In this post I provide evidence from the so-called authentic sunna and Islamic scholarship proving that the Quran has not been perfectly compiled or preserved.

WHICH QURAN?

According to the so-called authentic Islamic reports there wasn’t one standard way of reciting the Quran, but multiple ways, which caused confusion even among Muhammad’s closest companions!

Narrated by Umar bin Al Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to that of mine. Allah’s Apostle had taught it to me (in a different way). So, I was about to quarrel with him (during the prayer) but I waited till he finished, then I tied his garment round his neck and seized him by it and brought him to Allah’s Apostle and said, “I have heard him reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.” The Prophet ordered me to release him and asked Hisham to recite it. When he recited it, Allah’s Apostle said, “It was revealed in this way.” He then asked me to recite it. When I recited it, he said, “It was revealed in this way. The Qur’an has been revealed in seven ahruf, so recite it in the way that is easier for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 041, Number 601 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=41&translator=1&start=0&number=601)

And:

Ubayy b. Ka’b reported: I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’an) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah’s Messenger and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Apostle of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation), and there occurred in my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy, a message was sent to me to recite the Qur’an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects. And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (for intercession). (Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1787 https://sunnah.com/muslim:820a)

Some Islamic polemicists assert that these refer to the various Arabic dialects which were in use at that time. However, this makes absolutely no sense since both Umar and Hisham belonged to the same tribe, namely the Quraish, and spoke the same exact dialect! Besides, according to the so-called authentic narratives the Quran was “revealed” in the Quraish dialect: 

II: The Qur’an was revealed in the language of Quraysh and the Arabs

“An Arabic Qur’an” (12:2) and “in clear Arabic language” (26:195)

4699. It is related that Anas ibn Malik said, “‘Uthman commanded Zayd ibn Thabit, Sa’id ibn al-‘As, ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr, and ‘Abdu’r-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham to write out copies of the Qur’an. He told them, “When you and Zayd ibn Thabit disagree about the Arabic of the Qur’an, you should write it in the language of Quraysh. The Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.’ They did that.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 69. Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an; emphasis mine)

Muslim scholar Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi admits that no one knows what the ahruf exactly are:

“As for what is meant by these seven ahruf, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFERENCE ON THIS ISSUE. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) RECORDED THIRTY-FIVE OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE, and as-Suyootee listed OVER FORTY. Ibn Sa’adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur’aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf WAS KNOWN ONLY TO ALLAH, and thus to attempt to investigate into this issue WAS FUTILE! On the other hand, Imaam Muhammad ibn al-Jazaree (d. 832 A.H.), perhaps the greatest scholar of the qira’aat after the era of the salaf, said ‘I have sought to discover the meanings of these hadeeth (about the ahruf), and have pondered over them, and contemplated this topic for over thirty years, until Allaah opened my mind to that which is the correct answer in this matter, Inshaa Allaah!’

“The reason that such great difference of opinion exists concerning the exact meaning of the ahruf is due to the fact THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST ANY EXPLICIT NARRATIONS FROM THE PROPHET, OR THE SALAF, CONCERNING THE EXACT NATURE OF THE AHRUF; these various opinions ARE MERELY THE CONCLUSIONS OF LATER SCHOLARS, based upon their examination of the evidences and their personal reasoning (ijtihaad).

“Therefore, it should be understood from the outset that to arrive at one specific conclusion, and claim with certainty that it alone is correct and all else is wrong, IS PURE FOLLY…” (Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan [al-Hidaayah Publishing and Distribution, Birmingham UK, Second Print 2003], Chapter 10. The Ahruf Of The Qur’aan, III. What is Meant by the Ahruf of the Qur’aan?, pp. 175-176; capital emphasis mine)

Qadhi then goes on to mention the various and conflicting opinions, some of which he rejects as outright erroneous:

A. THOSE OPINIONS WHICH HAVE NO BASIS WHATSOEVER:

In this category full of those opinions which do not have any hadeeth to support them, nor do they make logical sense. Some of these are:

1) Seven different categories of texts. For example: constrained and unconstrained, general and specific, literal and metaphoric, naasikh and mansookh. Other categories include those given by grammarians and linguists, specifying different verb forms.

2) An esoteric interpretation by certain Soofi groups, claiming that there are seven levels of knowledge, or seven degrees of meanings to each verse.

3) Seven different branches of knowledge, such as tawheed, sharee’ah, etc.

All these opinions contradict the purpose of the ahruf, namely to make the recitation of the Qur’aan easier for the Ummah. Also, there is no proof for these opinions, and they contradict common sense.

B. THOSE OPNIONS WHICH HAVE SOME APPARENT BASIS, BUT ARE WEAK OPINIONS:

Included in this category are the following opinions:

1) These ahruf are seven different ways to pronounce the words, without actually changing the letters. However, this opinion contradicts the variations in words that occurs in the qira’aat.

2) The ahruf are seven types of verses in the Qur’an: apparent, command, recommendation, specific, particular, general and parable. There is a weak hadeeth to support this.

3) Similar to the above, and also based on a weak hadeeth, the different types are: commands and prohibitions, promises and occurrences, halaal and haraam, clear and ambiguous.

4) The seven ahruf are the same as the seven qira’aat. This is contradicted historically, as there are more than seven qira’aat, and the collection and codification of the qira’aat occurred four centuries after the Prophet’s death. None of the major scholars of Islaam held this view, as Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 A.H.) said, “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that the seven ahruf are not the same as the seven famous qira’aat.”

Unfortunately, most of the Muslim masses understand the hadeeth of the ahruf to refer to the qira’aat. (Ibid., pp. 176-177; bold emphasis mine)

This brings me to my next point.

MUCH OF THE QURAN IS LOST

According to one report by the son of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, the present text of the Quran is incomplete since much of it has disappeared:

`Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, ‘Let none of you say, “I have got the whole of the Qur’an.” How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, “I have got what has survived.”‘ (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur’an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)

Said Abu ‘Ubaid:

Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, WHEN MUCH OF IT HAS DISAPPEARED? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an, as cited in Ibn Warraq, Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book [Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 1998], Part Two: The Collections and the Variants of the Koran, 9. Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran, by Arthur Jeffery, p. 151: bold and capital emphasis mine)

One of the early Sunni scholars Qasim bin Salam (d. 222 H) records:

حدثنا إسماعيل بن إبراهيم ، عن أيوب ، عن نافع ، عن ابن عمر ، قال : « لا يقولن أحدكم قد أخذت القرآن كله وما يدريه ما كله ؟ قد ذهب منه قرآن كثير ، ولكن ليقل : قد أخذت منه ما ظهر منه

Ismail bin Ibrahim narrated from Ayub from Naf’ee from Ibn Umar who said: ‘Verily among you people one would say that he has found the Quran whilst he is unaware of what the total quantity of the Quran was, because most of the Quran has been lost. Rather one should say that verily he has found the Quran that has appeared.’

