Apostolic Hermeneutics : Things Hard to Be Understood

Daniel L. Segraves, Ph.D

Click here to read from Dr. Segraves blog Center for Oneness Research and Education.

_______

The title of this paper is not intended to suggest that Scripture cannot be understood. It does acknowledge, however, that Peter was right when he said that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand and that there are “untaught and unstable people [who] twist [these things] to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16). Several ideas arise from this verse: (1) Paul’s letters are Scripture; (2) it is spiritually dangerous to be “untaught” and “unstable”; (3) some things Paul wrote are hard to understand, apparently even for those who are taught and stable. This does not mean they cannot be understood. Peter’s following words suggest that with spiritual alertness understanding is possible, and this understanding will result in growth in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (See 2 Peter 3:17-18.)

Peter’s reference to growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ connects with important statements on biblical interpretation made by Jesus Himself. To the disciples on the Emmaus road, Jesus said, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25). Jesus began “at Moses and all the Prophets” and expounded “to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). Later, when Jesus vanished from the sight of the disciples as they were sharing a meal, they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32). These disciples understood the Hebrew Scriptures only when Jesus explained the Scriptures in terms of what they said about Him.[1]

Similarly, Jesus opened the understanding of the larger group of gathered disciples. He enabled them to comprehend the Scriptures, saying, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me. Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:44, 46-47).

These words, which Jesus spoke just before His ascension, tell us that the essential story of redemption is found in the Old Testament before it is ever found in the New Testament. Indeed, there are details about Christ’s life and work recorded in the Old Testament that never found their way into the New Testament.

The release of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909 had a profound influence on the hermeneutics adopted by many early twentieth century Pentecostals. Although Scofield had no empathy for the Pentecostal movement, his “dispensationalism with its intense emphasis on futuristic eschatology had a strong appeal to them.”[2] It was typical for Pentecostals to believe that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a sign that the Second Coming was just around the corner. They embraced an eschatological focus, and Scofield’s neatly mapped out eschatology provided them a ready template.

It was immediately necessary, however, for Pentecostals to modify Scofieldian dispensationalism, because although the “system . . . provides a convenient method of organizing biblical history and teaches that it is possible to fit the full range of prophetic Scripture into something like a complicated puzzle,”[3] it also asserted “that the gifts of the Spirit, especially what has been called ‘the sensational gifts’ or ‘sign gifts’ (healing, faith, working of miracles, and tongues), were confined to the apostolic age.”[4] Although cessationism was rejected by Pentecostals, “the dispensational understanding of the church, as well as its eschatology, has influenced pentecostal theology.”[5]

Not only did Scofield confine the supernatural dimension of Pentecost to the first century. He also saw the church as a mystery not anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures.[6] But if there is a disconnect between the church and the Old Testament, the value of the Old Testament for the church is minimized. How are we to view the fact that the New Testament quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to the Old Testament nearly 800 times, especially when these references to the Old Testament are often in the category of fulfillment motifs? In a textbook used in many Pentecostal Bible schools during the mid-20th century, the author claimed, “Except that blessing was promised to the Gentiles . . . the church was unknown to the prophets.”[7] In view of Peter’s declaration that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was “what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16, NKJV), it is doubtful that the denial of any meaningful connection between Joel and Pentecost will be satisfying to Pentecostals.[8]

Implicit in Jesus’ explanation of the Hebrew Scriptures is that they are rich in Christology, soteriology (doctrine of salvation), pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), and ecclesiology (doctrine of the church). A reading of the New Testament indicates that the apostles and others involved in writing Scripture understood and fleshed out these themes. An examination of Paul’s use of Scripture demonstrates this point.

Paul and the Mystery of Christ

For Scofieldian dispensationalism, these words of Paul mean that there is no anticipation of the church in the Old Testament:

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power (Ephesians 3:1-7).

The phrase “which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed” is taken to mean that there was no revelation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures.[9] Ultradispensationalism goes so far as to say that there was no revelation of the church before Paul.[10]

A thorough reading of Paul indicates, however, that these views are incorrect. Rather than disavowing any revelation of the church prior to his, Paul’s point is that he enjoyed a fuller understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures than that of the original writers of those Scriptures. For the consideration of hermeneutics, this validates the idea that the part must be interpreted in view of the whole. Paul could understand only from his situation, or from his hermeneutical horizon, but his horizon was wider than that of the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures, not only because he possessed something never possessed by any but the final writers of the Hebrew Scriptures – the entire Hebrew canon – but also because his horizon included the knowledge that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah and a fullness of the Holy Spirit never enjoyed by those who lived before the era of the New Covenant (Acts 9:17). But his horizon extended even beyond this to include the portion of the New Testament that was written during his lifetime.

The revelation to which Paul referred in Ephesians 3 was not something given by God to Paul apart from the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, this revelation was not something diverse from and superior to Scripture. It was not something that was unanticipated in Scripture. We know this because Paul’s ministry, from the very beginning, is rich in the use of the Hebrew Scriptures to proclaim Christ as the promised Messiah and the work being done by Christ in the church as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy. The revelation was not, therefore, something radically new; it was a perspective on the Hebrew Scriptures not fully enjoyed by those who wrote them or by those who interpreted them prior to the era of the New Covenant.

