates and timing of these events? This is something to be explored, though not crucial to show that Luke is correct. It is just an interesting perspective on whether Jesus’ birth was 6-4 B.C. or more likely 3/2 B.C.

If you combine what Rhodes believed about Quirinius being around to perform a census around the time of Herod’s death and a 1 B.C./1 A.D. timing of Herod’s death this is what it would look like

It must be noted that because the 8 B.C. could have taken years to accomplish, it is possible that the 8 B.C. census, the 3/2 B.C. census, and the possible earlier Quirinius census all occurred at one time in Judea.

Accuracy of Luke

If Luke and Josephus were to being compared with each other for their accuracy in putting things together, Luke would be the one I would side with as being more accurate. Luke shows a significant firsthand understanding or firsthand reporting of people, places, and events he writes about. He would have interviewed actual eyewitnesses to the events and not just one eyewitness but multiple. He was well traveled. And he appears to have had access to people both in Herod’s and Caesar’s household (Luke 8:3, Philippians 4:22). Luke’s writing also had a more critical eye on it, both within the Christian community, but also with Theophilus (although this could be a pseudonym for the church), both of which could check his account for accuracy. His writings were read by people who were familiar with the events, times, and stories and would have been able to expose any errors. Luke’s account has been accused of being false because due to lack archeological or written evidence supporting what he wrote multiple times only later for that evidence to show up proving the veracity of his account. Textually our account of Luke is based on early transcripts that are close to the source (A.D. 175-225), whereas the earliest quote comes from Eusebius is in the 4^th century and the earliest manuscript of Josephus is ~1000 years after the original. Josephus is known to have a pattern of errors and is known to show Roman partiality. If Luke is in error in this passage, it would be a blaring error that based on Luke’s writing and reputation is unlikely for him to have made.

Even if you trust Josephus’ account more, based on Luke’s record and his reliability as a historian it would not be fair to treat him without the respect he deserves as an exemplary historian. As we have seen there are reasons to believe his account of Quirinius is accurate and that being said those saying he is not accurate here are left with the burden of proof. What makes a scholar pit one writing over the other? Specifically, Josephus over Luke. If Luke were not a Christian writing, would it be used to question Josephus based on these facts? Are we being fair? Certainly, the easy way out is just to say Luke is wrong but is this a fair evaluation? Should we not evaluate the possibility that he was correct? Yes, it is reasonable and fair to do so.

It is not intellectually congruent to use this passage and state that it is strong proof that the Bible is not inerrant. It simply isn’t. And those who state this make no serious inquiry into the grammar and vocabulary Luke used and pass over it as if it doesn’t matter. Nor do they take a serious look at what we do know about the history during this time. At the most one can only say as a scholar that there is no direct and specific evidence of Quirinius being an official in Syria at this time and there is no evidence that he was not an official in Syria at this time, although there are clues that this might be possible. But to use this verse as evidence against the Bible is faulty at best.

Videos to watch:

• The Gospels Were Written Early, Not After AD 70 – YouTube
• Undesigned Coincidences in the Passion and Resurrection Narratives – YouTube

Summary

The objections raised are not sufficient enough to invalidate the accuracy of Luke in his description of the nativity and therefore are not the strong proof against inerrancy that some scholars claim.

• No known empire-wide census under Augustus

Josephus describes a census where an oath of loyalty was required for Caesar and Herod in Judea during this time frame. Augustine had a general policy of census taking throughout the empire and any census including this one would have been considered a part of that policy.

• No census that would have required Joseph to be in Bethlehem

It is possible that Joseph was from Bethlehem and that his family-owned property in the area. There are records of this kind of thing happening. There would have also been some autonomy for local leaders to conduct the census in a way fitting to that region. The census in this region could have adapted the requirements to be more fitting to the Jewish culture, requiring them to be counted by families and tribes as was historically the case in Israel.

• Mary would have not been required to be part of the census

Luke does not claim Mary was required to be part of the census, only that she went with Joseph to Bethlehem, which would have been reasonable considering the situation.

• No census under King Herod in Palestine

As stated above Josephus describes a census under Herod in this time frame.

• Josephus only mentions Quirinius’ census in A.D. 6

He does in fact mention another census under Herod, but the census under Quirinius was significant historically and would have stood apart from the others. Also the absence of evidence doesn’t prove that it did not happen.

• No known records of Quirinius as Legate over Syria during the time of Jesus’ birth

Luke does not say Quirinius was Legate over Syria at this time only that he had an official position while in Syria. Based on what we know it is not improbable that Quirinius was in Syria during this time. It is an argument from silence. Luke could have very well been accurate in his description of where Quirinius was at this time.

So again, based on what we know, the objections do not provide strong proof that Luke was in error and therefore do not provide strong proof against the inerrancy of Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth. Those who purport this to be strong evidence of such are not arguing from as strong of a place as they often claim.

