YouTube Transcript:
Did Jesus Claim to Be God? (David Wood vs_ Alex O'Connor)

all
right
so how the debate is going to go uh the
title of the debate is "Did Jesus claim
to be God?" We're going to have opening
statements we're going to have rebuttals
we're going to have counter rebuttals
there will be clocks for the speakers to
see you guys won't see them and then uh
after all of that we're going to move
the the table to the middle and we're
going to do open dialogue and then after
that we're going to do some Q&A just
like we've been doing the past couple
nights ray Rock with the microphone do
not grab his microphone okay he's real
serious about it and so this is gonna
we're gonna go for I'd say at least two
hours tonight okay it's gonna be a fun
night and um we're going to have both
gentlemen give opening statements uh 20
minute openings okay and it's going to
be fun so uh let me introduce our
speakers for the night our debaters for
the night
first up who will be arguing the
affirmative ladies and gentlemen warm
round of applause for David Wood
oh yeah
the podium is right here
david Wood ladies and gentlemen
all right and all the way from
London England um I've I've had a blast
getting to know this brother for the
past couple days it's been super fun and
he's probably going to hate me for
saying this but he actually joined us on
his birthday weekend
all right
without any further ado ladies and
gentlemen warm round of applause for
Alex O' connor
all right oh yeah we're good let's You
ready tell us when you're ready so we
can start the clock i'm ready now
oh you started okay well
good evening good evening what a
beautiful audience
you're all breathtaking this is how you
uh charm a crowd in America son
like to thank uh Rustlan for arranging
this conference and this debates one of
many awesome debates taking place in
2025 pitting heroes against
villains i won't say who the villain is
in this debate i'll let all you lovely
Christians judge that for
yourselves based entirely on our
accents and speaking of British accents
I'd like to thank Alex for finally
showing
up you got to give me some wiggle room
on time
Rosean or you can all quit cheering for
Alex all right well I'd like to thank
Alex for finally showing up i was a
month and a half late but he finally
showed
up i'm teasing by the way uh people have
no clue how dangerous debatecon is
actually with the lineup they had and
the number uh and the volume of death
threats against uh multiple speakers so
uh plus he lives in what is rapidly
becoming the Sharia compliant hell hole
of the universe so good to take
precautions we don't want to lose Alex
by the way are you guys starting to miss
Jesus over there in the UK seems like
you should be missing Jesus by now
speaking of Jesus did Jesus claim to be
God
yes yes he did and I'm sure uh many of
you have some verses going through your
heads right
now however I'm convinced that the
primary way Jesus claimed to be God and
that his followers claimed he's God uh
gets overlooked by most Christians and
non-Christians because we've lost touch
with first century Jewish culture and we
just tend to uh not notice things
let me give you an example of what I'm
talking
about here's a quote from Daniel Boyerin
in his book The Jewish Gospels the story
of Jesus Christ the story of the Jewish
Christ he says "Most if not all of the
ideas and practices of the Jesus
movement of the first century and the
beginning of the second century and even
later can be safely understood as part
of the ideas and practices that we
understand to be the Judaism of the
period
the ideas of trinity and incarnation or
certainly the germs of those ideas were
already present among Jewish believers
well before Jesus came on the scene to
incarnate in himself as it were those
theological notions and take up his
messianic calling so the ideas were
there paving the way for Jesus who
embodied them now who's Daniel Boyerin
to say that Christian ideas like the
trinity and the incarnation were already
present in some form in first century
Judaism is he a Christian apologist no
he's uh he's a scholar of rabbitic
Judaism he's a Talmud scholar he points
out that a lot of the beliefs we now
think of as distinctively Christian
actually weren't the earliest Christian
church was embedded in first century
Jewish culture but as Christianity
spread it became dominated by gentile
Christians who tended to lose touch with
the Jewish framework and something was
happening within Judaism as well as
Jewish orthodoxy was forming in the
second century the rabbis tended to weed
out certain ideas that had once been
familiar in Judaism but which had been
adopted by Christians the rabbis wanted
to clearly distinguish Judaism from
Christianity and some of the ideas that
were present in first century Judaism
were soon deemed
heretical so Christians lost touch with
the Jewish framework of early
Christianity and Jews abandoned some of
the Jewish ideas that became part of
Christianity and the result is that
today it's easy for us to miss a few
things when we're reading the Bible
claims that would have been uh
understood by listeners at the time
might not be understood by us here in my
opening statement I'm going to briefly
discuss the forgotten Jewish idea that's
most relevant for understanding how
Jesus claimed to be God and then I'll
show how this forgotten Jewish idea
illuminates various passages in the New
Testament some of you are familiar with
the early Jewish belief in the two
powers in heaven ellen Seagull the
Jewish scholar drew attention to this in
his 1977 book Two Powers in Heaven and
lots of people especially Christians
have been interested in the topic ever
since here's the idea in a nutshell the
Old Testament is very clear that there's
one true
God but there are numerous passages in
the Old Testament where we see two
divine figures i'll give a few quick
examples there are tons of these
sometimes God seems to be in two
different places doing two different
things common example is the story of
Sodom and
Gomorrah the Lord appears to Abraham and
tells him that he's going down to Sodom
and Gomorrah to see firsthand how bad
the people are so he goes down to Sodom
and Gomorrah and what happens genesis
19:24 then the Lord rained on Sodom and
Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord
out of heaven the Lord on earth rained
down fire from
the from the Lord out of heaven this
thing reboot every couple minutes uh it
sounds like there are two lords here
watch what happens in Zechariah 2 pay
attention or you'll miss it come Zion
escape you who live in daughter Babylon
for this is what the Lord Almighty says
who's speaking the Lord Almighty and he
says "After the glorious one has sent me
the Lord was sent by the glorious one
against the nations that have plundered
you for whoever touches you touches the
apple of his eye I will surely raise my
hand against them so that their slaves
will plunder them then you will know
that the Lord Almighty has sent me." The
Lord Almighty was sent by the Lord
Almighty next paragraph shout and be
glad daughter Zion for I am coming and I
will live among you declares the Lord
Yahweh many nations will be joined with
the Lord in that day and will become my
people i will live among you and you
will know that the Lord Almighty has
sent me to
you the Lord Yahweh will live among them
and they will know that the Lord was
sent by the Lord Almighty
so Yahweh rains down fire from Yahweh
yahweh is sent by Yahweh plenty of
passages like
these then we got a mysterious figure
called the angel of the Lord whenever
you think uh whatever you think of when
you think about angels just get rid of
that uh the angel of the Lord is no
ordinary angel because this angel is
somehow the Lord angel just means
messenger in Hebrew it can refer to a
human messenger a spirit messenger or in
this case the Lord himself look at
Judges
6 the angel of the Lord came and sat
down to talk to
Gideon the angel of the Lord appeared to
Gideon then it switches to the Lord
turned to
him the Lord answered then it goes back
to the angel of the Lord then when
Gideon realized that it was the angel of
the Lord he exclaimed "Alas sovereign
Lord I have seen the angel of the Lord
face to face." But the Lord said to him
"Peace do not be afraid you are not
going to die if you see the Lord in all
his glory you're dead but if you see the
angel of the Lord who is somehow the
Lord you might survive." One more
example of this here's Jacob blessing
Joseph in Genesis 48 then he blessed
Joseph and said "May the God before whom
my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked
faithfully the God who has been my
shepherd all my life to this day the
angel who has delivered me from all harm
may he bless these boys." He singular so
the God the God and the angel are all
referring to the same being the angel is
God but the angel is the messenger of
God this is all over the place in the
Old Testament from Genesis all the way
to the prophets we just don't pay
attention to it when we're reading uh
but there were ancient Jews who paid
very close attention to passages like
these and they realized that something
very very strange is going on there's
one God but there were two powers two
authorities in heaven
if you put all of the passages together
it seems like there's God you can't be
around because his presence would
destroy you and God you can be around
somehow there's God you can't be around
and God you can be around the God you
can't be around is distinct from the God
you can be around they interact with
each other one sends the other and yet
they're both
God this was all very very confusing to
first century Jews
if there's one God why are there two
powers in heaven why are there two
powers who both act like God they tried
to deal with this problem in a number of
ways but mainly they were confused and
then Jesus came along and he says in
effect you know those two powers that
you've been reading about in the
scriptures you know those two powers
that you're so confused by i can tell
you about those two powers because I'm
one of
them that's the primary way Jesus claims
to be God it's the primary way his
followers claim that he's God it's a
primary way uh it's primary issue that
enrages his
opponents but did Jesus really claim to
be one of the two powers in heaven since
Jesus is a highly controversial figure
and since there's a skeptic in our midst
I would suggest that if we want to know
what someone like Jesus is claiming
about himself we can look at six things
we can look at what Jesus says and what
Jesus does what he says and does as they
relate to our topic we can look at what
his friends say and what his friends do
here I mean what they say and do in
reaction to him and we can look at what
his enemies say and what his enemies do
again in reaction to him so what Jesus
says what Jesus does what his friends
say what his friends do what his enemies
say what his enemies do i would put all
of that together and say that's our
evidence that we need to account for and
that will give us the best indication of
what Jesus was claiming about himself i
don't have a ton of time left so we'll
consider a few things Jesus says and
does and a few things his friends say
and do along the way we'll see um the
reactions of some of his enemies and
maybe I'll add a few more uh examples in
the
rebuttals what does Jesus say jesus
claims to be one of the two powers in
heaven in multiple ways i'll give you
three the most familiar is the father
son language he uses jesus claims to be
the son of God now someone can be a son
of God in various ways in the Bible
blessed are the peacemakers for they
shall be called sons of God but Jesus
claims to be the son of God in a unique
divine sense one example Matthew 11:27
all things have been handed over to me
by my father and no one knows the son
except the father and no one knows the
father except the son and anyone to whom
the son chooses to reveal him all things
were handed over to the son by the
father no one knows the son except the
father obviously the people around jesus
knew him in some sense but they didn't
really know him only the father really
knows him and no one knows the father
except the son and anyone to whom the
son chooses to reveal him no one can
know the father unless the son chooses
to reveal him this should sound somewhat
similar to the old testament idea that
there's god you can't be around and god
you can be around two powers father and
son jesus is the
son mark 12 while Jesus was teaching in
the temple courts he asked why did the
teachers of the law say that the Messiah
is the son of David david himself
speaking by the Holy Spirit declared
"The Lord said to my Lord sit at my
right hand until I put your enemies
under your feet." David himself calls
him Lord how then can he be his son
whose So whose son is the Messiah he's
the son of David but David calls the
Messiah his Lord how many lords do we
have here
the Lord said to my Lord according to
Jesus the second Lord here the Lord of
King David is the Messiah so we've got
two powers in heaven and Jesus is one of
them on a side note if you're a
Christian and you're wondering why we're
talking about two powers instead of
three where's the Holy Spirit uh he's
there
but but we're focusing on how Jesus
claimed to be God and that's connected
to the two powers in heaven mark 14
again the high priest asked him are you
the Christ the son of the blessed and
Jesus said I am and you will see the son
of man seated at the right hand of power
and coming with the clouds of heaven and
the high priest tore his garments and
said what further witnesses do we need
you have heard his blasphemy what is
your decision and they all condemned him
as deserving death what do the what do
the enemies say this is
blasphemy what do they do tear their
garments That's what they do when
they're outraged about blasphemy and
condemn him as deserving death why do
they react like that the son of man
that's Jesus' favorite title for himself
who will be seated at the right hand of
power so there's the power which sounds
like God and there's the son of man
coming with the clouds of heaven how
many powers in heaven i see two here and
Jesus claims to be one of them so who's
gle who is Jesus claiming to be at his
Jewish trial he's claiming to be the son
of man prophesied in Daniel 7:13-14
daniel says "In my vision at night I
looked and there before me was one like
a son of man coming with the clouds of
heaven he approached the ancient of days
and was led into his presence he was
given authority glory and sovereign
power all nations and peoples of every
language worshiped him his dominion is
an everlasting dominion that will not
pass away and his kingdom is one that
will never be destroyed."
So there's the ancient of days God but
there's also the son of man who will be
worshiped by all nations whose dominion
is
everlasting and who comes with the
clouds in the Old Testament Yahweh is
the one who rides the clouds humans
don't angels don't isaiah 19 see the
Lord rides on a swift cloud psalm 104
the Lord wraps himself in light as with
a garment he stretches out the heavens
like a tent and lays the beams of his
upper chambers on the waters he makes
the clouds his chariot and rides on the
wings of the wind so God comes with the
clouds so we've got the ancient of days
who sounds like God and we've got the
son of man coming with the clouds of
heaven who sounds like God two powers in
heaven and Jesus claims to be one of
them
jesus claims to be one of the two powers
in heaven multiple times multiple ways
in multiple sources jesus says a lot
more than that but what does Jesus
do jesus judges the world in the Old
Testament David says "The Lord abides
forever he has established his throne
for judgment and he will judge the world
in righteousness." Who's the judge here
yahweh
but in Matthew 25 Jesus declares "But
when the Son of
Man comes in his glory and all the
angels with him then he will sit on his
glorious throne all the nations will be
gathered before him and he will separate
them from one another as the shepherd
separates the sheep from the goats."
Jesus goes on to say that he will admit
certain people into heaven and cast
others into hell why is Jesus the final
judge he tells us in John 5 "For the
Father judges no one but has given all
judgment to the Son that all may honor
the Son just as they honor the Father."