Ismail bin Ibrahim: Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Al-Kashif, vol. 1, p. 242), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1 p. 90). Ayub al-Sekhtiani: Dahabi said: ‘The master of scholars’ (Siar alam alnubala, vol. 6, p. 15), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt Hujja’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 1, p. 116). Naf’ee: Dahabi said: ‘The Imam of Tabayeen’ (Al-Kashif, vol. 2, p. 315), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, vol. 2, p. 239). (Fadhail al-Quran by Qasim bin Salam, Volume 2 p. 135) (Who believes the Quran has been a victim of Tahreef?, Sunni reports about deletions from the Quran; emphasis mine)

ABROGATED VERSES ARE STILL PART OF THE QURAN

Muslims will often claim that these missing verses, passages that have completely vanished from the codices, are nothing other than the abrogated texts of the Quran whose rulings are no longer applicable.

The first problem with this assertion is that no Muslim definitely knows this to be the case, since there is ample evidence that whole surahs and passages disappeared which had not been abrogated.

Secondly, where does the Quran state to expunge verses which have been annulled, and where did Muhammad command his followers to remove them? In fact, Muslim scholars candidly admit that there are abrogated texts which are still a part of the Quran till this day!

Finally, and more importantly, one of the four men whom Muhammad instructed to learn the Quran from,

Narrated Masruq: ‘Abdullah bin Masud was mentioned before Abdullah bin ‘Amr who said, “That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Learn the recitation of Quran from four from ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud –he started with him–Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 153 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3808)

Masruq reported: We used to go to Abdullah b. ‘Amr and talk to him, Ibn Numair said: One day we made a mention of Abdullah b. Mas’ud, whereupon he said: You have made mention of a person whom I love more than anything else. I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: Learn Qur’an from four persons: Ibn Umm ‘Abd (i. e. ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud) he started from him-then Mu’adh b. Jabal and Ubayya b. Ka’b, then Salim the ally of Abu Hudhaifa. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6024 https://sunnah.com/muslim:2464a)

Masruq reported: We were in the company of Abdullah b ‘Amr that we made a mention of a hadith from Abdullah b. Mas’ud; thereupon he said: That is a person whose love ever remains (fresh in my heart) after I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: Learn Qur’an from four persons: Ibn Umm ‘Abd, i.e. Abdullah b. Mas’ud and he started from his name-then Ubayy b. Ka’b and Mu’adh b Jabal. Zuhri did not make a mention of the words yaquluhu in his narration. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6025 https://sunnah.com/muslim:2464e)

Whom Muhammad’s companions claimed was the best of them in Quranic recitation, Ubayy b. Kab refused to omit any of the abrogated texts from his codex:

4719. It is related from Ibn ‘Abbas that ‘Umar said, “Ubayy was the one of us with the best recitation, yet we leave some of the words of Ubayy. Ubayy said, ‘I took it from the mouth of the Messenger of Allah and WILL NOT LEAVE IT for anything.’ Allah Almighty says, ‘Whenever We abrogate an ayat or cause it to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or equal to it.’ (2:106)” (Aisha Bewley, Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 69. Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, VIII: The reciters among the Companions of the Prophet *; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Here are two alternate English renderings of al-Bukhari’s ahadith on Ubayy being the best reciter:

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

`Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an) yet we leave some of what he recites.’ Ubai says, ‘I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Messenger and will not leave for anything whatever.” But Allah said “None of Our Revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar.” 2.106 (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 527 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5005)

(7) His Statement: “Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it…” (V.2:106)

Narrated Ibn `Abbas:

`Umar said, “Our best Qur’an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is `Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, ‘I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah’s Messenger while Allah: “Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it.” (2.106) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 8 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4481)

Ubayy b. Kab wasn’t the only one since the third caliph Uthman b. Affan also refused to expunge the abrogated references from his codex:

XLVII: “Those of you who die leaving wives behind” (2:240)

4262. It is related that Ibn az-Zubayr said, “I said to ‘Uthman, ‘”Those of you who die leaving wives behind” (2:234) in al-Baqara and ‘Those of you who die leaving wives behind’ (2:240) were abrogated by the other ayat and so why do you write it down?’ He said, ‘Leave it, O nephew, I will not change ANY OF IT from its place.'” (Bewley, Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir *; capital emphasis mine)

Here, again, are two alternate English translations of al-Bukhari’s record of Uthman’s reluctance to expunge the abrogated verses:

Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

I said to `Uthman, “This Verse which is in Surat-al-Baqara: “Those of you who die and leave widows behind…without turning them out.” has been abrogated by another Verse. Why then do you write it (in the Qur’an)?” `Uthman said. “Leave it (where it is), O the son of my brother, for I will not shift anything of it (i.e. the Qur’an) from its original position.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 60 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4536)

Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair:

I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur’an) regarding the Verse:– “Those of you who die and leave wives …” (2.240) “This Verse was abrogated by another Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur’an)?” `Uthman said. “O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 53 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4530)

Therefore, even if these missing surahs and verses were abrogated there was still no reason to remove and expunge them from the Quran itself.

The fact is that all of the historical, manuscript, and Islamic evidences prove that the Muslim scripture suffered major textual corruption and has not been perfectly preserved.

FURTHER READING

Hafs: The Lying, Unreliable Transmitter of the Quran

Textual Integrity 

The Incomplete and Imperfect Quran

The Compilation and Textual Veracity of the Quran

Challenge to the Muslims Concerning the Quran [Part 1]

Challenge to the Muslims Concerning the Quran [Part 2]

Challenge to the Muslims Concerning the Quran [Part 3]

Challenge to the Muslims Concerning the Quran [Excursus]

The Irreparable Loss of Much of the Quran

The Quran Testifies To Its Own Textual Corruption

The Seven Ahruf and Multiple Qiraat – A Quranic Perspective

THE IMPERFECT QURAN PT. 1: MISSING VERSE ON STONING

A QURANIC VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE

A QURANIC VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE PT. 2

A QURANIC VARIANT THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE PT. 3

I continue from where I previously left off: THE EUCHARIST AS THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST PT. 1.

In this post I will show how the [N]ew [T]estament application of Malachi’s prophecy depicts Jesus Christ as Jehovah God in the flesh, being that very Lord to whom the Gentiles present their sacrifices.

