Hypostatic Union and Temple Theology

Here I just want to sketch out a few questions to potentially spark discussion.

I don't intend here to sketch out the meaning of words such as enhypostasis and anhypostasis, or hypostatic union and the rest, because if you are interested in this in any detail, you will already know, and will be keen for me to get to my questions.

Suffice it to say, we are dealing with trains of thought to understand how Jesus being divine, and coming down from heaven, was able to live in human form. That already mentions two natures - human and divine. These two natures are joined together in Jesus. But how does that work? For instance, does having two natures mean having two minds with two wills? Can you be human without having a 'human' mind?

I'm not going to rehearse well known critiques of the different positions held by pre-Reformation theologians, Lutherans, Reformed, etc.

This post, you see, is proposing a dialogue using Temple theology, a theology which is an area of speciality for myself. (I really must write some posts abut it!) 

Can Temple theology be a useful tool for widening conversation about how Jesus' human and divine natures interacted 2,000 years ago?

Where this is going

At the end of this post, I hope to have established a basis for asking this question. Is the hypostatic union basically this: that Jesus' whole humanity is the temple of his whole divinity?

I don't want this overly muddled with questions about personhood. To my mind, a person is simply a person. Be that a divine person or a human person, a person is a person. With or without a body, a person is a person. But I will deal with this further down under the heading 'personhood.' This may irritate some readers, for whom the whole thing should simply be about personhood in relation to anhypostastis. But I want to sketch out something different first.

Some preliminary questions

Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem was where heaven and earth were joined together. It was a wood and stone structure in which God dwelled, dwelling there in the form of his 'Name' and his 'Glory.' Are we aware of how much that carries over into the New Testament understanding of Jesus?

Jesus is the new Temple.(The incarnation is actually conceived of in Temple language in John 1:14.)  In him, heaven and earth are joined together. Can we relate this to how, in the incarnation, his humanity and divinity are joined together? Could this help us to see how his divine nature is joined to his human nature? (Albeit 'you can't see the join' - a joke for British readers!)

Two perspectives on biblical anthropology should be noted for thinking about Jesus' human nature. Can we apply to Jesus in his incarnation a New Testament anthropology in terms of him being body, soul/mind, and Spirit? (May we speak of either a bipartite humanity with special reference to his flesh (sarx in John 1:14), or a tripartite humanity - human body, human mind, human spirit (pneuma, psyche and soma in in 1 Thess 5:23)? It doesn't necessarily matter which of those two perspectives of biblical anthropology we hold to for the purposes of this discussion, as you will see. It's just well to be aware that there are these two perspectives, to be aware of the assumptions we bring. 

I'm going to explore an analogy which will help to make room for me to ask this question: can we speak in broad terms of Jesus' humanity as being the temple of his divinity? That can be broken down. Should we limit that to his body/flesh being the temple in which he dwells? Or can we go further? Is his human consciousness the temple of his divine mind? 

Analogy: Christians and the Holy Spirit

I want to make an analogy with 'ordinary' Christians. We who are not God, not deities, not divine. In Christians, God's Holy Spirit dwells. Does this mean that in the ordinary Christian, we who are not God, not deities, that we are earthly temples in which the eternal infinite Holy Spirit is able to dwell in some miraculous way - the infinite dwelling in the finite, the immortal dwelling in the mortal, the divine Spirit dwelling in non-divine human bodies? 

Our mind

Can the infinite mind of God dwell within such small creatures as ourselves, with such small brains? The issue here is not really the capacity of the human brain/body to house God so much as the capacity of the infinite Holy Spirit to dwell in such small creatures as ourselves. If God wanted to, he could make a silicon chip into which to download everything he knows. The smallness of Jesus as a human being with a body isn't a problem, so long as we remember that God can dwell as he wishes, and be incarnate as he wishes. 

Is this what Paul posits as the normal experience of the ordinary Christian? That is, Paul who is, in New Testament language, born again, born of the Spirit from above. Is he a finite temple of the indwelling infinite divine Spirit?

Our body

Is it fair then to say that our whole personal humanity is a temple of the divine Holy Spirit? Or should we limit our statement to saying that only our bodies are a temple of the divine Holy Spirit? Does this distinction in use of terms matter or not in this dialogue? All worth thinking about, because our experience matters as an analogy as we come, shortly, to think about the incarnation of Jesus.

Is the Christian experience - which includes the still small voice speaking inwardly to us, the nudges and occasionally words of the indwelling Holy Spirit - can we speak of this as the mind of God speaking to our minds? Can we as temples then speak therefore of the mind of God being revealed to our minds by the Spirit, who is dwelling within us? Can we speak of all this as an inward experience, of this happening within us? As a 'temple experience,' if you like.

Can we humans, we Christians, speak of being the body of Christ? Are we joined to Christ as his body, in some substantial way beyond metaphor? That is surely a view found in the New Testament. 

Our spirit

If our human bodies are joined to Christ's body, are our human spirits also joined to the Spirit of Christ? There is such a think as spirit if we are body, soul and spirit. Note Luke 8:55 which tells of a girl raised from the dead as "her spirit returned." Or 1 Corinthians 6:17: "he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him." Or Romans 8:16 where his Spirit is joined with our spirit. Or 1 Corinthians 14:14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful."

So, to reframe it... is it that only our bodies are joined to his indwelling Spirit? Or is it that, in particular, our human spirits are joined to his Spirit? Is this what it means for us to be alive in the Spirit? If we are temples of the Holy Spirit, is the Spirit attached to us so closely that we partake of the divine nature? We who are not divine, not God, not deities?

As part of the body of Christ, is it that we are able to be temples of divinity by extension from Christ? (Because he is a temple of divinity first. That is, he is both temple, in the biblical language of the temple of his body, and he is the divine presence within the temple - John 1:14.) So, is that what makes it possible for us Christians to be temples of the Holy Spirit - by extension from Christ? This seems to be what Paul thought. 

So those were some questions about being human, about being body and mind and spirit, about being temples.

Back to Jesus

From our understanding of being Christians, of being those who are not deities but are temples of God's Spirit, can we make an analogy to how Jesus is to be understood in his incarnation, in his experience? Let's see if the analogy is useful.

Can we use that analogy of human experience to talk about him? Of course we are moving on to something different from we who are not deities. Is the fact that Jesus is both the temple and also the divine presence within the temple (John 1:14) a basis for understanding how his human nature is joined to his divine nature? Is Temple theology a language we can use to reframe dialogue around hypostatic union?

Is the Christian experience of our merely human minds intimately knowing the mind of God's indwelling Spirit, is this experience an analogy that can help us to understand Jesus, to help us understand the consciousness of his human nature joined to his divine mind, the Logos? Is the temple of the body a helpful key to understanding here? 

If the infinite mind of God can dwell within such small human creatures as ourselves, by the indwelling Holy Spirit, then surely there is no problem with the infinite mind of God being in Jesus - if veiled from his consciousness, none the less there? (No less there in the mind of Jesus than in the mind of the Holy Spirit, the indwelling Holy Spirit.) After all, John says that to Jesus the Spirit was given without limit.

Does bringing the imago dei into the question assist us here? If we are saying that humanity is in the image of divinity, and that this image is perfect in Jesus - which Judaeo-Christian tradition asserts - is it not then simply a good fit for Jesus' humanity to be the temple of his divinity? Is it not a good fit for Jesus' consciousness to be the temple of his divine mind? Is this where the theology of the imago dei should take us? 

Personhood

This shifts the question away slightly from questions of personhood. 

As I said, to my mind, a person is simply a person. Be that a divine person or a human person, a person is a person. With or without a body, a person is a person. That's why I think that personhood in relation to Christ's anhypostastis isn't the big issue that some make it out to be. I will argue that Christ's personhood is as much natural in human nature as in divine nature. 

Some commentators speak as if personhood amounts to different things if it's 'divine' personhood or 'human' personhood. But frankly there is no agreement on what 'personhood' actually is in the first place, so that seems to me an unsure foundation for any conclusion. Similarly, there is a problem when people talk about 'divine' personhood or 'human' personhood, because it's not clear often whether they are really talking about being a 'person' at all, or whether they are actually just speaking about divine and human attributes.

I would venture that to be a human person simply means to be someone with the imago dei (image of God) who is known to God, and that personhood is thus relational. As such, asking whether Jesus is a 'human' person is not necessarily to understand anything. You are human, you are a person, and you are known to God: therefore you are a human person. To be human, you have to have humanity, not to lack divinity. 

This seems to me to have plenty of explanatory power for the personhood of Christ in the incarnation. Christ is the very stamp of the image of God and Christians bear that image because of him. 

If a human is made in the image of God - and Christ is the image of God - then this Jesus, being known to his Father as exactly the imago dei, this is enough to account for a personhood that is as much at home in human nature as in divine nature. 

This is Christ: one imago dei, one who is known to the Father in his humanity and in his divinity, one person. 

I don't hold a binary premise (some do) that in order to be human, you first have to lack divinity, or be independent of deity. I don't see any logic in that binary premise, and it's certainly not a premise for being 'human' that I can see in the Bible. What I do find is that to be human, you have to have the imago dei, and there is nothing better suited for being both human and divine. Christ can be the imago dei in both humanity and deity, even if the rest of us have the imago dei in humanity only. 

A human mind for instance is basically a mind made to be fit the likeness of the imago dei. Romans 11:34 speaks of the mind (νοῦς) of the Lord: "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" It doesn't say the Lord doesn't have a mind or that the Lord's mind is utterly unlike a human mind. But its reach is different. It reaches further without limit. A mind is a mind. Someone with a low IQ is no less a person that Albert Einstein was. Compared to Einstein, Jesus' mind had the greater reach, but it doesn't mean that one of them isn't a person, or that one of them lacks humanity. A mind is a mind. 1 Corinthians 2:16 says "we have the mind (νοῦς) of Christ." Luke 24:45 says Christ "opened their minds." Minds of those with the imago dei are relatable to each other. The human race is capable of rational thought because it was made by the Logos. The incarnation makes sense. (By the way, the Christological debates of the first Christian millennium didn't really debate the concept of the 'mind' in the incarnation, but they did debate the concept of 'will.')