It is perhaps no surprise that dispensationalism denies any anticipation of the church in the Hebrew Scriptures; that is the nature of the system. But even F. F. Bruce, in his comments on Eph 3:5, asserts that although the Hebrew Scriptures anticipated blessing of God upon the Gentiles, the fact that this “blessing of the Gentiles would involve the obliteration of the old line of demarcation which separated them from Jews and the incorporation of Gentile believers together with Jewish believers” was something that “had not been foreseen.”[11] A. Skevington Wood, however, sees the revelation as a matter of degree: “Although the blessing of the Gentiles through the people of God was revealed in the OT from Genesis 12:3 onward, it was not proclaimed so fully or so extensively as under the new dispensation.”[12]

These views do not, however, address the possibility that the mystery described by Paul was indeed found in the Hebrew Scriptures, but that the reason it was “not made known to the sons of men” (Eph 3:5) was that the limited horizon available prior to the era of the New Testament prohibited the fuller understanding now available to Paul as well as to all of the holy apostles and prophets. That this is at least a possibility is evident not only from Paul’s Christological use of the Hebrew Scriptures but also from his ecclesiological use of the Old Testament. Again, the point may be that his revelation was not something new but that it was a wider and deeper grasp of what had already been revealed in Scripture. Otherwise, we would expect Paul to make no appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures in his declaration of the gospel, including the union of Gentiles and Jews into one body. But this is not the case. Paul roots his teaching exclusively in the Scriptures.

Paul declared that what he believed was that which was written in the Law and the Prophets (Acts 24:14). He had done nothing offensive against the law of the Jews or the temple (Acts 25:8). He was called before Agrippa “for the hope of the promise made by God to [the] fathers” (Acts 26:6). In a very clear appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures for his message, including the inclusion of Gentiles equally with the Jews, Paul told Agrippa that he said nothing other than those things “which the prophets and Moses said would come—that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles” (Acts 26:22-23). Rather than claiming innovation for his message, Paul insisted that he said nothing new.[13] After arriving in Rome, Paul told the Jewish community there that he had done nothing against the Jewish people or the fathers (Acts 28:17). Instead, he was bound “for the hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20). He “explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets” (Acts 28:23).

When he wrote to the believers at Rome, a church that included Jews and Gentiles, Paul declared that the gospel of God was that “which he promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:1-2). The Law and the Prophets witness to the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ “to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference” (Rom 3:21-22). The letter to the Romans is a church letter; Paul establishes the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the church from the Hebrew Scriptures. The fact that Abraham was justified before circumcision was for the purpose of demonstrating that Gentiles, not only Jews, are the recipients of imputed righteousness (Rom 4:11). Abraham is equally the father of believing Gentiles as well as of believing Jews (Rom 4:16-18). Hosea and Isaiah both anticipated the inclusion of believing Gentiles (Rom 9:24-29). Even Moses wrote about the righteousness of faith wherein there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Rom 10:5-12), as did Joel (Rom 10:13).[14] In an extended appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures to demonstrate the inclusion of Gentiles, Paul indicates that this inclusion “confirm[s] the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8-12, 21). As he concludes the letter, Paul writes that the gospel he preaches—which is identical with “the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began”—is made known to all nations “by the prophetic Scriptures” (Rom 16:25-26). This can only mean that the message he preached in the churches was firmly rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul explained that he spoke “the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages” (1 Cor 2:7). But this mystery was anticipated in the Hebrew Scriptures (1 Cor 2:9). It had now been revealed to Paul “through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God” (1 Cor 2:10). The story of Israel’s journey through the wilderness was written for the benefit of the church (1 Cor 10:6, 11). The essential gospel message is “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3-4).

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that those who read the Hebrew Scriptures while rejecting Christ are hindered by a veil; their minds are blinded (2 Cor 3:14). Isaiah prophesied of the church age, the “day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2). Ezekiel anticipated the way God would dwell in the church (2 Cor 6:16). Even the Pentateuch called for the church to be holy (2 Cor 6:17-18). That these Hebrew Scriptures belong to the church is quite clear when Paul immediately follows these references with these words: “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor 7:1).

In his letter to the believers in Galatia, Paul declared that the Hebrew Scriptures foresaw “that God would justify the Gentiles by faith” (Gal 3:8a). By doing so, the Scripture “preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand” (Gal 3:8b). In receiving “the blessing of Abraham,” Gentiles are also receiving “the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:14). When “the Scripture . . . confine[s] all under sin,” Gentiles are included along with Jews, so “that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe” (Gal 3:22). Thus, “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). To be Christ’s is to be Abraham’s seed “and heirs according to the promise” (Gal 3:29). If Gentiles in the church are heirs of a biblical promise, it is difficult to say that the Old Testament in no way anticipated the church.

To the Ephesians, Paul wrote that God had made known to him “the mystery of His will” which involved the “gather[ing] together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in him” (Eph 1:9-10). We come now to Paul’s discussion of the revelation of “the mystery . . . which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel” (Eph 3:3-6). In view of all that precedes this canonically, it is difficult to read this to mean that the Hebrew Scriptures include nothing about the Gentiles becoming fellow heirs.[15] Indeed, Paul in the very next chapter quotes Ps 68:18 to explain the gifts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to the church (Eph 4:7-14). We can certainly question whether the author of Ps 16 or even the final composer of the Psalter understood Ps 68:18 as a reference to the ascension gift ministries, but Paul’s horizon was broader than theirs. He lived in the era of fulfillment and of the Spirit, an era that released the text of the Hebrew Scriptures to a dimension of fullness unavailable to those with a limited horizon. This does not mean that the author of Ps 68 or the composer of the Psalter were wrong; it means that there was a depth of meaning in the text that awaited fulfillment to be fully released. Since Paul uses the psalm this way in the same letter where he discusses the revelation of mystery, it is apparent that he does not mean that the mystery is not based on Scripture. He even sees Gen 2:24, a statement that in isolation seems to refer only to the marriage relationship, as “a great mystery” that “concern[s] Christ and the church” (Eph 5:31-32).

