Tag: christianity

GOD GAVE JESUS LIFE?

The following excerpt is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 2: Like Father, Like Son: Jesus’ Divine Attributes, Chapter 13: Was Christ the First Creature?, pp. 247-250.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

LIFE FROM THE FATHER (JOHN 5:26 AND 6:57)

We begin with a pair of sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John that critics of the doctrine of the incarnation commonly claim prove that Jesus was not eternal deity:

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)

“As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me.” (John 6:57)

It may seem surprising that anyone would claim to find proof texts against the eternal preexistence of Christ in the Gospel of John, the book that most emphatically teaches it (as we saw in the previous chapter). Some Jehovah’s Witnesses cite these two texts to prove that the preexistent Christ was a created being.1 The Muslim apologist Shabir Ally, who rejects the preexistence of Christ, cites these texts to show that John regarded Christ as a preexistent yet created being.2 The Unitarian author Kegan Chandler, who argues that Christ’s existence began at his human conception and birth, cites these texts to prove that Christ was “not in existence until the Father said so.”3

Christian scholars have proposed two somewhat different interpretations of John 5:26. The classic view, going back to the church fathers, is that the Father “granted the Son to have life in himself” in the sense that the Son has had life from eternity past in dependence on the Father. The Father has “life in himself,” and he has granted from eternity to the Son to have “life in himself” as well. On this interpretation, John 5:26 affirms both the Son’s eternity and his dependence on the Father. Edgar Goodspeed’s translation captures this interpretation quite explicitly: “For just as the Father is self-existent, he has given self-existence to the Son.”4 These scholars argue that the Father’s “life in himself” is most naturally understood to mean his eternal, self-existent life, and therefore we should understand the Son’s “life in himself ” here to be the same kind of divine life. This life, however, has been given by the Father to the Son, meaning that the Son eternally depends on the Father for his life. If this view is correct, the Son is fully God by nature (specifically, possessing eternal, self-existent life) and yet in some sense functionally “subordinate” to the Father in the sense of being eternally dependent on him. Many contemporary interpreters agree with this classic view.5

A second view going back at least to the sixteenth-century Reformer John Calvin6 is that John 5:26 refers to the Son’s dependence on the Father for his life in the incarnation. The idea here is that the Son exists eternally with divine life, but in becoming a man made himself particularly dependent on the Father for his life. That is, the Father gave or granted to the Son the role of being divine, eternal life incarnate for the purpose of giving eternal life to those who believe in him. Technically, John 5:26 does not say that the Father gave the Son life in himself, but that he gave the Son “to have” life in himself, which suggests this was a matter of the Son’s role. The verb translated “has granted” (ESV, NRSV, and others) or “gave” (NABRE, NASB), edōken, is used in John two dozen times in statements by Jesus that the Father had given to him various aspects of his role in redemption. In the immediate context, these things include the “authority” for “judgment” (5:22, 27). Elsewhere in John, Jesus says that the Father “gave” him works or work for him to accomplish (5:36; 17:4), what he was to say (12:49; 17:8), his people or “sheep” (6:37, 39; 10:29; 17:2b, 6, 9, 22b, 24b; 18:9), authority to impart eternal life (17:2a), the Father’s “name” to reveal (17:11, 12), the “glory” to be given to his people (17:22a, 24b), “the cup” of his death (18:11), and indeed “all things” (3:35; 17:7; cf. 13:3).

One of the strengths of this incarnational interpretation, as just noted, is that it fits especially well in the immediate context. The subject throughout this passage is the Father’s deferring to the Son the authority to raise the dead, judge all people, and give eternal life to whomever he chooses (John 5:21–29). Verses 21 and 26 are clearly parallel statements:

“For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” (John 5:21)

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)

One may hold to this interpretation of John 5:26 while also maintaining the classic understanding of the Son as eternally dependent on the Father in some way. It is also true that in the Gospel of John the many things that the Father “gave” his Son were proper for him to have due to his eternal relationship with the Father. What this interpretation does, specifically, is to explain John 5:26 as expressing the Father’s role in sending the Son to become Life incarnate. This view also has some notable contemporary scholars among its advocates.7

Whichever of these two views one prefers, John 5:26 does not teach that the Son was a created being. To the contrary, it affirms that he has “life in himself,” the same life that the Father has, and that his possession of this self-existent life is what enables the Son to give eternal life to others.

The same two basic interpretive options arise in John 6:57. Jesus’ statement, “I live because of the Father,” can be understood as referring to his preincarnate life8 or to his incarnate life.9 LDS author Charles Pyle, seeking to use John 6:57 to prove that Christ’s existence had a beginning in the primordial past, cites the standard Greek-English lexicon as stating that the word dia followed by a noun in the accusative case expresses “the efficient cause.”10

He concludes, “And if Jesus had an efficient cause, he had to have had some sort of beginning as an intelligent entity. There is no other way around that, in this author’s opinion.”11 (Recall that in LDS doctrine, all human beings, including Jesus, preexisted in heaven as spirit sons and daughters of heavenly Father and heavenly Mother.) However, whether or not Jesus was referring to his life before coming to the earth, his statement simply cannot mean what Pyle claims. After saying, “I live because of the Father,” Jesus says, “so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me” (di’ eme, that is, dia followed by the accusative, 6:57b). If “I live because of the Father” must mean the Father caused Jesus to exist, then “he also will live because of me” must mean that Jesus will cause the person who “feeds on” him to exist. But no one thinks that is what Jesus was saying, since those who believe in Jesus must first exist before they can “feed on” him!

The use of dia followed by the accusative can but does not necessarily express efficient causation. For example, it could mean that the Son lives “because of” the Father in the sense that the Father is the source or ground of the Son’s eternal divine life.12 Likewise, believers in Christ will live “because of” Christ in the sense that his incarnation of eternal life becomes the ground for imparting eternal life to them. Only if one (a) insists on taking dia to express efficient causation, (b) assumes that the context is the Son’s preincarnate life, and (c) presupposes that efficient causation must be interpreted in temporal terms, can one infer from John 6:57 that the Son was brought into existence at some point in the distant past. Such a conclusion can be defended, however, only at the cost of forcing John 6:57 into conflict with the rest of the Gospel, which presents the Son as eternal (John 1:1–3; 8:58; 17:5).

On the other hand, Jesus’ statement in John 6:57 may mean that he lived as the incarnate Son because of the Father. This interpretation, like the incarnational interpretation of John 5:26, fits the immediate context nicely. What Jesus says is this: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me” (6:57). That is, the Father sent Jesus the Son to be a human being on the earth in order to be eternal life incarnate for our benefit (cf. 6:35, 48; 11:25–26; 14:6). Again, this interpretation does not deny that the Son preexisted with divine life. Rather, it understands John 6:57 to mean that it was the Father’s will for that life to be incarnated in human form.

