LONDON (Reuters) – Plunging world stock markets have produced reactions from bewilderment to terror among traders, but one group believes the financial crisis requires an altogether different response — prayer.
On the anniversary of the 1929 Wall Street Crash, a cross-denominational 100-strong group of Christians united in City Temple Church in London’s financial district on Wednesday to pray for an end to market instability and ask God that economies should not enter a 1930s-style Great Depression.
Carrying a banner depicting a huge lion — symbolising the biblical Lion of Judah, or Jesus — with one paw on a bull and other on a bear, the group then headed to the London Stock Exchange, epicentre of the UK’s quaking financial system.
In tandem with teams in New York, Dublin and Amsterdam, Christians stood in small groups or marched round the Stock Exchange’s premises in the shadow of St Paul’s Cathedral, asking God to intervene in the turmoil of recent months and praying for those affected by the credit crisis.
“I’m not a doomsday prophet, I’m not speaking judgement,” said American Sharon Stone, founder of Christian International Europe and co-ordinator of the group.
“We believe God is God of the economy also. We’re praying for mercy that there won’t be losses of jobs, that there won’t be losses of homes and that any greater crisis will be averted.”
The group, which had come from all over the UK and included workers from the London Stock Exchange and the International Monetary Fund, comprised Anglicans, Catholics, Pentecostals and other Christian denominations.
This demonstrates an increased willingness amongst believers to work together and to roll up their sleeves as the crisis bites, said 54 year-old Stone, a church pastor since the age of 19.
“This is the easiest prayer gathering I’ve had in 35 years,” she said.
Let me start off by saying that I admire Steve Hickey’s tough stance on abortion and indeed, he has provided me with some really great insight on the fight in South Dakota as well as solidified my own pro-life views; however, we have disagree before. His undying support of the sanctity of life is mired by his equal support of false prophets like Todd Bentley and Lou Engle.
Now he has taken up the mantle of Sarah Palin, and like most on the Christian Wrong, has made her into a modern day Esther or Deborah. (I find it ironic that Deborah’s general was named Barack.) He relates to us a statement from Lou Engle,
As you know, for years we have stood in prayer for the ending of abortion. Tuesday night a key friend of mine received this dream:
I had a very short dream, yet it is an exhortation to pray for the vice presidential debate this Thursday evening. In the dream, I was reading Friday’s paper (the day after the debate). There were two papers. One said, “Palin hits a home run,” while the second said, “Palin strikes out.” As I was looking at those two papers, I found myself back at the debate and saw the darkness and powers surrounding the event. Great darkness had been assigned to the debate, and the church was not seeing it nor taking it soberly.
Would you pray with thousands of others today and during the debate tonight for God’s supernatural hand to attend this profound Esther moment? Thank you!
The issue here is that Lou Engle, the founder of ‘The Call’ and leader of ‘Joel’s Army’ is a false prophet, attempting to establish the Kingdom of God on earth bu taking over the churches. He leads people like the adulterous drunkard Todd Bentley, the ‘Third Heaven’ Patricia King and the new mystic, John Crowder. These are all false prophets, attempting to lead, and in many cases, succeeding, souls into open rebellion against God.
An Esther moment? You do realize the reality that this statement produces, right? First, Esther and Deborah led God’s people and delivered them through a tough time. They did not lead those that knew not God, but only served God’s people. Now, if we apply this ‘mantle’ to Sarah Palin, then we have to apply the mantle of God’s people to the entire country. Is that logic biblical? And where was this language when Geraldine Ferraro ran in 1984 and Hillary Clinton this Election cycle? And isn’t this the same type of language that was used on George W. Bush in 2000? And exactly how has that worked out for us?
Seriously, people need to wake up and realize that the United States of America is not the Church – not Israel. Sarah Palin is closer to the Anti-christ than she is to Deborah or Esther.
Again, I like Pastor Steve’s undying fight against Abortion and he should be applauded for that fight. He brings the fight home and demands that we stand with the children, a sure Christian position; yet, Pastor Steve, please leave the politics out of it.
UPDATE – In a move sure to keep more people in the dark about the false prophets, he has limited my ability to respond. I guess he likes the idea of suppressing the Truth.
Seriously, do you think that any one of these people would do the same for the millions of children that are aborted every year?
