Here is a common sense post by Richard Traver regarding the topic of who exactly was the Creator God of the Old Testament. It seems to clear the air a bit and I thought you might enjoy it.
WHO is the God of the Old Testament?
It escapes me how it is that some within our ‘greater fellowship sphere’ have embraced the idea that the God Being in the Old Testament is the Person of the Father, not the pre-incarnate Son. I can’t help but wonder why the alternate idea, common among us, is deemed so unacceptable.
The issue seems to emanate from the ‘orthodox’ Jewish position, which we identify as ‘strict monotheism’, which basically holds that there is but one single God Being. That is further reinforced by a modern way of thinking which assumes that whenever we see the word God in the New Testament or Old, that it’s usually referring to a single Being: one OR the other. Despite our awareness that the Godhead is and always was a two-Person entity, it escapes many that the term “God” could be inclusive in some – if not most – instances. It isn’t so much considered that the word “God” could refer to either Being or in some places Both Beings as a unified collaboration. As an example, that “God created the heavens and the earth”, it’s not saying that one Being did the Creating and the other wasn’t involved. Creation was a collaborative act fully involving Both! So, effort to identify which Being is referred to as “God” in places such as this will always be an unresolvable exercise in futility if we attempt to identify one Being over the other. The generic term “God” is not an exclusive term. We shouldn’t consider it as one. The term “Elohim” alone should lay the ground rules for our conceptualization. Elohim is a plural noun, translated as a singular word.
People are often thrown a curve ball by the use of the term “father”. My son has a father, and I have a father. These two fathers are not the same individual. Likewise, the idea that the “father” of the religious nation could Himself have a father (such as Isaiah 9:6 positively explains), can prove to be a source of controversy and confusion within certain persuasions. Not only is the “Son” a father, but is identified as the “Everlasting Father”! What the worshippers of the day didn’t yet understand was that their “father” had a “Father”. That was not made known to them at the time, nor did they need to know, apparently. It is clear that the Son of that Father came to reveal His own Father’s existence in the first century. (Mt.11:27; Lk.10:22)
We are also faced with a further revelation that they never heard the voice of or seen the shape of that Father! (Jn.5:37) We must accept this, no matter what we might wish to believe. We are also made aware that the Father (of Christ) exudes a lethal aura of radiant energy (glory) that would destroy any physical being that might approach Him. (1Tim.6:16) These statements are clear, and should form the parameters of our thinking on the matter. The Father was not known (except to a very few) and never interfaced with humanity AT ANY TIME prior to the first century. Those who pose that He did are functioning in unbiblical territory. The Father never divested Himself of His full Glory as did the Son.
If there is additional question, we have the personal testimony of the Apostle Paul on the subject. In 1 Corinthians 10:4 he affirmed that the Being who led the children of Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness for 40-years was Christ! Let’s keep in mind that Paul spent time with this God Being in Arabia (where Mt. Sinai is) prior to his ministry. (Gal.1:17 & 4:25) He would have had opportunity to clarify which Being led the Exodus if there was any question. Did he not ask Him, “Who are you?” Oh, yes he did. (Acts 9:5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15) Those who prefer to identify the God of the Old Testament as being God the Father find themselves at serious odds with the apostle, one by his own word, “born out of due time” (1Cor.15 :8) who was personally trained by Christ years after the Day of Pentecost and his personal encounter on the road to Damascus! The Apostle Paul had no question as to WHO the God of the Old Testament was. Then, of course, he didn’t have access to lexicons or word dictionaries as we do today.
Now this revelation creates a consideration that we should explore. IF the Being who led Israel out of Egypt and through the wilderness was in fact the Person of the Son, then we have to accept that the religious nation was dealing with two Beings! Whom some identify as the Father in most instances, and the Son in this particular activity! This at least places the pre-incarnate Son well into the picture of dealings with the people of that time.
And, who was it that Moses spoke to face to face in unglorified form? (Ex.33:11) Who was it that Moses asked to see in His glorified form on the mount? (Ex.33:20-23 & 34:5-6) Which Being was it that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu and the seventy elders met with and ate before? (Ex.24:9-11) Who did Jacob wrestle with all night? (Gen.32:24-30) etc., etc. These things were well known among the religious community of Christ’s day, so their reaction to His statement in John 5:37, that they or their predecessors had never seen the form of or heard the voice of the Father ‘at any time’ was most significant. They must have understood that Jesus was speaking of another Being than the One they and their predecessors had dealt with in history. This is HUGE!
It appears to me that the idea that the God of the Old Testament was the Father, and the God of the New Testament was the Son, is a bit too simplistic. It’s an outgrowth of the strict monotheistic belief system of the Old Testament era. Another reflection of this is the idea that Jesus wasn’t God despite the existence of at least 50 strong indications in scripture that affirms that He was. I would like the supporters of that persuasion explain what it is that they find so objectionable about the idea that the God of the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Christ.
by Richard Traver http://goldensheaves.org
More and more this doctrinal change is appearing to me that Satan is using the word of God in a deceitful manner to confuse the people of God. When we no longer see the pre-incarnate divinity of Christ, we are in fact denying Christ Himself. Isn’t this what 1 John 4 warns us about?
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jn 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
I ask you what is so important about believing that Christ came in the flesh if He had not existed before as God with the Father. This is heretical teaching that denies the pre-incarnate divinity of Jesus and should be avoided at all costs.