If There Is A Prophet

Is Jesus a prophet? Is Jesus the prophet? Those are questions not often asked. The answer is one many people assume as yes, but this is not a determination based on understanding. This answer from non Christian theists is of no concern. However, when brothers and sisters in the faith that is in Christ Jesus reply in a similar manner it is cause for concern. The effect of these misplaced claims on the church is evident. It reveals an erosion of confidence and boldness in her proclamation of the faith in accordance with the scriptures. The claims and fulfillment of Jesus’ words stand as radically different from anything in history. So, why do some Christians claim Jesus as a prophet? the prophet? or another prophet like so many others?

How do we determine who is a prophet? How do we determine if Jesus is a prophet or the prophet? It is God who determines that for us. The account in Numbers 12 is vital to the first question: Was Jesus a prophet?

"If her father had put spit in her face would she not bear her shame for seven days?"

This statement shows the anger of God towards Miriam and Aaron when He struck her with leprosy. These are God's words to Moses and Aaron. These words are no less harder than what incurred the judgment of God: Miriam and Aaron had spoken against Moses, the servant of God. They pleaded with Him to heal Miriam. God would not relent. The matter of Miriam being the target of his anger is not the focus of this article. What is significant in the Numbers 12 passage is that Miriam and Aaron were not afraid to speak against Moses. Subsequently, God revealed to them how He communicates with a prophet and that God regarded Moses as something other than a prophet with whom He communicated his words mouth to mouth and not as a prophet. First, lets look briefly at prophets and some ancient tactics from Numbers 12.

The prophets of old

The Old Testament scriptures are the best source to determine whether messenger and message were from God. Some prophets such as Jonah who preached to Ninevah, were sent by God to those who were not his people. They did not necessarily like the message. Rather than being accepted or embraced they were rejected, persecuted and killed.

There were also imposter prophets. False prophets mimicked the prophets and prefaced their false message with, Thus saith the Lord. False prophets were a frustration to Jeremiah. They followed Jeremiah's delivery of his prophetic messages to Israel with their own false message. God made it clear to Jeremiah those were not his prophets (Jeremiah 23). He did not send them. Sometimes those who presumed themselves prophets did so with some help. People declared and accepted messengers as prophets of God simply because they loved, as Jeremiah records, their smooth words.

Ancient tactics

Two tactics common in discussions regarding prophets are diminishment and association. For example, the belief statement god is everything and god is everywhere is an example of diminishment. It says a lot as much as it says nothing. It does nothing to direct the seeker towards God. It tells the seeker God, the Transcendent Creator is as much in him or next to him as he is in the form of the stick or the rock he just kicked down the road. There is no focus on God. Diminishment makes no distinction between Creator and creation or the living from the lifeless and inanimate for the seeker. Similarly, there is no attempt to define and qualify a prophet because diminishment tactics have no source of authority beyond the individual who makes the claims.

The phrase, All the prophets including Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha is an example of association. Without commenting on the veracity or applicability of the term prophet to Moses, Mohammed or Buddha it is the application of this term to Jesus which raises questions. Christians often accept the association application of prophet to Jesus by other Christians as readily as from people of other beliefs outside of the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition. This tactic of association has the unwitting (by Christians, at least) effect of casting Jesus in a role neither He nor the apostles ever claimed. However, well-intentioned this association by Christians and non Christians to honor and present Jesus in the tradition and succession of prophets from Noah to Abraham to Moses, Isaiah and Jeremiah it is a diminishment of Jesus. It produces the desired result for those who wish to elevate their prophet with one perceived and regarded (like Jesus) as a prophet through a Christian interpretation of scripture primarily. The intended purpose of this tactic is simple: Association of one's prophet with one regarded and renowned as a great prophet makes one's prophet great by association.

These ancient tactics date back to Miriam and Aaron's murmur against Moses.

They diminished the relationship and failed to see a distinction

between themselves and God and God and Moses and

simultaneously exalted themselves because of their association with

Moses.

These tactics continue to be used today. They muddle and distort what constitutes a prophet and confuse Christians who desire to be confident in sharing their faith with conviction and understanding..