For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen. But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen. Howbeit neither are they to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much, that they could aim at the world; how did they not sooner find out the Lord thereof? (Wisdom 13:5-9 KJVA)
For either they are mad when they be merry, or prophesy lies, or live unjustly, or else lightly forswear themselves. For insomuch as their trust is in idols, which have no life; though they swear falsely, yet they look not to be hurt. Howbeit for both causes shall they be justly punished: both because they thought not well of God, giving heed unto idols, and also unjustly swore in deceit, despising holiness. For it is not the power of them by whom they swear: but it is the just vengeance of sinners, that punisheth always the offence of the ungodly. (Wisdom 14:28-31 KJVA)
As it were, they are without excuse because from the time of the Creation, his invisible attributes — that he is God with eternal power — have been clearly seen, being able to be perceived and understood by the things that he has created; Even though they know God, they glorified him not as God, and neither was thankful but becoming foolish and deceived by their own reasoning, their wicked heart was darkened; Professing themselves to be wise, they were made fools, Exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the likeness of corruptible man, and to birds, four footed beasts, and serpents. Therefore, because of this reason, God left them to their own hearts, full of vile and filthy lusts, to do shameful things with each other Who exchanged the True God for the lie, worshipping and serving the created more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen! For this reason God gave them over to ungovernable and lustful passions, that even their women did pervert their natural intercourse for that which is against nature, And in like manner also the men, having abandoned the natural intercourse with the woman, burning in their lust one towards another; men with men, working that which is shameful, receiving in themselves the penalty which in the nature of things, was their inevitable recompense. Even as they rejected God, and did not think him worth knowing, God gave them over to an undiscerning, depraved, and debased mind that he rejected, to do those things which are not proper, Having been filled with all injustice, sexual perversion, wickedness, selfish greed, and the desire to injure; they are full of jealousy and murder, strife and deceit, evil dispositions and gossipers, — Back talkers, haters of God, boisterous, high minded, boasters, inventors of evil vices, disobedient to parents, Devoid of spiritual understanding, treacherous, hard-hearted to kindred, truce-breakers, merciless: Who having known the judgment of God — that they who practice such things are deserving of death — not only do they approve of those that do them, but they themselves engage in these acts. (Romans 1:20-32 CTV-NT / W)
The Apology of Aristides was written in relation to the Emperor Hadrian sometime 117 and 138 (bringing it within the time frame of the Epistle of Diognetus), and not long after John’s Apocalypse. It details to the Emperor the attempts by others to find the true God, and their subsequent failures. Fore 1500 years, we had only the mention of Eusebius concerning the Apology, but it was found in the waning years of the 19th century by Armenian monks; it was then found in the Syriac version by Orthodox monks at Mt. Sinai. The Greek exists in a modified form, and cannot be trusted in the differences. Of interesting note to the discussion of the doctrinal development is from Book II. The The English translation from the Syriac reads,
The Christians, then, reckon the beginning of their religion from Jesus Christ, who is named the Son of God most High; and it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin took and clad Himself with flesh, and in a daughter of man there dwelt the Son of God. This is taught from that Gospel which a little while ago was spoken among them as being preached; wherein if ye also will read, ye will comprehend the power that is upon it. This Jesus, then, was born of the tribe of the Hebrews; and He had twelve disciples, in order that a certain dispensation of His might be fulfilled. He was pierced by the Jews; and He died and was buried; and they say that after three days He rose and ascended to heaven; and then these twelve disciples went forth into the known parts of the world, and taught concerning His greatness with all humility and sobriety; and on this account those also who to-day believe in this preaching are called Christians, who are well known. There are then four races of mankind, as I said before, Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians
This statement rings true of a Modalistic viewpoint, that God robed Himself with flesh as the Son of God.
The term, right hand of God is an anthropomorphic expression[1]. The use of this anthropomorphism occurs 60[2] times in Scripture (39 times in the OT; 21 times in the NT). Hebrew Idiom behind this language denotes power and strength. Let us take note of the Old Testament visions of God at this time. In Genesis 28.13-16, Jacob saw “the LORD…” (a theophany, as all OT visions are). 1 Kings 22.19 and 2 Chron. 18.18, Micaiah said, “I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left;” noticeably absent is Son or the Spirit.Throughout the entire Old Testament and Deuterocanon, there is only mention of “the LORD,” as a single Deity (numerical singleness, not unified). In Isa. 6.1, only “the LORD” is seen. Ezk. 1.26-28, 2.1. Ezekiel saw “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.”
