Jesus's Name Is God Name

Answering a question on Quora: 

"If Jesus was not the Archangel Michael in heaven, what was his name there?"

The question starts with an assumption that Jesus had a name in heaven. This is called “begging the question,” meaning that the assumption has not been shown to be true. (The term is almost always misused by people who mean “demands the question.”) Before asking what Jesus’s name was, one should first ask whether Jesus had or even needed a name.

This may sound like I start out on a tangent, but if you read patiently, you’ll see that it stays directly on topic.

Our names serve to distinguish us from one another. When a Being is unique in type, He does not need a name to distinguish Him from other, similar beings. So, since there is exactly one God, God does not need a name.

Also consider that having been named implies that a previous being must have created you and, thus, had the right to give you a name. Since no previous god created God, no being had the authority to name Him. So in heaven (more properly, in eternity), God was not given a name.

Instead of a formal name, God has assumed many titular names that tell us about Him. Examples include El (God), Adonai (Lord), YHWH* (I AM or I AM THAT I AM), and most interestingly, Elohim (Gods). Elohim is interesting because, although it is plural, it takes a singular verb. It hints about God’s nature in the very first chapter of the Bible.

(The pronunciation of YHWH was forgotten around 200 BC; Jehovah is an anglicized version of a Spanish version of the Latin version of the Greek version of the vowels from Adonai added to the consonants YHWH.)

Angels are created beings. Jesus / Christ / Messiah is the Creator.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3, NASB 1995

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16, NASB 1995

John clearly states that Christ created the universe. Colossians repeats that and specifically includes all personal beings, which includes angels. If Christ created the angels, then Christ cannot be a mere angel.

There’s a word for the Creator of all things: God.

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 ESV

But of the Son [Jesus] He [God] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Hebrews 1:8 ESV

Many models of the nature of God exist. Only one such model resolves all the Bible’s claims. Physics and cosmology tell us that when God created the universe, He created even time and space. They’re facets of the universe.

The triune version of the Trinity fits with science. God, being timeless, used His creative power to exist in, experience, and interact with His creation, and with each other, as three temporal Persons. Each Person, or center of consciousness, is fully God, having the same essence in eternity, yet having a separate consciousness in time.

The three Persons voluntarily took on distinct roles: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (People often make a category error, confusing difference due to a hierarchy with difference in nature, but the inference does not hold up logically. Role does not necessitate a difference in nature because three co-equals can assume a hierarchy in order to create order among the roles that they assume, as well as to exemplify messages about love, authority, and obedience to their creatures.)

In the Father-role, God remains unseen in heaven.

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. John 6:4, NASB 1995

In the Son-role, God represents and explains the Father to us.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten* God who is in the bosom** of the Father, He has explained Him. John 1:18, NASB 1995

(* Translators are divided about whether monogenes, “only-begotten,” means literally only-begotten (a male counterpart to only-born) or is an idiom that meant unique, one-and-only as a result of having taken on a human body. Both descriptors lead to the same conclusion.

** “In the bosom” was a word-picture of one person resting his head on another’s chest, indicating platonic or familial trust and intimacy.)

In the Son-role, God added a human nature to HIs divine essence, and we call that earthly representation, Jesus of Nazareth. Yet the Son represents the Father because he has the same nature in every dimension.

Who [Jesus], being the radiance of His [the Father’s] glory and the exact expression of His substance, and upholding all things [Creation] by the power of His word…. Hebrews 1:3, Berean Literal Bible

So Jesus is the Creator who spoke the universe into existence and upholds it; and whose essence is exactly the same as the Father’s essence. In fact, since there exists exactly one God, they have the same essence. The theological word for this is “consubstantiality.” Thus, although there has been, is, and ever will be exactly one God, God chose to enter His creation three simultaneous times as three consciousnesses or personal Spirits.

(I have not addressed the Holy Spirit in this because the question is specifically about the Son. I don’t think He minds.)

Other models of the Trinity, such as

• three Gods (a common false accusation from Muslims)
• an angelic Jesus (Jehovah Witnesses)
• a child-god (“Mormons” or Latter Day Saints)
• a costume-changing God (Modalists or Oneness Pentecostals)
• a human Jesus (Unitarians and “Progressive Christians”)
• God plus little or developing gods (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Word-Faith Pentecostals)

create numerous contradictions in the Bible. Only the triune model (one timeless God as three temporal Persons) reconciles all the biblical evidence.

