Tag: god

CHRIST: GOD’S CREATED WISDOM?

The following 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. 251-255.

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.

WISDOM AND CREATION (PROVERBS 8:22)

Proverbs 8:22 is one of the most controversial verses in the Old Testament. It was the focus of much debate in the fourth century between the Arians, whose view of Christ was similar to that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses today, and those who believed in the Trinity, notably Athanasius. Both groups in the early church assumed that Proverbs 8, which presents itself as a speech given by “Wisdom,” was referring to the preincarnate Christ, but they differed as to what the text meant. There is considerable debate today about how to translate the verse as well as how to interpret it.¹³ The following four versions of Proverbs 8:22 are representative:

The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,

Before His works of old. (NKJV)

The Lord acquired me at the beginning of his creation,

before his works of long ago. (CSB)

The Lord begot me, the beginning of his works,

The forerunner of his deeds of long ago. (NABRE)

The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,

the first of his acts of long ago. (NRSV)

Looking closely at these four versions, we find three significant differences in the way they translate Proverbs 8:22. The translations differ on how to translate the main verb, whether wisdom existed at the beginning or was the beginning, and whether the second line means that wisdom existed “before” God’s works or was “the first” of those works. The Hebrew text, it seems, can be translated in any number of ways. On the other hand, the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament, is unambiguous: “The Lord created [ektisen] me as the beginning of his ways for his works” (LES). This wording in the Septuagint, which was the version of the Old Testament with which most Christians were familiar in the early church, seemed to support the Arian view that the preexistent Son had been created.

As the variations in the English versions (mostly based on the Hebrew text) reflect, the meaning of the Hebrew verb qānāh is the main question. There are four main choices here: “possessed” (ESV, KJV, NKJV); “acquired” (CSB); expressing birth, either “begot” (NABRE) or “brought forth” (NIV); and “created” (GNT, LEB, NASB, NEB, NET, NJB, NRSV, TNK; also “formed,” NLT).

In the vast majority of occurrences in the Old Testament, qānāh means “buy” or “acquire.”¹⁴ This is the case in all of the other thirteen occurrences in Proverbs. Moreover, in all but one of those occurrences, what a person is said to buy, acquire, or get is wisdom or another intellectual virtue such as understanding or knowledge (1:5; 4:5, 7; 15:32; 16:16; 17:16; 18:15; 19:8; 23:23). Since Proverbs instructs its reader to “acquire wisdom” (Prov. 4:5, 7; 16:16), when we find the same language used for wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 it makes sense to translate it the same way: “The Lord acquired me” (CSB).

On the other hand, the passage goes on to quote Wisdom as saying that it “was brought forth” before the physical world (Prov. 8:24, 25), which suggests that qānāh in verse 22 might be expressing something like birth.¹⁵ Perhaps this is the intended meaning, or perhaps the passage exhibits some mixing of metaphors.

Whatever precise translation we use, the verse appears to be saying that the Lord “got” wisdom. At this point the Watchtower argues that the passage must be speaking about Christ. They argue that since the character quality of wisdom “never began to exist because Jehovah has always existed and he has always been wise,” Proverbs 8:22 must be referring to something other than God’s attribute of wisdom. Since the New Testament calls Christ “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24), they conclude that it is referring to Christ.¹⁶

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes that Proverbs 8:22 should be understood literally to mean that God “got” a wisdom that he previously lacked. This assumption ignores the context. In Proverbs 1–9, Solomon describes wisdom using the literary device of personification, in which something that is not literally a person is described as if it were. Personification was a familiar rhetorical device in the Old Testament. One commentator points out that in the Old Testament, “Abstract concepts such as faithfulness, justice, love, peace, righteousness, truth and uprightness are all personified (Ps. 85:10 [Heb. 11]; Isa. 59:14).”¹⁷ Jehovah’s Witnesses should take this point seriously: The Watchtower’s own publications have made this point when they were not focused on using Proverbs 8:22 as a proof text about Christ but instead commenting on an earlier verse, “Wisdom cries aloud in the street” (Prov. 1:20):

Personification is another figure of speech. We use this when we speak of something inanimate as if it were alive. For example, the Bible tells us, “Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses”; “grief and sighing must flee away”; “true wisdom itself keeps crying aloud in the very street.” (Romans 5:14; Isaiah 35:10; Proverbs 1:20) Death, grief, sighing and wisdom cannot really rule, flee or cry out. But speaking as if they did, the Bible paints vivid mental pictures, easily visualized and remembered.¹⁸

This statement is exactly right. Wisdom is personified not just in a verse here or there (like Proverbs 1:20), but in a sustained way in three passages: Proverbs 1:20–33; 8:1–36; and 9:1–12. In all three passages, Wisdom speaks in the first-person singular, as in the following examples:

“I have called and you refused to listen.” (1:24)

“I, wisdom, dwell with prudence.” (8:12)

“Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed.” (9:5)

In an attempt to blunt this point, Greg Stafford notes that only in Proverbs 8:12 does wisdom use the specific formula, “I, wisdom.”¹⁹ Evidently he regards all of Proverbs 8 as a speech by the preexistent Christ, not just 8:22–31. However, he does not explain why the use of this particular formula in 8:12 marks the passage as something other than literary personification. If that had been its purpose, one would expect this formula to appear at the beginning of Wisdom’s speech, not in the midst of it. In actuality, the “speaker” called Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is clearly the same as the Wisdom who speaks in Proverbs 1. Both are introduced in the same way:

Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks. (Prov. 1:20–21)

Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice? On the heights beside the way, at the crossroads she takes her stand; beside the gates in front of the town, at the entrance of the portals she cries aloud. (Prov. 8:1–3)

In both passages, Wisdom speaks in the first person and addresses her audience as “O simple ones” (Prov. 1:22; 8:5). In both passages, Wisdom speaks of “my words” (1:23; 8:8). In the first speech, Wisdom warns that those who refused to listen to her and who fall into calamity “will seek me diligently but will not find me” (1:28 NASB), while in the second speech she promises that “those who diligently seek me will find me” (8:17 NASB), presumably if they do not wait until it is too late. Both speeches conclude by promising good things to those who “listen to me” and warns of death for those who do not (1:32–33; 8:34–36). Clearly, the speaker in both passages is the same “Wisdom.

Proverbs 8 personifies other intellectual virtues besides wisdom. For example, it personifies understanding in the opening lines of the passage: “Does not wisdom call? Does not understanding raise her voice?” (Prov. 8:1). If “wisdom” is a person here, then “understanding” must also be a person. Anyone taking this passage to be referring to “Wisdom” as a person will also have to explain who “Prudence” is in 8:12, since that verse says that Wisdom dwells with Prudence!²⁰ As Old Testament scholar Tremper Longman points out, in Proverbs prudence and other virtues besides wisdom “are themselves personified and considered her colleagues.”²¹

Another passage in Proverbs 1–9 that contains even more striking parallels to Proverbs 8 is Proverbs 3:13–20, where Solomon extols the value of wisdom and understanding. Note the following parallel:

Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,

and the one who gets understanding,

for the gain from her is better than gain from silver and her profit better than gold.

She is more precious than jewels,

and nothing you desire can compare with her.

Long life is in her right hand;

in her left hand are riches and honor. (Prov. 3:13–16)

Take my instruction instead of silver,

and knowledge rather than choice gold,

for wisdom is better than jewels,

and all that you may desire cannot compare with her. . . .

Riches and honor are with me,

enduring wealth and righteousness.

My fruit is better than gold, even fine gold,

and my yield than choice silver. (Prov. 8:10–11, 18–19)

Proverbs 3 goes on to describe the role of wisdom in the creation of the world, anticipating in a briefer way the debated passage in Proverbs 8:22–31:

The Lord by wisdom founded the earth;

by understanding he established the heavens;

by his knowledge the deeps broke open,

and the clouds drop down the dew. (Prov. 3:19–20)

The Lord possessed me [wisdom] at the beginning of his work . . .

When he established the heavens, I was there . . .

when he established the fountains of the deep . . .

when he marked out the foundations of the earth . . . . (Prov. 8:22, 27–29)

If we read Proverbs 8:22–31 in the broader context of Proverbs 1–9 as a whole, what we find is that Solomon was extolling wisdom as something God “had” and that he demonstrated in all of his created works. Wisdom’s poetic statement “The Lord acquired me at the beginning of his way” is a verbally artistic way of saying what Proverbs 3:19–20 says, which is that God created the world in a perfectly wise fashion. This interpretation makes sense of Proverbs 8:22 no matter how we translate qānāh. If we translate it “begot” or “brought forth” (NABRE, NIV), the birth imagery is simply part of the extended metaphor, personifying wisdom as God’s first child who was with him throughout his work of creation. If we translate it “created,” following the Septuagint and several modern English versions, it is still personifying wisdom as having played an essential role in the creation of the world. It is not saying that God made Christ as an angel and then sat back while the angel did the rest of the work of creation.

There is nothing wrong with reading Proverbs 8 as teaching us something about the wisdom that is perfectly revealed in Jesus Christ. Paul stated that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Thus, studying what the Old Testament says about wisdom can enrich our understanding of Christ. However, it is a mistake to apply isolated proof texts from Old Testament poetic wisdom literature to Christ in a wooden, literalist fashion. Proverbs 8 was not intended to tell us who Christ is but rather to teach us that wisdom is essential to all of God’s works.

13. For an overview, see Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 408–9.

14. The verb occurs eighty-five times in the Hebrew OT, and other than Proverbs 8:22 the meaning “buy” or “acquire” clearly fits all but two places (Gen. 4:1; Ps. 139:13).

15. This is the conclusion in Waltke, Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1–15, 409.

16. E.g., “Come Be My Follower” (Walkill, NY: Watchtower, 2007, 2012 printing), 131.

17. Ernest C. Lucas, Proverbs, Two Horizons OT Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 262.

18. “The Bible’s Vivid Figures of Speech,” Watchtower (June 1, 1984), 19, bold emphasis added. See also Insight on the Scriptures (1988), 2:1019, 1161.

19. Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 3rd ed., 408.

20. The 1985 Tanakh (TNK), published by the Jewish Publication Society, translates Proverbs 8:12, “I, Wisdom, dwell with Prudence,” capitalizing the “names” of the personified traits.

21. Tremper Longman III, Proverbs, BCOTWP (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 201.

FURTHER READING

Was Jesus a created being after all?

REV. 3:14 REVISITED… ONE MORE TIME!

FIRSTBORN OF CREATION REVISITED… AGAIN!

GOD GAVE JESUS LIFE?

A HYMN TO THE DIVINE CHRIST

HOW MANY THEOIS IN THE NT?

THE UNCREATED WORD BECOMES FLESH

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 12: In the Beginning Was the Word, pp. 227-230.

THE WORD WAS ETERNAL

John begins his Gospel by saying that the Logos “was” (ēn) in the beginning (vv. 1b, 2). John does not mean that the Logos began to exist but that he was already existing “in the beginning.” The word ēn (the imperfect tense form of the Greek “to be” verb) has the nuance of “was already existing” (cf. NLT, “already existed”) in this context for two reasons. The first is the studied contrast in John 1:1–5 between ēn (“was”), which occurs six times, and egeneto (“became,” “came to be”), which appears twice (1:3) and is a key word used twenty-one times in the Greek translation of the creation narrative in Genesis 1:1–2:4. It is the contrast between the way the two verbs are used in context that indicates the eternal preexistence of the Logos, not the imperfect tense of ēn by itself. In contrast to everything that “came to be,” the Logos simply “was.”¹⁵

The second reason is the context of existing “in the beginning” (en archē). As Richard Hays points out, “The opening words of John’s Gospel echo the first words of Israel’s scripture: ‘In the beginning . . .’ Although the echo consists of only two words (en archē), its volume is amplified by the placement of these words at the outset of the narrative, corresponding to their placement as the opening words of Genesis.”¹⁶ This is not the only allusion to Genesis 1 in the prologue, since both passages go on immediately to talk about creation and light (Gen. 1:1, 3–5; John 1:3–5, 9).¹⁷ As James Dunn notes, John’s statement that “the Logos was (not ‘came to be’) in the beginning” means that “we have moved beyond any thought of the Logos as created, even the first created being,” that one might find in earlier Jewish texts about Wisdom, for example.¹⁸

According to John, everything that came into existence—the world itself— did so through the Logos (John 1:3, 10). Verse 3 is rather emphatic: “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being” (1:3 NASB).¹⁹John states the point positively (“all things came into being through Him”) and then negatively (“and apart from Him not even one thing came into being”), thereby making clear that his statement is to be taken in the most comprehensive way possible.

Notice how these two statements—that the Logos “was in the beginning” (John 1:1b, 2) and that everything that has come into being without exception did so through the Logos (1:3)—fit together. When taken together, they clearly put the Logos on the uncreated side of the divide between the uncreated (God, the Creator) and the created (creation, the world).

We will discuss the role of the Logos (Christ) in the work of creation in chapter 32 (see pp. 616–18). For now, the point to be grasped is that these statements affirming the Word’s existence before creation and his involvement in bringing about the existence of all creation reveal him to be eternal and uncreated—two essential attributes of God.

At this point the teaching of the prologue conflicts especially with the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who view the Logos as the preexistent but created archangel Michael who later became Jesus Christ. John’s teaching here also poses a problem for non-Jehovah’s Witnesses favoring something like an Arian view of Christ.²⁰ It should be noted that Bart Ehrman, who argues that Paul viewed Christ as a preexistent but created angel, agrees that John did not accept that view. Ehrman concludes that John held that the Logos was eternal and was in some sense God.²¹

To circumvent the clear teaching of John 1:1–3 that the Logos was uncreated, Jehovah’s Witnesses try to limit the creative work of the Logos in that passage to the physical world. They understand John’s opening words, “In the beginning” (1:1, 2), to refer to the beginning of the physical world only, with the spiritual world of angelic beings (including the Logos) having been created prior to that “beginning.”²² One serious problem with this interpretation is that verse 3 is as explicitly comprehensive as the language could be. Everything that has “come into being” did so through the Logos; nothing “came into being” that did not do so through him.

It is true that Genesis 1 does not give an explicit account of the creation of the angels or other spiritual beings populating the spiritual or supernatural realm. However, both Jews and Christians during the New Testament era definitely included all such spiritual beings in the category of “all things” that God had created (e.g., Ps. 148:2–6; 2 Baruch 21:6; Jub. 2:2; 2 Enoch 29:3; Col. 1:16). Greg Stafford, a former Jehovah’s Witness defending their Christology, assumes that the angels who shouted with joy when God established the earth (Job 38:4–7) must have been created before the “beginning” of Genesis 1:1, and concludes that Christ was also created before that beginning.²³However, Job 38:7 entails only that the angels (“sons of God”) were present when God completed forming and establishing the earth; it does not indicate or imply that the angels existed before the initial creation of the physical universe.

When we compare John 1:3 to Colossians 1:16, we find confirmation that the “all things” created through the Logos in John include all spiritual or heavenly beings (translating literally):

All things [panta] came into being through him [di’ autou]. (John 1:3a)

Because in him were created all things [ta panta], in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things [ta panta] were created through him [di’ autou] and for him. (Col. 1:16)

Stafford admits that Colossians 1:16 encompasses the creation of the “invisible” beings (the angels) through the Son, but then claims that “Paul does not here directly refer to the ‘beginning’ of Genesis 1:1.”²⁴This claim is defensible only in the narrowest, most pedantic sense that Paul does not actually use the word “beginning” in Colossians 1:16. That Paul’s language derives ultimately from the creation account in Genesis 1 is quite plain (again translating literally):

In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth [ton ouranon kai tēn gēn]. . . . And God saw all things [ta panta] that he had made. (Gen. 1:1, 31 LXX)

Because in him were created all things [ta panta], in the heavens and on the earth [en tois ouranois kai epi tēs gēs]. (Col. 1:16)

We have solid reasons, then, to understand John 1:1–3 to mean that the Logos existed eternally and is uncreated.

20. E.g., Danny André Dixon, “An Arian View: Jesus, the Life-Given Son of God,” in Son of God: Three Views, by Irons, Dixon, and Smith, 65–83. Oddly, Dixon cites with apparent approval Leon Morris’s observation about the force of ēn versus egeneto in John 1:1–3 (82 n. 47; see our n. 15 above) without addressing what Morris understood this contrast to indicate.

21. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 274–79.

22. For a defense of this position, see Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 3rd ed., 370–77. Although Stafford was not a Jehovah’s Witness when he published this third edition, his defense of the Watchtower’s position on this subject remains the most sophisticated attempt available.

23. Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended, 3rd ed., 373, see also 189 n. 102, 222, 302, 338, 384. Only five other OT texts (Gen. 1:1; 3:15; Exod. 3:14; Ps. 82:6; Prov. 8:22) figure as prominently in Stafford’s book as Job 38:7.

The fact that John’s prologue is echoing the Genesis account of creation is easily proven by comparing the Greek translation of Gen. 1:1 with that of John’s Gospel:

“In the beginning was (en arche een) the Word, and the Word was (een) with God, and the Word was God (kai theos een ho logos). He was (een) in the beginning with God. All things (panta) came into being (egeneto) through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being (egeneto) that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. And the Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overtake it… There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens everyone. He was in the world, and the world came into being (egeneto) through Him, and the world did not know Him. And the Word became (egeneto) flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth… No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” John 1:1-4, 9-10, 14, 18

“In the beginning (en arche) God (ho theos) made the heavens and the earth. Yet the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was over the abyss, and the Spirit of God (pneuma theou) was being carried along over the water. And God said, “Let light come into being.” And light came into being (egeneto). And God saw the light, that it was good. And God separated between the light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day and the darkness he called Night. And it came to be (egeneto) evening, it came to be (egeneto) morning, day one… And God saw all the things (ta panta) he made, and see, they were exceedingly good. And it came to be (egeneto) evening, and it came to be (egeneto) morning, a sixth day.” Genesis 1:1-8, 31 LXX

The following texts affirm that Genesis 1 is describing God bringing the entire creation into existence, including all heavenly beings:

“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. And on the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because on it He rested from all His work which God had created in making it.” Genesis 2:1-3

The host of heavens includes all angelic creatures:

“You alone are Yahweh. You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them. You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down to You.” Nehemiah 9:6

“Then Micaiah said, ‘Therefore, hear the word of Yahweh. I saw Yahweh sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left. And Yahweh said, “Who will entice Ahab so that he will go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?” And one said this while another said that. Then a spirit came forward and stood before Yahweh and said, “I will entice him.” And Yahweh said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then He said, “You shall entice him and also prevail. Go out and do so.” So now, behold, Yahweh has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; but Yahweh has spoken calamity against you.’” 1 Kings 22:19-23

“Praise Yah! Praise Yahweh from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all stars of light! Praise Him, heavens of heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens! Let them praise the name of Yahweh, For He commanded and they were created. He caused them to stand forever and ever; He gave a statute and it will never pass away. Praise Yahweh from the earth, Sea monsters and all deeps; Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, doing His word; Mountains and all hills; Fruit trees and all cedars; Beasts and all cattle; Creeping things and winged bird; Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth; Both choice men as well as virgins; The old with the young. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, For His name alone is set on high; His splendor is above earth and heaven. And He has raised up a horn for His people, Praise for all His holy ones; For the sons of Israel, a people near to Him. Praise Yah!” Psalm 148: 1-14

This explains why extra-biblical Jewish sources include angels within the Genesis creation account that God brought into being:

“O hear me, You who created the earth, the one who fixed the firmament by the Word and fastened the height of heaven by the Spirit, the one who in the beginning of the world called that which did not yet exist and they obeyed You. You who gave commandments to the air with your sign and have seen the things which are to come as well as those which have passed. You who reign with great thoughts over the hosts which stand before you, and who rules with indignation the countless holy beings, whom you created from the beginning from flame and fire, those who stand around your throne. To you alone does this belong so that you can do all that you want.” 2 Baruch 21:4-7

“And the angel of the presence spake to Moses according to the word of the Lord, saying: Write the complete history of the creation, how in six days the Lord God finished all His works and all that He created, and kept Sabbath on the seventh day and hallowed it for all ages, and appointed it as a sign for all His works.

“’For on the first day He created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which serve before him -the angels of the presence, and the angels of sanctification, and the angels [of the spirit of fire and the angels] of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow and of hail and of hoar frost, and the angels of the voices and of the thunder and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and of heat, and of winter and of spring and of autumn and of summer and of all the spirits of his creatures which are in the heavens and on the earth, (He created) the abysses and the darkness, eventide <and night>, and the light, dawn and day, which He hath prepared in the knowledge of his heart.’” Jubilees 2:1-2

|Monday is the day. The fiery substance.|

“And for all my own heavens I shaped a shape from the fiery substance. My eye looked at the solid and very hard rock. And from the flash of my eye I took the |marvelous| substance of lightning, both fire

in water and water in fire; •neither does this one extinguish that one, nor does that one dry out this one. That is why lightning is sharper and brighter than the shining of the sun, and softer than water, more solid than the hardest rock.

“And from the rock I cut off a great fire, and from the fire I created the ranks of the bodiless armies – the myriad angels – and their weapons are fiery and their clothes are burning flames. And I gave orders that each should stand in his own rank.

|Here Satanail was hurled from the hight, together with his angels.|

“But one from the order of the archangels deviated, together with the division that was under his authority. He thought up the impossible idea, that he might place his throne higher than the clouds which are above the earth, and that he might become equal to my power.

“And I hurled him out from the height, together with his angels. And he was flying around in the air, ceaselessly above the Bottomless.

“And thus I created the entire heavens. And the third day came.” 2 Enoch 29

Therefore, Bowman & Komoszewski are correct. John’s prologue describes Jesus as the preexistent Word who was already existing prior to the creation of all things, proving that Christ is not a creature whom the Father brought into existence. Rather, the Son is an uncreated divine Person who has always been existing along with the Father from before the creation of all things.

Unless indicated otherwise, scriptural citations taken from the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB).

FUTHER READING

THE UNCREATED WORD ENTERS CREATION

JOHN 1:1

The Truth of John 1:1

JOHN 1:1 REVISITED

CHRIST: THE UNCREATED CREATOR OF ALL CREATION

NT SCHOLARSHIP ON JOHN 1:1 AND TITUS 2:13 PT. 1

What Kind of Theos is Jesus?

GOD GAVE JESUS LIFE?

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.¹The 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.²His 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’.³⁴In 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.⁴²It 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.⁴⁸An 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