The Greek δεξιός (dexios) means the ‘right’, indicating a direction. Usually, the word ‘hand’ is supplied, and not unjustly. The issue is, what is meant by ‘the right hand’ and is their a particular emphases on the action (sitting, standing, at or by). In Acts 2.33, we read “τη δεξια ουν του θεου υψωθεις την τε επαγγελιαν του αγιου πνευματος λαβων παρα του πατρος εξεχεεν τουτο ο νυν υμεις βλεπετε και ακουετε.” The phrase “τη δεξια ουν του θεου” is translated in the KJV as ‘by the right hand of God’ with the margin note reading ‘at.’ This translation makes it the instrumental case, while the ‘at’ translation refers to the locative case. Robertson suggests that it only makes sense in the dative case, which reads ‘to the right hand of God.’ The issue here is that depending on the translation, a different theology can develop. For example, if Christ was exalted to the right hand, then a form of dynamic Monarchianism could develop. The proper method is translating this verse as ‘at the right hand of God,’ which still allows the idiom to come out. The same can be said for Acts 5.31. In Acts 7.55-56, Stephen saw Christ ‘on’ the right hand of God. (εκ δεξιων εστωτα του θεου)(See Col 3.1 which readsενδεξιατουθεου )
We read in the much discussed Hebrews 1.3, ‘εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις. Simply, after word of God had been fulfilled, with the price of redemption was paid, Christ resumed His glory and dignity, fully and without separation; he assumed the glory that He had before the Incarnation without distinction Christ is here pictured as the King (Prophet and Priest also) Messiah seated on the throne of God as God.
John says the following about Christ: “But though He had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on Him, that the saying of Isaiah the Prophet, might be fulfilled, which he spoke: The Lord, who has believed our report and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’” (John 12.37-38) echoing the Song of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. The “Arm” of the Lord denotes the “power” of the Lord. A thorough study of this term and it’s usage in the Bible, will reflect a similarity in the meanings and usage of the words: power, might, strength, hand, right side and arm, when referring to this designation of Christ. Christ, as is often done in the Gospels, attributes a prophecy in the Old Testament to Himself.
A question that is begged relates to the issue of ‘co-equality’ and power. In Matthew 28:18, Christ tells His disciples that He has been given all power in heaven and in earth. If Christ is the Almighty, the ruler of both heaven an earth, and He alone sits on the throne, then where does the Father and the Spirit stand in relation to him? Throughout the final book of the New Testament, we find references to a throne in heaven and only one sitting on that throne. We find no mention, when John describes the throne room, of either the Son or Spirit standing in conjunction with God on the throne. In 3.21, Christ says that He has taken His seat on the throne of the Father. (The vision of which is easily understood of the Incarnation is seen as providing a temporary difference between the Father and His Word.) Throughout the remaining verses, we see but one sitting on the throne.
In 2nd Temple Judaism, it was common to use idioms to express God, thus we have the development of Throne, Majesty and other words to describe God without saying God. We have to be careful in understanding the phrase literally. Since the right hand (or side) is a place of honour, to literally say that Christ is at the right hand of God, is to demote the deity of Christ and bring about the adoptionist doctrine of the Arians. We also will see that a contradiction in scripture exists between the phrases ‘at the right hand’ and ‘on the throne’. To understand this phrase in a completely idiom free translation, we would generally read that Christ is on the throne.
The Roman Road: Jesus is God
Before we move to the profession of faith found in Romans 10, let us first examine chapter 9, verse 5, where Paul writes, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (KJV) The NET reads, “To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.” The NRSV has “to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” There is doctrine here decided by the correct placement of commas.
Paul, in the original Greek wrote, “ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην.” Vincent, noting the difference that arises by punctuation notes, “Authorities differ as to the punctuation; some placing a colon, and others a comma after flesh. This difference indicates the difference in the interpretation; some rendering as concerning the flesh Christ came. God who is over all be blessed for ever; thus making the words God, etc., a doxology: others, with the comma, the Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever; i.e., Christ is God.” Robertson writes, “A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See note on Acts 20:28[3] and note on Titus 2:13[4] for Paul’s use of theos applied to Jesus Christ,” clearly indicating that He believes that Paul applied the θεος to Christ in this instance.