Additional reason: If it is logical to ask the heavenly formal name of God the Son, then it is also logical to ask the heavenly formal name of God the Father and of God the Holy Spirit. If asking the heavenly formal name of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit is not logical, then neither is it logical to expect God the Son to have a heavenly formal name.

Although God has, for our sake, distinguished Himself from imaginary gods by taking on various descriptive, titular names, He has no need for a formal name in heaven.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

Tongues of Angels? Probably Not

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 2

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

Tongues of Angels? Not Likely.

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels,

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains,

but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor

and surrender my body that I may boast,but have not love, I gain nothing.

Pentecostal Claim: Languages of Angels

Pentecostals and their child movements, Charismatism, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation claim that the Holy Spirit still grants the spiritual gift of speaking in the languages of men and angels. They see glossolalia at several points in the book of Acts and extrapolate it to today without regard to other events in church history. Then they add their experience and interpret the rest of scripture in accordance with their experience.

Former Pentecostal pastor George Gardner told of how, when he was a ministry student, a Hebrew friend stood in chapel and recited Mary Had a Little Lamb in Yiddish. Another student with the gift of interpretation went into a long translation of the Holy Spirit’s message: The students were spending too much time in volleyball and other recreational activities and not enough time in their studies and ministries. That gave Gardner his first hint that Tongues, or at least Interpretations, was not always genuine. 

My wife’s uncle, by birth a Ukrainian Jew and a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, had a similar story about visiting a Pentecostal church and reciting the 23rd Psalm in Ukrainian. The “interpretation” had nothing to do with the Psalm. 

I’ve heard stories, so nth-hand as to be rumors, about people who were understood by immigrants. Sounds like Navajo or Sounds like German. But is "sounds like" authoritative? The one story I’ve heard that sounded credible came from a Pentecostal co-worker. This man was a certified super genius. He understood the low priority that 1 Corinthians 14 assigns to the gift of tongues, so he attended a cessationist Baptist church for teaching that was better than in any of the local Pentecostal churches. 

While visiting another church, he was invited to give a message, which he gave in English. Afterwards, two ladies came to him. One explained that she heard his message in English, but the other, who had recently immigrated, spoke no English, and had heard the entire message in her native language. Due to being isolated by language, hearing the message in her own language had been a blessing that brought her to tears. Although my coworker spoke in tongues, the “tongues” in this case, was not in the mouth of the speaker, but in the ears of a listener. And it was not a spiritual gift, but a one-off miracle.

Since Pentecostals have not shown that they speak in human foreign languages, by process of elimination, they conclude, they speak in a heavenly, angelic language. But scriptural evidence for such a claim is extremely weak. 

Scripture Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

The chapter reads as very poetic, so one should expect metaphor and hyperbole. Verses 1 through 3 all pose hypothetical situations. Verse 3 describes extreme actions, and verse 2 describes attributes never held by any mere human. Considering this trio of verses as a unit should lead a reasonable person to accepting that the language of verse 1 is hyperbolic, as well. That is, the phrase that suggests glossolalia might include speaking in angelic language may be hypothetical to strengthen the following clause: 

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

The warning in Verse 1 weighs against Pentecostals speaking in the languages of angels in two ways. First, speaking in the languages of angels is like banging brass and clanging cymbals because it conveys no information. Angelic communications with humans have, without exception, conveyed messages. Angels do perform tasks such as making war, but even the Greek word translated angel means messenger. Tongues may be exciting, but it imparts no long-term blessing. By its nature, speaking in an unintelligible, supposedly angelic language violates the test of love and the goal of members of the church edifying each other. 

Second, speaking in the languages of angels, without love, is no better than the sounds of a brass pot falling to the pavement or cymbals clanging in a Hellenist or Roman temple. The allusion to pagan religious practices links back to verses 2 and 3 of chapter 12. Pagans spoke in nonsensical tongues amid much chanting and rhythmic noise (such as from symbols) that was used to work up the worshipers into an ecstatic state of altered consciousness -- the same formula as the worked-up anticipation, long music services, shallow, repetitive lyrics, and trance-inducing songs in Pentecostal churches. 