Whoever does not honor the Son does not
honor the Father who sent him if you
don't honor God you can be around you
don't honor God you can't be around
jesus also raises the dead at the
resurrection according to the Old
Testament Yahweh is the one who raises
the dead 1st Samuel 2:6 the Lord kills
and makes alive he brings down to shol
and raises up but Jesus says he's the
one who raises the dead at the
resurrection john 5 truly truly I say to
you an hour is coming and now is when
the dead will hear the voice of the son
of God and those who hear will live for
just as the father has life in himself
even so he gave to the son also to have
life in himself and he gave him
authority to execute judgment because he
is the son of man
do not marvel at this for an hour is
coming in which all who are in the tombs
will hear his voice and will come forth
those who did the good deeds to a
resurrection of life those who committed
the evil deeds to a resurrection of
judgment so Jesus claims by what he says
and what he does that he's one of these
two powers in heaven and that means he's
claiming to be
God and his friends got the message how
do his friends react what do the early
Christians say in Philippians 2 Paul
quotes an early Christian song or poem
or creed about Jesus goes like this in
your relationships with one another have
the same mindset as Christ Jesus who
being in very nature God did not
consider equality with God something to
be used to his own advantage rather he
made himself nothing by taking the very
nature of a servant being made in human
likeness and being found in appearance
as a man he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to death even death on a cross
therefore God exalted him to the highest
place and gave him the name that is
above every name that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow in heaven
and on earth and under the earth and
every tongue acknowledged that Jesus
Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father what's the name that is above
every
name yahweh and at the name of And at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus
Christ is Lord this is a reference to
Isaiah 45 in verse 18 Yahweh says,"I am
the Lord and there is no other." Then in
verse 23 he says,"Before me every knee
will bow by me every tongue will swear."
The early Christians said "That's
Jesus." So Jesus was in very nature God
then he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to death then God exalted him
how many powers do you see
here two and Jesus is one of them paul
quotes that and obviously agrees with it
but look at how Paul describes the two
powers for us there is one God the
Father from whom are all things and for
whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ
through whom are all things and through
whom we exist there is one God the
Father you see Jesus can't be God it's
only one
God well keep reading and one Lord Jesus
Christ does that mean that Jesus is Lord
but the Father isn't
all Paul does here is take two titles
for God and says,"I'll call the father
God and Jesus
Lord." Two powers and Jesus is one of
them what about John 1 in the beginning
was the word and the word was with God
and the word was God he was in the
beginning with God all things were made
through him and without him was not
anything made that was made there's God
and there's the word but the word was
God how many powers two and Jesus is one
of them if you really want a fun verse
later in the same chapter try John 1:18
no one has ever seen God the only God
who is at the father's side he has made
him
known sounds like two powers it's what
the early Christians say among other
things what do they do wrapping up they
worship him they pray to him they sing
hymns to and about him they baptize in
his name they compose liturgy and
doxologies to honor and praise him in
other words they give Jesus the full
array of religious
honors what could convince a bunch of
first century Jews that a carpenter from
Nazareth was one of the two powers in
heaven probably the same thing that
convinced his enemies that he was guilty
of
blasphemy would have to be something big
either really big claims of Jesus or a
really big
misunderstanding we'll uh see which
option Alex goes with
all right that is David Wood's opening
statement and Alex is going to take the
podium for his 20 minute opening
statement david went over 1 minute and
14 seconds
so we will give Alex a grace period of 1
minute and 14 seconds
can everybody hear me through here
yes David didn't factor in the clapping
i always factor in clapping into the
timing of my speeches good evening
ladies and gentlemen
[Music]
thank you or as we say in England
assalamu
aalaykum i I I must apologize for the
previous debate fiasco david's right
that most people don't know what
happened a lot of accusations thrown my
way but I suppose that is the essence of
our debate this evening people thinking
they know a thing or two about a person
without hearing it from their own mouth
to which effect I was thinking about how
to approach this given that I didn't
know which approach David was going to
take i woke up this morning in this fine
resort
um opposite Legoland which means that
there's a a roller coaster just outside
of my room and being a bit jet-lagged I
woke up quite late to the most peaceful
of noises that is the sound of children
screaming for their
lives hearing the sound of innocent
children screaming for their lives of
course reminded me to read the Old
Testament
and I wanted to
begin with a
verse that was too
easy i factored that into my time as
well i want to begin with a verse from
the Old Testament which might become
relevant momentarily and that is well a
psalm not in its entirety but Psalm 82
psalm 82 is a curious psalm because it
opens by saying that God presides in the
great assembly he renders judgment among
the gods elohim that is definitely the
word for gods this seems to be an
indication that God is talking about or
the psalmist is talking about the
so-called divine council which also
shows up in Job for example later in the
psalm he says "I said you are gods you
are all sons of the most high." The
psalmist is referring to beings here who
are definitively not Yahweh but calling
them gods which is kind of interesting
i'm not trying to make a point out of
that jesus is going to do that for me as
we turn to what I think is the most
important christoologgical gospel of the
four which is of course John's gospel
many people think that I just dismiss
John's gospel because it's written too
late or something it is of course the
least historically reliable of the
gospels but I'm willing to just treat it
as if it's historically reliable for the
purposes of this debate and see what
Jesus actually says about himself the
question we're interested in in here is
the relationship that Jesus has to his
father david has been speaking about the
two powers in heaven heresy and saying
that Jesus's relationship to the father
is the kind of relationship that people
who believed in these this two powers
was talking about well let's investigate
that in Jesus's own words there is one
place in the gospels where Jesus is
directly accused of claiming to be God
do you know where it is it's in John
chapter 10 in John chapter 10 his Jewish
opponents come to him and say "If you're
the Messiah tell us plainly." And Jesus
responds by saying "I and the Father are
one." I'm told by Christians this is a
direct christoologgical claim who can
claim to be identical to the father
except for someone who is
God and there was no confusion about
this the Jewish opponents picked up
stones to stone him to death for making
this claim now how does how does Jesus
respond does he agree with them or does
he correct them he
says in response to the Jews "Is it not
written in your law I have said you are
gods?" Quoting as you'll probably
realize the psalm that I just quoted and
explained briefly a moment ago so
directly asked about his
christoologgical status Jesus decides to
quote a psalm which is explicitly
talking about beings who are not in fact
Yahweh and yet are called gods why would
he pick that psalm if the message he
wanted to convey was that he is in fact
in some sense God that is identical to
Yahweh jesus continues "If he called
them gods why wouldn't he call me God
the one who the father has sent and set
aside so why then do you accuse me of
blasphemy because I said I am God's
son?" Like in the divine counsel you
shall be called gods that is sons of the
most high so it's a misunderstanding
jesus immediately afterwards clarifies
further and
says believe the works that is the works
of my father through me that you may
know and understand that the father is
in me and I am in the father another
pretty intense christoologgical claim
what does it mean let's turn to the most
important christoologgical chapter in
John's gospel which is of course chapter
17 jesus is praying first for his
disciples then for all of his believers
remember in John chapter 10 so far Jesus
has made two claims i and the father are
one and I am in the father and the
father is in me addressing the
relationship that he has to his father
which David thinks is the two powers in
heaven what does Jesus say in his own
words john 17 20 onwards my prayer is
not for them alone the disciples i pray
also for those who believe in me through
their message that is all of you that
all of them may be one hen hen the same
Greek word used in John 10 father just
as you are in me and I am in you may
they also be in
us this is crucial this is pivotal when
Jesus is asked to clarify his
christoologgical status what is his
relationship to the father he says "I'm
in the father and the father's in me."
He then later prays that all of us will
one day be in God in the same way just
as cathos in the Greek which doesn't
just mean as it means in the same way as
just as if this is supposed to indicate
that Jesus is claiming to be identical
to Yahweh what does that make the rest
of us and how I'm interested in knowing
is David going to interpret these verses
where Jesus is specifically asked to
clarify his relationship to the father
and tells us that he is only in
relationship with him in such a way that
everybody else can be in relationship
with them too the same thing is true of
another important quote from John's
gospel which is when Philillip asks
Jesus to show him the father what does
Jesus say anyone who has seen me has
seen the father another intense
christoologgical
claim he then follows up by saying how
can you say show us the father don't you
believe that I am in the father and the
father is in me the words I say to you I
do not speak on my own authority rather
it is the father living in me who is
doing his work so again Jesus clarifies
his relationship to the father this time
saying that he doesn't speak on his own
authority but there's more in the same
chapter this time chapter 14 just a few
verses later he says to those same
disciples who he's just told I that if
you've seen me you've seen the father
because the father is in me and I'm in
the father he speaks of a future day
past his crucifixion and says on that
day verse 20 on that day you will
realize that I am in my father and you
are in me and I am in you so to recap
Jesus is directly asked to clarify his
relationship and his christologology to
the father and he says that I'm in the
father and the father's in me and guess
what you'll all be one with us too one
day if this is a claim to be Yahweh then
well lucky us I
suppose now it's difficult to know where
to take this because of course there is
a third really important
christoologgical claim in John's gospel
which is in chapter 8 i think it might
be relevant to talking about the
understanding of ancient Jews and we'll
see where this goes of course
famously in chapter
8 Jesus is talking about eternal life
and his Jewish opponents say to him they
challenge him and say "Well our father
Abraham he died are you saying you're
greater than him?" And Jesus replies "If
I glorify myself I glorify my glory
means nothing your father Abraham
rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day
and he was glad." They say "What you
you're not even 50 years old and Abraham
has seen you." And he says "Truly I tell
you before Abraham was I
am." Why is that important two reasons
firstly he seems to claim pre-existence
to Abraham which is pretty significant
but also this invocation of the word I
am in Greek ego am which many people
think is a call back to the divine uh
name of God given to Moses in Exodus
3:14 in Exodus 3 Moses asks God "Who
shall I tell them has sent me?" And God
says Asha which means I am that I am i
am who I am so go and tell them that I
am has sent you it's interesting but of
course the New Testament is not written
in Hebrew it's written in Greek and it's
well known that the authors of the New
Testament were using a Greek translation
of the Old Testament called the
Septuagent this is something that was
pointed out by J.R daniel Kirk so I'm
indebted to him for this
if you read the Septuagent that the New
Testament writers were using and we have
very good evidence to suggest that John
as well is using the Septuagent how is
this verse rendered exodus 3 god says to
Moses "Ego Amy
hon." And it's used commonly like this
in John chapter nine the blind man is
healed by Jesus he runs into town they
say "Is this not the man who was born
blind?" And he says "Ego Amy it's me."
