I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church. (Col 1:24 NRSV)
Commenting on this verse, Methodist New Testament scholar, Morna Hooker, wrote:
Colossians 1:24 provides an interesting example of the way in which commentators have allowed their theological convictions to influence their interpretation of the text. The belief that Christ’s death is decisive and once-for-all has led some of them to shy away from the straight-forward meaning of the words. Another example of this can be seen in the refusal to allow that Paul ever speaks of imitating Christ. Colossians 1:24 reflects the conviction that we have found elsewhere in Paul’s writings, that it is necessary for the Christian to share in the sufferings of Christ and that this participation in suffering can be of benefit to other members of the Christian community. This necessity is not based on the idea that there is a set quota of messianic sufferings that need to be completed. Rather it arises from the representative character of Christ’s death. If Christ died for all, this means not only that all have died, but that they must continue to work out the meaning of dying with Christ. The acceptance of Jesus as Messiah means a willingness to share his experiences. In this sense, at least, the sufferings of Christ are no substitute for ours, but a pattern to which we need to be conformed.
The tendency to stress the belief that Christ’s death was a substitute for ours to the exclusion of the Pauline conviction that Christians must participate in the suffering of Christ is perhaps a very early one. The Corinthians, e.g., seem to have been unable to grasp the idea that there was any place for suffering and humiliation. In their calling: for them, resurrection with Christ was a past event, and this meant that they shared already in his glory, fullness, and riches (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:8). Christ had suffered—and they experienced the resulting glory. He had become for them the substitute for humiliation and death. They failed to see the necessity to share his sufferings. (Morna D. Hooker, “Interchange and Suffering,” in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament, eds. William Horbury and Brian McNeil [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981], pp.70-83, here, p.82, emphasis added).
At any rate
[the Christian Church] was continually haunted by a Docetism which made [Christ’s]
human nature very different from ours and indeed largely explained it away as a
matter of simulation or “seeming” rather than reality. Theologians shrank from
admitting human growth, human ignorance, human mutability, human struggle and
temptation, into their conception of the Incarnate Life, and treated it as
simply a divine life lived in a human body (and sometimes even this was
conceived as essentially different from our bodies) rather than a truly human
life lived under the psychical conditional humanity. (D.M. Baillie, God was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation
and Atonement [Scribner, 1948], 11)
John Greer (1954-) is the current moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, the denomination founded by the late Ian Paisley. Unlike most Free Presbyterians I have encountered (e.g., Colin Maxwell), he is a bit more informed about the issues, including having a knowledge of biblical Greek (he taught Greek for a few years in the FPC seminary in the USA). He was elected moderator of the FPC in September 2012.
With respect to baptism, they hold to the following position (emphasis added):
Baptism — The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration. (Free Presbyterian Church Articles of Faith 6a; emphasis added).
In other words, with respect to the mode of baptism (whether by immersion, affusion, or sprinkling) or the subjects of baptism (whether infants or confessing adults), a member of the FPC has freedom to hold a certain doctrine; however, baptismal regeneration is a position that is condemned by the FPC and their articles of faith and cannot be held by any members thereof.
In a recent sermon given on the ordinance of baptism, Greer said the following:
Baptism is not an integral part of the gospel in the sense that it is not essential for salvation. (approx. 32:20 mark).
To support this idea, he appeals to 1 Cor 1:17, arguing that Paul separates baptism from the Gospel; in reality, part is talking about two functions within the gospel itself—baptism and the preaching of the gospel. In reality, Paul himself taught baptismal regeneration, and nothing in 1 Cor 1:17 contradicts baptism being salvific—sadly, Greer is engaging in the common eisegesis of this verse (see my blog post addressing this verse here).
Joseph Fitzmyer, commenting on 1:17 and 3:6-10, writes:
17. For Christ did not send me to baptize. This startling statement is not meant to undermine the value of baptism or liturgical actions. It reveals only how Paul understands his own authorized mission: cultic or liturgical ministry was not as important to him as that of preaching the gospel. Others can baptize, but he must preach, because he was called by God to preach his son “among the Gentiles” (Gal 1;16); now he ascribes his call and sending to Christ himself (Christos without an article, hence Jesus’ second name).
But to preach the gospel. i.e., to proclaim the good news (euangelizesthai) of salvation that comes through Jesus Christ . . .
