Jesus is Yahuwah. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Three Persons One God
Introduction
In context of Paul’s thinking and theology the confession Lord Jesus (Kurios Iesous) as Paul uses it in Philippians 2:9-11, I Corinthians 12:1-4 Romans 10:8-11 holds a very important place. It is issues which arise through these three uses of this confession which is the reason for this paper. The aim of the paper is to shed light on the confession and title Kurios Iesous in the context of Paul’s thinking and the idea of Confession in the first century Church, with the witness of the Tanakh, the New Testament, Second temple Judaism and the Graeco Roman culture of the first century.
All these are important in elucidating the meaning and significance of the confession Kurios Iesous.
Confession
The three passages together carry a very powerful message and so need to be explored. We look at them in the order they would have appeared in the Church. if we hold that Philippians was written, not in Paul’s Roman or Caeserian imprisonment, but in his inferred Ephesian imprisonment, during the years AD 52-AD 54 or between AD 53-55. 1 Corinthians, O Connor (1996) dates as April / May, AD 54 and was written from Ephesus, towards the end of Paul’s residence in their. Romans was written from Corinth around AD 55/56 winter (Murphy O Connor pp 104-105) or in AD 57 Barker(1985 p1665).
The Confession of Kurios Iesous
Confession 1:Philippians 2: 9-11
“Dio kai ho Theos auton uperupsosen Kai echarisato auto to onoma to uper pan onoma
Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name
Ina en to onomati Iesou pan gonu kampse Epouranion kai epigeion kai katachthonion
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of the things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth
Kai pasa glossa exomologesetai hoti “Kurios Iesous Christoseise” doxan Theou
Patros”
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father
To Paul then this confession is the ultimate confession of the entire heavens, earth, and under the earth. The whole result of Yeshua’s incarnation, humiliation on the cross, resurrection and ascension is the glory of God the Father. And when all the universe confesses Kurios Iesous Christos God the Father gets the glory.
So this text is here because its very universal scope challenges ask to ask the question Why is the confession “Kurious Iesous Christos” so important? What is the confession Kurios Iesous Christos since two Hebrew words lie behind the common noun Kurios? The first is Yahuwah the proper name and eternal and personal name of the God of Yisrael. The second is Adonai a common Hebrew noun meaning my Lords or Sir or Lord. The blurring of the two words was originally felt to have come with the Jewish Hellenistic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. However with discoveries of manuscripts in the last century it is by no means certain that the LXX (Septuagint) did not maintain the distinction between Yahuwah and Adonai in translation. Royse (1991) notes that in the Hebrew scriptures, there is a clear difference in the use and the importance of the name Yahuwah and the title Adonai and the terms are used many times as a title of God as in Adonai Yahwah, the Lord Yahwah. The Septuagint manuscripts of the 4th century and much of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we had up until 100 years ago, translated both words as Kurios. However it is now certain that many Greek manuscripts of the Tanakh, including both the LXX and Aquila’s translation included a specific representation of the Tetragrammaton distinct from Kurios. A number of scholars have gone as far as to try to chronicle the movement in translation policy towards Kurios and they suggest four stages in the process. First Yahuwah was transliterated as Iao (iota, Aleph, Omega) And this is witnessed by Diodorus the Sicilian from the first century BC. Then they transliterated Yahuwah into Aramaic script. Then they used Paleo-Hebrew and finally Kurios was substituted Royse (1991 ibid).
A discussion of the evidence is found in (Metzger, 1981) , for support of the idea that Kurios was in the LXX see N.A. Dahl and A. F Segal (1978). Back in 1959 Kahle could confidently say
“We now know that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the divine name by Kurios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such Mss”
Now if this is the case and the first century manuscripts of the Greek Bible had a form of Yahuwah in the text different from Kurios what of Paul’s letters back in the first century?. Some have said the Christians translated Yahuwah to Kurios when the Hebrew was not understood any more (in Royse 1991). Well at the time of Paul they did know the name and it was understood and Paul was a Jew. It is quite possible that if we found Paul’s manuscripts from the first century and he was quoting as he often does the LXX we would find that "Jesus is Lord" could be Jesus is Iao (Yahuwah). And that this was as Edwin Blackman states “The irreducible minimum of Christian faith” (TIOCB 1971 pg 787) and a part of the “earliest baptismal confession” (ibid)
So when the universe will confess “Kurios Iesous Christos” Are they saying Yahuwah Yeshua the Mashiach or are they saying Adonai Yeshua the Mashiach?. And what is so important about this confession, in the mind of Paul that he teaches that the whole universe is moving towards this confession? And seeing to Paul the gospel is more about the demonstration of the Spirit’s power than words why should a confession hold such an important place in his message?
