honoring the jewish

[carol-ann]

can i ask a stupid question.why dont people spell out god to the israelis.i read a post on another site the person said he would honor the jewish by not spelling it out.abit thick you see,i dont see the harm.

[micah719]

It's because they perverted and misused the 3rd commandment....it says not to use the Name of the Lord in vain...they used to know the Lord's Name YHVH, how it is pronounced....but they got so legalistic about it that they prohibited the use of His Name at all....so that's why nobody knows how YHVH is pronounced (in English we guess and say Yahweh, but nobody can be sure), and also why the Jews write G-d rather than God. Not to worry, one day soon they will recognise Him Whom they pierced, and call Him Yeshua, or in Greek, Jesus. Best of all and most wonderful, Abba.....Daddy. Awesome...

[Obadiah]

It's because they perverted and misused the 3rd commandment... and also why the Jews write G-d rather than God.

Actually, that's not why they write G-d rather than God. Here's an explanation, directed specifically at this misobservation, from Judaism 101:

Jews do not casually write any Name of God. This practice does not come from the commandment not to take the Lord's Name in vain, as many suppose. In Jewish thought, that commandment refers solely to oath-taking, and is a prohibition against swearing by God's Name falsely or frivolously (the word normally translated as "in vain" literally means "for falsehood").
Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in newsgroup messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.
Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God."

Not to worry, one day soon they will recognise Him Whom they pierced, and call Him Yeshua, or in Greek, Jesus. Best of all and most wonderful, Abba.....Daddy. Awesome

Why would they call Jesus Abba when Jesus is the Son, not the Father, and Jesus Himself calls the Father Abba (Mark 14:36)?

[micah719]

Thanks very much Obadiah, I stand corrected.

Please see Isaiah 9:6 for the explanation of why we call Jesus Abba. Hints....when did the lawgiver and sceptre depart? When were the 69 weeks of Daniel up? Who came riding on a donkey that day, lowly and humble? The very Same that will return in Isaiah 63, your King coming to save you. Also, see John 14 and see His reply to Philip's request to show him the Father...and may the Lord our God reveal the mystery of Jesus Christ to you. He did say that He would reveal Himself to those who seek and require Him...

[carol-ann]

thanks,folks.now i know

[Obadiah]

Please see Isaiah 9:6 for the explanation of why we call Jesus Abba. Hints....when did the lawgiver and sceptre depart? When were the 69 weeks of Daniel up? Who came riding on a donkey that day, lowly and humble? The very Same that will return in Isaiah 63, your King coming to save you. Also, see John 14 and see His reply to Philip's request to show him the Father...and may the Lord our God reveal the mystery of Jesus Christ to you. He did say that He would reveal Himself to those who seek and require Him...

In Isaiah 9:6 I take the relevant phrase as 'father of eternity' (as a reference to Christ as the source of all things, the Creator) rather than as 'eternal father' since nowhere else in Scripture is He called the Father and it simply makes no sense to me that He could be both Father and Son.

You'll have to be more explicit on how Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 63:1-6 and Daniel 9:24-27 intimate a fatherhood for Christ. The word "father" doesn't even occur in any of those texts.

In John 14, Jesus says that those who have seen Him have seen the Father. That doesn't mean He is the Father, but that He is the perfect expression of the Father (Hebrews 1:3-4). Throughout the gospel of John Jesus emphasizes His unique relationship with the Father. He says "the Father is in Me and I am in the Father;" He says "I and the Father are one." He does not say "I am the Father" or "the Father is Me."

Truly the mystery of Christ, who is fully God and fully man, is awesome. But nowhere in that mystery is it true that the Son is the Father or that the Father is the Son.

[mattfivefour]

In Isaiah 9:6 I take the relevant phrase as 'father of eternity' (as a reference to Christ as the source of all things, the Creator) rather than as 'eternal father' ..."

