THE CHILD AND THE MIGHTY GOD

Answer:

Isaiah 9:6 indeed is a prophecy about the “Son,” our Lord Jesus Christ. However, as you will see later, Jesus Christ is not the Mighty God referred to nor does this prophecy indicate His alleged divinity.

Isaiah 9:6 reads, “For unto us a Child is born. Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” (New King James Version)

Since Isaiah 9:6 was originally written in Hebrews, it would be of help to consult the Jewish Publication Society of America for instance on how it renders the verse:

“For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom.” (The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text, 1917 edition)

 The Hebrew name Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom is translated in the footnote as, “Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace.”

It is evident here that this is not a series of names as interpreted by some but just one long name. More importantly, we could clearly notice here that the “God the Mighty” or “Mighty God” referred to who is also “Wonderful in counsel” is none other than “the everlasting Father” Himself. Taking into consideration that Jesus Christ is the “Son” of the Father (Matt. 3:16-17), He therefore, is not the Father Himself, hence, Christ is not the Mighty God.

Does it say anywhere else in the Bible that the Father is indeed “wonderful in counsel”? In the same book of Isaiah, these are stated:

“All this also comes from the Lord Almighty, wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom” (Isa. 28:29, New International Version, emphasis ours)

“And yet, Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, and you are the potter. We are all formed by your hand.” (Isa. 64:8, New Living Translation, emphasis ours)

Clearly then, the “Mighty God,” who is referred to in the prophecy as also “wonderful in counsel,” is not the Son Jesus Christ but the “everlasting Father.”

Why then is that one long name, having as its part the term “Mighty God,” mentioned in the prophecy concerning Christ? It is because the “government” or “authority” (JPS, 1999 edition) that the child (Christ) would later hold came from no less than the Mighty God who is the Father. Christ Himself proved this when He said:

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth’.” (Matt. 28:18, NKJV, emphasis ours)

“All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, …(Matt. 11:27, Ibid. emphasis ours)

Therefore, although Christ is the fulfillment of this prophecy about the child, it does not mean that He is God. It is worthwhile to note that one’s state of being is not necessarily determined by the meaning attached to his personal name, much less by the meaning of the title of the government or authority he holds. Simon the apostle was named “Cephas” or “Peter” which means rock (John 1:42), and the apostles James and John, were named “Boanegres, that is, ‘Sons of Thunder’” (Mark 3:17). However, it doesn’t mean that Peter is Himself a rock and that the other two are “sons of thunder.” Moreover, biblical names of person such as Eliphelet (the God of deliverance) and Elihu (whose God is he ([Jehovah]) and places like Elkosh (God my bow) and El-bethel (the God of bethel) [Smith Bible Dictionary, pp. 163-167] also contains descriptions about God, but no serious theologian so far claims that those persons and places are God. Going back to  Isaiah 9:6, is this how Jewish scholars understand  this verse which is originally written in their language-that the name in this prophecy does not indicate Christ’s alleged divinity? In The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Bettler, they explain, thus:

“The Mighty God . . . ruler: This long sentence is the throne name of the royal child. Semitic names often consist of sentences that describe God; thus the name Isaiah in Hebrew means, ‘The Lord saves’; Hezekiah, ‘The Lord strengthens’ … These names do not describe that person who holds them but the god whom the parents worship. Similarly, the name … in this v. [Isa. 9:6] does not describe the child or attribute divinity to him, contrary to classical Christian readings of this messianic verse.” (p. 802, emphasis ours)

It is clear that Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom is the “name” or the “title” (Moffat Translation) of the authority or government or, as Jewish scholars put it, the “throne name” which “does not describe the child or attribute divinity to him” but as another scholar puts it, “descriptive of his (Christ) office’ given by the Father.

“This son is not to have a name which will be for a sign, like the names of Isaiah’s sons (cf. 7:3, 8:1), but one which will be descriptive of his office .” (Isaiah 1:39, by John Mauchline, p. 113, emphasis ours)

“… THAT SIPIRITUAL ROCK THAT FOLLOWED THEM”

Answer:

In the way you interpret the verses you quoted, it seems that you believe that Jesus Christ was the very rock in Moses’ time from which he drew water for the thirsty Israelites. If this were true, it would indeed appear then that Christ had existence prior to His birth of Mary.

However, if we look more closely, it isn’t the case. Notice that Apostle Paul in the verses was reminding His fellow Christians about the experiences of ancient Israelites when they were wayfarers in the desert. Indeed, the children of Israel had seen the “cloud” which showed them the way  (Exod. 13:21), had been brought through the midst of the Read Sea (Exod. 14:19-31), had eaten of the manna (Exod. 16:11-15) and had really drunk the water Moses drew from the rock (Num. 20:1-11). Let us quote the last part of the incident when Moses drew water from the rock:

“And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, ‘Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?’ Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank.” (Num. 20:10-11, NKJV, emphasis ours)

Notice that Moses “struck the rock twice” with his rod. To insist therefore that Christ was that very rock is to claim that Moses struck twice with his rod the Lord Jesus Christ whom you believe to be God. This is very unlikely for we know that ancient Israelites were required to have great reverence for God so much so that just using the name of God in vain was considered major sin (Exo. 20:7). The claim therefore that that very rock is Moses’ time was Christ Himself is an absurdity that renders void the belief in His alleged pre-existence and deity.

