1-3 God Manifestation
The name of God can be carried by anyone through
whom He chooses to ‘manifest’ or reveal Himself. So men and angels as
well as Jesus can carry God’s name. This is a vital principle which
opens up so much of the Bible to us. A son especially may carry the
name of his father; he has certain similarities with his father, he may
have the same first name - but he is not one and the same person as the
father. In the same way a representative of a company may speak on
behalf of the company; he may telephone someone on business and say,
‘Hello, this is Unilever here’; he is not Mr. Unilever, but he carries
their name because he is working on their behalf. And so it was with
Jesus.
ANGELS CARRYING GOD’S NAME
We are told in Ex. 23:20,21 that God told the people of Israel that an
angel would go ahead of them; “My name is in Him”, they were told. The
personal name of God is ‘Yahweh’. So the angel carried the name of
Yahweh, and could thus be called ‘Yahweh’, or ‘The LORD’, in small
capitals, as the word ‘Yahweh’ is translated in the N.I.V. and A.V. We
are told in Ex. 33:20 that no man can see the face of God and live; but
in Ex. 33:11 we read that “The LORD (Yahweh) spoke to Moses face to
face, as a man speaketh to his friend” - i.e. directly. It could not
have been the LORD, Yahweh, Himself in person, who spoke to Moses face
to face, because no man can see God Himself. It was the angel who
carried God’s name who did so; and so we read of the LORD speaking face
to face with Moses when it was actually an angel who did so (Acts 7:30
33).
There are many other examples of the words ‘God’ and ‘LORD’ referring
to the angels as opposed to God Himself. One clear example is Gen.
1:26: “And God (the angels) said, Let us make man in our image”.
MEN WITH GOD’S NAME
One of the passages which is most helpful in demonstrating all this is
John 10:34-36. Here the Jews made the mistake which many do today. They
thought that Jesus was saying he was God Himself. Jesus corrected them
by saying, “Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods? If He
called them ‘gods’...why do you say of (me)...’You blaspheme!’ because
I said, I am the Son of God?’. Jesus is really saying ‘In the Old
Testament men are called ‘gods’; I am saying I am the Son of God; so
why are you getting so upset?’ Jesus is actually quoting from Ps. 82,
where the judges of Israel were called ‘gods’.
As
has been shown, the full name of God in Hebrew is ‘Yahweh Elohim’ -
implying ‘He who will be revealed in a group of mighty ones’. The true
believers are those in whom God is revealed in a limited sense in this
life. However, in the Kingdom, they will be ‘mighty ones’ in whom the
LORD will be fully manifested. This is all beautifully shown by a
comparison of Is. 64:4 and 1 Cor. 2:9. “Men have not heard, nor
perceived by the ear, neither has the eye seen, O God, besides you,
what He has prepared for him that waits for him”. Paul quotes this in 1
Cor. 2:9,10: “It is written, Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither
has entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared
for them that love Him. But God has revealed them unto us by His
Spirit”. The passage in Is. 64 says that no one except God can
understand the things He has prepared for the believers. However 1 Cor.
2:10 says that those things have been revealed to us.
The
priests were God’s representatives, and for a man to ‘appear before the
Lord’ effectively referred to his appearance before the priest. When we
read of “men going up to God at Bethel”, the ‘house of God’ (1 Sam.
10:3), we aren’t to think that God Himself lived in a house in Bethel.
The reference is to the priests, his representative, being there.
Not
only is the Name of God carried by people, but language and actions
which are specific to God are sometimes applied to humans who manifest
Him. The daughter of Pharaoh who saved baby Moses is described in the
very terms with which God is described as saving His people Israel 'out
of the water' just as Moses was saved. She came 'came down', 'sees' the
suffering child, hears its cry, takes pity, draws him out of the water,
provides for him (Ex. 2:23-25; 3:7,8). The parallels are surely to
indicate that God was willing to show Himself manifest in that Gentile
woman in the salvation of His people. And of course the whole practical
idea of 'God manifestation' is that we consciously try to reflect the
characteristics of God- for His Name is in fact a summary of His
characteristics and personality (Ex. 34:4-6).
JESUS AND THE NAME OF GOD
It is not surprising that Jesus, as the Son of God and His supreme
manifestation to men, should also carry God’s name. He could say “I am
come in my Father’s name” (Jn. 5:43). Because of his obedience, Jesus
ascended to heaven and God “gave him a name which is above every name”
- the name of Yahweh, of God Himself (Phil. 2:9). So this is why we
read Jesus saying in Rev. 3:12: “I will write upon him (the believer)
the name of my God...and I will write upon him my new name”. At the
judgment Jesus will give us God’s name; we then will fully carry the
name of God. He calls this name, “My new name”. Remember, Jesus gave
the book of Revelation some years after his ascension into heaven and
after he had been given God’s name, as explained in Phil. 2:9. So he
can call God’s name “My new name”; the name he had recently been given.
We can now properly understand Is. 9:6, where concerning Jesus we are
told, “His name (note that) shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, the
mighty God, the everlasting Father...”. This is a prophecy that Jesus
would carry all the name of God - that he would be the total
manifestation or revelation of God to us. It was in this sense that he
was called ‘Emmanuel’, meaning, ‘God is with us’, although He
personally was not God (1). Thus the prophecy of Joel 2 that men would
call on the name of Yahweh was fulfilled by people being baptised into
the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:21 cf. 38). This also explains why the
command to baptize into the name of the Father was fulfilled, as
detailed in the Acts record, by baptism into the name of Jesus.
The Jews were fierce monotheists, any idea that there was any God apart
from God the Father was to them blasphemous. And yet their own writings
have no problem in using the language of 'God' in relation to men and
Angels- e.g. Ezra addresses the Angel Uriel as God Himself (2 Esdr.