All secular attempts to define personhood run the risk of being potential tools of eugenics, as they usually have a reference to a potential for rational thought, for instance, which could be used to deny personhood to people with dementia. A definition of personhood as being someone with the imago dei who is known to God avoids that risk. It also helps us understand why there is no intrinsic problem in Christ adopting human nature joined to his divine nature. It's also why I believe Temple theology is an aid in rethinking hypostatic union. 

Closing questions

Does it mean we can speak of Jesus having a human consciousness and a divine mind? Is his human consciousness the temple of his divine mind? Is that going too far? 

Is his whole humanity the temple of his whole divinity? Or is merely his body the temple of his divinity (John 1:14)? 

If he is redeeming our whole humanity, is it sufficient to limit his body/flesh to be the temple of his divinity? Or does it make more sense to think of his whole humanity being the temple of his divinity? To reframe that, can we think of Jesus' human nature being the temple of his divinity?

But in short, how can the language of temple theology best be adjusted for dialogue about hypostatic union, within orthodoxy? Can the language of temple theology refresh dialogue around hypostatic Christology? Is the hypostatic union basically this: that Jesus' whole humanity is the temple of his whole divinity?

Will this help us to work through some of the knottier questions around hypostatic union? That is my hope in presenting these outline questions.

I will leave these questions hanging for the moment, in the hope of further discussion.

Some articles on the subject of hypostatic union for background

The advantage of these is that they are short! 

https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/tsysk1/

https://www.gotquestions.org/enhypostasis-anhypostasis.html 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/leithart/2008/11/en-and-an/

Jesus and omniscience (in honour of Roger Forster)

Here are some of the answers I've given when I've been asked about how Jesus in his humanity relates to aspects of his divinity.

Omniscience and God

A question that will arise in this post is this: does God have any power to veil any of the future of our world from his own view? Or does omniscience always dictate this? 

Short version: did Jesus know all things?

I am rather drawn by the view of the late great Roger Forster. Firstly, that "being able to put things out of one's mind" is something that God can do, and that God does do, in Scripture, so it's not alien to God to decide not to call something to mind. Secondly, that if Jesus wanted to draw on that information, he could at any time because "he had the Spirit without limit" and it is the Spirit that "knows all things." So not accessing such information was for Jesus a choice, not a disability. It's a bit like kenosis except it's saying that putting things out of one's mind is a choice God has just as much as any human has. So this is not a conflict of natures. 

People may ask, "Why did Jesus not know the day and the time?" (You probably know the verse.) Where to start? Start with Jesus.

Omniscience and Jesus of Nazareth

In his time on earth, were the faculties of Jesus’ divine nature fully conscious of his human nature?

Yes, we can believe that the faculties of Jesus’ divine nature were fully conscious of his human nature. More on that further below.

Does it automatically follow that Jesus' human nature was fully conscious of everything he knew in his divine nature?

No, it does not necessarily follow that his human nature was fully conscious of all that he could know in his divine nature. 

Did Jesus' divine mind forget everything it had ever known? No. Can Jesus' human consciousness draw on it? That's asking the right question.

Let's explore this. We rightly expect that Jesus' human nature while on earth was as limited as our human nature, for example in the scope of human awareness. (Although within this, he went further. He knew his heavenly Father in a way we do not. But I don't want to get too much off the topic.)

So, can Jesus' human consciousness draw upon his divine mind? And can he choose to leave knowledge veiled, like in his human unconscious faculties, so to speak? 

Think about Jesus. As a human Jesus, like you, multi-tasked with staying alive while not being consciously physically aware of everything his body was doing (you are pumping blood round your body, breaking your food down to send nutrition round your body, without you having a never-ending conscious thought about it every second). And on a more psychological level, like you, Jesus would have had levels of consciousness of which he would naturally be unaware much of the time. This isn’t just a view of modern psychology but of the Bible: "The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out" (Proverbs 20:5). Jesus was like this.

So we suggest that Jesus, in his human experience, could have related to His divine nature as he would have related to those "deep waters" of his own unconscious mind so to speak: "The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out".

(By the way, Jesus reading God’s word (in the Old Testament) would have an obvious means to draw on this side of his identity, and I see passages where Jesus takes the words of YHWH and uses them of himself, and I can read them in that light.)

Human consciousness does not comprehend the infinity of the divine mind. As he was made just like us, it was surely impossible for Jesus's limited human consciousness to apprehend the limitless scope of his divine mind. This is very much at the heart of the incarnation. This meant Jesus from childhood could grow intellectually, as we must do.

In any case it was surely unnecessary for Jesus to know at the level of his human consciousness all that his divine nature was doing just as it was unnecessary for him to know the rate at which blood was pumping round his body, etc. Jesus was one person growing, learning as one of us, without being aware in his human consciousness of exactly what his body was doing in terms of his human heart rate or the work of his gut bacteria every second of the day, or fully conscious in terms of his divine capacity.

In the flesh

Jesus' humanity was the temple of his divinity. They are joined, just as heaven and earth are joined.

When you stand on the seashore with water lapping your toes, are you on land or in the sea? Answer: both, because that is where these places overlap. So it is with heaven and earth, which meet in the temple, according to the Bible. So it is with Jesus, being both human and divine. His humanity was the temple of his divinity. If it sounded like I was saying that Jesus was in heaven and earth at the same time, that wouldn't be too far off.

In ancient Jerusalem, in the Holy of Holies, the temple was in heaven and earth at the same time, and God is in both at the same time. The temple was the meeting place of heaven and earth. Like the man standing on the seashore, so on land and in the sea at the same time, thus it is with heaven and earth. In ancient Israel, the idea of God being in more than one place at once, would not have been controversial. It was the worldview of the Jews who worshipped at the temple.

Jesus, says the New Testament, is the new temple. Heaven and earth meet in his body. At the same time, his humanity was the temple of his divinity. 

In ancient Israel, prayers went to heaven through God’s presence in the temple – the Jews prayed facing towards the temple. Heaven and earth were joined together in the Holy of Holies. That is why they did this. Of course, Jesus' followers transferred these beliefs to him: he is the true temple, and we pray to God through him; in him is God’s presence.

John 1:14 says "ho logos sarx egeneto" traditionally rendered in English as "the Word became flesh".  John's epistles add clarification. They function almost like commentaries on the main themes of his gospel. 1 John 4:2 says "Jesus Christ came in the flesh". The Greek is "en sarki" ("in flesh"). This is no accident. Indeed it is repeated in 2 John 7 which speaks of "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh". The Greek again is "en sarki" ("in flesh").  The meaning of “become flesh” is that the Word added human nature to his divine nature.

But at a more basic level, we can also recognise a familiar way for early Christians to speak. For 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 speaks of our own bodies as something we inhabit. It mentions "the earthly tent we live in" in which "we groan" while we long "to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling". It sums up this human condition by saying in verse 6, "while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord". (A similar idea is in Philippians 1:21-24.) We are not just flesh in these verses. Our body is something we are "clothed" in, and we inhabit it. 

So it should not be too difficult to think of the Word being in flesh.

 

Omniscience and forgetting and remembering 

"Who has known the mind of the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 2:16).

If one were to suppose that God is always conscious of all of the facts of the universe, the latest count of every tin can in the world etc - this is how some people seem to contemplate God's omniscience - that would mean God is really also still thinking about all our forgiven sins all the time, even though he has actually told us that, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more" (Hebrews 10:17 - RSV). What a horrible thing it would be to suppose that God cannot stop thinking about all our moments of sin just when we are before him enjoying the embrace of his love, his presence. 

God deals with this. God said he would remember them no more. What God reveals to us in verses like this (see also Hebrews 8:12 and Jeremiah 31:34 for example) is that God can choose to put things out of his own mind, so he is NOT thinking about all our forgiven sins every time we pray to him for example. God does as he says: "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more".

This should not be strange. God should be able to do what we can do and more. We humans have the ability to put things out of our minds. If we were to deny God the same ability, we make him out to be less than us! And then we make him into a grotesque God who can't stop thinking about our acts of sin! So we should let go of any such unscriptural distortions of omniscience. According to scripture God can put things out of his mind, and can remember things at will.

Omniscience doesn't control God. It's the other way round.

So God chooses to remember what he chooses to remember. So he faithfully chooses to remember his covenant with Israel (Luke 1:52) for example.

"Who has known the mind of the Lord?" (1 Corinthians 2:16). But we humans who barely know the depths of the mind of the Lord hold such firm opinions about it that are inconsistent with scripture, especially about his omniscience! Sometimes the way God's omniscience is spoken of, you'd be left wondering if an omniscient God can never stop thinking about all of Delia Smith's recipes and every McDonald's hamburger for all of eternity. Why should he do that if he had any power over his omniscience? 

Now that we know a little more of what God has revealed about his mind in scripture, we can apply this lesson to what we know of his eternal Word. In the incarnation, the eternal Word puts things out of his mind. Indeed he puts everything out of his mind when he first appears in the flesh as a baby. And so, as he grew up, "He increased in wisdom and in years" Luke 2:52.

He experienced revelation, no doubt as he read scripture that prophesied his coming, or as he heard Mary tell him about the angel's words before she conceived Jesus. In such moments imagine the resonance in his unconscious with the things put out of his consciousness. Imagine revelation erupting within his thoughts, for example reading Isaiah and recognising that he himself would be the Suffering Servant whom Isaiah foretold. So Jesus' developed in wisdom, as these things resonated deep within him. "The purposes of a man's heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out" (Proverbs 20:5). 