Again in his letter to the Colossians, Paul discusses “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints” (Col 1:26). This is the same mystery Paul has in view in his letter to the Ephesians; it concerns “the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27). But again Paul refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as the source of this mystery. Specifically, he sees the regulations concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons, and sabbaths—all integral to the Law of Moses—as being “shadow[s] of things to come, but the substance is of Christ” (Col 2:16-17).

In his first letter to Timothy, Paul describes the church as “the house of God . . . the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It would seem strange to think that such a high evaluation would be made of an institution that has no place in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In his second letter to Timothy, Paul declares that the Holy Scriptures—the Hebrew Scriptures that Timothy has known from childhood—“are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15). It is precisely these Scriptures which are “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17). If the Hebrew Scriptures are profitable for church doctrine, for the reproof, correction, and instruction of church members, and if they are capable of bringing a man of God who is in the church to completion, they surely are not bereft of any reference to the church. Before closing his letter, Paul appeals to Timothy for “the books, especially the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13). No doubt these parchments were Old Testament Scriptures written on leather scrolls.16 If the Hebrew Scriptures contained nothing specific to the church, one wonders why Paul wished to have them as desperately as he wished to have his cloak.

Interpretations of Ephesians 3:5 that focus only on exegesis of the immediate context miss the influence on understanding available from the broader horizon of the use of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament and specifically from Paul’s consistent Christological and ecclesiological use of the Old Testament.

Conclusion

Paul’s use of the Old Testament demonstrates the validity of the approach to understanding characterized by the hermeneutical circle. Because his horizon has been widened by his personal encounter with Jesus Christ, because he enjoys the fullness of the Spirit, and because he has access to the entire Hebrew canon, he reads the Hebrew Scriptures in a way they could not be read by those who rejected Christ or by those to whom only portions of the text were available. This was not unique to Paul. As he affirmed, the revelation of the mystery of Christ “has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph 3:5). His approach to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures is mirrored by all of the New Testament writers.[17]

Theoretically, it may be possible to say that we are in a better position to understand both the Old and New Testaments than were the writers of either testament, because our horizon includes the perspective of the New Testament writers on the Old Testament, a horizon unavailable to the writers of the Old Testament, and because we have access to a wholeness or fullness of written revelation, including the New Testament, that the writers of the New Testament never enjoyed. Our horizon is widened not only by the complete canon, but also by the fullness of the Spirit and by the effect of the history of Christian interpretation and the impact of Scripture on the church.

Our apostolic heritage includes an approach to the interpretation of Scripture that is quite different from the hermeneutics adopted by those who limit the supernatural dimension of the Christian life to the first century and who separate the two testaments so radically that there is no ecclesiology – with its attendant pneumatology – in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is agreed by many, including non-Pentecostals, that the Old Testament is rich in Christology. It should be recognized, however, that where Christ is found, so is the Holy Spirit, and so is the anticipation of the church, which comes into being when Christ pours out the Holy Spirit upon waiting believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

Discussion of exegesis, authorial intent, context, reader response, genre, and the entire range of hermeneutical concern has its place, but will fall short if Scripture is not approached as it was by the first century apostles and others who wrote Scripture. This includes their belief that all Scripture, including the Hebrew Scriptures, belonged to the church. Until the end of the first century, no Christian in the apostolic era had access to the entire New Testament. For about fifteen years after the Day of Pentecost, New Testament Scripture did not exist. When it did begin to develop, it was in bits and pieces and scattered widely over the geographical expanse of spreading Christianity. There were no printing presses constantly collating freshly written Scripture to assure that all New Testament believers were kept up to date on the latest revelations.

How, then, did first century Christians believe and understand the gospel, and what was their authoritative source for its declaration? As Paul pointed out to Timothy, this was the function of the Hebrew Scriptures Timothy had known from his childhood:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:14-17, NKJV).

Since the writers of the New Testament so fully embraced the Hebrew Scriptures as their source for the doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, and since they believed it was profitable for a full range of teaching, including the reproof, correction, and instruction of New Testament Christians, bringing the people of God to completion and thoroughly equipping them for all they needed to do, it should be no surprise to find the New Testament standing in complete solidarity with the Old Testament. The way this works out may sometimes be hard to understand, as Peter indicated, but the reward is worth the effort. Oneness Pentecostals, of all people, should rejoice in the opportunity to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This growth will not come from minimizing the value of the Old Testament. It will result from reading the Hebrew Scriptures as the Scriptures of the church, feasting on the richness of their testimony to Christ, partaking of the fullness of the Holy Spirit promised therein, and celebrating the fulfilled fellowship of the gathered believers (i.e., the ekklēsia, the church) thus anticipated.

