1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Timothy 2:6 - Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. -- King James Version.
1 Timothy 2:5
heis gar theos heis kai mesitees theou kai anthrwpwn
ONE FOR GOD, ONE ALSO MEDIATOR OF GOD AND OF MEN
1520 1063 2316 1520 2532 3316 2316 2532 0444anthrwpos christos ieesous
MAN CHRIST JESUS,
0444 5547 24241 Timothy 2:6
ho dous heauton antilutron huper
THE (ONE) HAVING GIVEN HIMSELF CORRESPONDING RANSOM OVER
3588 1325 1438 0487 5228\pantwn to marturion kairois idiois
ALL (ONES), THE WITNESS TO APPOINTED TIMES OWN;
3956 3588 3142 2540 2398 -- Westcott & Hort Interlinear.
Our trinitarian neighbors often claim that in order to be mediator, Jesus had to be God (meaning the Most High Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). We are still not sure what reasoning is behind the claim. Evidently, it is imagined and assumed that no one be such mediator but God Almighty Himself. However, no scripture presents such a thought.
It should be obvious that the "one God" of 1 Timothy 2:5 refers to one individual (or person), that is, it refers to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. Rather than identifying Jesus as a person of the “one God” that Paul mentions here, Paul identifies Jesus as the mediator between the one person who is being spoken of as “one God” and man in need of being reconciled to God. He thus does not include “Jesus” as a person of this “one God”, but rather as the mediator between the “one God” and man, which effectually excludes Jesus from being that “one God” that Paul speaks of. In the context, it is apparent that Paul is referring to one person as being the “one God”, and not three persons. -- 1 Timothy 1:1,2; 5:21.
One asks, if God is excluded from being the "one God", doesn't this also mean that this would exclude him from being a man?
The scripture states that “there is one God” and it states that there is “one mediator”, but it does not state that there is “one man.” Nevertheless, we have no scriptural reason to believe that Paul spoke of "one God" in 1 Timothy 2:5 any differently than when wrote of “one God” in 1 Corinthians 8:6, as well as how he normally used the word "God" throughout his writings. The "one God" is identified in 1 Corinthians 8:6 as being the Father. To think that it does not mean the same in 1 Timothy 2:5 would be simply denying what the scripture says in the expression “between God and men”, if Jesus was the God to whom he was reconciling the world. (2 Corinthians 5:19) It should be self-evident that in the expression “between God and men”, that this refers to only one individual who is identified as “God”, in harmony with 1 Corinthians 8:6, as well as the entire rest of the New Testament. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is ALWAYS distinguished from the Messiah, whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sent, and through whom the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speaks to us. -- Exodus 3:13-15; Deuteronomy 18:15-20; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2.
Paul starts out his letter by showing a distinction between “God” and Jesus, and he continues show this distinction throughout (1 Timothy 5:21; 6:13) in harmony with 1 Corinthians 8:6, and the rest of the New Testament. There is no scriptural reason at all to think that Paul would have included Jesus in “God” at 1 Timothy 2:5,6. The only reason at all to think so would be to satisfy the added-on dogma of man, which, in effect, ends up in circular reason: since we believe that Jesus is God, thus we believe that Jesus is not being excluded as being “God” in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Nor is Jesus included as one of the “men” who are in need of being reconciled through a mediator. Jesus was never in need of being reconciled to his God and Father, since he was not born with the tint of Adamic sin (Romans 5:12-19; 8:19-22); his body of flesh was prepared by God free of any condemnation. (Hebrews 10:5; Matthew 1:20) In the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), Jesus was the exact equivalent of Adam before Adam sinned (Luke 3:38), but unlike Adam, Jesus never disobeyed, and thus could sacrifice his flesh for the sin of the world. (John 1:29; 6:51; Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6) Thus, God’s wisdom and love was demonstrated in that all were condemned in one man, so that only one uncondemned man could take upon himself the condemnation of all by providing the offsetting price (ransom).