9. For we are God’s fellow-workers . . . In the first clause, Paul regards both Apollos and himself as synergoi theou, a title that he used also of Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2. The phrase synergoi theou has been understood in two ways: (1) “God’s fellow-workers,” i.e., those who work together with God and are engaged in a common endeavor with God himself, who is the principal worker . . . (2) “Fellow workers in God’s service,” or “God’s servants, working together” (NRSV), or “fellow workers who belong to God,” i.e., Paul and his colleagues are those who work together and thus serve God by such shared labor . . .[v.10] Paul’s preaching has laid what he calls themelion, “a foundation,” for what he achieved thereby was fundamental for the Corinthian church, but he does not call himself the foundation. It is, however, the basis of the authority that he now exercises over the community, and to it he will return in 9:1-2. Paul calls himself architekton, “builder,” a title found only here in the NT. For the idea of a “foundation of the community,” see 1QS 7:17. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians [AB 32; Garden City, Doubleday, 2008], 147, 195-96, 197.)
Anthony C. Thiselton, a Protestant biblical scholar, commented on 1 Cor 1:17 thusly:
Since baptism and the Lord’s Supper also, for Paul, proclaim the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-11; 1 Cor 11:24-27), the contextual meaning of βαπτιζειν has been conveyed by translating it to perform baptisms, with its emphasis on ministerial agency. (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 143 [emphasis in original].)
To prove that Paul rejected baptismal regeneration, Greer offers the following comments based on 1 Cor 10:
With regard to the sense and essence the New Testament words, either the verb "to baptise" or the noun "baptism," the principle idea is always that of union [with Jesus Christ] . . .[with respect to 1 Cor 10:1-2] look at those words; they [the Israelites were] baptised unto Moses. The word "unto" there could also be read "into," and so, in a sense, in a certain sense, as the children of Israel went through the Red Sea, they were baptised into Moses; the meaning is that they were united with Moses, in other words, he was their leader and they were joined to him, and this is the language of the Holy Spirit, I want you to get a hold of that, these are the words of the Spirit of God, and in that event of crossing through the Red Sea, the children of Israel were baptised into Moses. Now, the point I want you to notice here is this--in this event, where the word "baptised" is used, is the thought of union is really in view; "baptised into Moses"--he is the man of God; he is the leader of Israel; and in a certain sense, these people are brought into union with him, and the point is this--that there is no water in view in terms of this "baptism" [as the Israelites passed through dry land] . . . This word is the very same word used when [the Bible] refers to water baptism but it brings out this fact that the idea of the word "baptised" is the idea of union. (beginning at the 37:50 mark)
One reason Greer has to engage in this absolutised (mis-)reading of 1 Cor 10:1-12 comes out, beginning at the 41:34 mark, when he confesses that, if water baptism is in view in Rom 6:3-4 (which is the case; see here), Paul taught baptismal regeneration:
Very plainly, the thought again here, is that of union, and it is union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Look at those words in verse 3: "Baptised into Jesus Christ." But I want to stress to your minds--there is not a drop of water in view in verses 3 and 4 of Romans 6; there is no water here in this setting. This "baptism" is a spiritual baptism, "baptised into Jesus Christ." If there were water mentioned in these verses, that would actually mean that we would actually be forced to espouse baptismal regeneration.
It is amazing, as well as the sign of sheer hypocrisy and projection, that so many Protestant apologists and theologians claim that Latter-day Saints rely on wrenching the Bible out of context to support our doctrines, when in reality, their leaders are forced to engage in such eisegesis of the Bible and such illogical reasoning.
With respect to 1 Cor 10, Paul is discussing various events in the Old Testament that are types of the ordinances of the New Testament, which are the antitypes or fulfillments of these Old Testament types. A type/antitype relationship exists between the passing of the Israelites through the Red Sea and their being immersed in the cloud and water baptism, just as there are type/antitype relationships between the manna from heaven and the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, as well as a type/antitype relationship between the rock that followed them and none other than Jesus Christ Himself:
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did drink all the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Indeed, the Greek term τυπικως, defined by Thayer as "by way of example (prefiguratively)" in v. 11:
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples (τυπικως): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Further, Greer is trying to read texts that speak of water baptism in light of a metaphorical usage thereof; consider the following comments on this verse from the NET, an Evangelical production:
A number of witnesses, some of them important, have the passive ἐβαπτίσθησαν (ebaptisthesan, "were baptized") instead of the middle ἐβαπτίσαντο (ebaptisanto, "baptized [themselves]") in v. 1Co 10:2 (so א A C D F G Ψ 33 al latt). However, the middle is not without its representation (î46c B 1739 1881 Û Or; the original hand of î46 read the imperfect middle ἐβαπτίζοντο [ebaptizonto]). The passive looks like a motivated reading in that it is clearer and conforms to typical Pauline usage (his thirteen instances of the verb are all either active or passive). B. M. Metzger, in representing a minority opinion of the UBS Committee, suggests that the middle would have been appropriate for Jewish baptism in which the convert baptizes himself (TCGNT 493). But this assumes that the middle is a direct middle, a rare occurrence in the NT (and never elsewhere with this verb). Further, it is not really baptism that is in view in v. 1Co 10:2, but passing through the Red Sea (thus, a metaphorical use). Although the present editors agree with the minority's resultant reading, it is better to take the middle as causative/permissive and the scribes as changing it to a passive for clarity's sake. Translational differences are minimal, though some exegetical implications are involved (see ExSyn 427).