If that rock was not Christ, why then did Apostle Paul say “our fathers … drank the same spiritual drink … [f]or they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ”? To understand what it means, let us refer to what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught concerning how we can “drink” (and eat) of Him:

“Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you’. ‘Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’. ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life’”. (John 6:53-54, 47, NKJV, emphasis ours)

To eat and drink of Christ therefore is to believe in Him and by doing so, we will have the “eternal life” He promised. Remember that the coming of Jesus the Messiah and Savior had been promised by God as early as the time of Adam and Eve. (Gen. 3:15). Therefore, by saying that “our fathers … drank of that spiritual Rock … and that Rock was Christ,” what Apostle Paul meant was that their ancestors, especially Moses believed in the “promised Christ” and looked forward to the “great reward” or the eternal life He brings.

“It was by faith that Moses, when he grew up, refused to be treated as the grandson of the king, but chose to share ill-treatment with God’s people instead of enjoying the fleeting pleasures of sin. He thought that it was better to suffer for the promised Christ than to own all the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking forward to the great reward that God would give him.”

Further proof that I Corinthians 10:1-4 offer no evidence that Christ had pre-existence and that He is God is indicated in the part of the verse 4 that says, “…For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Indeed, chronologically speaking, Christ “followed” the Israelites ancestors. He came and exist long after, not before, the time of  Moses.

Regarding who the true God is, our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles clearly taught:

“ ‘And this is the eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God’, …

“ ‘Jesus spoke this words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: ‘Father’ …” (John 17:3,1, NKJV, emphasis ours)

“… There is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father …” (I Cor. 8:4-6, Ibid. emphasis ours).

It is in the light of this fundamental biblical truth that everyone should evaluate his or her faith in God.

‘THIS IS THE TRUE GOD AND ETERNAL LIFE’

Does I John 5:20 refers to Christ as “the true God”?

Answer:

 Without a doubt, we believe that the definite article “the” in the phrase “This is the true God …” in I John 5:20 definitely teaches that “there is only one” true God. What we don’t accept however, for it is surely an error, is the conclusion that the verse refers to Christ as “the true God.” Let us quote the verse in its entirety:

“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” (I John 5:20, New King James Version, emphasis ours)

Notice that the first part of the verse states, “the Son of God has come”. This shows that the God being referred to in the verse has a Son and it is the Son who has come. Now, if Christ were “the only true God” being referred to in the verse, then who would be Christ’s Son who has come? Absurd, isn’t i8t? Therefore, what’s really perplexing and odd is if we say that Christ is “the true God” being referred to in the verse. Clearly, Christ is distinct from God, for He is the Son of God, and as such, He could not be “the true only true God”.

Reading through I John 5:20 carefully, we find that one of the reasons the Son (Jesus Christ) came into the world is to give us an understanding as to who the true God is. It is this true God to whom the pronouns “Him” and “His” in the verse (“that they may know Him who is true”; “we are in Him who is true”; “in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Indeed, Christ fulfilled this mission. So, whom did He introduce as “the only true God”? The following is the account of Apostle John, the same apostle who wrote I John 5:20:

“After Jesus had finished speaking to his disciples, he looked up toward heaven and prayed: Father, the time has come for you to bring glory to your Son, in order that he may bring glory to you.

“Eternal life is to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, the one you sent.” (John 17: 1, 3, Contemporary English Version)

Christ clearly taught that the true God is the Father, not he Himself. Take note that Christ used the pronoun “you” (referring to the Father) and not “me”. Christ even distinguished Himself from the Father by referring to Himself as the one sent by the Father.

Thus, by adhering to the truth that Christ is not the Father, and, therefore, not God, we only take Christ’s word as clearly and plainly as He Himself put it.

TWICE A WEEK WORSHIP SERVICE

Twice a week

Answer:

             The first-century Christians gathered for worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), or on Sundays, but there were also times when they held their worship services in the Temple “every day” (Acts 2:46) or in all the days of week. Conducting worship services on any other day besides Sunday is not something new, nor is it unbiblical, because such practice was likewise observed during the administration of the apostles.

             As the ones appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ to administer the Church after His ascension to heaven, the apostles had the divine authority to decide on matters pertaining to the faith. It is important to subject one’s self to the authority of those whom Christ entrusted to administer the Church, for the decision they make in behalf of the Church are affirmed by God in heaven. Thus declared Christ to the administrator of the Church:

            “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound on heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven.” (Matt. 18:18-19, New Revised Standard Version)

           Taking into consideration not only the spiritual needs of the brethren but, most of all, God’s will that every member of the Church be brought to the condition worthy of receiving salvation on Christ Second Advent, the Church administration today has deemed it necessary for all the congregations of the Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) to hold worship services twice a week-on the mid-week and on weekends, for their part, the faithful members of the Church of Christ heed the Administration’s exhortation not to neglect such congregational worship services, firmly believing that doing so edifies their faith (Heb. 10:25; I Cor. 14:26).