When Jesus (before the resurrection) said about end time events, "only the Father knows the day and time... not the son", we are in another of these moments. The incarnate Son is only going to know in his consciousness what the Father wants him to be conscious of. So the wonderful thing is that although much greater knowledge is there deep in Jesus' unconscious, he is obedient to the Father and he will not pull it out, having already put it out of his conscious mind. The eternal Word in the bosom of the Father has put such things out of his mind. In this way, Jesus is like his Father who, according to scripture, can put things out of his own mind: "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more".

Jesus' consciousness at death

God vividly experienced what was happening in the death of a man on the cross. Two natures interacted. Jesus is of two natures, but not two parts, so it wouldn't be right to say the 'human part' dies and the 'divine part' lives because he is a unity, not two parts. The two natures are married as one. The divine nature is immortal, the human nature is mortal (especially because the wages of sin is death, and Jesus bore the wages of our sin - death). How did the two natures interact? God vividly experienced it.

It won't do so suggest, as some do, that the divine Word did not undergo this experience and that a totally separate being died (such a saying would be akin to the heresy of Cerinthus). 

The truth is easily shown from scripture. In John 15:13 Jesus says, "No one has greater love than this, that one should lay down his life for his friends." (Darby translation). 

No one has greater love than the love of Jesus laying down his life for us. 

If one were to hold that Jesus is not God, then that forces on scripture an interpretation in which the self-sacrificing Jesus showed greater love than God is capable of. That would be a theological problem. What a perverse view of God that would be. Only the death of God's incarnation answers this problem: God truly experienced in himself the death of a man on the cross. This is not patripassianism, because what I am talking about is a person of the Trinity, the Son, and the empathy that the Father has for his son.

This dovetails with the Christian of whether a Christian, alive in the Spirit, is conscious after death in an intermediate state. I'll deal with that in a separate post, as it is worth a separate post. 

Red herrings

In the context of this subject, people have brought up about Jesus learning obedience, and ask why. (Hebrews 5:8) Why would he need to learn anything? And some go even further and assume that learning obedience means Jesus learning his way out of disobedience. We can dismiss that as a misunderstanding. Rather, Jesus is all the time learning instructions and obeying them, like a student to a master, like an acolyte rising in steps. This is what it means to learn obedience. It is like training. It is training. Not like learning his way out of disobedience.

Some ask, if he is omniscient, how come the Son of God has to receive a revelation in Revelation 1:1? This is even more of a red herring, as I explain here.

Knowing the time of the end: Mark 13:32 / Matthew 24:26

What about Mark 13:32 / Matthew 24:36? "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father." Let's answer first regarding Jesus, then the Holy Spirit.

Jesus

As already said, Jesus of Nazareth was closed off from some knowledge while on earth.

This verse reveals what can be veiled from his consciousness for the purposes of his mission on earth. Jesus has the Spirit without limit, and this is the Spirit of the Father, and there is nothing that the Spirit of the Father lacks. (John 3:34; 1 Cor 2:11; Matt 10:20) Having the Spirit without limit, he could choose to know. Or he choose to leave it veiled. But he sticks to his mission, that of being made like us. 

In principle, Jesus can potentially know all things because he has the Spirit without limit. As 1 Cor 2:11 for example says, "no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." The Spirit knows the Father's thoughts. And Jesus has the Spirit without limit, so he could know all things unless his consciousness be veiled. As Colossians 2:3 speaks of him: "Christ in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." That's all knowledge, all in Christ.

Having the Spirit without limit, he has both the power and the ability to choose to know. The Holy Spirit is God's unlimited power, and as for Jesus - he is called the Power of God and, as it says, he has the Spirit without limit.  (Interesting to note: 'Spirit without limit' is ontological. Knowledge is functional, something that God has control over, not the other way round.)  So not knowing the time of the end is about what is veiled from his consciousness for the purposes of his mission on earth. So, Jesus sticks to his mission with no compromise. It remains veiled from his consciousness in his mode of mission.

This can go further still. Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit) are mutually indwelling. The Father's level of omniscience is the standard touchstone (although that omniscience doesn't subsist, I would argue, without the Spirit's role - see below). And as Jesus is in his Father in a unique way, and vice versa, that makes a difference to Jesus' access to omniscience too. And as Jesus says more specifically, all that belongs to the Father belongs to Jesus. What the Father knows is therefore always potentially accessible to Jesus, without limit again. All in all, it is difficult to deny Jesus rightful access to omniscience. Where we see something different, it comes down to what is veiled in the incarnation. There's access, and there is veiling. It's about the incarnation.

The Holy Spirit

But does the Holy Spirit know all things? The very being of the Father cannot exclude the Spirit of the Father. It is his own Spirit. Pushing "only the Father knows" to extremes would be a bit irrational. If the Father knows, the Spirit of the Father knows. They are indivisible, and it goes without saying. 

As I said, we should not push "alone" to extremes. For example, does the Lord 'alone' being holy in Rev 15:4 mean the Son is unholy? Of course not. "Only" does not exclude Jesus here. We shouldn't press "only" to the point of treating it like binary computer code. In a less striking example, does Jesus being described as 'alone' in John 8:9 mean the woman wasn't there? Of course not. The text doesn't actually say he was "alone with" her but it obviously means that. And only the accusers are said to have left; the witnessing crowd aren't said to have left. "Only" doesn't exclude the woman and the crowd. As I say, we shouldn't think the Bible speaks like binary computer code. It speaks with the fluency of human language. 

In summary, the Father knows the time of the end to the extent it is knowable (see below), and consequently the Spirit of the Father knows, but it's veiled from Jesus' own consciousness to honour his mode of mission, which had not fully run its course yet.

Addendum on this passage in Mark and Matthew

There is something else misunderstood about this verse which is worth mentioning. 

People assume from this verse that the Father already knew the time of the end, of the eschaton, and they contrast this with Jesus not knowing. But look closely.  

To suppose simplistically that the Father already knew the time of the end ignores that the Father is holding back from deciding when the end will come, and he urges us to help make the time of the end sooner rather than later. That's what 2 Peter 3:9-12 says. God has determined that there will be such an occasion, but Peter prevents us from thinking foolishly that the date of the occasion has been set. (You get something similar from Paul in Acts.) Peter only confirms that there will be such an occasion, and that the date is unfixed, and that we can help make that date sooner rather than later.

If one were to suppose that Jesus was saying that the Father actually did know a set time, would that be Jesus having an off day? 

What then did Jesus mean? It's not difficult to read the text as Jesus' own way of saying that the decision about the timing (the yet-to-be-decided timing) was under the Father's authority, and no-one else's authority. But that doesn't commit the Father to knowing when that will be yet. And it means that Jesus was not saying that he lacked knowledge of a fixed date that was known to the Father. So that assertion falls. It was deferring the question to where the authority lay. Jesus was only expressing his 'functional subordination' to the Father which is common ground for Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians.

So this is nor really about omniscience. But, as already said, Jesus was closed off from some knowledge. (Also see footnote 1 below.) Jesus had to wait to have full knowledge because he was made flesh, he had to be made just like his brothers as the scripture says, so while he was with us on earth it was appropriate for him to relate to the Father as one made flesh. It's only prior to the resurrection that Jesus operated within human limitations.  After the resurrection we see him in his glorified state. The omniscience of the resurrected Son is asserted by John 21:17 "Lord, thou knowest all things".

Some might say "surely God would know anyway?" But that owes more to Greek conceptions of perfection than to the Biblical God. God in the Bible is not portrayed quite like that. 

Some people think of omniscience as if it were something that just happens to God, something that God has no control over. Omniscience afflicts him. As if God has no choice, no way to stop thinking about the latest count of tin cans, Hamburgers and sins. This is hardly an adequate view of God. God chooses. God will be what God will be. God chooses to know as God chooses to know. If God chooses to search hearts – or not to search hearts – it is his prerogative. If God chooses to look upon evil, it is his prerogative. If God chooses to remember your sins no more – or to remember them – it is his prerogative. God can choose to veil things from his thoughts. God calls to his mind whatever he wills, he searches what he wills, he looks upon what he wills. God is self-controlled. He will be what he will be. The idea of a God who would know without any choice in the matter, is the God of Greek philosophy. The Father and the Son both choose to know and remember whatever they wish. Of course people may want a God who isn't like that, but they may not get it.

Greek philosophy influenced the classical idea of God, in which God is effectively subordinate to omniscience in some of the clumsiest versions of the doctrine. It is based on ancient Greek ideas of perfection. The classical God has to have knowledge of the number of tin cans at the bottom of the ocean at every moment in history for all eternity. He has no choice in the matter. He may not need to know, but he is subordinate to omniscience.

Again God may want to forget your sins, to see the spotless white robes provided by the Lamb of God. But the classical philosophical God, even as he listens to the prayers of the most holy saint, is unable to shake off the impression of the saint's former sins. These scarlet sins are ever before the eyes of this kind of omniscient God, because he is subordinate to omniscience. The saint lovingly uttering, 'Abba Father,' faces a God who is still visualising him in sin. This is the omniscient God of Greek philosophy. It is not, thankfully, the Biblical God. 

Conclusions

I am rather drawn by the view of the late great Roger Forster. Firstly, that "being able to put things out of one's mind" is something that God can do, and that God does do in Scripture, so it's not alien to God to decide not to call something to mind. Secondly, that if Jesus wanted to draw on that information, he could at any time because "he had the Spirit without limit" and it is the Spirit that "knows all things." So, not accessing such information was, for Jesus, a choice, not a disability. It's a bit like kenosis theory except it's saying that putting things out of one's mind is a choice God has just as much as any human has. So this is not a conflict of natures. 

