"If you claim that Jesus is God then you are guilty of idolatry!" (continued from previous video)
“If you claim that Jesus is God then you are guilty of making God into a man. You are an idol worshiper!“
Is Jesus God or not? This question is paramount since the answer to it contains profound ramifications for how we should live our lives. I can see that looking from the outside, it may seem to you that what Christians claim about Jesus is not all that different from the way Hindus might describe one of their holy men or gurus, claiming him to be the personification of one of their gods, referring to him as a “god-man” and worshipping him in a way that should only be reserved for God himself. Of course, such a view is incompatible with Judaism, but I assure you that this is not what Christians believe about Jesus!
Let me start this discussion with a quote from a very famous Jew: “No one has ever seen God.” Do you know who wrote this? He was known as Yochanan (“John”), and, as a faithful follower of Yeshua, he wrote what is now referred to as the Gospel of John. This phrase can be found right at the beginning of his book, and it is part of an explanation as to how all things came into being by means of the Word. He writes:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)
This passage describes a unique relationship between the Word and God. John says that this Word was not only with God, but also was God, and that all things were made through him by God. Does this idea of creation taking place by means of the word sound familiar to you? It should, since that is how Genesis describes creation as coming into being – everything was created through God’s spoken word: “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). Of course, John’s emphasis is slightly different. What is John trying to say about the Word?
The rabbis use the Aramaic word memra’ (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root ‘mr, “to say,” which is used throughout the creation account in Gen. 1) to express the concept of the word of God serving as a link between the transcendent God and his creation. There are hundreds of occurrences of memra’ in the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures which were used in synagogues where the people no longer understood Hebrew before, during, and after the time of Jesus). The word memra’ was often added to biblical passages which reference God. For example, while Genesis 3:8 says that Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden,” the Targum says, “And they heard the sound of the Word of the Lord God walking in the midst of the garden.”
If one were to substitute memra’ for “word” in the opening passage from the Gospel of John quoted above, one would easily see just how Jewish the passage sounds. John was a Galilean who wrote in Greek; he therefore used the word logos for “word” since he had grown up hearing the Aramaic Targum with its constant emphasis on the memra’ as an active link between God and human beings.
One of the main differences between Philo and John, however, was that John emphasized that the Word was able to live among us as a human being. According to John, God is very near to us through his logos, who became man. The Memra/logos is an extension of the Lord himself—in one sense God and in another sense with God— who came down from heaven to dwell among us. At the same time, God reigns on high and controls the universe, and did not exhaust his presence in the person of Jesus. In short, God is known personally through his Word, who became a human being, but God thereby did not cease to be God in heaven.
John 1:14 reads: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling (lit. “pitched his tent”) among us.” There are many connections between this concept and the claim that God dwelt in the Tabernacle and Temple. Solomon built his magnificent structure as a dwelling place for God, though he knew that God could not be confined to that building or any other space on earth, yet God promised to dwell (“pitch his tent”) among his people (Exod. 25:8; 2 Chron. 6:1-2) in the Tabernacle and the Temple. John understands Jesus to be the fulfillment of these promises.
The Talmudic rabbis, Jewish philosophers and medieval mystics all wondered how Almighty God could dwell in our midst. Followers of Jesus answer this question by saying that God came to us through his Word, Yeshua, the Son of God. Just as God could be in his Temple, so he could be in his Son, filling them both with his glory and revealing his glory through both of them. Just as the glory of God filled the Tabernacle and Temple, without in any way emptying, depleting or lessening God, so also his glory fills his Son, without in any way emptying, depleting or lessening him.
The Targum adds the word “glory” to the text so that instead of seeing God himself, they saw “the glory of the God of Israel.” The Talmud (b. Sanhedrin38b) explains that Moses and the people did not see God himself, but saw Metatron, chief of the angels. In an attempt to preserve God’s glory, the Talmudic interpretation of this passage reads, “Come up to Metatron whose name is YHWH.” Is this any less problematic?
The Bible makes a definite distinction between seeing the glory of God and seeing God himself. Traditional translators problematically substitute “glory” for “God.” Scripture says that it is impossible for people to see God and live. The dilemma is that either the interpretation seemingly has to deviate from what the text says, or people have actually seen God and have lived to tell about it, even though Scripture says that to see God is to die!
The only sufficient answer to this problem of “seeing God” is that it was the Son who was seen by these people. This is how John explains it: “No one has ever seen God; but the only unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side—he has made him known” (1:18, JNT). The Messiah is the visible representation of the invisible God, the living manifestation of the glory of the Lord. He alone is distinct from God the Father and simultaneously bears the presence of God within him in a way that is qualitatively different from the way any of the other angels bear God’s presence.