In short, John 5:26 and 6:57 do not contradict John’s own teaching that Jesus the Son was with the Father before the world and that through him all created things came into existence.

1. E.g., “The Trinity—Should You Believe It?” Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1984, 5; Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 3rd ed., 291, 337, 340, 362, etc. Stafford treats this interpretation as self-evident and so offers no argument or exegesis in support.

2. Ally, Is Jesus God? The Bible Says No, 27, cf. 11. 3. Chandler, The God of Jesus, 363 n. 1191.

4. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The New Testament: An American Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1923), John 5:26.

5. E.g., Morris, Gospel according to John, 282–83; Carson, Gospel according to John, 256–57; Kruse, John, 175; and see esp. Randy Rheaume, “John’s Jesus on Life Support: His Filial Relationship in John 5:26 and 6:57,” TrinJ 33 ns (2012): 49–75.

6. John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel according to John, translated by William Pringle (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847 [orig. 1553]), 1:206–7.

7. E.g., Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 159; Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (I–XII): Introduction, Translation, and Notes, AYBC 29 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 215.

8. E.g., Carson, Gospel according to John, 299; Rheaume, “John’s Jesus on Life Support.”

9. E.g., Newman and Nida, Handbook on the Gospel of John, 209.

10. BDAG, s.v. “dia,” B.2.(d)β.

11. D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye Are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text, rev. ed. (by the author; North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace, 2018), 356.

12. So, for example, the Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932), 5:112–13; similarly, Murray J. Harris, John, EGGNT (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 142. Note that BDAG, which Pyle cites, lists John 5:26 as a possible example of this usage, “because of, for the sake of,” s.v. “dia,” B.2.(a), as well as possibly expressing efficient cause.

To confirm the authors’ exegesis and refutation of the anti-trinitarian misapplication of John 5:26 and 6:57, I quote texts where Christ is described as the very Source of life, being the One who preserves all things and grants immortality to creatures. These are functions and characteristics which are uniquely divine, and therefore belong to God alone:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” John 1:1-4 Legacy Standard Bible (LSB)

“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes… Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live… Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” John 5:21, 25, 28-29 LSB  

“‘All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. Now this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.’ Therefore the Jews were grumbling about Him, because He said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ They were saying, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, “I have come down from heaven”?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Stop grumbling among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day… He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.’” John 6:37-44, 54 LSB

“‘My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish—ever; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’ The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, ‘I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?’ The Jews answered Him, ‘For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.’” John 10:27-33 LSB

“Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha said to Him, ‘I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die—ever. Do you believe this?’ She said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, the One who comes into the world.” John 11:23-27 LSB

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” John 14:6 LSB

“Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, ‘Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.’” John 17:1-2 LSB

“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life—and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you may also have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 1:1-3 LSB

“For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. And He IS before all things, And in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:16-17 LSB

“For you died and your life has been hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is manifested, then you also will be manifested with Him in glory.” Colossians 3:3-4 LSB

“in these last days spoke to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds, who is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power; who, having accomplished cleansing for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high… And, ‘You, Lord (the Son), in the beginning founded the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; They will perish, but You remain; And they all will wear out like a garment, And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.’” Hebrews 1:2-3, 10-12 LSB

FURTHER READING

HOW MANY THEOIS IN THE NT?

A HYMN TO THE DIVINE CHRIST

REV. 3:14 REVISITED… ONE MORE TIME!

FIRSTBORN OF CREATION REVISITED… AGAIN!

MELCHIZEDEK: A DIVINE PRIESTLY MESSIAH?

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), a scroll was found in cave 11 at Qumran portraying Melchizedek as a heavenly divine Being. What made this document rather interesting is that texts about YHWH and God were attributed to him (Cf. Pss. 7:7-8; 82:1; Isa. 52:7), as well as OT citations typically associated with the Messiah (Cf. Ps. 110; Isa. 61; Dan. 7; 9).

Suffice it to say, this has else some scholars to conclude that Melchizedek is being described as the second Divine Power who is both personally distinct from and identified with YHWH. Certain scholar even go as far as to argue that Melchizedek is simply another name/title for YHWH God himself!     

One such authority is Rick Van de Water who an article titled, “Michael or Yhwh? Toward Identifying Melchizedek in 11Q13,” in Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha, Vol 16.1 (2006), pp. 75-86, 2006, Sage Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi) DOI: 10.1177/0951820706069186 http://JSP.sagepub.com.

In this post I will be taking excerpts from his article highlight his position that Melchizedek is both YHWH and distinct from YHWH, being one of the “Two Powers” in heaven, which was widespread Jewish belief at that time. All emphasis will be mine.

Since the initial publication of 11QMelch, the figure ‘Melchizedek’ has usually been described as an angel (Michael or otherwise).1 F. Manzi, however, has recently argued against such an identification.2 His argument is based on the long-observed appropriation for Melchizedek of a number of biblical statements concerning Yhwh.3 This leads him to conclude that, rather than referring to an intermediary of Yhwh, ‘Melchizedek’ is simply a divine title for Yhwh himself.4 While his point is a valid one, Manzi admits that there remains much to be said for the idea that Melchizedek is an intermediary.5 The purpose of this article is to argue that the identification of Melchizedek as an intermediary can be reconciled with Manzi’s thesis that ‘Melchizedek’ is a divine title.

The expression ‘two Powers’ … recurs in early rabbinic polemic against belief that God has a divine mediator who shares his throne.6 According to A.F. Segal, the biblical theophanies constitute ‘a most important part of the tradition’.7 Since Philo and some apocalyptic writings show awareness of it, Segal has concluded that the interpretation of the biblical theophanies in terms of a divine intermediary must predate the second century CE.8 Supporting his view is the mention by medieval Karaite commentators of the ‘Magharians’, a first-century Jewish sect believing in a celestial being who created the world, was placed over all creation, and was God’s intermediary who appeared to the patriarchs and spoke to the prophets.9 Qirqisani explained the name ‘Magharians’ as derived from the discovery of their writings in caves.10 Since the Essenes are not mentioned in Qirqisani’s presentation of early Jewish sects, ‘Magharians’ may simply be an ad hoc name for them.11 Though their belief has been related to Philo’s concept of the divine Logos, their alleged existence prior to the Christian era makes his influence on them unlikely.12 What is more probable is that Philo’s interpretation of the intermediary of the biblical theophanies reflects a more widespread belief in certain early Jewish sectors.13 What will be argued below is that 11QMelch reflects belief comparable to that of Philo and the Magharians. That this is not unthinkable is argued by the fact that a similar idea appears in other writings found at Qumran. The reference to ‘the God of Israel and the Angel / Messenger of his truth’ in 1QS 3.24, for example, has been noted in this regard.14 The latter title, moreover, is widely considered to refer to the figure Melchizedek of 11QMelch 2.13.15

8. Segal, Two Powers, pp. 260-61.

9. L. Nemoy (ed.), Ya’qub Al-Qirqisani, Kitab Al-Anwar Wal-Maraqib: Code of Karaite Law (New York: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939), p. 55 § I. 2.8; idem, Karaite Anthology: Excerpts from the Early Literature (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952) 50; H.A. Wolfson, ‘The Pre-Existent Angel of the Magharians and Al-Nahawandi’, JQR 51 (1960), pp. 91-93; W. Bacher, ‘Qirqisani, the Karaite, and his Work on Jewish Sects’, in P. Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies (New York: Harmon, 1971), p. 275.