By the way, I've tried to avoid technical terms such as partitive exegesis, which means an interpretative approach designed to discern the different 'registers' as to Christ's human and divine natures as observed in Scripture. So, in my plainer language, these are my main points:

The Biblical God is in command of his own faculties. He can choose to 'remember your sins no more,' because he is not subordinate to omniscience. Omniscience is subject to the love of God.

So, the Biblical God can put things out of his mind, veil things from his thoughts. The Biblical God has choice. He is not forced by omniscience to keep count. If God wants to count something or remember something, it is so out of love, not out of slavery to omniscience.

The Biblical God is embodied in Jesus of Nazareth who could veil things from his mind. In this state, Jesus could have things revealed to him by his Father. Just like the Father can veil his mind from our sins or remember them.

The 'classical' God of philosophy cannot do these things. This is the Biblical God. He's better than the classical God.

------------------------------

This post is dedicated to the memory of the late Roger Forster, by whom I was so graciously and charitably tutored, and to whom I owe the best of these insights. As for the rest of it, all the stuff of a lower standard, is down to me.

On issues of divine omniscience and foreknowledge, Roger was happy to dialogue with theologians who hold to the Open View of God, such as Greg Boyd, without nailing his colours to that mast. For Roger's views, please see his work in God's Strategy in Human History. Roger opens the question of whether an omnipotent God can choose to veil the future from his own eyes so as to enable true relationship with free-will beings he has created.

------------------------------

Footnote 1: Jehovah's Witnesses and the foreknowledhge of God 

We have seen that Trinitarians can say that Jesus is closed off from some knowledge. By a curious coincidence, there is a Watchtower teaching that Jehovah is closed off from some knowledge. Their Watchtower teaches that:

1) Jehovah chooses not to know some things, thus limiting his foreknowledge of the future (“Foreknowledge, Foreordination,” Insight on the Scriptures Vol. 1, pg 851-860; 1988);

2) Jehovah gains knowledge from his information-gathering angels (Watchtower, 1^st August 1970, pg 471);

3) Jehovah did not foreknow the fall of Adam and Eve (Watchtower, 1^st June 1953, pg 341).

This view of foreknowledge is precisely the sort of thing people say about Jesus. Any suggestion from Jehovah's Witnesses that that makes ‘Jesus’ less than ‘Jehovah’, therefore falls away.

Further reading:

A fascinating article on Ambrose's views on the Son knowing the day and the hour: https://www.readreflectwrite.com/2021/06/ambrose-nicene-defense-of-jesus-not.html

What goes for Jesus: does it go for the Archangel Michael or not?

 

I have said in an earlier post why in some ways I have admiration for those who call themselves one of  Jehovah’s witnesses. So this time, rather than repeat myself, I'll get straight to the problem.

When I have listened to witnesses talk about their belief that Jesus is actually the Archangel Michael - that is what Jehovah's witnesses believe - I find it leaves problems unsolved.

The following problem is particularly key. Jesus is in a very exalted position in Christian scripture. If the Kingdom Halls' beliefs are correct, it should be possible to replace the word ‘Jesus’ with the word ‘Angel’ in scripture verses, without doing damage to the sense of it. You may never have thought of trying it. But it's a good way to test this. 

Let’s test it then as an exercise just for this one post only. I’ll try substituting the word ‘Angel’ for ‘Jesus’ or for ‘Christ’ in a series of New Testament verses about Jesus below. See how it sounds to you. Especially if you are a believer, how does this strike your spiritual sensibilities?

 

To start with, ‘the body of Christ’ in Ephesians 4:12 would be ‘the body of the Angel.’ You get the idea now. This would be what you get: "to knit God's holy people together for the work of service to build up the body of THE ANGEL". My question: how does this unusual statement strike you? And why believe you are the body of an angel?

 

And Ephesians 5:30-32? - "we are parts of the ANGEL's body... the two become one flesh. This mystery has great significance, but I am applying it to the ANGEL and the church". My question: why would you want to be one flesh with an angel?

 

Or Philippians 2? - “at the name of THE ANGEL every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that THE ANGEL is Lord”. My question to believers: do you bow to angels? (Have you read Revelation?)

 

Or Ephesians 5:19-20? - “sing and make melody in your heart to THE ANGEL”.  My question: why ever practice such devotions to an angel?

 

Or 1 Peter 3:15? - "sanctify THE ANGEL as Lord in your hearts". My question: why practice such devotions to an angel? Surely that is ill-judged religion.

 

How about Revelation 5:13? - "to the ANGEL be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever!" My question: why ever practice such vocal devotion and adoration to an angel?

 

Or 2 Thessalonians 1:12 - ‘That the name of THE ANGEL may be glorified in you’. My question: Who should such honour really be given to?

 

Or how about God's purposes, revealed in John 5:23? - "that all may honour the ANGEL just as they honour the Father." My question: why give to an angel honour on a par to the God the Father? How is that ever true religion?

 

Or Galatians 3:29? - "simply by being the ANGEL's, you are the progeny of Abraham". My question: do you agree that this is out of place, bizarre, and inappropriate?

 

Or Matthew 28:19? - "baptise them in the name of the Father and of the ANGEL and of the Holy Spirit". My question: would you ever baptise people in the name of an angel?

 

Or Colossians 3:16? - "whatever you say or do, let it be in the name of THE ANGEL". My question: why ever put an angel at the centre of your religious practices?

 

Or 1 Peter 2:3 - 'ye have tasted, that the ANGEL is sweet'. My question: why would you ever taste an angel?

 

Or Philippians 3:8? - "For THE ANGEL's sake, I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain THE ANGEL". My question: why would anyone ever do that for an angel?

Or Romans 16:7? - "my kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, who were in THE ANGEL before me". That would be bizarre.

Or Colossians 1:15? - "THE ANGEL is the image of the unseen God". That would be incorrect theology by any stretch of the imagination.

Or Romans 14:18? - "It is the person who serves THE ANGEL in these things that will be approved by God". That would be deeply questionable.

How about, ‘there is one mediator between God and man, the ANGEL Jesus Christ’. These are precisely the sorts of things the New Testament does not say.

How about Acts 7:59? – “And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: “Oh ANGEL, receive my spirit.”” Pretty bad, isn’t it?

 

My question then: why would anyone ever want to practice a religion revolving like this around an angel? It is surely misplaced to even think it.

Endnote

As shocked as I may feel about all this, one has to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe that they represent one greater than Jesus. 

They therefore believe that in their hierarchy, they represent a higher position by proxy, whereas Jesus represents a lower position, They literally describe Jesus as "inferior." 

That is, they think they represent someone superior (Jehovah). (Jehovah "superior," Jesus "inferior." That's their mantra.) 

This helps to explain why some Jehovah's Witnesses are keen to say that Jehovah is Almighty and Jesus is not. They don't consider themselves to be representatives of the "inferior" Jesus. They consider themselves to be representatives of Jesus' superior. This makes me feel quite queasy. 

As though they think that their Michael-Jesus is on one side of the equation whilst they are on the better side of the equation. 

It may well make them insensitive to how shocking it sounds to orthodox Christians. But when the Jehovah's Witnesses relegate Jesus to being an angel (archangel) and "inferior," all of this is going on in the minds of their organisation. However, ordinary JW members have probably never felt free to do the kind of analysis I have done above. 

(If you were to wonder how that reconciles with representing the "body of Christ", it doesn't have to, for Jehovah's Witnesses generally, as they reserve "body of Christ" for their "144,000." Which means they don't have to think through being the body of Christ.) 

 

The Jehovah's Witnesses 'two gods' conundrum

 

I’ve long been fascinated by a conundrum in the beliefs of those who say they are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve never seen a satisfactory solution to my question.

It will reveal the problem of believing in two gods, following two gods, adoring two gods, singing to two gods, and being saved by two gods. This is not normal Christianity.

Now I just want to say that I admire them in some tangible respects. If they were my next-door neighbours, I would feel confident that I had honest well-behaved neighbours whom I could trust. And I actually admire how they try not to be swept to and fro by the ever-changing culture of the fast-changing modern world, even if I don’t necessarily agree on their stances sometimes. And insofar as there is a genuine appetite for reading the Bible, I admire that too. Indeed, there is inevitably common ground with the mainstream of Bible-reading Christians, even if the narrative they tell themselves as a group is that this is not so. Even if they tell themselves that they stand in opposition to mainstream Christianity. I always like to acknowledge common ground.

 

Recognising there's a problem

This conundrum, though. It’s a belief and practice thing. 

In their NWT translation, their John 1:1 says "with God... was a god." In total, how many gods does one count there? 

I know my readers are very capable to answer this. If a version says "with God... was a god," how many gods do you count in total? 

A total of two gods, clearly. It should be easy for anyone to give the total in a single word.

Their version of the whole verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god." So to reframe the question: according to that, how many gods in total in the beginning? It has to be two. There would surely be no satisfactory way to argue for translating the verse that way and then deny that the count is, obviously two.

Some of form of avoiding saying 'two' will typically arise though. A Jehovah's Witness will respond that these are gods in different senses. But as a matter of simple addition, it's a statement of some kind of two gods, and that's what their John's Gospel begins with. It's an emphatic beginning to his Gospel, so the way it's translated matters. Two gods in complete harmony, perhaps, but two gods to be counted in that translation. 

That is, they believe Jesus is rightfully called a god, in some sense, and in a different sense from God the Father. Sometimes they will qualify them as a 'mighty god' and 'almighty God' but that reinforces that their John 1:1 has a total of two gods.

I rather hoped for some frankness in conversation over this, when I have discussed it, and one time, an answer was given back to me rather cleverly, thus:

 "One God.

  One god."

Spot the different case 'G' and 'g'? Clearly willing to delineate a difference, but not willing to use the word 'two.' We need to understand why. I could have waited all day and the plain answer "two gods" wasn't going to be given back to me. That there's a problem with the answer should already be becoming apparent. Further enquiry saw something of a smokescreen appear.