Conclusion

We must be careful in making absolute statements about Luke 2:2 and the Quirinius dilemma. We shouldn’t be quick to stand on any one solution without strong evidence.  Daniel Wallace has observed, “Evangelicals often have a tendency to find implausible solutions to difficulties in the Bible and to be satisfied that they have once again vindicated the Word of God. On the other hand, critical scholars tend to find errors in the Bible where none exist.” It is the tendency of both sides to believe that they have best, definitive or well-thought-out proof for their position. In this case, there is no definitive proof only possibilities, some that are more probable than others, but still only possibilities. In Rodger Young’s review of Steinmann’s work, he states,

“The scientific method as used by genuine scientists, however, is not the presupposition-based method of De Wette, Wellhausen, Noth, Hughes, and others who pursue current modifications of the discredited Documentary Hypothesis. True science starts with observation. This means assessing the data, and not rejecting any particular datum in the field of interest unless there is some compelling reason, based on the other data, to do so. The next step is to attempt to systematize the data by formulating a hypothesis. This was the procedure of all the early chronologers: Rabbi Yose, Africanus, Eusebius, Ussher, and the various writers of conservative Bible histories who attempted to give timelines for the events of the Bible. There are several prerequisites in pursuing this approach if it is to be credible. The researcher should be familiar with the languages in which the Scripture was written and with the modes of expression of those languages. He or she must also study the customs of the nations with whom the Hebrews had contact. It is essential to understand how these cultures counted the time, whether days, months, years, or reign lengths; formulating presuppositions in these matters that contradict the essential data (the method of the Documentary Hypothesis) is not acceptable.” (Book Review: From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology, by Andrew E. Steinmann)

It is important to have an openness to the data here. Perhaps evidence will be found that will help to put some of these theories to rest and perhaps give support and proof to a specific theory. But for now, we have what we have. People will differ on which theories they think is more probable, but before we claim that Luke was absolutely wrong from an argument of silence, we might pause, think as a scientist, and be careful not to make claims we cannot definitively support.

“Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him” (Proverbs 30:5).

For many there is a tendency to take the scripture with a grain of salt, take in the parts they like, ignore the parts the don’t. They might buy into popular ideas of erroneous errors or harmful teaching within the scriptures, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. It can be popular and feel freeing to deconstruct the Bible. Either by abandoning it or fitting it into our context our world view. Love demands more . . . . A God of love does not speak to us with wavering speech. Though are hearts and minds are not clear, we cannot say this of God’s heart and mind. It is ludicrous to even imagine an all-powerful God who loves giving us weak and untrustworthy words. Paul says the scriptures are God breathed, what God speaks comes from his heart. You cannot say God is love and go on to say that the scripture is erroneous. God’s word is not only love, but also life. John begins his Gospel with these words, “In the beginning was the Word . . .. in him was life”. Quoting Moses, Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” God’s word points us to the one who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus said, “You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me” (John 5:39).

Sadly, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14). When you reject the scripture or interpret them in your own way, you are rejecting Jesus. “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32). Don’t buy the attacks people make on the scripture, these are arguments of weak-minded people, who may of struggled, but have not wrestled deep enough. Coming to know the scripture is a war, the scripture is at war for are hearts and minds. When the scripture describes the word of God as a double-edged sword, it is the sword used in close combat where men are wrestling for life. Do not be week-minded, allow the sword to pierce you. Hold on and wrestle like Jacob till you are overcome. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12).

See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.  At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:25–29)

epilogue: When I say weak-minded, I have a lot of compassion for those who struggle with the inerrancy of scripture. I know it is tough, draining, sometimes the hardest battle you have ever been in. I’ve been there and because of my own foolishness still have to battle. But we must not let go till God’s word wins. The admonition of the scripture is to “wait on the Lord”.

In the Old Testament, God’s people were exhorted, “You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him”. They were commanded to love the Lord their God. Jesus is taking hold the multiple exhortations in the Bible and saying I am the one you are meant to love, and it is my commandments you are to obey. Jesus is claiming to be God.

The last question you asked in your email is answered in these verses. Notice also that Jesus refers to the Father as God and that he (God) has put his seal of approval on Jesus. Can you explain how Jesus – if he were God would need God’s approval? 

John 6:25 When they found him across the sea, they said to him: “Rabbi, when did you get here?” 26 Jesus answered them: “Most truly I say to you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate from the loaves and were satisfied. 27 Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you; for on this one the Father, God himself, has put his seal of approval.”

Response

You asked the question, “Notice also that Jesus refers to the Father as God and that he (God) has put his seal of approval on Jesus. Can you explain how Jesus – if he were God would need God’s approval?”