Several commentators have stated that the closing phrase should be a separate sentence (God who is blessed forever), however, in scriptural doxologies the word “Blessed” precedes the name of God on whom the blessing is invoked[5].
To understand our profession in 10.9 of Romans, we have to read further to verse 13, where Paul quotes Joel 2:32, which reads, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.” (KJV). Here, the word for LORD in Hebrew is יהוה, the Tetragammon, which is commonly understood to be the proper name of God in the Old Testament.
Would Paul use a theological drenched title in two different ways, especially in such a short distance from one another?
In verse 13, we understand the LORD to be the God of the Old Testament, so therefore we must understand Paul to mean in verse 9 to the God of the Old Testament as well. The construction of the passage leads us to translate the phrase found in the KJV as ‘profess the Lord Jesus’ to profess that ‘Jesus is Lord.’. With the understanding that the ‘Lord’ in verse 13 is the same ‘Lord’ in verse 9, in order to be saved, we must profess with our my mouth that Jesus is God.
[1] The attribution of human characteristics to non-human beings or things
[3] Robertson’s note here states, “With his own blood (dia tou haimatos tou idiou). Through the agency of (dia) his own blood. Whose blood? If tou theou (Aleph B Vulg.) is correct, as it is, then Jesus is here called “God” who shed his own blood for the flock. It will not do to say that Paul did not call Jesus God, for we have Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Titus 2:13 where he does that very thing, besides Colossians 1:15-20; Philippians 2:5-11.”
[4] Here, he notes “This is the necessary meaning of the one article with theou and sōtēros just as in 2Peter 1:1, 2Peter 1:11.”
Below is chapter 10 of a work produced around 177ad, sometime before Tertullian and right around the Muratorian Canon, which included the Book of Wisdom.
Chapter X.—The Christians Worship the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through His Logos, and set in order, and is kept in being—I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say “His Logos”], for we acknowledge also a Son of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason (νοῦς καὶ λόγος) of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [νοῦς], had the Logos in Himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos [λογικός]); but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me, the beginning of His ways to His works.” The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and appointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all. (translated by Translated by the Rev. B. P. Pratten)
Easily noticed are the phrases “God the Father” and the “God the Son” but what is lacking is “God the Holy Spirit;” (It would not be until Tertullian’s time that such a heavy emphasis was placed on the person of the holy spirit) however, Athenagoras goes out of his way to address the issue that the Son is the Logos of God and that they are in ‘oneness’. He also says that the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son. The author then goes on to use the emanation doctrine found in Hebrews and Wisdom but transfer it to the Spirit.
We can look at this writing several ways. We can see a seed of a Father-Son substance which a pointing to a development of the a third part. We can see that Athenagoras was fighting (most likely pagans) the idea that the the Son was begotten, by drawing attention to the fact that the Son was in idea only, since the Son was the Logos which had existed with God as God since the beginning. There is no distinction for this author in the Deity.
Below are excerpts from his book, A Plea for Christians.
Chapter VIII.—Absurdities of Polytheism.
And indeed Socrates was compounded and divided into parts, just because he was created and perishable; but God is uncreated, and, impassible, and indivisible—does not, therefore, consist of parts.
Chapter XII.—Consequent Absurdity of the Charge of Atheism.
while men who reckon the present life of very small worth indeed, and who are conducted to the future life by this one thing alone, that they know God and His Logos, what is the oneness of the Son with the Father, what the communion of the Father with the Son, what is the Spirit, what is the unity of these three, the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and their distinction in unity
Taken apart, it presents a contradiction in the mind of Athenagoras, however, taken together, we see that the author is still promoting oneness and promoting those that know the ‘distinction in unity’ which contrary to the pagan thought at the time, is none. One cannot hold to a ‘oneness of the Son with the Father’ and that God does not ‘consist of parts’ while maintaining a ‘distinction in unity.’