Endnotes

1 Luke 24:33-35.
2 F. L. Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” in The New Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Eduard M. van der Maas; rev. and exp. ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Zondervan, 2002), 585.
3 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585.
4 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585.
5 Arrington, “Dispensationalism,” 585. Ryrie acknowledges that “ecclesiology . . . is the touchstone of dispensationalism” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today [Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1965], 132).
6 It has long been noted that dispensationalism sees the church as a parenthesis, bearing no relationship to what preceded it or to what will follow it in God’s plan. (See Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1960], 26, 28, 43, 129.) For normative dispensationalism, the church and Israel are “completely distinct.” The church “was not revealed in the Old Testament,” and God has two purposes, “one for the church and one for Israel” (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 174).
7 Frank M. Boyd, Ages and Dispensations (Springfield, Mo.: Gospel Publishing House, 1955), 53-54. See also Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 134, n. 4, where Ryrie quotes James M. Stifler’s interpretation of Ephesians 3:5 as denying “that there was any revelation at all of the mystery in that former time . . . .”
8 In its comments on Joel 2:28, the New Scofield Reference Bibledisassociates Joel’s prophecy from any fulfillment on the Day of Pentecost: “Peter did not state that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The details of Joel 2:30-32 (cp. Acts 2:19-20) were not realized at that time. Peter quoted Joel’s prediction as an illustration of what was taking place in his day, and as a guarantee that God would yet completely fulfill all that Joel had prophesied. The time of that fulfillment is stated here (“afterward,” cp. Hos. 3:5), i.e. in the latter days when Israel turns to the Lord” (E. Schuyler English, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1967], 1045).
9 Scofield’s comment on Ephesians 3:5-10 includes the claim that “the church is not once mentioned in Old Testament prophecy” (C. I. Scofield, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth . Cited 2 December 2004). Online: http://www.raptureme.com/resource/scofield/s1.htm. Although this view has been softened by adherents of Progressive Dispensationalism (See, e.g., Robert L. Saucy, “The Church as the Mystery of God,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 127-155), those who embrace Scofieldian dispensationalism continue to insist that “no revelation of this mystery was given in the Old Testament but that this mystery was revealed for the first time in the New Testament” (Harold W. Hoehner, “Ephesians,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty (ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck; New Testament edition; Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Book, 1983), 629.
10 See G. R. Lewis, “Ultradispensationalism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Walter A. Elwell, ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 1120-21.
11 F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (ed. Gordon D. Fee; Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984), 314.
12 A. Skevington Wood, “Ephesians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1 (ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 45.
13 See also Acts 26:27.
14 See also Rom 10:19-21.
15 The New Scofield Study Bible comments on Eph 3:6: “That Gentiles were to be saved was no mystery . . . . The mystery ‘hidden in God’ was the divine purpose to make of Jew and Gentile a wholly new thing—‘the church, which is His [Christ’s] body,’ . . . and in which the earthly distinction of Jew and Gentile disappears . . . .” (C. I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield Study Bible: New King James Version[Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989], 1437, n. 2). But we have seen several places where Paul appeals to the Hebrew Scriptures to establish this very point.
16 Ralph Earle, “2 Timothy,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1(ed. Frank. E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), 415.
17 For example, Peter sees the establishment of the church on Pentecost as the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21). James sees the inclusion of Gentiles in the church as having been anticipated by Amos (Acts 15:13-18). The author of Hebrews weaves texts from the Hebrew Scriptures throughout the letter to indicate that Christology and ecclesiology are rooted in the Old Testament.

Interview with Daniel L. Segraves and Carlton Coon

Daniel L. Segraves, Ph.D

Here's what Dr. Segraves reports:

I was recently interviewed for two episodes of Home Missions Live, a video interview sponsored by the Home Missions Division of the United Pentecostal Church...they can be viewed at http://www.homemissionsdivision.com/hmlive/

Click here to go Dr. Segraves blog. Or click here to watch video.

Are Christians 'Spiritual Jews'? by Dr. Daniel L. Segraves

Question : What are your views on the Biblical doctrine of Christians as "spiritual Jews"? 

A confusion of the church and Israel re sults from failure to strictly rely on a literal hermeneutic*, and it results in a blurring of the distinctions between dispensations, a confusion of the covenants, and a denial of God's future dealings with the nation Israel. The roots of this point of view reach back into church history to Origen's allegorism ("spiritualizing" scripture, e.g., the church is Israel), Augustine's The City of God (asserting that the millennium is fulfilled in the present church age and failing to see any future for the Jewish people), and the amillennialism of the Roman Catholic Church. 

A literal interpretation of Scripture, however, reveals a clear distinction between the church and Israel. I Corinthians 10:32 is pivotal to understanding the distinction between Jews, Gentiles, and Christians: "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. " Here three clearly distinct groups are seen: (1) the Jews; (2) the Gentiles; and (3) the church of God. 

A careful study of the use of the word "Jew" in Scripture will reveal it was originally a nickname or abbreviation for those of the tribe of Judah. But its use soon expanded to include all those of the Hebrew race. Mordecai, of the tribe of Benjamin, was a Jew (Esther 2:5). Hebrews and Hebrewesses are known as Jews in Jeremiah 34:9. In Ezra 4:12, descendants of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi are called Jews. The implication is strong, however, that the term reaches out to include some representatives of all twelve tribes.

"So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities " (Ezra 2:70). 

"And offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel " (Ezra 6:17). 

"Also the children of those that had been carried away, which were come out of the captivity, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and seven lambs, twelve he goats for a sin offering: all this was a burnt offering unto the LORD" (Ezra 8:35). 