Before I can answer that question, we have to clarify the question. You emphasized the word “approval”. However, this word is not in this passage of scripture, it was added. It ought to read, “For on him God the Father has set his seal.” So, the question, should be what does it mean for the Father to set his seal on the Son? I don’t want to overlook your question, though, because even though the actual word “approval” is not in the text, I do believe Jesus did get the approval of the Father, and it’s not a way out there interpretation, and there is a sense of that in this passage. Also, the specific word “approval” may not be in this passage, but we do read elsewhere, God the Father stating, “This is my Son in whom I am well pleased.” And Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.” Even though the passage you cited does not talk about “approval” directly other scriptures do, so I will address that as well.

First, we need to address what the statement means, “For on him God the Father has set his seal.” So what is this word “set . . .seal”. In John, it is used one other time, “Whoever receives his testimony sets his seal to this, that God is true” (John 3:33). In 2 Colossians 1:20-22 “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory. And it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us, and who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” In Ephesians 1:13,14 it states, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.”

Jesus is “the Messiah”, “the Christ”, or in English the “the Anointed One”. The idea of being anointed by God and being sealed by God (God setting his seal on you) is a confirmation of God’s calling on that person. Jesus in this passage is saying, you are searching for me because you see the signs I have done, you want your bellies filled with food, but you ought to be seeking me because I am the bread of life. Just as when mana was given to the Israelites not in hopes that their bellies would be filled, but in hopes that they would look to the promises of God, so too, if they are pursuing Jesus in hopes for their bellies to be filled then they have missed the point of scripture when it says, “”He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.” Jesus is saying I have fulfilled this promise. Jesus is everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD by which a man lives. He is the true mana and those who believe in him will have life. And he is the Word. Peter gets this transition from mana and bread to the words of eternal life – “Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.’”

What Jesus is saying here is profound. He is claiming to be the Messiah. Many men had made that claim before Jesus, while Jesus was on earth, and after his ascension. But of all those claims, only Jesus could claim, “For on [me] God the Father has set his seal.” Jesus often said that even though his claims and words were true, that it wasn’t his word alone that confirmed who he was, the Father confirmed that Jesus was the Messiah. Whoever you would think the Messiah was to be whether a man, an angel, or God for us to be able to know that they were the Messiah the seal of God must be on them, without that we could not know who the Messiah was. Only the true Messiah would have the anointing and seal of God on him. And this I assume we agree on – Jesus alone was anointed and sealed as our Messiah by God the Father. Therefore, his claim the be the Messiah, the Bread of Life, the good Shepherd, the way, the truth, and the life can be trusted, because God the Father, who does not lie, has placed his seal on Jesus confirming and proclaiming that Jesus is our Messiah. He is the one Moses and the prophets proclaimed would come as our Messiah. Or you could say God the Father has given his seal of approval confirming Jesus is the Messiah who was promised and through whom men are to be saved. So the Father is confirming he is the one we are to believe in in order to do the work of God.

Even though this passage does not address what I think your asking, which is “why would God need God’s approval if he is God? Or why would God need to be subordinate to God?” (If I am not summarizing your question adequately, let me know), I still want to address your question, because I do believe that there are passages that show that Jesus looked to God for approval before acting. And that is a fair question. For example, as I quoted above, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19). Jesus did nothing without the Father’s approval. We have already established the Jesus is the Messiah, He is the Christ, and this is confirmed by both the word of Jesus and the word and seal of the Father.

You also wrote that this “approval” should answer my last question in my last letter. And you are correct.

Here it is that question: What did Jesus do for us as our Messiah? What does he accomplish for us? Does Jesus fully restore us into a covenantal relationship with God?

The answer to this question, is also the answer to your question of why Jesus needed the approval of the Father or why it is necessary that he was subordinate to the Father.