We should also note that the confession here is slightly different to the other two confessions with the addition of the common noun Christos or the Mashiach or the Anointed one. But because of the context of its confessional status we have included it for the comparison.
Confession 2: I Corinthians 12
“Peri de ton pneumatikon adelphoi ou thelo umas agnoein…gnoritzo umin hoti oudeis en
Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren I would not have you ignorant…Wherefore I give you to understand that no man
pneumati Theou lalon legei Anathema Iesous , kai oudeis dunati eipein Kurious Iesous ei meh en pneumati agio”
speaking by the spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost”
This passage draws our attention not because they who are speaking by the Holy Spirit will not say Jesus be accursed, because this would appear quite naturally. Indeed it is very likely that Paul is giving this instruction because some one carried away in the Corinthian meeting cried out “Anathema Iesous”. And the Church not being wise in the discerning of spirits accepted it as a word in the Holy Spirit. However at least one person got upset and reported to Paul along with the complaints about every one speaking in tongues and no one interpreting. So even as Moses gave instruction how to judge whether a word came from Yahuwah or not so Paul gives instructions to discern whether a word came from the Spirit or not. John gives similar instruction about discerning the Spirit of Antichrist. What draws our attention is when Paul states “No one is able to say Kurios Iesous” except by the Holy Spirit (Pneumati Agio). We also know that people can mouth the words “Jesus is Lord’ and walk away the same way they came. So the problem here is what does Paul mean by this statement. His advice is to inform the Corinthians about spiritual activities.
It is the absoluteness of Paul’s statement that leaves a problem which needs addressing. What does it actually mean to say Kurios Iesous. And is it as W Harold Mare in his comment in the NIV Study Bible pg1750, notes that someone is saying not “Jesus is master” or “Jesus is Lord” using the word Kurios to reflect the Hebrew word Adonai (emphatic form of Adon) or Adon (from an unused root meaning to rule, sovereign or controller) but rather that some one saying Jesus is Yahuwah that is to say Jesus is “God of Israel the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That when a Jew procalims "Hear O Israel Yahuwah our God Yahuwah is One" “Shema Yisrael Yahuwah Eloheinu Yahuwah Echad” They are referring to Jesus the Messiah who was crucified, buried rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven? For a Hellenistic Greek are they saying that the man Jesus who walked the earth in material flesh is the same “To On” (The Existent) of Philo or the same deity who Josephus in his conservative Pharisaism refuses to talk about for his name is ineffable. To be sure to Philo as a Hellenistic Greek coming from a philosophical background influenced by Plato, the Stoics and even the Sophists, name was not a glorifying thing for his ‘To on’ but a concession to the weakness of material man. To Josephus it was too holy to be written about. If indeed Paul is saying Kurios Iesous means Jesus is Yahwah it would mean there was a time that to say such a thing would to him be blasphemous on two counts.
The first would be to say the name and the second would be to identify the man Jesus with the creator. Once he was a Pharisee and to them the name of Yahuwah could only by used on special occasions including once a year by the high priest in the temple on Yom Kippour. If someone used the name elsewhere they could be accused of blasphemy and could be stoned to death,
Stephen is a case in point. He was stoned to death. However it is not certain if it was a the legal process or mob violence which brought this about. The fact that he was tried, witnesses brought in, taken to the edge of the city and stoned all point to a due legal process. Baird (1971 pg 739) believes the fact that the mob “cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse” suggests mob violence. He was taken out and stoned. And why then was he stoned for according to Klausner (1944 pg 292) the Mishnah (in the Talmud) asserts “the blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the name itself”. According to record of Luke, Stephen had just said “Behold I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”. So there were no grounds for his conviction. However it appears possible that the confession about “The Son of Man being at the right hand of God” may have reached the level of blasphemy in first century Judaism because Yeshua on making the same confession, not long before, was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.