Throughout Ezra and Nehemiah these are called Jews. Throughout the Book of Esther, all Israelites in the kingdom of the Medes and Persians are called Jews. 

Thus the word "Jew" came to be a synonym for "Israelite." This is reasonable in view of the fact that Judah was in the greatest sense the leading tribe. It was that tribe through which the Messiah would come. It was the tribe which always led in battle. When the northern tribes rebelled against the house of David, Judah retained its loyalty. 

But with the rejection of the Messiah by the nation of Israel at large, and with the continued persecution of the early believers by the Jewish leaders, there came a gradual shift in the meaning and significance of the word "Jew." 

Throughout the gospels and the Book of Acts, both the godly and the ungodly who were physically descended from Jacob were called Jews. 

"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans " (John 4:9). 

"And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28). 

"And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name [was] Bar Jesus " (Acts 13:6). 

"And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome.) and came unto them" (Acts 18:2). 

"And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus " (Acts 18:24). 

"And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so " (Acts 19:14). 

"But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people " (Acts 21:39). 

A clear shift is seen in Romans 2:28-29: 

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. " 

This passage is often misinterpreted to mean that Christians are "spiritual Jews." This is not the point at all. 

There is no Scripture in the entire New Testament which suggests that Gentile Christians become "spiritual Jews" or "spiritual Israel." Such an idea begins quickly to confuse the hermeneutical principles concerning the dispensations, the covenants, and ethnic division. The logical outgrowth of this erroneous interpretation is to deny the nation of Israel any future in God's dealings and to reinterpret all the Old Testament prophecies having to do with Israel as referring in some spiritual way to the church. 

Actually, the Romans 2:28-29 passage reveals that physical ancestry alone is not enough to qualify one to be a true Jew (Israelite). Sincerity of heart must be coupled with physical descent. This is what is meant by Paul's statement in Romans 9:6: "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." In other words, not all who are physically descended from Israel are actually true Israelites. True Israelites are those who have both physical and spiritual descent.

This clarifies Paul's statement in Romans 11:26: "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. " This is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled in God's future dealings with Israel. It certainly does not mean that every physical descendant of Israel who has ever lived will be saved, nor even that all of them living at the time the prophecy is to be fulfilled will be saved. What it does mean is that all the physical descendants of Israel who are living at that time and who have a true heart after God, responding in faith to the Messiah, shall be saved. These will be those who, from faith, call on the name of the Lord; they are the remnant. (See Joel 2:32.) 

That God has always had a true remnant within the nation of Israel is evident. Asaph wrote, "Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart" (Psalm 73:1). The statement of God's goodness to Israel is qualified by the phrase "to such Various Uses of the Word "Jew" as are of a clean heart." Not all of national Israel could be described by these words. They were thus excluded from the blessing Asaph had in view. 

Paul said, "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16). The "Israel of God" in this New Testament sense refers to believing Israel, Jews who had embraced Jesus as their Messiah. No doubt Paul added this blessing in view of the nature of the Book of Galatians. In it he had dealt firmly with Judaizers, Jewish professing Christians who wanted to require Gentile believers to keep the Law of Moses as a condition of salvation. Paul's unequivocal rebuke of these erring Jews must have prompted him to wish to reassure the sincere Jewish believers of his love for them. 

In his letter to the church at Smyrna, the Lord Jesus said, "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9). This seems to be a similar statement to that made by Jesus in John 8, where He declared to Jews, Abraham's seed, "If God were your Father, ye would love me ... Ye are of your father the devil ... " (John 8:42, 44; See also vv. 31, 33, 37-41). 

A key, then, to understanding the implications of the word "Jew" is to closely examine the context. The following chart will illustrate this: 

Various Uses of the Word “Jew”

The tribe of Judah or the two tribes of the southern Kingdom—II Kings 16:6;25:25. 

The tribe of Benjamin—Esther 2:5. 

Hebrews and Hebrewesses—Jeremiah 34:9. 

Jesus, of the tribe of Judah--John 4:9. 

A sorcerer and false, prophet-Acts 13:6. 

Aquila-Acts 18:2.

Apollos-Acts 18:24. 

Sceva, a chief priest-Acts F 19:14. 

Paul, of the tribe of Benja min--Acts 21:39. 

As distinguished from Gentiles-Romans 1:16. 

The tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi-Ezra 4:12. 

All of the converts to Christianity prior to Acts 10 were Jewish, with the possible exception of some proselytes (Acts 2:10). These retained their Jewish identity. The Gentiles converted beginning with Acts 10 retained their Gentile identity. 

And yet Paul wrote that in Christ, there are no racial, social, or sexual barriers: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). 

Obviously Christianity does not erase sexual distinctions: men are still men and women remain women. Neither does it negate social status: those who were converted as bondmen remained bondmen; those who were freemen remained freemen (I Timothy 6:1-2; I Corinthians 7:20-24). It follows, therefore, that conversion does not erase the ethnic distinctions between Jews and Gentiles. Jews are physically still Jews; Gentiles are physically still Gentiles. 

The point of Paul's statement is that "in Christ Jesus" all are one. That is, the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile; the man has no advantage over the woman; the freeman has no advantage over the bondman. As someone said, "The ground is level at the foot of the cross." 

It is obvious, in certain cases, that both the terms "Jew" and "Gentile" carry negative connotations. In these cases, both terms refer to unregenerated members of both ethnic groups. For example, Paul wrote, "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands " (Ephesians 2:11). In Romans 2:24 he wrote, 'For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. " Again, in I Corinthians 10:20, Paul declared, "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. " In the same book, he said, "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led" (I Corinthians 12:2).