The Deuteronomy 18 pronouncement

How is it Christians come to declare Jesus as a prophet on the basis of Deuteronomy 18? The passage is also a proof text for other theists outside the Judeo-Christian tradition who hold little regard for the Old Testament scriptures to support their own claims concerning their prophet. While a Christian view of Jesus as prophet may not be a gross mishandling of scripture or the endangerment of the Christian's salvation it merits more than merely navigating around these negative and dangerous realities. It is just as important Christians build their confidence and joy in the greater glory of Jesus, not as another prophet or a special prophet, but as Lord and Savior. He is so much more radical, bold and immensely different than any other single individual in the history of the world.

After the Levitical priesthood was established of those who ministered before the Lord and led Israel in their sacrifice to God, one need remained to be filled: Someone to take up as a spokesman of God like Moses in Israel. This is the background context for the pronouncement to Israel through Moses that God would raise up a prophet like Moses.

1. The prophet was to be from among their brethren, an Israelite. A contrast to the sorcerers and the people who listened to them in the land Israel was about to conquer.
2. The prophet was to speak as God gave him the message. He was not to conjure up a message of his own like the diviners of the land.
3. The prophet was to be obeyed no less than Moses.
4. The test the people were to apply to anyone who professed himself a prophet of God was whether his words came to pass.
This Deuteronomy 18 singular noun reference term of prophet holds equally true for every Old Testament prophet. All were Israelites, they spoke what God said, they expected obedience not for themselves, but for their message as being from God. Their words came to pass invariably. Yes, these same particulars concerning prophets hold true of Jesus just as well. However, this truth does not establish or prove Jesus was a prophet in the general sense or the prophet in the specific sense.

The perception of prophet in the New Testament

The only indirect reference by Jesus of himself as a prophet in Matthew 13:57 reflects the popular perception concerning prophets in Israel. Jesus found an affinity with the prophets who were rejected in their own hometown and household, were persecuted and killed by Israel.

The people answered their own perceptions Who is this saying This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee. (Matthew 21:11) The chief priests and Pharisees held Jesus to be a/the prophet (John 6:14) on the basis of either/and/or Deuteronomy 18 and Malachi 4. The Samaritan woman (John 4) stated to Jesus that she perceived him to be a prophet.

John answered the people's questions clearly and without hesitation that he was not the prophet. This question suggests the people (and their leaders) believed in expectations of a (singular) prophet who was to come. John's response suggests he himself may possibly have held a similar belief. This inquiry by Israel may be per their understanding of Deuteronomy 18 or, as regards John, their eminent expectant fulfillment of the words of the prophet Malachi. Jesus applied his interpretation of the Malachi prophecy to John. John saw himself as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy yet it does not seem he saw himself as the fulfillment of the Malachi 4 prophecy.

4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Yahweh comes.
4:6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

Jesus' testimony of John was that John was more than a prophet. John's mission was short, but immensely important: To make ready the way of the Lord, make his ways straight.

But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and much more than a prophet. For this is he, of whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way before you.’* Most certainly I tell you, among those who are born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptizer; yet he who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptizer until now, the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. If you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come. Matthew 11:9-14

The explanation of the scriptures by Jesus

Jesus, with masterful brevity, distinguished himself apart from the prophets to the men on the road to Emmaus.

He said to them, “Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Didn’t the Christ have to suffer these things and to enter into his glory?” Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:25-27

The NT interpretation and application of the Deuteronomy 18

The proclamations by the apostle Peter in Acts 3:19-26 and Stephen in Acts 7:35-39, 51-53 are the only two instances where the Deuteronomy 18 passage is quoted in the New Testament. The passage quotations are framed within references in the plural form to the prophets. Peter marks the beginning of this succession of prophets with Samuel and those who followed after.

If Peter's preaching was informative Stephen's preaching is accusative. Stephen is as unrelenting as was God towards Miriam's murmur against Moses. Stephen put the same guiltiness of refusal, disobedience and rejection of the people towards Moses on his own audience. Stephen's fate, like that of the prophets, was sealed. His audience killed him.