Your interpretation is certainly supportable by the original text. But so is the other. The Hebrew is אֲבִיעַ֖ד, "father/founder of eternity". (Why they compounded the two words into one is questionable), but the order of the nouns indicates that "father" is to be read as the substantive and "eternity" as the attributive. Therefore "eternal Father" would be quite acceptable. Yet the Hebrew scholars who translated it into Greek (Septuagint) used πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλαντος αιὼνος, "the father of the yet to come ages". Still their translation is often questionable, according to modern scholars, often being an interpretation rather than a translation. However Jerome in his Vulgate translation also renders it in similar fashion, as Pater futuri saeculi, "Father of the future ages/generations". And that is where the KJV's "Everlasting Father" came from since the translators of that version made heavy use of both the Geneva bible and the Vulgate.

Ultimately, though, it is a debatable point whether the original should be understood as Messiah being the eternal Father or Messiah being the Father of the ages, or generations, to come. Theologically, it is an important issue. Practically—by which I mean in terms of practical doctrine—it is immaterial. I do not understand how the Son could also be the Father. It confuses me. But then I do not understand how God can be three persons but one God, either. That also confuses me. Therefore, following the advice of 2 Corinthians 10:5, I spend no effort attempting to understand. God will reveal it to me should it become important in my life or my ministry. Until such time—should it ever come to be—it remains something of no importance in my life and I refuse to concern myself with it.

In the matter of Jesus being referred to as Father, it is by no means irrefutable that Jesus is NOT referred to as Father (to use a double negative to make the point) in Isaiah. Our brother micah makes a point of calling on Isaiah 63:1-6 in partial support of his view. He is incorrect only insofar as he typed the reference. What he meant to type was Isaiah 63:16. This verse clearly speaks of Jehovah (whom we know to be Jesus) and refers to him as being our "father".

I think it is very important on this forum (indeed in Christian life) that—while it is always informative to partake in topics—if we decide to take issue with someone on a specific it should be a specific that is relevant to our Christian walk and the truth of Jesus Christ. After all, we are called to build one another up in our faith. And to those of us to whom God may have given some knowledge, He gave it not so we may speak from some supposedly superior position nor to castigate the ones who may speak in what we assume to be error, but rather that we may speak as helpers called alongside to help, and to gently—and I stress gently—instruct them in the meaning of some particular of God's Word.

And we need always to be mindful that what we learn of His Word and break to others is only correct in as much as the Holy Spirit has revealed it to us. I have found that the product of human knowledge and studying often leads us to conclusions that are imperfect. Only when God Himself enlightens something to us that touches us deeply in our spirit do we have something that is truth and able to minister to others ... not knowledge, but the very food of spiritual life. In the meantime when we make plain declaratives God will down the road declare His truth in a way that declares our truth to be deficient.

(To carol-anne's original question: Obadiah is correct in the putative reason why some (many?) Jews do not write out the word "God". Note I did not say all. There are respected and authoritative Rabbis, past and present, who write "God" while others write "G-d". The only proscriptive for which I can find universal support is the one against use of the Tetragrammaton—JHVH—which we usually pronounce either as Jehovah or Jahweh. The rest is legalism taken ad absurdum, which is always man's fleshly way. Nevertheless the Jewish proscriptive—and this will give support to Micah's original belief—all stems from the overwhelming respect and fear of God and the sanctity of everything associated with Him, especially His name. And here the first and third commandments indeed have a bearing. The association of the God's name with His holiness is all throughout the Old Testament and, for that matter, the New Testament as well. Indeed, His name IS Holy!)

Hope this helps.

[micah719]

Great thread so far....very instructive.

John 1....Who is the creator? Jesus.

What did Thomas call Him when he saw Him in the upper room with the deadly wounds on His resurrected body?

Whom did Stephen see when he was about to be stoned...and to Whom did he commit his spirit? Jesus.

Jesus said Abraham saw His day and was delighted....Jesus said I AM, and more than once....even before the Sanhedrin, who instantly understood Who this referred to and, rejecting Him, sent Him for crucifixion, and later stirred up the people to reject Him and call for His death even against the judgement of Pilate. Read about Moses and the burning bush....the Lord revealed His Name as I AM.

Look again at Isaiah 9, and look further back at what the Lord said to Gideon when he asked His Name.

Look in Zecheriah 12, Revelation 1, John 19...Who was pierced?