The word "Jew," or derivations of it, are used in the same sense, speaking of unregenerated members of the Jewish race. Paul, himself a Jew, warned Titus that he should "not give heed to Jewish fables, " an obvious reference to the Jewish oral traditions. (See Titus 1:14.) He also refers to Judaism, as distinguished from Christianity, as "the Jews' religion. " (See Galatians 1:13-14.) 

In I Corinthians 10:32, then, the term "Jew" refers to unregenerated members of the Jewish nation. The term "Gentiles" refers to the unregenerated members of all nations other than the Jewish nation. The term "the church of God" refers to all who by one Spirit have been baptized into the one Body of Christ, regardless of their ethnic background, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. (See I Corinthians 12:13.) This was the mystery discussed by Paul in Ephesians 3:2-6. 

The mystery in the Old Testament was never that Gentiles would One day come to the Messiah through the redeemed nation of Israel. The mystery was that in Christ the ethnic distinctions would be dissolved an both the both the Jew and Gentile would be “of the same body" and "fellow-heirs." 

In the future dealings of God with the nation Israel, Gentiles will come to the Messiah through the redeemed nation. (See, for example, Revelation 7:4-14 and Isaiah 60:3.) But this will be separate and distinct from the church, in which Jew and Gentile stand on equal footing. Though the Gentiles will have opportunity for redemption, the nation of Israel will still retain distinct privileges and status. The barrier between Jew and Gentile will not fall. 

There is no clearer explanation of the oneness of Jew and Gentile in the church than that found in Ephesians 2:11-19. Notice carefully what is and what is not said in this passage. 

What is not said: 

*That Gentiles are "spiritual Jews." 

*That Gentiles are now part of the commonwealth of Israel. 

*That Gentiles are now partakers of the covenants of promise (those with eschatological implications). 

What is said: 

*That Gentiles are now "made one day come to the Messiah nigh" by the blood of Christ. 

*That the "middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile is broken down (an obvious reference to the wall that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the areas of the temple reserved for the Jews. But the breaking down of this wall did not make the Gentiles into Jews any more than it made the Jews into Gentiles).

*That the "law of commandments contained in ordinances" was abolished (an obvious reference to the ceremonial law, which was distinctively Jewish and included all non-moral commandments given uniquely to Israel, and which were predictive in nature of the coming Messiah). 

*That in Christ both Jew and Gentile are made "one new man." 

*Both Jew and Gentile are reconciled to God by the cross. 

*Both Jew and Gentile have access to the Father by the same Spirit. 

*Gentiles are no more strangers and foreigners. 

*Gentiles are fellow citizens with the saints. 

*Gentiles are members of the household of God. 

While a quick reading of this passage might seem to suggest that believing Gentiles have become part of national Israel, a careful study will reveal this is not the case. The most accurate Scriptural statement which can be made is not that believing Gentiles become "spiritual Jews" (a term that appears nowhere in Scripture), but that believing Jews and Gentiles together are made "one new man," and a new man that is, spiritually, neither Jew nor Gentile. (See Galatians 3:28.) 

The proper use of the truth seen in I Corinthians 10:32 will determine whether any specific Scriptural passages is to or about Jews, as a nation, or Gentiles (sometimes called "heathen" or "the nations"), or the church. If the passage concerns the nation of Israel, it should not be interpreted as referring to the church. If it refers to the church, it should not be interpreted as referring to the nation of Israel. 

Obviously, if it refers to the heathen nations, it should be interpreted neither as having to do with the nation of Israel nor the church. Nor should statements referring to the church be interpreted as referring to unregenerated peoples, whether Jewish or Gentile. 

Dr. Daniel L. Segraves.

M.A. in Exegetical Theology, Western Seminary (1993)
Th.M., Western Seminary (2003)
Ph.D., Regent University (ABD)

THE ABOVE MATERIAL WAS PUBLISHED BY THE APOSTOLIC STANDARED, DECEMBER 2002, VOLUME 35, NUMBER 12, PAGES 4-8. THIS MATERIAL IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY BE USED FOR STUDY & RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY.

Thoughts on John 17:5 by Dr. Daniel L. Segraves

In His prayer just before He was betrayed and arrested in Gethsemane, Jesus said, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). Do these words prove that the Son was eternally a divine person distinct from the Father?

When we consider the prayers of Jesus, we must keep in mind that His prayers are unique to the Incarnation. What this means is that we have no biblical record of the Son praying to the Father prior to the Incarnation. Although some prayers of the Messiah are recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures and specifically in the Psalms, these prayers form part of the prophetic content of the Old Testament. In other words, they do not reflect prayers that had been prayed before the text was written, nor do they provide the content of prayers being prayed at the time they were written. Instead, they are prophecies of prayers the Messiah would pray when He came into the world. For example, the words of a messianic prayer are recorded in Psalm 40:6-8a: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. Then I said, ‘Behold, I come; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Your will, O my God.’” The writer of Hebrews recorded this prayer, which Jesus prayed “when He came into the world” (Hebrews 10:5). The point is that the words of the prayer were first written by David, a prophet,[1] but they were not actually prayed until Jesus came into the world as God manifest in human existence.[2]

Another example is found in Hebrews 1:6. This demonstrates that not only the prayers of Jesus, but also the words of the Father concerning the Son as they are found in the Old Testament are prophetic. According to Hebrews 1:6, God said, “Let all the angels of God worship Him [the Son[3]].”[4] But these words were not spoken by God prior to the Incarnation; they were spoken “when He again brings the firstborn into the world” (Hebrews 1:6).

