Page 84 - BV13

Evangelical Protestants can be as much servants of tradition as Roman Catholic or Greek
Orthodox Christians; only they do not realize that it is 'tradition.' People who adhere to
sola scriptura (as they believe) often adhere in fact to a traditional school of interpretation
of sola scriptura (from correspondence, June 13, 1981).

An effective way to study this important issue regarding the identity of Jesus is to start with
the Old Testament. What sort of picture is built up by the prophecies? Was the Son to be born to
Israel as Prince of Peace really at the same time "the Mighty God" of Israel (the Hebrew does not
say the Mighty God, but a mighty divine person. The word el (God) does not necessarily point to
the One God of Israel. It can have a secondary meaning as human "gods"), or was he "a mighty
hero or divine hero reflecting the divine majesty" of his Father, the One God? (See the standard
Lexicon of Biblical Hebrew by Brown, Driver and Briggs, p. 42).

Was the baby to be born in Bethlehem, foreseen by the prophet Micah (5:2) eight hundred
years before his birth, already alive as an uncreated "second member of a Trinity, fully God and
without beginning"? Or was it rather that the origins of that coming Son/Messiah were revealed
"from ancient times"? The KJV "from everlasting" (in Micah 5:2) is a mistranslation forcing on the
reader the ideas of later dogma. Modern translations have happily corrected the misunderstanding
perpetuated by the KJV. The Messiah's origins, from the family of David, were known "from an-
cient days." But Micah did not say that the Son was already in existence. Peter taught that the Mes-
siah was "foreknown" from the beginning, that is, destined and foreordained, but not actually yet in
existence (I Peter 1:20, and note that Christians are also chosen in accordance with the foreknowl-
edge of God, I Peter 1:3). Paul likewise believed that Christ and Christians were chosen before
the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4). The Bible also teaches us to think of the crucifixion of
Jesus as having happened before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8, NIV). All this
points to God's predetermined counsel. Jesus, the Son, is the final expression of God's grand inten-
tion for the human race.

In the New Testament Jesus the Son of God is the "image of God." The image is the visible
reflection of the invisible God (John 1:18). It is little more than popular fiction to suppose that the
Son of God was active and vocal in Old Testament times. Hebrews 1:1-2 should correct the notion
that the Son was alive, active and speaking for God, long before he came into existence (Luke
1:35; Matthew 1:18, 20). The fact is that "God spoke in the past in different ways and at different
times in the prophets but in these last days has spoken in a Son" (Hebrews 1:1, 2).

It is to contradict the New Testament to maintain that the Old Testament "angel of the Lord"
was really the Son of God, mysteriously appearing in advance of his birth. The angel of the Lord
was an angel (and Jesus was never an angel as Hebrews 1 makes very clear). The angel was cer-
tainly not identified as the Messiah. Stephen did not hint at any such idea in Acts 7:30, 35. His in-
spired testimony is to the effect that it was an angel who appeared to Moses. In Judges 16:13 the
angel of the Lord refused worship in the form of sacrifice and is clearly distinguished from the
Lord God.

Hebrews 1:1-2 lays out God's timetable and confirms that He did not speak His ultimate
word until He sent His ultimate messenger, agent and prophet, His unique Son, the Messiah. He-
brews 1:1-2 is contradicted by the idea that God in fact spoke through the Son during the Old

84