As we continue to think through this problem of “seeing God,” let’s consider the story in Genesis 18, which tells the story of Abraham’s reception of the three visitors. The Hebrew text says that the Lord (YHWH) appeared to Abraham, and Abraham addressed him as “Lord,” yet a few verses later, it says that Abraham looked up and saw three men. Some Christians interpret this as a representation of the Trinity, but that’s problematic in that it allows for a human being to see the Father, which is unbiblical, and it also pictures God as three separate people, which is also completely contrary to the biblical understanding of God. Only one of the three visitors is addressed as Lord (‘adônay), though traditional translators translate this as ‘adônî or “my lord.”
According to the Talmud, the three visitors are the angels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. One of the problems with this view is that the text does not say that these angels replaced or represented the Lord. After their visit to Abraham, the text says that two of the men went on to Sodom (where they are identified as angels), but the one who stayed behind is referred to as YHWH several times. Scripture indicates that the Lord, accompanied by two angels, visited Abraham, and that all three appeared as human beings who ate and drank with Abraham and Sarah. The men went on to Sodom, but the Lord stayed with Abraham.
The one addressed as Lord and referred to as YHWH in the text, announced the promise of the child and declared that he would return in a year. It is with YHWH that Abraham conversed and interceded with on behalf of Sodom. The Lord somehow appeared in human form and spoke and dined with Abraham and Sarah. At the same time, it is assumed that all the while God was still in heaven. According to this text, God is clearly capable of coming to earth in human form for a period of time if he so desires. If he can do this for a few hours in a temporary human form, why couldn’t he adopt a permanent human form and be on earth for a few decades? This is what theologians call the Incarnation, God coming down to earth as a man in the person of his Son. In the words of a rabbi I once met, Jesus was like a “walking Shekhina.”
Part of what it means to be the Son of God is to have a relationship with the Father before the world had even come into being. There are references to this characteristic throughout John’s gospel (see 1:30, 8:23, 17:3-5, 16:27-28). This idea of a pre-existent Messiah who would come down from heaven is not foreign to traditional Jewish sources (as I explain elsewhere).
The Messiah is divine inasmuch as he is the Son of God, and he is human since he took on human nature and become a man. As such, he was able to act as the mediator between God and humankind. In order to save and deliver us, he needed to become one of us, but he also needed to be greater than us in order to save us.
For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 14-37.
“If you claim that Jesus is God then you are guilty of making God into a man. You are an idol worshiper!“
Is Jesus God or not? This question is paramount since the answer to it contains profound ramifications for how we should live our lives. I can see that looking from the outside, it may seem to you that what Christians claim about Jesus is not all that different from the way Hindus might describe one of their holy men or gurus, claiming him to be the personification of one of their gods, referring to him as a “god-man” and worshipping him in a way that should only be reserved for God himself. Of course, such a view is incompatible with Judaism, but I assure you that this is not what Christians believe about Jesus!
Let me start this discussion with a quote from a very famous Jew: “No one has ever seen God.” Do you know who wrote this? He was known as Yochanan (“John”), and, as a faithful follower of Yeshua, he wrote what is now referred to as the Gospel of John. This phrase can be found right at the beginning of his book, and it is part of an explanation as to how all things came into being by means of the Word. He writes:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)
This passage describes a unique relationship between the Word and God. John says that this Word was not only with God, but also was God, and that all things were made through him by God. Does this idea of creation taking place by means of the word sound familiar to you? It should, since that is how Genesis describes creation as coming into being – everything was created through God’s spoken word: “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). Of course, John’s emphasis is slightly different. What is John trying to say about the Word?
The rabbis use the Aramaic word memra’ (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root ‘mr, “to say,” which is used throughout the creation account in Gen. 1) to express the concept of the word of God serving as a link between the transcendent God and his creation. There are hundreds of occurrences of memra’ in the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures which were used in synagogues where the people no longer understood Hebrew before, during, and after the time of Jesus). The word memra’ was often added to biblical passages which reference God. For example, while Genesis 3:8 says that Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden,” the Targum says, “And they heard the sound of the Word of the Lord God walking in the midst of the garden.”
If one were to substitute memra’ for “word” in the opening passage from the Gospel of John quoted above, one would easily see just how Jewish the passage sounds. John was a Galilean who wrote in Greek; he therefore used the word logos for “word” since he had grown up hearing the Aramaic Targum with its constant emphasis on the memra’ as an active link between God and human beings.
One of the main differences between Philo and John, however, was that John emphasized that the Word was able to live among us as a human being. According to John, God is very near to us through his logos, who became man. The Memra/logos is an extension of the Lord himself—in one sense God and in another sense with God— who came down from heaven to dwell among us. At the same time, God reigns on high and controls the universe, and did not exhaust his presence in the person of Jesus. In short, God is known personally through his Word, who became a human being, but God thereby did not cease to be God in heaven.