3:19 “Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, so that there may come times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, 3:20 and that he may send Christ Jesus, who was ordained for you before, 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God spoke long ago by the mouth of his holy prophets. 3:22 For Moses indeed said to the fathers, ‘The Lord God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him in all things whatever he says to you. 3:23 It will be, that every soul that will not listen to that prophet will be utterly destroyed from among the people.’* 3:24 Yes, and all the prophets from Samuel and those who followed after, as many as have spoken, they also told of these days. 3:25 You are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘In your seed will all the families of the earth be blessed.’* 3:26 God, having raised up his servant, Jesus, sent him to you first, to bless you, in turning away everyone of you from your wickedness.”

7:35 “This Moses, whom they refused, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’—God has sent him as both a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush. 7:36 This man led them out, having worked wonders and signs in Egypt, in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years. 7:37 This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel, ‘The Lord our God will raise up a prophet for you from among your brothers, like me.*’* 7:38 This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received living oracles to give to us, 7:39 to whom our fathers wouldn’t be obedient, but rejected him, and turned back in their hearts to Egypt,

7:51 “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit! As your fathers did, so you do. 7:52 Which of the prophets didn’t your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers. 7:53 You received the law as it was ordained by angels, and didn’t keep it!”

Peter and Stephen interpret and apply the singular noun prophet in their preaching to the succession of prophets. Both men focus, interpret and apply a second word to Jesus. It is the verb raise. The sense of the primary verb "raise" used in the passage would likely and could properly be understood as in raising a child, for example Hannah raising up her son Samuel to dedicate him to the Lord. However, Peter and Stephen relate a secondary use of the verb raise to the resurrection of Jesus.

The Acts passages represent the Bible response to the question: Is Jesus the prophet of Deuteronomy 18?

Note: The apostle Paul teaching in the synagogue in Antioch of Pisidia made a similar interpretation and application of the Old Testament prophecy of Psalm 2 (Acts 13:26-34) between the words begotten and raised. Those who reject the deity of Jesus cite Psalm 2 focus on the term begotten as proof Jesus was created. However, the apostle Paul through inspiration of the Holy Spirit declares God fulfilled his promise concerning his begotten Son when he raised up Jesus from the dead.

Having examined the Deuteronomy 18 passage in the light of Acts 3 and 7 and glanced briefly at certain ancient tactics in Numbers 12 lets examine what God said to Miriam and Aaron as to how he communicates with a prophet.

Numbers 12: The definition of a prophet

He said, “Hear now my words. If there is a prophet among you, I Yahweh will make myself known to him in a vision. I will speak with him in a dream. 12:7My servant Moses is not so. He is faithful in all my house. 12:8 With him I will speak mouth to mouth, even plainly, and not in riddles; and he shall see Yahweh’s form. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?”

God defined in the Numbers 12 passage to Miriam and Aaron that visions and dreams is the way he communicates with his prophets. This is not the way God communicated with his servant Moses. This is equally true of Jesus:

There were no visions and dreams for Jesus.

Equality between Father and Son precluded the need

for visions and dreams.

Christians as more than prophets

We are, as Jesus said of John, more than prophets. Like Jesus and the prophets we know the treatment faithful prophets can expect from the world. Yet, like Jesus, we are not prophets. We do not receive visions and dreams, but whatever we declare as is written in the God-inspired scriptures will come to pass. It is vital for the church that the saints in Christ understand the Deuteronomy 18 passage as it pertains to the succession of prophets. The scriptures, Numbers 12 and Acts 3 and 7, specifically, represent an explanation, interpretation and application of the Deuteronomy 18 passage concerning prophets both in the singular and the plural sense. The testimony of Jesus concerning the prophets was to exalt their work and to identify with their suffering, persecution and death. Well-intentioned application of this passage to Jesus as tolerance gestures in interfaith discussions is a misplaced acquiescence. It reveals an erosion of Christian confidence and boldness to proclaim Jesus as Lord and Savior.