While the scripture does not say there is “one man” who is the class that is being reconciled, it does say that there is “one God”. Nevertheless, it was the “one” sinless man Christ Jesus -- not God -- who gave himself as a sacrificial offering to the unipersonal “God” as a ransom for all, to be witnessed in due time. The scriptures give no evidence that, in order to be the mediator between God and men, that Jesus would have to be God Almighty. The evidence is that the he needed to be a sinless man, nothing more, nothing less. His sacrifice, not only of his human blood, but of his human body (which trinitarianism, in effect, denies, when it is claimed that Jesus is still a human being in heaven), is what was given by the mediator of the new covenant, Jesus, for sin. -- Isaiah 53:10,11; Matthew 20:28; 26:28; Luke 22:19; John 1:29; 6:51; Romans 5:6,8,12-19; 6:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 11:4; Ephesians 1:7; 5:2; Colossians 1:14; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; Hebrews 9:14; 10:10-12; 1 Peter 2:24; 3:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:2,3,9,10.
However, once the man Christ Jesus gave himself as the ransom for all, he could not complete the offering his humanity while he was yet in the days of his flesh (Hebrews 5:7), for as long as he was on earth, he could not be a priest at all (Hebrews 8:4), for the earthly priesthood was a shadow, and was given to the priesthood under the old Law Covenant. (Hebrews 8:5) Jesus, therefore, in fulfilling the reality, although he was put to death in the flesh for our sins (1 Peter 3:18), he was made alive in the spirit, and thus as a spirit being he became the priest in heaven where he formally offered his body of flesh for our sins to his God. -- Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 8:1,2; 9:24; 10:10.
He took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and gave to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me." -- Luke 22:19, World English.
For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. -- Matthew 26:28, World English.
I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world." -- John 6:51, World English.
Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit. -- 1 Peter 3:18, World English,
Then has he said, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He takes away the first [the law covenant], that he may establish the second [the new covenant]. -- Hebrews 10:9, World English.
By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. -- Hebrews 10:10, World English.
Some statements being made, especially by trinitarians:
"Since Jesus is both God and man at the same time, He became the Mediator."
"To effectively represent both God and man/humankind, the mediator had to be both God and man."
"Because Jesus is both God and man, He alone is able to pay the price for our ransom through His sinless life and substitutionary death (1 Peter 1:18-19)."
“To be sinless, Jesus had to be God himself in the flesh.”
“Christ had to be God in order to offer a sacrifice of infinite value to the Father. If the Messiah was a mere man or a mighty angel (as some cults allege), then He would not have been able to atone for millions of people from every tribe, nation and tongue (Rev. 5:9).”
The reality is that no scripture anywhere at all makes such claims as the above. In order to condemn sin the flesh (Romans 8:3), Jesus had to be flesh -- earthly, terrestrial, physical (1 Corinthians 15:39-41), a human being, a little lower than the angels, nothing more, nothing less. (Hebrews 2:7) If he had been both the Almighty and man, such would not condemn sin in the flesh, but rather would justify sin in the flesh, and thus God, if he sought to justify sin without such condemnation that would be required by a man -- not a Supreme Being -- equivalent to Adam, then God would not be true to himself in justifying the sinner. All that is required by God to pay for sin is ONE sinless man, who remained sinless as Adam was before Adam sinned. -- Romans 3:26; 5:12-19; 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
In other words, if Jesus was the Almighty in the flesh, which Adam was not, it would, in effect prove that for Adam to have obeyed the Almighty, Adam would have needed to have been the Almighty, which, in turn, would therefore justify -- rather than condemn -- sin the flesh. Many times trinitarians have asserted something similar to what the CARM trinitarian apologist stated: “Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9) and only God can satisfy the Law requirements of a perfect life and perfect sacrifice that cleanses us of our sins.” This doctrine is false, and, in effect, negates the purpose for which Jesus became flesh. It is doctrine that would replace the true atonement as revealed in scripture, and thus is an anti-christ (instead of Christ) doctrine. If Jesus had to be God to satisfy the Law requirements, then Adam also would have needed to have been God to satisfy the Law requirements, and thereby sin in the flesh would be justified, not condemned, and as a result, there would be no basis for God remaining just while justifying the sinner.