We often focus on the fall of Adam and it is ultimately where all men fell. Yet, even after the fall God pursued mankind, calling them to himself. He established covenantal relationships with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David that would point to their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus. But as Adam failed so did every man of faith in the scripture. Noah soon after getting of the ark, got drunk. Moses failed to believe God and responded in anger. The Israelites after hearing God’s voice on the mountain, soon left God for the worship of two calves, a pattern that would follow through their history. David was told he would not fail to have a son on the throne if only he and his sons obeyed God. David, a man after his own heart, committed adultery and murder. And his sons after him failed. From the time Adam sinned all men have fallen short of the glory of God. Every covenantal relationship God made with man, man failed. No man has been able to keep a covenantal relationship with God, we have all, you and I, sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. These covenantal promises however pointed to the one who was to come, the Messiah, who would fulfill every covenantal relationship between man and God. The Messiah in order to save mankind had to come in and fulfill all the covenantal requirements of mankind. He had to be the perfect Adam, the perfect Noah, the perfect Abraham, the perfect Moses, the perfect Israel, the perfect David. The Gospels show that Jesus is the true Israel, the true King sitting on David’s throne, the true Moses who delivers his people, the true Noah in whom we are saved from the wrath of God, etc. The Messiah also had to obey the law of Moses. In short, he had to be the perfect human. And in saying that it means he had to be fully human. And to be perfect and fully human means he had to submit himself to God. He had to have the source of his life in God. He had to worship the only true God. This is very important, Jesus had to be the perfect human in every way that meant. If he did not become human in every way, then there is no salvation for mankind. So, to be clear, if the Messiah did not obey and submit himself to the Father, did not worship God as the only true God, did not obey the law of Moses, did not have his source of life in God, did not take dominion and sit on the throne of David, does not conquer evil and bring the whole earth under his dominion, did not fulfill fully every aspect of mankind’s covenantal relationship with God, then there is no salvation for anyone. In His humanity and as our second Adam, the Messiah fully accomplished as a man what no man could do. Whether you believe Jesus is God, a man, or an angel, or the first born, you must believe this – that Jesus fully accomplishes the covenantal relationship of man with God. This is necessary for him to be the Messiah and to bring salvation to men. Jesus is our second Adam. If you do not believe this, then you do not know the one whom the Father has sent and placed his seal as the Messiah and you have no part in him nor in eternal life. And if you do not know Jesus, then you do not know the Father. So yes, I do believe that Jesus submitted himself to the Father and because of his perfect obedience, he lived and found his life in every word that came from Father, and was approved of by the Father. Since the Father and the Son are not the same person, they have in all eternity lived for the other, so it was not a hard thing for the Son to empty himself and submit to His Father. As the Psalm says, “Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.’”

Hebrews 5 states that Jesus, “learned obedience”

Or as Philippians 2 states, “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

Jesus nor God, are like us. The reason Jesus says, “The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” is because this is the very nature of the Trinitarian God. None of the Godhead live for themselves, but live for the other. There is no evil pride in God.

So, to be perfectly clear, did Jesus need the approval of God the Father? The answer is “yes, without it there would be no salvation for mankind”.

And I will add to this statement. When you say Jesus is a different person from the Father, yes, we would say yes, we agree? When you say Jesus is the Son of God, yes, we would say yes, we agree? When you say Jesus was in submission to the Father, again yes, we would say yes, we agree? These are essential to the Gospel and without which no man would be saved. Nor is this contradictory to Trinitarian beliefs. No instead they are fundamental beliefs of Trinitarians. Trinitarians fully a hundred percent believe these things.

Ed, I hope this comes across gently, when talking with someone who believes in the Trinity, you have to understand what they believe in order to present a case for what you believe. When talking with one another we must be honest and true. When you ask a question like the one you did, you have to be willing to go deeper to present your case. Show me how is your point differs from what Trinitarians believe? Making a statement that Trinitarians believe is not and argument against Trinitarian belief, but instead only saying you agree with us on this point. And there are some points we agree on. One of them being that Jesus needed the Father’s approval. What I am presenting here is not stubbornness or “I have made up my mind”, what I am presenting is actual fundamental teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity. So, if you are wanting to talk to someone who believes in the Trinity, these are issues you must address if you are to obey the scripture command, “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect”. And we ought to have confidence to do so. The scripture states, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ . . .”. I have confidence in this, which is why I don’t feel the need to defend the Trinity, but it is also why I feel like it is necessary if what you believe is true, for you to keep pressing in, because if what you say is true it ought to be powerful enough to handle something like the doctrine of the Trinity. I have confidence that God’s word breaks down strongholds, even those in my own heart. It is definitely constantly breaking down my own strongholds. We must have courage and confidence in the Father to press into what the scriptures have to say about these matters. I believe the goal for both of us is to not push our own theology, but instead to push each other deeper into what the scripture has to say.

The question can be asked of you, “Do you believe Jesus has God’s seal of approval?” This is an important question, because our salvation depends on whether you believe Jesus is the Messiah or not. Most of our discussion has centered on whether Jesus is God, but we also, I believe we both agree, must believe he is the Messiah. Do you believe that the Messiah completely fulfilled every covenantal relationship between God and man, and was approved by the Father as such? Do you believe he has brought us into the New Covenant? Do you believe he is the second Adam? Do you believe he fully and completely restores our relationship with God? Do you believe we have been adopted as children of God? Do you believe that God has sealed us confirming through His Holy Spirit that we are His?

The scripture says of the Jesus, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” If God approves of the work of Jesus and is pleased, what more do we have to offer God for our salvation? There is no longer any boasting, but instead a trusting in our Messiah, who says in him are the fountains of life and that whoever eats of his body and drinks of his blood has eternal life.

So again, I will ask, “Do you believe Jesus has the God’s seal of approved, has he completed the covenantal requirements as our Messiah, or must we also prove our own worth by completing another covenantal test just as Adam did, in a sense (at least without your explaining it to me) becoming our own 3^rd Adam? I am not saying you believe in a “3^rd Adam”, but I need you to explain your position and why you believe this. Do you believe Jesus was the Messiah, or just a payment to cover the fall and our sin (again I am not sure what you believe, I ask this because it the only thing you have presented so far, would love to hear more)?