When Jesus is asked by the woman at the
well the woman at the well says "I'm
expecting the Messiah to come." Jesus
says "I am he." Ego Amy once
again that is how it is often used so in
the Greek Septuagent we have I am
hon go and tell them that Hon has sent
you in the Greek Septuagent in other
words the abbreviation of the divine
name is not ego Amy it's Hon and it's
ego Amy that Jesus says and in fact
Jesus says the words ego Amy six times
in chapter 8 of John's gospel and yet
this is the only time it seems to annoy
anybody why is that well maybe because
it's got more to do with the fact that
Jesus seems to be claiming eternality
but supposing for a moment that this
really were uh an invocation of the
divine name I'm just willing to grant it
let's say okay he was meaning to evoke
this imagery of Exodus 3 by saying I am
here we have to understand as David is
quite right to point out the cultural
context of early Judaism and there is a
tradition in early Jewish texts or at
least texts of around the contemporary
time to the gospels of
endowing beings who are not Yahweh with
Yahweh's name and thereby enabling them
to exert his authority as his
representative on earth david has
already talked about the angel of Yahweh
and there is the suggestion that the
angel of
Yahweh is
Jesus that doesn't seem to make much
sense to me for a start if you turn to
Hebrews chapter 1 the very first verse
says "In the past God spoke to our
ancestors through the prophets at many
times and in various ways but in these
last days he has spoken to us by his
son." in these last days if Jesus is the
angel of the Lord way back in Exodus the
story of the Exodus why is it that
Hebrews says he's only spoken to us
through the sun in the last few days
likewise in Acts chapter 6 Steven is
recounting a history of the Jews and in
it he says that an angel spoke to Moses
through the burning bush not Jesus but a
messenger of Yahweh it's a little bit
strange but suppose we just accept that
the angel of Yahweh is a bit difficult
to unpack augustine himself by the way
said that the angel is correctly termed
an angel if we consider him himself but
equally correct he is termed the Lord
because God dwells in him what does that
mean i think it's an invocation of the
divine name this is most elucidated for
me when we turn to non-scriptural Jewish
writings of around the same period for
example in well actually in third Enoch
Metatron is called the little
Yahweh invoking the divine name and in
fact to the extent that the Talmude
warns Jews not to confuse Metatron with
Yahweh because that seems to be the
implication of what he's saying but he
is in fact just invoking the name the
most important example of this for me is
the apocalypse of Abraham written around
the same time as the
Gospels a Jewish text which tells the
story of Abraham who hears the voice of
God and he's terrified and he hits the
ground and God he hears the voice of God
speaking to an
angel and he speaks to an angel saying
"Go Yahweh," that's the name of the
angel of the same name through the
mediation of my ineffable name
consecrate this man for me and
strengthen him against his trembling
through the mediation of my divine name
which he's given to the angel Yahawel
Yahel by the way Yah and
L it is a substitute for the ineffable
name of Yahweh the writing of which is
forbidden and that's why he's called
Yahawel and in fact at one point God is
himself addressed as Yahawel in this
text Abraham is told by this angel
Yahawel "Stand up Abraham go without
fear be right glad and rejoice for I am
with you for eternal honor has been
prepared for you by the eternal one i
have appointed to be with you and the
generation prepared for you so the angel
invoking the divine name by the way says
to Abraham
"Rejoice for I'm preparing for you
essentially redemption and it will come
from your generation." And by the way
when Yahawel when Abraham finally stands
up one of the descriptions of Yahel's
appearance is that his hair is white
like snow where have we heard that
before
but interesting isn't it let's think
about the context of John 8:58 a lot of
people forget that we're talking about
Abraham why are we talking about Abraham
why is it here that Jesus says "Before
Abraham was I am." Well if I'm right
that he is just identifying himself and
the thing that's important is the
Abraham claim could this stem from a
similar tradition this is what Andrew
Perryman has suggested recently that
when he says I mean this whole thing
gets kicked off because Jesus says
"Abraham rejoiced to see my
day." Well hold on a second and in the
apocalypse of Abraham the angel Yahawel
says to Abraham "Rejoice for from your
generation will will come one who will
you know redeem
you." So is it possible that a common
tradition has Jesus referring to the
fact that Abraham rejoice to see his day
because he was promised this redemption
from the beginning of time it's possible
it's a suggestion i think it's quite an
interesting
one but it is a little strange that
Jesus claims to be pre-existent he uses
the present tense I am it's worth
bearing in mind that the Bible sometimes
does this when it is talking about plans
that are pre-ordained from the beginning
of time for example in Revelation 13 we
hear about the lamb who was slain from
the creation of the
world it's talking about Jesus there
jesus wasn't crucified at the beginning
of the world but it talks about it
almost in the like in the present tense
or at least as if it happened there and
then why because the plan for this
redemption through the lamb was set in
stone from the beginning of time so it
talks about it as if it's in the present
tense similarly famously in the book of
Jeremiah God says to the prophet
Jeremiah "Before I formed you in your
mother's womb I knew you." He also says
"Before you were born I consecrated you
as a prophet." How can you consecrate
someone as a prophet who doesn't exist
yet that means that Jeremiah must be
pre-existent right he must be No not
necessarily it just means that God had
this plan it's a poetic way of saying
that God already knew what was going to
happen and had planned this from the
beginning of time so putting all of this
together there is an interesting
interpretation of Jesus saying that
Abraham rejoices here my day and the
Jews not understanding him not getting
it he says "Look before Abraham was I am
i am the fulfillment that was promised
to Abraham and was from the beginning of
time and here I am now of course this is
all exesus and it's a little uh sort of
spotty but the most important question
is probably about blasphemy david
mentioned blasphemy in a different
context earlier why is it that they pick
up stones to to stone him to death
because of course if I'm looking for a
sound exesus of correctly interpreting
the words of Jesus I turn to his Jewish
opponents who consistently throughout
the gospels are always understanding him
correctly no the theme of the gospels
especially John's gospel is how
comprehensively the Jews misunderstand
what Jesus is saying when he says "I and
the father are one." They say "Ah you're
claiming to be God." And he said "No no
you're not getting me." When he says
that he forgives sins and they say "Ah
you know who can forgive sins but God
alone?" He says "You're not
understanding me." And hopefully we can
get into that actually and here of
course when they say
"Ah we're going to stone you." We're not
told exactly what blasphemy they think
he's
committed do we now just think that they
got it right that they correctly
understood what he was saying i'm not so
sure especially considering
that if you look in Acts again I've
already mentioned Acts 6 this is Steven
steven is telling the story of the Jews
to the Jewish authorities who he's been
brought before on charges of
blasphemy he's eventually stoned to
death why because he has a vision in
Acts 7 filled with the Holy Spirit he
gazed into heaven and saw the glory of
God and Jesus standing at the right hand
of God notice God not the father look he
said I see the heavens opened and the
son of man standing at the right hand of
God at this the Jews cover their ears
run up to him and stone him to death
notice the similarity by the way between
this depiction looking up and seeing the
Son of Man sat at the right hand of God
or stood at the right hand of God in
this case and the claim that Jesus makes
in his trial it's quite interesting
steven is stoned to death for this did
Steven claim that Jesus was God here did
Steven claim that he was God here
sometimes Christians act as if the only
way to commit blasphemy is to claim to
be God that is simply not the case in
fact in Acts chapter 6 we're told that
Steven has been fraudulently accused of
blasphemy they're making up charges
against him here are the charges that
they that they throw at him to bring him
before the court for blasphemy this man
never stops saying things against this
holy place and the law for we'd heard
we've heard him say that Jesus of
Nazareth will destroy this place and
change the customs Moses has handed on
to
us ladies and gentlemen if changing the
customs that Moses has handed on to us
is enough to get somebody convicted of
blasphemy I'm not sure we should read
too deeply into the accusations of
blasphemy against
Jesus there's so much to say i've got
everything I want to respond to we have
rebuttal periods so if I haven't
responded to everything David has said
hopefully I'll get the opportunity then
but this idea of the divine name being
invested into people and him having and
them having the authority of God without
being Yahweh themselves is I think the
important ticket here one slightly less
biblical example is a story recorded by
Josephus which came to mind when David
was speaking when Alexander the Great
approaches Jerusalem in an attempt to
conquer it the crisis is
averted when a priest whose merit bears
the tetragrammaton Yahweh bears the name
of God comes out and what does Alexander
do he bows down before the priest was
Alexander bowing down before the priest
or was he bowing down to the divine name
that was in him when every knee will bow
to Jesus what is the context jesus has
been given the name that is above all
other
names given it this is a common theme
and so David's right that we need to
understand what how the early Jews were
interpreting the the various verses that
we were reading but I don't think it
lends too nicely to his interpretation
jesus is constantly talking as if he's
not speaking with his own
authority he's doing this all the time
the most instructive example for me is
in John 12:44 when Jesus cries out
"Whoever believes in me believes not in
me but in the one who sent me." That's
if you read the NRSV the NIV adds in the
word only "whoever believes in me
believes not in me only but in the one
who sent me." That word simply isn't in
the Greek it's a little bit strange i
want to talk more about that i want to
talk about authority and where it comes
from i want to talk about the forgiving
of sins i want to talk about worship for
sure and whichever roads we whichever
one of those roads we go down is
essentially up to David Wood but I'm
ready for any of them so we'll see what
comes up thank you for
[Applause]
listening all
right so that is Alex O'Connor's
20-minute opening so David is going to
go back up to the podium he is going to
do a 12minute rebuttal round all right
thank you Alex in my opening statement I
showed that in the first century there
was an interesting discussion within
Judaism uh about the two powers in
heaven they had various ways of dealing
with this um and we can see why when we
read passages like Genesis 22 the story
of Abraham and
Isaac but the Lord uh but the angel of
the Lord called out to him from heaven
abraham Abraham here I am he
replied uh wait no then God said "Take
your son your only son whom you love
Isaac and go to the region of Mariah
sacrifice him there as a burnt offering
on the mountain on a mountain I will
show you." So this is God saying to
Abraham "Take your
son." Verse 11 "But the angel of the
Lord called out to him from heaven."
Abraham Abraham is when he uh starts to
do it "here I am," he replied "do not
lay a hand on the boy," he said "do not
do anything to him now that I know now I
know that you fear God because you have
not withheld from me your son your only
son so this is the angel of the Lord
saying you haven't withheld from me your
only
son and it was God who answer who
ordered Abraham to do this um so we have
we have situations like this and I argue
that Jesus enters the discussion uh when
they're confused about the two powers in
heaven and claims to be one of them and
so there we looked at what Jesus says
what Jesus does what his friends say
what his friends do uh what his enemies
say and what his enemies do uh Alex uh
seems to suggest that the there could be
some sort of uh angel or something like
this or even a person who's in who's
endowed with this kind of divine
authority uh you got problems with this
even uh even here in uh Genesis uh so
look at what this said then the Lord
Genesis 33 then the Lord said to Moses
"Leave this place you and the people you
brought up out of Egypt and go up to the
land I promised on oath to Abraham Isaac
and Jacob saying I will give it to your
descendants i will send an angel before
you and drive out the Canaanites
Amorites Hittites Perizzites Hisites
Jebusites go up to the land flowing with
milk and honey but I will not go with
you because you are stiff necked people
and I might destroy you on the way." Who
is accompanying them and guiding them
well the angel of the Lord but here he
says "I'm not going with you this time."
So this is the Lord speaking it's not
the angel of the Lord and you say "Oh
this is the Lord." This is the Lord
speaking this is the Lord speaking says
"I'm not going up with you now." When it
was the angel of the Lord who was
accompanying them so these are the sorts
of things you have and people tried to
figure out how to deal with this and
they came up again with all sorts of
ways and Jesus entered the picture and
claimed to be one of the two powers in
heaven so what Jesus says we went
through three examples of Jesus claiming
to be one of the two powers he's the
divine son of the father he's the lord
of king David and he's the son of man
coming with the clouds of heaven and we
saw how people reacted to him claiming
to be the son of man coming with the
clouds of
heaven um in
response Alex was quoting uh he quoted
Psalm 82 and then Jesus uh using this
using this passage so let's go ahead and
take a look at this so they accuse Jesus
of claiming to be God
and Jesus answered them "Is it not
written in your law I have said you are
gods if he called them gods to whom the
word of God came and scripture cannot be
set aside what about the one whom the
father set apart as his very own and
sent into the world?" So Jesus is sent
into the world according to this passage
why then do you accuse me of blasphemy
because I said I am God's son uh this is
not and I have no idea how you would
ever read the gospel of John like this
let alone anything else Jesus said this
is not Jesus saying what you're
misunderstanding i'm just a regular
dude i again if you if this were the
only verse in there maybe you because if
if given the rest of what we read in the
Gospel of John and the rest of the
Gospels Jesus is not claiming to be a
regular
guy he's using a legal technicality here
that they should be aware of they're
saying "Hey here's what you're claiming
you're claiming to be a son of God this
means you're claiming to be equal to God
and so on and therefore uh this is
blasphemy."
And Jesus response is "Well that really
well in the Psalms." In the Psalms God
calls people
Elohim therefore you can't just say
calling someone some divine title is
blasphemous and deserves a death
sentence you have to show that it's some
that the title is not from God that it's
not true that it's false have you done
that no okay you can't kill me you can't
just say there's a claim and therefore
we will kill you over it so that's a
legal technicality again if you're if
you're somehow reading this as "See
Jesus is just claiming to be a regular
guy."
Wow all right so we have John
17:5 and now Father glorify me in your
presence with the glory I had with you
before the world began why alex quoted
John 17 to show that Jesus is uh just
claiming some some uh regular
relationship that we can all have with
God or something along those lines what
does Jesus say in the same chapter that
Alex is quoting and now Father glorify
me in your presence with the glory I had
with you before the world
began that sounds like Jesus is claiming
to have glory with the Father before the
world began doesn't sound like he's
claiming to be a regular guy doesn't
sound like he's saying "Oh you guys are
just misunderstanding everything I said
it's just one big
misunderstanding." So what Jesus does
what Jesus does we've looked at it he I
think he said he's going to respond to
it so what does Jesus do he's the judge
he's the final judge of all people
according to him uh again the Old
Testament says that Yahweh is the one
who's going to sit on his throne in
judgment jesus said "Yeah that's
me." The Old Testament says that that
Yahweh is the one who raises the dead
jesus says that he's the one who raises
the dead at the resurrection the people
in their graves are going to hear the
voice of the son of God now that is very
strange if that's oh that's how we all
are we're all going to be raised from
the dead by the son of God if that's him
saying "Oh we're all just the same and
yeah we we can all you you'll be in me
and I'll be in you." Very strange way of
putting
things what his friends say now this is
interesting alex quotes Steven in Acts 7
now this is a this is an awesome passage
because this this kind of proves
everything I was saying in my opening
statement look at this
so
Steven rebukes the Jewish leaders in the
harshest terms you can possibly rebuke
someone watch what he says you stiff
necked people your hearts and ears are
still uncircumcised you are just like
your ancestors you always resist the
Holy Spirit was there ever a prophet
your ancestors did not persecute they
even killed those who predicted the
coming of the righteous one and now you
have betrayed and murdered him you who
have received the law that was given
through angels but have not obeyed it
that is absolutely brutal guess what
they get mad they don't get
violent which what happens when the
members of the Sanhedrin heard this they
were furious and nashed their teeth at
him but Steven full of the Holy Spirit
looked up to heaven have they gotten
violent yet looked up to heaven and saw
the glory of God and Jesus standing at
the right hand of God look he said I see
heaven open and the son of man remember
that the son of man standing at the
right hand of God oh you got God and
then just someone
else how many powers in heaven
when do they get upset what watch when
they get
upset i see I see heaven open and the
son of man standing at the right hand of
God two powers in heaven and Jesus is
one of them now watch how they react at
this they covered their ears and yelling
at the top of their voices they all
rushed at him dragged him out of the
city and began to stone him meanwhile
the witnesses laid their coats at the
feet of a young man named Saul when do
they get
violent when he says Jesus is one of the