So, the thread started with a question about a legalism that alienates the very One Who reveals Himself to those who humble themselves and seek Him with all their heart. But I can tell you sincerely, if He hadn't come looking for me first, I'd have kept hiding and running in my darkness.....whatever He said to me got my attention, just like old Moses and the bush that burned but didn't get consumed. And the same way He went looking for Adam and Eve when they rebelled...He could have just destroyed the rebels, but He went to look for them to save them, knowing what it would cost Him. That is the whole basis of my being and worth: He made me, He has had mercy and grace upon me, He loves me and paid for me, freely....this is shattering.

Ok, the mystery of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is indeed awesome and completely floors me. The Creator, Ruler, Judge and Saviour of the Universe died on the cross so that even my sins are atoned for, and rose from the dead so that I could have life. This makes Jesus intensely personal to me, especially when I consider other things like His promised presence...He is here right now, always. He knew from the beginning everything about me...and still chose to save me because He loves me. That shakes me to to the core. The best thing is, He is coming back THE SAME WAY HE WENT UP....not as an indistinguishable man, a humble servant hated and despised by His own creation, dying on a cross, and certainly not as another man sitting in the 3rd Temple declaring he has "achieved" Godhood....The Lord, He is coming back in POWER and GLORY on the clouds of Heaven, the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel, and His own will weep and mourn, but all whose names are not blotted out of the Book of Life will be saved. First He comes to the lower atmosphere, the air, to take us up to Him for the wedding. Just like He promised. Don't take my puny word for it, search the Scriptures, they testify of Him.

[Obadiah]

mattfivefour:

Your interpretation is certainly supportable by the original text. But so is the other.

I agree that my take is not the only viable way to understand the verse. I didn't think I had implied otherwise.

The Hebrew is אֲבִיעַ֖ד, "father/founder of eternity". (Why they compounded the two words into one is questionable), but the order of the nouns indicates that "father" is to be read as the substantive and "eternity" as the attributive. Therefore "eternal Father" would be quite acceptable.

The use of the סמיכות (construct chain) is quite varied; I don't think it's possible to make such a hard and fast rule. The "word of God" is not the godly word but the word which comes forth form God. חמס ידיכם ('the violence of your hands' in Psalm 58:2[3]) is the violence perpetrated by your hands, while חמס אחיך ('the violence of your brother' in Obadiah 10) is the violence perpetrated against your brother.

Yet the Hebrew scholars who translated it into Greek (Septuagint) used πατὴρ τοῦ μέλλαντος αιὼνος, "the father of the yet to come ages".

What edition of LXX are you reading? Both my printed edition and one I checked online read:
οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου η αρχη εγενηθη επι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος εγω γαρ αξω ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας ειρηνην και υγιειαν αυτω
("For a child was born to us, a son also given to us, on whose shoulder was the rule. And his name is called Angel of Great Counsel. For I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him.")

Still their translation is often questionable, according to modern scholars, often being an interpretation rather than a translation. However Jerome in his Vulgate translation also renders it in similar fashion, as Pater futuri saeculi, "Father of the future ages/generations". And that is where the KJV's "Everlasting Father" came from since the translators of that version made heavy use of both the Geneva bible and the Vulgate.

It seems odd that KJV would get "everlasting father" out of pater futuri saeculi. I'd guess they were going directly from אביעד. But it's an incredibly minor point.

Ultimately, though, it is a debatable point whether the original should be understood as Messiah being the eternal Father or Messiah being the Father of the ages, or generations, to come. Theologically, it is an important issue. Practically—by which I mean in terms of practical doctrine—it is immaterial. I do not understand how the Son could also be the Father. It confuses me. But then I do not understand how God can be three persons but one God, either. That also confuses me. Therefore, following the advice of 2 Corinthians 10:5, I spend no effort attempting to understand. God will reveal it to me should it become important in my life or my ministry. Until such time—should it ever come to be—it remains something of no importance in my life and I refuse to concern myself with it.

Can't really figure out how you're applying 2 Corinthians 10:5 here. I don't share your perspective that knowledge of particular Scripture is unimportant unless there's a specific application for which it's immediately needful. Proverbs advises us to acquire wisdom; I've always understood that to the effect that wisdom should reside in our hearts for future as well as present use.