10. Qirqisani, Kitab Al-Anwar, I.2.8. Some of their writings were found in the ninth century in a cave near Jericho and significantly influenced the beliefs of the Karaites of Jerusalem (cf. R. de Vaux, ‘A propos des manuscrits de la Mer Morte’, RB 57 [1950], pp. 417-29 [421-42]).

11. J. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism (WUNT, 36; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), p. 330.

12. Wolfson, ‘Pre-Existent Angel’, pp. 95-96. Qirqisani recorded that the book of the ‘Alexandrian’ was among the scrolls found in the ninth century (cf. Bacher, ‘Qirqisani’, p. 275); see also D.T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 15-16.

13. For Philo as a compiler of traditions, rather than an innovator, cf. W.L. Knox, ‘Pharisaism and Hellenism’, in H. Loewe (ed.), Judaism and Christianity. II. The Contact of Pharisaism with Other Cultures (repr.; New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937]), pp. 61-111 (62); G. Bertram, ‘Philo und die jüdische Propaganda in der antiken Welt’, in W. Grundmann (ed.), Christentum und Judentum: Studien zur Erforschung ihres gegenseitigen Verhältnisses (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1940), pp. 79-105. For the striking parallels between Philo’s traditions and those of the Karaites, cf. B. Revel, ‘The Karaite Halakah and its Relation to Sadducean, Samaritan and Philonian Halakah’, in Birnbaum (ed.), Karaite Studies, pp. 1-88.

14. Segal, Two Powers, pp. 20-21.

15. Cf. van der Woude, ‘Melchisedek’, p. 369; Y. Yadin, The Scroll of ‘The War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness’ (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1957), pp. 234-36; P. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchireša‘ (CBQMS, 10; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981), p. 139; J.T. Milik, ‘4QVisions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène’, RB 79 (1972), pp. 77-79 (86); C. Newsom, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), p. 37. Also 4Q177 12-13.7: ‘…his Angel of Truth will help all the children of light from the power of Belial’. 16. Manzi, Melchisedek, pp. 64-65. (Pp. 76-78)

… There is much to suggest that, rather than referring to the priest of Gen. 14.18, ‘Melchizedek’ alludes to the priest like Melchizedek in Ps. 110.4, who is called ‘my Lord’ and is invited to sit at the right hand of the Lord (110.1).29

That he is portrayed as a heavenly priest bolsters the argument for his being the agent of the expiation achieved on the Day of Atonement (11QMelch 2.7-8) in inauguration of the tenth jubilee (Lev. 25.9).30 Though it was traditionally the high priest who performed the atonement rite on that day (Lev. 16), the expiation presented in 11QMelch is more eschatological than liturgical.31 In biblical tradition, as well as in other Qumran documents, it is Yhwh who not only avenges, but also atones.32 Likewise 11QMelch presents the eschatological atonement as a work of God.33 Since Melchizedek performs Yhwh’s roles in liberating, judging, avenging and ruling, is it unreasonable to conclude that it is also his act of atonement that delivers those ‘of his lot’ from the vengeance? This is the apparent meaning of the fragmentary phrase in 11QMelch 2.6: ‘and he proclaimed liberty for them to set them free [] from all their iniquities’.34 In light of biblical prophecy, his eschatological act of atonement would thus constitute yet another affirmation that he is Yhwh.

26. Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 132.

27. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 64; Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 139. Due to the lacuna, de Jonge and van der Woude (‘11QMelchizedek’, p. 306) questioned Melchizedek’s priesthood, though the latter had previously suggested that kaphar in 11QMelch 2.6-8 was in reference to Melchizedek (‘Melchisedek’, p. 363).

28. For Isa. 61.1-10 as the discourse of a high priest, cf. P. Grelot, ‘Sur Isaïe LXI: La première consécration d’un grand prêtre’, RB 97 (1990), pp. 414-31 (422).

29. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 54; Milik, ‘Milkî-sedeq’, p. 138; Flusser, Judaism, p. 188; Puech, ‘Notes’, p. 512; Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 136; cf. also Heb. 7.15, 24.

30. Though the nature of this act of expiation is not clear, the biblical notion of kaphar usually implies a blood sacrifice (Lev. 17.11).

31. Aschim, ‘Melchizedek and Jesus’, p. 140.

32. Deut. 32.43; CD 2.5; 4.7; 20.34. 33. Milik, ‘Milkî-sedeq’, p. 125. 34. The Hebrew text of this phrase is given in n. 22. (P. 80)

The generally accepted restoration of 11QMelch 2.18-20, moreover, identifies this Messiah-herald as the comforter (Isa. 61.3).37 What is striking about this attribution is that throughout Isaiah’s Book of the Consolation, it is Yhwh who is referred to as the comforter.38 Again the logical implication is that the Messiah-herald ‘Melchizedek’ is Yhwh. This agrees with what has already been seen in the portrayal of Melchizedek as the Messiah-herald of Isaiah 61 (11QMelch 2.5-6), as well as God reigning in Zion (2.24).39 Since Isa. 52.9b joins Yhwh the comforter to the herald’s message to Zion, ‘your God reigns’ (52.7), the application to Melchizedek of God reigning in Zion and comforting implies that he is also the herald-comforter of Isa. 52.7…

The extant text of 11QMelch thus exhibits numerous indications that Melchizedek is YHWH, along with other suggestions that he is distinct from el. This dual image parallels the concept of the biblical Angel/Messenger of the Lord.42 It also recalls the one ‘like a son of man’ in Dan. 7.13-22. Both are given the role of eschatological judge.43 Melchizedek’s ‘return on high’ (Ps. 7.8) in 11QMelch 2.11 also parallels the ascent of the ‘one like a son of man’ to the heavenly throne (Dan. 7.13-14). Even the dual image of Melchizedek as God judging (11QMelch 2.11), yet distinct from God as the executor of his judgments (2.13), resembles the OG version of Daniel’s figure who is distinct from, yet ‘like’ (hos) the Ancient of Days (Dan. 7.13).