Note the words of Malachi carefully:

“A son honors his father, and a slave his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is the fear of Me?’ says Yahweh of hosts to you, O priests who despise My name. But you say, ‘How have we despised Your name?’ You are presenting defiled food upon My altar. But you say, ‘How have we defiled You?’ In that you say, “The table of Yahweh is to be despised.” But when you present the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you present the lame and sick, is it not evil? Please, bring it near to your governor! Would he accept you? Or would he lift up your face?’ says Yahweh of hosts. ‘But now, entreat God’s favor, that He may be gracious to us! With this thing which is from your hand, will He lift up any of your faces?’ says Yahweh of hosts. ‘Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not light a fire on My altar in vain! I have no delight in you,’ says Yahweh of hosts, ‘nor will I accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be presented to My name, as well as a grain offering that is clean; for My name will be great among the nations,’ says Yahweh of hosts. ‘But you are profaning it, in that you say, “The table of the Lord is defiled, and as for its fruit, its food is to be despised.” You also say, “Behold, how tiresome it is!” And you disdainfully sniff at it,’ says Yahweh of hosts, ‘and you bring what was taken by robbery and what is lame or sick; so you bring the offering! Should I accept that from your hand?’ says Yahweh. ‘But cursed be the swindler who has a male in his flock and vows it, but sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord (ladonay), for I am a great King,’ says Yahweh of hosts, ‘and My name is feared among the nations.’” Malachi 1:6-14 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

According to the NT, Malachi’s prophesy was fulfilled by the institution of the eucharist or Lord’s supper, which the nations began to observe and offer from the rising of the sun to its setting (from the East to the West), i.e., throughout the entire world:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—if any one is hungry, let him eat at home—lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.”1 Corinthians 11:23-34 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

“Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord (trapezes Kyriou) and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” 1 Corinthians 10:14-22 RSV

The blessed Apostle has deliberately employed the language of Malachi in depicting the eating of the eucharist as a participation in “the table of the Lord,” as a comparison of the Greek version of the [O]ld [T]estament, commonly known as the Septuagint (LXX), shows:

“In that ye bring to mine altar polluted bread; and ye said, Wherein have ye polluted it? In that ye say, The table of the Lord (trapeza Kyriou) is polluted, and that which was set thereon ye have despised… But ye profane it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord (trapeza Kyriou) is polluted, and his meats set thereon are despised.” Malachi 1:7, 12 LXX

Therefore, by equating the eucharistic celebration with YHVH’s table prophesied by Malachi, the holy Apostle has invariably identified Jesus as Jehovah God to whom that table/altar belongs!

This is brought out more clearly by the fact that Paul directly alludes to the following OT passage, where Israel provoked YHVH to jealousy by sacrificing to demons who were not God, thereby abandoning their Rock who had formed and sustained them:

“For I proclaim the name of Yahweh; Ascribe greatness to our God! The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He… But Jeshurun grew fat and kicked⁠—You grew fat, thick, and sleek⁠—Then he abandoned God who made him, And treated the Rock of his salvation with wicked foolishness. They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread. You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who brought you forth. And Yahweh saw this and spurned them Because of the provocation of His sons and daughters. Then He said, ‘I will hide My face from them; I will see what their end shall be; For they are a perverse generation, Sons in whom is no faithfulness. They have made Me jealous with what is not God; They have provoked Me to anger with their idols. So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a wickedly foolish nation,” Deuteronomy 32:3-4. 15-21

Now notice who that Rock was according to the inspired Apostle, whom the Israelites spurned during Moses’ time:  

“For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, AND THE ROCK WAS CHRIST. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased. For they were struck down in the wilderness. Now these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.Do not be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written, ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and stood up to play.’ Nor let us act in sexual immorality, as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in one day. Nor let us put CHRIST to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the serpents. Nor grumble, as some of them did, and were destroyed by the destroyer.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-10 LSB

Paul makes it clear that Jesus was that spiritual Rock who appeared in the cloud to guide Israel by the hands of Moses, and was also that very God whom they tempted in the desert, causing him to send fiery serpents to bite them dead.

Contrast what the Apostle said with what Moses wrote:

“But Moses said to the people, ‘Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of Yahweh which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. Yahweh will fight for you, and you will keep silent.’ Then Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Why are you crying out to Me? Speak to the sons of Israel so that they go forward. As for you, raise up your staff and stretch out your hand over the sea and split it, and the sons of Israel shall go through the midst of the sea on dry land. As for Me, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians with strength so that they will go in after them; and I will be glorified through Pharaoh and all his army, through his chariots and his horsemen. Then the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh, when I am glorified through Pharaoh, through his chariots and his horsemen.’Then the angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. So it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was the cloud along with the darkness, yet it gave light at night. Thus the one did not come near the other all night.Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and Yahweh swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea into dry ground, so the waters were split. So the sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left. Then the Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots and his horsemen went in after them into the midst of the sea. Then at the morning watch, Yahweh looked down on the camp of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and cloud and brought the camp of the Egyptians into confusion. And He caused their chariot wheels to swerve, and He made them drive with difficulty; so the Egyptians said, ‘Let us flee from Israel, for Yahweh is fighting for them against the Egyptians.’Then Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Stretch out your hand over the sea so that the waters may come back over the Egyptians, over their chariots and their horsemen.’ So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal state at daybreak while the Egyptians were fleeing right into it; then Yahweh overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea. And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, even Pharaoh’s entire army that had gone into the sea after them; not even one of them remained. But the sons of Israel walked on dry land through the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.Thus Yahweh saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. Then Israel saw the great hand which Yahweh had used against the Egyptians; and the people feared Yahweh, and they believed in Yahweh and in His servant Moses.” Exodus 14:13-31 LSB

“Then they set out from Mount Hor by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this miserable food.’ So Yahweh sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people so that many people of Israel died. Then the people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned because we have spoken against Yahweh and against you; pray to Yahweh, that He may remove the serpents from us.” And Moses prayed for the people. Then Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent and set it on a standard; and it will be that everyone who is bitten and looks at it, will live.’ And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it happened, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.” Numbers 21:4-9 LSB

The foregoing texts all confirm that Jesus is being described as YHVH God Almighty, being that very divine Messenger of God who accompanied Moses to bring Israel out of Egypt, and who punished them in the desert for rebelling against him and for sacrificing to demons.

Therefore, it isn’t surprising that the Holy Spirit filled Apostle would thereby equate the eucharistic supper, being the sacrificial flesh and blood of Christ, as the very table of YHVH prophesied in Malachi, thereby identifying the risen Lord as that God for whom the sacrifice was made.

As the following NT scholars explain:

“The Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:20) is also a religious rite focused on Jesus Christ. Jesus himself instituted the Lord’s Supper on the Passover (Matt. 26:2, 18, 26-29; Mark 14:12-16, 22-25; Luke 22:8-20), the Jewish rite memorializing the Lord God’s deliverance of Israel from their bondage (Exod. 12:21-27, 42-49; Deut. 16:1-8). The apostle Paul spoke of Jesus as ‘the Lord’ honored in the rite that the Lord himself instituted…    

“While the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus and has its own religious background in the traditions of Judaism concerning the Passover, the Corinthians were for the most part converts from paganism who had yet to break free entirely from the temptations of idolatry in their polytheistic culture. Paul therefore sharply contrasts the rite of the Lord’s Supper with pagan rites that were superficially similar enough that some immature believers apparently were participating in both. In drawing these contrasts… Paul contrasts the Lord Jesus with the deities worshiped in the pagan rites (which Paul calls ‘demons’). Paul thus makes it clear that the Lord’s Supper is a religious rite in which the Lord Jesus is the presiding deity, the object of religious devotion or ‘service’ for Christians.” (Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the deity of Christ [Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI 2007], Part 1. The Devotion Revolution: Jesus Shares The Honor Due to God, Chapter 5. The Ultimate reverence Package, pp. 66-67: http://books.google.com/books?id=_W142FABnCsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=putting+jesus+in+his+place&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false; bold emphasis mine)     

And:

“… In 10:14-22 he compares and contrasts the Christian sacred meal with the cult meals of pagan deities. My main interests here have to do with the connection of the Christian meal with the exalted Jesus.