John 17:5, like all of Jesus’ prayers, must be read in the context of the Incarnation. It must be taken into account that Jesus was at once both God and man. The deity and humanity of Jesus cannot be divided and considered in isolation from each other. Everything that Jesus did and said He did and said as who He was, God manifest in genuine and full human existence. Thus, when Jesus referred to “the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” these words refer to the glory that He had with His Father not as a distinct person in the Godhead, but to the glory that He had as God manifest in the flesh [human existence]. Since the Incarnation had not yet occurred before the world was, this was an anticipatory glory that was a reality to the extent that it existed already in the mind of God even though it had not yet occurred in time. This is much like John’s description of the Messiah as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). Although the word translated “slain” (esphagmenou) is a perfect passive participle, indicating that the slaying occurred in the past, Bible readers instinctively understand that this does not mean that Jesus was crucified at the time the world was created, but that His crucifixion was anticipated in the mind of God.

If Jesus’ words in John 17:5 do not take into account His humanity, that is, if they do not reflect the reality of the Incarnation, we are left with a Nestorian Jesus whose deity and humanity were not integrated in one person, but who could at one moment speak and act as a mere man with no regard for his deity and who could at the next moment speak and act as God with no regard for His humanity. In other words, when Jesus said, “I,” He referred to Himself as He really was: both God and man or the God-man. Jesus never said “I” to refer exclusively to His deity or to His humanity. In the Incarnation humanity was incorporated into the Godhead and everything Jesus said and did reflected this reality. As it has been said, we are body and soul, but Jesus is God and body and soul.

From the standpoint of Christology, what we have said here reflects the broad teaching of both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. But now we must consider whether John 17:5 can be read in a way that does not conflict with the integrity of Christ’s person.

First, even before examining the Greek text, we should ask, If Jesus was truly God, what need did He have of prayer? To some, the prayers of Jesus prove that He was not God. To others, the fact that He was God proves that His prayers were merely meant to be an example to us. But I think it is safe to say that most who believe in both the deity and humanity of Christ also believe that the prayers of Jesus were genuine and that they reflect the fact that Jesus was not only God but also man. It was not because He was God that Jesus needed to pray; it is because He was also human. In other words, Jesus prayed for the same reason we do; human beings need to pray. The fact that He was a human being in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily[5] does not detract from the authenticity of His humanity. It did not render it unnecessary for Jesus to eat, sleep, or to participate in the full range of human activities. Neither did it render it unnecessary for Him to pray. This is bound up in the miracle of the Incarnation, and human attempts to explain this mystery will always fail. Miracles must be accepted for what they are; they lie completely outside the range of human understanding or explanation.

There are two words in the Greek text of John 17:5 that some insist prove that Jesus is distinct from the Father as the eternal Son. The first is eichon, translated “I had.” Since eichon is in the imperfect tense, active voice, and indicative mood (literally, “I was having”), and since the active voice means that it is the subject that is acting (in this case, Jesus), and since the indicative mood confirms the reality of the action from the viewpoint of the speaker,[6] it is claimed that this means that Jesus pre-existed the Incarnation as the eternal Son. Since He is the “doer” of the “having,” and since this was before the world was, then the Son must have possessed glory with the Father before the world was as an actual person distinct from the Father.

But if Jesus, who was both God and man, possessed glory with the Father before the world was – and He certainly did, as indicated in John 17:5 – He possessed it as who He was at the moment of His prayer: God manifest in flesh. Jesus could no more pray from the perspective of His deity while ignoring His humanity than we could pray from the perspective of the material part of our existence while ignoring the immaterial. No analogy is sufficient to explain a miracle, but Jesus cannot be bifurcated so that either His deity or humanity is irrelevant to any of His words or deeds. If before the creation of the world Jesus possessed glory with the Father as it relates to His deity, He also possessed glory with the Father at the same time as it relates to His humanity. Few would suggest that Jesus’ humanity pre-existed the Incarnation!

Those who wish to point to the imperfect active indicative form of eichon in John 17:5 to prove the eternality of the Son are reading more into the imperfect tense than is there. Although the imperfect tense expresses continuous action in the past, it says nothing about the origin or termination of the action or about how long the action continued. In other words, the imperfect tense is not an “eternal” tense. Although it does not specify the origin or termination of the action, it describes ongoing action that does indeed have a point of origin; that point is simply not within the scope of the imperfect tense. In this case, Jesus was having glory with the Father before the world was. The imperfect tense does not inform us about the beginning or duration of the possession of this glory.

To say that the imperfect tense indicates continuous action in the past is an incomplete description of its function. The imperfect may be descriptive, in that it vividly presents what was going on in the past. Like a motion picture, it shows the movement of an event. Nothing about this use of the imperfect addresses origin, ending, or even the idea of the lack of an origin or ending. On the other hand, the imperfect may be iterative, showing continual or repeated action in the past. In this case, the action occurs again and again. Then, the imperfect may be inceptive, emphasizing the beginning of the action rather than its progress.[7]

As far as the use of the imperfect is concerned, all that John 17:5 tells us is that at some point in the past, and specifically before the world was, Jesus was having glory with the Father. The verse does not tell us how long He had this glory, nor does it tell us whether He still had this glory after the creation of the world, although it may imply that He did not. Jesus did not say He was having this glory before the Incarnation. If He had said this, we could assume that the Incarnation was the reason He no longer had this glory.[8] But if the Incarnation was the reason Jesus no longer had this glory, how could the glory be restored to Him as long as the Incarnation endured (i.e., forever)?