The point is clear, although our launching point was the Church in Corinth in southern Greece or Achaia, the Church in Phillipi northern Greece or Macedonia, both places outside Eretz Yisrael and not part of the seven Toparchies of Judea proper where the Sanhedrin would have had authority, we can still say that if in Hebrew the early Church made as the Confession, Yeshua is Yahwah, this would have been counted as blasphemy. This would go far to explaining why the Pharisees and Paul persecuted that name to the death and sought to have the disciples blaspheme.
Confession 3: Romans 10:9
“Hoti ean homologeses to rema en to stomati sou oti Kurious Iesous kai pisteuses en to kardia sou
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart
Hoti ho Theos auton egeiren ek nekron sothese. Kardia gar pisteuetai eis dikaisunen stomati de omologeitai eis soterian
That God raised from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation.”
The passage draws our attention again because of the apparent simplicity of the action to believe that Yeshua had risen from the dead by God’s power and to confess or say the words Kurios Iesous. The result being salvation. There are a number of issues raised by this text in the context of Pauline Theology and the New Testament. For example where is the Christ and him crucified of I Corinthians? What does it means to confess Kurious Iesous? What does it mean to be saved? Saved from what and perhaps even saved for what? Our need however is really to understand what we are confessing when we say “Kurios Iesous” and what is the significance of saying or confessing in the mind of the first century Church of AD 52- AD 57.
The Confession
At least three aspects of the confession Kurious Iesous need to be explained. The first is the significance of confession in the New Testament and first century Church as opposed to the thinking of the words Kurios Iesous. Secondly the meaning of the words actually expressed and why those words carry so much significance. And it what perhaps are they equivalent to in Paul’s pre Apostolic Pharisaism? What did those words mean to the Jews who they were confessed by or among ad what did they mean to the Greeks and the Barbarians who confessed them. Thirdly How is it that by saying them salvation could operate in the confessor. And why is it that to Paul the whole universe and plan of God is moving towards the cofession Kurious Iesous Christos.
Confession, Proclamation, Speech and Sayings
The early Church had as Scripture the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. The Church had a message the life death and resurrection of their Lord Jesus Christ. Before the letter to the Philippians around AD 52-54, it would appear that very little literature had gone out into the Church. Even if we accept AD 45 as a possible date for James it still represents a miniscule amount of literature for the 15 years since the birth of the Church of Mashiach on Shavuoth AD 30. The reason for this is clear the Church was sent to make disciples (matheteusate) to baptize them (baptitzontes autous) teaching (didascontes) the same disciples to observe the commands Yeshua had given the disciples by the words of his mouth.
According to Mark (16:16) the Apostles were commissioned to preach (cherutsate) the good news to all creation (paseh teh chtisei) and everyone who believed and was baptised would be saved (sothesetai) would person not believing would be condemned (katachrithesetai) or judged against. Again in Luke(24:44-9) we have the idea that the Church is sent to proclaim (herald) the meage which would usually go beyond mere writing into speech. Luke’s words again have parallels with Roman (10:9) and are worth seeing
“Thus it is written that Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and repentance for forgiveness and (for) forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in (on the bases of) his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Here in common with Romans10 we have the resurrection and a notice of the name, salvation is missing and baptism is missing . We may ask is this the name simply as in authority? Or is it the name as in the name he received after the resurrection which Paul gives us in Philippians 2:9 which most scholars hold to be the tetragrammaton, Yah’wah This name then on baptism would be confessed, the person then would not be judged against, but saved. In Matthew and Mark baptism is seen as an essential ingredient of the Apostolic proclamation. But in Luke it is missing altogether. Luke in early Church tradition, in the book of Acts (see chapter 21-where Luke uses We when travelling with Paul) and 2 Timothy 4:11 is considered a close associate with Paul. And Paul distinguishes between preaching, which he considered his mission and baptizing which he did but was not sent to do. As he said in 1 Corinthians “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” So for Paul words (admittedly not clever or eloquent words 1 Cor 1) were very important.
The Church then of the first century saw preaching, sayings, speech, combined with Baptism and faith, as very powerful and it was the means appointed to build the Church and spread the gospel.
In context of Paul’s thinking and theology the confession Lord Jesus (Kurios Iesous) as Paul uses it in Philippians 2:9-11, I Corinthians 12:1-4 Romans 10:8-11 holds a very important place. It is issues which arise through these three uses of this confession which is the reason for this paper. The aim of the paper is to shed light on the confession and title Kurios Iesous in the context of Paul’s thinking and the idea of Confession in the first century Church, with the witness of the Tanakh, the New Testament, Second temple Judaism and the Graeco Roman culture of the first century.