two powers in heaven that's what that's
exact that is the precise moment when
they get
violent jesus is one of the two powers
in heaven so keep in mind this actually
supports me right i mean this is one of
this this is one of the early Christians
who gets stoned to death for saying that
Jesus is one of the two powers in heaven
and if you're thinking he's just h just
a just a regular guy hanging out in
heaven first of all um you might want to
check about someone being in the
presence of God and what sort of person
you'd have to be but look look what look
what uh look what he I mean Oops do I
have
it oh I don't have it right right right
after this is when when uh Stephen I
don't have it on a slide uh right after
this is when Stephen looks up and says
what lord Jesus receive my spirit is
that just a regular guy in the presence
of God up there no that's someone
who receives the spirits of people that
a regular
guy so Alex thinks this is just God
endowing someone with authority um does
not look like that jesus seems to be the
authority here and this not only gets
Steven killed this sets Paul on a
rampage paul says "I have to wipe this
stuff out." Why we're told in the book
of Acts what really sets Paul off uh
when Ananas is told that Paul is coming
well Saul back then he says that he's
been told to apprehend everyone who
calls on this name why is that an issue
calling on the name that's that's how
you describe prayer in the Old Testament
calling on the name calling on the name
of Yahweh and Paul sees the Christians
calling on the name of Jesus the way
they're supposed to call on the name of
Yahweh why is this relevant paul
converts to Christianity about 2 years
after the
crucifixion when is this taking place
this is not something that happens 50 or
60 years after the time of Jesus we have
Christians calling on the name of Jesus
as they call on the name of Yahweh and
we can trace it to within two years of
Jesus crucifixion so if this is a
misunderstanding that's a pretty big
misunderstanding and Jesus must be the
worst communicator of all
time uh Alex brings up the Septu the
Septuagent responding to John i didn't
uh I I didn't uh rely on the passages
he's responding to uh but if you want to
go to the Septuagent in in terms of uh
interpreting uh interpreting the claims
of the New Testament let's go to Luke
luke 6:46 why do you Jesus says "Why do
you call me Lord Lord and do not do what
I
say?" If you want to talk about the
Septuagent there's only one other
there's only one other place outside the
outside the Gospels where they use this
Lord
Lord that's the Septuagent and it's a
translation of Adoni
Yahweh God Adoni Yahweh so it's the Lord
Yahweh but in Greek they would translate
Adonai and Yahweh as curios so it's
curios curios in the se in the
septuagent and here Jesus says why do
you call me Lord Lord and not do what I
say and so if you want to if you want to
interpret Jesus based on the Septuagent
claiming to be Yahweh here you go there
it is and it's in the gospel of
Luke so at the end of the day uh the
claim is that everything is just some
sort of big
misunderstanding this is very very very
strange to me because you're basically
saying Jesus was not a good
communicator you know you think about
the biatitudes and this the sermon on
the mount and the parable of the
prodigal son and the parable of the good
Samaritan and the golden rule and so on
and so on and so on
jesus seems like the best communicator
of all
time he's a he's careful about what he's
saying and sometimes he unveils things
in different ways but when he he makes a
point seems people get this point uh if
all of his followers just seem to
misunderstand him and start worshiping
him and praying to
him making doxologies for him and so
on putting their liturgy around him then
you're saying Jesus was just a terrible
terrible communicator and that I have to
say is the one option I cannot accept
[Applause]
here all right
[Applause]
all right so now Alex is going to go up
to do his
12minute rebuttal it gets a bit messy
I'm afraid ladies and gentlemen because
of course we're responding to each other
across purposes i respond to an opening
he responds to my opening i sort of have
to take it back a few places but I'll
try to make it
interesting we heard about the angel of
Yahweh and the suggestion that this
might indeed just be Jesus it might be
look I I don't claim to be
uh the sort of final authority on exesus
here i'm simply asking you to consider
what you think is a more appropriate
explanation i've suggested the uh divine
namebearing model as opposed to the two
powers in heaven and when I look at
passages such as Exodus 23 20 to 21 see
I am sending an angel ahead of you to
guard you along the way pay attention to
him and listen to what he says do not
rebel against him he will not forgive
your rebellion since my name is in him i
just ask which interpretation lends
itself more nicely to the passages uh
David's rebuttal there seemed to suggest
that I was under the impression that
Jesus is just some dude that is far far
from the case especially in John's
gospel where Jesus seems to posit
himself as something of a model of faith
for his disciples and for what it's
worth this is kind of the image that I
get of Jesus reading through the gospels
what is he supposed to be something like
an idyllic faithful servant of God and
certainly in a special position if you
include the the epistles in particular
then Jesus is of course exalted um but I
want to get into that but I suppose I
should turn to Philippians chapter 2
which David mentions of course we're not
talking Jesus's own words anymore but
it's it's still quite interesting what
people came to believe the mindset of
Jesus Christ who being in very nature
God did not consider equality with God
as something to be used to his own
advantage but rather made himself
nothing as I'm sure you all know that
word grasp there harpagmon or something
like that I'm not very good at
pronouncing the Greek but it means
something like to
steal to
seize isn't it a bit strange that if
Jesus is God he didn't consider equality
with God as something to be seized
to be stolen that's how that word is
used in the Greek language how can he
steal something that's already
rightfully
his and
indeed because he then died on the cross
and humbled himself even to death
therefore he was given the name that was
above all other names therefore whatever
exalted position Jesus is given here in
Philippians 2 and by the way he is given
it he's given it because of his
crucifixion therefore he's given the
name above other names again which
interpretation lends itself more nicely
to these
passages um I mean for what it's worth
my favorite interpretation I was
discussing this the other night at
dinner with well not with David actually
without be giving too much away but is
this so-called Adamic uh James Dunn has
written about this the sort of Adam
christologology as applies to
Philippians 2 who being in the very
nature of God this this word uh meaning
like the form of God if we consider that
Jesus is supposed to be the answer to
Adam's sin Adam's sin and Jesus redeems
Adam is made in the image of God and
considers equality with God as something
to be grasped to be seized when he takes
of the fruit and eats it and that is how
man falls so how is man redeemed
While Jesus Christ though also being
made in the form of a God in the image
of God did not consider equality with
God something to be seized not him but
humbled himself therefore Jesus is
exalted we're told in Hebrews chapter 2
that for a time Jesus is made lower than
the angels presumably while he's here on
earth again it just reads to me as if at
least while on earth Jesus is certainly
not approximating Yahweh but he's also
not just some
dude david mentioned the glory that's
given to Jesus in John 17:5 the same
chapter that I was using yeah verse 5
father glorify me in the presence that I
have with you before the world was
created let's keep reading John 17 and
see what Jesus wants to do with that
glory in fact the very passage that I
quoted my prayer is not for them alone i
pray that all may be one Father just as
you're in me and I am in you may they
also be in us blah blah blah immediately
afterwards so they may brought be
brought into complete
unity then they will know I've copied
the wrong passage actually jesus says
that the glory you've given me I will
give to
them in John chapter
17 he says "The glory you've given me I
will give to them." the
disciples we're told in Isaiah in the
book of Isaiah that God shares his glory
with nobody and this is
sometimes a suggestion that's made is
sometimes that because Jesus says
"Glorify me God." In John chapter 17 he
must be God because God shares his glory
with nobody but people just seem to
forget that in the same chapter Jesus
says that he will give the glory that he
has been given by the father to the
disciples too again all I'm asking you
to consider is however you interpret
these verses where Jesus is given glory
Jesus is given the judgment and be bear
in mind that Jesus is given all of these
things what he then does with those
things and whether he delegates them to
other people because if he does then
it's clearly not just something that can
be delegated to God himself only God
judges only God can judge but Jesus says
that he will judge jesus also promises
judgment over the 12 tribes of Israel to
the disciples so are the disciples
God jesus forgives sins and only God can
forgive
sins in John chapter 20 21 he says as
the father has sent me again cathos
cathos as just as the father has sent me
I'm sending you if you forgive people's
sins their sins will be forgiven if you
do not their sins will be retained i'm
told that only God forgives sins but
then Jesus gives that ability to his
disciples in other words all of these
things which are supposed to indicate
that God that Jesus has a special
relationship with God of course he does
but it's a relationship that he hopes
and literally prays that will be shared
with everybody also this Luke 6:46 thing
that David put up I want to make sure
I'm understanding this correctly as far
as I understand in Luke 6:46 when it
when it quotes Lord Lord you know and as
far as I understand David was saying
that in the Hebrew this is presumably
Yahweh Adonai right is that right David
Yahweh Adonai in the Hebrew perhaps
he'll address it in his second rebuttal
and then said ah but you know in the
Greek Septuagent this is translated as
curios curios because it's Lord twice
which translation of the Old Testament
are the New Testament writers
the Septuagent so the passage that they
read would have said curios curious Lord
twice it wouldn't have said Yahweh and
then Adonite or rather the other way
around I think it is it would have said
curios curios so of course they're
willing to use this in Luke's gospel
because it says the same word twice
which to them just means Lord because
that's the that's the translation that
they're reading also this idea that
Jesus is a perfect
communicator sort of David is like
mocking this idea saying is am I
supposed to understand Jesus as just
being a terrible communicator well if
you look at the way that the Jews were
interpreting him like kind of at the
very least people were deeply
confused everybody was confused not just
his Jewish opponents because they were
hardened of heart his disciples
regularly struggled with his teachings
too asking him to expand and explain
what on earth he meant it even says at
one point that Jesus was speaking in
parables so that quoting a psalm again
they will be ever seeing everlooking but
not seeing ever hearing but not
understanding the gospels tell us that
Jesus was speaking intentionally in such
a way that people would misunderstand
him and then it says "But when he was
alone with his disciples he explained
everything." So no I don't actually
think that Jesus's public ministry was
entirely clear to everybody who was
listening in fact that's part of the
point we're told that Jesus is
constantly trying to hide his identity
because he has to be careful about how
he expresses himself which by the way
seems to raise a cont a
contradiction when you consider the fact
that we're told that in at least John's
gospel Jesus is going around willy-nilly
calling himself God in the full view of
his disciples and also his opponents he
invokes the divine name and anybody
listening would have completely
understood what he was saying and yet
throughout the synoptic gospels there is
a motif the messianic secret so it's
called that every time he reveals his
identity he tells them not to tell
anybody don't tell them I'm the Messiah
but it's fine for them to know that I'm
God i don't know about
that
um I think the best way of understanding
who Jesus is is like I say a sort of
idyllic human being take when Jesus
walks on the water for example another
uh example that's often given as a high
christoologgical moment because of
course in Job 9 it says that only God
treads upon the waves of the ocean sure
but people then also forget that Peter
also walks on the water just
afterwards but Peter starts sinking and
Jesus says "You don't have enough
faith." What does that imply that if
Peter had enough faith he could have
kept walking on the water what are we to
take from this if Jesus is supposed to
be God because he walks on the water but
then Peter walks on the water too i
don't think that's a very good
interpretation
in other
words we're told that God forgives
sins but then the disciples are given
the authority to forgive sins in John
chapter 20 we're told only God warts on
the water but then Peter does this
immediately afterwards we're told that
only God can have the authority to judge
as David says but the disciples are
promised judgment over the 12 tribes of
Israel that's not the only time the
judgment is uh delegated by the way
we're told that Jesus explicitly claims
identity with God by saying he and the
father are one but then Jesus prays that
his disciples will be one in the same
way we're told that God will share his
glory with nobody else but Jesus claims
to have had glory with the father before
he was born but Jesus then says he wants
to share that glory with the disciples
we're told that Jesus only rightly
accepts worship this is interesting by
the way David flashed on a few passages
of Jesus accepting worship in the
Gospels the word most commonly
translated as worship in the New
Testament is
progyno which means to bow down or
prostrate before a higher authority and
of course Jesus received this proaneo
worship therefore he must be
God if that is the
case then we have to consider the fact
that David in the Septuagent for example
bows down proc before Esau that Joseph's
brothers proc before him when he's
governor of Egypt that the entire nation
of Israel offers proc
worship to King David as well that Lot
procano before two angels proskano is
littered throughout the old and also the
New Testament by the way uh in the
parable of the unmerciful servant when
one of the servants returns he offers
procoo to his master and this is a story
that Jesus is saying also let's not
forget that in
revelation Jesus promises that his true
followers his their enemies will proc
worship before them Jesus himself in
revelation is saying that human beings
will receive proc worship if procaneo
worship is something that only god can
receive then all of these people sinned
all of them the entire assembly of
Israel sinned when they bowed down
before David i don't think that's a good
interpretation there is another word
that's sometimes translated as worship
which is latruo this is religious cultic
worship that is only offered to God
nowhere in the gospels is this offered
to Jesus how many times is procao
worship how many times is any kind of
worship accepted by Jesus in Luke's
gospel does anybody know zero the word
comes up three times twice in the
temptation of the desert where it's
discussed and once at the end after
Jesus has ascended so he can say nothing
about it and in a verse that's contested
in our manuscript traditions how many
times in Mark does Jesus accept worship
this time the answer is two but one of
those is the demon legion it's usually
translated as throws himself at his feet
before Jesus and the other is when the
Roman soldiers mockingly worship Jesus
they offer Proscono why because he's the
king of the Jews because procire worship
is something offered to kings higher
authorities i'll keep going perhaps in
my further rebuttal but if worship is
something that is only due to God then
there are a lot more sinners in the
Bible than we think okay
thanks all right so now David Wood is
going to do his second six-minute
rebuttal and then that will be followed
up by Alex's six minute rebuttal all
right alex says we're looking for the
best explanation i would submit that the
best explanation for Jesus claiming to
be one of the two powers in heaven um
and for claiming to do things like judge
the world and raise the dead at the
resurrection and for why his followers
are praying to him and worshiping him
and calling him God and the son of God
and doing the same thing doing the exact
same thing that Jesus does namely
claiming to be one of the two powers in
heaven and for his enemies to repeatedly
accuse him of blasphemy ultimately sends
him to death and then people who say the
same thing like Steven uh also uh find
themselves uh being executed And I would
say that the best explanation of that is
Jesus was claiming to be
God that that's just me uh it's like if
if if I met if I met like five if
suppose I never heard a word from Alex
but I meet like five of his biggest fans
and they say "Yeah we love Alex he's the
Messiah." And then I run into five of
his harshest critics and they say "Man
we can't stand that dude Alex he thinks
he's the Messiah." Even if I never heard
a word from Alex I'd be thinking he was
claiming to be something like that and
that's what's giving his friends and
enemies that
indication likewise with Jesus even if I
didn't have any words of Jesus if I just
know if I just knew these guys were were
uh people were being put to death for
making these kinds of claims and that
his followers are going around
worshiping him and praying to him I
would think he's saying
something now uh Alex thinks that
apparently thinks that the best
explanation is this divine uh name
bearing scenario if so Jesus did a
really terrible job of getting that
message across and uh it doesn't seem
like anyone really got the point unless
we do some creative interpretations of
some passages alex again quotes Exodus
to say that uh that the the angel of the
Lord is just some representative who
bears the name again I quoted the exact
same book he quoted where Yahweh says
that I'm not going along with you
anymore which is Yahweh saying that he
was the angel of the Lord who was
guiding them um he says that his view is
that Jesus is presented as the ideal
servant of God the ideal servant of God
convinces people to bow down and worship
him and pray to him and so on this is
this is what the ideal servant of God
would do that's a that's a very strange
ideal servant of God since that's kind
of precisely what you shouldn't do if
you're not God uh he says that proano
can mean bow down yes you the word
procaneo depends on the cont if it's a
religious context it refers to worship
if it's but you can yes someone can just
bow down to you out of respect and that