Jesus, however, proved that a sinless man -- being the equivalent of Adam, who was not Almighty in the flesh -- could remain faithful to the Almighty; if Jesus was the Almighty in the flesh, then it would have proven that it is because he was the Almighty that he remained faithful, evidently to himself, since it is impossible for God to deny Himself. Only if Jesus was a man -- nothing more, nothing less, could his willful obedience condemn sin in the flesh.
The statement given also seems to be saying that Jesus was of both parties for which he is mediator. On the one side is God, and on the other side is “men” who are sinners who are need of reconciliation, because they have all been condemned as sinners through Adam. Was Jesus a sinner in need of reconciliation with Himself? If Jesus was a member of the condemned human race of Adam that needed such mediation, then Jesus, as one of group referred to as “men” who are being reconciled through the mediation, then Jesus himself was a sinner. In reality, Jesus was never a member of Adam’s condemned race, thus he was never a member of the “men” who are one of the parties to his mediatorship, nor was he a member of the “one God” (1 Corinthians 8:6) who is the other party that he serves as mediator. The “one God” needs no reconciliation, but it is sinful man that needs a mediator for reconciliation with the one God who is the Father of Jesus. Jesus certainly had no need to be reconciled to himself, which is what it would amount to if Jesus was a member of the “one God”.
Nevertheless, it is not necessarily the fact that Jesus is mediator between God and man that excludes Jesus from being of the party of “men” referred to; he is not a member of that party because he was born into this world outside of the taint of Adam’s sin. He is not the “one God”, since the “one God” is never, no not even once, depicted in the Bible as being more than one person. He is not the “one God”, because that “one God” is identified as one individual in 1 Timothy 1:2; 5:21; 6:13; 2 Timothy 1:2, as well as 1 Corinthians 8:4,6 and Hebrews 1:1-3.. Indeed, throughout the entire Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is ALWAYS referred to as one individual (or person), but never once as more than one individual or person.
Nonetheless, there are several scriptures that show that Jesus offered himself in sacrifice to one person, not to three persons. There is not even one scripture that says that Jesus offered himself to himself, nor even to his God and Father, with any idea that Jesus is the second person of a triune God. -- Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:14; 10:10-12
Forms of Anthropos in 1 Timothy 2:4-6
It is being claimed that "The correspondence between anthrwpous in v. 4, anthrwpwn and anthrwpos in v. 5, is obvious. Christ is obviously not called man to rule out His deity, or in opposition to Docetic inclinations, or as ideal man or member of the one party, but to show that He belongs to all men without distinction."
While we have no desire to rule out the deity of Jesus, we do not believe that Jesus' deity means that Jesus is the "one God" who is being spoken of in 1 Corinthians 8:6 or in 1 Timothy 2:5. Nevertheless, as we have shown above, Jesus is not included in "man" for whom he dies. Let us look at the Greek transliteration:
1 Timothy 2:4
hos pantas anthrwpous thelei swtheenai kai eis
WHO ALL MEN IS WILLING TO BE SAVED AND INTO
3739 3956 0444 2309 4982 2532 1519
epignwsin aleetheias elthein
ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF TRUTH TO COME.
1922 0225 2064
1 Timothy 2:5
heis gar theos heis kai mesitees theou kai anthrwpwn
ONE FOR GOD, ONE ALSO MEDIATOR OF GOD AND OF MEN
1520 1063 2316 1520 2532 3316 2316 2532 0444
anthrwpos christos ieesous
MAN CHRIST JESUS,
0444 5547 2424
1 Timothy 2:6
ho dous heauton antilutron huper
THE (ONE) HAVING GIVEN HIMSELF CORRESPONDING RANSOM OVER
3588 1325 1438 0487 5228
pantwn to marturion kairois idiois
ALL (ONES), THE WITNESS TO APPOINTED TIMES OWN;
3956 3588 3142 2540
Thus one should note that Jesus, having been born into the world, but not of this condemned world, is not included in “pantas anthrwpous” of verse 4, nor in “anthrwpwn” of verse 5. Jesus was indeed a man when he offered himself as the atoning sacrifice for sin, and it was the offering of his body that provides the blood of the new covenant, and thus, which is basis of his being a mediator between God and men. Jesus is not included in these “men” who need this mediatorship. Jesus, however, although he was in “likeness” of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), was not of “sinful flesh”. In took upon himself the condemnation of sinful flesh, without actually having sinful flesh, otherwise, there has been no redemption, since if Jesus’ flesh was sinful with all who are condemned in Adam, Jesus could not have been a sacrifice for sin, and there was no basis for him to be a mediator between God and sinful flesh.