In spite of the gross abuse of 1 Cor 10:1-2, wherein Greer is trying to read a metaphorical use of a term into the normative (water baptism) usage of βαπτιζω is a serious exegetical fallacy; in addition, whenever water baptism is in view, that baptism is the instrumental means of bringing about a remission of sins and “union with Christ,” and is not merely a symbol of such a union. Consider Acts 2:38-39 (exegeted in detail here):
Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Additionally, Rom 6:3-4 is about water baptism—just as we are buried in the water (immersion) and then are raised out thereof in the act of baptism, we are buried with Christ and are raised to newness of life into Christ. For my exegesis of this text, see here.
Evangelicals with more intellectual integrity than Greer admit that, while there is a symbolic meaning behind the term “baptism,” and its cognates, water baptism is always in view in texts such as Rom 6:3-4. N.T. Wright, author of scholarly volumes such as Justification and The Resurrection of the Son of God, discusses this issue here (as well as a very pertinent insight on Gal 2:20):
Even Martin Henry, a popular Reformed commentator, in his commentary on this text, understands this to refer to water baptism (emphasis in original):
Baptism binds us to Christ, it binds us apprentice to Christ as our teacher, it is our allegiance to Christ as our sovereign. Baptism is externa ansa Christi--the external handle of Christ, by which Christ lays hold on men, and men offer themselves to Christ. Particularly, we were baptized into his death, into a participation of the privileges purchased by his death, and into an obligation both to comply with the design of his death, which was to redeem us from all iniquity, and to conform to the pattern of his death, that, as Christ died for sin, so we should die to sin. This was the profession and promise of our baptism, and we do not do well if we do not answer this profession, and make good this promise.
A.T. Robertson, a leading Reformed theologian and Koine Greek grammarian, also admitted that Paul had in view in this pericope water baptism, contra Greer:
The picture in baptism points two ways, backwards to Christ's death and burial and our death to sin (verse 1), forwards to Christ's resurrection from the dead and to our new life pledged by the coming out of the watery grave to walk on the other side of the baptismal grave. (Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [6 vols.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1931], 4:362; emphasis in original).
Furthermore, one should note that, with respect to 1 Cor 10:1-2, there was indeed a “baptism” or an “immersion,” which is what βαπτιζω denotes; to quote again from Robertson:
The picture is plain enough. The mystic cloud covered the people while the sea rose in walls on each side of them as they marched across . . . The immersion was complete for all of them in the sea around them and the cloud over them. Moses was their leader then as Christ is now and so Paul uses eis concerning the relation of the Israelites to Moses as he does of our baptism in relation to Christ (Gal. 3:27) (Ibid. 4:151)
Interestingly, earlier in the sermon, Greer states that baptism for a believer is not optional, and is a commandment--and he is absolutely correct. Sadly, his Reformed theology results in him holding to, not just a warped, unbiblical conception of the nature of water baptism, but also an inconsistent view of baptism vis-a-vis the believer. Indeed, Greer begs an important question, "For what purpose are we baptised at all?" it is all very well to claim that baptism is a commandment and to protest against those who do not obey it, but what does baptism achieve? Nothing in the symbolic view held by Greer et al. For unless the baptised person can give a sound theological reason for doing so, his submission to baptism in such a theological system is pointless--what does it signify? He does not know. What is its effect? He believes it has no effect whatsoever. Why then be baptised in the first place? Simply because Jesus commanded it. No other reason other than "just because," and not because of any significance of its own. Such makes a great mockery and degradation of the baptism of John, the Great Commission and the commandment of Jesus Christ in Matt 28:19, as well as the believer's symbolic enactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as discussed in Rom 6:3-4).