The Pagans were not alone. To their company, we can add adherents of the heresies of Sacramentalism (Orthodox and Roman Catholic, and many Protestant denominations -- especially Pentecostals), Mariolatry (Roman Catholics), and Modalism (Oneness Pentecostals). In the 1800s, glossolalia was frequently practiced by Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Glossolalia is also practiced by shamans and certain branches of Hinduism. 

Around 2010, Justin Brierly, on the British Unbelievable? radio show and podcast, interviewed an Atheist who de-converted from Pentecostalism and still occasionally spoke in tongues just for fun. According to Pentecostals, abandoning his salvation canceled the blessings of being God’s son, forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. So either the Holy Spirit failed to remove the gift of tongues along with the gift of salvation, and continued to manifest Himself through the ability, or the gift was a learned psychological phenomenon. 

The glossolalia of the pagans calls into question that of Christians. If the practice is a learned, altered state for pagans, it can be a learned, psychological phenomenon for Christians. If it results from demonic control for pagans, it can result from demonic control of false brethren among us. Some argue that it results from demonic control of genuine Christians, too; but I'm not convinced that it is possible for a demon to go beyond making suggestions to one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Rumors of legitimate glossolalia have, in fact, been countered by missionary accounts of demonic blasphemy through glossolalia. Although, without recordings and authoritative interpretation, neither type of account presents credible evidence, one must admit that the accounts cancel out each other.

A Pentecostal might point to 2 Corinthians 12:4 as evidence of angelic, non-human languages. Paul said he knew a certain man, probably himself, who was caught up to heaven where he heard inexpressible words. The term, inexpressible (arreta) meant not that the words were difficult to pronounce, but rather that they were too holy to be permitted. Indeed, the term is followed by that are not permitted for a man to utter. 

The word permitted (exon) means exactly that: permitted or lawful. It is used over 30 times in the New Testament to refer to permission. So the sense is not that the words in the vision were an unpronounceable foreign language, but that they were too holy to be spoken without negative consequences. The verse does not support the existence of angelic languages.

The “name” of God provides us with three examples of forbidden holy words. Some Christians consider even the title G_d too holy to even spell out. This echoes how the pronunciation of YHWH was lost. After the return of Judah from exile, the priests decided that God’s name was too holy to speak. As a result, the pronunciation was forgotten between 400 and 200 BC because written Hebrew had no vowels. Soon after, to make the name pronounceable during readings in synagogues, they added the vowels from Adonai, Lord, to the consonants, YHWH, I AM. Transliterating YaHoWaH from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, and finally to English, gave us Jehovah. At the same time, Bible translators replaced most occurrences of Jehovah with the LORD (in all capital letters). It was assumed that any literate person would understand the meaning.

Consideration of genre, tone, and history undercut the belief that verse 1 promotes the idea that glossolalia comprises an angelic language. 2 Corinthians 12:4 is not even relevant. One avenue remains: Does the study of angels support a literal reading of the phrase, tongues... of angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

Angelology Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

Evidence that one or more angelic languages exists in physically expressible form is extremely weak. Logic weighs overwhelmingly against it. Assuming that tongues is a language of angels crosses into presumption. Translating spirit communication into audible form would involve human languages, and such translation would violate known historic precedent.

In native form, Angels, being spirits, lack physical bodies. When they have communicated with humans on earth, they have taken physical form to create soundwaves in air and have used human languages. In visions, human witnesses always heard angelic speech in their own human languages. Since human witnesses receive a gift of spiritual sight that enables the visions, it would make sense that they also receive a gift of interpretation. But that would be speculation, and it does not establish that angels have a unique language that can be expressed as “tongues.”  

A related point is that, since spirits lack organs such as tongues, resonant nasal cavities, and vocal cords, and do not live in a physical, sound-conducting atmosphere, their medium of communication would more likely be analogous to what we would consider telepathic. Telepathy would likely communicate thoughts directly without need for verbal protocols. Translating thoughts through a gift of tongues would require adding layers of grammatical, syntactical, and phonemic protocols defined by the natural human language of the speaker. 

The result of encoding angelic thoughts with human language protocols would be expression in human language. It would be easiest to use the language of the speaker. However, it would also be possible to use a human language unknown to the speaker, as happened at Pentecost. But would use of a foreign language be likely? The speech in foreign languages at Pentecost had an audience: people who understood those languages. The purpose of speech is to be understood, so if nobody is there to receive the message, use of a foreign language serves no purpose.