And please hear me, when I ask these questions, its not to prove you are wrong, its to try to get you to explain to me on a deeper level, what you believe. I need more than a short answer. You said for yourself it took you years to come to your conclusion. It would be dishonest of me not to ask these questions and wrestle with it. I genuinely want to know who you believe Jesus is and what he accomplished. I want to know if you believe he received God’s seal of approval and what that means to you. You haven’t talked much on what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah. So, I am not making the statement that you don’t believe in the Messiah. I am making the statement I don’t know what you believe about the Messiah. And who the Messiah is and what he has accomplished for us is very important.

Ed, I expect the same level of questioning on your part to me. Please feel free to ask me hard questions? I believe the scriptures can handle it and break down strongholds. That is the power of the Gospel message. I would be disappointed if you didn’t ask difficult questions or didn’t present things that were challenging. Of course, it is going to be challenging, your asking me to fundamentally change what I believe for all my life. Of course, I will have hard questions. And I suspect the same is with you. Hard questions and conversations does not mean there isn’t dialogue though or we are not listening to each other. You must point me to the scriptures that show that I am wrong. We cannot stand on our theology, we must submit to the scripture alone. And if I am wrong, I want to know that. And so, I will continue to ask questions and expect the same kindness from you.

The question I asked (I will keep this brief since the letter is already long and I want to give you a chance to respond to what I have presented above): What did Jesus do for us as the Messiah? What does he accomplish for us? My answer is “everything”. To “Does Jesus fully restore us into a covenantal relationship with God?” My answer is “yes”, Jesus says, “Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever” and “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” Because the Messiah reconciles us fully to God, there is not work on my part that can change what God has set his seal upon. And God has set his seal on those who have faith in Jesus, looking to him not only as the author of their faith but as the finisher of their faith. So the idea of God setting his seal on Jesus is an important one, proof that the one I hope in is the Messiah, the only way, the truth and the life. No one comes the Father except through the Messiah. None of our efforts can bring us before God or place us in a better standing with God or provide for us a way to the Father, then the work already done by the Son, in whom the Father is well pleased, who because he had God’s seal upon him, is our only way to the Father. Jesus is our eternal life.

So now the question is in your corner. What did Jesus do for us as our Messiah? What do you believe Messiah means? What does he accomplish for us? Does Jesus fully restore us into a covenantal relationship with God? How are we brought into this great salvation? Help me to understand what you believe.

John 6

Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand

6 After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. ² And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick. ³ Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. ⁴ Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. ⁵ Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?” ⁶ He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do. ⁷ Philip answered him, “Two hundred denarii^[a] worth of bread would not be enough for each of them to get a little.” ⁸ One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to him, ⁹ “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are they for so many?” ¹⁰ Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, about five thousand in number. ¹¹ Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted. ¹² And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments, that nothing may be lost.” ¹³ So they gathered them up and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves left by those who had eaten. ¹⁴ When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”

¹⁵ Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.

Jesus Walks on Water

¹⁶ When evening came, his disciples went down to the sea, ¹⁷ got into a boat, and started across the sea to Capernaum. It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them. ¹⁸ The sea became rough because a strong wind was blowing. ¹⁹ When they had rowed about three or four miles,^[b] they saw Jesus walking on the sea and coming near the boat, and they were frightened. ²⁰ But he said to them, “It is I; do not be afraid.” ²¹ Then they were glad to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land to which they were going.

I Am the Bread of Life

²² On the next day the crowd that remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. ²³ Other boats from Tiberias came near the place where they had eaten the bread after the Lord had given thanks. ²⁴ So when the crowd saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus.

²⁵ When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” ²⁶ Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. ²⁷ Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” ²⁸ Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” ²⁹ Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” ³⁰ So they said to him, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” ³² Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” ³⁴ They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

³⁵ Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. ³⁶ But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. ³⁷ All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. ³⁸ For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. ³⁹ And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. ⁴⁰ For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

⁴¹ So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” ⁴² They said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” ⁴³ Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. ⁴⁴ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. ⁴⁵ It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— ⁴⁶ not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. ⁴⁷ Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. ⁵⁰ This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

⁵² The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” ⁵³ So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. ⁵⁶ Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. ⁵⁷ As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread^[c] the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ⁵⁹ Jesus^[d] said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

The Words of Eternal Life

⁶⁰ When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” ⁶¹ But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? ⁶² Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? ⁶³ It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. ⁶⁴ But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) ⁶⁵ And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

⁶⁶ After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. ⁶⁷ So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” ⁶⁸ Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, ⁶⁹ and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” ⁷⁰ Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” ⁷¹ He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray him.

.

Calvin’s Commentary on the Bible

57.As the living Father hath sent me. Hitherto Christ has explained the manner in which we must become partakers of life. He now comes to speak of the principal cause, for the first source of life is in the Father. But he meets an objection, for it might be thought that he took away from God what belonged to him, when he made himself the cause of life. He makes himself, therefore, to be the Author of life, in such a manner, as to acknowledge that there was another who gave him what he administers to others.