‘Return on high’ (11QMelch 2.11) implies, moreover, that Melchizedek is a celestial being who has been to earth. The nature of that visit to earth is suggested by the assertion that he is the Anointed One foretold by both Isaiah and Daniel (2.6, 18). That identification implies that he is human.44 That he is said to be the Anointed One ‘cut off’ (Dan. 9.26), moreover, implies his death. Since the ‘cutting off’ of Daniel’s Messiah is associated with ‘atonement for sin’… it is not inconceivable that the death of Melchizedek was taken to be the act of expiation delivering ‘those of his lot’ from the vengeance.45 The elaborate collage of biblical images in 11QMelch argues that its full text presented Melchizedek, not only as a heavenly priestly Messiah, but also as a human suffering Messiah.46

Melchizedek’s roles of judging the wicked and destroying them (11QMelch 2.9, 13), as well as ruling over a kingdom (2.24-25) agree, moreover, with what other early Jewish sources ascribe to messianism.47 Nor is his portrait as a cosmic Messiah foreign to other Qumran documents.48 An echo of Dan. 7.14, for example, can be found in the first line of 4Q521, which speaks of all heaven and earth listening to ‘his Messiah’.49…

38. Isa. 40.1-2; 49.13; 51.3; 52.9; 57.18; 61.2; 66.13.

39. The idea of a divine Messiah is not particularly innovative, since OG Amos 4.13 identifies the Messiah as kyrios ho theos pantokrator (cf. E.E. Ellis, ‘Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church’, in M.J. Mulder [ed.], Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity [Philadelphia: Fortress; Assen: van Gorcum, 1988], pp. 691-725 [719]). The orthographic similarity between the MT ma sekho and the Vorlage of the OG ton christon autou (= mshicho) suggests that the MT has been altered to remove the identification of the Anointed One as Yhwh Sabaoth.

42. Milik’s restoration of 11QMelch 2.14 with the citation of Mal. 3.1-2 concerning the Angel of the Covenant follows the same line of thought. Milik held that 11QMelch is part of a larger document on the Ages (cf. CD 16.3-4) which included 4Q180 2-4 and 5-6, dealing with the theophanies to Abraham (‘Milkî-sedeq’, pp. 106, 119, 122-25). See J. Starcky, ‘Le Maître de Justice et Jésus’, MDB 1.4 (1978), p. 57; F. García Martínez, ‘Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts’, in D. Parry and S. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), pp. 14-40 (22-24); A.F. Segal (Rebecca’s Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986], p. 89) exemplifies current dependence on apocalyptic literature, explaining this attribution of divinity as participation granted to some principal angels.

43. Starcky, ‘Le Maître’, p. 57; Flusser, Judaism, pp. 188, 191; M.A. Knibb, ‘Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls’, DSD 2.1 (1995), pp. 165-84 (173). For a list of parallels between Melchizedek of 11Q13 and the one like a ‘son of man’ in Dan. 7.9-14, cf. Kobelski, Melchizedek, p. 133. See also the Angel of the Lord in Zech. 3.

44. Cf. P. Rainbow, ‘Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran’, BullBibRes 7 (1997), pp. 179-94.

45. See 1QMelch 2.7 (his act of expiation in the tenth jubilee); 2.18 (‘he is the [A]nointed of the Spiri[t] of whom D[aniel spoke..]’. For the restoration, cf. Fitzmyer, ‘Further Light’, p. 29.

46. A parallel concept can be seen in 1QIsaa 52.14, where the ‘anointing’ of the suffering Servant casts him as a Messiah who suffers in expiation to establish a universal covenant (52.15) and who will be exalted (52.13b).

47. J.H. Charlesworth, ‘From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects’, in idem (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), pp. 3-35 (7).

48. Cf. García Martínez, ‘Two Messianic Figures’, pp. 18-24.

49. Cf. E. Puech, ‘Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521)’, RevQ 15 (1992), pp. 475- 519 (486). García Martínez (‘Two Messianic Figures’, p. 39 n. 40) notes that frag. 2 of 4Q521 speaks of a Davidic messiah, frags. 8-9 of a priestly messiah, and frags. 5-6 of an eschatological messiah. (Pp. 81-83)

It has been argued above that the way in which Melchizedek is presented in 11Q13 is best explained, not in terms of a created angel (Michael or otherwise), but rather in terms of belief in ‘two Powers in heaven’, comparable to that of Philo and the Magharians.61 The author of 11QMelch uses Pss. 7.8; 82.1; 110.1; Isa. 52.7; 61.1; Dan. 7.13; 9.26 to portray Melchizedek as Yhwh and at the same time as God’s intermediary. ‘Melchizedek’ embodies the high-priestly Messiah, the suffering Servant, the herald of peace, Yhwh reigning in Zion and the eschatological judge, or Son of Man. This collage of biblical images resembles Philo’s presentation of the divine Logos, including his assertion that as intermediary and intercessor, the Logos is the true High Priest, Melchizedek.62 The application of several messianic titles to one person can be seen as a natural development of their seminal overlapping in biblical tradition. That overlapping encourages seeing some of the Qumran ‘son of God’ texts as further descriptions of the same figure, despite the absence there of the title ‘Melchizedek’. He exhibits most clearly the belief of the Qumran covenanters in ‘two Powers’. This conclusion is made all the more conceivable by the dating of 11QMelch to the Herodian period, according to current paleographic theory.63

That Melchizedek represents belief in what the early rabbis called a second ‘Power in heaven’, on the other hand, does not contradict Milik’s convincing equation of him with Michael in 1QM 17.6. What has been seen above is that in 11QMelch, a literary play on the name of a biblical figure has transformed the title ‘Melchizedek’ into God’s designation for the sharer of his throne. It is worth considering that literary play is likewise present in the case of Michael in 1QM. Rather than a mere reference to the archangel Michael, it can be seen as another title for Melchizedek ‘who is like God’. It thus constitutes another conceptual parallel to the OG interpretation of Dan. 7.13, where the one ‘like a son of man’ is said to be ‘like’ (hos) the Ancient of Days. Though space does not allow pursuing in more detail this proposed interpretation of the figure Michael in 1QM, it is worth further consideration in regard to the issue at hand.

62. Philo, Migr. 102; Som. 2.231-3; Her. 205-206; Leg. All. 3.25-6, 79-82.

63. Van der Woude, ‘Melchisedek’, p. 357. (Pp. 85-86)

FURTHER READING

MELCHIZEDEK REVISITED

Is Michael the Ruler of Israel? The Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Doesn’t the Bible (also) present Melchizedek as possessing divine attributes?

