Select reading: The Prophecy of the Good Shepherd
The title of this article is that of the video presenter who identifies himself as Brother Kel in his YouTube channel. It reflects neither my understanding nor convictions concerning the deity of Jesus.
God is good. The statement seems benign and harmless enough. There are similarly and seemingly harmless words which were spoken by Jesus which are taken either to assert or to deny his deity. The presenter in this video has seized on these words of Jesus to deny the deity of Jesus, Why do you call me me good. No one is good except God alone. What is especially egregious about his efforts to deny the deity of Jesus is that it is equally egregious by those who cite these words of Jesus to assert his deity. There is no shortage of texts to ponder on the question of deity. Here are a few from my blog. [1] [2] [3]
My purpose in this article is to draw attention to a couple of seriously bad or seriously questionable points by the presenter in the video. There are, as I have noted, other articles concerning the deity of Jesus. I will not attempt to assert or make a case for the deity of Jesus on the basis of the words of Jesus in Mark 10 which are the focus of the video presenter. I do intend to present a positive assertion concerning the Father and the prophets.
the Father and the prophets
It bears worthy noting that there is no question and there is nothing to dispute about the fact that the words which Jesus spoke were not his own. They were the words which the Father gave Jesus to speak. This is as much of a moot point as it is for the presenter to repeat over and over the term teacher as though this were a teaching point or some great enlightenment for his viewers. Here are the two particularly egregious teaching points from the presenter concerning the Father and the prophets.
the father, it has to be
There is something similar between theists, like the video presenter, who argue against the deity of Jesus and atheists who argue against the existence of God. It is an understatement to say that it is difficult to prove that something does not exist. I am leery when I hear a teacher who launches into his teaching from a negative perspective. This is not to say that a negative perspective in itself makes the teaching wrong or false. It is to say that the message which follows may be seriously questionable, obscure and less than substantive in its content. The listener may find himself/herself compelled to revert back to the opening negative statements only to realize that they missed the dull ring of the bell alerting listeners not to expect much from the presenter’s message.
The presenter rightly notes that it was the Father who gave Jesus the words which Jesus spoke. He belabors this assumption. Did he think that maybe through repeated agitation of those who hear him that they would accept his message? He belabors the point to where he oversteps what the Father himself stated by _ putting words in the mouth of the Father?
the prophet
The second assumption by the presenter is hardly new or unique. It is a commonly embraced and taught by those who affirm as well as those who deny the deity of Jesus. It is the assumption drawn from the words which the Lord God spoke to Moses in Deuteronomy 18 about the prophet. The assumption is that Jesus is the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18.
The Jews were no different than Christians in this common misunderstanding. There was a popular understanding that the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 referred to a specific individual. The Jews asked John the baptist if he was that specific individual, the prophet, but Jesus declared that John was more than a prophet. So, the prophecy did not pertain to John for two reasons, 1) the prophecy was not about an individual, and 2) John was more than a prophet.
Jesus was aware that he himself was perceived by the people as being a prophet because, like the prophets, Jesus had no honor in his own home. Some people, Muslims in particular, will run with this as a declaration and admission by Jesus that he was a prophet, but this is as hasty as it is mistaken. This popular perception of Jesus is reflected in the consensus report which the disciples gave to Jesus as to what the people thought about Jesus. The disciples enumerated a short list of prophets as to whom the people believed Jesus might be and they add or “one of the prophets.”
The Jews were no different than Christians in this common misunderstanding. There was a popular understanding that the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 referred to a specific individual. The Jews asked John the baptist if he was that specific individual, the prophet, but Jesus declared that John was more than a prophet. So, the prophecy did not pertain to John for two reasons, 1) the prophecy was not about an individual, and 2) John was more than a prophet.
Jesus was aware that he himself was perceived by the people as being a prophet because, like the prophets, Jesus had no honor in his own home. Some people, Muslims in particular, will run with this as a declaration and admission by Jesus that he was a prophet, but this is as hasty as it is mistaken. This popular perception of Jesus is reflected in the consensus report which the disciples gave to Jesus as to what the people thought about Jesus. The disciples enumerated a short list of prophets as to whom the people believed Jesus might be and they add or “one of the prophets.”