As with so many arguments against the salvific efficacy of water baptism, Greer’s comments in his sermon is representative of the eisegesis one encounters from apologists for the Reformed/symbolic view of baptism. However, the Lord does bring good from evil (cf. Gen 50:20), and has given us another opportunity to refute doctrinal error (cf. Gal 1:6-9) and present the truth about the doctrine of baptism. Yet again, if any denomination can lay claim to being reflective of “biblical Christianity,” it is not the various Reformed denominations where most of our theological opponents come from; it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I have dealt with the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in two previous posts (here and here), dealing with their identification of Jesus with the archangel Michael.
On p.218 of the JW publication, Reasoning from the Scriptures, we read the following under the header, "Is Jesus Christ the same person as Michael the archangel?"
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as "the archangel's call," and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus' commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. (Interesting, the expression "archangel" is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one.
There are a number of problems with the following paragraph.
Firstly, Michael is said to be”one of” the princes in Dan 10:13, where the term “prince” (שַׂר chief/chieftain/ruler/prince) is synonymous with “archangel.” Jesus is not “one of [many]” but is said to be “unique”--the Greek term μονογενης (KJV: “only-begotten”) means “unique” or “one-of-a-kind,” and is predicated upon Jesus (e.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). In addition, it is simply question-begging to claim that, as Scripture only predicates “archangel” (αρχαγγελος) upon Michael, there is only one archangel—such is reflective, not of Sola Scriptura, which many JWs claim they practice, but SolO Scriptura. Additionally, intertestamental literature predicated the title, “archangel” upon other angels than simply Michael such as Dokiel (Testament of Abraham 13:10); Puriel (Testament of Abraham 13:11); Ouriel (Testament of Solomon 2:4); Uriel (Testament of Solomon 2:7; Prayer of Joseph 3:3); Azael (Testament of Solomon 7:7); Gabriel (Jubilees 2:1; 48:1).
Furthermore, as for Jude 9, this is a refutation, not a support, of the identification of Jesus with the archangel Michael, as Michael was incapable of refuting the devil vis-à-vis the body of Moses; instead, all he could do was say “the Lord rebuke you”; one should compare such with the victory of Jesus over Satan in Matt 4:1-11 (cf. Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13), and this was before His exaltation post-ascension (cf. Phil 2:5-11; Heb 1:4). Furthermore, as discussed in my previous posts on JW Christology, Jesus is differentiated from, and is said to be greater than all the angels, and, as a result, archangels, too--such is part-and-parcel of the entire Christology of Heb 1.
As for 1 Thess 4:16, the text reads as follows from the NWT:
Because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are forced to engage in some fallacious reasoning to identify Jesus as being, ontologically, an archangel based on this verse. Firstly, note that, if JWs are correct in asserting that, as Jesus is said to descend from heaven with an archangel’s voice “proves” Jesus is an archangel ontologically, this also “proves” Jesus is God—after all, he comes with God’s trumpet. Only by engaging in special pleading can one escape such a conclusion.
Furthermore, if one reads Jesus' teachings on his parousia (final coming in glory), he will send angelic messengers before him to proclaim his coming, fitting perfectly with 1 Thess 4:16:
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matt 24:31; cf. Mark 13:27)
Finally, this verse, and others, is a death-knell to JW pretensions to being God’s only true organisation. Why? In official JW theology, Jesus returned back to the earth, invisibly, in 1914:
In section 132 of the JW publication, "At God's Right hand," in the JW publication, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, we read:
A careful study of Bible prophecies, including Jesus' own prophecy regarding the last days, reveals that "the Lord's day" began in the history-making year 1914, yes, within this generation! So it was in 1914 that Jesus returned invisibly, without public fanfare and with only his faithful servants being aware of his return. In that year Jehovah gave Jesus the command to go subduing in the midst of his enemies!
Biblical eschatology, as seen in 1 Thess 4:16; Matt 24 (cf. Mark 13; Luke 21), etc. are all unified in stating that, at Jesus’ parousia, it will be announced at a global level with great fanfare, and will not be a “hidden” affair, and, further, Jesus will return visibly, not invisibly, all contrary to the Christology and eschatology of the Watchtower.
Hopefully readers of this blog will be able to be equipped to help any Jehovah’s Witness they encounter and to convey the true conception of Jesus, as taught in Latter-day Saint Christology—as with Trinitarians, the Christ espoused by Jehovah’s Witnesses is an unbiblical one (2 Cor 11:4).
For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol's temple, won't that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. (1 Cor 8:10-11 NIV)
1 Cor 8 is a chapter about the question of whether it is permissible for a Christian to eat food that had been offered to pagan deities (v.1). Paul allows for strong-willed believers to consume such meat, as such idols have no ontological existence (v.4). However, for a “weak” Christian, one is to refrain from eating such in their presence, as it could upset or even offend their sensibilities, and perhaps even lead to apostasy. The language used of such people in vv.10-11 is not that of a superficial believer who only had a false confession of faith and was never truly converted; indeed, the phrase in v.11 is ὁ ἀδελφὸς δι᾽ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. The preposition διαis used in conjunction with ον, the pronoun meaning "who" and is in the masculine nominative, relating back to the phrase, "the brother" (ο αδελφος). Δια coupled with the accusative means "on behalf of," so this verse means exactly what our English translations mean--Christ died for/on account of this person who is said to be "destroyed."
A parallel text is the following:
But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. (Rom 14:15)
In the underlying Greek, Paul states that Christ died “for” (υπερ) the Christian who could be “destroyed.” This preposition is a favourite of Paul’s to denote those for whom Christ died (Rom 5:6, 8; 8:34; 1 Cor 15:3; 2 Coe 5:20; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:2, 25). This itself calls into serious question the doctrine of “particular redemption” or “Limited Atonement.”
The verb "to destroy" is απολλυμι, and means to die/destroy/perish, and if often used in eschatological contexts, referring to eternal damnation. Note the usages of the verb in the Pauline epistles:
For as many have sinned without law shall also perish (απολλυμι) without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. (Rom 2:12)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish (απολλυμι) foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy (απολλυμι) the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. (1 Cor 1:18-19)
Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed (απολλυμι) of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed (απολλυμι) of the destroyer. (1 Cor 10:9-10)
[If the resurrection of Jesus never happened] They they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished (απολλυμι). (1 Cor 15:18)
For we are unto God as a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish (απολλυμι): To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and unto the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? (2 Cor 2:15-16)
But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost (απολλυμι) . . . Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed (απολλυμι) (2 Cor 4:3, 9)
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish (απολλυμι); because they received not the love of truth, that they might be saved. (2 Thess 2:10)
In light of the terminology Paul uses in 1 Cor 8:10-11 (cf. Rom 1415):, it is perfectly understandable to see why this is seen, correctly, as another piece of biblical evidence refuting (1) limited atonement and (2) various theologies of eternal security, as this person is (i) one for whom Christ died for; (ii) presented as being a true Christian, and (iii) faces eschatological destruction/damnation due to their apostasy, not merely ecclesiastical disciple or temporary loss of fellowship.
Ina previous post, I discussed one of the peculiarities of the use of the
vocalisation of the Hebrew consonantal texts, showing that the LXX translators
understood the correct vocalisation of Psa 110:3 (109:3, LXX) differently than
the later Masoretic scribes. Another quirk of this issue can be seen in the use
of the LXX of Psa 102:25-27 (102:26-28 in the Hebrew; 101:26-28 in the LXX) in
Heb 1:10-12, and its application to Jesus.
The
Greek of Heb 1:10-12, addressing Jesus, reads:
And, "In the beginning, Lord, you
founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will
perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you
will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed. But you are the
same, and your years will never end." (NRSV)
It
is true that the Masoretic text understands the psalmist to be speaking to
Yahweh; however, the translators of the LXX understood the vocalisation of the
verb ענה differently than the later MT scribes. The MT vocalises the
term as ‘innah, meaning “he [Yahweh]
weakened [the suppliant].” However, the LXX understood the vocalisation to be “he
[Yahweh] answered [the suppliant],” therefore, introducing a second lord (κυριος)
who is addressed in vv.25-27 of the LXX.
Sir Lancelot Brenton, in his translation
of the LXX, translates the LXX as:
He answered him in the way of his strength: tell me the fewness of my
days.
The author of Hebrews, as he is using
the LXX, is not applying a “Yahweh” text from the LXX to Jesus; instead, he is
using a text that has connotations of “Messianic eschatology.”