would that would be you can bow down to
a normal human but guess what we have
clearly clearly religious context in
some of these passages for instance
Matthew 14:33 they are freaked out those
who are in the boat worshiped him saying
truly you are the son of God that's a
different sort of context than I want to
ask you for a favor and I want to bow
down out of respect as for Philippians 2
uh he he it sounded like he was uh Dun's
Dun's theory that this is just saying
that when it says who was in very nature
God it's actually it's actually the form
of God but this is just saying that he's
a regular he was a a human being a human
being and since he found himself as a
human being like we're all the image of
God he humbled himself and therefore he
was eventually exalted and so on uh this
just it just doesn't work let me just
read it who being in very nature God or
just you can just make up a translation
say image of God for for fun who being
in very nature God did not consider
equality with God something to be used
to his own advantage yes that can mean
sees it can uh also mean used to his
advantage you look at what makes sense
in context did not consider equality
with God something to be used to his own
advantage rather he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant
being made in human likeness
the the decision to humble himself is
before is is what led to him being made
in human likeness this isn't a human
being who's sitting around going "Hey
I'm in the image of God you know I could
strive to be like God you know like like
Adam did but I'm going to humble myself
instead." This is a divine being
humbling himself by becoming a human
being and then being found in appearance
as a man he humbled himself by becoming
obedient to death even death on a cross
therefore God exalted in the highest
place and gave him the name that is
above every name that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow in heaven
and on earth and under the earth and
every tongue acknowledged that Jesus
Christ is Lord to the glory of God the
Father alex seems to think that if
you're a a human being and you humble
yourself in this way that God can just
exalt you to to the status of of Yahweh
and apply these passages that are just
Yahweh when when Yahweh says there
there's no one there's no one else but
me that's what's being quoted there from
Isaiah as for curios curios um Alex says
well well what would they be using they
would be using the Septuagent the Greek
translation yeah and they went to a
passage they they they used the
formulation curios curios which is
specifically referring to Yahweh that's
what Jesus uses he's quoting curios
curios he's calling himself curios
curios the only other use of that is the
septuagent where it refers
to adoni so why is Jesus using that and
again I only brought up that point
because he he brought up the point about
the Septuagent and using it to interpret
the claims of Christ so I said "Fine
let's go with it." And we got in Luke
and therefore that's him claiming to be
Yahweh was Jesus a bad communicator he
says "Ah but Jesus wasn't clear and he
uh veiled his statements." So yes I
grant all of that jesus was a careful
communicator he was careful about how he
communicated certain things he tend he
tried to unveil certain things over time
when people were ready for it that's not
that's not what I consider a bad
communicator i consider all of that part
of being a very good communicator if
you're saying that the people who all
heard Jesus all got it wrong somehow or
that we we don't really have uh the
records of the people who somehow got it
right that his friends got it wrong
because they continue and they build
their church around him and his enemies
are sentencing him to death um I would
say that's a really really really bad
communicator and that just does not line
up if everyone is concluding the same
thing about this guy that he's claiming
to be God that he's claiming to be one
of the two powers in heaven the best
explanation is not some idea that no one
got the best explanation is very simple
he was making those claims that's why we
have all this
evidence all
right all right check check check check
check okay so now Alex is going to do
his second six-minute rebuttal okay i
suppose I really want to nail down on
this worship point since I was kind of
getting at that at the end and David
says "Yeah procoo can mean just simply
bowing down." But in a religious context
it means something else like what do you
mean how do you know that without
begging the question like I say let's
actually evaluate that's what I was sort
of going through how many times proca
worship is given to Jesus in the New
Testament or at least that Jesus accepts
it in the New Testament it doesn't
happen once in Luke's gospel
it basically doesn't happen once in Mark
because it happens twice and one of
these is a demon and one of these which
I suppose is an interesting thing to
explore in itself but one of these is
then simply mocking Jesus because he's
the king why would they consider mocking
him with proso worship if he was
claiming to be king of the Jews because
that's what proco means if procaneo can
mean actually worship of the kind that
latruo usually gets at that is worship
cultic worship of a religious figure as
David suggests here's a riddle for you
why isn't it given to Jesus after Jesus
ascends why isn't it that people are
offering procao worship after Jesus
ascends except at the moment of his
ascension at the end of Luke's gospel
which as I as I say is contested in our
manuscript tradition anyway why
not because it refers to a physical
action because it's not referring to
worship of the kind that David wants it
to be in this context in John's gospel
which we didn't get to how many times
does Jesus accept
worship the answer again is
once just once it happens in John
chapter 9 this is the man who was born
blind who I mentioned earlier in verse
38 he says to Jesus "Lord I believe."
And he worshiped
him except he doesn't say so
in papyrus 75 he doesn't say so in codec
sinaticus doesn't say so in codeex
washing tonianis in other words this
verse isn't present in our earliest
manuscripts we're pretty confident that
there are elements of the gospels which
are later interpolations most famously
the ending of Mark's gospel which is not
in a manuscript and the story of the
adulterous woman let he who is without
sin cast the first stone which are not
in our early manuscripts i'm interested
as to whether David thinks that there
are things in the gospels which didn't
actually happen either because they're
recorded incorrectly or because they are
later interpolations but at least in
this case of worship it seems to be a
later interpolation but at best we've
got one instance of Jesus accepting
worship in John's gospel and our
manuscript evidence seems to suggest
that there's none if worshiping Jesus is
supposed to be some indication of his
divinity then why is it only Matthew's
gospel who seems to mention anything to
do with worship and uses a term when
there's another one available to
indicate cultic religious worship to
someone who's divine yet he chooses a
word which just means physical
prostration before someone who has a
higher authority like I don't know maybe
the
Messiah like the disciples bow down and
worship Jesus at what point do you think
they began to get the picture that he
was God they knew that he was the
Messiah for a long time but I genuinely
don't know when David thinks they began
to realize that this person was God do
you think there might be an instance of
them offering procal worship to Jesus
before they'd fully realize that i think
so because procao worship is a physical
action that's given to people who are of
a higher authority just to belabor this
point in the Septuagent here are some
examples of procao worship lot worships
two angels in Genesis abraham worships
the Hittites isaac blesses Jacob to have
all the nations on earth worship him in
Genesis jacob worships Esau joseph's
brothers worship him abigail worships
David's servants in 1 Samuel Saul
worships the dead Samuel in 1 Samuel the
sons of prophets worship Elijah in 2
Kings david worships the temple
in Psalm 5 all the people of Israel
worship King David in 1 Chronicles this
is the same term procano if David wants
to suggest that sometimes this proc
worship can mean cultic religious
worship even though there's another word
available that people use to mean that
but it's not being used in this instance
for some reason i want to know what that
distinction is and how we can know which
kind of worship is being given without
simply begging the question and saying
that well when it's given to Jesus it's
obviously of the religious kind
otherwise as far as I'm concerned this
worship point is essentially bunk some
of you might be thinking hold on a
second in the temptation in the
desert Satan asks Jesus to worship him
and what does Satan say do you know he
says "Worship it is written worship God
and serve him only." So you're only
supposed to worship God and people say
that this is an indication that any
worship of anybody other than God would
be immoral that interpretation cannot be
the case firstly because it would
condemn all of the people that I've just
listed to be sinners including the
entire assembly of Israel that can't be
it let's look again at this passage
jesus is quoting a passage which by the
way he's actually changed in the Old
Testament the passage that he's quoting
says "Fear
God rather than worship God." But
besides the point the word only here
qualifies not the word worship but the
word serve worship God and serve him
only worship here is procoo which we
know that Jesus can't be saying only
proaneo towards God because all of these
people including people that Jesus talks
about himself are offered proc worship
indeed process worshiped uh is promised
to all of you in revelation so we know
that he can't mean only worship god in
that sense but only qualifies the word
serve worship god and serve him only
what is the word serve which which Greek
word is translated in this passage to
serve does anybody know
latruo cultic religious worship so this
is a reaffirmation of point that proc
worship is fine but latrua worship is
something special that can only be be
given to God the key text here is James
Dun's um did the early Christians
worship God and as he rightly points out
there is no talk anywhere once in the
entire New Testament of latruo worship
being offered to Jesus why not
all right okay so that concludes Alex's
second rebuttal round we're going to
move to open discussion all right all
right all right
well shall we spark it off gentlemen
whatever you like let's do it open
dialogue who would like to take the lead
uh well I have some questions perhaps to
ask David about his position on Jesus's
relationship to the father with
particular regards to the authority that
he derives from the the father so one
question for example why do you think
that Jesus
prays before raising Lazarus from the
dead
um the the Old Testament says that God
is the God of all flesh if um if a
divine being were to become incarnate as
is claimed of Jesus and that divine
being really became a flesh and blood
human being like Jesus then um if he
is if he's also had an eternal
relationship with the
father then I I don't know if I'd expect
him to be an atheist when he entered
into creation so I in other words in
other words if if if the Christian
picture is correct you've got father and
son for all eternity son enters into
creation
um what's he going to be an atheist if
he is going to if as part of it is if
he's going to be the ideal human or
something like that yeah and so the son
of man one might say as far as uh as far
as what Jesus is going to do um you
would continue the eternal relationship
that you've had with the father and you
would do that through prayer so what I
mean to say is could Jesus have have
risen Lazarus from the dead of his own
accord on his own authority
i suppose yeah you suppose
that all authority has been given to
himself been given to him by God right
which the way that I read that is that
the father has delegated the authority
that is rightfully his to Jesus and it's
often said to me that Jesus raising
people from the dead of his own
authority is actually an indication of
his divinity because we have Old
Testament passages of people raising
people from the dead like Elijah and
Elisha and the point is always made that
well they pray before they they rise
from the dead jesus doesn't pray but
before he raises Lazarus in Johnap 11 he
looks upward and says,"Father I thank
you for having heard me i know that you
always hear me but I've said this for
the sake of the crowd standing here so
they may believe that you have sent me."
And when he says this he cries out with
a loud voice "Lazarus come out." So
Jesus is not only praying before raising
Lazarus but also saying that I always do
this it's just I'm doing it right now
publicly so there's no confusion that
you're the one who sent me to do this
and so even in instances where Jesus
appears to perform miracles of his own
accord such as calming the storm or
indeed raising other people from the
dead like the the widow's child he tells
us here in John's gospel that he always
is in communication with God beforehand
but right now he's saying so publicly so
that people will know that he sent him
why does Jesus need to pray before he
raises Lazarus from the dead um I mean
this is the exact same chapter where
Jesus declares himself the resurrection
and the life that's right and it's in
the same book where Jesus says that he's
the one who raises the dead at the
resurrection everyone who's in their
graves
will hear the voice of the son of God
mhm and so uh if if you're if you're
thinking that when we talk about Jesus
we're thinking of him as some rogue
deity who does things on his own I mean
that's basically the the entire meaning
of John chapter 5 john chapter 5 is
basically one response to this um Jesus
uh
Jesus heals on the Sabbath and this
freaks him out because they say "Hey
what are you doing?" He says "Well the
father's working until now i'm working
too yeah and so since the father's
working I get to work you all don't get
to work i get to work and then they
accuse him of claiming to be equal to
God and then he explains it that it's a
verse that Muslims use they say he says
by my own self I can do nothing but if
you look at what he's saying it's I can
do nothing separately from the father
but that's the same chapter where he
claims that he's the final judge where
he claims that he's the one who raises
the dead at the resurrection and he
explains it and says um for the father
judges no one but has given all judgment
to the son that all may honor the son
just as they honor the father the only
way you'd honor the son the same way you
you honor the father is if they have the
same nature and attributes you wouldn't
honor anyone else like you honor God
interesting do you believe that so Jesus
is saying
that the reason he's the one who judges
everything is because is so that we
honor him the same way we honor the
father that doesn't that that sounds Do
you believe do you believe that the
father has a distinct loving
relationship to the son compared to the
loving relationship he has to all of us
say
yep only because I' I've heard you make
this point before that he says that it's
that word as is quite important what you
just said so that he will honor uh so
that they will honor me just as they
honor the father that word just as is
cathos which I mentioned earlier that's
also used when Jesus says "So they will
know that you have loved me just as you
have loved them." So if we if we're
going to be consistent in our usage of
the term here if if Jesus saying like uh
that they will honor you just as they'll
honor me just as uh just as you honor
the father then the loving relationship
has to be treated in the same way right
well I think you could say I'm trying to
think if you say that you know I could
say I love this person just as I love my
wife and yeah you'd be right i could say
well I just mean I love both of them but
not in you know that wouldn't
necessarily be saying I love that person
exactly as I That's why there are two
words in the Greek that's why there's
like the word for no and finally I'm
talking about you have to interpret
words in context and what's what's the
context of this it's Jesus jesus claims
Jesus claims that that that since the
father is working he's working also mhm
and it's interesting because the
discussion among the rabbis was does God
work on does God work on the Sabbath and
so Jesus is working so God works on the
Sabbath because he's upholding and
sustaining the universe therefore I get
to work on the Sabbath as well and then
hey you're claiming to
be like they think he's claiming to be
another God and he clarifies no no no by
myself I can do nothing he points us he
he points this out and in this context
he's the final judge and so it's you
will honor the son just as you honor the
father there in context it would be very
strange to say well I just mean honor me
in some sense like you honor the father
but not not in that way it's I mean the
old testament Yahweh is the one who sets
up his throne to judge jesus is the one
who says all judgment is given to him
given Yeah yeah and so if it's if all
judgment is given to him and keep in
mind the Old Testament Yahweh is the one
who's going to judge and you're saying
Yeah but it's given to Jesus
and he says it's so that we honor him
the same way we honor the father yeah
okay so I want to talk about this
Sabbath moment because this is quite
important this is in John chapter 5 as
well this whole episode sort of hinges
on the idea that Jesus is working on the
Sabbath he says "My father is working so
am I." So your interpretation of this is
to say that well my father in heaven
that is God is working on the Sabbath so
so am I therefore I'm God this story of
Jesus working on the Sabbaths is
reported in multiple gospels in Mark's
gospel when he's found working on the
Sabbath and the Pharisees say to him
this is Mark chapter 2 look why are they
doing that which is not lawful on the
Sabbath what does Jesus say in response
have you not heard what David did have
you not read what David did when he and
his companions were hungry and in need
of food and they enter the house of God
and take the food which is not lawful on
the Sabbath so
Jesus justifies his breaking of the
Sabbath by referring to another human
being who also broke the Sabbath he then
tells us that the Sabbath was made for
mankind and not mankind for the Sabbath
a very famous quote the Sabbath was made
for man and not man for the Sabbath
bearing in mind that although the son of
man is lord of the seven yes bear in
mind that although in the in the Greek
the definite article is given to Jesus
when he uses the term son of man it's
complicated by the fact that son of man
without the definite article is just a
way of saying human being so there are
some scholars such as Morris Casey who
believe that these son of man sayings
have been corrupted at least some of
them from originally saying a son of man
or the son of man in the sense of just
meaning a human being now why would that
interpretation be correct here because
Jesus says firstly when he's accused of
breaking the Sabbath he says "Well David
did the same thing was David sinning?"