5:43). It is this idea of 'God manifestation' in a person or Angel
which is so common in the Bible, and which inevitably at times is used
about God's own Son, Jesus. But the use of such language doesn't mean
that Jesus is God Himself in person.
Language Of God Used About Jesus: Some Background
We
need to appreciate the extent to which the first century Middle East
understood a messenger as being the very person of the one who sent
him. R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder in The Encyclopedia Of The Jewish Religion
speak of "the Jewish Law of Agencies" or 'Schaliach', as: "The main
point of the Jewish law of agency expressed in the dictum, "A person's
agent is regarded as the person himself". Therefore any act committed
by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the
principle." G.R.B. Murray comments that: "One sent is as he who sent
him... The messenger [the Shaliach] is thereby granted authority and
dignity by virtue of his bearing the status of the one who sent him.
This is the more remarkable when it is borne in mind that in earlier
times the messenger was commonly a slave" (2). Bearing this background
in mind, it isn't surprising that language specific to God is used
about His Son and messenger.
The idea
is sometimes expressed that calling Jesus "Son of God" somehow makes
Him God. Apart from the illogicality of this [a son isn't the same
being as his father], the language of "Son of God" is used in the Old
Testament of men. Even the term "God" is used of men (Ps.
45:6; 82:6; Ex. 21:6; 22:8). The first century mind was quite used to
men being called 'god' or Divine. The Jews were strongly monotheistic,
paranoid of any implication that Yahweh was not the only God; and yet
they were happy to use the word "god" about men. Philo [a Jewish
writer] spoke of Moses as "appointed by God as god" and "no longer man
but God" (3). And of course the Greek and Roman rulers, both local and
otherwise, were described with 'Divine' language- e.g. Antiochus
Epiphanes means 'God made manifest'. There was no understanding that
these 'divine' titles therefore made these men to be God Himself in
person. Apollonius explains that "every man who is considered good is
honoured with the title of "god"" (Apollonius Of Tyana 8.4).
Indeed any hero, leader of King was addressed as 'God' (4). We can see
from Acts 14:11-13 and Acts 28:6 how easily first century folk were
inclined to call a man "God" if he did miracles. I remember clearly in
my early days of missionary work in Africa being called "Wazungu" or
"Mazungu" by fascinated children who'd scarcely seen a white man
before. And I recall my shock on discovering that this term means both
"white man" and "God" (and is frequently used as such in translations
of the Bible into Central and East African languages). But this is
actually what was going on in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. And so
when Divine language was applied to Jesus, there is no reason to think
that the first century mind would've concluded that therefore Jesus was
God Himself in person, just as those fascinated kids calling out
"Wazungu! Wazungu!" as I walked by were hardly understanding me as God
Himself in person. Here we have one of the most glaring examples of
problems arising from not reading God's word with an appreciation of
the context in which it was spoken and written. In European culture, it
would be unheard of, or blasphemous and at best inappropriate, to call
any man "God" or "Son of God". But this wasn't the case in the first
century world. In that world- and it was against the background of that
world that the New Testament was written- the use of Divine language
about a person, or about Jesus the Son of God, didn't make them God
Himself in person.
Again and again we
have to emphasize that we read the Biblical documents at a great
distance from the culture in which they were first written. It was
quite understandable for a person to carry the name of their superior,
without being that superior in person. And so it was and is with the
Lord Jesus. To give just one of many possible confirmations of this:
"[In 2 Esdras 5:43-46]... God's spokesman, the angel Uriel, is
questioned by Ezra as though he were both Creator and Judge [which God
alone is]. Ezra uses the same style of address to Uriel ("My lord, my
master") as he uses in direct petition to God. This practice of
treating the agent as though he were the principal is of the greatest
importance for New Testament Christology [i.e. the study of who Christ
is]" (5). The acclamation of Thomas "My Lord and my God!" must be
understood within the context of first century usage, where as Paul
says, many people were called Lord and "god" (1 Cor. 8:4-6). If we're
invited by our manager "Come and meet the president", we don't expect
to meet the President of the USA. We expect to meet the president of
the company. The word "president" can have more than one application,
and it would be foolish to assume that in every case it referred to the
President of the USA. And it's the same with the words "Lord" and "God"
in their first century usage. Hence a Jewish non-trinitarian like Philo
could call Moses "God and king of the whole nation" (Life Of Moses
1.158)- and nobody accused him of not being monotheistic!
Significantly, there is in the New Testament the Greek word latreuo
which specifically refers to the worship of God- and this is always [21
times] applied to God and not Jesus. The worship of Jesus that is
recorded is always to God's glory, and is recorded with the same words
[especially proskuneo] used about the worship of believers (Rev. 3:9,
Daniel (Dan. 2:46 LX), kings of Israel etc. (1 Chron. 29:20 LXX).
Notes
(1)
It should be noted that "Many think that the list of titles in Is. 9:5
was borrowed from the traditional titles of the monarchs of other
countries, especially of the Egyptian pharaoh... the title applied to
the king of Judah portrays him as one specially favoured by God, e.g.
"the divine mighty one" or "divine warrior"- Raymond Brown, An Introduction To New Testament Christology (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994) p. 187.
(2) George R. Beasley Murray, Gospel of Life: Theology In The Fourth Gospel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), p.18.
(3) Citations in James Dunn, Christology In The Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 17.
(4) For documentation, see D. Cuss, Imperial Cult And Honorary Terms In The New Testament (Fribourg: Fribourg University Press, 1974) pp. 134-140.
(5) G.B. Caird, The Language And Imagery Of The Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 181.