The Dead Sea Scrolls and God’s Uniplurality: Some Observations on Melchizedek

HOW MANY THEOIS IN THE NT?

The following excerpt is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 3: The Name of Jesus: Jesus’ Divine Names, Chapter 21: Could Jesus Be One of the Gods?, pp. 404-407.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

“IF HE CALLED THEM GODS . . .” (JOHN 10:34–36)

We now move to considering whether the New Testament writings support the notion of a category of “gods,” other than false gods, into which Christ might be placed. As we mentioned earlier, Psalm 82 has played a significant role in debates over the deity of Christ because of Christ’s own reference to the psalm:

The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:33–36)

Unitarians tend to lean very heavily on this passage to trump all of the biblical evidence for the deity of Christ.38 Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, interpret both this passage and Psalm 82 as support for their belief in the (potential) deity of all humanity.39 These diverse theological uses of both Psalm 82 and John 10 might suggest the need for careful consideration before using these texts as proof texts for a particular doctrine.

In current biblical scholarship, John 10:34–36 is one of the most controversial passages in the New Testament—and not because of its supposed difficulty for orthodox theology. One of the difficult questions concerns what view, if any, of the identity of the “gods” in Psalm 82 is presupposed in John 10:34–36. The dominant theory today is that John 10 reflects the view (documented only in later Jewish literature) that the “gods” were the Israelites when they received the law at Mount Sinai.40 However, we agree with Andrew Lincoln that John 10 does not clearly refer to that interpretation of Psalm 82 and that Jesus’ argument can be understood without settling this question.41

The more important question is how Psalm 82 fits into Jesus’ response to his Jewish critics who accused him of blasphemy. Many people understand John 10:34–36 to be arguing that if others (whoever they were) could rightly be called “gods” in Psalm 82, then Jesus could also rightly call himself a god or God’s son. This way of reading John 10:34–36 assumes that the term “gods” is used affirmatively in Psalm 82:6, which we have shown is incorrect. Does John 10:34–36 mistakenly assume such a reading of Psalm 82:6, and if not, how is Jesus using the Psalm in his argument?

A helpful insight comes from an older, largely neglected article in 1964 by Lutheran scholar Richard Jungkuntz. Most interpreters assume that the statement “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35b) means simply that Scripture is true. While agreeing with that principle, Jungkuntz argues that John 10:35b means something more: that Scripture cannot go unfulfilled.42 Note the parallel between the following two sayings of Jesus in John’s Gospel:

“If [ei] on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken [lythē], are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?” (John 7:23)

“If [ei] he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken [lythēnai]—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:35–36)

In these texts, “breaking” Scripture does not mean merely denying its truth but causing it to be unfulfilled. The verb luō and the synonymous verb kataluō in a few other places also have this meaning of causing Scripture to be unfulfilled (Matt. 5:17; John 5:18). The implication is that in John 10:35, Jesus was saying that Psalm 82:6 must be fulfilled in some way. The aside, “and Scripture cannot be broken,” which normally is something that would not have needed to be said in a discussion among Jews, apparently was made to indicate that the text pointed forward to a genuine if surprising fulfillment.

We see how Jesus interpreted this fulfillment of Psalm 82 in his concluding rhetorical question in John 10:36. Whatever those gods were, Scripture did not call them “gods” for no purpose. What those so-called gods failed to be, Jesus really was. They were unrighteous; Jesus was “consecrated” (John 10:36a). They did not genuinely represent God; Jesus, who was sent by the Father (10:36a), did. They failed to live up to the titles of “gods” and “sons of the Most High” (synonymous in the context of Psalm 82:6); Jesus really was “the Son of God” (10:36b). Thus, Jesus’ argument was not, “They were rightly called gods, and so am I,” but rather, “Their failure as ‘gods’ is stated in Scripture to point forward to me coming from the Father as his real Son.” On this reading of John 10:34–36, the “gods” of Psalm 82 are contrasted with Jesus in a sort of “reverse typology” roughly analogous to the way Paul contrasts Adam as the source of sin and death with Christ as the source of righteousness and eternal life (Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Cor. 15:21–22).

If Jesus was not claiming deity, it would have been easy enough to have said something like, “I’m not God; I’m just one of his many sons.” He never did. Whatever the precise nuance of Christ’s argument, he was clearly placing himself in a category of one—not arguing that he belonged in the same category as the “gods” of Psalm 82. Jesus was not, as his critics claimed, a man who was “making himself ” God; he was God’s Son whom the Father had sent by making him a man (cf. John 1:14).

ARE THERE GENUINE “GODS” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?

If John 10:34 does not refer to a group of genuine “gods” subordinate to God the Creator, are there any such references in the New Testament? The answer to this question is emphatically no. The Greek word theos (“God,” “a god,” or “gods”) occurs 1,317 times in the New Testament. Remarkably, there are only eight occurrences of the noun in a plural form (John 10:34, 35; Acts 7:40; 14:11; 19:26; 1 Cor. 8:5 [bis]; Gal. 4:8) and at most only eight that in English we would translate as “god” with a lowercase g (Acts 7:43; 12:22; 19:27; 28:6; 2 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 3:19; and possibly Acts 17:23a; 2 Thess. 2:4).43 We have already seen that John 10:34–35 does not refer to a group of beings as legitimate “gods.” There is no debate over the fact that at least most of the remaining texts refer unmistakably to false gods. There is, however, debate over Paul’s statement, “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Cor. 8:5). Notoriously, Joseph Smith cited this text (in his usual authoritarian style) to prove his doctrine of the plurality of Gods:

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of men. . . . You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can.44

LDS scholars have sometimes presented a softer claim, arguing that in 1 Corinthians 8:5 Paul was not referring exclusively to heathen or idolatrous gods. Such a qualification of Joseph’s position is forced on them by the explicit references to idols that frame Paul’s statement (see 1 Cor. 8:4, 7). In order to infer genuine gods from verse 5 along with the admitted pagan gods, Richard Draper and Michael Rhodes appeal to the Greek word hōsper there, translating it “as in fact.”45 The problem with this argument is not the translation “as in fact” but their assumption that “many gods” means that there are many beings that are rightly affirmed to be gods. There are “in fact” many gods, but the question is whether these gods deserve to be called by that name.

Paul answers no to that question in the immediate context in two ways. First, he qualifies his reference to other gods and lords by saying, “although there may be so-called gods” (1 Cor. 8:5a). The Greek word translated “so-called” in several of the major contemporary English versions (ESV, NABRE, NET, NRSV, etc.), legomenoi, makes it clear that these objects of religious devotion are only called gods (by their devotees).