If tongues is used for prayer by the Holy Spirit and the audience is God the Father, human language would not be needed. Like angels, God is Spirit. This returns us to the fact that language, and even sound, would be redundant. Since the Father and the Spirit know each other’s minds, glossolalia is again redundant. Indeed, the Holy Spirit prays within each Christian (Romans 8::26-27) with wordless silence and is perfectly understood by God. So glossolalia as an additional form of prayer is redundant in three ways.

If angels have at least one language, God must have a language. Since God and angels communicate, they would probably share a single language. Being perfectly obedient to God, they would have no need to hide communication from God, so only one language is needed. The language would be labeled as belonging to the greater owner, so why would it be called the language of angels and not the language of God or of the Spirit? If angels had a separate language, why would the Holy Spirit translate His thoughts into an angelic language when speaking directly to the Father?

Why, without love, is speaking in the tongues of angels worthless? Love (agape) focuses outward. Loving speech conveys information that benefits the hearer. Unloving speech selfishly focuses on edifying ego at the expense of others’ time. God does not need to reward it; They have already rewarded themselves, who speak in tongues that do not inform, correct, or encourage others.

 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Thirty Pieces of Silver

Answering a question on Quora:

When was Jehovah valued at 30 silver pieces (Zechariah 11:12,13)?

(On Quora, Jehovah's (false) Witnesses have denied that Zechariah's prophecy had anything to do with Jesus and Judas. Incredible, considering that the gospel writers explicitly linked Judas's actions to the prophecy (e.g., Matthew 27:9, etc.)! 

Zechariah 11 contains a marvelous passage that compresses messages applying to Zechariah’s day as well as to first-century Judea, Israel, and Messiah Jesus. The answer is that YHWH was valued twice at 30 pieces of silver; first, with Zechariah as His proxy, and later as the incarnate I AM, Jesus of Nazareth.

First we have to point out an ambiguity in verse 13’s translation. Some translators attribute to the LORD (in Hebrew, YHWH), within the quotation marks, “Throw it to the potter, this magnificent price at which they valued me.” So the LORD is saying that they valued Him at thirty pieces of silver.

Tangent: Thirty pieces was an insultingly low wage, so “magnificent” is actually sarcastic. Let that sink in: God used sarcasm when people earned it.

Other translators include only “Throw it to the potter,” so that the valuation applies to Zechariah. However, as God’s prophet, Zechariah represented God, so the price that the owners of the flocks placed on Zechariah’s prophetic and shepherding work also represented a price placed on God.

So, either way you place the quotation marks, the price was placed on YHWH.

Anyone blessed by the Holy Spirit with New Testament-based hindsight can see that the passage contains prophecies about Jesus of Nazareth, Judas.

YHWH translates as “I AM.” When Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), He used Jewish terminology to claim to be YHWH in the flesh. The New Testament confirms the claim in numerous ways. For example, Jesus forgave sins (Matthew 9:2–8), which only God can do. Jesus claimed to share God’s glory, which YHWH said He will not share (Isaiah 42:8, Isaiah 48:11), and claimed to do so before God created the world (John 17:5). And God the Son created the universe (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16)), which God did Himself (Job 38:4, Jeremiah 10:12, Amos 4:13). Such claims leave anti-trinitarians with huge problems.

So when the priests paid Judas thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus, they put the bounty on YHWH that was prophesied by Zechariah (Matthew 26:15).

Those in denial about the scripture’s teachings about the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh are quick to skip over other prophetic language in Zechariah 11. For example:

• Throughout the chapter, Zechariah performs the role of a shepherd who cares for the sheep, particularly the weak, diseased, and wounded. The antitype is Jesus, the Good Shepherd (John 10).
• Verse 10 signifies the severing of God’s blessings on Judea and Israel after they refused to repent of murdering God the Son. This was a recurring them in Jesus’s teachings (for example, the parable of wicked tenants, Matthew 21:33–46), and it was fulfilled in waves starting with general Titus’s siege of Jerusalem in 67 AD.
• Verse 13 parallels Judas throwing the thirty pieces of silver in the temple AND the priests using the money to buy the potter’s land in Judas’s name (Matthew 27:3–10).
• Verse 14 signifies the division between Judea in the south and Israel in the north. In New Testament times, that corresponded roughly to the geographical boundaries separating Judea from Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Syro-Phoenicia. Today, much of the division remains, although Israel has taken back (more or less) Syro-Phoenicia and half of Galilee.