Smokescreen of gods

I was given a standard Jehovah's Witness reply: that the word 'god' or 'gods' is applied to various beings in the Bible, be it angels, kings and rulers, even Satan, and, indeed, God. Words all clumped together as if that were enough to throw me off my line of questioning. It's not enough. There are various categories of biblical so-called '#gods,' but Jehovah's Witnesses, fairly conventionally, don't believe that any of them is like YHWH God in his divinity. In principle anyway,  

Clumping all that together under the category 'gods' is therefore just obscuring their cosmology behind a cloud of words. And here's the thing: depending who is the subject - Jesus or some - called gods - these identities mean incomparably different things for different 'gods' to Jehovah's Witnesses. Through one of them, and only one of them, they believe creation was made: Jesus. And basically, they believe he was pre-existent before the creation of the cosmos. They believe he is a pre-existent divine heavenly being, unlike ordinary men or anything else. An incomparably different meaning from the other categories of 'gods' so trying to explain away that you can count two gods in their version of John 1:1 doesn't work. 

They believe both of them are unique, pre-existent, divine, heavenly beings with supernatural power on the cosmic universe-creating level. And they don't believe anyone or anything else is in that complex category. It is ticking so many boxes on the 'god-like characteristics indicator' that it is really unpersuasive to try to disqualify this from being a two-god system, e.g. by invoking some broader banner of 'gods' (such as men and angels). The significance of Jesus being called theos in John 1:1 is of a totally different kind of order.

There are only two gods they exercise faith in, only two gods they are following, only two gods they give adoration to, only two gods in heaven they sing to, only two gods they are being saved by. Mentioning other 'gods' may throw up clouds of smoke but we can still see what lies behind.

They are still left with two unique gods, despite the smokescreen. And that comes of splitting Jesus and the Father apart into two completely separate beings like two private individuals, which is the effect of saying "with God... was a god." 

Regardless how many contrasting categories of gods there may be, their John 1:1 is evidently a two god beginning, a two god creation, etc. Two unique, pre-existent, divine, heavenly beings prior to anything else. Two at the beginning, two at creation. Two contrasting gods of different kinds who are the two unique pre-existent divine heavenly beings, both supernaturally able on a cosmic universe-creating level. Unlike anything else that might bear the title 'gods.'

Sometimes, they will go just about as far as saying that Jesus is 'mighty god' and God the Father is 'almighty God.' That is still a total of two gods. If you call them different things, it is still two gods. That is, it's effectively exercising faith in both an almighty god and a mighty god. So, with their two gods of John 1:1 ("with God... was a god") whom they call Almighty God and mighty god respectively, it's two GODS to exercise faith in, two GODS to follow, two GODS to honour, two GODS to be saved by. It's very unlikely that John meant to start his gospel with two gods.

I have tried walking through this with Jehovah's Witnesses, and despite everything above, was given the stubborn answer on one occasion: "God’s anointed messiah was/is called god, as were other human beings, because they were sent by God and represented God on earth." So, feeling like this was just going round in circles, I simply answered that that's not a persuasive description of their faith, because I know they don't believe Jesus was 'a man' in the beginning and at creation, because they actually believe he was a divine heavenly being at that time. Given that they believe that in the beginning he was the pre-existent divine heavenly being through whom creation was made, referring to other 'gods' is a moot point. It's a two god creation with a higher heavenly being and a lower one. There are precedents for this kind of religion, as I will mention.

Let's move on to practical effects.

Following two gods

If you disconnect Jesus from the Father and split then apart into two separate beings, what practical implications does this have for worship? Let's turn to that now.

Well it means being believers in a second god (to deal with John 1:12). So that means believing in two gods.

Jehovah's Witnesses sing a song of praise to a heavenly Jesus \('Hail, Creation's Firstborn!') who they believe was their unique pre-existent  second divine heavenly being, with supernatural power on a cosmic universe-creating level. I'd love to see how a secular anthropologist could be persuaded that this is not a two god religion. That is, if these are split into two separate heavenly beings, that's the problem. Some Witnesses have said to me that "with God... was a god" is not two gods, but that's totally implausible. They have also referred to the same as 'Almighty God' and 'mighty god' and still said that's not two gods, but that's totally implausible.

As well as all this, do Jehovah’s witnesses today follow and bow the knee to two gods in some sense? I’m not even particularly asking if they worship them both. Just whether they today follow and bow the knee to two gods. 

Another of Jehovah’s Witnesses once wrote to me that he follows ‘one true God Jehovah the creator’, and that he follows ‘a created god, in essence, a lesser god, Jesus.’

Sadly, we lost contact many years ago. But clearly, he meant, in a carefully worded statement that he follows two gods, a greater and a lesser god, as he sees it. I admire him for his honesty. He said he worships only the former, not the latter, but he follows both gods. Now, this will sound odd to a mainstream Christian to whom the idea of this being two separate gods is very unorthodox. As I say, I asked how many gods he follows, and he gave me a frank answer - two. That’s a Jehovah’s witnesses position.

Let’s consider this.

 

Bowing the knee in adoration

Jehovah’s witnesses clarify what they mean about Jesus being ‘a lesser god’ typically by saying Jesus is an ‘angel,’ specifically the Archangel Michael, extending the idea of an ‘angel’ being in some sense ‘divine,’ a god. The words divine and god to have a rather wide semantic range. We can all acknowledge that as common ground. 

Sometimes they spread the net by referring to human 'gods,' using a pretty rare biblical phrase. But they especially have in mind that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. (In another post, I ask what happens if you consider that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.)

So it helps to look at scripture.

"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb

be praise and honour and glory and power,

for ever and ever!"

(Revelation 5:13)

This passage of Scripture pictures bowing the knee to Jesus the lamb in adoration. (Effectively bowing the knee to two 'gods' in their view.)

Whether one chooses to call it worship or not (there are different Greek words for different kinds of religious reverence if you want to be picky), here’s the thing. Whether one chooses to call it worship or not, this scripture pictures a true Christian practice of bowing the knee in adoration to Jesus. We could illustrate the same from other scriptures.

It is clear, and the man who was writing to me didn’t dispute this, it is acceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses to give the following adoration to an angel.

""To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb

be praise and honour and glory and power,

for ever and ever!"

(Revelation 5:13)

It ought to strike any Christian as problematic to bow the knee in vocal adoration to an angel. That is, this problematic meaning: “to the angel be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever." It’s just not Christian.

Jehovah’s witnesses deny ‘worshipping’ Jesus in the deepest religious sense. They tend to refer to this bowing the knee by the English word ‘obeisance’. (Translating the Greek word proskuneo.) That is, all the same, still surely problematic. Consider. What would the angel who objected to receiving obeisance in Rev 19:9 and 22:9 have said, if he saw a believer offering this adoration to an angel, saying effectively "to the angel be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever" ? The angel in Rev 19:9 and 22:9 was forbidding of giving him adoration or bowing the knee to him. This really is a problem. I find it difficult to understand how any Christian would think it acceptable to offer such vocal adoration as seen for Jesus in Rev 5:13 to an angel. But that’s a Jehovah’s witnesses position.

 

Two saviours

This compounds difficulties elsewhere. I could demonstrate this with many texts but here is just one.

 

OT - ‘I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh]; and beside me there is no saviour.’ (KJV Isaiah 43:11)

NT – ‘the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (KJV 2 Peter 3:18)

 

According to Isaiah there is no saviour but Yahweh. By calling the saviour Jesus, and making Yahweh and Jesus into two separate gods, then Jehovah’s witnesses do believe in two saviours. To be clear: you can't make out they are two gods and not two saviours - that would be sophistry. No matter how much these would be 'two gods' in harmony. Their belief in two separate gods gets them into problems like this: two separate saviours. I could illustrate the same mess with many other texts.

So this all means believing in two gods, following two gods, adoring two gods, honouring two gods, singing to two gods, and being saved by two gods. This is not normal Christianity.

Polytheism

Now bravely, the man writing to me denied that his belief in a higher god and a lesser god, following and adoring both as two saviours, adds up to polytheism. But denying that doesn't wash. Not only is it polytheism but curiously it fits Plato's ancient Greek pagan model of two gods especially well. Plato believed in a higher god of all goodness and a lesser god involved with physical creation. The philosopher Plato would approve. But would Jesus?

 

Isaiah’s Yahweh: ‘there is no God beside me’

The right thing to do next is to look at a longer Bible passage.

The Kingdom Hall view is effectively that the is one higher creator saviour God, and one lesser sub-creator sub-saviour sub-god.

Isaiah chapters 43-44 have a one-God polemic. He has a worldview in which there is only one God and all other gods are false gods. Isaiah never uses the word 'god' of angels. Given the 'one God' message which Isaiah is shouting from the roof-tops, that is unsurprising; it would have undermined Isaiah’s impact if he had started adding footnotes about other scriptural uses of the word 'god'.

Isaiah conveys his clear distinction between the one true God and man-made false gods. It is in this context that Isaiah's fiercely monotheistic statements are found: there is only one God, one creator, one saviour. That is what Isaiah is trumpeting.

Those from Kingdom Halls read Isaiah through the lens of other books in such a way that it really undercuts Isaiah’s polemic. They want to prise open Isaiah's 'one-God' polemic to squeeze in other biblical books' inferior angelic 'gods.’ But that's not the way to read Isiah. 

Reading other books, we can accommodate that Yahweh is uniquely pre-eminent over angelic 'gods'. This is something Isaiah could have said, but it would have struck an awkward note with his 'one God' polemic. And we should not overwrite other books onto Isaiah so as to say that God did sub-contract creation and salvation. Isaiah doesn't say that. If we try to make Isaiah say that there is an angelic 'god' beside him, that’s a problem because Isaiah says there isn’t any god beside him.