The early church (see I Corinthians 14:29,30) was fully dependent for her message and guidance from men and women who had received the gift of prophecy through the Holy Spirit. We have the full, written revelation of God as declared by the prophets, Jesus and apostles for our obedience. It is not for us to choose either a perceived hard message such as No one comes to the Father, except through me or soft message such as Love one another. Teach and preach, being not ashamed, the full counsel of God. We, like the prophets, are sent by the Living God to proclaim the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. This is our confidence and our boldness in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Conclusion

Numbers 12 reveals God communicated with his prophets through visions and dreams. It was a succession of prophets God raised up, per Deuteronomy 18, to speak to Israel on behalf of God after the death of Moses. This succession of prophets began with Samuel. The Deuteronomy 18 passage is interpretated and applied by the apostle Peter and Stephen to the prophets, not a singular prophet.

Jesus did not receive communication from the Father through visions and dreams. The equality between Father and Son meant the Son had complete knowledge of the will of the Father. He had no need for the Father to communicate with him through visions and dreams or any other means. Christians rejoice, not in Jesus as a prophet or any other prophet, but in Jesus as Lord and Savior risen from the dead.

Compassion, and ethics.

I remember a journey, a journey from the hills of Darjeeling, to the foothills of Siliguri. Roads are narrow, and you would also hear occasional "thank you", among the drivers there. Everyone is so filled with compassion, and everyone ready to make room for the others, seeing the time and place. Its an unsaid protocol, not a rule as such, no enforcement of this rule, but still this protocol is followed without fail. In a road so narrow there is an understanding between drivers there, about who should wait and who should go, and they do it with a smile in their face. The traffic runs smoothly despite such rough terrain, and also difficult roads to tread. The tiring journey often becomes less tiring due to this friendly attitude among the people there. There is a perfect harmony, no conflict as such among people. The ego as such is shunned as far as the driving business is concerned, and hence this compassion and harmony. Language also has a great role to play on this, and this sweet language of people, also melt hearts, and encourage them to help others.

Now lets have a look at our city of Joy, Kolkata. Roads are wide, and hell lot of vehicles ply. But that compassion is missing. People out here are just bothered about reaching their destination early rather than, showing some discipline. Rules are enforced on people, while in the former case, no enforcement is done, people simply follow it. You can often hear occasional scowls out here between commuters, and drivers. And they don't mind bringing each others family in between shouting filthiest of abuses to each other. Why? The other wanted to overtake, but due to some reason he could not. Where would he vent his anger? Obviously on the driver of the other car. There is noise, and negativity all around, people fighting over each other for room, which sometimes also lead to disastrous situations, like accidents, only to harden people up. That compassion fast losing ground, what you hear are loud scowls.

Why is it that city folks are so much away from this compassion, this discipline in their lives, despite so much enforcement by the law? Why is it that they are becoming more selfish, while the contrast is seen in former case. We need to think for once, that is the development, or say the financial development of any use whatsoever? Or is the development superficial? Are people becoming more mechanical in this race, that they are losing their compassion. While you see that the people of small towns are more content, and happy, despite having less than the city folks. Why such an attitude, such a lifestyle has developed into city life? Too, much of stress, or is education all about finding a means to earn money? Isn't it time, that we have a look on how sweet words like "thank you" and "please", often a sign of chivalry, can help to being a change in the mood of people. How would it be if you going to office fine day, and you make room for a car which is in a hurry, and a sweet "thank you", is heard from the other side. I think it will surely make your day. And what if something opposite happens, what if you hear a scowl? Well, well, the day is ruined? Isn't it?

Why morality, language and ethics, are fast losing ground with the urban folk? Is development coming at a cost? Are we forgetting that we all are human beings, who should have compassion as the best medicine for all our woes, then why is there hatred around? Something really needs to change, should it not?

Our moral code is out of date

Mr. Yaron Brook says,

If morality is about the pursuit of your own success and happiness, then giving money away to strangers is, in comparison, not a morally significant act. (And it's outright wrong if done on the premise that renunciation is moral.)

Personally, I would take no offense to Yaron Brook's moralist label for myself. I would state, for his enlightenment, I neither ignore nor condemn the earning of money. Yaron Brook's above statement with parenthetical is like the loaded mouse trap which failed to spring.

First, he packages an updated morality under the Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit label.

Then, he peddles his Science, freedom and the pursuit of personal profit morality dogma for our learning on Gates and Buffett's coattails, two men well-known of good reputation.