In the matter of Jesus being referred to as Father, it is by no means irrefutable that Jesus is NOT referred to as Father (to use a double negative to make the point) in Isaiah. Our brother micah makes a point of calling on Isaiah 63:1-6 in partial support of his view. He is incorrect only insofar as he typed the reference. What he meant to type was Isaiah 63:16. This verse clearly speaks of Jehovah (whom we know to be Jesus) and refers to him as being our "father".

Actually, the specific reference to vv.1-6 is mine, not Micah's. He alluded to verse 1. I don't think he had v.16 in mind, but I'll let him speak for himself.

As for the identification of יהוה with Jesus: I believe that's a complex and truly mystical subject. I think it falls far short of the issue to simply say "Jehovah is Jesus." I have no more analytical understanding of the Trinity than you do -- and I'm fine with that; as one rabbi famously said, "That's such a wonderful question! Why trade it for an answer?" -- but to derive from the identity of יהוה throughout Scripture as Father that Jesus the Son is also Father is, I believe, entirely beyond what's sustainable biblically.

I think it is very important on this forum (indeed in Christian life) that—while it is always informative to partake in topics—if we decide to take issue with someone on a specific it should be a specific that is relevant to our Christian walk and the truth of Jesus Christ. After all, we are called to build one another up in our faith. And to those of us to whom God may have given some knowledge, He gave it not so we may speak from some supposedly superior position nor to castigate the ones who may speak in what we assume to be error, but rather that we may speak as helpers called alongside to help, and to gently—and I stress gently—instruct them in the meaning of some particular of God's Word.

I agree wholeheartedly with your description of the spirit in which God would have us address issues. I truly hope that my earlier post did not come across as coming from "some supposedly superior position" or as meant "to castigate the ones who may speak in what we assume to be error" -- that's not at all the spirit in which I intended it.

micah719:

So, the thread started with a question about a legalism that alienates the very One Who reveals Himself to those who humble themselves and seek Him with all their heart. But I can tell you sincerely, if He hadn't come looking for me first, I'd have kept hiding and running in my darkness.....whatever He said to me got my attention, just like old Moses and the bush that burned but didn't get consumed. And the same way He went looking for Adam and Eve when they rebelled...He could have just destroyed the rebels, but He went to look for them to save them, knowing what it would cost Him. That is the whole basis of my being and worth: He made me, He has had mercy and grace upon me, He loves me and paid for me, freely....this is shattering.

Ok, the mystery of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is indeed awesome and completely floors me. The Creator, Ruler, Judge and Saviour of the Universe died on the cross so that even my sins are atoned for, and rose from the dead so that I could have life. This makes Jesus intensely personal to me, especially when I consider other things like His promised presence...He is here right now, always. He knew from the beginning everything about me...and still chose to save me because He loves me. That shakes me to to the core. The best thing is, He is coming back THE SAME WAY HE WENT UP....not as an indistinguishable man, a humble servant hated and despised by His own creation, dying on a cross, and certainly not as another man sitting in the 3rd Temple declaring he has "achieved" Godhood....The Lord, He is coming back in POWER and GLORY on the clouds of Heaven, the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel, and His own will weep and mourn, but all whose names are not blotted out of the Book of Life will be saved. First He comes to the lower atmosphere, the air, to take us up to Him for the wedding. Just like He promised. Don't take my puny word for it, search the Scriptures, they testify of Him.

Wonderful description of our awesome Lord and Savior!

[micah719]

And whatever I understand of Him is but a blurry shadow of the reality....we who belong to Him are in for an intensely peasurable surprise beyond our imaginations or powers of description, as He is.

Btw, how come you're using LXX and Vulgate? Surely Masoretic and Textus Receptus are the cleaner line....anything the RCC have touched and rely on is suspect, and the LXX has its own problems. I think it was Chris that had a chart showing the translation history?

[Obadiah]

Micah:

My reference to the Vulgate (in response to M54's reference) is purely academic. I think it's rarely useful for textual criticism purposes. For the OT I use MT as a base, bringing in LXX, alternative Hebrew readings (Qumran, primarily) and the occasional carefully considered emendation when MT is overly problematic. For the NT I've long subscribed to the Majority Text approach rather than TR or Alexandrian, but recently I find myself facing more and more difficulties with MajT.