All these are important in elucidating the meaning and significance of the confession Kurios Iesous.
Confession
The three passages together carry a very powerful message and so need to be explored. We look at them in the order they would have appeared in the Church. if we hold that Philippians was written, not in Paul’s Roman or Caeserian imprisonment, but in his inferred Ephesian imprisonment, during the years AD 52-AD 54 or between AD 53-55. 1 Corinthians, O Connor (1996) dates as April / May, AD 54 and was written from Ephesus, towards the end of Paul’s residence in their. Romans was written from Corinth around AD 55/56 winter (Murphy O Connor pp 104-105) or in AD 57 Barker(1985 p1665).
The Confession of Kurios Iesous
Confession 1:Philippians 2: 9-11
“Dio kai ho Theos auton uperupsosen Kai echarisato auto to onoma to uper pan onoma
Wherefore God hath also highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name
Ina en to onomati Iesou pan gonu kampse Epouranion kai epigeion kai katachthonion
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of the things in heaven, and things in
earth, and things under the earth
Kai pasa glossa exomologesetai hoti “Kurios Iesous Christoseise” doxan Theou
Patros”
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father
To Paul then this confession is the ultimate confession of the entire heavens, earth, and under the earth. The whole result of Yeshua’s incarnation, humiliation on the cross, resurrection and ascension is the glory of God the Father. And when all the universe confesses Kurios Iesous Christos God the Father gets the glory.
So this text is here because its very universal scope challenges ask to ask the question Why is the confession “Kurious Iesous Christos” so important? What is the confession Kurios Iesous Christos since two Hebrew words lie behind the common noun Kurios? The first is Yahuwah the proper name and eternal and personal name of the God of Yisrael. The second is Adonai a common Hebrew noun meaning my Lords or Sir or Lord. The blurring of the two words was originally felt to have come with the Jewish Hellenistic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in Greek in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. However with discoveries of manuscripts in the last century it is by no means certain that the LXX (Septuagint) did not maintain the distinction between Yahuwah and Adonai in translation. Royse (1991) notes that in the Hebrew scriptures, there is a clear difference in the use and the importance of the name Yahuwah and the title Adonai and the terms are used many times as a title of God as in Adonai Yahwah, the Lord Yahwah. The Septuagint manuscripts of the 4th century and much of the Greek New Testament manuscripts we had up until 100 years ago, translated both words as Kurios. However it is now certain that many Greek manuscripts of the Tanakh, including both the LXX and Aquila’s translation included a specific representation of the Tetragrammaton distinct from Kurios. A number of scholars have gone as far as to try to chronicle the movement in translation policy towards Kurios and they suggest four stages in the process. First Yahuwah was transliterated as Iao (iota, Aleph, Omega) And this is witnessed by Diodorus the Sicilian from the first century BC. Then they transliterated Yahuwah into Aramaic script. Then they used Paleo-Hebrew and finally Kurios was substituted Royse (1991 ibid).
A discussion of the evidence is found in (Metzger, 1981) , for support of the idea that Kurios was in the LXX see N.A. Dahl and A. F Segal (1978). Back in 1959 Kahle could confidently say
“We now know that the Greek Bible text as far as it was written by Jews for Jews did not translate the divine name by Kurios, but the Tetragrammaton written with Hebrew or Greek letters was retained in such Mss”
Now if this is the case and the first century manuscripts of the Greek Bible had a form of Yahuwah in the text different from Kurios what of Paul’s letters back in the first century?. Some have said the Christians translated Yahuwah to Kurios when the Hebrew was not understood any more (in Royse 1991). Well at the time of Paul they did know the name and it was understood and Paul was a Jew. It is quite possible that if we found Paul’s manuscripts from the first century and he was quoting as he often does the LXX we would find that "Jesus is Lord" could be Jesus is Iao (Yahuwah). And that this was as Edwin Blackman states “The irreducible minimum of Christian faith” (TIOCB 1971 pg 787) and a part of the “earliest baptismal confession” (ibid)
So when the universe will confess “Kurios Iesous Christos” Are they saying Yahuwah Yeshua the Mashiach or are they saying Adonai Yeshua the Mashiach?. And what is so important about this confession, in the mind of Paul that he teaches that the whole universe is moving towards this confession? And seeing to Paul the gospel is more about the demonstration of the Spirit’s power than words why should a confession hold such an important place in his message?