Isaiah does not have 'angelic gods'; and his one-God polemic has to be heard in its own terms: Isaiah's stark one God, one creator, one saviour picture. Isaiah does not provide any system for including an angel at the centre of his picture of one God, one creator, one saviour. It is quite incongruous with Isaiah's picture to try to say there is one creator plus one sub-creator, and one saviour plus one sub-saviour. To try to posit that sort of picture is just not taking Isaiah seriously. 

That leaves the Christian question of how Jesus fits into Isaiah's one God, one creator, one saviour picture. We can't fit Jesus into Isaiah as a sub-contractor. That is ripping the heart out of Isaiah's message. And that is where I have to nail my colours to the mast as a mainstream Christian. Isaiah does not leave room to posit an angelic 'god' beside him in creation and salvation. Jesus must be something else if he is to fit into Isaiah's one-God picture of one creator and one saviour. And to the Trinitarian the mainstream fit works: Jesus in some sense embodies Yahweh.

Hebrews 1 and Psalm 102

The biblical emphasis on Jesus as co-creator is profound. In Hebrews 1:10, God the Father essentially calls Jesus 'Jehovah' and spells out that Jesus was his hands-on creator of the universe. I'll show how this is so when you cross-check the Old and New Testaments.

We know it's God speaking, because Hebrews 1:6 tells us so. In Hebrews 1:10, God the Father says this to Jesus: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." If God says it, Jesus did it. God said to Jesus, the heavens are the work of your hands. 

And here's the second thing. Hebrews 1:10-12 here contains a quotation from Psalm 102:21-27. When you cross-check, you see this: that the 'Jehovah' of Psalm 102 is the Lord Jesus of Hebrews 1:10. That is, if you cross-check this with the Old Testament, you will see that it means: God said to Jehovah, the heavens are the work of your hands. Jesus is Jehovah-Jesus. Let's see the quote.

In Hebrews 1:10, it's God the Father quoted as speaking to Jesus like this: 

'He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands."

 That is, "He" (God the Father) called Jesus "Lord." 

So what, you may say? Well, now compare Hebrews 1:10-12 with Psalm 102:21-27. It is clear that the latter passage is about the psalmist's God, and it's explicit that the psalmist's God is Jehovah. 

In the psalm, "you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" is addressed to Jehovah.

In Hebrew 1:10, "you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands" is addressed to Jesus - by the voice of God the Father!

Read around it in Hebrews 1:10-12 and Psalm 102:21-27. You'll see a whole load of things are addressed to Jehovah-Jesus.

And so...

I could say more but will leave it there for a moment. I just don’t see a solution to the conundrum facing Jehovah’s Witnesses with their two-gods belief and practice.

As a final note, one has to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe that they represent one greater than Jesus. They think Jesus is on one side whilst they are on the better side. That is, they think they represent someone superior (Jehovah) which places them over above the side of someone they call "inferior," that is, Jesus. This may well make them insensitive to how shocking it sounds to orthodox Christians when the Jehovah's Witnesses relegate Jesus to being "a god." However, most of their members have probably never felt free to do the kind of analysis I have done above.

When an Old Testament verse about Yahweh becomes a New Testament verse about Jesus

There are many astonishing instances where Hebrew Scripture verses about YHWH are turned into verses about Jesus in the Christian Scriptures. 

A small sample of examples follows. (And I’ve gone for a bunch of out of copyright translations for these six examples.) To give this a purpose, here I answer whether all application of texts about YHWH to the person of Jesus can be explained away as examples of an agent carrying out a task for a principal. Of course, there are situations where Jesus does act as his Father's agent to do something, as the 'agent' for the 'principal.' But that doesn't explain the extraordinary scriptures here.

So below, you'll see a Hebrew Scripture that is about the biblical God Yahweh (YHWH), where Christian Scripture then does that extraordinary thing, and says it's about Jesus.

Where I use the word 'ontology' below, I mean that Jesus is somehow identified with the very being of YHWH. 

 Here's the sample:

“for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me [YHWH].” (KJV Isaiah 49:23)

“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him [Jesus] shall not be ashamed.” (KJV Rom. 10:11)

Interesting to note that Paul is not saying that Jesus is fulfilling an agency task. Paul is specifically stating that the scripture about YHWH is about Jesus. This is very clear indeed.

 

NEXT

“But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord [YHWH]…” (KJV Jeremiah 9:24)

“That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord [Jesus].” (KJV 1Cor 1:31)

“But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord [Jesus].” (KJV 2 Cor 10:17)

Again, if of interest, Paul is not saying that Jesus is fulfilling an agency task. Paul is specifically saying that the scripture (“as it is written”) is actually about Jesus, where in the Hebrew text it says it is about YHWH.

 

NEXT

‘neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord [YHWH] of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.’ (KJV Isaiah 8:12-13)

‘and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord... yet with meekness and fear’ (ASV 1 Peter 3:14-15)

This too is not about an agency task, but rather tends towards ritual meaning and ontological sameness, being about one towards whom the believer's heart is sanctified.

 

NEXT:

‘The table of the Lord [YHWH] is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.’ (KJV Malachi 1:7,12)

‘ye are not able of the table of the Lord [Jesus] to partake, and of the table of demons.’ (YLT 1 Corinthians 10:17,21)

This matching ritual presence of YHWH and Jesus would of course need a better explanation than agency, and tends towards ontology.

 

NEXT

‘O taste and see that the Lord [YHWH] is good’ (KJV Psalm 34:8)

‘ye have tasted, that the Lord [Jesus] is sweet’ (Wycliffe 1 Peter 2:3)

Again, if I may make the same point, this is not about an agency task. It needs another explanation. It is devotional material. The weight of applying to Jesus this and similar material about YHWH tends towards ontology.

 

NEXT

‘those seven; they are the eyes of the Lord [YHWH], which run to and fro through the whole earth.’ (KJV Zechariah 4:10)

‘a Lamb [Jesus] as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.’ (KJV Revelation 5:6)

There is something profoundly ontological in a shared way about YHWH and Jesus both being described as having seven eyes.

I could go on, but the point is made in these six examples. Not all of the application of texts about YHWH to the person of Jesus can be explained away as examples of an agent carrying out a task for a principal.

Here's a different kind of example. In Hebrews 1:10, God the Father essentially calls Jesus 'YHWH' (if you cross-check the Old and New Testaments). God the Father says this to Jesus: “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." If God says it, Jesus did it. God said to Jesus, the heavens are the work of your hands. Jesus wasn't just an agent. God the Father gives Jesus the credit for creation. They are co-creators.

And here's the second thing. Hebrews 1:10-12 contains a citation from Psalm 102:25-27. When you cross-check, you see it's deliberate that the 'YHWH' of Psalm 102 is the 'Lord' of Hebrews 1:10. So, if you cross-check this with the Old Testament, you will see that it plainly means this: God the Father said to YHWH, the heavens are the work of your hands. Jesus is Jehovah-Jesus, or Yahweh-Jesus. 

Since it's God the Father who calls Jesus 'Yahweh,' this naming can't be explained away as Jesus being an agent. 

The obvious conclusion is that the New Testament authors are perfectly happy for us to conclude that in some way, Jesus is the embodiment of YHWH, Jesus is Yahweh in some real sense. 

 

The person of the Holy Spirit: personal pronouns and neuter gender?

The Holy Spirit and words in the neuter

Something I deal with briefly in my book on the Trinity is a rather strange objection to the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is personal (to the point of being referred to as a person). I make the point in the book that God doesn't have an impersonal side. So what's the issue here?

This objection runs like this: "The word for 'spirit' in Greek - the word 'pneuma' - is neuter, it's not masculine or feminine, it's neuter, like an 'it,' and therefore the Holy Spirit cannot be a person."

As objections go, that is not a very good one. In New Testament Greek, there are lots of instances where words for human beings are in the neuter gender. (Greek is one of those languages where words have genders.) So neuter doesn't automatically mean non-person. Here are some Greek neuter nouns used for people, and where you can find them in the New Testament:

- gunaicharion = small woman (in 2 Timothy 3:6 referring to women old enough to be burdened with sins and led away by passions)

- brephos = baby (in Luke 1:41 - referring to John the Baptist; see also Luke 2:12 for brephos referring to Jesus; and 1 Peter 2:2 for brephos as an analogy for new Christians who are presumably adults)

- teknon = child (in Mark 2:5 applied to someone old enough to need forgiveness of his sins; and see similar in Galatians 4:19 referring to believers)

- teknion = little child (referring to the disciples in John 13:33; and used for believers in 1 John frequently)

- paidarion = small child (referring to the child with loaves and fishes in John 6:9)

- paidion = little child (referring to the disciples in John 21:5; to those sanctified as brothers in Christ in Hebrews 2:13) (also used to refer to Jesus, e.g. "the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favour of God was upon him [him = auto = neuter pronoun]" in Luke 2:40)

That was a list of neuter words. The pattern there is that those words all refer to people who are small in size. That's why these words are called diminutives. (Diminutives are not exclusive to people. For instance, in later Greek, deltidion is a shorter piece of writing or a small book. And kunidion is a small dog or puppy. And ostarion is a small piece of bone. I could give more examples but you get the idea. So, that was diminutives.)

So now, those are all neuter nouns used for people. And Jesus and John the Baptist, like the Holy Spirit, are referred to with neuter nouns above. That's why, for example, in Luke 2:40, Jesus is referred to with the neuter pronoun 'auto,' having been referred to as 'paidion' (neuter noun), no doubt because he was small. This is where it says Jesus grew in wisdom. In a more figurative sense, at the last supper and after the resurrection. Jesus addresses his adult disciples with neuter nouns in John 13:33 (teknia) and John 21:5 (paidia), language reinforcing a teacher-pupil dynamic rather than size!