[mattfivefour]

Thank you so much for your lengthy and thoughtful reply, bro. A couple of points:

I agree that my take is not the only viable way to understand the verse. I didn't think I had implied otherwise.

Perhaps that was only my inference, but it read as though you had. I apologize.

The use of the סמיכות (construct chain) is quite varied; I don't think it's possible to make such a hard and fast rule. The "word of God" is not the godly word but the word which comes forth form God. חמס ידיכם ('the violence of your hands' in Psalm 58:2[3]) is the violence perpetrated by your hands, while חמס אחיך ('the violence of your brother' in Obadiah 10) is the violence perpetrated against your brother.

I think the rule is valid in the general, but I agree that, with Hebrew, it is often difficult to make hard and fast rules. The language is very poetic, but also can be very imprecise.

What edition of LXX are you reading? Both my printed edition and one I checked online read:
οτι παιδιον εγεννηθη ημιν υιος και εδοθη ημιν ου η αρχη εγενηθη επι του ωμου αυτου και καλειται το ονομα αυτου μεγαλης βουλης αγγελος εγω γαρ αξω ειρηνην επι τους αρχοντας ειρηνην και υγιειαν αυτω
("For a child was born to us, a son also given to us, on whose shoulder was the rule. And his name is called Angel of Great Counsel. For I will bring peace upon the rulers and health to him.")

Apostolic Polyglot. I don't like Thomson or Brenton.

It seems odd that KJV would get "everlasting father" out of pater futuri saeculi. I'd guess they were going directly from אביעד. But it's an incredibly minor point.

I agree.

Can't really figure out how you're applying 2 Corinthians 10:5 here. I don't share your perspective that knowledge of particular Scripture is unimportant unless there's a specific application for which it's immediately needful. Proverbs advises us to acquire wisdom; I've always understood that to the effect that wisdom should reside in our hearts for future as well as present use

."Demolishing (human) reasonings ... taking every thought captive to the knowledge of God." God has given us His Word by which, through prayerful reading and study, He reveals Himself. But the true revelation of God comes experientially as He, from time to time, enlightens a portion and makes it real in our lives. The errors in the Christian church I would suggest come more from theologians over-thinking the texts and attempting purely through intellectual means to come to a more perfect knowledge of God. I fear that from the evidence supplied by their conclusions that they have sadly become "wise in their own conceits." There is a reason Paul pointed out that "not many wise" come to Christ. The church world is full of people who have some intellectual apprehension of the person of Christ, but do not know Him. Indeed, as you say, "wisdom should reside in our hearts for future as well as present use." But it needs to be the wisdom given by God, not the wisdom derived from man's intellect. There is too much of the latter and too little of the former in theological circles and, more importantly, in the pulpit as well.

Actually, the specific reference to vv.1-6 is mine, not Micah's. He alluded to verse 1. I don't think he had v.16 in mind, but I'll let him speak for himself.

Sorry. I went from your response and thought you were quoting micah exactly.

As for the identification of יהוה with Jesus: I believe that's a complex and truly mystical subject. I think it falls far short of the issue to simply say "Jehovah is Jesus."

Surely you are not suggesting that He is not?

I have no more analytical understanding of the Trinity than you do -- and I'm fine with that; as one rabbi famously said, "That's such a wonderful question! Why trade it for an answer?"

I love the quote. I've never run across it before; but it certainly has the right tone for a rabbi to have said it.

-- but to derive from the identity of יהוה throughout Scripture as Father that Jesus the Son is also Father is, I believe, entirely beyond what's sustainable biblically.

I agree. Yet there is sufficient to perhaps not allow us to deny it completely, either. Just one of the many "hidden things" of God.

micah719:

So, the thread started with a question about a legalism that alienates the very One Who reveals Himself to those who humble themselves and seek Him with all their heart. But I can tell you sincerely, if He hadn't come looking for me first, I'd have kept hiding and running in my darkness.....whatever He said to me got my attention, just like old Moses and the bush that burned but didn't get consumed. And the same way He went looking for Adam and Eve when they rebelled...He could have just destroyed the rebels, but He went to look for them to save them, knowing what it would cost Him. That is the whole basis of my being and worth: He made me, He has had mercy and grace upon me, He loves me and paid for me, freely....this is shattering.