The implication is no which means it
can't just be God who breaks the Sabbath
he then says that the Sabbath was made
for man humans not humans or man for the
Sabbath therefore he says the word is
therefore the son of man is Lord of the
Sabbath if the son of man in some
context just means a human being that's
how early church fathers interpreted it
for example in fact some of the early
church fathers translated the son of man
as the son of Mary because they thought
it was Jesus indicating that he was the
son of a human being and he was only
born of Mary given that undertone for
this phrase the son of man how else can
I read this passage except Jesus saying
"Yeah I'm working on the Sabbath." So
did David and that wasn't wrong the
Sabbath was made for mankind therefore
mankind is Lord of the Sabbath if it's
only God who can work on the Sabbath
then why does Jesus appeal to David um
you're you're you're talking about two
completely different passages you're
talking about this this situation and
Jesus I was talking to a Jewish guy in
Israel and he he was he's not a
Christian but he said "Hey Jesus way won
jesus way actually won jesus Jesus the
way of Jesus won." Oh sure he he viewed
Jesus as like a a religious reformer um
sent against uh religious extremism and
so on um there Jesus is talking about
like preserving life and so on the
accusation in John in John five is
different but I'm I mean I'm I'm
pointing to John because you you're
going with John in John five he says the
father's working
and so he gets to work too that's right
and again if you read this there's
there's no way to interpret this as
Jesus claiming to be some you know just
another human being or something like
that well I don't think Jesus is
claiming to be just another human being
but although we are talking about two
different passages here if the reason
that Jesus gives because bear in mind
there are multiple ways to interpret
this when he says "Well God's working so
why not I?" There are multiple ways to
interpret this either Jesus is again
quite explicitly claiming to be God
which again is quite mystifying given
that this doesn't seem to provoke the
same kind of reaction and if it's well
recognized that God is the Lord of the
Sabbath and Jesus is claiming himself as
a title the son of man to be Lord of the
Sabbath or in this instance just
claiming the authority because God is
working so so am I it's strange that it
doesn't cause the same kind of fuss but
the other interpretation is that Jesus
is saying well if God can work on the
Sabbath why not anybody else if God can
work why not me and that just doesn't
your interpretation just doesn't square
with me with Mark's gospel i mean the
question I asked is why does he refer to
David in justifying talking about we're
talking about John yes you can you can
you can have you can have different
reasons for doing things in different
situations i mean as far as John so
Jesus because he was doing these things
on the Sabbath the Jewish leaders began
to persecute him in his defense Jesus
said to them my father is always at his
work to this very day and I too am
working for this reason they tried all
the more to kill him not only because he
was breaking the Sabbath but was even
calling God his own father making
himself equal with God yes and so that's
when Jesus goes and and if he's trying
to say that if he's trying to say
something about it's okay to break the
Sabbath or you don't have to work on the
Sabbath anymore or something like that
it's a it's a strange direction to go in
that he makes all these claims um he can
do only what the father sees because
whatever the father does the son also
does for just as the father raises the
dead and gives them life even so the son
gives life to whom he is pleased to give
it mhm the father judges no one but is
entrusted all judgment to the son that
all may honor the son just as they honor
the father whoever does not honor the
son does not honor the father that's
when he goes on to say that he's the one
who raises the dead a time is coming and
has now come when the dead will hear the
voice of the son of God and those who
hear will live for as the father has
life in himself so he has granted the
son also to have life in himself and he
has given him authority to judge because
he is the son of man and then he goes on
to say that uh the dead are going to be
raised my point is zeroing in on one
little point and saying ah well you know
maybe this is just you're missing kind
of the big picture this is but I'm
noticing the words granted and given or
authority there uh this idea that Jesus
raises the dead is not exactly clear in
John chapter 5 like if we if we look at
the words that we're actually dealing
with here the father judges no one but
has entrusted all judgment to the
son presumably the father could judge if
he wanted to he's made a decision to
entrust this to the son meaning that the
son doesn't have this power necessarily
if the son has this power necessarily
it's not something that needs to be
entrusted to him in the way that the
father then would not have it he then
says "Very truly I say to you whoever
hears my word and believes him who has
sent me has eternal life." And goes on
to say that the dead will hear the voice
of the son of God and those who hear
will live the voice of the son of God
yeah now he's the son of God right jesus
that's right agreeing that he's claiming
to be the son of God yeah so they'll
hear his voice and they'll be raised
from the dead but how do we like who is
doing the raising here and how do you
know
um you wait you're you're saying we're
going to hear people are going to So
you're saying someone else is raising
them god when they hear the voice of the
son of God so they're dead they're just
bones they hear the voice of the son of
God and then someone else raises them
for as the father has given has life in
himself so he has granted the son to
also have life in himself life in
himself yes any power that Jesus has
here is given to him by the father why
is Jesus if God in need of being given
this power by the father
um you not you have the this is the
exact same issue that you have in um in
Daniel 7 where the uh the son of man
coming with the clouds of heaven
approaches the ancient of days and he is
given authority glory and sovereign
power so it's why is he being given
authority and glory and sovereign power
yeah but even before that it's the son
of man coming with the clouds of heaven
that's how he approaches but again it's
Yahweh who comes with the clouds so he's
Yahweh and then something happens and
then he's he's given the son of man is
Yahweh do you think that that was how
Daniel 7 was interpreted by anybody
before Daniel saw a vision that's right
but this this is this is this is one of
the issues as far as the this is one of
the issues that comes up in um in the
two power the two powers in heaven
because it's again Yahweh is the only
one who comes with the clouds in the Old
Testament and here you have the son of
man who receives uh worship and so on
and is worshiped by all nations and but
notice he approaches he approaches and
then he's he's given authority glory and
sovereign power mhm but if you if you if
you line that up with the creed in
Philippians if you line that up with
John 1 and so on you get you get kind of
a big picture and you can you can take
like John 1:1 in the beginning was the
word the word was with God the word was
God and then the word became flesh and
dwelt among us that's after all things
are created through him and you find the
same thing in Philippians 2 early
Christian creed uh when it's uh in your
relationships with with one another have
the same mindset as Christ Jesus who
being in very nature God did not
consider equality with God something to
be used to his own advantage um rather
he made himself nothing taking the very
nature of a servant so these are you you
have someone who is in nature God over
here someone who is the word who through
whom all things are created and then
enters creation
and if you so then lives as Jesus dies
and I would I would interpret it since
you have uh the ending in Matthew where
Jesus approaches and he's worshiped
there and he says that all authority in
heaven and earth has been given to him m
so the idea is he becomes a servant he's
in very nature God he takes on the
nature of a servant and then he lives as
a servant and the the irony of the
statement where where he says the son of
man came not to be served but to serve
and to give his life as a ransom for
many the irony there is he's the son of
man he's supposed to be served in by all
and he says that he came to serve and so
he's living as a servant during this
life then he dies he rises from there's
there's a lot here right yeah i I want
to go right back because we started with
this idea of the son of man coming on
the clouds meaning that he's Yahweh do
you think that's how Daniel interpreted
his vision do you think that's how I
believe Daniel saw a vision and recorded
his vision do you think that's how the
Sanhedrin interpreted Daniel 7 when
Jesus comes for his trial and he says
and he quotes Daniel 7 and says that
you'll see the son of man riding on the
clouds of heaven do you think that the
problem there was that Jesus was
claiming to be God and that's something
that no human being can do because
Daniel 7 is part of the Jewish scripture
they were expecting the coming of this
son of man so if it's obvious that the
son of man was going to be Yahweh then
the Sanhedrin should have expected that
the coming son of man would have been
Yahweh they might have thought that
Jesus wasn't him but do you think that
the Sanhedrin were expecting whoever the
rightful son of man was who was to come
would be identical to Yahweh and if not
why did they not read that into the
passage as obviously as you think that
they should have done people were
basically confused by these passages
that's the impression you get they go in
all sorts of different directions and oh
this is referring to the Messiah no this
is referring to some sort of angel no
this is referring to this no that's I'm
talking about what the text says the son
of man comes with the clouds of heaven
all before that all before that it's
always Yahweh who comes on the clouds
and so if you were looking at that and
you didn't if you if you didn't have the
idea of wait a minute it it just can't
be it it's impossible that that is
referring to God because you've got the
ancient of days right there if you're
not reading I and really I I don't know
I don't even know what to do if you're
saying that I'm not talking about you
i'm talking about anyone if you're
reading that and going "No it doesn't
seem like this is God he comes with the
clouds of heaven but then he's worshiped
by all nations and has an ever an
everlasting kingdom." Mhm if you're just
reading that if if put it this way if
you didn't have the ancient of days in
the picture and you're reading this
description comes in the cloud of
heavens worship all nations say
obviously God yes the the the mystery
comes in the mystery comes in when it's
wait a minute we've got the ancient of
days here so this is sounding like
That's right two divine beings and we
just can't real quick so we we've gone
through about 20 minutes david are you
comfortable staying here or do you want
to ask Alex some questions now
we
we just of course the point was or is in
the christoologgical dispute that Jesus
is accused of blasphemy at his trial and
that this is evidence that he was
claiming to be God through his
identification with the divine son of
man because that's how it's
interpreted by the high priest because
he accuses him of blasphemy does that
mean that the high priest was expecting
the son of man to be Yahweh himself do
you think that that is the
interpretation that the high priest had
of the Danielic vision of the son of man
i would say they would obviously have
interpreted the uh that that passage in
Daniel or claimed to be the son of man
in in that sense if you were just if
you're just saying hey I'm a son of man
I think they'd be fine with it um well
yeah of course in in the Aramaic in
which Daniel 7 is written it's one like
a son of man one like bar nash which
just means one like a human being yeah
so you you'd clarify that and that's the
point like like a human being and yet he
comes with the clouds of heaven so he's
he's coming with clouds of heaven he's
Yahweh and yet he's like the son of a
man that's right you understand history
as far as as far as how they would
interpret it they could have a range of
interpretations that we don't know what
this means but we know that the the guy
who built my cousin's table in Nazareth
should not be making this claim sure so
is that enough to be So suppose that
their interpretation was a a messianic
vision of Daniel 7 this carpenter
claiming to be the Messiah would that
have been enough to accuse him of
blasphemy claiming to be the Messiah is
not a not a death sentence all all kinds
of So the reason I'm pressing this point
is because when I say did the high
priest believe that the son of man was
going to be Yahweh himself i think
that's quite implausible and I think you
recognize that in saying well look there
are loads of ideas that they could have
had was quite confusing but if Jesus
wouldn't be accused of blasphemy for
merely claiming to be the Messiah if you
had a messianic interpretation he
wouldn't be accused of blasphemy for
claiming to embody the nation of Israel
if you have the idea that the son of man
represents Israel which is another view
it has to be Israel comes on the clouds
of it has to be and is worshiped by all
nations i'm not that's my interpretation
i'm saying that in the history of the
interpretation of Daniel 7 that has been
a popular interpretation of course the
four beasts which come before represent
different nations and the one like the
son of man is Israel but the question
I'm asking you is surely you recognize
that if the idea is that claiming to be
the Messiah or something like that is
not enough for a death sentence that's
right then what Jesus has to have done
in that trial in order to get a death
sentence must have been to say something
that the high priest immediately
interpreted as him claiming to be Yahweh
that means that he has to expect that
the coming son of man would be Yahweh
himself
i understand what the high priest
thought of Daniel's vision one you're
you're you just made an awesome case for
me right if he's just thinking of if
he's just thinking of the the son of man
coming with the clouds of heaven uh as
the Messiah then oh okay this guy
claimed to be the Messiah let's uh let's
uh maybe we have to deal with the Romans
or something like that but it's not it's
not uh it's not this uh terrier
blasphemy sort of thing um what you find
in that passage people struggle with
that again the reason the reason is
because it sounds like it's talking
about Yahweh when the ancient of days is
Yahweh that's it so you come up you try
to you try to explain it in other ways
could this be the Messiah that does it
just doesn't fit could this be the
nation of Israel it doesn't fit there
all these interpretations but it's clear
if a guy says "You will see the son of
man coming with a uh at the right hand
of power and coming with the clouds of
heaven." Yeah doesn't seem like they
were taking that to just be a claim to
be the Messiah that interpretation and
and you're right that I'm bolstering the
case here that Jesus must have been
claiming to be Yahweh what I'm saying is
that if your position is correct and
that is the only thing that he could
have been accused of blasphemy for then
you have to presuppose that the high
priest had that interpretation of Daniel
7 which which just seems so implausible
to me that that's what they thought
Daniel 7 meant that that's what they
thought at that time that it meant that
this son of man who they did expect to
come would be Yahweh himself is is that
what you think they they thought because
you have to for this to run i don't have
the records of the high priest if he
says "This guy just claimed to be the
son of man coming with the clouds of
heaven." And again this if you just read
the if you just read the passage if you
just read in Daniel 7 if you didn't have
the ancient of days there it would be
indisputable this talking about this
talking about God but you've got the
ancient of days there so what's the
context of this first century they're
dealing with this two powers in heaven
issue and they don't know how to deal
with it they're coming they're coming up
with all sorts of explanations for what
they for what this second power is and
then Jesus claims to be one of them when
does the two powers in heaven uh like
idea heresy if you want to call it that
now like when does that begin to emerge
uh BC what evidence do you have of the
popularity of the 2 heaven idea in
second temple Judaism you well I mean
the the main discussion that's that's
used like in uh in um uh in Seagal's in
Seagull's book
is the the later rabbitic commentaries
but so you have yeah in like the late 1
and 2 century right
yeah that's when that's when they're
talking about because it's a big deal uh
yeah that well that's when that's when
Jewish orthodoxy is is forming so in
other words it's a relatively fringe
position beforehand
no it's it's it was fairly popular