All of this blows out of the water the mistaken idea that a neuter noun can't refer to a person. 

(I could get really technical and get into the fact that the word 'gender' is actually just a variation on the word 'genre' and just means type or category, not a whole load of things that English speakers read into it! Here, gender is to do with classes of nouns. But it's not standardised. In languages, 'gender' is a linguistic category, not a biological one. So don't be surprised that the word 'person' is feminine in French, or that 'girl' is neuter in German, or that 'beard' is feminine in Spanish! And don't be too shocked, but the French word le vagin is masculine, while French slang word la pipe is feminine. Look them up if you want to know... Anyway, back to the subject...)

So the word for 'spirit' being a neuter word is neither here nor there. It's quite obvious in these instances that gender is a linguistic matter rather than a sexing matter. This is more than enough to caution against rushing to conclusions. And if you were to rashly press the idea that 'spirit' being neutral must actually mean something about the nature of 'spirit' like being impersonal, then you would even end up making out that God who is spirit has an impersonal side which would be weird! It is just nonsense.

From the neuter gender, you could try to argue that the Holy Spirit is of unknown gender if you like (why?), but you can't argue from it that the Holy Spirit is impersonal. Basically, the word pneuma (spirit) existed before the New Testament was even written, was neuter in linguistic gender, and nothing could be done about changing that. It was literally just the word for spirit. The likes of Paul could not very well change the national language of Greece. So, neuter it was. (Whereas the word for spirit is feminine in Hebrew. Hebrew only has two genders. But Greek does not assume greater importance than Hebrew just because it has the extra grammatical gender.) 

The evidence doesn't stop there. There's more on people being referred to with words in the neuter grammatical gender. Neuter adjectives and participles refer to people here too:

- ta mora = the foolish ones (1 Cor 1:27-28)

- ta asthene = the weak (ditto)

- ta ischura = the strong

- to elatton = 'the lesser one' (Hebrews 7:7)

- ta loipa = 'the remnant', may also be a reference to people (Rev 3:2)

These are not all diminutives, not based on the size of the people.

So, those are all neuter words used for people. So the idea that you can treat the neuter Greek word for 'spirit' as proof that the Holy Spirit is impersonal is baseless. One wonders why anyone would persist with this weak line of argument at all when there are obvious contra-indicators, which I come to below under 'The Holy Spirit speaks!' If someone wanted to hold the balance of argument in favour of an impersonal, non-personal, spirit, it would have to be on other grounds, rather than on grammatical gender. (And it wouldn't do to look to the Hebrew Scriptures for grammatical support for the idea, because there the corresponding word for spirit - ruach - is grammatically of the feminine gender!)

Personal pronouns and the Holy Spirit

The most obvious use of personal pronouns for the Holy Spirit is in the words 'me' and 'I', as spoken by the Holy Spirit in Acts 13. (See 'The Holy Spirit speaks!' at the bottom of this post.) But what else is going on?

Well, believe it or not, I've seen another objection to the personhood of the Holy Spirit, that the KJV translation says things such as "the Holy Spirit which..." and "the Holy Spirit that..." The objection runs like this: the KJV treats the spirit as a thing. not a person, saying 'which' and 'that' with it. 

But that objection is not well-informed. The words 'that' and 'which' are part of the antiquated English grammar that the KJV uses in relation to persons. Famously: "Our Father which art in heaven." One could also point to the personal use of 'which' in Genesis 13:5 or Galatians 6:1; and 'that' in Romans 3:12. 

I've also seen hot debate about the use of the English personal pronoun 'whom' in John 15:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, WHOM the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things" (NASB). Believe it or not, I've seen an objection that this is making the Holy Spirit a person by the back door, with a cunning use of a personal pronoun with a neuter noun. However, compare a similar use by translators of a personal pronoun with a neuter word making perfect sense: "Behold! I and the children WHOM God has given me" (Hebrews 2:13, NASB) There is nothing wrong with this. 

The rather frustrating thing about this kind of discussion about pronouns is that it can obscure the subject at hand, the subject being what Jesus is telling us about the work of the Holy Spirit, not about mere pronouns. Indeed, what I'm talking about in this post is not whether the Holy Spirit is gendered, but whether the Holy Spirit is personal.

We can say more on John 15:26, but again with the caution that the purpose of the passage is about something much more amazing than pronouns. There, the word 'counsellor' (Greek 'parakletos') is a masculine noun, and the translators are justified, if they so which, in capturing that gender if it makes sense. The Greek pronoun 'ekeinos' is correspondingly masculine with 'counsellor.' Therefore eikenos can be translated ‘he,’ permitting the 'counsellor' to be a 'he.' This is not unreasonable. It shouldn't be ruled out on theological grounds just because we're talking about the Holy Spirit and some unorthodox groups ascribe a non-person status to the Holy Spirit. That sort of artificial theological rule shouldn't be allowed to automatically turn a 'counsellor' into an 'it.'

'Counsellor' and 'Spirit' are both important nouns here, referring to one and the same person. The less important thing is that they happen to have different grammatical genders. The more important thing is Jesus' revelation that the Spirit is a comforter, a counsellor, like himself. He is giving important information to improve his disciples' understanding of the interpersonal qualities of the Spirit. He is not trying to regress their understanding of the Spirit into a vague force, he is trying to progress their understanding of the Spirit as being a counsellor. If our two nouns give the translator a choice, and one grammatical gender - masculine or neuter - has to take precedence over the other for a translation, how do you decide which one has priority? 'He' or 'it'? Given how Jesus is improving their understanding of the interpersonal Spirit, this is much better conveyed by letting the more personal-sounding noun take precedence. That is, the gender of comforter (masculine) is more informative than the gender of spirit (neuter) in relation to Jesus' message. It would be strange, at the exact moment where Jesus is revealing how interpersonal the Spirit is, to insist on a more impersonal-sounding word to convey the moment. He is trying to advance our understanding of the Holy Spirit, not set it back.

A translator could render eikenos as 'that one' but not making such good English. And English translators should aim at good English as far as is reasonable. This choice of English affects how the rest of the sentence is translated. I don’t expect good translators to flit between ‘he’ (counsellor) and ‘it’ (Spirit) when speaking of the same subject in the same sentence. The genders of the words are functions of a language with gender specific nouns and pronouns. This has to make readable sense in translation in English. The sentence subject, ‘counsellor’, is busy, and both ‘teaches’ and ‘reminds’. It’s all very personal sounding stuff. Taken together the translator has enough to make a judgment that the text merits retaining the masculine sense provided by the masculine ‘counsellor’ here. And so harmonising the grammar of the sentence in English makes sense, rather than flitting between 'he' and 'it.' Remember that in Greek gender is a thing of the grammatical form of a word, not the sex of a thing represented by that word. Thus, in John 15:26: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, WHOM the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things" (NASB). Whether a translator thinks a personal pronoun is or isn't the better choice, the main thing to remember is that the passage does not exist to teach pronouns! It exists to tell us about the counsellor.

 

So that's enough for that. We should want to be filled with the Holy Spirit. The real question as far as I can see, when I see 'anti-personal' straws being clutched, is why are some people so eager for the Holy Spirit not to be personal? It seems rather odd. The Holy Spirit is intrinsic to God, and God doesn't have an impersonal side. A question to those who disagree: do you think the Spirit of the Father is impersonal, that the Father has an impersonal side, and the Father wants you to be filled with something impersonal? (More on that in my book as I say.)

Personification

The evidence is strong. But people can be rather fixed in their views. So... against the evidence, I've heard this objection: 'When the holy spirit does or says something, that is just poetic personification, not an actual person.' That theory needs more unpicking. 

Let me explain what we mean by 'personification' for those who may be unfamiliar with the term. An example will help. Let's say I write: "The little girl on her birthday got on the ferry boat. It danced out of the harbour, skipping on the waves and tooting merrily."

Boats don't really dance and skip or do anything 'merrily'. There is personification going on here of an impersonal boat. What does it stand in for? The things attributed to the boat actually stand in for the happy emotions of the little girl on her birthday. What does it mean? The meaning is simply that the girl is excited. (But the poetry helps give this simple meaning more vitality.)

It's hard to see how mention of the Holy Spirit is an example of mere 'personification' in the following verse (and there are many such verses), This is where the Holy Spirit intercedes in Romans 8:26: 'In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.'

There, the Holy Spirit 'pleads' for us, or 'intercedes' for us. In an unforced reading, the Holy Spirit is plainly personal to be doing this.

Can any claim that this is merely 'personification' of the Holy Spirit be sustained? The requirement upon such a claim is to demonstrate persuasively what reality such 'personification' meaningfully stands in for. That's a hard test for the theory to pass.

Similarly, in Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit says: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” The Holy Spirit, the one saying 'me' and 'I,' is making a statement about what he really does in the real world. A person speaks like that. Again, you can't abandon that merely by tossing in the word 'personification,' without explaining what reality such 'personification' meaningfully stands in for. Another hard test for the theory to pass.

Can a force be a person?

Another (!) objection to the personhood of the Holy Spirit is rather trite. It goes like this: 'the Bible describes the holy spirit as power which is a force, so it is not a person.' Needless to say, one could make the same empty argument against the personhood of the Father and the Son. For instance:

Jesus is:

 

True Light (John 1:9)

Power of God (1 Cor. 1:24)

Rock (1 Cor. 10:4)

True Bread (John 6:32)

Gate (John 10:9)

Capstone (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7)

 

God is:

 

Light (Psalm 27:1)

A Consuming Fire (Hebrews 12:29)

Fortress (Psalm 91:2)

Shield (Psalm 18:30)

Cornerstone (Psalm 118:22)

My Cup (Psalm 16:5)

Is that grounds to claim that the Father is not a person, or Jesus is not a person. Simply not. So the argument is groundless, and the complaints against the Holy Spirit's personhood become even weaker, and one wonders what the purpose of them is. 