Ok, the mystery of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is indeed awesome and completely floors me. The Creator, Ruler, Judge and Saviour of the Universe died on the cross so that even my sins are atoned for, and rose from the dead so that I could have life. This makes Jesus intensely personal to me, especially when I consider other things like His promised presence...He is here right now, always. He knew from the beginning everything about me...and still chose to save me because He loves me. That shakes me to to the core.

I know you addressed this to our brother, but you posted it publicly; so please allow me to add my own "Amen" to your words. The thought of what He did for ME ... and for you ... and for all who will come ... truly IS shattering! It fundamentally destroys any thing I may have of myself: it all disappears in the light of His glory, His mercy, His love. And I can only clap my hand to my mouth and clap my hand to my mouth as did Job, and exclaim "I am a worm!"

Hallelujah! What an awesome God!

\o/ \o/ \o/

[Obadiah]

Hey, Matt.

Thanks for continuing a thoughtful and edifying conversation.

On LXX: are you familiar with the critical approach to its text? I haven't done much research on this, and the rather startling difference in readings of our Isaiah verse has kind of whetted my appetite to pursue it further. Any suggestions?

But the true revelation of God comes experientially as He, from time to time, enlightens a portion and makes it real in our lives.

This statement leaves me a tad uneasy. I agree on the need for us to experience God's word rather than merely engaging with it intellectually, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that prior to such experience His revelation is something less than true.

But it needs to be the wisdom given by God, not the wisdom derived from man's intellect.

I agree that God is the source of all true wisdom, although I don't believe He bypasses the our intellect -- which itself is but His gift -- in imparting it. If we utilize the His gift of intelligence apart from dependence on His Spirit, that's unprofitable. But if we utilize it in yieldedness to His Spirit, that's beneficial.

I think it falls far short of the issue to simply say "Jehovah is Jesus."
Surely you are not suggesting that He is not?

I certainly wouldn't say that Jesus isn't יהוה. I agree that Christ is God incarnate. I'm just concerned about the level of discourse about the deity of Christ. The NT writers' Christology is far more beautifully nuanced and complex than the sound-bite it's normally reduced to in Christian circles. I think people are so concerned about defending Christ's deity against JWs and other such groups that they miss out on so much of the wonderful mystery of Christ. How does "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) fit into that sound-bite theology? There's just so much more to it than "Jesus = God." The standard un-nuanced approach falls into what I call "four legs good theology." If you've ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm, you'll get the reference.

[mattfivefour]

Hey, Matt.

Thanks for continuing a thoughtful and edifying conversation.

Likewise.

On LXX: are you familiar with the critical approach to its text? I haven't done much research on this, and the rather startling difference in readings of our Isaiah verse has kind of whetted my appetite to pursue it further. Any suggestions?

Not really. I tend to approach the issue by comparing various manuscripts and translations and the scholarship available on them; but, most importantly, I subject all translations and all interpretation of scripture to the scrutiny of other scripture. In other words, I compare scripture with scripture—for scripture itself is the best exegetical tool and the best commentary of all.

But the true revelation of God comes experientially as He, from time to time, enlightens a portion and makes it real in our lives.

This statement leaves me a tad uneasy. I agree on the need for us to experience God's word rather than merely engaging with it intellectually, but I'm uncomfortable with the notion that prior to such experience His revelation is something less than true.

It is not less than true, bro; but it is unproductive in a spiritual sense. Remember τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει "for the letter kills"; γράμμα literally means "the writing" or even "the scripture". But τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ "but the spirit gives life". The Word of God contains life; but when appreciated only in an intellectually manner that life is not appropriated to our spirits. Only the concepts contained in the words, and the concepts lodge in our minds not our hearts where they are needed. An intellectual understanding cannot change a life or, at least, a heart. It can give precepts and instruction by which we can alter our external behavior, perhaps; but it cannot change the heart. Were it able to, man could have been saved without the need for as comprehensive a salvation as was accomplished by our Savior: he would have only needed his past sins expunged. From the point of his salvation he would be able to live a sanctified life by the exercise of his mind and his will. But that no man can live it is revealed clearly in the NT. It is only, as Paul writes, when we by the Spirit do put to death the works of the flesh, that we can have the victory. So it is Him, not us, who gives us the victory and thus there is no ground for boasting even in this. As we are saved experientially by Jesus' work on the Cross, so too are we sanctified, and so too do we live our lives and so does God develop His relation with us.