Let us observe, that this discourse also is accommodated to the capacity of those to whom Christ was speaking; for it is only with respect to his flesh that he compares himself to the Father. For though the Father is the beginning of life, yet the eternal Word himself is strictly life But the eternal Divinity of Christ is not the present subject; for he exhibits himself such as he was manifested to the world, clothed with our flesh.

I also live on account of the Father. This does not apply to his Divinity simply, nor does it apply to his human nature simply and by itself, but it is a description of the Son of God manifested in the flesh. Besides, we know that it is not unusual with Christ to ascribe to the Father every thing Divine which he had in himself. It must be observed, however, that he points out here three degrees of life. In the first rank is the living Father, who is the source, but remote and hidden. Next follows the Son, who is exhibited to us as an open fountain, and by whom life flows to us. The third is, the life which we draw from him. We now perceive what is stated to amount to this, that God the Father, in whom life dwells, is at a great distance from us, and that Christ, placed between us, is the second cause of life, in order that what would otherwise be concealed in God may proceed from him to us.

Ed, I know I can argue the Trinity and other Christian beliefs well. But I am not doing this out of stubbornness, I am trying to help you and give you the opportunity to explain your beliefs better than me. If you can answer these questions, you will be able to convince not only me, but countless others of your faith. And we ought not be intimidated or have fear or be troubled, by those who asks us to give an account for our hope. For the scripture says,

AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:14b-15)

For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:4.5)

Do not fear. Have faith in the scripture. Have faith in Jehovah. And this confidence I expect to see in you as you answer my questions and present your faith.

The Trinity

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)

This verse is in contention between Unitarians and Trinitarians, for this verse is central to both of their beliefs. And this contention is focused on the word “one”. For Unitarians this word is restricted to a number. Trinitarians agree that the word “one” has a numeric function (Is 45:21-22, 44:6-8, Ex 15:11, Deut 4:35, 6:4-5, 32:39), but also understand that this word is used elsewhere to describe unity between members (Genesis 2:24, Genesis 11:6, John 17) and therefore feel it is fitting to take in the full meaning of this term in describing who God is. They also point out that in this verse God is referred to three times, possibly emphasizing this three-person unity. So, saying God is one for the Trinitarian, is both numeric and relational. Deuteronomy 6:4 according to the Trinitarian is describing one God who has eternally been in relational unity. Deuteronomy 6:4 is the foundational verse for the Trinity.

The Trinity has an emphasis of a God who has eternally loved. When John says, “God is love”, the term for “love” is an outward selfless love. For God to be love eternally there must be an outward selfless directed love. Note this kind of love does not exist in the imagination, or a future creation, but must be expressed currently and eternally toward an object to be true. An Unitarian God did not have this love for an eternity past, because there was no outward actualized current object to love till one was created. The only eternal love a Unitarian God can have eternally is an imaginary love and a self-love. Therefore, a Unitarian God cannot be said to have had an active, current actualized eternal outward directed love. However, this is not true of a Trinitarian God, a God who does not change, but from eternity past has had a current actualized eternal outward directed love. Because the Trinity consists of three persons who are in unity as one God, these three persons outwardly love one another for eternity. Thus, John can say, “God is love”, because love is central to who God is. It is also why love is called to after the statement “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” This is why loving God is the first and greatest command, the second to love others (Matt 22:37-39). “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13). And did not Paul pray that we would know this love that surpasses imagination,

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, 16that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen” (Ephesians 3:14-21)

The love of Christ fills us with the fullness of God. (Note that it is the love of Christ, that fills us with the fullness of God, something only the love of God can do) This love is intimate. “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). The word “know” is used in the Bible for the most intimate of relationships of a man and wife. God calls his people his bride and himself our husband. This is the intimate love God has for His people. This intimate, close, passionate, fully giving of oneself, extravagant love is the theme of the Bible. And it is the theme of the Bible because it is who God is in the Trinity. God’s love and intimacy with us is an outflow of who He is. Jesus delighted to have the children come into his presence, not hindering them, and also pursued the prostitute, tax collector, demon possessed, sick, and sinners, and cried out “come all who are weary and heavy laden”. We are his sheep, and He knows us by name. A shepherd has an intimate relationship with all his sheep.  This kind of love is not the heart of a created being, this is the heart of God, who desires intimate, close relationship with us. An intimate relationship that is beyond anything we could ask or think. It is God’s pursuit of an intimate relationship with all His people that is the story of scripture. Therefore the love of the Trinity is foundational to the faith of a Christian and what we believe about the Gospel and salvation.