Alexander Campbell was an American Religious reformer in the early 19th century. Here is a resource for him. For him, his greatest desire was to return to the New Testament Church, meaning that he attempted to rid himself of 1800 years of theology and made an effort to seek Theology from the Apostles. I am not endorsing the Church of Christ here, but I do think that he made a serious effort to right the ship and truly restore the Church. Where as Calvin and Luther attempted to reform Rome, Campbell and his ilk attempted to restore the New Testament Church.
On the Trinity, he said,
“This God is never called a person. The word person was never applied to God in the Middle ages. The reason for this is that the three members of the trinity were called personae (faces or countenances): The Father is persona, the Son is persona, and the Spirit is persona. Persona here means a special characteristic of the divine ground, expressing itself in an independent hypostasis.
“Thus, we can say that it was the nineteenth century which made God into a person, with the result that the greatness of the classical idea of God was destroyed by this way of speaking… but to speak of God as a person would have been heretical for the Middle Ages; it would have been to them a Unitarian heresy, because it would have conflicted with the statement that God has three personae, three expressions of his being. (Tillich, Paul, A History of Christian Thought, p. 190)
Barton Stone, a fellow Restorer said,
“The word Trinity is not found in the Bible. This is acknowledged by the celebrated Calvin, who calls the Trinity “a popish God, or idol, a mere human invention, a barbarous, insipid, and profane word; and he utterly condemns that prayer in the litany–O holy, glorious, and blessed Trinity, &c. as unknown to the prophets and apostles, and grounded upon no testimony of God’s holy word.” Admon. 1st. ad Polonos–Cardale’s true Doct.–The language, like the man, I confess is too severe
The Beloved Apostle writes the scene in the Garden this way, “Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am (εγω ειμι). And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am, they went backward, and fell to the ground. (18:3-7)”
Before that that tense moment, John writes of another occasion, when Jewish leaders told Christ, “You are not even fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?” Jesus answered them, saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” In the Modalist view, this passage as well as the above, makes sense. This does not point to the pre-existence of the Son, since that has already been proven an erroneous assumption, but to the very truth that Christ was God manifested in the flesh.
In John 8:24, Christ says, “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am (οτι εγω ειμι), ye shall die in your sins.” ‘He’ is inserted in many translations, but no word exists in Greek for the pronoun after the copula ειμι.It simply means ‘that I am’. The Jews (Deuteronomy 32:39[1]) used the language when speaking about the LORD (In Septuagint Isaiah 43:10 the very words occur πιστεύσητε καὶ συνῆτε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι). The phrase εγω ειμι occurs three times here (John 8:24, John 8:28, John 8:58) and also in John 13:19 and 18:5.
Vincent says,
“‘He’ is inserted in the versions and is not in the text. By retaining it, we read, IamtheMessiah. But the words are rather the solemn expression of His absolute divine being, as in John 8:58 : “If ye believe not that Iam.” See Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and compare John 8:28, John 8:58 of this chapter, and John13:19.”
Kittel remarks,
‘Already in the LXX ἐγώ εἰμι is used for God (Ex. 3:14). Philo has it too, and it is a divine predicate in Josephus. In the NT Revelation uses it in the formulas in 11:17; 1:4, 8; 4:8 — formulas of worship, salutation, and self-predication. The nondeclinability of ἐγώ εἰμι and the quasi-participial use of εἰμι preserve the sanctity of the divine self-predication. The formulas express God’s deity and supratemporality. Similar formulas occur in Judaism. The Greeks also use two- and three-tense formulas to express eternity (cf. Homer, Plato, and an Eleusinian inscription). These possibly came into Revelation by way of the Jewish tradition, though a common source may lie behind the Greek and Jewish traditions.” Kittel further says that ἐγώ εἰμι is a self-designation of Christ which ‘stands in contrast to the genésthai applied to Abraham’.
The pointof ἐγώ εἰμι is not Christ is identifying himself as the Messiah or a second part of a Trinity, but as the Absolute Deity Himself.
With this said, how can we avoid the Patripassian misunderstanding of Tertullian? We have to still remember that God, preexistent and eternal, manifested Himself in the flesh, creating the Son in His humanity. The Son who revealed to humanity God, who bore the name of God, and who could rightly claim that He was God, was not the Father. It was the human nature of the Son that died and rose again, suffering the agonies of the Cross, and baring upon Himself the sins of the world, of you and me.