“The first thing to note is that the meal is obviously a ‘cultic’ occasion that formed a key part of the devotional/liturgical life of early Christian groups. Paul refers to the meal as the ‘Lord’s supper’ (kyriakon deipnon, 11:20), which clearly associates the meal with Jesus as the Kyrios of the Christian group. In 1 Corinthians 11:27 and 10:21, he refers to ‘the cup of the Lord’ and ‘the table of the Lord,’ which reflect the same explicit association. In the tradition that Paul recites in 11:23-26, he associates the bread and wine of the meal directly with Jesus’ redemptive death, which is constitutive of ‘the new covenant’; Paul also characterizes the continuing cult-meal practice as a proclamation of the death of ‘the Lord’ until his eschatological return.  

“Paul’s discussion of questions about Christian participation in the cult meals of the pagan gods (1 Cor. 10:14-22) directly poses as exclusive alternatives these feasts and the Lord’s supper. Here he refers to the cup and bread as ‘participation’ (koinonia) in the blood and body of Christ (v. 16), and he draws a direct comparison between the Christian meal and the eating of sacrificial food in the Jerusalem temple (v. 18). He also warns here about ‘provoking the Lord to jealousy’ (v. 22), biblical phrasing that originally referred to God, appropriated here to Jesus as the Kyrios whose divine power is to be taken seriously. This is reflected also in 11:29-32, where Paul warns about the serious consequences of being judged by ‘the Lord’ (Jesus) for inappropriate behavior at the Christian sacred meal.    

“Clearly the Lord’s supper is here the Christian cult meal where the Lord Jesus plays a role that is explicitly likened to that of the deities of the pagan cults and, even more astonishingly, TO THE ROLE OF GOD! This is not merely a memorial meal for a dead hero. Jesus is perceived as the living and powerful Kyrios who owns the meal and presides at it, and with whom believers have fellowship as with a god.” (Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI 2003], Chapter Two. Early Pauline Christianity, Binitarian Worship, pp. 145-146: http://books.google.com/books?id=_MH-_ZQuZrgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Hence, not only is the eucharist the sacrifice which the prophet Malachi foretold would be offered by the Gentiles throughout the world, but this also establishes that Jesus is the very God for whom this sacrifice is presented!

Endnotes

(1) The earliest and majority of textual witnesses all read Christ in 1 Cor. 10:9, thereby affirming that it was the preexistent Son whom the Israelites tempted and provoked in the wilderness:

The earliest support for Χριστόν is Marcion (the arch-heretic from Pontus who worked for a while in Rome c. 140); Epiphanius, in the late 300s, claimed that Marcion changed the text from Κύριον to Χριστόν.  But, as Osburn argues, it is reasonable to understand Epiphanius’ claim as a presumption – i.e., that Epiphanius’ text read Κύριον and he assumed that Marcion had changed it – rather than as an observation.  Slightly later is Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, Book 4, ch. 27), and slightly later than Irenaeus are Clement of Alexandria, Origen (in a statement preserved in the margin of GA 1739), and Theotecnus (bishop of Caesarea-in-Palestine, and an associate of Origen), writing against Paul of Samosata for the Council of Antioch (268).

The bishops involved in the Council of Antioch in 268 also produced the Letter of Hymenaeus, of which Osburn provided a relevant extract, which implies that “neither Paul of Samosata nor his opponents were aware of a biblical text which read other than Χριστόν in v. 9.”  (Osburn mentioned in a footnote, however, that the text of the Letter of Hymenaeus printed by M.J. Routh in 1846, and by E.Schwartz in 1927, has Κύριον.) 

Also in support of Χριστόν are Ambrosiaster, Ephraem Syrus, Pelagius, Augustine, Pseudo-Oecumenius, and Theophylact.  Chrysostom also cites I Cor. 10:9 with Χριστόν three times…

Χριστόν has in its favor the support of very early and geographically diverse patristic witnesses. The discovery of P46 with Χριστόν (written as ΧΡΝ – see BP II f.49 in the online Chester Beatty Papyrus Collection on the fourth line from the bottom) probably should have instantly elicited a change in the critical text here, inasmuch as with its discovery, Χριστόν scores high on multiple metrics: it is the reading of the oldest manuscript; it is the reading of the most manuscripts (by far); it is the reading of the most diverse array of manuscripts; it is the reading favored by a strong combination of early patristic writers. About the only counter-argument that favors Κύριον is the internal consideration that Paul would be unlikely to have written that the Hebrews in the wilderness tempted Christ – but as indicated in a note in the NET, Osburn built an effective cumulative argument that the case against Χριστόν driven by this internal evidence is weak. I cannot think of any reason but haste, and perhaps over-reliance on the work of Tregelles (who had no access to P46) to elicit the Tyndale House GNT’s adoption of κύριον. It was due to over-reliance upon À and B that κύριον was ever adopted in printed Greek New Testaments; hopefully the days of such over-reliance, repeatedly shown to be merely a disguised bias, are behind us. 

Χριστόν merits confident inclusion in the text. (James Snapp Jr., First Corinthians 10:9 – “the Lord” or “Christ”?; bold emphasis mine)

And:   

tc Χριστόν (Christon, “Christ”) is attested in the MAJORITY of mss, including many significant witnesses of the Alexandrian (P 1739 1881) and Western (D F G) text-forms, and other mss and versions (Ψ latt sy co). On the other hand, some of the significant Alexandrian witnesses have κύριον (kurion, “Lord”; א B C P 33 104 1175 al). A few mss (A 81) have θεόν (theon, “God”). The nomina sacra for these readings are quite similar (cMn, kMn, and qMn respectively), so one might be able to account for the different readings by way of confusion. On closer examination, the variants appear to be intentional changes. Alexandrian scribes replaced the highly specific term “Christ” with the less specific terms “Lord” and “God” because in the context it seems to be anachronistic to speak of the exodus generation putting Christ to the test. If the original had been “Lord,” it seems unlikely that a scribe would have willingly created a difficulty by substituting the more specific “Christ.” Moreover, even if not motivated by a tendency to overcorrect, a scribe might be likely to assimilate the word “Christ” to “Lord” in conformity with Deut 6:16 or other passages. The evidence from the early church regarding the reading of this verse is RATHER COMPELLING in favor of “Christ.” Marcion, a second-century, anti-Jewish heretic, would naturally have opposed any reference to Christ in historical involvement with Israel because he thought of the Creator God of the OT as inherently evil. In spite of this strong prejudice, though, Marcion read a text with “Christ.” Other early church writers attest to the presence of the word “Christ,” including Clement of Alexandria and Origen. What is more, the synod of Antioch in a.d. 268 used the reading “Christ” as evidence of the preexistence of Christ when it condemned Paul of Samosata. (See G. Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles, 126-27; TCGNT 494; C. D. Osburn, “The Text of 1 Corinthians 10:9, ” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 201-11; contra A. Robertson and A. Plummer, First Corinthians [ICC], 205-6.) Since “Christ” is the more difficult reading on all accounts, it is almost certainly the reading that gave rise to the others. In addition, “Christ” is consistent with Paul’s style in this passage (cf. 10:4, a text in which Marcion also reads “Christ”). This text is also christologically significant, since the reading “Christ” makes an explicit claim to the preexistence of Christ. (The textual critic faces a similar dilemma in Jude 5. In a similar exodus context, some of the more significant Alexandrian mss [A B 33 81] and the Vulgate read “Jesus” in place of “Lord.” Two of those mss [A 81] are the same mss that have “God” instead of “Christ” in 1 Cor 10:9. See the notes on Jude 5 for more information.) In sum, “Christ” has all the earmarks of authenticity here and should be considered the autographic reading. (NET Bible https://netbible.org/bible/1+Corinthians+10; bold and capital emphasis mine)