We should also note that the confession here is slightly different to the other two confessions with the addition of the common noun Christos or the Mashiach or the Anointed one. But because of the context of its confessional status we have included it for the comparison.
Confession 2: I Corinthians 12
“Peri de ton pneumatikon adelphoi ou thelo umas agnoein…gnoritzo umin hoti oudeis en
Now concerning spiritual gifts brethren I would not have you ignorant…Wherefore I give you to understand that no man
pneumati Theou lalon legei Anathema Iesous , kai oudeis dunati eipein Kurious Iesous ei meh en pneumati agio”
speaking by the spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: that no one can say that Jesus is the Lord , but by the Holy Ghost”
This passage draws our attention not because they who are speaking by the Holy Spirit will not say Jesus be accursed, because this would appear quite naturally. Indeed it is very likely that Paul is giving this instruction because some one carried away in the Corinthian meeting cried out “Anathema Iesous”. And the Church not being wise in the discerning of spirits accepted it as a word in the Holy Spirit. However at least one person got upset and reported to Paul along with the complaints about every one speaking in tongues and no one interpreting. So even as Moses gave instruction how to judge whether a word came from Yahuwah or not so Paul gives instructions to discern whether a word came from the Spirit or not. John gives similar instruction about discerning the Spirit of Antichrist. What draws our attention is when Paul states “No one is able to say Kurios Iesous” except by the Holy Spirit (Pneumati Agio). We also know that people can mouth the words “Jesus is Lord’ and walk away the same way they came. So the problem here is what does Paul mean by this statement. His advice is to inform the Corinthians about spiritual activities.
It is the absoluteness of Paul’s statement that leaves a problem which needs addressing. What does it actually mean to say Kurios Iesous. And is it as W Harold Mare in his comment in the NIV Study Bible pg1750, notes that someone is saying not “Jesus is master” or “Jesus is Lord” using the word Kurios to reflect the Hebrew word Adonai (emphatic form of Adon) or Adon (from an unused root meaning to rule, sovereign or controller) but rather that some one saying Jesus is Yahuwah that is to say Jesus is “God of Israel the Creator of the heavens and the earth. That when a Jew procalims "Hear O Israel Yahuwah our God Yahuwah is One" “Shema Yisrael Yahuwah Eloheinu Yahuwah Echad” They are referring to Jesus the Messiah who was crucified, buried rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven? For a Hellenistic Greek are they saying that the man Jesus who walked the earth in material flesh is the same “To On” (The Existent) of Philo or the same deity who Josephus in his conservative Pharisaism refuses to talk about for his name is ineffable. To be sure to Philo as a Hellenistic Greek coming from a philosophical background influenced by Plato, the Stoics and even the Sophists, name was not a glorifying thing for his ‘To on’ but a concession to the weakness of material man. To Josephus it was too holy to be written about. If indeed Paul is saying Kurios Iesous means Jesus is Yahwah it would mean there was a time that to say such a thing would to him be blasphemous on two counts.
The first would be to say the name and the second would be to identify the man Jesus with the creator. Once he was a Pharisee and to them the name of Yahuwah could only by used on special occasions including once a year by the high priest in the temple on Yom Kippour. If someone used the name elsewhere they could be accused of blasphemy and could be stoned to death,
Stephen is a case in point. He was stoned to death. However it is not certain if it was a the legal process or mob violence which brought this about. The fact that he was tried, witnesses brought in, taken to the edge of the city and stoned all point to a due legal process. Baird (1971 pg 739) believes the fact that the mob “cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears, and they rushed upon him with one impulse” suggests mob violence. He was taken out and stoned. And why then was he stoned for according to Klausner (1944 pg 292) the Mishnah (in the Talmud) asserts “the blasphemer is not culpable unless he pronounces the name itself”. According to record of Luke, Stephen had just said “Behold I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”. So there were no grounds for his conviction. However it appears possible that the confession about “The Son of Man being at the right hand of God” may have reached the level of blasphemy in first century Judaism because Yeshua on making the same confession, not long before, was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.