Brook won't thread the morality question on those who amass their fortunes in drug trade and other evils. Even less would he dare thread on them were they to give away their money as benefactors to charitable non-profit organizations. Furthermore, do you think he would pounce were a drug lord to renounce his riches and became an eager benefactor as the result of moral pangs in his conscience? Hence, Yaron Brook's moral argument could no more spring to catch a mouse than a evil doer among men.

This is not an updated moral code. However, it is quickly becoming known as the blind-folded atheists' anemic morality.

The ground zero of the heart

The national fervor on the construction in New York City of a mosque near ground zero is an ongoing revelation to America. What the fervor continues to reveal with every word spoken is an awkwardness? a fear? a hypocrisy? in the heart of Americans as well as Christians. While President Obama clarified he was talking about the right, not the wisdom, to build a mosque former Governor Palin and others have wondered about the wisdom to build the mosque at ground zero. Jesus reminded his disciples wisdom is vindicated by her children.

.

We Americans love to proudly tout the democratic foundation of our nation. Christians, too, have extolled the blessings of religious expression in worship. Suddenly, however Americans as much as Christians and vice verse are confronted in the ground zero convictions of their hearts. I daresay as political citizens, as Americans, we know without a doubt the ruling from our constitution on the matter of the mosque. It doesn't take a lawyer or the Supreme Court to help us understand. That's not to say we like or heartily embrace it. Similarly, as aliens in America, on Earth, Christians know without a doubt the guidance of scripture, the believer's constitution, on the same matter. That's no to say we like it or heartily embrace it.

It is for this reason that in America, a land of law and order, we invoke the rule of law when otherwise awkwardness, fear and hypocrisy would rule the day. What many Americans and Christians have come to realize in this matter is they either do no know, forgot or have rejected what they professed as their conviction their entire lives. This realization is especially unsightly when Americans and Christians see the woeful shallowness of conviction of their professed national religious and political leaders and news media celebrities.

It is significant that neither Americans nor Christians who have weighed in on this subject have appealed to our constitution or the scriptures for their view on the construction of the mosque. It truly does result in awkwardness, fear and hypocrisy when people put aside, even if temporarily, their source of authority. They soon find they are unable to navigate their course without certainty or safety for themselves and others.

Jesus has a way of exposing the ground zero of the hearts of men. Jesus rebuked his disciples for their guised disdain for the Samaritans hoping to rain the consuming fire of heaven on them. (Luke 9:54,55) The scripture, which is the word of the Holy Spirit, speaks on what might have been taken by some as Judas' concern for the poor as being greed in the heart of Judas (John 12:6).

What every disciple of Jesus has understood (even if at times some may forget) is that we by our own volition allowed that instrument of infamy and death on which our Savior was executed to be setup in the ground zero of our hearts. This is wisdom's vindication of her children.

Jesus was crucified

Did Samuelsson not intend the sensationalist effect of his research? I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that was not what he intended mainly because he states Jesus was crucified. Still, there's some value to his contribution because he, a Christian, makes Christians mindful of how we speak matters of faith in terms other than those present in the scriptures. We engage in this when we speak, for example, of trinitarian and unitarian doctrines defining terms not present in the scriptures.

Much as I appreciate scholarly work I am leery any time the focus of a doctrine relies on drilling down on a single word. In simple terms Samuelsson's point is akeen to a defense attorney arguing for his client's acquittal because all the testimony states he took the victim's life, took him down but no one ever said his client shot and killed the victim. Is this not the case if the scripture testifys Jesus was suspended on a cross that he was indeed put to death by crucifixion?

Here's an example for my leeriness concerning scholarly findings such as Samuelsson's. He may be as loaded with those pictures of crucifixion when he says Jesus "was required to carry the 'stauros' to Calvary and they 'stauroun' him." The scripture says it was Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:26) who carried the cross for Jesus.

Love triumphs

"Science will win". It's juvenile and although he never says just what it is science wins Stephen Hawking knows the value of, and is not above using, a good cheer. This after stating the fundamental difference between religion and science: Religion is authority based, science observation and reason based.