This leaves absolutely no doubt that the blessed and holy Apostle and the early Christians all believed that Jesus is YHVH God Almighty who became flesh, even though he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

In this post I will revisit the issue of the meaning of Philippians 2:6, which states that Christ had been existing in the form of God before he became flesh and chose to be born as a man.

Here is the passage in question:

“Adopt the same attitude as that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God (en morphe theou hyperchon), did not consider equality with God as something to be exploited. Instead he emptied himself by assuming the form of a servant (morphen doulou), taking on the likeness of humanity. And when he had come as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross. For this reason God highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow— in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:5-11 Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

Note how the following versions translate the relevant phrase:

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;” Philippians 2:6 New International Version (NIV)

“Which, being in the shape of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Modern Spelling Tyndale-Coverdale (MSTC(i))

The following New Testament scholar explains what it means for Christ to have been existing in God’s form:

One of the turning-points of New Testament study has been the investigation of the Old Testament background of many of the key-terms of the Christian Gospel. This may be illustrated from the term now under discussion. The appearance of H. A. A. Kennedy’s commentary in 1903 showed the influence of this new trend. He indicated that from the usage of morphe in the LXX ‘the word had come, in later Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belonged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle’. An examination of the word in the LXX reveals that eidos and homoioma are synonymous with it; and this would give the sense of the outward form or appearance of the thing so described… Kennedy went on, however, to state that the word ‘always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it’. Confirmation of this is offered in the parallels from the papyri in Moulton-Milligan’s Vocabulary.  

The upshot of this discussion is seen in the tendency to move away from philosophical usage according to which morphe carries the meaning of ‘substance, essence’; and to relate it to the visible form which is characteristic of the object under consideration. Vincent Taylor accepts this by quoting the later phrase morphe doulou which he takes to imply that the slave is recognized and known by the form he assumes. So the preexistent Lord possessed a visible form which was characteristic of His being. Of this ‘form of God’ the best thing we can say is that it is His ‘glory’, the shining light in which, according to the Old Testament and Inter-Testamental literature, God was pictured. On this view, the term morphe is not rendered by ‘essence’ or ‘nature’ in the ontological sense; but rather by some such expression as ‘condition’ or ‘state’ or even ‘stamp’, ‘character’; for as P. Bonnard acutely points out the first translation cannot be fitted into the required meaning of Philippians ii. 7. It is, he says, the situation, the historical condition, the humble obedience of the slave that is there described. Bonnard offers the rendering ‘condition’ or ‘position’ or ‘glory’. The last-mentioned word had been used by earlier writers.

H. A. W. Meyer, in the commentary which is part of the series which bears his name, had defined morphe as the divine ‘glory’; it denotes ‘the form of being corresponding to the essence and exhibiting the condition’. This idea of the interrelation of inner being and outward expression has been appealed to recently by E. Schweizer who comments that the Old Testament thinking ‘does not separate form and substance as the Greek does, but regards the existence of a thing as bound up with its appearance’.

J. Weiss similarly maintained that ‘“the divine form” which he possessed before becoming man (Phil. ii. 6) was nothing less than the divine Doxa, and may we not understand this statement to mean, in the Pauline sense, Christ was from the beginning no other than the Kabod, the Doxa, of God himself, the glory and radiation of his being, which appears almost as an independent hypostasis of God and yet is intimately connected with God?’ And in a later decade J. Behm in the article contributed to Kittel arrives at the same conclusion: ‘“the form of God”, in which the pre-existent Christ was, is nothing else than the divine “glory”; the Pauline “being in the form of God” corresponds completely with John xvii. 5: “the glory which I had with thee before the world was”.’ (Ralph P. Martin, A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship [Intervarsity Press, First Edition, November, 1997, paperback], Part II. An Exegetical Study of the Hymn in Philippians ii. 6-11 in the Light of Recent Interpretation, V. The Pre-Existent Being (Verse 6a), pp. 102-105; bold emphasis mine)

8. That God was thought of as enveloped by an effulgent light, which also radiated from His person and was seen as a light-stream–and that His angels and other heavenly beings shared in this effulgence–seems clear from many strata of Old Testament and post-Old Testament sources: Ex. xvi. 10; xxiv. 16; xxxiii. 17-23; xl. 34 f.; I Kings viii. 11; Isa. vi. 3; lx. 1, 2; Ezek. i. 28; xliii. 2; xliv. 4; II Macc. ii. 8; III Macc. vi. 18; I Enoch xiv. 21, l. 4, civ. 1; Test. Levi iii. 4; II Esd. viii. 21; Asc. Isa. x. 16; Philo, De Monarch. I, 6; and for Philo, cf. E. R. Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (1935), pp. 11 ff., for his idea of God under the symbol of a light-stream. Onthe picture of God in II Enoch, Goodenough says: ‘it is interesting to see that the view of God as Light had become so proverbial in Hellenistic Judaism as to be axiomatic even in an apocalypse’ (267). Angels and other celestial beings are described in Asc. Isa. ix. 9; 11 Enoch xix. 1; xxii. 7; Test. Levi xviii. 5; I Enoch lxii. 15, xxii. 8; II Bar. li. 10; II Esd. ii. 39. (Ibid., pp. 103-104; bold emphasis mine)

The gospel according to Paul is one of the revelation of God’s glory (I Tim. i. 11; Tit. ii. 13). This divine doxa is the otherworldly splendour in which the Old Testament envisages the immediate presence of Yahweh. It is used in the Old Testament under the Hebrew term kabod as ‘a kind of totality of the qualities which make up his divine power; it has close affinities with the holiness which is of the nature of deity and it is a visible extension for the purpose of manifesting holiness to men’. Yet no finite being can see the uncovered glory of God in its full blaze of light and majesty. Normally, therefore, it is veiled behind a cloud (Ex. xvi. 10; Num. xvii. 7); and Moses is permitted to see only the reflection of the kebod Yahweh (Ex. xxxiii. 18).    