But it needs to be the wisdom given by God, not the wisdom derived from man's intellect.

I agree that God is the source of all true wisdom, although I don't believe He bypasses the our intellect -- which itself is but His gift -- in imparting it. If we utilize the His gift of intelligence apart from dependence on His Spirit, that's unprofitable. But if we utilize it in yieldedness to His Spirit, that's beneficial.

Wisdom is something we gain by prayerfully studying God's Word. It is not something we bring TO God's Word in order to understand it. You may feel uncomfortable when face with this concept ... but then the intellect always feels uncomfortable at the concept of spiritual absolutes such as absolute faith. Were relationship with God and the consequent progressive revelation of His nature obtainable by wisdom and learning then the Kingdom of Heaven would be occupied chiefly by the worldly wise and the intellectuals. But the Holy Spirit had Paul note specifically that not many of those find salvation.

A newcomer by the name of Allen made a very important point on another thread. He said that love is a relationship, not a concept. He is absolutely right. Without that relationship first, we are like those of whom the Holy Spirit said were "always learning and never able to come to the truth."

A priest of the Orthodox faith—a group of traditional religious denominations which we most commonly associate with a lifeless and intellectual approach to the scriptures—wrote something that I find profound on the subject of the need for a spiritual apprehension of scripture. He wrote: "The faith spoken of by Christ is a mode of seeing, a mode of existence, that is foreign to our experience. Certainly the intellectual certainty or confidence that is asserted in the modern world is not the faith that moves mountains. Such certainty is simply a variety of opinion and differs in no way from the many varieties of opinions which we hold about many things. Such faith (intellectual certainty, etc.) requires no particular transformation of the person who exercises it. At most, it is a shift in what we may think about something – perhaps no more significant than changing the brand of soap we use. The Scriptures speak of being saved by grace through faith, but in the debates of the Reformation, when the entire relationship with God was largely reduced to a matter of legal status, intellectual assent was sufficient for the sake of that argument. But it is not sufficient as a proper understanding of saving faith." This man has hit upon a fundamental truth.

I think it falls far short of the issue to simply say "Jehovah is Jesus."
Surely you are not suggesting that He is not?

I certainly wouldn't say that Jesus isn't יהוה. I agree that Christ is God incarnate. I'm just concerned about the level of discourse about the deity of Christ. The NT writers' Christology is far more beautifully nuanced and complex than the sound-bite it's normally reduced to in Christian circles. I think people are so concerned about defending Christ's deity against JWs and other such groups that they miss out on so much of the wonderful mystery of Christ. How does "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Ephesians 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3) fit into that sound-bite theology? There's just so much more to it than "Jesus = God." The standard un-nuanced approach falls into what I call "four legs good theology." If you've ever read George Orwell's Animal Farm, you'll get the reference.

I get the reference, but I am not sure where the "we are good, they are bad" thesis fits into this discourse of ours. Neither do I see it in the very simple concept that Jesus is Jehovah. That He is is absolutely essential to a proper understanding of the Bible. I agree that the nuancing of Christology among the NT writers is exquisite in its beauty, in its sublimity; but none of it trumps the fact that Jesus is Jehovah. Indeed, all that is written is the warp and woof of the fabric that weaves the ikon of God for us, and must be viewed in that context and with that apprehension.

I pray that primarily your relationship with Christ is experiential, evidenced by the changes that HE is making in you; and not intellectual, evidenced by the changes you are making in yourself. Please do not misunderstand: I am not questioning your salvation; merely asking a question for the benefit of others who may read this thread so that they may understand that, according to Scripture, only the former demonstrates the fruit of true salvation.

God bless.