Hawking (one could say scientists, but lets not) reveals some thinking on aliens much like that for which theists are mocked. Theists are mocked for making a human-like being they call God. Yet, he imagines (yes, that's the right word) human-like aliens and attributes to them the more violent and aggressive human-like qualities. How is this speculation in keeping with the ever higher ever-improving intelligence model of evolution? This is Hawking, an atheist, projecting on aliens the human behavior of aggression supposedly the by-product of religion and theists. Hawking sees alien life forms as the embodiment of not all that is human, just the negative, evil or worse, _ whatever bring harm for humans. Lets consider this possibility: The idea does not set well with Hawking to be upstaged by an alien life form which suddenly reveals the pitiful level of his intelligence. His daughter Lucy shows a more reasonable view.

Secondly, Hawking is familiar with the ridicule cast on theists as refusing to face the facts of reality. It does not sound true to form to hear Hawking advise man ought not be looking to make contact with alien life. An intelligent life form (humans) avoiding contact with intelligent alien life forms? How is that any different were a northernmost people on earth to avoid looking to contact any probable peoples in the southernmost part of the earth?

Hawking is undeniably quite knowledgeable in his field. Yes, science does work. However, he reveals a science which imagines freely and qualifies those imaginations as reasonable or logical. Furthermore, Hawking would just as soon science work at not working to search for or contact alien life forms. He reveals his lack of unbelief and faith, words shunned by scientists, so lets say he trifles the work of man (to say nothing of God) such that he has given up the fight before the battle even begins.

According to evolution an alien visit to earth would be like Columbus' visit to the Americas a catastrophe where the weak perish and the strong survive. Science, says Hawking, will win.

It is therefore no wonder that in the Hawking mindset an alien life not of this world which visited earth in human-form with human-like qualities should be rejected as was Jesus. He looked human. He acted human. He did not fulfill the human expectation of alien life forms of aggression and conquest. Jesus is the embodiment of the love God. Hawking advises his children: if you are lucky enough to find love, remember it is there and don't throw it away. He may not have been lucky enough to find it yet, but it's there to accept or to throw away.

For God so loved the world,

that he gave his one and only Son,

that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Love triumphs not in those who remember to reason and observe it at a distance, but in those who embrace it.

The Human Jesus: a response

This article does not attempt or profess to be a full response to every point in The Human Jesus video. Undoubtedly, there will be misunderstandings and although great efforts were made to avoid direct quotations to eliminate misquoting and to prevent any semblance of personal attacks this will not prevent those intimately familiar with the video from recognizing indirect allusions. Despite the shortcomings every effort has been made to treat the documentary truthfully and accurately in hopeful, prayerful expectations. Readers are encouraged to view the documentary.

The Human Jesus video challenges believers to examine and reject beliefs concerning Jesus which are without Bible basis. That is a commendable biblical admonition. Certainly, both the challenge and the doctrinal belief behind the documentary have been around since the first century. The two-hour documentary references the familiar second century historic decision at the Nicea council of 325 when (as it is said) Trinitarianism won out over Unitarianism. Although this article reflects a definite conviction concerning Jesus there is no preference for either of these labels which are as unbiblical as they are inaccurate. Believers flash these, as well as monotheist and polytheist, in lieu of teaching and understanding. Often believers are given to making sweeping assumptions about another’s teaching on the basis of a flash card approach instead of engaging in dialog.

The Ishango bone

It seems peculiar, if not telling, that the documentary should draw on the Ishango bone, an ancient mathematical system, to illustrate the introduction of the subject of discussion on the One-ness of God. It is amusing that the bone of a dead animal should serve to establish the antiquity of the concept of one, _ as in the One living God? Furthermore, it is ironic that among the Ishango bone markings with their respective numeral explanations of 3, 4, 6, 9, 21 etc. the numeral 1 is absent. There are several Old and New Testament scripture references with scholarly commentary. Foremost among these scripture passages are Deuteronomy 6 and Psalm 110.