The point is clear, although our launching point was the Church in Corinth in southern Greece or Achaia, the Church in Phillipi northern Greece or Macedonia, both places outside Eretz Yisrael and not part of the seven Toparchies of Judea proper where the Sanhedrin would have had authority, we can still say that if in Hebrew the early Church made as the Confession, Yeshua is Yahwah, this would have been counted as blasphemy. This would go far to explaining why the Pharisees and Paul persecuted that name to the death and sought to have the disciples blaspheme.
Confession 3: Romans 10:9
“Hoti ean homologeses to rema en to stomati sou oti Kurious Iesous kai pisteuses en to kardia sou
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart
Hoti ho Theos auton egeiren ek nekron sothese. Kardia gar pisteuetai eis dikaisunen stomati de omologeitai eis soterian
That God raised from the dead, you shall be saved. For with the heart man believes resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses resulting in salvation.”
The passage draws our attention again because of the apparent simplicity of the action to believe that Yeshua had risen from the dead by God’s power and to confess or say the words Kurios Iesous. The result being salvation. There are a number of issues raised by this text in the context of Pauline Theology and the New Testament. For example where is the Christ and him crucified of I Corinthians? What does it means to confess Kurious Iesous? What does it mean to be saved? Saved from what and perhaps even saved for what? Our need however is really to understand what we are confessing when we say “Kurios Iesous” and what is the significance of saying or confessing in the mind of the first century Church of AD 52- AD 57.
The Confession
At least three aspects of the confession Kurious Iesous need to be explained. The first is the significance of confession in the New Testament and first century Church as opposed to the thinking of the words Kurios Iesous. Secondly the meaning of the words actually expressed and why those words carry so much significance. And it what perhaps are they equivalent to in Paul’s pre Apostolic Pharisaism? What did those words mean to the Jews who they were confessed by or among ad what did they mean to the Greeks and the Barbarians who confessed them. Thirdly How is it that by saying them salvation could operate in the confessor. And why is it that to Paul the whole universe and plan of God is moving towards the cofession Kurious Iesous Christos.
Confession, Proclamation, Speech and Sayings
The early Church had as Scripture the Torah, the Prophets and the Psalms. The Church had a message the life death and resurrection of their Lord Jesus Christ. Before the letter to the Philippians around AD 52-54, it would appear that very little literature had gone out into the Church. Even if we accept AD 45 as a possible date for James it still represents a miniscule amount of literature for the 15 years since the birth of the Church of Mashiach on Shavuoth AD 30. The reason for this is clear the Church was sent to make disciples (matheteusate) to baptize them (baptitzontes autous) teaching (didascontes) the same disciples to observe the commands Yeshua had given the disciples by the words of his mouth.
According to Mark (16:16) the Apostles were commissioned to preach (cherutsate) the good news to all creation (paseh teh chtisei) and everyone who believed and was baptised would be saved (sothesetai) would person not believing would be condemned (katachrithesetai) or judged against. Again in Luke(24:44-9) we have the idea that the Church is sent to proclaim (herald) the meage which would usually go beyond mere writing into speech. Luke’s words again have parallels with Roman (10:9) and are worth seeing
“Thus it is written that Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and repentance for forgiveness and (for) forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in (on the bases of) his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” Here in common with Romans10 we have the resurrection and a notice of the name, salvation is missing and baptism is missing . We may ask is this the name simply as in authority? Or is it the name as in the name he received after the resurrection which Paul gives us in Philippians 2:9 which most scholars hold to be the tetragrammaton, Yah’wah This name then on baptism would be confessed, the person then would not be judged against, but saved. In Matthew and Mark baptism is seen as an essential ingredient of the Apostolic proclamation. But in Luke it is missing altogether. Luke in early Church tradition, in the book of Acts (see chapter 21-where Luke uses We when travelling with Paul) and 2 Timothy 4:11 is considered a close associate with Paul. And Paul distinguishes between preaching, which he considered his mission and baptizing which he did but was not sent to do. As he said in 1 Corinthians “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” So for Paul words (admittedly not clever or eloquent words 1 Cor 1) were very important.
The Church then of the first century saw preaching, sayings, speech, combined with Baptism and faith, as very powerful and it was the means appointed to build the Church and spread the gospel.
posted by Evangelist Edi Nachman Bsc. PGCE @ 6:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home