With so many details of Zechariah’s prophecy fulfilled in the gospels, saying that verses 12 and 13 have nothing to do with Jesus and Judas takes wishful thinking and bad teaching of an organization that qualifies under 1 John 4:3

[E]very spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and which is already in the world at this time.

Note:

1. Some may become distracted by an apparent contradiction between Matthew, who says the prophecy was made by Jeremiah, and the fact that it's written in Zechariah. A number of explanations have been proposed, including the possibility that Matthew simply had a brain fart. The most sensible to me is that Zechariah was part of the "Book of the Prophets." Jeremiah was the first book in the Book of the Prophets, so Jeremiah may have been a synecdoche, a name for the whole. Thus, Zechariah was a section of what was colloquially known as “Jeremiah.” If so, then the “contradiction” is resolved.
   
   
2. In Colossians 1, Jesus is said to be the firstborn over (not firstborn before) all creation and the firstborn from the dead. Firstborn does not always mean first one born. A number of examples can be cited in the Old Testament when later-born sons bore the title of firstborn. Rather, firstborn often means pre-eminent one, particularly when followed by the preposition over. This contrasts against firstborn from the dead, wherein Jesus actually was the first to resurrect with a glorified body; this, only figuratively, being a birth.

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Please give credit where credit is due. 

Did "righteous men" who had concubines sin?

Question on Quora:

In the Bible it was said that some righteous men had concubines. Is it not a sin?

Indeed, some “righteous” men had concubines, multiple wives, and even children by incest. Yes, they committed sin. Multiple spouses and non-spouses deviated from God’s perfect plan (See Matthew 19:4-6), but God tolerated “for the hardness of your hearts” in ancient times; there were more destructive sins. And as the scriptures record, it always came at a cost, causing family divisions, subterfuge, and sometimes violent strife.

The confusion comes from misunderstanding what righteous means.

There are two ways to be “righteous.” The way that occurs to us first is to achieve righteousness through human merit. Merit includes three main methods.

1. Heritage. Some think God will count them as righteous because they are descended from Abraham, or maybe grandpa was a preacher.
2. Church. Many think that a church can convey righteousness to them through membership or ceremonies such as confession and baptism. (Have you watched the Godfather movies?)
3. Good works. This includes church activities (#2), refraining from doing evil, and doing loving or charitable acts.

The problem is:

• (1) we will stand alone before God for judgment; deeds cannot be inherited — or as they say, God does not have grandchildren.
• (2 & 3) nobody can be good enough. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23) We all blow it. We all sin. And God cannot simply overlook sin and “forgive” it without becoming unjust.
  
  Many think, “I will do good things that will outweigh the bad.” That does not work because we already owe to our Creator the good things we do to justify ourselves. It’s like falling behind on your rent and trying to pay April’s rent with June’s paycheck. We can never catch up or get ahead.

The result is that God cannot allow us to defile His holy presence, and we could not bear the brightness of His glory. If He did not cast us into outer darkness, we would willingly flee there.

The second way to be “righteous” is through accounting. God knew nobody would become righteous by their own merit, so He provided an alternative. God Himself would become a man called Jesus of Nazareth, live a perfect life, and like a big brother, take the punishment that we all deserve.

God placed all our guilt on Jesus, and, in exchange, credits the righteousness of Jesus to all who will receive it. He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (Jesus). (2 Corinthians 5:21.) God offers this exchange to us as a gift.

Going back to the three methods of human merit: Trying to earn the gift or even partially earn it insults the Giver. You can’t earn God’s favor by insulting Him.

The righteousness of “righteous” men in the Bible came not through their deeds or their restraint from sins such as polygamy. It came through recognizing their guilt, confessing their sinfulness, and trusting God.

In the Old Testament times, the things they trusted God for varied because the object of trust was gradually defined. Since the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, however, the object of trust has been explicitly defined. We call that definition “the gospel.”

For more background, see:

• Polygamy in the Bible - What Does God Say?
• What does the Bible say about polyamory?