The unity of spirit and truth: scripture and perspective

The unity of spirit and truth of this article on The Human Jesus video is in the manner of Jesus. Truth and spirit is not limited to worship of the Father. It was modeled by Jesus in the way in which he engaged the Sadducees. Although he differed with them radically on the resurrection he did not feel threatened by them, not compelled to shun them or to call his disciples away from them. As often as they afforded him the opportunity, albeit with evil motives usually, he would engage them in his teaching. However, he was uncompromising to doubly impress on them in Mark 12:24-27 the error of their understanding and doctrine on the resurrection: "Isn’t this because you are mistaken . . . You are therefore badly mistaken.” The unity Jesus demonstrates in responding to the Sadducees is the spirit and truth (that is, the basis and authority of scripture [spirit] and the perspective [truth] of history) of which he spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4. More on the Sadducees later.

The Shema

Subsequently, Jesus moves on to the Shema of Deuteronomy 6 as quoted in Mark 12:29-31.

Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one

The documentary takes the historical, popular view on the Deuteronomy passage; that is, it ascribes to it the literal quantitative value of one. This is the interpretation the Jews have given this passage historically; an interpretation which just disregards the plural noun ending. One should wonder about a telltale interpretation which just disregards grammar as being suitable and sufficient especially in something as the divine scriptures. Similarly, one should wonder as to how an interpretation of this telltale plural noun ending speaks to a plurality at all. It is noted Paul reminds Christians we are indebted to the Jews. However, the indebtedness is as concerns the Jewish heritage of the scriptures, not the Jewish interpretation and to view a different interpretation of scripture by Christians as anti-semitic is a stretch. The quotation of the Shema passage by Jesus, although his quotation reflects his embrace of it, does not equate to an interpretation.

The unity of God

The ascribing of a literal quantitative value of one or any other value is to miss the intended point, namely, the unity of God. The point God sought to impress on Israel was the total unity thread without variation between anything and everything God said, what Moses said to Israel as being what God said, what the prophets declared and wrote as being from God, what Jesus declared as being from God and for Christians what the apostles said and wrote as being from God. This unity thread (God [spoke] to the fathers, to the prophets, to his Son) is reflected in brief by the writer of Hebrews:

1:1 God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 1:2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son

A scribe who answered wisely

What may bear some significance is the reiteration by the scribe (Mark 12:32, 33) to Jesus' quotation of the Shema. Mark comments Jesus regarded the scribe’s reiteration as “wise(ly)”. The scribe had, it seems, merely parroted the risk-free, standard, acceptable view of the Sadducees on the content of the Deuteronomy passage, but without much understanding. There was nothing wrong in what the scribe said. He, like Jesus, did not offer an interpretation. Jesus then moves on to Psalm 110.

The New Testament inspired interpretation and application of Psalm 110

It does not seem an unrelated coincidence that Jesus should follow-up the Shema; the quintessential passage on the one-ness of God with Psalm 110. If the Shema were an open-and-shut case for Sadducees and believers today as to the literal One-ness of God; Psalm 110 is handled at best as another open-and-shut case (after scrutinizing every jot and tittle in the original language) or at worse an opened Pandora's box overflowing with some upsetting, unsettling business about lords (after musing over absurdities about multiple gods and related scenarios). See Hebrews for the quotation and application of Psalm 110 to Jesus.

Believers articulate their convictions: an indictment

The fact believers may articulate poorly their understanding on Father, Son and Holy Spirit is itself not proof of a false doctrine. In this same vein, whatever Constantine's motives might have been at Nicea did not change scripture. If the believer’s profession coincides with what Constantine and others thought and that profession is in the content and context of scripture it is scripture, not Constantine, which is the source and authority for the believer. Similarly, positing questions with rhetorical absurdities may have a self-serving effect, but does nothing to teach or enlighten believers. Are those questions intended as proof of a greater understanding on the part of the questioner than the one answering the question? There seems to be no less substantial gaps, quirks and awkwardness in the articulations for the human Jesus and these believers too, like those previously mentioned believers, may be parroting regarding a human Jesus while just disregarding the broader context and content of scripture. Altogether, the inability of believers to articulate clearly their scripture-rooted convictions is more an indictment of those who teach the people of God his word than a false doctrine.

The Sadducees, the resurrection and death

Now, back to the Sadducees on the subject of the resurrection, their serious misunderstanding of the scriptures and the entry of death in the garden of Eden. The Sadducees posed for Jesus a marriage scenario involving a woman who was widowed seven times. The similarity of expressions between the Sadducees’ “Moses wrote to us” and the Pharisees’ “Moses commanded us” (Matthew 19) and the related questions on marriage would seem to suggest both groups may have been questioning Jesus.

