Jesus’ Riddle that stumped the Unitarian Pharisees
It is evident from John’s Gospel that the scribes and Pharisees had big problems with Jesus’ claims about Himself. These included His statements that He came down from heaven[1] and that He was the Son of God (God was His Father), which they concluded made Him “equal with God” in essence.[2] Jesus affirmed this also by claiming to have “issued forth out of God.”[3]
Yet, John is not alone among the Gospel narratives which quote Jesus’ own words indicating His pre-human existence. While the following passage from Matthew does not have Jesus making an explicit statement about His pre-human existence, that conclusion is required by the riddle He posed to the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees who had a unitarian perspective, and believed that the Messiah would be a common Jewish man descended from king David whom God would choose to become the Messiah. (It should be noted that the term “Messiah” was the Hebrew term that means “Anointed one,” its Greek equivalent is translated “Christ,” and this term was used of both David and Solomon).[4] So the term “Messiah” and “Christ” applied to the past kings of Israel as well as to the promised one who would fulfill all that was promised.
Matthew 22:41-46 (ESV) 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”‘?[5] 45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.
Unitarians claim to hold to the Jewish understanding of the Messiah, and in part they are correct. While some of the common Jews expected the Messiah to have preexisted in heaven[6] and to descend from heaven to reign,[7] the scholarly Jewish leaders viewed Him as a mere man originating in the womb of a woman, which is also the Unitarian view today.
While some Unitarians may suppose that they can answer the question posed by Jesus, it should not be passed over that these Unitarian scholars not only could not answer Jesus’ riddle, but they were so stumped by it that they did not dare to question Him anymore.
The unanswerable question for these scholars was, “If then David calls him [the Messiah] ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” The term “Lord” literally means “Master,” and calling someone “master” indicates that person is one’s superior. So by David calling his “son” his “Lord” (Master) means David viewed the Messiah as his superior.
The reason that this question completely stumped the scholars is because in the Bible and in Jewish thinking priority in rank (superiority) comes from priority in time, especially regarding genealogy. John the Baptist pointed out that Jesus ranked above him because He preceded him in origin.
John 1:15 (ESV) 15 (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”)
In other words, John the Baptist’s claim that Jesus was his superior was based on the fact that He existed before John. Thus the Son originated before John even though His human birth occurred six months after John’s. Yet this superiority in rank is even stronger when one is speaking about ancestry. The Jews traced their ancestry back to Abraham.
John 8:51-53 (ESV) 51 “Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?”
Abraham was the greatest of the Patriarchs. None of his descendants could out-rank him. Likewise, king David was known as the founder of the Davidic Dynasty, and his series of offspring who became king over Israel and Judah after him were said to sit upon the Throne of David. All of the Davidic kings, from Solomon onward, were considered inferior to David and all of his descendants who had previously occupied David’s throne. Even Isaiah’s prophecy about the Messiah being born indicated that He would sit upon the ”Throne of David” not the “Throne of Messiah,” thus implying His inferiority to David.
Isaiah 9:6-7 (LXX) 6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. 7 His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David and upon his [David’s] kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and with righteousness, from henceforth and forever. The seal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.
Gabriel affirmed this when prophesying to Mary.
Luke 1:31-33 (ESV) 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
It was for these reasons that the Jewish Unitarian scholars could not solve Jesus’ riddle. If the Messiah was to be David’s son, then David outranked Him. Likewise, if God was going to give the Messiah “the throne of His father David,” then He would be merely David’s offspring and successor. The “throne” was still that of His father, David, who in Jewish thought is the one who is superior. One does not call his own son or descendant “Lord” or “Master.”
The Jewish scholars were not incorrect that the Messiah must be a descendant of David. In the Davidic Covenant God promised David as much.[8] But they failed to notice a very important prophecy from Isaiah.
Isaiah 11:1-10 (ESV) 1 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. 2 And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. 3 And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, 4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked. 5 Righteousness shall be the belt of his waist, and faithfulness the belt of his loins. 6 The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. 9 They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. 10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples – of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.