There is an important development of teaching in the writing of Ezekiel. According to this prophet, the ‘glory’ is not merely a manifestation of God in concrete form (as it had been earlier, in such phenomena as fire, earthquake and cloud); but is identical with Him. Thus God and His kabod are interchangeable. But no man can see Him in Himself; yet He reveals Himself in His glory. Thus we arrive at an important conclusion, endorsed by Ezekiel i. 26-28, that God cannot be seen in His essence–the unfailing witness of the scripture in both Testaments–but only in His image.

We may suppose that Paul inherited this line of theological reasoning in II Corinthians iv where verses 4 and 6 explain each other. The gospel promises the dispelling of human darkness and the lifting of the veil of unbelief (cf. II Cor. iii. 12-18) by an exhibiting of divine glory. But this outward shining of the inner being of God may not be known directly. The rubric of John i. 18: ‘No one has seen God at any time’ is true for Paul as for all scripture-writers (cf. Col. i. 15; I Tim. vi. 16). His manifest presence is shown forth in the person (prosopon, verse 6) of His Son in whom the glory of God appears to men (e.g. John i. 14)… (Ibid., pp. 110-111; bold emphasis mine)

… Further, the idea of ‘glory’ suggests a source whence it derives. The Christ, therefore, who as the heavenly man was from the beginning of the creation as the image and glory of God and at the same time the Son of His love (Col. i. 13) must be regarded as deriving His being from God, and also as reflecting, like an image seen in a mirror, the divine glory, as Christians in turn are to reflect with unveiled faces the ‘glory’ of the Lord Jesus… (Ibid., p. 118; bold emphasis mine)

The ‘form of God’ is to be read against an Old Testament background. The morphe theou may be the equivalent of eikon = doxa of God; and thus describes the first man, Adam at his creation (Gen. i. 26, 27). Adam reflected the glory of the eternal Son of God who, from eternity, is Himself the ‘image’ of the invisible and ineffable God. Both Adams are thought of as the possessors of celestial light. What Paul had learned at the feet of Gamaliel about the ‘glory’ of the first Adam–the idealized picture of the Rabbinic schools–he transferred to the last Adam as He had revealed Himself to him in a blaze of glory. This contrast is the key to the phrase en morphe theou; and points us back to the pre-temporal existence of the heavenly Lord in His unique relationship to God. It also prepares for the soteriological mission on which He came in ‘the fulness of time’. For His coming and redeeming enterprise is nothing other than the recovery of the ‘image’ in His people. In taking our nature upon Him (Rom. viii. 3) and fulfilling the role of the obedient last Adam as the perfect Man in whom the image of true manhood is seen, He reversed the baneful effect of what the first Adam did. So he is described as the ‘last Adam’ (I Cor. xv. 45); ‘the second Man’ (1 Cor. xv. 47) and the ‘new man’ whose image–the image of humanity as God intended it (so Kittel)– is renewed in His Church (Col. iii. 10; cf. II Cor. iii. 18; I Cor. xv. 49; Rom. viii. 29; Ignatius, ad Ephes. xx, 1). (Ibid., p. 119; bold emphasis mine)

As the foregoing scholarly reference demonstrates the form of God refers to the visible manifestation, i.e., the glory, that God displays so that those beholding that glory will have no doubt that the Being appearing before them is YHVH Almighty.

In other words, God’s form refers to God’s visible appearance, to God assuming a visible shape, so that all those gazing upon that divine manifestation become aware that they are standing before the face/presence of God.

This understanding is supported by the following OT texts:

“Then Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up.They saw the God of Israel. Under his feet they saw what looked like a pavement of sapphire as clear as the sky.The Lord did not lay his hand on the dignitaries of the people of Israel. They gazed at God, and they ate and drank. The Lord said to Moses, ‘Come up to me on the mountain. Wait there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commands that I have written, so that you can teach them.’ Moses set out with his assistant Joshua and went up onto the mountain of God.He said to the elders, ‘Wait here for us, until we come back to you. Look, here are Aaron and Hur. They will be with you. Whoever is involved in a dispute can go to them.’ Moses went up onto the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain. The Glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered the mountain for six days. On the seventh day the Lord called to Moses out of the middle of the cloud.The appearance of the Glory of the Lord looked like a devouring fire on the top of the mountain in the sight of the people of Israel.Moses entered into the middle of the cloud and climbed up the mountain. Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.” Exodus 24:9-18 Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV)

“The Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance to the tent. He called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward.He said, ‘Now listen to my words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known to him in a vision. In a dream I will speak with him. Not so, however, with my servant Moses. He is faithful in my whole household.With him I speak face-to-face, clearly, and not in riddles. He sees the form of the Lord (utemunat YHVH). Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant, against Moses?’” Numbers 12:5-8 EHV

Contrast the English rendering of the Hebrew with the way the Greek versions of the OT translated this passage:

Bible rendered “I will speak to him mouth to mouth apparently, and not in dark speeches; and he has seen the glory of the Lord (ten doxan Kyriou); and why were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?” Numbers 12:8 LXX

Note! To behold YHVH’s form is to look upon the glory of YHVH.

Here’s a text where God is said to be clothed with splendid and majestic light:

“Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, you are very great. You are clothed with splendor and majesty. He wears light like a robe. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy. He lays beams on the waters to support his upper chambers. He makes clouds his chariot. He travels on the wings of the wind.” Psalm 104:1-3 EHV

In the following cases, the prophet Ezekiel equates God’s Glory with God’s manifesting as a radiant, luminescent human figure:

“Above the dome that was over their heads, there was something that appeared to be a sapphire that was shaped like a throne. Seated on that throne-like form there was a figure that looked like a man. I saw something like the gleam of glowing metal with fire in it and all around it. It extended upward from what appeared to be the man’s waist. Below what appeared to be his waist, I saw what appeared to be fire, and a bright light surrounded him. The bright light that surrounded him looked like the rainbow that is in the clouds on a rainy day. This was the appearance of the likeness of the Glory of the LORD. When I saw this, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice speaking.” Ezekiel 1:26-28 EHV

“In the sixth year, in the sixth month, on the fifth day of the month, I was sitting in my house, and the elders of Judah were sitting in front of me. The hand of the LORD God fell upon me there. I looked, and there I saw a figure that looked like a man. From what appeared to be his waist down, he looked like fire, and from his waist up, he had the appearance of a dazzling light, something like glowing metal. He reached out with what looked like a hand and seized me by a lock of hair. Then the Spirit lifted me up between earth and heaven and brought me to Jerusalem, while I was experiencing visions from God. He brought me to the entrance of the north gate into the inner courtyard of the Temple, where the idolatrous image of jealousy, which provokes jealousy, was located. Then I looked, and there was the Glory of the God of Israel, as it was in the vision that I had seen in the middle of the river valley.” Ezekiel 8:1-4 EHV