Also, it is reasonable to infer and to apply Jesus’ reference on the origin of marriage in the garden in Mark’s account to Matthew’s passage. It is between the Mark and Matthew accounts that the unity, the harmony, the one-ness of spirit (the scripture, “Moses commanded”, “Moses wrote”) and truth (the perspective of history, “from the beginning it has not been so”) is demonstrated by Jesus. The exclusivness of scripture and the inclusivness of history bear testimony of God and his will. Truth in scripture is confirmed not by the many times it appears, to be doubted by the few times it is stated, whether Jesus or Paul said it, but simply by the fact it is written in scripture.

What is the connection between the Sadducees’ question on marriage and the resurrection as concerns The Human Jesus discussion?

The garden is where Satan sought to disrupt the unity between what God said and where Adam and Eve allowed the deceiver to distort what God had said. The unity of Adam and Eve was not limited to their fleshly union which made them one. It was another expression of their unity and one-ness in harmony with the will of God. It would be a serious misunderstanding were anyone to conclude the extent of the union God purposed between the man and the woman was strictly in the flesh. The garden is where death entered into the world. The effect of that lost unity has been felt between God and man and the man and the woman since the garden.

God cannot die is the strong suit assertion of The Human Jesus documentary. However, that’s a phrase which could well have originated in the garden. We are familiar with Satan’s lies to Adam and Eve. He deceived them telling them they would not die. After their sin against God they realized Satan had lied. It was a bit later but Death’s knock several years later removed any doubts as to its reality.

After the fall of Adam and Eve Satan realized he had work to do. God, contrary to what Satan might have expected, did not disown the man and woman. God desired the restoration of their trust and belief in Him. This became and has been Satan’s work to instill in man not so much the reality of death, but that

God cannot save you. God is not a man. God does not understand. God cannot die. God will not die.

This lie that death is final is perpetrated as believed even by those who teach the scriptures to the people of God. The implication of this belief is that there is nothing and no one greater than death. Therefore it was necessary that God himself step into his world and take on death.

10:17 Therefore the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. 10:18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down by myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. I received this commandment from my Father.” Gospel of John

It is a mistake by those, much like the Sadducees, who say God cannot die to equate that with God would not die. Furthermore, they are badly mistaken to believe God is willing and able to raise the dead such as Lazarus, but he certainly cannot and would not lay down his own life. As impressive and memorable as was the resurrection of Lazarus few, perhaps none, understood or could imagine Jesus would soon demonstrate the full significance of his words, I am the resurrection.

The overflow of the (un)belief in the phrase God is not a man is not to say God cannot, but that He would not become a man. The apostle Paul in Philippians:

2:5 Have this in your mind, which was also in Christ Jesus, 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, didn’t consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.

Conclusion

The theology behind The Human Jesus documentary is as old as the first century church. It has been and will continue to be the constant struggle of believers to hold fast and then to take up that which they left, again. It is in the quest to know God. Jesus informed his disciples he is not particularly impressed by repetitious acclamations of Lord, Lord or unaware that his disciples did not know it was him we were serving faithfully. What pleases him is that we, his people, do what he has commanded that we love one another.

One who loves is free from fear and intimidation and trusts fully in the love of the God he or she knows. Examine all things. Feed one another. It is the human thing to do.

Supplement

The New Testament inspired interpretation and application of Psalm 2

The second psalm points to a convergence between a father and a son to whom he is a father. When viewed in light of Jesus one common interpretation is for a physical creation.

You are my son.

Today I have become your father

Colossians 1 is viewed in the same way with respect to a physical creation of the Son. However, Hebrews 1 is considerably clearer and bolder with its assertions on an alleged creation of the Son. Furthermore, it is the apostle Paul who provides the inspired interpretation and application of Psalm 2 in Acts 13:33ff to the resurrection as being the manner in which Jesus was begotten.

13:33 that God has fulfilled the same to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm,

‘You are my Son.

Today I have become your father.’

13:34 “Concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he has spoken thus: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.