In John’sApocalypse, we read a much disputed text, but I will still prefer the Byzantine text form and will thus quote it here.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1.8)
It should be noted that the the Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, and the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions read, ‘the Lord God’ while the Coptic version has only ‘God’. Origen reads, ‘And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty,” while Tertullian, writing against Praxeas, quotes it as this, ‘Meanwhile, let this be my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: “I am the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.’ So, the tradition varies, however, I believe that no matter what, the truth is still the same. It is indeed the Lord who is God who is speaking.
Alpha and Omega is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, ‘aleph and the tau’, which the Jews used to express God as the first and the last. He is from eternity to eternity. Clarke says, ‘With the rabbis מא ועד תmeeleph vead tau, “from aleph to tau,” expressed the whole of a matter, from the beginning to the end. So in Yalcut Rubeni, fol. 17, 4: Adam transgressed the whole law from aleph to tau; i.e., from the beginning to the end’.
Further, John hears a voice like a trumpet, saying,
“Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.” And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. – Rev 1:11-18
The phrase ‘I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last ’are left out in the Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions; ‘but are very fitly retained, to point out the person that speaks; to express his dignity, deity, and eternity; to excite the attention of John, and to give weight to what he said. (Gill)’ The phrase ‘the first and the last’ is used to describe the God of the Jews in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, and 48:12 and four times in this book of Christ Himself (Revelation 1:11, 17, 2:8 and 22:13). Richard of St. Victor comments thus: “I am the first and the last; first through creation, last through retribution. First, because before me a God was not formed; last, because after me there shall not be another. First, because all things are from me; last, because all things are to me; from me the beginning, to me the end. First, because I am the cause of origin; last, because I am the judge and the end” (cited by Trench and Vincent).
In Revelation 21:5-7, John writes,
‘And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.’
If we have already established that Christ is the Alpha and Omega, then we know that it is Christ, our Lord and God, who is sitting on the thrown. Throughout John’s book, only one sits on the thrown, and only one is the Alpha and Omega (which is logical and theological). Can one rightly split the speakers of the phrase into distinct person?
Of course, the question is begged: If there is only one First and one Last, One Alpha and one Omega, then how can two (or three if the Spirit is counted) both claim this things?
God, Christ, and the Rock
2 Sam. 22:32, “Who else is God but the LORD; Who else is a Rock but our God?”
1 Sam. 2:2, “There is none Holy as the LORD, for there is none beside Thee, neither is there any Rock like our God.”
The apostle Paul, the well educated former Pharisee, plainly speaks that Christ was that Rock of Israel. In 1st Corinthians 10:1-4, Paul writes,
“Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the Cloud and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the Cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat and did all drink the spiritual Drink, for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ”
Further, in the ninth verse, Paul says, “Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents”.
This has to call into question the idea of the preexistent son. Here, Paul used the name of Christ as the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. (This verse as a textual variant, but most scholars except Christ instead of Lord.) How can that be? Remember the prayer in John 17, where Christ reveals that He came to manifest the name of the Father? Paul is not speaking about the Son, but about God.
In John 14.28, Christ says, “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.”
Most Trinitarians will tell you that the Father and Son are eternally co-equal, yet here, Christ says that the Father is greater than the Son. We also, as previously examined, have verses that say that the Father sent the Son. If equality among the three is existent, then who can one be less than the other or one command another? Robertson, pointing to John 10:30 as he comments on the verse and not the Greek itself, says, ‘Not a distinction in nature or essence, but in rank in the Trinity.’ Gill goes on at great length to come to an acceptable idea that Christ could not possibly mean rank, but condition. The editors of the Life Application Study Bible places this thought in the footnotes of this verse, ‘As God the Son, Jesus willingly submits to God the Father.’ This statement is easily made correct and true if you replace the unbiblical language (God the Son) with biblical language (Son of God).
Previously, Christ told His disciples, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him, (John 13.16)’ again implying that an inequality with the Heavenly existed. If the Logos of God was sent, it had to have a sender. When the word went out, it had did not have its own power or will, but was under the will of God. If it had been a separate entity in the Deity, then the Logos would have had its own power and will and message (John 14.24).
In Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, we read an ancient hymn,
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made himself nothing, taking the very natureof a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross!