David was the youngest son of Jesse, to whom God sent Nathan the prophet to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as king.[9] Isaiah’s prophecy above refers to the Messiah as a “shoot” and “branch” that comes forth from the stump of Jesse, David’s father. This is obviously a reference to a genealogical tree, with Jesse as the “root” from which David and then the Messiah would come. Yet verse 10 presents a seemingly impossible conundrum. The one who is a shoot and branch from the root which is Jesse is also called “the root of Jesse.” This necessarily means that in the genealogical tree, he also preceded Jesse and David. This also implies that the Messiah was the cause of Jesse’s own existence.
The book of Revelation is called “the Revelation of Jesus Christ,” not only because it was delivered by Jesus to John, but because it also reveals Jesus’ true identity. Twice in Revelation Jesus Himself solved the riddle that He had previously given to the Pharisees, which they could not reconcile with their presuppositions about the Messiah.
Rev. 5:5 (ESV) 5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”
Rev. 22:16 (ESV) 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”
The very last “revelation” given by Jesus about Himself in the entire Bible is His claim to be both the “root” of David’s genealogy as well as the “descendant,” the “shoot” and the “root,” both of which were prophesied by Isaiah in the same passage. This is answer to Jesus’ riddle, “If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” Indeed, David does call His own descendant “Lord” (Master) because before He became David’s descendant via the virgin birth He was the Son of God who was God’s Agent in creating all things, including man. And He was also the “Messenger of the Covenant”[10]who confirmed both the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants.
Modern Unitarians may try to resolve Jesus’ answer in some other way. But they should take note of the fact that the Pharisees whom Jesus was addressing could not solve the riddle within their own Unitarian system. The solution requires stepping outside the constraints of the presuppositions which Unitarians hold in their denial of the Son’s pre-human origin and existence.
Go to: Unitarian Struggle to Assimilate John’s Prologue
[1] John 6:41-42
[2] John 5:18 (cf. Phil. 2:6)
[3] John 8:42 Gk.
[4] 2 Sam. 22:51; 2 Sam. 23:1; 2 Chron. 6:42; Psalm 17:50;
[5] Psalm 110:1
[6] Based on Micah 5:2 see the following: https://4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Logos_Judaism.pdf & https://4windsfellowships.net/articles/God/Micah_5_2.pdf
[7] Based on Daniel 7:13-14
[8] 1 Chron. 17:11-15; Heb. 1:5
[9] 1 Sam. 16
[10] Mal. 3:1
11 thoughts on “Jesus’ Riddle that stumped the Unitarian Pharisees”
Hi Tim,
I was wondering if you could help me explain something.
“Jesus affirmed this also by claiming to have “issued forth out of God.”[3]
What’s the difference between being sent by God and “issued forth out of God”
Dave,
John 8:42 is inadequately translated in most English versions because they leave untranslated a very important preposition – “ek” – which means “out of, out from within” and they soften the meaning of the verb.
The Concordant Literal Version (CLV) is pretty accurate and has: Jesus, then, said to them, “If God were your Father, you would have loved Me. For out of God I came forth and am arriving.
The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) paraphrases the correct idea in the Greek as follows: “Jesus answered: If God were your father, you would love me, since I have my origin in God and have come from him;” (Jn. 8:42 NJB).
My translation (LGV) has: Jesus said to them, “If God was your Father, you were loving Me, for I issued forth out of God, and am come.”
Most translations leave out the preposition “ek” (out from) entirely and soften the meaning of the verb “ex-erxhomai.” This verb is a compound of the same preposition “ek / ex” (the same preposition is spelled both ways) and “erchomai” which means to come. As a compound ex-erchomai it means to issue forth out of whatever the direct object is in the sentence, in this case “God.” Yet the force of the verb (issuing out of something) is greatly strengthened by adding the preposition “ek” in the clause again, not just as part of the compound verb, but as a stand-alone preposition. It is literally, “for I out-of (ek) God came-out-of (ex-erchomai) and am come.”
That ex-erchomai means “came out of” the direct object can be shown from a host of passages. Yet when it is also used in conjunction with the preposition “ek” the concept of emerging out from within the object is greatly strengthened. The first time this appears in the NT is in Matt. 2:6, which reads: “‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; For out of (ek) you shall come forth (ex-erchomai) a Ruler, Who will shepherd My people Israel.'” (NASB).