Trinitarians believe there are three persons, each fully God, in one essence, nature, or being, having the fullness of being one, both in the numeric sense and in unity of love as described when the scripture states, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4). Being three persons, the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, nor the Son, the Father or Holy Spirit, nor the Holy Spirit the Son or Father. So, for example, when the Father sends the Son, He is not sending Himself. No, this is real and heart felt, just as any earthly father would send their own son, so God the Father sends his Son into the world, and yet it is even deeper than the earthly example or if Jesus were created, for the love that the Father has for the Son and the love that the Son has or the Father is an eternal love, something no earthly or created relationship can experience. The relationships that the three persons of the Trinity have are real, eternal, and deeper than any love we can imagine. So, John can truly write, “God is love”. Since they are three persons, we see real and active interactions between the three persons of the Trinity. Since each is fully God they interact with each other as God. Jesus prays to the Father, the Father glorifies the Son, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit intercedes to God for the saints.

The scripture refers to each of the three persons of the Trinity as God and Yahweh (Ex 3:14-15; Deut 32:39, Zech 12:8-10, 14:1-5, Is 40:3, John 1:23, Matt 3:1-3, Luke 3:3-5, Heb 1:10-12, Ps 102:25-27; Jer 23:5-6; John 12:26-43; Is 6, John 8:24; John 19; Is 43; Rev 1:8, Rom 10, John 1:1,14,18, Titus 2:14, Matt 1:23, Acts 20:28, Rom 9:5, 2 Pet 1:1, John 20:28). Each person of the Trinity are fully God. Each of the three persons of the Trinity have qualities that can only be attributed to God: aseity, eternal (Micah 5:2, Hebrews 7:3), all-knowing (Mark 2:8, Luke 6:8, 11:17, John 2:24,25, omnipresent (Matt 18:20, John 14:20-23, Eph 1:23, 4:20), omnipotent, immutable (Hebrews 13:8, Matt 24:35), creator (Is 44:24, Job 9:8-9, Is 45:18), having all authority (Judges 8:23, 1 Sam 8:7, 1 Sam 10:19, Jer 23:5,6, Eph 1:21-23), the Name (Is 52:6, Ps 83:18, Malachi 1:11, Matt 28:19, Joel 2:32, Romans 10:5-13, Acts 2:21,39, Acts10:43, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Is 43:11, Phil 2:9-11), Savior (Hosea 13:4, Is 43:11, Titus 1:3-4, 2:10, 3:4-6), on clouds of heaven (Deut 33:26, Ps 104:1-3, Is 19, Dan 7:9-13, Matt 26: 63-66), Worshiped (Is 2:11, Rev 5:8), Delivered from Egypt (Jude 4, Cor 10:4) etc.

We both believe Jesus is God. But the scripture goes further and says that he is Jehovah. Here is a sampling of verses that demonstrate Jesus is Jehovah: John 8:24; Zech 12:8-10; Zech 14:1-5; Is 40:3; John 1:23; Jer 23:5-6; John 12:27-43; Is 53; Is 6; Matt 3:1-3; Luke 3:3-5; Heb 1:10-12; Ps 102:25-27; Is 40:3; John 19:4-6; Is 43; 1 Cor 1:30-31; Jer 9:24; Zech 11:13; John 1:14; Col 2:9; Heb 1:1-3; Phil 2:6; Phil 2:10; Rom 14:11; Is 45:23; John 1:18; Gen 48:14-16, Judges 13; Matt 1:22-23; John 1:1; Deut 8:3; 1 Sam 3; Gen 15; Deut 5; Jer 1; Is 44:6; Matt 28:19; Is 52:6; Is 26:7-9; Is 12:4; Ps 83:18; Ex 34; Is 7:14; Acts 1:8; Joel 2:32; Romans 10:13; Acts 2:21,39; Ps 91:14; Acts 3:12-16; Acts 8:12; Acts 10:43; Acts 22:16; Acts 22:16; 1 John 5:13; John 3:18; 1 Cor 6:11; Is 43:5-13; Is 52:6; Luke 10:17; Acts 4:30; Acts 4:10-12; Phil 2:9-11; Eph 1:21-23; Jer 23:5,6; Is 2:11, John 9:38; Heb 1:6; Rev 5:8; Is 42:8; Matt 18:20, 28:20; Heb 7:3; Jude 5; Ps 68:19, Eph 4:7-10; Deut 33:26; Psalm 104:1-3; Is 19:1; Dan 7:9-13; Matt 26:63-66; Is 44:24; Job 9:8,9; Heb 1:10-12, Psalm 102; John 1:3; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6