According to Vincent,
‘ἁρπαγμὸνmean a highly prized possession, (so) we understand Paul to say that Christ, being, before His incarnation, in the form of God, did not regard His divine equality as a prize which was to be grasped at and retained at all hazards, but, on the contrary, laid aside the form of God, and took upon Himself the nature of man.’
The Greek term μορφή indicates a correspondence with reality, thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God. So, we have Christ, who is truly God, thought not of His Deity as something to be held so tightly too, that he made himself nothing, taking on the nature of sinful man, humbling himself to do something that was needed to save humanity. We have a supreme picture of love here, and a deep theological statement (not only of the oneness of God, but of the cross as well).
Here, we can began to understand that in humbleness of Christ, in that while in the flesh the Father was Greater than He, so rightly, when praying, He would pray to the Father.
In the 17th chapter of John’s Gospel, we have an excellent example of what a prayer is about. We have the address to the Father, requests not temporal but eternal, and compassion for those around the speaker. Here also is a great theological question. If Christ is the Father, then is Jesus praying to Himself? Modalism was falsely labeled our doctrine as Patripassianism by their opponents, in an erroneous attempt to have us say that the Father died. This is not so. The emanation (ἀπαύγασμα) of the Father, which is the Son, temporarily separated from the Father died, although it is rightly said that the Father suffered with the Son.
The reason for the prayers from the Son becomes clear when we understand that the Incarnation is not a mere indwelling of God in a human shell, but God coming to be a genuine man. The Incarnation does not imply a transmutation of God into a man, but allows that God remained who He was both in and after the manifestation. If God had changed into a man He would cease being God, or at least cease being the same God He was prior to the Incarnation. As God came to exist in flesh, complete the limitations of humanity, Christ had the capacity for and the need for relationships. Because of the reality His humanity He even had need of a relationship with God. As man (servant) Christ experienced the same limitations all humans experience along with a dependence upon God. These prayers are not an example as some Modalists try to say as a cover, but a real act; real, because Christ, as a man, needed to pray because of his dependence on God. His prayers are rooted in His humanity, not in His divinity.
A question begged of the Trinitarians concerns the supposed co-equality in the Godhead. If the Father and Son are equal, then where is the necessity for the Son to ask the Father for anything? Would it not be hypocritical for the Trinitarians to attack Modalists as seeing God praying to Himself while their own theology has an eternally subordinated Son in a co-equal Godhead?
Many times, this prayer is taken as a whole and used against Modalists in one fashion or another, but let us take a few phrases and examine them. The first one is found in verse 3, translated as, ‘that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’
Here is Christ speaking in the third person, something that Trinitarians accused Modalism of understanding God as doing in John 1.1. In comparing 17.3 to 1st John 5.20, we come across not a striking similarity.
And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJV)
First, then, is the Incarnated Emanation on Earth calling the Father the True God. Second, the very same Apostle that recorded the words of the Lord in His prayer, wrote that Jesus Christ is the True God[1].
The second phrase that bears examining is ‘with the glory which I had with you before the world was.’ God told Israel by Isaiah (42.8) that He would not give His glory to another. The glory of God is God’s alone. Again, we turn to Hebrews 1.3 whose author calls Christ the emanation of His glory. We should rightly understand that if a distinction in God existed, then glory would have to be shared and given to another; yet, if the Son is understood as an emanation, then it is easy to see that the Son emanated from the Father’s glory, without distinction, and only in the flesh does the Son existed without the Glory of God.
Our third phrase is ‘I have manifested Your name’. In reference to Zechariah 14.9, which reads (I have included several different translations):
And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one. – NETS
And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one – KJV
The Lord will then be king over all the earth. In that day the Lord will be seen as one with a single name. – NET
In the Hebrew LORD is (יהוה) while the Greek is κύριος. In Acts 10:36, we learn that Christ is Lord of all. The baby born in Bethlehem was born Christ and named Jesus. Throughout the New Testament, the name of Christ is used for baptism, healing, prayer, and worshipped. The Son did manifest the name of the Father, that of Christ. If the name of God is one, then how can we have three distinct personal names, such as the Father, Son, and Spirit?
[1] Robertson, in his Word Pictures, admits that it would be a stretch to make ‘this’ apply to God.