Second, Paul contrasts these other “gods” and “lords” with “one God, the Father” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6). He has already affirmed that “there is no God but one” (8:4); now he expands on that confession by including Jesus Christ alongside the Father. Latter-day Saints, however, think that Paul qualified this confession to allow that there are other gods by saying “yet for us” (8:6a). In their view, “for us” in 1 Corinthians 8:6a contrasts our one God and one Lord with the many gods and many lords that rule other earths or worlds. The Father and the Son are the one God and one Lord for “this earth,” but there are many gods and lords for other worlds.46

Nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 supports this LDS interpretation. To the contrary, the “us” in context refers to well-informed believers, in contrast to unbelievers and new converts who may not fully understand the issue. Thus, Paul had just written, “we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,’ and that ‘there is no God but one’” (8:4). The affirmation that “we know . . . that ‘there is no God but one’” is then repeated and elaborated in Paul’s statement, “yet for us there is one God the Father . . .” (8:6). Paul is saying that although there are indeed many “so-called gods” (8:5), that is, objects of worship called gods by unbelievers, we recognize only one God, one Lord.47

The New Testament, then, makes no positive, affirmative references to a group of “gods.” The word theos in the New Testament always refers either to the one true God or (a surprisingly few times) to false gods. There is no third category of lesser “gods.”

38. E.g., Buzzard and Hunting, Doctrine of the Trinity, 45–46, 87, 125, 220, 291–92, 309.

39. See Daniel C. Peterson, “‘Ye Are Gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind,” in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: FARMS at BYU, 2000), 471–594.

40. See Jerome H. Neyrey, “‘I Said: You Are Gods’: Psalm 82:6 and John 10,” JBL 108 (1989): 647–63; Menahem Kister, “Son(s) of God: Israel and Christ: A Study of Transformation, Adaptation, and Rivalry,” in Son of God: Divine Sonship in Jewish and Christian Antiquity, ed. Garrick V. Allen, Kai Akagi, Paul Sloan, and Madhavi Nevader (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2019), 188–224 (esp. 200–203).

41. Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC (London: Continuum, 2005), 307.

42. Richard Jungkuntz, “An Approach to the Exegesis of John 10:34–36,” CTM 35, no. 9 (Oct. 1964): 559–60.

43. In Acts 17:23a, Paul uses an altar “to an unknown god” (NET) as an object lesson for his proclamation about the true God the Athenians did not know. Second Thessalonians 2:4 can be taken to mean that the man of lawlessness will proclaim himself “to be God” (most translations) or “to be a god” (NABRE, NWT), but either way the man of lawlessness is a false god.

44. Smith, History of the Church, 6:475.

45. Richard D. Draper and Michael D. Rhodes, Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, BYU NT Commentary (Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2017), 413.

46. Draper and Rhodes, Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, 413.

47. For more on 1 Corinthians 8:6, see pp. 496–500, 608–12.

FURTHER READING

“I SAID: YOU ARE GODS”

JWS, PSALM 82 & HUMAN JUDGES

The Meaning of “Lord” in 1 Corinthians 8:6

1 COR. 8 AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

A HYMN TO THE DIVINE CHRIST

REV. 3:14 REVISITED… ONE MORE TIME!

FIRSTBORN OF CREATION REVISITED… AGAIN!

GOD GAVE JESUS LIFE?

GNOSTIC ORIGINS OF ISLAM

In this post I will share another case of the Gnostic influence upon the teachings of Islam, specifically as it relates to Adam and Satan.

THE ISLAMIC TEACHING

The Muslim scripture states that after Allah had created Adam with his two hands and breathed his spirit into him, Allah then ordered all the angels and Satan to bow down in worship of the first man. The devil refused to do so since he believed he was superior to Adam to his being created from fire, whereas the latter was produced from clay:

When thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to create a mortal out of mire, And when I have fashioned him and breathed into him of My Spirit, then fall down before him prostrate, The angels fell down prostrate, every one, Saving Iblis; he was scornful and became one of the disbelievers. He said: O Iblis! What hindereth thee from falling prostrate before that which I have created with both My hands? Art thou too proud or art thou of the high exalted? He said: I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire, whilst him Thou didst create of clay. He said: Go forth from hence, for lo! thou art outcast, And lo! My curse is on thee till the Day of Judgment. He said: My Lord! Reprieve me till the day when they are raised. He said: Lo! thou art of those reprieved Until the day of the time appointed. He said: Then, by Thy might, I surely will beguile them every one, Save Thy single-minded slaves among them. He said: The Truth is, and the Truth I speak, That I shall fill hell with thee and with such of them as follow thee, together. S. 38:71-85 Pickthall

The Quran describes the Devil as genie or jinn, all of whom were produced from smokeless fire:

[Remember] when we said unto the angels, worship ye Adam: And they [all] worshipped [him], except Eblis, [who] was [one] of the genii, and departed from the command of his Lord. Will ye therefore take him and his offspring for [your] patrons besides me, notwithstanding they are your enemies? Miserable [shall such] a change [be] to the ungodly! S. 18:50 Sale

Surely We created man of a clay of mud moulded, and the jinn created We before of fire flaming. S. 15:26-27 Arberry

He created man of a clay like the potter’s, and He created the jinn of a smokeless fire. S. 55:14-15 Arberry

The ahadith also indicate that angels were made from light, in contrast to the jinn:

28 Events of the Day of Resurrection and the Beginning of Creation

(9a) Chapter: The Beginning of Creation, and Mention of the Prophets – Section 1

`A’isha reported God’s messenger as saying, “The angels were created from light, the jinn from smokeless fire[1], and Adam from what has been described to you[2].”

Quran; 4:13,

Quran; 3:59 (dust); 15:26, 28:33; 55:14 (crackling clay).

Muslim transmitted it.

Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 5701

In-book reference: Book 28, Hadith 172 (Sunnah.com https://sunnah.com/mishkat:5701)

And:

18 The Book of Miscellaneous ahadith of Significant Values

(370) Chapter: Ahadith about Dajjal and Portents of the Hour

‘Aishah reported: The Messenger of Allah said, “Angels were created from light, jinns were created from a smokeless flame of fire, and ‘Adam was created from that which you have been told (i.e., sounding clay like the clay of pottery).”

[Muslim].