For the Spirit of Jehovah, obviously in his name, he is Jehovah, he is God, what we have to ascertain is if the Holy Spirit is a person or a force. Here are some verses that show that the Holy Spirit is a person: Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4-6; 2 Cor 3:16-18; John 14:17; Acts 8:39; Rom 8:11; John 6:63; 1 John 5:6; John 14:26; Rom 8:16; Rom 8:26; Is 63:10; Rom 8:27; 2 Sam 23:2; Acts 8:29; Acts 10:19; Acts 11:12; Acts 13:2; Acts 21:11; Acts 28; 25-26; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7-8; Rev 2:7,11,17,29; Rev 3:6,13,22; Rev 14:13; Rev 22:17; 1 Cor 2:11; Acts 15:28; Acts 5:3; Acts 5:9; Acts 20:28; Acts 5:32: Acts 7:51; John 14:26; Luke 12:12; Matt 4:1; John 6:63; Acts 2:4; Matt 3:16; Matt 12:32; Mark 1:8; John 3:34; John 20:22; Acts 16:6; 1 Cor 2:10; 1 John 5:6

We also believe that Jesus became fully man in every way, emptying himself, taking on every aspect of what that means to be human, including obeying, serving, worshiping, and being devoted to the one and only true God. I explained this more thoroughly previously in a letter I sent and won’t repeat it all here. But to summarize, the messiah had to fully complete everything man was supposed to do, otherwise no one could be saved. One of those aspects is in his humanity, Jesus, as we are called to do, served the only true and living God in every way we are to. I would reread what I wrote earlier on this subject. But this is fundamental to Trinitarian teaching. I know this makes John 17:3 a harder argument for you, I am not trying to make it harder, I am just trying to share with you honestly what Trinitarians believe. And this is the story of the Trinity and their determination to save mankind. But this is where you have to work to show how what you believe shows the story of God’s love and how it is supported by scripture more. It forces you to go deeper into what your faith is, which is in the end is always a good thing. So, it should make you rejoice that you get to explore the wonders and beauty of Jehovah at a deeper level. And I look forward to seeing that.

So, for the Christian, there is one God, not three separate gods or three separate modes of God. They are three persons in one essence, nature or being. God is both “one” in unity and “one” in the numeric sense. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are truly one God. Just as “love” is prominent in the Bible, the scripture is filled with the theme of “oneness”. The power of God is found in this idea of “one”, a power that can only be found in a Trinitarian God. A Unitarian God, it is just a number, and shows that he is above all else. For a Trinitarian God, yes, He is one God above all else, but he is also more. He is unlike anything we know, He is Holy, Holy, Holy. He is a God bigger than we can comprehend. There is none that is even remotely like Him. So yes, for us there is one God. And we are baptized under one name (Jehovah), the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). There is only one name (Jehovah), because there is only one God.

We also believe there is no other god (Is 43:10, Deut 4:35, Is 41:4, Is 44:6, Psalm 86:10) or savior (Hosea 13:4, Is 43:11) besides God. “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.” (Is 44:6) We take very seriously the first commandment.

You shall have no other gods before me. (Ex 20:3)

This is more than just saying we will not have another god equal to God, this is saying we will not have another god period, at all, whether equal or lesser to God. Jesus is clearly called God in the scripture. The question is – does the scripture say Jesus is a god besides Jehovah or is he God Jehovah, himself. Trinitarians believe there are no gods beside Jehovah. There may be so called gods, such as Satan who is called the god of this world, but for us there is only one God. Satan is not our god. There is not in any way “a god”, regardless of its standing, for the Christian. Nor is there anywhere in the scripture where “a god” is given any status next to or in the presence of Jehovah. Because we take the first commandment seriously, the Christian does not recognize any god or “a god” except for Jehovah. It is this passion for Jehovah as our only true God with no gods besides him that drive us to reject the idea that Jesus is “a god” who is besides or in the presence Jehovah, even as a lesser god, who is revered less. In Revelation, both Jesus and the Father sit on the one throne of God, because they are Jehovah God. As Christians we are baptized into one name (Jehovah), and only one name (Jehovah) – The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19). We are saved by calling on the Name (Jehovah) and only one name (Is 52:6, Ps 83:18, Malachi 1:11, Matt 28:19, Joel 2:32, Romans 10:5-13, Acts 2:21,39, Acts10:43, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Is 43:11, Phil 2:9-11). For us there is also one God of heaven and earth (Deut 4:39).

We come to this understanding because of what the scripture teaches. The Bible teaches that there is one God, and yet it refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God and Jehovah. It is from this that the concept of the Trinity was formed.

So, I hope this helps you understand the Trinity more. If you have any other questions let me know. So now on your part having shared what I have shared, help me to know how the scripture discounts the Trinity. Ed, I really need your help with this. If you believe Jesus is “a god”, how is this not breaking the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me.”? How do you explain this? This is something hard for a Trinitarian to understand, since we believe in only one God, nor are we allowed to have “a god” even below Jehovah. Again, this is not an attack, I am being honest where I struggle with your concept of Jesus being “a god” separate from Jehovah. I think explaining this and showing me the scriptures that support there being “a god”, without violating the first commandment, would go a long way to helping me to understand how you support your beliefs from the scripture. I look forward to your response on this and the other questions.