Articles and the anarthrous Holy Spirit

Yes, there's more. Another objection to the personhood of the Holy Spirit I've seen goes like this: 'Translators themselves struggle: in John 20:22, there is no Greek article (thus, it's anarthrous) in front of 'holy spirit' so it should be translated as 'a holy spirit,' and translators are wrong to add 'the,' making 'the Holy Spirit.'

Again, that objection is a bit poor. The grammar of John 20:22 in regard to ‘holy spirit’ works the same way as the grammar of John 1:18 in regard to ‘god’.  In Greek, neither has the definite article, and neither is treated as an indefinite noun. In English idiom, they are ‘God’ and ‘the Holy Spirit’. The translations flow accordingly. Translators typically add ‘the’ for the benefit of the English reader: ‘receive the Holy Spirit’. This aids understanding. John 20:22 like Acts 2 shows us the same Holy Spirit being poured out into the church through Jesus, and that is compelling. It's not just any old holy spirit - it's that Holy Spirit, the one in that story. It is perfectly reasonable for translators to draw this out in the translation of John 20:22 for the reader as 'the Holy Spirit'. 

Other spirits and the Holy Spirit

Some groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses have argued that neuter words are for impersonal things in Greek. But notably, there are other beings called spirits which are in the neuter gender. Therefore, if the Holy Spirit had to be in an inanimate/impersonal force, so would those other spirits. For example, the 'unclean spirit' of Mark 1:26 is of course referred to with the neuter word pneuma. This is where groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses become obviously inconsistent, as these call such beings 'spirit creatures.' In other words, Jehovah's Witnesses don't apply the supposed grammatical principle to evil spirits (neuter), only to the Holy Spirit (neuter). The inconsistency is surely problematic.

The Holy Spirit speaks!

The fact is that there are parts of the Bible that don't even make sense unless we accept the Holy Spirit is personal. In Acts 8:29, the Spirit sending Philip over to the chariot uses these words: "Approach and join this chariot.". A person speaks like that. The identity of the Spirit is confirmed in 8:39 as the Spirit of the Lord.

In Acts 10:19, The Spirit speaks to Peter with these words: "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." A person speaks like that.

 

In that quote, the Holy Spirit used the personal pronoun 'I' to refer to himself. 

As mentioned already, in the next quote, the Holy Spirit refers to himself with two personal pronouns, 'me' and 'I'. It's in Acts 13:2: "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 

The Holy Spirit there is making a statement about what he really does in the real world. A person speaks like that. If these are not the words of a person, then the book of Acts is highly misleading at these points!

One could add how Hebrews 3:7-9 has the Holy Spirit as the user of personal pronouns found in Psalm 95: 

'So, as the Holy Spirit says:  '... your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.' (The quote is from Psalm 95:7-11 where YHWH is the one specified as speaking, so Hebrews is equating the Holy Spirit with YHWH.)

There are a few places where the Holy Spirit is said to be the one speaking YHWH's words in the OT, such as Acts 28:25 referring back to Isaiah 6:9-10; and Hebrews 10:15-17 referring back to Jeremiah 31:33-34. 

The Holy Spirit dwells in a temple!

This post has been about pronouns and gender. But there are other reasons for recognising the Holy Spirit as personal too. Not least, we have compelling evidence where Paul speaks of a temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has a temple. An impersonal force does not have a temple. A god has a temple. A temple is a god's house on earth. That's what a temple is for. The Holy Spirit has a temple, and dwells in it as God of that temple. If anyone thinks the Holy Spirit is impersonal, this is the strongest of contra-indicators.

This article has backed up my assertion that God does not have an impersonal side. In Scripture the Holy Spirit is demonstrably not impersonal. .The arguments for the Spirit being non-personal are nothing like as strong as the contra-indicators. The amount of slings and arrows aimed at the personhood of the Holy Spirit by some religious objectors is slightly bizarre. 

What kind of temptations did Jesus experience?

In Christian belief, Jesus could be tested. But he could not be enticed into sin, because nothing in him was susceptible to that. He could not be tempted in the way of anyone else by their own lusts. He could only be tested but not enticed. Here's the thing for this post: in English, it used to be the case that the ideas of both enticed and tested could be expressed along with the same English word 'tempted.' And Bible translation can become a bit traditional - some translators can be a bit slow to change things to keep up with how language develops. So over the centuries, Christians who were reading that Jesus was 'tempted' have got into confusion about what kind of tempting this is, thinking it means Jesus was being enticed when it means he was being tested. Let's do a short bible study to see what I mean. 

The eagle-eyed among you - depending what translation you read - may have noticed that the Letter of James has the two different uses of the English word 'tempt' in verses 1:2 with 1:13-14. Here, that old English word 'tempt' lends to the confusion. That is, as said, it had a wider range of meaning including 'to test' and to be tempted in the sense of being 'enticed' which helped to make 'tempt' a useful word for English Bible translation, even if it's become a bit confusing to us now. It uses the Greek word epeirasan (in various forms) which had more or less the same range of meanings, so 'tempt' could be used with the idea of trials and the idea of enticements which are two quite different ideas!

In James 1:2, the Greek word peirasmois is translated as 'temptations' in the old KJV but as 'trials' in the modern NRSV in the same place. (And peirasmon is used in James 1:12 in the same way, saying that one who has been in trials has been tested.)

The old KJV puts James 1:12-14 like this: 

"12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation [peirasmon]: for when he is tried [Greek word dokimos], he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13 Let no man say when he is tempted [Greek word peirazomenos], I am tempted [peirazomai] of God: for God cannot be tempted [apeirastos] with evil, neither tempteth [peirazei] he any man: 14 But every man is tempted [Greek word peirazetai] when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed [Greek word deleazomenos]."

Here is a link to KJV chapter 1 with original spellings. 

Meanwhile, the NRSV here stops using trials (verse 2) and starts using temptations like the KJV (verses 12-14), so the NRSV says:

"12 Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. 13 No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one. 14 But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it."

So, unlike the consistent KJV, the NRSV translating the same root word for epeirasan has switched from saying 'trials' (v.2) to 'temptations' (v. 12-14). Confused? Well, again, in the days of the KJV translators (and in the Grrek),  'tempt' could be used with the idea of trials and the idea of enticements. The NRSV is trying to tease that apart by using the different words 'trials' and 'temptations.'

Unfortunately, when tempt lost the meaning of 'to test' in the English language, confusion did ensue, especially for those still reading the old KJV Bible. For instance, the KJV of Psalm 106:14 reads that Israel had “tempted God in the desert”. This is pretty much what James means in one place! Israel tested God's patience. God can be tested by any of us, and that is why people have to be told not to tempt God by the Bible. If it couldn't be done, then there would be no need to instruct us to desist from tempting God in the first place. You can see why something here has needed clearing up. 

Some writers snip James' message that 'God cannot be tempted' out of context. We're putting it back into context. This is what the Letter of James says when he means 'enticed':

 

"Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted [Greek word peirazetai] when he is carried away and enticed [Greek word deleazomenos] by his own lust." James 1:13ff

James is making a distinction between one who can't possibly be "carried away and enticed by his own lust" and one who can. God is never carried away and enticed by his own lust, so James' argument, because God doesn't do lust. So God isn't tempted in that way. 

Jesus too is never carried away and enticed by his own lust, because Jesus doesn't do lust. 

On the basis that God could not be tempted (in the sense that goes with enticed), so too Jesus could not be tempted (enticed). And that's in the framework of James' working definition of temptation. What James says for God clearly goes for Jesus there: such lusts could not be attributed to either God the Father or Jesus, so neither could be enticed according to how James uses the word 'tempt' here. 

 

That then is where we arrive, when we follow the evidence of the Bible texts wherever they lead.

 

Jesus said in John 5:19, “The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.” So we must be circumspect in making the Son radically different from the Father in regard to temptation, because the Son could do only what he saw the Father do. The Son is inextricably bound in with the life of the Father.

 

What about the temptations of Jesus in the gospels? Satan may have been wasting his own time testing one who had no inner lust for power. But it was part of Jesus' redemptive purpose that he go through testing like us. But he could do only what he saw the Father doing. We must be clear about Jesus "who knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Indeed "in him there is no sin." (1 John 3:3-5).

 

The Book of Hebrews operates that other working definition of 'tempt' which has nothing to do with being "carried away and enticed by his own lust." Hebrews says Jesus "in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15). We know that Jesus could not be led astray "by his own lust." Hebrews is applying the word tempt to one who had no inner lust to entice him - unlike any of us. Clearly, Hebrews' definition of 'tempt' must mean temptations that have nothing to do with an inner lust, another kind of 'temptations' that are common to Jesus and us: that is, 'trials.' That is, here we have the meaning "to test." What Jesus experienced was every kind of testing, not enticement.

 

Jesus could be tempted in the sense of 'trials', the sense of the word used by Hebrews, in the sense in which God himself is tempted, according to the Bible, tested by his wayward subjects. Thus:

 

"Moses said to them, ‘Why do you contend with me? Why do you tempt the LORD?’" Exodus 17:2"

 

Clearly, Moses was operating a meaning of 'tempt' different from 'enticed.' This is about being tested.

 

Now. if Jesus was tested by the promptings of his flesh, this is still not being 'enticed' if there was no lust to carry him along. Only by taking on flesh can God experience the test of handling the promptings of the flesh. He has passed the test victoriously because the promptings of the flesh did not get mixed up with the catalyst of lust.

 

Summary: Jesus could not be enticed, because nothing in him was susceptible to that. He could only be tested - as with God the Father. Jesus had as much choice to sin as God the Father.