“Then he led me to the gate, the gate that faces east. Suddenly I saw that the Glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east. His voice sounded like the roar of rushing water, and the earth was shining with his glory. The appearance of the vision that I saw was like the vision I saw when he came to destroy the city—visions like the vision I saw by the Kebar Canal, and I fell on my face. The Glory of the LORD entered the temple through the gate facing east. Then the Spirit lifted me up and brought me to the inner court, and the Glory of the LORD filled the temple. I heard someone speaking to me from the temple while the man was standing beside me. The voice said to me: Son of man, this is the place of my throne, and this is the place for the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the people of Israel forever. Never again will the house of Israel profane my holy name, neither they nor their kings, neither by their prostitution nor by the memorials to their dead kings at their high places. Whenever they placed their threshold next to my threshold and their doorpost beside my doorpost with only a wall between me and them, they would defile my holy name by their abominations that they did, so I exterminated them in my anger. Now let them remove their prostitution and the memorials of their dead kings from my presence, and I will dwell among them forever.” Ezekiel 43:1-9 EHV  

And now for an example from the pre-Christian Jewish pseudepigrapha:

“Violently agitated and trembling, I fell upon my face. In the vision I looked, And behold there was another habitation more spacious than the former, every entrance to which was open before me, erected in the midst of a vibrating flame. So greatly did it excel in all points, in glory, in magnificence, and in magnitude, that it is impossible to describe to you either the splendour or the extent of it. Its floor was on fire; above were lightnings and agitated stars, while its roof exhibited a blazing fire. Attentively I surveyed it, and saw that it contained an exalted throne; The appearance of which was like that of frost; while its circumference resembled the orb of the brilliant sun; and there was the voice of the cherubim. From underneath this mighty throne rivers of flaming fire issued. To look upon it was impossible. One great in glory sat upon it: Whose robe was brighter than the sun, and whiter than snow. No angel was capable of penetrating to view the face of Him, the Glorious and the Effulgent; nor could any mortal behold Him. A fire was flaming around Him. A fire also of great extent continued to rise up before Him; so that not one of those who surrounded Him was capable of approaching Him, among the myriads of ‘myriads who were before Him. To Him holy consultation was needless. Yet did not the sanctified, who were near Him, depart far from Him either by night or by day; nor were they removed from Him. I also was so far advanced, with a veil on my face, and trembling. Then the Lord with his own mouth called me, saying, Approach hither, Enoch, at my holy word. And He raised me up, making me draw near even to the entrance. My eye was directed to the ground.” (Book of Enoch, Chapter 14:13-25)

With the foregoing in perspective, it should now be clear what it means for Christ to be existing in God’s form.

The Son manifested the glory by which those who beheld him knew that they were looking at God Almighty himself, even though they also knew that he wasn’t the same Person as the Father.

This is echoed by the words of our Lord himself in his high priestly prayer to the Father on the night of his betrayal:

“Now, Father, glorify me at your own side with the glory I had at your side before the world existed.” John 17:5

The Evangelist gives us an idea of what that glory was, which Jesus had voluntarily laid aside when he became flesh and tabernacled in the world:

“Even though Jesus had done so many miraculous signs in their presence, they still did not believe in him.This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet, who said: Lord, who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For this reason they could not believe, because Isaiah also said: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes, or understand with their heart, or turn—and I would heal them. Isaiah said these things when he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him. Nevertheless, even many of the rulers believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing him, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue.” John 12:37-42 EHV

John cites the following OT reference where the prophet Isaiah actually beheld YHVH God Almighty in a visible form:

“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple.Above him stood the seraphim. Each one had six wings. With two they covered their faces. With two they covered their feet. With two they flew.One called to another and said, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Armies! The whole earth is full of his glory! The foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of the one who called, and the temple was filled with smoke. Then I said, ‘I am doomed! I am ruined, because I am a man with unclean lips, and I dwell among a people with unclean lips, and because my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Armies!’… Then I heard the Lord’s voice, saying, ‘Whom shall I send? Who will go for US?’ Then I said, ‘Here I am. Send me!’ He said: Go! You are to tell this people, ‘Keep listening, but you will never understand. Keep looking, but you will never get it.’ Make the heart of this people calloused. Make their ears deaf and blind their eyes, so that they do not see with their eyes, or hear with their ears, or understand with their hearts, and turn again and be healed.” Isaiah 6:1-5, 8-10 EHV

According to the inspired Apostle, this was none other than the preincarnate Christ, e.g., Jesus in his prehuman existence, whom Isaiah saw seated on the throne!

This is further confirmed by what John writes in the prologue to his Gospel:

“The Word became flesh and dwelled among us. We have seen his glory, the glory he has as the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has EVER seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is close to the Father’s side, has made him known.” John 1:14, 18 EHV

Since no one can behold or comprehend God unless the only begotten Son, who is the uncreated Word that brought all creation into existence, makes him known this means that it was the preexistent Son of God whom Isaiah beheld on the throne.

Therefore, being in the form of God basically means that Christ manifested/manifests himself in that very visible shape and radiance that points to his eternal existence as YHVH God Almighty. This divine form confirms Jesus’ identity as God’s uniquely begotten Son who is equal to the Father in essence and glory.

FURTHER READING

Jesus Christ: The God Whose Glory Isaiah Beheld

Jesus Christ: The God of the Patriarchs and Prophets

Who Did Abraham See?

WHO DID THE PROPHETS SEE? A JEHOVAH’S WITNESS DILEMMA

“The Form of a god”? The Translation of Morphē Theou in Philippians 2:6

Philippians 2:6 In Various English Translations

Bart D. Ehrman Proves Muhammad is a false prophet Pt. 2a

Carmen Christi: Worshiping Christ as God

Revisiting the Deity of Christ in Light of the Carmen Christi Pt. 1

Revisiting the Deity of Christ in Light of the Carmen Christi Pt. 2

In this post I will use the case of Judas Iscariot to refute the Calvinistic doctrine of T.U.L.I.P.⁽¹⁾ by showing that the God-breathed Scriptures emphatically teach that Christ chose him for the express purpose of saving him, even though the Lord knew that he was a devil whom Satan would tempt to betray God’s uniquely begotten and beloved Son:

“Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?’ He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, for it was he who would betray Him, being one of the twelve.” John 6:70-71

JESUS DIES FOR JUDAS’ SINS

According to Luke’s Gospel, on the night of Jesus’ betrayal our Lord offered the broken bread and the cup which pointed to his sacrificial death to all those who were present, telling them that he was doing this for them.

What makes Luke’s account rather interesting is that Judas was present and actually partook of the Lord’s Supper!

“And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is My body which is given for YOU; do this in remembrance of Me.’ And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for YOU is the new covenant in My blood. But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!’ And they began to discuss among themselves which one of them it might be who was going to do this thing.” Luke 22:19-23

This proves that Jesus had come to die for Judas to atone for his sins in order to save him from everlasting judgment.