what's your evidence for uh as far as I
understand it's it's a relatively fringe
position okay so you have one you have
one you have all these issues that are
in the Old Testament but then you have
the the Targums you have the Tarans that
are that are um they're they're putting
Old Testament passages into Aramaic and
so on and they start giving some
interesting uh some interesting
translations of uh of some of these
passages and so on and
treating there's a lot of other issues
like even with even with the name and
with the word and that's why boy that's
why Borieran says the ideas the the
ideas are already there because you have
passages where they're in where they're
interpreting uh the word where they're
interpreting uh the word of God as a
personal agent and so on so the idea is
that uh that uh that would you know
here's drawing a parallel between that
and and John's gospel here's James James
McGrath on on the two powers the
evidence surveyed thus far gives no
support for dating the origins of the
controversy even to the second century
it is of course possible that the
controversy did arise in the second
century but it has not yet been
sufficient had sufficient impact to
leave any clear or explicit trace in the
traditions and literature from that
period
um you when you ha when you have when
you have the rabbis forming Jewish
orthodoxy they're clearly responding to
the issue of the two powers in heaven
yeah when's that happening yeah that's
later but they're talking about things
that things that happened earlier but
because remember what we're talking
about here is the idea of the son of man
that the high priests would have had at
Jesus's trial if the 2,00 heaven idea is
something that only emerges in the late
1st and second century no that's that's
when it's being labeled a heresy that's
when they're declaring it a heresy and
they're set they're setting out what I'm
asking is is why is it that if this is
already a controversy that has emerged
and is extent to the ex to to the extent
that the high priest believes it then
why is it leaving no trace in our
traditions and literature from that
period why is it why in other words what
traditions do you have from what what
commentaries are you talking about from
the first century well that's a that's a
silence thing because I'm I don't have
commentary I could what commentaries do
I have that don't mention it that's a
bit of a broad question and I'm asking
what to do if you're if the rabbis are
talking about these earlier
controversies and they're dealing with
because you have you have the Christians
went went one way with it you had the
Gnostics became an issue for the
Gnostics because the Gnostics
interpreted they believed in the two
powers in heaven and they said they're
basically in conflict the two powers are
in conflict and so the Gnostics ran with
that and then you had uh Jewish mystics
Jewish mystics who were running with the
issue do you think the Gnostics believed
in the two powers in heaven heresy as as
you've described it
they believe they believed in the two
powers
they went they went in a completely
different direction so they so the
Christian direction was father was
father and son you've got father and son
you've got son of man coming with the
clouds in ancient of days you've got um
God and the word of God you've got Paul
calling u the father God and calling
Jesus Lord and so on so you see it all
over there they have the two powers but
the two powers are in harmony and have
always been so yeah the Gnostics
believed in the two powers and they
believe that they're in they're believe
that they're in
conflict and so then you so anyway the
point okay look I and I I really don't
know here but I'm I think that this
hinges on the evidence that the two
powers in heaven idea is a popular
enough
controversy in the time of Jesus's in
Jesus's lifetime that the high priest
seek would have believed it and and as
far as I can see the you can tell what
he believed by how he reacts so so you
do think that this is what he believed
then like you're committing yourself to
that view in other words that this is
the view that the high priest had of
Daniel 7 that the son of man would be
Yahweh that even before Jesus came along
this high priest must have read Daniel 7
no idea he have a range of ideas so you
just say you can't have no idea because
if your if your whole claim is that
Jesus couldn't have been accused of
blasphemy for anything other than
claiming to be God i've never said that
in this instance like what other
interpretation of Daniel 7 do you think
would would this Let me put it this way
what interpretation other than the one
that I've just described of Daniel 7
could the high priest have that would
cause him to accuse Jesus of blasphemy
based on the words that he said as as
far as we you can tell in commentary
they can't figure out what it means
right and
so the question is how is the high
priest interpreting what Jesus is saying
so how are they interpreting what Jesus
is saying and he Jesus is identifying
himself as the son of man who they
already expected to come from Daniel 7
and they interpret that as him claiming
to be Yahweh
it really looks like that i think that's
what you have to say right you have to
say that they think he's claiming to be
Yahweh but in order to say that you have
to believe that that is how he
interpreted Daniel 7 look no I don't he
could have a range of interpretations
and like like put it this way look at
what the high priest is doing when he
says "Don't keep us in suspense any
longer are you the Christ the son of the
the son of the blessed?" He's asking for
clarification on what he's saying what
are you saying what are you telling us
okay so bearing in mind that one
interpretation of Daniel 7 throughout
history even after the advent of
Christianity is that Daniel 7 is a
messianic prophecy about the coming
Messiah if Jesus is asked "Are you the
Messiah?" And he responds by quoting
Daniel 7 if one of the interpretations
of Daniel 7 is that it's talking about
the Messiah then why would they not just
think he was claiming to be the Messiah
they he obviously didn't give them them
them that impression if they they said
he deserves death for it and by the way
by the way this is connected you can you
can actually tell what happens i mean
you brought up the passage in Acts 7 i
mean Stephen Steven is giving his entire
case for belief in Jesus as the Messiah
they never get violent then he rebukes
them the harshest way you can possibly
all your you you killed all the your
ancestors killed all the prophets and
you guys killed the Messiah mhm if
they're just going to get ticked off at
rebuke or insults or something like that
that would have been the time to do it
it's when he says "I see the son of
man." It's when I see the son of man
that's when they cover their ears they
cover their ears they charge him and
they kill him so you can do the same
thing why are they inter why why is it
why why are they interpreting as why
aren't they interpreting that as he's
just saying that Jesus is the Messiah
that's exactly right yeah why do they
think that we got we we got to we got to
move to to Q&A we've gone way over the
open dialogue so if you have a question
line up over there while I let you guys
finish your thoughts um guys hey oh
gosh two
all right so check it out right here
where Ray is right here where Ray is you
guys go to Ray Rock right here in the
very front check check check yes we get
four minutes on the on the clock for the
conclusions
all right in my opening statement I
point out you you basically have a
controversy
um we know that there's a controversy uh
going on and we see how we see how
Christians are responding to that
and basically up until orthodoxy defines
the uh two powers issue as a heresy um
you had a wide range of views a wide
range of uh interpreting these various
texts and so on it's pretty clear what
happens
when Jesus comes along and we looked I
actually qu it's interesting I quoted
multiple passages in Mark and I quoted
uh Q as far as Jesus saying that
um all things have been handed over to
him by his father no one knows the son
except the father no one knows the
father except the son and anyone to whom
the son chooses to reveal him you have I
quoted those because I assumed that that
he was going to reject John and so I was
quoting the uh the the some of our
earlier material and then the creed in
Philippians and so on where know if you
noticed but everyone seems to be doing
the same thing and it's the same issue
that arises in the Old Testament you
have Yahweh sending Yahweh you have
Yahweh sending the angel of the Lord but
the angel of the Lord is Yahweh and
Yahweh says that he's the angel you have
the uh ancient of days and the son of
man coming with the clouds of heaven so
you have these issues and people are
confused about it but then you look to
the New Testament they're doing the
exact same thing that was going on in
the Old Testament but now they're
defining it as father son God and the
word but the word is is also God um Paul
saying God the father is God and Jesus
is Lord um and they also bring in the
the son of man in the ancient of days
with uh with Jesus and so on so you've
got all these pastors they're all doing
the same thing it's kind it's pretty
clear it's pretty clear what's going on
and the question is we look we look at
what Jesus says he sounds like he's
claiming to be one of the two powers in
heaven in multiple ways we look at what
Jesus does he's claiming to do things
like judge the world and raise the dead
at the resurrection we look at what his
followers say uh we look at what his
followers do we look at what his enemies
say we look at what his enemies do and
everything we can look at gives the
indication that this guy was making
claims that cause people to either uh
worship him and start praying to him and
doxologies and so on or saying that this
guy has to
die and if that's all just a
miscommunication this is like beyond
anything else you want to say Jesus
wasn't the greatest communicator and so
on because he slowly unveiled things for
people who weren't ready to hear it uh
that's very different from saying
everyone got the message horribly
horribly wrong and so I just wanted to
conclude here with uh the last minute uh
wanted to revisit the
uh famous quote from CS Lewis famous
quote from CS Lewis um that the
trillemma the problem with the trillemma
was that it didn't rule out uh it didn't
include certain other options so it's
presented as Lord liar lunatic but
you've got the legend possibility that
it doesn't include what if all this is
later legendary development well we've
seen that can't be the case because
everyone concludes this it's all over
the place it's in our earliest material
we can trace this back to two year
within two years of the formation of the
church when Paul is persecuting the
church what's he doing he was
persecuting people for calling on the
name of Jesus the way they're calling on
the name of the Lord this means that the
early church um had this view and the
other option would
be Jesus is a terrible communicator and
everyone misunderstood him and that I I
just have to say again given how Jesus
taught I can't believe that everyone was
horribly misunderstanding and so when we
rule those out I think we can agree with
CS Lewis who said "I'm trying to prevent
anyone saying the really foolish thing
that people often say about him i'm
ready to accept Jesus as a great moral
teacher but I do not accept his claim to
be God." That is the one thing we must
not say a man who was merely a man and
said the sort of things Jesus said would
not be a great moral teacher he would
either be a lunatic on the level with
the man who says he is a poached egg or
else he would be the devil of hell you
must make your choice either this man
was and is the son of God or else a mad
man or something worse you can shut him
up for a fool you can spit at him and
kill him as a demon or you can fall at
his feet and call him Lord and God but
let us not come with any patronizing
nonsense about his being a great human
teacher
or a terrible communicator he has not
left that open to us he did not intend
to
all right sure
alex for a minute closing
all right for a minute closing from Alex
yeah i mean there I guess there are a
few important things to say first is
that I totally forgot in that entire
section that I really really did want to
hear what David thinks about Jesus
implying all throughout John chapter 17
that the relationship he has with the
father is the same as the relationship
the father and he wish to have with all
Christian believers i find it quite
stunning that when specifically asked to
clarify his christoologgical position he
describes his relationship with the
father in terms that he then attributes
to first his disciples and then the rest
of Christian believers absent everything
else that we've been saying that alone
should be pretty stunning what can it
possibly mean for Jesus to describe his
relationship to the father and then say
"In the same way that I'm in him and
he's in me I want you all to be in us so
we can all be one all of us." What can
that possibly mean we didn't even get to
discuss this maybe some people in the
Q&A have some answers but on its own
that is enough to raise some serious
question marks of course a lot of
David's case has relied on this two
powers heresy and we were sort of
getting a bit caught in the weeds there
about the dating i read a quote from
James McGrath which I didn't finish
because it's quite long but he goes on
to say and this is in uh the only true
God early Christian monotheism in its
Jewish context he says of course
conversely the absence of evidence for
the existence of the heresy in this
period surveyed so far does not prove
that it did not yet exist of course
that's true however in view of the clear
palemic against two powers in later
writings and the complete absence of
such pmic in earlier writings this at
least strongly suggests the possibility
that the two powers only became an issue
for whatever reason in the period after
those documents were put in their
present form in other words this two
powers discussion doesn't seem to crop
up at all until it's too late to have
influenced the high priest and I want to
know why I suppose that's the case i
want to know why it is that Jesus also
says that the glory he receives from the
father will be given to the disciples
and given to everybody else i want to
know why Jesus is given the authority to
forgive sins which at least is
interpreted by his Jewish opponents as
something only God can do and then gives
it to his disciples the same authority
at the end of chap John chapter 20
saying as the father has sent me I'm now
sending you what is going on here why is
Jesus passing on all of these divine
prerogatives in unity to his disciples
in precisely the way that he got them
from the
father if any of these instances any of
these divine and the same thing with
judgment by the way which David keeps
coming back to which God also delegates
to other people again we haven't heard
much response on these ideas of it's not
just Jesus who gets to judge but Jesus
also delegates that judgment the example
I gave was delegating judgment of the 12
tribes of is Israel to his disciples
which is something we're pretty sure he
historically actually said because he
says that the 12 of you will sit on 12
thrones judging the tw 12 tribes of
Israel meanwhile Judas is currently
present so it's likely he actually said
this because it's not something a later
Christian writer would make up there are
Christian interpretations as to why he
would have still said 12 of course but
it's an unnatural thing for someone to
have made up so we think he actually
said it he's delegating his judgment why
is Jesus taking all of these divine
prerogatives and giving them to human
beings if he's more than just a human
being himself but of course he's not
just a human being qua his position he's
a very special kind of human being
someone who according to the uh the
non-gosspel New Testament sources is
exalted given the name above every other
name interesting implication for the the
divine name bearing model by the way
what is the best interpretation is all I
basically have to ask of all of these
points i mean we got quite caught caught
up in there in the in the nature of
blasphemy and what Jesus could have been
claiming again I'll just press the point
that if you want to accept that Jesus
couldn't have been accused of blasphemy
for anything other than claiming to be
Yahweh and yet all he really did was
quote Daniel 7 then you have to believe
that at the time of Jesus's trial it was
popular enough within Jewish thought to
expect that the coming son of man as
prophesied in Daniel 7 would be Yahweh
himself i don't see any evidence for
that at all so for these considerations
I think it a suspicious reading of the
New Testament to say that Jesus was
claiming identity with Yahweh all right
before we go to the first question I got
one question for Alex and and I would
love to hear your answer on this i'm
going throw a monkey wrench in this
whole thing um you've brought this up
before the idea in Eastern Orthodoxy of
theosis or deification does that solve
the dilemma that you're referring to uh
theosis the process of humans attaining
likeness to and union with God