The trinitarian authority being quoted presupposes that Jesus is the Most High (which is evidently what is meant by his use of the word “deity”). The author errs, however, concerning Jesus’ being a “member of the one party”, which evidently is meant the one party -- [sinful] men -- for whom there is need for mediation with God, that they may be reconciled with the unipersonal God. Jesus was not a member of the one party that needed to be reconciled, since Jesus did not need such reconciliation. He was indeed, however, a man, being totally free of sin, who had the price to give to pay the condemnation upon all men through Adam, and that is what Paul was emphasizing concerning Jesus’ being a man who gave himself as a ransom [offsetting price] sacrifice. Jesus, a man, was the atoning sacrifice for the whole world (1 John 2:2), and did not belong to either of the parties, for he was not of this condemned world of men estranged from God, just as the new creature in Christ, being begotten of God, is not of this world. -- John 1:10-12; 15:19; 17:6,14,16; 1 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:1-10.
Nevertheless, his being called “man” is not what excludes Jesus from being the “one God” that is spoken of - this line of argument misses the point; the “one God” is definitely referring to the God and Father of Jesus (1 Timothy 1:2; Ephesians 1:3), and Jesus is the mediator between the two parties, and Jesus is not a member of either of the parties that he serves as mediator.
On the other hand, even as a man, Jesus possessed deity, as did Moses toward Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1), but this does not mean that either Moses or Jesus was the Most High in the flesh.
However, we certainly do not agree with Docetism, which most definitely denies the purpose for which Jesus became flesh, because it actually denies that Jesus came in the flesh. If he did not come in the flesh, then he did not offer his flesh in sacrifice, and thus such a teaching annuls the purpose for his coming in the flesh.
From the World English Bible translation:
And every spirit who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of whom you have heard that it comes. Now it is in the world already.
By this was God's love revealed in us, that God has sent his only born Son into the world that we might live through him. -- John 4:9.
Even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life [Greek, transliterated, Psuche, soul, his sentiency as a human being] as a ransom for many." -- Matthew 20:28
For the Son of Man also came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life [Greek, transliterated, Psuche, soul, his sentiency as a human being] as a ransom for many." -- Mark 10:45
The reason that it is important to confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is because he sacrificed his flesh to pay the price for sin (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:15; Romans 3:25; 5:6,8,12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:3,21,22; Galatians 3:13; 1 Timothy 2:5,6), as I have already shown from the scriptures.
Jesus did not sacrifice himself in some sort of spiritual death, he died physically in the flesh to pay the wages of sin. -- Luke 22:19; Matthew 26:28; John 6:51; Romans 5:6,8; 6:23; Ephesians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 3:18; 4:1; Titus 2:14; Hebrews 9:26,28; 10:10.
One claims: "He is expressly called man to emphasize that He belongs to all who bear the face of man."
Actually, Paul uses the words “the man” regarding Jesus because Jesus was “the [sinless] man” who gave himself as a ransom (offsetting price; corresponding price) for all mankind; Jesus was not one of the “men” for whom he serves as mediator to reconcile them to God. None of the “men” who are being reconciled to God could offer that sacrifice; nor did Jesus need to be his God in order to offer that sacrifice, as so many trinitarians have claimed. Paul argues elsewhere that it was by means of a man that death came to be, and thus so it is by means of a man that there is a resurrection of the dead. -- 1 Corinthians 15:21,22; Romans 5:12-19.