Reference: Riyad as-Salihin 1846

In-book reference: Book 18, Hadith 39 (Sunnah.com https://sunnah.com/riyadussalihin:1846)

Other hadiths attest that Adam was created in the very image and form of Allah:

I. Initiating the Greeting

5873. Hammam related from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said, “Allah created Adam on HIS FORM and HIS HEIGHT was sixty cubits. When He created him, He said, ‘Go and greet that group angels and listen to how they greet you. It will be your greeting and the greeting of your descendants.’ He said, ‘Peace be upon you,’ and they said, ‘Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah,’ and they added, ‘and the mercy of Allah.’ Everyone who enters the Garden will be in form of Adam. People have been getting shorter until now.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 82. Book of Asking Permission to Enter; emphasis mine)

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, created Adam in HIS OWN image with HIS LENGTH of sixty cubits, and as HE created him HE told him to greet that group, and that was a party of angels sitting there, and listen to the response that they give him, for it would form his greeting and that of his offspring. He then went away and said: Peace be upon you! They (the angels) said: May there be peace upon you and the Mercy of Allah, and they made an addition of “Mercy of Allah.” So he who would get into Paradise would get in the form of Adam, his length being sixty cubits, then the people who followed him continued to diminish in size up to this day. (Sahih Muslim, Book 040, Number 6809 https://sunnah.com/muslim:2841; *; emphasis mine)

GNOSTIC INFLUENCE

The fable that I will be citing is taken from the Gospel of Bartholomew (GB), which scholars believe has been influenced by Gnosticism. What makes GB such an interesting document is that it explicitly affirms the eternal preexistence and essential Deity of Christ and his personal distinction from the Father. It also teaches Jesus’ virginal conception and birth, and describes his virgin Mother in a highly exalted manner.

With the said I now plunge into the text itself. All emphasis is mine.  

The Gospel of Bartholomew

From “The Apocryphal New Testament”

M. R. James-Translation and Notes

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924

Particular scholars believe that Bartholomew may have been written in the 4th century AD in Greek, and later translated into the Coptic language between the 5th and 6th century (MS 1991 – The Schoyen Collection).

IV

10 And as he thus spake, Jesus raised him up and said unto him: Bartholomew, wilt thou see the adversary of men? I tell thee that when thou beholdest him, not thou only but the rest of

11 But they all said unto him: Lord, let us behold him.

12 And he led them down from the Mount of Olives and looked wrathfully upon the angels that keep hell (Tartarus), and beckoned unto Michael to sound the trumpet in the height of the heavens. And Michael sounded, and the earth shook, and Beliar came up, being held by 660 (560 Gr., 6,064 Lat. 1, 6,060 Lat. 2) angels and bound with fiery chains. 12 And the length of him was 1,600 cubits and his breadth 40 (Lat. 1, 300, Slav. 17) cubits (Lat. 2, his length 1,900 cubits, his breadth 700, one wing of him 80), and his face was like a lightning of fire and his eyes full of darkness (like sparks, Slav.). And out of his nostrils came a stinking smoke; and his mouth was as the gulf of a precipice, and the one of his wings was four-score cubits.

14 And straightway when the apostles saw him, they fell to the earth on their faces and became as dead.

15 But Jesus came near and raised the apostles and gave them a spirit of power, and he saith unto Bartholomew: Come near, Bartholomew, and trample with thy feet on his neck, and he will tell thee his work, what it is, and how he deceiveth men.

16 And Jesus stood afar off with the rest of the apostles.

17 And Barthololmew feared, and raised his voice and said: Blessed be the name of thine immortal kingdom from henceforth even for ever. And when he had spoken, Jesus permitted him, saying: Go and tread upon the neck of Beliar: and Bartholomew ran quickly upon him and trode upon his neck: and Beliar trembled. (For this verse the Vienna MS. has: And Bartholomew raised his voice and said thus: O womb more spacious than a city, wider than the spreading of the heavens, that contained him whom the seven heavens contain not, but thou without pain didst contain sanctified in thy bosom, &c.: evidently out of place. Latin 1 has only: Then did Antichrist tremble and was filled with fury.)

18 And Bartholomew was afraid, and fled, and said unto Jesus: Lord, give me an hem of thy garments (Lat. 2, the kerchief (?) from thy shoulders) that I may have courage to draw near unto him.

19 But Jesus said unto him: Thou canst not take an hem of my garments, for these are not my garments which I wore before I was crucified.

20 And Bartholomew said: Lord, I fear lest, like as he spared not thine angels, he swallow me up also.

21 Jesus saith unto him: Were not all things made by my word, and by the will of my Father the spirits were made subject unto Solomon? thou, therefore, being commanded by my word, go in my name and ask him what thou wilt. (lat. 2 omits 20.)

22 [And Bartholomew made the sign of the cross and prayed unto Jesus and went behind him. And Jesus said to him: Draw near. And as Bartholomew drew near, fire was kindled on every side, so that his garments appeared fiery. Jesus saith to Bartholomew: As I said unto thee, tread upon his neck and ask him what is his power.] And Bartholomew went and trode upon his neck, and pressed down his face into the earth as far as his ears.

23 And Bartholomew saith unto him: Tell me who thou art and what is thy name. And he said to him: Lighten me a little, and I will tell thee who I am and how I came hither, and what my work is and what my power is.

24 And he lightened him and saith to him: Say all that thou hast done and all that thou doest.

25 And Beliar answered and said: If thou wilt know my name, at the first I was called Satanael, which is interpreted a messenger of God, but when I rejected the image of God my name was called Satanas, that is, an angel that keepeth hell (Tartarus).

26 And again Bartholomew saith unto him: Reveal unto me all things and hide nothing from me.

27 And he said unto him: I swear unto thee by the power of the glory of God that even if I would hide aught I cannot, for he is near that would convict me. For if I were able I would have destroyed you like one of them that were before you.

28 For, indeed, I was formed (al. called) the first angel: for when God made the heavens, he took a handful of fire and formed me first, Michael second [Vienna MS. here has these sentences: for he had his Son before the heavens and the earth and we were formed (for when he took thought to create all things, his Son spake a word), so that we also were created by the will of the Son and the consent of the Father. He formed, I say, first me, next Michael the chief captain of the hosts that are above], Gabriel third, Uriel fourth, Raphael fifth, Nathanael sixth, and other angels of whom I cannot tell the names. [Jerusalem MS., Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Xathanael, and other 6,000 angels. Lat. I, Michael the honour of power, third Raphael, fourth Gabriel, and other seven. Lat. 2, Raphael third, Gabriel fourth, Uriel fifth, Zathael sixth, and other six.] For they are the rod-bearers (lictors) of God, and they smite me with their rods and pursue me seven times in the night and seven times in the day, and leave me not at all and break in pieces all my power. These are the (twelve, lat. 2) angels of vengeance which stand before the throne of God: these are the angels that were first formed…

48 Bartholomew saith unto him: Be still (be muzzled) and be faint, that I may entreat my Lord.

49 And Bartholomew fell upon his face and cast earth upon his head and began to say: O Lord Jesu Christ, the great and glorious name. All the choirs of the angels praise thee, O Master, and I that am unworthy with my lips . . . do praise thee, O Master. Hearken unto me thy servant, and as thou didst choose me from the receipt of custom and didst not suffer me to have my conversation unto the end in my former deeds, O Lord Jesu Christ, hearken unto me and have mercy upon the sinners.