No one would question that this means Jesus would come forth out from within the town of Bethlehem. The same concept applies to His coming forth out from within God, which refers to His ORIGIN. Trinitarians cannot allow that the Son had an ORIGIN, because that upsets their co-equal & co-eternal distinct persons of the Trinity. So they subtly translated John 8:42 as though it used the preposition “para” instead (from beside). Unitarians cannot adopt the true Greek reading either, because they do not believe the Son was literally begotten out of God’s own being and essence. Since they reject a pre-human origin and existence for the Son, they must limit His origin to exclusively His human birth. As such, He could not have issued forth out of God (because that necessarily means of like kind — full divinity. In reality, modern Unitarians (like the Pharisees) believe the Messiah was CREATED (not begotten) by God. Jesus made this statement specifically to counter the Unitarianism of the Pharisees.
Many times Jesus is said to have come FROM God, but the preposition in those cases is “para” which generally means “from beside,” that is from the presence of someone or something. If you sent someone on a mission, you would use the preposition “para” because they went out from beside you, not out from within you.
The point Jesus was making in this verse was that IF the unbelieving Jews truly had God as their “Father,” they would love Jesus because He was truly a part of the Father in the sense that He was “only-begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). He was literally God’s offspring from God’s own Person and essence before He was sent into the world and became fully human (Phil. 2:5-8).
Thanks Tim.
Does the correct translation of John 8:42 negate the anathema attached to the Nicene Creed ?
[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]
Yes, the Nicene Creed anathemas contradict John 8:42. The statement’s condemnation of those who say the Son was “changeable” is also contrary to Phil. 3:5-8. If you think about it, He “changed” from immortal to mortal, and then He changed from living to dead and back to living. So the anathema is absurd.
Cool bananas 🙂
The point of the anathema was to maintain the Platonic concept that the Son maintained full divinity and was merely cloaked in human flesh. But if that is true God did not really give His Son for our salvation. He only gave His Son’s ‘flesh suit.’ The real ‘God the Son’ did not die at all because He was allegedly incapable of change.
Yeah the fully God fully man concept is a contradiction imo otherwise what did Jesus empty Himself of ?
I’m having quite a few interactions recently with elderly long term Christian men. Of course these men are generally trinitarian, pretrib , immortal soulers etc. This concept of “issuing forth out of God ” should sit ok with them when we discuss the ontology of Jesus ie. birthing isn’t creating.
Tim,
You should get on Facebook and interact with some of the top Unitarians of today. I posted your article to one of the groups. I’ll leave a few of their criticisms in a bit, but I was pointed to this, titled: “I am the Root of David” Does not mean that Jesus is God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyZd8D0Wjiw
Let me know your thoughts if you’re able to watch.
Brian,
I listened to Bill Schlegel’s explanation, but IMO he is forcing Scripture into a mold that would never have been imagined by the original readers of Isaiah (or Revelation). This is exactly the kind of forced exegesis that caused me to abandon Trinitarianism.
The point of the root – stump – branch metaphor in Isaiah 11 is to describe a genealogical tree, which was a common way of describing ancestry in ancient times (as well as modern times) in many cultures including Israel. No genealogical tree acts in the manner that Bill attempts to interpret this passage by forcing modern horticulture ideas into Isaiah’s prophecy.
A true biblical genealogical tree metaphor can be found in Paul’s illustration of the olive tree in Rom. 11 (borrowed from Jer. 11:16-18 & 12:1-2). In that metaphor, the root of the olive tree is Abraham. He has no descendants growing underground simultaneously while other descendants grow above ground. “… if the root is holy, the branches are also holy” (Rom. 11:16). God declared Abraham (the root) righteous (his faith was accounted as righteousness) thus the root was considered holy. Consequently, the branches that come from this root must be holy. Those who were not “holy” were broken off. Abraham, as the “root,” was the SOURCE of all of his descendants (cf. Heb. 7:4-10), which were portrayed in this allegory as branches from the trunk of the olive tree (not underground roots growing out of sight). Gentiles are grafted in and become “Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise” of the Abrahamic land inheritance, because we walk in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham.
One problem with Bills explanation is that it makes Christ two completely different parts of a single genealogical tree. As purely Jesse’s human descendant, Jesus cannot be both a branch above ground that grows from the stump and at the same time a root (branch) underground. It has to be one or the other.