Someone has presented a quote from Vine concerning what constitutes a mediator:
b. Vine: one who mediates between two parties with a view to producing peace, as in 1 Tim. 2:5 , though more than mere mediatorship is in view, for the salvation of men necessitated that the Mediator should Himself possess the nature and attributes of Him towards whom He acts, and should likewise participate in the nature of those for whom He acts (sin apart); only by being possessed both of Deity and humanity could He comprehend the claims of the one and the needs of the other; further, the claims and the needs could be met only by One who, Himself being proved sinless, would offer Himself an expiatory sacrifice on behalf of men (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Mediator, pages 726-727).
While we can agree that Jesus, in the days of his flesh, possessed the divine nature (divine qualities of character), as the phrase is used in 2 Peter 1:4, in his service to his God and Father, Vine evidently uses this expression in reference to the added-on trinitarian philosophy that would suppose that Jesus had to be the Most High in the flesh in order to be a mediator between God and men. No scripture ever says such a thing. This is all from spirit of human imagination. The scriptures do show that although Jesus was born into this condemned world (it is condemned through Adam -- Romans 5:12-19), he is not of this condemned world, nor are those who become sons of God -- as new creatures by means of Christ -- of this condemned world. -- John 8:23; 17:14,16; 2 Corinthians 5:17.
We have also been given a quote from J.L. Williams:
For Christ to be a bridge between man and God, He must, like a physical bridge, be firmly established on both shores. Otherwise the chasm that separated man from God would not be bridged. We would have no mediator. And we would still be lost in our sins. (Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Harvest House Publishers, 1999, page 602, citing 'Victor Paul Wierwille and The Way International' by J.L. Williams, page 59).
The statement above appears to be offering a human justification for saying that Jesus had to be both the Most High and also a man, or else we would have no mediator. Of course, the above is not God’s words, nor Jesus’ words, nor is it the words of any of Jesus’ apostles. No such thought is once ever anywhere presented in the Bible. It is not that which is revealed anywhere in all the revealing of God as shown in the Bible.
Jesus, in order to pay the price needed to offset sin (a ransom), had to be a sinless man without disobedience -- nothing more, nothing less -- if he was to condemn sin in the flesh, allowing his God to remain true to His righteousness, while yet justifying the sinner. (Romans 3:26; 8:3) If Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, then the condemnation of sin in the flesh failed, for Adam was not God in the flesh, and thus, if Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, Jesus has actually justified -- rather than having condemned -- sin in the flesh. According to what is revealed in the Bible, Jesus had to be sinless flesh -- nothing more, nothing less, just as Adam was before Adam sinned.
Likewise, to be the mediator between God and condemned man, Jesus had to be an uncondemned man to offer the price of redemption. Moses was certainly not both God and man, but yet he was the mediator of the old Law Covenant. (Exodus 20:19; 24:1-12; 34:27-35; Deuteronomy 5:5; 22-33; 9:13-20; 25-29; John 1:17; Acts 7:38; Galatians 3:19,20; As Moses was a prophet who also served as a mediator between Jehovah and the people of Israel, so Jesus is the prophet like Moses, whom Jehovah speaks through, and who is the mediator of the new covenant which is ratified by his blood. -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Acts 3:13-26; Hebrews 1:1,2; 3:5,6; 7:22; 8:5,6; 9:13-25.
Regardless of what trinitarian-biased "authorities" are quoted, the Bible still stands on its own; the overwhelming evidence of scripture is that Jesus is not his God who sent him; indeed, this should be default reasoning. The trinitarian, on the other hand, would present the default reasoning to be that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and then by means of the spirit of human imagination, continue to imagine whatever is deemed necessary to get that idea into the scriptures.
The overwhelming testimony of the Bible is that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that He Himself (Jehovah/Yahweh) is the only true God, the unipersonal God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 [Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4]; Matthew 4:7 [Deuteronomy 6:16]; Matthew 4:10 [Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8]; Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 [Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23]; Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Acts 3:13-26; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:1,2,9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12)
For links to some of our related studies:
Thank you for this
ReplyDelete