participating in the divine energies uh
divine nature and experiencing community
with the holy if we're adding the
Eastern Orthodox position which is
within the realms of orthodoxy as
Protestants would probably call that
glorification right they're giving very
specific language your dilemma is Jesus
is God and then he's given this god-like
authority to his disciples could you
concede potentially that that solves the
dilemma only if that also describes how
Jesus relates to his own father because
of Constantly Jesus is using the word
cathos or cathos cathos which means just
as in the same way as so sure maybe this
is talking about a kind of elevation of
humans to share in the likeness of God
in in in some other kind of way but
deification yeah
deification but then Jesus would have to
see himself in the same way which is in
so many words what I'm trying to say
Jesus was in fact doing so yes okay cool
all right we're going to go to questions
um so uh let's All right we have got it
we're gonna get through this real quick
we got a question from Avery all right
oh hold the mic okay all right for sure
uh what's going on guys so this is a
question for Alex man how you doing man
hey um you mentioned God logic yes yes
sir you mentioned uh in Hebrews 1 where
you know God is speaking you know God uh
spoke to our you know you know uh
through prophets now he speaks to us
through his son and you're saying where
was Jesus then you know back then he
should have been active and so you know
regarding Hebrews I want just want to
read you this and get your thoughts on
this okay it's Hebrews 11 regarding
Moses it says by faith Moses and I'm
going just skip down to 25 and 26 for
time choosing rather to be mistreated
with the people of God than to enjoy the
fleeting pleasures of sin he considered
the reproach of Christ greater wealth
than the treasures of Egypt for he was
looking to the reward so how is it that
Moses can be considering Christ's
disapproval if Christ wasn't around for
him to disapprove
yeah that is a great question so Christ
there he regarded disgrace for the sake
of Christ as greater value than the
treasures of Egypt because he was
looking ahead to his reward
now that's something which I I think
yeah I I think it's a good point i I
mean of course I can offer a
christoologgical interpretation of this
which sort of says that Christ is
promised as the redeemer of mankind and
we're looking at this in retro where
where's he gone oh there you are we're
looking just dropped it and left and I
suppose we're we're looking at this in
retrospect and he regarded disgrace for
the sake of Christ yeah I do I do think
that in this instance Hebrews is
probably presenting Jesus
as I don't know about the angel of
Yahweh but certainly we're looking at a
high christologology in in Hebrews yeah
so close
yeah yeah yeah i see what you're saying
all right let's go to the next question
cuz we want to go he's so close guys but
I I I have no I I for what it's worth I
have no problem saying that Hebrews has
a high christologology uh that that's
not that's kind of that's kind of not an
issue to me but I think it is
interesting to suggest that as a retort
to the idea of the angel of Yahweh being
Jesus i think that is an excellent point
yeah yeah great job all right um
uh we got a question for David Wood real
quick gentlemen thank you for a
wonderful debate um Dr would uh
regarding the I am statements of Jesus
in the Gospel of John the most palpable
powerful divine statements by Christ why
do you believe that they are omitted
from Mark from Q from Matthew and Luke
our four earliest gospels and then John
comes along and these statements are
present in John and missing from all of
our other sources did I bring up I am
statements
who brought them up
that's the question it it it is
fascinating if you walk in and you say
"All right I'm going to quote all these
passages in John." They go "Ah it's too
late it's the latest source you can't
trust that it's uh clearly made up later
and so on." And so you say "Okay let me
just go with the earliest material go Q
Mark and Paul." And then it's what what
about John that's uh very interesting so
I can't quote John but they can quote
John these are these are uh these are
awesome times um
uh one I I think the I think the uh I
think the synoptic gospel writers are
focusing on different
theological issues um and so in in in
Mark for instance you have the you have
the announcement you have the
announcement that John the Baptist is
preparing the way for Jesus but he
actually quotes uh Isaiah that the
messenger is going to prepare the way
for the Lord and so if you look if you
look at how it unfolds it's raising all
these questions who is this guy who says
he can forgive sins this guy calls him
this guy says that he's the Lord of the
Sabbath u you you you do have you do
have an I am statement uh there in Mark
6:50 but there are p there are passages
where it could just be it could just be
translated as as it is I which is why I
don't point to these but they are they
are there and that's the context where
it would make sense um because this is
this is a this is a really powerful
religious moment for them so you could
interpret it that way but since uh since
it's kind of ambiguous I don't but as
far as far as why material is quoted in
John that's not quoted in other gospels
again I think they're focusing on
different issues you look at Mark it's
very action-based jesus went here did
this jesus went here there and did that
um and yet you have it um unfolding to
who Jesus is claiming to be um he event
he eventually gets to the point where
once his followers grant that he's the
Messiah then he starts modifying
people's expectations of what the
Messiah is that's when you have him
saying "Well how does David call the
Messiah Lord if he's just the son of
David?" And then you eventually get to
the trial and it's this guy has to die
but this is just Jesus went here and did
this it's not focusing a lot on Jesus
teaching and then you get Matthew he
takes the same material but he includes
uh he includes some long sermons and so
on so he's including that material um
Luke focuses more on parables and so on
and John just focuses John just focuses
more on personal encounters with Jesus
that's why you get his interactions with
uh Nicodemus and the woman at the well
and uh Mary and Martha and Lazarus
focusing on personal encounters and some
of the christoologgical claims but one
of the mistakes people make is saying oh
these and this lots of scholars make
this mistake is John must be late
because of all this this highris high
christologology and christoologgical
statement it doesn't make any sense
because we know when Paul was writing
and you can't say John is somehow has a
higher christologology than what you
find in Paul so we know the we know the
extremely high christologology is very
very early um but yeah I think I think
the writers are focusing on on different
things all right I'm going try to sneak
in two real quick here's a quick one hey
Steven Nelson from Cross Bible um I have
a question about Philippians 2 6-7 is it
about the Greek you both argued about it
yeah uh you you use different
translations of the Greek word morphi so
on one side we have the translation of
form and on the other side we have the
translation of nature now nature's is
coming from the NIV who being in the
very nature in very nature God and then
take the NASB for Morphe who as he
already existed in the form of God and
Morpheu and then he takes on the form of
a servant morphidulu so can you guys
justify why you prefer those specific
translations that you used of the Greek
word Morphe in the Christ hymn in
Philippians 2 let's start with Alex sure
um so I was the context in which I think
I brought that up unless I'm
misremembering is James Dunn's
interpretation of the passage so I
suppose I'm trying to make that passage
make sense in in light of my view um it
could be wrong it could be the wrong
idea it could mean existing in the form
of God in the sense of being like an
exalted being uh exalted to the to the
level of God that might be the case i
don't exactly have a preference to me
the question
of the question of Paul's
christologology is secondary to the
question of Jesus claiming to be God of
course it is interesting why Paul might
have a high christologology although
that that itself is of course debated um
but I think it's an interesting idea to
explore but I'm happy for the sake of
argument to just grant that Paul had a
high christology so I don't know which
is the best interpretation i think you
would be a much better person to to to
inform and in fact I'd like to know your
opinion i I spoke to this this chap
earlier and and you sort of you run a
biblical Greek cross comparison uh
website so I I would love to know what
your interpretation of the verse is or
the word I mean morphe
um yeah as yeah that was asked to both
of us I think but uh as far as yeah I
mean the morphe would the most obvious
translation would be like form or or
shape or something like that what the
NIV writers are doing is saying if
someone's in the form of God what are
you what are you saying if I say he was
in the form of God then this happened um
sounds like you're saying somehow in
nature God and so that's their interpret
that that's the interpretation i think
that's good so I'm I'm fine i think
that's the meaning and therefore the NIV
the NIV frequently translates according
to the meaning and not like a a literal
definition but if someone's in the form
of God um I think it makes sense to say
um in nature God what doesn't make sense
is what Dun does is he takes it as like
this means the image of God and it it
just doesn't make sense with the with
the rest of the passage something that
is worth pointing out I suppose is that
the same word morphe is used in the long
ending of Mark where Jesus appears in a
different form to two of them so if
morphe is supposed to mean sort of
essence as in the morphe of God meaning
like having the same sort of essence as
God if that's what it's supposed to mean
then it's unclear why the writers of the
long ending of Mark would say that he
appeared to two other people in a
different morphe it seems to maybe imply
no that makes perfect sense if I say
someone changes appearance or something
like that then that makes perfect sense
if I say someone is in the form of of
God
what could that possibly mean what what
does it mean to be in the form of God
that's what they're saying what does it
mean to be in the form of God you have
to be there's got to be
something there's got to be something
about being a nature God
what else is in the form of God i can
understand what if I if I could form I
know what it would mean to change into
the form of that guy
i don't know what it would be to change
in the form of God if Dun's
interpretation is correct which I don't
know if it is but I think it's an
interesting one to consider then Morphe
in that context is talking about being
made in the image of God and so to be in
the form of God means to be made in the
image of God and so to appear someone in
a different form means to look different
perhaps it seems perfectly consistent in
other words I don't think it just makes
no sense because that's before he makes
himself nothing by taking the very
nature of a servant being made into yeah
that's the problem i think that's
problem with with Dun's interpretation
here but it's not a problem with the
word which we can discuss that if you
like as far as the as far as far as the
translation totally fine in the form of
God and then made himself nothing uh it
depends on how deep the form goes but
the the key is that in verse 7 he takes
on the form of a servant so he starts
out in a divine form and then descends
into taking his human form which I think
is what David was getting at as well
right
well thank you thank you excellent i'm
going to sneak this last one in here
sure fine by me appreciate it so um this
one's for Alex primarily okay so in the
Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 38b there's
a discussion a rabbitic discussion about
Daniel chapter 7 and they're asking
about the verse I looked till thrones
plural were placed says uh uh one throne
is for him and one throne is for David
this is the statement of Rabbi Aka Rabbi
Yose said to him aka blah blah blah
rather the correct interpretation is
that both thrones are for God as one
throne is for justice and the other is
for mercy so why would the rabbis cuz
You're asking about what did the high
priest interpret the passage to mean so
so why would the later rabbis of the
second century or of the late 1st
century have come up with an
interpretation saying the son of man is
God after the advent of Christianity
right okay so so the passage says that
there are two this is from Sanhedrin
right yes that there are two thrones one
for justice one for mercy yes and this
was this is referring to the the
rabbitic uh concept of hamidot the two
uh the two forms of god uh justice and
mercy elohim and Adonai sure okay so in
this interpretation which is Jesus and
which is the father uh well I if what I
mean to say is if this is the
interpretation in mind you need to
clarify your point which is the father
and which is Jesus justice or mercy
which is which
no no no i this is this is a this is I
mean no no i'm I'm simply asking I'm
simply asking cuz cuz you said that
there's there you said it was
implausible to suggest that the high
priest would have interpreted that the
son of man is say what you said at the
beginning first about who who said what
and what what the response was so Rabbi
Aka said uh one throne is for the holy
one and the other is for David meaning
the messiah and then Rabbi Jose rebukes
him and says no no no both thrones the
ancient of days and the son of man are
for God so that would be identifying the
son of man as God i see and so the son
of man in this instance is mercy and god
is justice or is it the other way around
it's I don't that's all Rabbi Yay says
but he then says that he then explains
what the two thrones are for right what
does he say the two thrones are for he
says one one is for one is for justice
justice and one is for mercy so the two
thrones are just the ancient days and
the son of man the ancient of days is
justice and the son of man is no let me
clarify let me let me clarify yeah so
the the point the point is when it talks
about when it talks about the two
thrones the two thrones being brought um
that Rabbi Aka says uh okay one is for
God and one's for the Messiah and
someone else resp whoa whoa whoa whoa
whoa whoa whoa whoa you cannot say that
one of these thrones is for the Messiah
it they both have to be from they both
have to be for God they both have to be
for God so they're interpreting the
thrones as both having to be for God and
they sort of describe it as God's
attributes are on these thrones the
point that's why I don't know why
anybody groaned at the question I was
asking if it's if it's God's attributes
which are on the throne and this is
being discussed this is a later
commentary the point is when you say
this is a human being that the son that
the the son of man the son of man is a
human being rabbi Aka said "Hey that's
the Messiah." And other people said
"Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa you
can't say that because this is clearly a
throne for the divine but there's only
one God and therefore both thrones are
for God and we got to separate." Maybe
I'm still just misharing this but after
saying after saying that the explanation
is that the two thrones one is for
justice one is for mercy which you desri
described as God's attributes oh sorry i
shouldn't take all my So so if I have
been brought back up to clarify my
question i'm so sorry i've been brought
back up to clarify my question so come
back Alex what I'm asking is so which
figure is justice and which one is mercy
was not is not really uh it doesn't
really it's not really relevant here i
mean I'm just saying it's it's rather
that this is showing that rabbis after
the advent of Christianity were
recognizing the son of man in Daniel 7
as an explicitly divine figure because
when Rabbi Aka says "Oh it's the
Messiah." He says "No no no both figures
the two distinct figures are God." Oh
sorry yeah okay so wait so after the
advent of Christianity
so when are you talking about you said
after the advent of Christianity when
he's saying that they've had this
argument already and that within the
Jewish Talmud they're arguing about this
throne with two gods the point is there
are rabbis who interpreted the son of
man as
God okay okay look
I I for for fear of uh
cuz you said it was implausible that's
what he was responding to so earlier you
said it was implausible i understand
that part for for fear of further
misunderstanding and further groans from
the audience i fear I would want to read
that passage on paper in front of me
which maybe where where's he gone there
you are can you speak to me after class
let's give him a round of applause oh my
gosh all right
all right ladies and gentlemen that
concludes Alex O' Conor versus David
Wood the Jesus claim to be
God you guys are getting a standing
applause that was fun yeah it's
done you guys can do better than
that wow
happy birthday
dear happy birthday to you i did not
tell them to do that that was completely
unprovoked thank you