The video presenter pleads for his viewers to just look at the passage in Acts 3 in which the apostle Peter quotes the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18. Actually, the prophecy is quoted by Stephen in Acts 7 also. However, the presenter, like most readers, misses and overlooks a significant point in the quotation of Deuteronomy 18 in Acts 3 and 7 by Peter and Stephen. Kel urges viewers to "check all the facts in those two passages," but not without him taking the liberty to interject that it is the Father speaking, “It’s the Father. It has to be” he says. The quotation by Peter and Stephen with the reference to the prophet in Deuteronomy 18 is interspersed and enclosed with and within the plural form of prophets, parenthetically. In other words, the application by Peter and Stephen to Jesus reveals the interpretation, not that Jesus was a prophet or the prophet, but that he is the one of whom the prophets spoke. It was all the prophets whom the Lord God raised up after Moses to whom Israel was to heed and obey as messengers of God who had prophesied about the coming Messiah.
Kel assumes that it is the Father who spoke those words in Deuteronomy 18. He expects listeners to just buy into his own conclusion that it has to be the Father who spoke because _ it has to be? He may be right as much as he may be wrong that the Father spoke those words because this claim is based solely on his conjecture to drive his message on the denial of the deity of Jesus. Considering his great emphasis that the Father gave Jesus the words to speak the presenter does not seem to be compelled to limit himself to what the Father stated and resorts to a standard of his own making, it has to be.
Kel assumes that it is the Father who spoke those words in Deuteronomy 18. He expects listeners to just buy into his own conclusion that it has to be the Father who spoke because _ it has to be? He may be right as much as he may be wrong that the Father spoke those words because this claim is based solely on his conjecture to drive his message on the denial of the deity of Jesus. Considering his great emphasis that the Father gave Jesus the words to speak the presenter does not seem to be compelled to limit himself to what the Father stated and resorts to a standard of his own making, it has to be.
There is further evidence to dispel this common misunderstanding in Numbers 12. God defined for Moses, Aaron and Miriam just what it is that constitutes a prophet. If there were a prophet of God in Israel God who make himself known to that prophet through visions and dreams. The Father did not communicate with the Son through visions or dreams. Jesus was no more a prophet than Moses.
conclusion
Although the video presenter purports to debunk the deity of Jesus I have not attempted in this article to counter his efforts by asserting the deity of Jesus. What I have addressed are two seriously questionable elements in his message, namely, his much belaboring concerning the Father and the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18.
Kel belabors the point that Jesus spoke the words of the Father. Yet, Kel himself does not seem to regard the sufficiency of the words of the Father. Rather than doing as he urges his viewers to pay attention to the words he himself does not do so and resorts to his own outlandish and telling speculation, It’s the Father. It has to be.
Kel tries to contrive a point about Jesus as being the prophet in whom the Father, of whom Kel asserts, "It has to be" to put his words in his mouth. The supportive testimony to this notion which he believes is found in the quotation of Deuteronomy 18 by Peter in Acts 3 and by Stephen in Acts 7 lacks the conciliation and is at odds with Numbers 12. It is there that the Lord God defined what Kel has overlooked, the definition of what constitutes a prophet and how God makes himself known to that prophet..
I am leery of a teacher whose entire message is a series of negative assertions about something which they purport does not exist. It is no wonder that the message is characterized by dubious, strained and mistaken assertions about the Father who is deity and Jesus who is not a prophet. We can assert positively that the Father gave words to his Son to speak. We can also assert positively that a prophet is one to whom the Lord God would make himself known through visions and dreams. Neither of these positive assertions speak to the question of the deity of Jesus, but they do debunk the negative assertions on which Kel presumes to debunk the deity of Jesus.
Kel belabors the point that Jesus spoke the words of the Father. Yet, Kel himself does not seem to regard the sufficiency of the words of the Father. Rather than doing as he urges his viewers to pay attention to the words he himself does not do so and resorts to his own outlandish and telling speculation, It’s the Father. It has to be.
Kel tries to contrive a point about Jesus as being the prophet in whom the Father, of whom Kel asserts, "It has to be" to put his words in his mouth. The supportive testimony to this notion which he believes is found in the quotation of Deuteronomy 18 by Peter in Acts 3 and by Stephen in Acts 7 lacks the conciliation and is at odds with Numbers 12. It is there that the Lord God defined what Kel has overlooked, the definition of what constitutes a prophet and how God makes himself known to that prophet..
I am leery of a teacher whose entire message is a series of negative assertions about something which they purport does not exist. It is no wonder that the message is characterized by dubious, strained and mistaken assertions about the Father who is deity and Jesus who is not a prophet. We can assert positively that the Father gave words to his Son to speak. We can also assert positively that a prophet is one to whom the Lord God would make himself known through visions and dreams. Neither of these positive assertions speak to the question of the deity of Jesus, but they do debunk the negative assertions on which Kel presumes to debunk the deity of Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment