Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 50

John 10:30, "I [Jesus] and my Father are one." According to the opinion prevailing among the Christians, Jesus declared in these words his perfect identity with the Godhead; but we have already noticed a passage which completely refutes this view. For we find in Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." Every attempt to reconcile the two contradictory verses, only leads to new perplexities. The more we examine into the purport of the New Testament, the more clearly we perceive its general tenor is not to deify Jesus; and that the doctrines which assign to him the title of God, have arisen from want of due investigation, and are not upheld by the force of sound argument. 

So now, Troki quotes a New Testament verse and doesn't even criticize it. He goes to Mark 13, which I already discussed in Chapter 31.

But let's not waste the post. A. Lukyn Williams has some interesting commentary on this.

He brings forward a more serious argument by saying, on the authority of a Socinian writer, Martin Czechowitz, who died in 1608, that Jesus' words do not necessarily mean that the Father and the Son are of one essence, for St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 3:8: "Now he that planteth [St. Paul] and he that watereth [Apollos] are one," which does not mean that St. Paul and Apollos were one man, but only that they worked together with the same aim and purpose. What have we Christians to say in reply? This, that no one ever supposed that our Lord's words in themselves necessarily conveyed the usual Christian interpretation of them, but that when they are considered in their context they do necessarily convey it. For read the passage. In verse 28 Jesus said: "I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one is able to snatch them out of my hand." Then in verse 29: "My Father, which hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." There we have similarity, and, as it would seem, equality of infinite power, predicated of both the Father and the Son. Can beings possess equality of infinite power and yet be distinct in essence?

Further, how did they who listened to our Lord understand Him? This at least is certain. For the Jews were so furious with Him that they took up stones to cast at Him, and when He asked the reason, they replied, "For blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." To them His meaning was quite clear; by saying "I and the Father are one "He claimed to be God, in the highest possible sense of the term. Yet, as the words are recorded for us in the Greek, there are two points which ought not to be overlooked. First, the word "one" is in the neuter gender, not the masculine. Our Lord does not, that is to say, mean that He is identical in personality (for want of a better term) with the Father, but that He is one in essence with Him. Secondly, that along with this unity He and the Father remain distinct; He says "are," not "am." He claims, while remaining other than the Father, to be of one essence with Him. 

James White said it well when he interpreted this verse as, "Jesus and the Father are one in their mission to redeem humanity." The opponents of Jesus were right to accuse him of claiming a divine prerogative. Williams goes a little far in stating that Jesus is claiming a divine essence, when he is really claiming a divine function, and one that God does not delegate to any creature, no matter how exalted.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 49

John 10:16, "And other sheep I [Jesus] have, which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

The truth which is contained in this passage has no reference to himself, for the union of faith was not accomplished by him, and will only take place at a future period, when the proper time shall arrive. This is testified by the following passages of Scripture. Isaiah, in chapter 45:23, says, "Thus I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return. For unto me every knee, shall bow, and every tongue shall swear." Zephaniah 3:9, "For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent." The predominance of Judaism over all the religions of the Gentiles is dwelt on in the following extracts from the prophets: Isaiah 52:1, "Awake, awake, put on thy strength, Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, Jerusalem, the Holy City; for henceforth there shall no more come unto thee, the uncircumcised and the unclean." Ibid. chapter 66:23, "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." Zechariah 14:16, "And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles." As to the attribution of the sovereignty of empires to the future King Messiah, we find in Daniel 2:44, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all those kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever."

Ibid. 7:27, "And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of dominion under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions shall serve and obey Him." Numbers 24:17, "I see it [it will not happen] now, I behold it, but not nigh; there shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Judah, and he shall smite the corners of Moab, and overthrow the children of Sheth." 

 Again, it's hard to pick out an actual argument in this chapter. If Troki is arguing that we are still waiting for the prophecies at the end of the world to be fulfilled, I would agree with him that this is the case. Israel is not yet in a position of dominance. One has to twist and even waterboard the Scriptures to support the desperate position that these prophecies have already been fulfilled.

What follows from this? That Jesus is not Messiah? Troki's argument seems to go like the following:

1. If Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, then he is not Messiah
2. Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies
3. Therefore, Jesus is not Messiah

What support is there for premise 1? In order to keep the argument from appearing ad hoc, one would need to generalize the premise into:

1'. For any person x, if x did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies, then x is not Messiah

(1') has immediately obvious difficulties. Since the Messianic prophecies are not fulfilled (1') would disqualify everyone alive today from being Messiah. In fact, it would mean that no one could be Messiah until after the prophecies are fulfilled. But that's certainly wrong. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said "If you are holding a sapling in your hand and someone tells you, ‘Come quickly, the messiah is here!’, first finish planting the tree and then go to greet the Messiah.’" This implies that Messiah will be here before the prophecies are finished. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the surprise.

So we will need to change the premise to:
1''. For any person x, if x died before the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled, then x is not Messiah

The problem is that rabbinic tradition does not agree with this, either. The rabbis of the Talmud discuss the two different pictures of Messiah as presented in the Bible. One picture features a triumphant leader, while the other presents a suffering servant who will die for the sake of Israel. The Talmud claims that this is because there are two different people called Messiah, and at least one of them will die.

So we then need to change the premise to:

1'''. For any person x, if x died before the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled, then x is not Messiah son of David

This is more defensible, yet Maimonedes believed that Isaiah 53 referred to Messiah son of David, which includes the passage "he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people. And they made his grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death."

So rabbinic tradition itself does not substantiate any of these claims. We have no reason to accept (1), and plenty of good reasons to reject it.