Now if Christ wanted to exclude Judas he could have easily done so by qualifying his statements, much like we find in John’s Gospel when he washed the feet of the twelve Apostles:

“Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus knowing that His hour had come that He would depart out of this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, got up from supper, and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself. Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. So He came to Simon Peter. He said to Him, ‘Lord, do You wash my feet?’ Jesus answered and said to him, ‘What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.’Peter said to Him, ‘Never shall You wash my feet!’ Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.’ Simon Peter said to Him, ‘Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.’ Jesus said to him, ‘He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, BUT NOT ALL of you.’For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, ‘Not all of you are clean.’ So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, ‘Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’” John 13:1-18

Christ’s statements that not all of his followers were clean, or that he wasn’t speaking about all of them, show that our Lord had no qualms about making sure that his audience knew he wasn’t referring to all of them. Yet no such qualification appears in our Lord’s words to the disciples when offering them the bread and the cup as a token of his sacrificial death on their behalf.

The foregoing, perhaps, explains why Biblical scholars readily admit that Judas personally partook of the Lord’s Supper:

Verse 21

The hand of him that betrayeth me, etc. – What can be desired more, says Dr. Lightfoot, as a demonstration that Judas was present at the eucharist? And, whereas the contrary is endeavored to be proved out of John 13, nothing is made out of nothing; for there is not one syllable throughout that whole chapter of the paschal supper, but of a supper before the feast of the Passover. (Adam Clarke’s Commentary: http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22; bold emphasis mine)

Verse 21

But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me,…. By the “hand” is meant, not figuratively the counsel, contrivance, and conspiracy of Judas to betray him, as the word is used in 2 Samuel 14:19 but literally the hand of Judas, which was then dipping in the dish with Christ, Matthew 26:23 and it follows here, is with me on the table; and is an aggravation of his sin, that one that sat with him at his table, ate bread with him, and dipped his morsel in the same dish, should be the betrayer of him, according to the prophecy in Psalm 41:9 as well as describes and points at the person that should do this action, even one of his disciples; for which disciples, he had just now said, his body is given, and his blood is shed. The phrase, “with me”, is left out in the Syriac and Persic versions. From Luke’s account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord’s supper, since this was said when both were over. (John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible: http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?bk=41&ch=22; bold emphasis mine)

“… By referring to Judas’s betrayal after the Lord’s supper rather before (Mark 14:18-21; Matt 26:21-25), Luke revealed that participation in the Lord’s Supper does not guarantee membership in God’s kingdom. Compare John 13:26 and 13:27-30. Luke presented similar teachings elsewhere (see comments on 8:4-15; 13:22-30, ‘The Lukan message’).” (Robert Stein, Luke: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary) [B&H Publishing Group, 1993], p. 546; bold emphasis mine)

“The introduction of a betrayer in v 21 is pregnant with significance. First, it is stunning simply that the inner circle of Jesus’ followers, those who constitute the kin group with whom he has chosen to share Passover, includes a betrayer (cf. 21:16). Though Luke does little linguistically to point his audience in this direction, we may nonetheless hear reverberations of the tragedy detailed with respect to the suffering righteous, including the travesty of treachery by a table intimate (Ps 41:9). Second, although ‘hand’ often has the transferred sense of ‘power,’ this term has also been used in reference to those who stand over against Jesus, those seeking his demise. That such a person is present even at Passover with Jesus is illustrative of the openness of his practices of table fellowship, but is also reminiscent of his earlier warning: Sharing table fellowship with Jesus, even listening to his teachings – these are no guarantee of entry into eschatological redemption (13:22-30)…” (Joel b. Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) [William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997], pp. 764-765; bold emphasis mine)

JUDAS’ NAME WRITTEN IN HEAVEN

Luke also records the Lord’s statements that Judas was one of the disciples whose name had been written in heaven:

“After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go… Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.’ And He said to them, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because YOUR names are written in heaven.’” Luke 10:1, 17-30

For Judas’ name to be recorded in heaven means that God desired to save him from wrath and destruction.

Notable NT scholar Darrell L. Bock explains why he thinks that the twelve Apostles were included among the seventy disciples whom the Lord sent forth to evangelize:

The Mission of the Seventy-two (10:1–24)* The ministry of proclamation is not limited to the Twelve. In 9:1–6 they were sent out on a mission to preach the kingdom, but now a larger group of seventy-two is sent. Jesus does not limit ministry to a select few (see 9:49–50, 60–61). Disciples are called to preach the hope of the kingdom. Luke 22:35 refers back to these instructions when Jesus is addressing the Twelve at the Last Supper. So it appears that the Twelve are part of the seventy-two. They travel two by two to prepare different towns for Jesus’ arrival. It is clear from what Jesus says that the task ahead of them is large. There will be rejection, but they can also anticipate a large harvest. (Bock, Luke (Lk 10:1–24), InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 1994; bold emphasis mine)

The following passage corroborates that Judas was one of the seventy that rejoiced at the fact that even demons were subject to them because of Christ’s authority:

“And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him. These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: ‘Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food.’” Matthew 10:1-10

Moreover, the Holy Scriptures teach that God erases or blots out the name of any individual who falls away from God’s grace or refuses to repent and turn to him:

“Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, ‘You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.’ Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, ‘Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.’ And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.’” Exodus 32:30-33

“Add iniquity to their iniquity, And let them not come into Your righteousness. Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.” Psalm 69:27-28

“He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.” Revelation 3:5

The risen Lord’s words imply that he will blot out the name of any Christian who fails to endure and overcome.

This is brought out clearly from the fact that the Bible plainly says that Christ will refuse to confess and acknowledge any person who is too ashamed to confess and acknowledge the Lord:

“Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 10:32-33

“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” Mark 8:38

“For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will beashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father’s, and of the holy angels.” Luke 9:26

“If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.” 2 Timothy 2:12

The aforementioned texts show that the risen Lord will indeed blot out the name from the Book of Life and refuse to confess anyone who falls short of enduring till the end and/or denies the Son before others.

This is essentially what happened to Judas. I.e., since Judas fell away by betraying Christ, God ended up blotting out his name from the Lamb’s Book of Life.

JUDAS PROMISED TO REIGN WITH CHRIST IN THE AGE TO COME

The final proof that Jesus desired to save Judas, not condemn him to everlasting destruction, comes from Matthew’s Gospel:

“Then Peter answered and said to Him, ‘See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on TWELVE thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.But many who are first will be last, and the last first.’” Matthew 19:27-30

Judas is included in Christ’s promise that the twelve Apostles will rule over the twelve tribes of Israel in the age to come, when the Son physically descends from heaven to renew and transform the earth.

This shows that Judas was destined for salvation, but chose to turn away from Christ and therefore forfeited his right to everlasting life.

In other words, it wasn’t the Son who rejected Judas or predestined him for eternal wrath, as Calvinism would have us believe. Rather, Judas chose to cut himself off from the grace of the Lord Jesus by betraying him, thereby relinquishing the gift of salvation that Christ had come to bestow on him and the entire human race.    

FURTHER READING

John Calvin and Particular Redemption

The Case for Unlimited Atonement Pt. 1

LIMITED ATONEMENT DEBATE PT. 2

CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON VS. JAMES WHITE

ENDNOTES

⁽¹⁾ Here is a helpful post explaining what T.U.L.I.P. means: What is TULIP in Calvinism? What are the five points of Calvinism?.