John 1:14 reads: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling (lit. “pitched his tent”) among us.” There are many connections between this concept and the claim that God dwelt in the Tabernacle and Temple. Solomon built his magnificent structure as a dwelling place for God, though he knew that God could not be confined to that building or any other space on earth, yet God promised to dwell (“pitch his tent”) among his people (Exod. 25:8; 2 Chron. 6:1-2) in the Tabernacle and the Temple. John understands Jesus to be the fulfillment of these promises.
The Talmudic rabbis, Jewish philosophers and medieval mystics all wondered how Almighty God could dwell in our midst. Followers of Jesus answer this question by saying that God came to us through his Word, Yeshua, the Son of God. Just as God could be in his Temple, so he could be in his Son, filling them both with his glory and revealing his glory through both of them. Just as the glory of God filled the Tabernacle and Temple, without in any way emptying, depleting or lessening God, so also his glory fills his Son, without in any way emptying, depleting or lessening him.
The Targum adds the word “glory” to the text so that instead of seeing God himself, they saw “the glory of the God of Israel.” The Talmud (b. Sanhedrin38b) explains that Moses and the people did not see God himself, but saw Metatron, chief of the angels. In an attempt to preserve God’s glory, the Talmudic interpretation of this passage reads, “Come up to Metatron whose name is YHWH.” Is this any less problematic?
The Bible makes a definite distinction between seeing the glory of God and seeing God himself. Traditional translators problematically substitute “glory” for “God.” Scripture says that it is impossible for people to see God and live. The dilemma is that either the interpretation seemingly has to deviate from what the text says, or people have actually seen God and have lived to tell about it, even though Scripture says that to see God is to die!
The only sufficient answer to this problem of “seeing God” is that it was the Son who was seen by these people. This is how John explains it: “No one has ever seen God; but the only unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side—he has made him known” (1:18, JNT). The Messiah is the visible representation of the invisible God, the living manifestation of the glory of the Lord. He alone is distinct from God the Father and simultaneously bears the presence of God within him in a way that is qualitatively different from the way any of the other angels bear God’s presence.
As we continue to think through this problem of “seeing God,” let’s consider the story in Genesis 18, which tells the story of Abraham’s reception of the three visitors. The Hebrew text says that the Lord (YHWH) appeared to Abraham, and Abraham addressed him as “Lord,” yet a few verses later, it says that Abraham looked up and saw three men. Some Christians interpret this as a representation of the Trinity, but that’s problematic in that it allows for a human being to see the Father, which is unbiblical, and it also pictures God as three separate people, which is also completely contrary to the biblical understanding of God. Only one of the three visitors is addressed as Lord (‘adônay), though traditional translators translate this as ‘adônî or “my lord.”
According to the Talmud, the three visitors are the angels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. One of the problems with this view is that the text does not say that these angels replaced or represented the Lord. After their visit to Abraham, the text says that two of the men went on to Sodom (where they are identified as angels), but the one who stayed behind is referred to as YHWH several times. Scripture indicates that the Lord, accompanied by two angels, visited Abraham, and that all three appeared as human beings who ate and drank with Abraham and Sarah. The men went on to Sodom, but the Lord stayed with Abraham.
The one addressed as Lord and referred to as YHWH in the text, announced the promise of the child and declared that he would return in a year. It is with YHWH that Abraham conversed and interceded with on behalf of Sodom. The Lord somehow appeared in human form and spoke and dined with Abraham and Sarah. At the same time, it is assumed that all the while God was still in heaven. According to this text, God is clearly capable of coming to earth in human form for a period of time if he so desires. If he can do this for a few hours in a temporary human form, why couldn’t he adopt a permanent human form and be on earth for a few decades? This is what theologians call the Incarnation, God coming down to earth as a man in the person of his Son. In the words of a rabbi I once met, Jesus was like a “walking Shekhina.”
Part of what it means to be the Son of God is to have a relationship with the Father before the world had even come into being. There are references to this characteristic throughout John’s gospel (see 1:30, 8:23, 17:3-5, 16:27-28). This idea of a pre-existent Messiah who would come down from heaven is not foreign to traditional Jewish sources (as I explain elsewhere).
The Messiah is divine inasmuch as he is the Son of God, and he is human since he took on human nature and become a man. As such, he was able to act as the mediator between God and humankind. In order to save and deliver us, he needed to become one of us, but he also needed to be greater than us in order to save us.
For the full answer, see Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 2, pp. 14-37.