F.F. Bruce, in his New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans), writes:
In the Septuagint text the person to whom these words [“of old you laid the foundation of the earth”] are spoken is addressed explicitly as “Lord,” and it is God who addresses him thus. Whereas in the Hebrew text the suppliant is the speaker from the beginning to the end of the psalm, in the Greek text his prayer comes to an end with v. 22, and the next words read as follows: “He [God] answered him [the suppliant] in the way of his strength: ‘Declare to Me the shortness of My days: Bring Me not up in the midst of My days. Thy [the suppliant’s] years are throughout all generations. Thou, lord [the suppliant, viewed here as the Messiah by Hebrews], in the beginning didst lay the foundation of the earth
Benjamin Bacon,
in his essay, "Heb. 1:10-12 and the Septuagint Reading of Ps. 102:23"
in the Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 3 (1902),
pp.280-85(*), concludes his fascinating study with the following comment (here,
p.284):
Thus
instead of the application of these verses of Ps 102 to messiah being an
audacious innovation on the part of the author of Hebrews, we find evidence (1)
that the psalm itself was a favorite resort of those who sought in even
pre-Christian times for proof-texts of messianic eschatology. This is a result
which might have been anticipated from the suggestive reference to "the
set time" for Jehovah's deliverance and glorification of Zion, v. 13, and
the challenge to cryptographic interpretation of v.18, "this shall be
written for the generation to come: and a people which shall be created shall
praise the Lord." (2) We have specific evidence of the application of
verses 23-24 to the Messiah by those who employed the Hebrew or some equivalent
text. (3) Finally, in the LXX and the Vulg. rendering of ענה by απεκριθη, respondit,
we have the explanation of how, in Christian circles at least, the accepted
Messianic passage could be made to prove the doctrine of [the Messiah's
personal pre-existence].
While this pericope may not be an Old
Testament Yahweh text being applied to Jesus, at least due to the use of the
LXX in Heb 1:10-12, there are many that understand, correctly, that this
passage teaches the personal pre-existence of Jesus. Some, such as Andrew
Perry, a Christadelphian apologist and author of Before He was Born, a work arguing that Jesus did not personally pre-exist, argues that
this passage it to be understood as Jesus pre-existing typologically in the
person of Hezekiah, who he believes to be the author of Psa 102(!), which is
utterly absurd (at least he tries to deal with the passage; Duncan Heaster and
other proponents of such a Christology don’t deal with this pericope [cf.
Heaster’s The Real Christ]). Thomas
Farrar has a very good paper on the Christological implications of this
pericope here, which refutes the arguments of Parry and other proponents of
such a Socinian Christology. Of course, I would disagree with Farrar on some points (he is a Trinitarian; I am clearly not; also, he rather glibly dismisses pre-millennial eschatology), but overall, the paper is sold at showing that, in the theology of the author of Hebrews, Jesus personally pre-existed.
(*) My thanks to my friend, Dr. Bill Hamblin, for forwarding me a copy of this article.
Hebrews 1 presents a catena of various Old Testament texts, often those that are Messianic in context or were part of the coronation service of the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment. Often in this chapter, the author often asks the rhetorical question of which angel did God ever say or promise such things to, with the answer being “none,” as the purpose of this chapter is, in part, to portray Jesus as being greater than all the angels. An “archangel” is just an elevated angel, belonging to the same ontological category as a “regular” angel.
In Jehovah’s Witness Christology, Jesus and the archangel Michael are numerically identical to one another (similar to how Michael and the patriarch Adam are numerically identical to one another in Latter-day Saint theology [e.g., D&C 27:11]). This means that the Christology of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (official name of the JW organisation) is in clear conflict with the Christology of the author of Hebrews. Let us examine some of the pertinent texts from the JW translation of the Bible, the New World Translation (online here); Old Testament references are in square brackets:
So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs (v. 4)
For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say, "You are my son; today I have become your father"? [Psa 2:7] And "I will become his father, and he will become my son"? [2 Sam 7:14]. But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all of God's angels do obeisance to him." [Deut 32:43, LXX; Psa 97:7] (vv.5-6)
Also, he says about the angels: "He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." [Psa 104:4, LXX] But about the Son, he says: "God is your throne forever and ever, and the sceptre of your Kingdom is the sceptre of uprightness. You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions." [Psa 45:6-7] (vv.7-9)
But about which of the angels has he ever said: "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet?" [Psa 110:1; 109:1, LXX] (v.13)
For the author of Hebrews, Jesus is not in the ontological category of “angel,” which would exclude an identification with being an archangel, viz. Michael. Instead, he is exalted above all angels and given a name above all other names (Heb 1:4; cf. Phil 2:5-11). I do hope that any Jehovah’s Witness, or those investigating JW claims, will seriously rethink their denomination’s Christology, as it is clearly in conflict with the Christology of the New Testament on this and many other points.