Bill pointed out in Isaiah 1:1 that “roots” is plural. That is true in the modern Hebrew text, but it is singular in the LXX. But I doubt that it matters. What is important about Isa. 11 is that the tree is cut down leaving the stump with its roots. Isa. 11:1 contains a Hebrew parallelism, which means that the same concept is repeated using different words, but the statements are parallel.
>There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
>and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit. (ESV)
These are NOT two different things, but two ways of expressing the same thing. A “branch” or “shoot” grows up out of the “stump” of Jesse. This is the same as “a branch from His roots” (since when a tree is cut down only the stump with the roots remain. It is not a “branch” which is one of his “roots” (an underground “branch” which is a root runner) but a new branch that grows above ground out of the stump with its roots, the remains of what was cut down. The concept which Isaiah built this allegory upon was described in Job as follows:
Job 14:7-9 (NKJV) 7 “For there is hope for a tree, If it is cut down, that it will sprout again, And that its tender shoots will not cease. 8 Though its root may grow old in the earth, And its stump may die in the ground, 9 Yet at the scent of water it will bud And bring forth branches like a plant.
The reason a shoot or branch grows out of a cut down root/stump in the allegory in Isa. 11 is because the Davidic dynasty was cut off when God cursed Jeconiah at the time of the Babylonian exile (Jer. 22:30). (Cf also Dan. 4:15 where the roots and stump remain when a kingly dynasty is cut down by God, yet it can still spring back to life). Many trees, after being cut down, will grow a shoot or branch out of what remains, which is the stump and its roots.
Jesus, as the “Branch” (cf. Zech. 3:8 & 6:12) will grow up out of the root-stump of the Davidic dynasty. This was accomplished by the virgin birth through Mary who was descended from David through Nathan rather than Solomon.
IMO, Bill’s explanation does not make any sense out of Jesus’ statement in Revelation 22:16, “I am the root and offspring of David” because these are two mutually exclusive features of a genealogical tree that cannot be applied to ANYONE other than the Son of God who afterwards became Son of Man through the virgin birth. Notice in Isa. 11:1, the “root” and the “branch” are distinguished, since the “branch” (shoot) will come out of the “root” of Jesse. Yet Jesus claimed to be both the “offspring” (branch) and the “root.”
As for his comments about this interpretation being too obscure, and that Scripture does not explicitly place the Son both BEFORE and AFTER the virgin birth, he is far from correct. It most definitely does place the Son “in the beginning with God” in John’s prologue, Paul says of the Son: Col. 1:15-18 (NASB) And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities– all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; so that He Himself might come to have first place in everything. John recorded Jesus’ words, “Before Abraham was, I exist” (Jn. 8:58). To mention the many times John’s Gospel states that He descended from heaven would be superfluous, but one will suffice: John 3:13 (NASB) “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man.” It is clear that “ascended” was literal, thus His descending from heaven must also be literal since these are juxtaposed.
The evidence and plain statements are not lacking. It is just that Unitarians find creative ways to explain away crystal-clear language of Scripture in all such passages using exegetical gymnastics, then claim their alternate explanation is proof, and then use circular arguments like this claim that pre-human existence is obscure and not clearly stated. IMO, preexistence is the Achilles’ heel for Unitarians. They are not even unified on their interpretation of John’s prologue. Compare Anthony Buzzard’s interpretation with Bill Schlegel’s and you will see that something is seriously wrong with their hermeneutics and exegesis. Yet they are from the same group CoGGC.
The kind of argument used by Bill in that video might work as “preaching to the choir” to keep Unitarians from leaving that camp, but it will never work against Trinitarians, IMO. They need to exhibit superior hermeneutics, not making up stuff on the fly in order to maintain their system.
Scripture tells us exactly why God hid these things in a mystery (1 Cor. 2:6-10), and then later revealed them progressively via the holy Breath of God, especially through Paul and then John.
Amazing insight on the Jesse Isaiah verse, and tying it to revelations. Thank you for making deep topics so accessible.
Thanks Gilbert. Others have made the same connections and arguments from Isaiah 11 and Revelation, but I am not aware of anyone else who used this to explain why the Unitarian Pharisees could not solve Jesus’ riddle from Psalm 110:1.