50 And when he had so said, the Lord saith unto him: Rise up, suffer him that groaneth to arise: I will declare the rest unto thee.

51 And Bartholomew raised up Satan and said unto him: Go unto thy place, with thine angels, but the Lord hath mercy upon all his world. (50, 51, again enormously amplified in lat. 2. Satan complains that he has been tricked into telling his secrets before the time. The interpolation is to some extent dated by this sentence: ‘ Simon Magus and Zaroes and Arfaxir and Jannes and Mambres are my brothers.’ Zaroes and Arfaxatare wizards who figure in the Latin Acts of Matthew and of Simon and Jude (see below).

52 But the devil said: Suffer me, and I will tell thee how I was cast down into this place and how the Lord did make man.

53 I was going to and fro in the world, and God said unto Michael: Bring me a clod from the four corners of the earth, and water out of the four rivers of paradise. And when Michael brought them God formed Adam in the regions of the east, and shaped the clod which was shapeless, and stretched sinews and veins upon it and established it with Joints; and he worshipped him, himself for his own sake first, because he was the image of God, therefore he worshipped him.

54 And when I came from the ends of the earth Michael said: Worship thou the image of God, which he hath made according to his likeness. But I said: I am fire of fire, I was the first angel formed, and shall worship clay and matter?

55 And Michael saith to me: Worship, lest God be wroth with thee. But I said to him: God will not be wroth with me; but I will set my throne over against his throne, and I will be as he is. Then was God wroth with me and cast me down, having commanded the windows of heaven to be opened.

56 And when I was cast down, he asked also the six hundred that were under me, if they would worship: but they said: Like as we have seen the first angel do, neither will we worship him that is less than ourselves. Then were the six hundred also cast down by him with me.

57 And when we were cast down upon the earth we were senseless for forty years, and when the sun shone forth seven times brighter than fire, suddenly I awaked; and I looked about and saw the six hundred that were under me senseless.

58 And I awaked my son Salpsan and took him to counsel how I might deceive the man on whose account I was cast out of the heavens.

59 And thus did I contrive it. I took a vial in mine hand and scraped the sweat from off my breast and the hair of mine armpits, and washed myself (Lat. 2, I took fig leaves in my hands and wiped the sweat from my bosom and below mine arms and cast it down beside the streams of waters. 69 is greatly prolonged in this text) in the springs of the waters whence the four rivers flow out, and Eve drank of it and desire came upon her: for if she had not drunk of that water I should not have been able to deceive her.

61 And Bartholomew came and fell at Jesus’ feet and began with tears to say thus: Abba, Father, that art past finding out by us, Word of the Father, whom the seven heavens hardly contained, but who wast pleased to be contained easily and without pain within the body of the Virgin: whom the Virgin knew not that she bare: thou by thy thought hast ordained all things to be: thou givest us that which we need before thou art entreated.

62 Thou that didst wear a crown of thorns that thou mightest prepare for us that repent the precious crown from heaven; that didst hang upon the tree, that (a clause gone): (lat. 2, that thou mightest turn from us the tree of lust and concupiscence (etc., etc.). The verse is prolonged for over 40 lines) (that didst drink wine mingled with gall) that thou mightest give us to drink of the wine of compunction, and wast pierced in the side with a spear that thou mightest fill us with thy body and thy blood:

63 Thou that gavest names unto the four rivers: to the first Phison, because of the faith (pistis) which thou didst appear in the world to preach; to the second Geon, for that man was made of earth (ge); to the third Tigris, because by thee was revealed unto us the consubstantial Trinity in the heavens (to make anything of this we must read Trigis); to the fourth Euphrates, because by thy presence in the world thou madest every soul to rejoice (euphranai) through the word of immortality.

64 My God, and Father, the greatest, my King: save, Lord, the sinners.

65 When he had thus prayed Jesus said unto him: Bartholomew, my Father did name me Christ, that I might come down upon earth and anoint every man that cometh unto me with the oil of life: and he did call me Jesus that I might heal every sin of them that know not . . . and give unto men (several corrupt words: the…

69 Then I, Bartholomew, which wrote these things in mine heart, took hold on the hand of

Glory be to thee, O Lord Jesus Christ, that givest unto all thy grace which all we have perceived. Alleluia.

Glory be to thee, O Lord, the life of sinners.

Glory be to thee, O Lord, death is put to shame.

Glory be to thee, O Lord, the treasure of righteousness.

For unto God do we sing.

70 And as Bartholomew thus spake again, Jesus put off his mantle and took a kerchief from the neck of Bartholomew and began to rejoice and say (70 lat. 2, Then Jesus took a kerchief (?) I and said: I am good: mild and gracious and merciful, strong and righteous, wonderful and holy): I am good. Alleluia. I am meek and gentle. Alleluia. Glory be to thee, O Lord: for I give gifts unto all them that desire me. Alleluia.

Glory be to thee, O Lord, world without end. Amen. Alleluia.

71 And when he had ceased, the apostles kissed him, and he gave them the peace of love.

COMMENTARY

Note the similarities between GB and the Islamic corpus:

  1. Both teach that Adam was fashioned after the image of God/Allah.
  2. Both teach that the angels and Satan were to worship Adam, with GB emphasizing that this was to be done in recognition of the man being the very image of God.
  3. Both teach that Satan refused to do so because he was made of fire, whereas Adam was made of clay, which made Satan think he was better than the first man.

It is obvious that the author(s) and/or editor(s) of the Quran has/have adapted the various uninspired myths, fables, traditions etc., which were held by Christians, Jews, pagans, etc., and passed them off as revelations from God. This is the precise charge which the disbelievers leveled against the compiler of the Muslim scripture:

Those who disbelieve say: “This (the Qur’an) is nothing but a lie that he (Muhammad) has invented, and others have helped him at it, so that they have produced an unjust wrong (thing) and a lie.” And they say: “Tales of the ancients, which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” Say: “It (this Qur’an) has been sent down by Him (Allah) (the Real Lord of the heavens and earth) Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” S. 25:4-6 Hilali-Khan

The example of GB proves that the unbelievers were right since the Quran is nothing more than a garbled up, incoherent and unintelligible mishmash of fairytales, traditions and specific legal rulings, which “Muhammad” “borrowed” from the beliefs and practices of the various cultures of that time.

FURTHER READING   

Christian Fables That Expose the Fraud of Muhammad

CHRISTIAN FABLES OF THE QURAN

GNOSTIC FABLES OF ISLAM

The Quran’s Manifold Blunders Pt. 2

Sujood – The Act of Worship Which Allah Shares With His Creatures

Is Jesus Really Like Adam After All?