It seems much more satisfying to understand Jesus to refer to the glory that belonged to Him in anticipation of the full range of His incarnational experiences, including not only His manifestation in the flesh, but also His death, burial, and resurrection. As Paul wrote, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead.[9] If the glory for which Jesus prayed involved both His deity and humanity, His prior possession of this glory also involved both His deity and humanity, or it would not have been the same glory.

In what sense did Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, possess glory with the Father before the world was? The answer to this question may be found in the possible range of meaning in the words para soi, commonly translated “with thee.” The preposition para, when used in the dative case, includes the meanings “with” or “beside,” with position implied.[10] But this does not begin to exhaust the range of meaning possible with para in the dative case. Indeed, a red flag goes up immediately with the idea of physical position being indicated in Jesus’ prayer, whether one embraces a trinitarian or oneness view of God. It is widely understood that it is inadequate to think in terms of physical location or position when one thinks of God. For example, biblical scholars commonly explain references to the “right hand of God” in metaphorical terms. F. F. Bruce, for instance, comments on Hebrews 1:3:

That no literal location is intended was as well understood by Christians in the apostolic age as it is by us: they knew that God has no physical right hand or material throne where the ascended Christ sits beside Him; to them the language denoted the exaltation and supremacy of Christ as it does to us.[11]

To insist that we read para soi with its simplest and limited reference to position is to impose a literally materialistic meaning on the text. When we talk about God – again, from either a trinitarian or oneness point of view – in what sense could it be said that the Son was positioned with or beside the Father before the world was? If we go down this road, we shall soon embrace ditheism or tritheism.

But this choice is not necessary. Para, when used in the dative case, has a wider range of meaning than merely “with” or “beside.” As the Louw-Nida Lexicon points out, para with the dative includes within its range of meaning “in the opinion of,” from the viewpoint of a participant, marking a participant whose viewpoint is relevant to an event. Thus, para can be translated “in the sight of, in the opinion of, in the judgment of.”[12] Certainly Jesus, who understood more clearly than anyone that God is Spirit, did not mean by para soi that the Father has a physical location and that He, Jesus, was positioned beside the Father in that location before the world was. But nothing would prevent the translation “the glory which I had in Your sight” or “in Your opinion,” or “in Your judgment” before the world was. This avoids the problem of physical location within the Godhead and captures the essence of the same idea as Revelation 13:8. Jesus was with the Father before the world was in the same sense that He was slain from the foundation of the world. The slaying of Jesus required the Incarnation. The Incarnation did not occur in time and space until a specific date on the calendar. Yet John declared that the Lamb was slain long before this specific date. Indeed, the New Living Translation renders Revelation 13:8: “And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life, which belongs to the Lamb who was killed before the world was made.” If Jesus, the Lamb, could be killed before the world was made, He could also have glory with the Father before the world was. The one requires the other.

Jesus could say He “was having” this glory in the past just as surely as John could say He was slain in the past. That which exists in the mind of God is reality just as surely that which exists in the material world. The Lord knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah was formed in the womb (Jeremiah 1:5). He declared Cyrus to be His servant over a century before Cyrus was born (Isaiah 44:28; 45:1). He renamed Abram (high father) Abraham (father of many) before Abraham had even one descendant. God can do this because he “gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did” (Romans 4:17). Jesus Himself is God. Therefore, He can say, “And now, O Father, glorify me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” But because He is God manifest in human existence, this prayer must be read in the context of His manifestation in the flesh. He had this glory as God manifest in the flesh. Since this did not come into existence in time and space until the Incarnation, it was an anticipated, prophetic glory, no less real than it would be when the anticipation was fulfilled.

If we read the text any other way, we are at best embracing a Nestorian Christology. At worst, we are forsaking the biblical witness to the one God in favor of a materialistic ditheism or tritheism.
When miracles are involved—like the Incarnation—rationalistic explanations can only lead us astray.

 

Dr. Segraves is Academic Dean and Assistant Professor of Biblical Theology at Urshan Graduate School of Theology (Florissant, MO) and Professor Emeritus at Christian Life College (Stockton, CA). After graduating from Western Apostolic Bible College and Gateway College of Evangelism, I earned the M.A. in Exegetical Theology (with highest honors) and the Th.M. (with honors) from Western Seminary. I am currently in ABD (all but dissertation) status for the Ph.D. in Renewal Studies at Regent University School of Divinity.

 

Notes
[1] See Acts 2:30.
[2] I Timothy 3:16.
[3] See Hebrews 1:2.
[4] This quote is from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:43.
[5] Colossians 2:9.
[6] See Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1995), 11-12.
[7] See Summers, 57.
[8] See Philippians 2:5-11.
[9] Romans 1:4.
[10] To say that para is in the dative case here reflects the five case system. In terms of the eight case system, the meanings “with” and “beside” reflect the locative case.
[11] F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 7.
[12] See Louw-Nida Lexicon, Domain List 90, E, 90.20. BibleWorks 4.