The only thing that links Jesus to humanity is his flesh. This is Phil 2 which we will get to later. You also have to understand that as far as his intellect and psychology, this had to grow and develop as a human being just like every other member of the human community. He had to learn and grow. Our next study will take us into John 1 but it will not be like the other post I made on Jn1 that strictly covered verse one from the point of grammatical structure. This will take us through the entire prologue. If you have other question of the current post feel free to ask. When you are ready for John 1 we will continue.
POLL: The Deity of Christ
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Lets go!
THE INCARNATION OF THE SECOND POSITION
John 1:1-18
THE LOGOS OF GOD AS A FUNCTION OF DEITY
In John’s prologue, it seems that the Holy Spirit is more interested in dealing with the function of the Second Position than with the question of his identity. This will also be the primary focus of this lesson. Although his identity is well established in the first two verses, it does not seem to be the primary focus. In order for us to maintain the integrity of the text, we must understand that the Bible should not be read as an historical document but as a representational document. This is important to remember if we are to uphold the integrity of the language in this or any other text.
The Bible is not written as merely a catalog of historical events. I certainly do not mean to infer by this that I do not hold the things recorded in it to be historically accurate. I certainly believe them to be exactly as they are portrayed. However, the Bible is more than just a catalog of historical events. The Bible is a representational document that reveals the mind of God. The Bible was not written to give us an accurate account of human history. It was written to show us how God has operated in human history. This being the case, it is imperative that we do not allow history to define terms for us. It is not important that we understand how Plato, Philo or any other historian or philosopher of antiquity used the word όLogosor should we concern ourselves with how this word was used in the culture of the time in which John penned this gospel. It is very important however, that we allow the Holy Spirit to elevate the language so that he can explain to us a concept beyond what the words alone can express. This is the nature of all revelation. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the author, not John. John was merely an instrument of communication.
The Logos of John’s prologue is not just some benign abstract of ideas or reason but is the personification of an eternal function of deity. The Logos functions as part of a linguistic triad who links the will of God to the mind of man. Man does not have the capacity to reach beyond the boundaries of the natural world and look into the unseen dimension of God. He must rely upon God to supply him with information. The Logos connects man to an unseen world that transcends the scope of human observation by functioning as the conduit for divine communication. What man will learn about God will come only through the function of the Logos. This is true not just in the incarnation of the Word. It is true in every instance in scripture where God communicates directly with man. All of the Old Testament examples where ‘The Angle of Jehovah’ is in direct contact with man is always Second Position function. Even that which man learns of God from creation is the result of this second position function, which initially brought all mater into existence and placed within it the evidences of God, Psalms 19:1-4 and 97:6. The Logos is the avenue of communication between two parties in two dimensions. That which will be communicated is of course the will of God. The incarnation collapses the distance between the two worlds and brings man into direct contact with God in a very personal way. Man is now confronted face-to-face and in the flesh with this LogosThis is truly a remarkable event of human history.
The Logos is the source of enlightenment - something is lacking on the part of man; something is not understood. In order for man to expand his understanding of God, he must first be given access to the mind of God. The function of the Logosis to link the mind of man to the mind of God so that man might be able to think the way God thinks: to reason the way God reasons. (Bearing in mind of course, this is only after a limited fashion. After all, man is still a finite creature). What will be needed on the part of man is the realization that his thinking and reasoning processes are veiled in the darkness of intellectual blindness; not just about God, but about his own place within the eternal continuum, and even his relationship to the natural world of which he is a part. In verse 18, John says, “no man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” The word ἑώthat is translated here as ‘seen’ in most of the English translations is third person singular of ὁά which, according to Thayer, has three basic definitions. First, it means to see with the eyes. Secondly, it means to see with the mind, to know, to perceive. Thirdly, it means to become acquainted with throughpragmaticexperience (The 1981 New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon, p 451).
If John is arguing from the first definition, this needs to be understood in the light of pragmatic Old Testament examples. We know from the many examples of theophonic manifestations in the Old Testament that God has repeatedly presented himself to man in a number of ways. At times, God availed himself only to man’s auditory senses. He spoke to Adam, to Cain, to Noah, to the Hebrew patriarchs, to Moses, to the prophets, and to many others. Sometimes he visited himself upon man in the form of dreams or visions as to the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah chapter six. Other times, he appears as objects such as the cloud or the pillar of fire that went before Israel in the wilderness. Still, there are other times when he visited man in human form. There are some eight accounts of this type of theophany found in the Old Testament.
The word ‘theophany’ is derived from two Greek words, ὸmeaning God and ήmeaning sound or voice. A theophany then is a hearing of the voice of God. Theophonic experiences in scripture assume many forms, yet all seem to have a singular function. They communicate the will of God to man. They provide man with a point of reference that man can comprehend. In so doing, God is demonstrating compassion for the limitations of the human mind to understand things that are beyond his ability to comprehend. In some theophonic experiences, God will accommodate only man’s sense of hearing. One only heard the voice of God. God speaking to Noah in Genesis 6 is just such an example. Another is Genesis 12 where God spoke to Abraham. Sometimes, these theophanies would be accompanied by some type of material phenomenon such as fire, wind, or earthquake as in the cases of Moses in Exodus 3, the nation of Israel in Exodus 13 and Elijah in 1Kings 19. Each of these accompanying natural phenomena would appeal to a broader range of physical senses as God sometimes chose to speak in these things. Still, at other times, God chose to assume an anthropomorphic form as in Genesis 18 when he appeared to Abraham in the company of two angels, all in human form. For further reference, one might examine these examples of anthropomorphic theophanies. What appears in each of these is the repeated phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” 22:15-18; 31:11-13; 48:15-16, Joshua 5:13-15, Judges 6:11-24, and Judges 13:15-23.
In each example where the phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” is used, God is represented as the messenger of Jehovah. The phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” is only used to describe the spokesman of deity. This term is never applied to anyone else in scripture. He is always functioning as the spokesman of the divine triad. In each case, this is deity appearing in human form. In every example, those to whom The Angel (messenger) of Jehovah appeared always understood, at some point, that he was God and they honored him as such. The Angel of Jehovah will always assume divine authority in each of these Old Testament exemplars. He will always be seen serving as the agent of communication, hence the term “The Angel of Jehovah.” He is angelic not in nature but in function. In nature, he is God. In function, he is the messenger in the triadic unity.
The apostle Paul points out in 1Corinthians 10:1-4 that Jesus was the Rock who followed Israel through the desert. Therefore, scripture shows us that man has after a limited fashion, experienced God in varying degrees at the sensory level. He has seen and heard God. However, if what John is talking about in verse eighteen is experiencing the essence of God, it is certainly true that man has never looked upon the unshielded essence of the Almighty. Of all men, Moses seems to have been granted the most intimate privilege of experiencing the presence of God in his essence. In Exodus chapters 33 and 34, God allows all of his goodness to pass before Moses while shielding him in a rock and covering him with his hand. After God had passed by and declared the name of Jehovah, he then removed his hand and the text says that Moses was allowed to see his back or hind parts. Perhaps more properly, he saw what was behind him, or what was left behind. The LXX translation of this text reads καὶότεὄψειὰὀπίσωμου – “and then you see the back, behind, or after me.” The ὀπίσωdoes not refer to anything anthropomorphic but suggests the element of time. Moses would see only where God had been after he had passed by and even this proved to be more than he could bear.
If ἑώis understood as an intellectual limitation, this would seem to fit better with the closing statement of this prologue. “He has explained him.” The Greek word ἐή is third person singular aorist first indicative active of ἐέ meaning to detail, to set forth in language, to make known or to reveal (George V. Wagram’s Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1983). This is the etymology of our word to ‘exegete’. In other words, “No man has understood or comprehended God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has EXPLAINED him.” The Logos presents God to the mind of man through the medium of human language in such a way that man is now able to understand something of the nature and character of God that he could never know from his observation of the natural world. Only the one who came out of the very presence of God could have done this.
In the 1980 printing of The Expositors Greek Testament on the gospel of John p 692, the expositor makes an interesting observation in contrast to Meyer. He says that ἐήrefers to the “work” which Christ accomplished while he was on earth. This emphasizes a particular function of the Second Position. Having come from this eternal intimate relationship with the Father, he is thus “equipped” to translate the mind of God to the mind of man. The linking of these two minds is intended to create an isomorphic state of thinking. As we see in verses 10-12, this response on the part of man would be both positive and negative. As man begins the process of learning to think and reason as God, he will learn to re-symbolize his relationship both to God and to the natural world. He will have to learn to think differently, to speak differently, and to behave differently. Reality will take on a new definition. This would not be met favorably among the majority of humanity, not in the generation of John nor in this one.
Overview of Credentials
The Holy Spirit gives us a catalog of five distinct divine attributes that serve as credentialsof the Logos as the absolute spokesman of deity and legitimize his message. 1) The Logos himself is God - ὸἧ ὁ ό 2) He is eternal. 3) He is thecreator (Estranged Creator, verse 10). 4) He is the giver and the sustainer of life. 5) He is the source of grace and truth. Truth represents the mind of God as the ultimate reality. Grace is the channel for divine acceptance. As the revealer of God, he explained God to us. These credentials stand in contrast to all others who through history have spoken of behalf of God. While they were only men, this spokesman is God, a point that the Hebrew writer will later drive home for us. With such a resume as this, it would behoove us to do as the Hebrew writer commands and “give the more earnest heed…to the things we have heard” from this one. Hebrews 2:1, NKJV.
THE INCARNATION OF THE SECOND POSITION
John 1:1-18
THE LOGOS OF GOD AS A FUNCTION OF DEITY
In John’s prologue, it seems that the Holy Spirit is more interested in dealing with the function of the Second Position than with the question of his identity. This will also be the primary focus of this lesson. Although his identity is well established in the first two verses, it does not seem to be the primary focus. In order for us to maintain the integrity of the text, we must understand that the Bible should not be read as an historical document but as a representational document. This is important to remember if we are to uphold the integrity of the language in this or any other text.
The Bible is not written as merely a catalog of historical events. I certainly do not mean to infer by this that I do not hold the things recorded in it to be historically accurate. I certainly believe them to be exactly as they are portrayed. However, the Bible is more than just a catalog of historical events. The Bible is a representational document that reveals the mind of God. The Bible was not written to give us an accurate account of human history. It was written to show us how God has operated in human history. This being the case, it is imperative that we do not allow history to define terms for us. It is not important that we understand how Plato, Philo or any other historian or philosopher of antiquity used the word όLogosor should we concern ourselves with how this word was used in the culture of the time in which John penned this gospel. It is very important however, that we allow the Holy Spirit to elevate the language so that he can explain to us a concept beyond what the words alone can express. This is the nature of all revelation. Remember, the Holy Spirit is the author, not John. John was merely an instrument of communication.
The Logos of John’s prologue is not just some benign abstract of ideas or reason but is the personification of an eternal function of deity. The Logos functions as part of a linguistic triad who links the will of God to the mind of man. Man does not have the capacity to reach beyond the boundaries of the natural world and look into the unseen dimension of God. He must rely upon God to supply him with information. The Logos connects man to an unseen world that transcends the scope of human observation by functioning as the conduit for divine communication. What man will learn about God will come only through the function of the Logos. This is true not just in the incarnation of the Word. It is true in every instance in scripture where God communicates directly with man. All of the Old Testament examples where ‘The Angle of Jehovah’ is in direct contact with man is always Second Position function. Even that which man learns of God from creation is the result of this second position function, which initially brought all mater into existence and placed within it the evidences of God, Psalms 19:1-4 and 97:6. The Logos is the avenue of communication between two parties in two dimensions. That which will be communicated is of course the will of God. The incarnation collapses the distance between the two worlds and brings man into direct contact with God in a very personal way. Man is now confronted face-to-face and in the flesh with this LogosThis is truly a remarkable event of human history.
The Logos is the source of enlightenment - something is lacking on the part of man; something is not understood. In order for man to expand his understanding of God, he must first be given access to the mind of God. The function of the Logosis to link the mind of man to the mind of God so that man might be able to think the way God thinks: to reason the way God reasons. (Bearing in mind of course, this is only after a limited fashion. After all, man is still a finite creature). What will be needed on the part of man is the realization that his thinking and reasoning processes are veiled in the darkness of intellectual blindness; not just about God, but about his own place within the eternal continuum, and even his relationship to the natural world of which he is a part. In verse 18, John says, “no man has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” The word ἑώthat is translated here as ‘seen’ in most of the English translations is third person singular of ὁά which, according to Thayer, has three basic definitions. First, it means to see with the eyes. Secondly, it means to see with the mind, to know, to perceive. Thirdly, it means to become acquainted with throughpragmaticexperience (The 1981 New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon, p 451).
If John is arguing from the first definition, this needs to be understood in the light of pragmatic Old Testament examples. We know from the many examples of theophonic manifestations in the Old Testament that God has repeatedly presented himself to man in a number of ways. At times, God availed himself only to man’s auditory senses. He spoke to Adam, to Cain, to Noah, to the Hebrew patriarchs, to Moses, to the prophets, and to many others. Sometimes he visited himself upon man in the form of dreams or visions as to the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah chapter six. Other times, he appears as objects such as the cloud or the pillar of fire that went before Israel in the wilderness. Still, there are other times when he visited man in human form. There are some eight accounts of this type of theophany found in the Old Testament.
The word ‘theophany’ is derived from two Greek words, ὸmeaning God and ήmeaning sound or voice. A theophany then is a hearing of the voice of God. Theophonic experiences in scripture assume many forms, yet all seem to have a singular function. They communicate the will of God to man. They provide man with a point of reference that man can comprehend. In so doing, God is demonstrating compassion for the limitations of the human mind to understand things that are beyond his ability to comprehend. In some theophonic experiences, God will accommodate only man’s sense of hearing. One only heard the voice of God. God speaking to Noah in Genesis 6 is just such an example. Another is Genesis 12 where God spoke to Abraham. Sometimes, these theophanies would be accompanied by some type of material phenomenon such as fire, wind, or earthquake as in the cases of Moses in Exodus 3, the nation of Israel in Exodus 13 and Elijah in 1Kings 19. Each of these accompanying natural phenomena would appeal to a broader range of physical senses as God sometimes chose to speak in these things. Still, at other times, God chose to assume an anthropomorphic form as in Genesis 18 when he appeared to Abraham in the company of two angels, all in human form. For further reference, one might examine these examples of anthropomorphic theophanies. What appears in each of these is the repeated phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” 22:15-18; 31:11-13; 48:15-16, Joshua 5:13-15, Judges 6:11-24, and Judges 13:15-23.
In each example where the phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” is used, God is represented as the messenger of Jehovah. The phrase “The Angel of Jehovah” is only used to describe the spokesman of deity. This term is never applied to anyone else in scripture. He is always functioning as the spokesman of the divine triad. In each case, this is deity appearing in human form. In every example, those to whom The Angel (messenger) of Jehovah appeared always understood, at some point, that he was God and they honored him as such. The Angel of Jehovah will always assume divine authority in each of these Old Testament exemplars. He will always be seen serving as the agent of communication, hence the term “The Angel of Jehovah.” He is angelic not in nature but in function. In nature, he is God. In function, he is the messenger in the triadic unity.
The apostle Paul points out in 1Corinthians 10:1-4 that Jesus was the Rock who followed Israel through the desert. Therefore, scripture shows us that man has after a limited fashion, experienced God in varying degrees at the sensory level. He has seen and heard God. However, if what John is talking about in verse eighteen is experiencing the essence of God, it is certainly true that man has never looked upon the unshielded essence of the Almighty. Of all men, Moses seems to have been granted the most intimate privilege of experiencing the presence of God in his essence. In Exodus chapters 33 and 34, God allows all of his goodness to pass before Moses while shielding him in a rock and covering him with his hand. After God had passed by and declared the name of Jehovah, he then removed his hand and the text says that Moses was allowed to see his back or hind parts. Perhaps more properly, he saw what was behind him, or what was left behind. The LXX translation of this text reads καὶότεὄψειὰὀπίσωμου – “and then you see the back, behind, or after me.” The ὀπίσωdoes not refer to anything anthropomorphic but suggests the element of time. Moses would see only where God had been after he had passed by and even this proved to be more than he could bear.
If ἑώis understood as an intellectual limitation, this would seem to fit better with the closing statement of this prologue. “He has explained him.” The Greek word ἐή is third person singular aorist first indicative active of ἐέ meaning to detail, to set forth in language, to make known or to reveal (George V. Wagram’s Analytical Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 1983). This is the etymology of our word to ‘exegete’. In other words, “No man has understood or comprehended God at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has EXPLAINED him.” The Logos presents God to the mind of man through the medium of human language in such a way that man is now able to understand something of the nature and character of God that he could never know from his observation of the natural world. Only the one who came out of the very presence of God could have done this.
In the 1980 printing of The Expositors Greek Testament on the gospel of John p 692, the expositor makes an interesting observation in contrast to Meyer. He says that ἐήrefers to the “work” which Christ accomplished while he was on earth. This emphasizes a particular function of the Second Position. Having come from this eternal intimate relationship with the Father, he is thus “equipped” to translate the mind of God to the mind of man. The linking of these two minds is intended to create an isomorphic state of thinking. As we see in verses 10-12, this response on the part of man would be both positive and negative. As man begins the process of learning to think and reason as God, he will learn to re-symbolize his relationship both to God and to the natural world. He will have to learn to think differently, to speak differently, and to behave differently. Reality will take on a new definition. This would not be met favorably among the majority of humanity, not in the generation of John nor in this one.
Overview of Credentials
The Holy Spirit gives us a catalog of five distinct divine attributes that serve as credentialsof the Logos as the absolute spokesman of deity and legitimize his message. 1) The Logos himself is God - ὸἧ ὁ ό 2) He is eternal. 3) He is thecreator (Estranged Creator, verse 10). 4) He is the giver and the sustainer of life. 5) He is the source of grace and truth. Truth represents the mind of God as the ultimate reality. Grace is the channel for divine acceptance. As the revealer of God, he explained God to us. These credentials stand in contrast to all others who through history have spoken of behalf of God. While they were only men, this spokesman is God, a point that the Hebrew writer will later drive home for us. With such a resume as this, it would behoove us to do as the Hebrew writer commands and “give the more earnest heed…to the things we have heard” from this one. Hebrews 2:1, NKJV.
Disposing of Elin's red-herring first ....
if the Messiah was to be born in the tribe of Judah "according to the flesh" but you reckon Joseph was not his earthly father,
then surely Joseph's lineage is totally irrelevant.
In which case one wonders why whoever wrote Matthew (nobody knows for sure) even included that lineage.
Unless ... the mystery writer believed that Joseph was Yeshua's father because the whole Virgin Birth story was not invented until long after he wrote his version ?
(Well, to make Yeshua a god, they had to give him this virgin-born status to compete with all the other man-gods of the day.)
I will address the issue of Mary's tribe in my next post.
if the Messiah was to be born in the tribe of Judah "according to the flesh" but you reckon Joseph was not his earthly father,
then surely Joseph's lineage is totally irrelevant.
In which case one wonders why whoever wrote Matthew (nobody knows for sure) even included that lineage.
Unless ... the mystery writer believed that Joseph was Yeshua's father because the whole Virgin Birth story was not invented until long after he wrote his version ?
(Well, to make Yeshua a god, they had to give him this virgin-born status to compete with all the other man-gods of the day.)
I will address the issue of Mary's tribe in my next post.
Last edited:
F
To the contrary Elin, the flour and oil are still flour and oil though mingled.
To the contrary:
The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.
And
The Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.
There aren't two Divine Spirits.
To the contrary: paremeno is in John 14:10.
The Father is both in the Son, and abides in His Son.
This is much better than your innovation that 'in' means Father and Son are not in One Another.
It is wonderful if you're acknowledging that God is in God, that Father is in Son.
But to the contrary of your second clause, Paul wrote:
'...that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God,'
Eph 3:19.
To the contrary Elin:
Jesus is both reality and truth. Reality is truth, and truth is reality.
(Is English your first language?)
Because it's obvious Greek isn't either.
'Alethia' and 'Aletheuo' are forms of the same root, base, word;
or one is a form of the other.
?
Translation is 'improvement'?
You appear ignorant, dear Elin. Translating 'alethia' 'reality' or 'truth,'
depending on the sense and on the context, is not 'adding' to the Scripture.
But denying the mutual indwelling of the Spirit, Son, and Father, is subtracting from it.
Then I can hope you're..................seeing?
That if the Spirit issues from the Son, then the Spirit is in the Son.
I hope you're not suggesting that the Son being eternally begotten of the Father
means, in you're mind, that now He's apart from the Father?
Then would that not be some form of 'plain' begotten in contrast to 'Eternally' begotten?
Then was there a point you were trying to make about 'Trinity' not being in the Bible?
To the contrary:
The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son.
And
The Last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.
There aren't two Divine Spirits.
To the contrary: paremeno is in John 14:10.
The Father is both in the Son, and abides in His Son.
This is much better than your innovation that 'in' means Father and Son are not in One Another.
It is wonderful if you're acknowledging that God is in God, that Father is in Son.
But to the contrary of your second clause, Paul wrote:
'...that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God,'
Eph 3:19.
To the contrary Elin:
Jesus is both reality and truth. Reality is truth, and truth is reality.
(Is English your first language?)
Because it's obvious Greek isn't either.
'Alethia' and 'Aletheuo' are forms of the same root, base, word;
or one is a form of the other.
?
Translation is 'improvement'?
You appear ignorant, dear Elin. Translating 'alethia' 'reality' or 'truth,'
depending on the sense and on the context, is not 'adding' to the Scripture.
But denying the mutual indwelling of the Spirit, Son, and Father, is subtracting from it.
Then I can hope you're..................seeing?
That if the Spirit issues from the Son, then the Spirit is in the Son.
I hope you're not suggesting that the Son being eternally begotten of the Father
means, in you're mind, that now He's apart from the Father?
Then would that not be some form of 'plain' begotten in contrast to 'Eternally' begotten?
Then was there a point you were trying to make about 'Trinity' not being in the Bible?
THE INCARNATION AND THE HUMAN CONDITION
The Human Condition from God’s Perspective
He comes as Light into the darkness. Darkness is a metaphor for defining a human ontology. Here, darkness represents spiritual blindness; man is unaware of his condition. It reveals intellectual blindness to the relationship between the dimensions of the seen and the unseen. It reveals false knowledge; this is knowledge that is defined by human wisdom, Colossians 2:1-4, and 8. It reveals ignorance; their darkness is not perceived, Romans 1:21-22. It reveals weakness; human reason is incapable of overpowering the light. It represents death and separation; those in the darkness have no relationship to the light. It will be necessary for God to intervene in order to restore the fellowship between himself and man. An intellectual transformation must take place in the mind of man if he is to be “delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred into the kingdom of His dear Son.” Colossians 1:13.
The Incarnation from the Human Perspective
The Light was an unwelcome intrusion. It represented a threat to the human status quo. Light illuminates, exposing what is hidden in the darkness. It enlightens, bringing recognition to one’s condition. It brings realization that everything else is a lie. It brings life and produces change. It restores fellowship by bringing the mind of man into an isomorphic state with the mind of God. The presence of the Light will most certainly be met with extreme prejudice.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GOD BRINGS THESE TWO WORLDS
INTO A STATE OF COINCIDENCE?
There is an immediate discontinuity between the Word and the human mind. Man did not know him because knowledge of the eternal is veiled. This veil exists because human perception is based on experiential knowledge rather than on revelation. This separation is without excuse because revelation had already been given that was adequate to recognize the Word for who he was. Indeed, some made the connection between Jesus and what the Old Testament had to say regarding the One who was to come. For the majority of humanity, sensory examination of the natural world had become their epistemological metric. In other words, man bases his knowledge on what he learns from his observation of statistical regularities operating within the natural world. They did not know him for who he was because his identity was not revealed by the natural world or by natural processes. Recognition is based on familiarity. To the eyes of those around him, they recognized only those things that were familiar to their experiences. They did not receive him as the Word of God because they received him as one of their own. All they could see was the man and experience told them that men do not legitimately claim divine status.
What exactly did they know about him that they could connect to their understanding of reality? They knew that he was born of a woman, they supposed, just like everyone else in the human collective, Matthew 13:55-56. They watched him as he grow just like his brothers and sisters and every other child in their community. On the surface, they saw nothing about him that was any different from any one of them. They saw that, as a man, he possessed all of the same physical characteristics as all other men of the Jewish family. He looked and dressed like them. He ate what they ate. He lived as they lived. He was subject to all of the same sets of determined relations that are common to all members of the human race. When he got hungry, he ate. When he got tired, he rested. In times of rejoicing, he rejoiced with them. In times of sorrow, he wept with them. As the years passed, he aged physically, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically. When he was hurt, he suffered. When they nailed him to a cross, he died. All of these things agreed with their understanding of how natural processes work; consequently, “they received Him not” for who he was but for who they thought him to be. However, the miracles he did, the claims he made, and the things he taught were all far removed from anything in their experiences. This created an immediate discontinuity. This was all contrary to everything they knew. When the Word of God is brought to bear upon the mind, socially accepted knowledge will always be confronted. When human intelligence is thrown into a state of conflict with the superior intelligence of God, ideas will inevitably be challenged. The Word of God challenges human wisdom and forces man to reassess what he regards as knowledge. Man must now choose to bow to revelation or rebel against it. This results in a conflict of ideologies and a battle of wills ensues. There will be no compromise on the part of God. This creates a disruption of the human status quo because man is confronted with the need to change the way he thinks about what is true. This was the purpose of the miracles. The miracles not only served as divine credentials, they also challenged man’s perception of reality. This met with bitter opposition from every corner of society. Since they refused to acknowledge him as the Word of God, they could not acknowledge his teaching as being from God. They were reluctant to surrender long held and cherished ideas, beliefs, practices and established ways of life. Jesus often challenged the way in which they read scripture. Many times, we find Jesus correcting their interpretation of God’s Law. Human rationalization of scripture had marginalized the truth and rendered it void through their traditions, Mark 7:1-13. The function of scripture had been lost to them. Man is now given the opportunity to see reality in quite a different way. He is being called upon to change the way in which he reads scripture and to re-discover a long abandoned epistemology. Man is shown that he can no longer rely upon his observation of natural processes to influence how he regards revelation or defines truth. Most of Jesus’ hearers refused to accept this. This is why the miracles and especially the resurrection of Jesus were such a “stumbling block and a rock of offense,” Isaiah 8:14, Romans 9:33 and 1Peter 2:8. These things could not be explained away by natural process nor could they simply be ignored. The miracles overturned everything their experiences told them about how things worked in their world. These things were contrary to all reason and “common sense” (Does this sound familiar?). After all, everyone knows that virgins do not give birth to children. Now, these may have been ignorant, unsophisticated, and uneducated people but they knew where babies came from. Of course, everyone knows that blind men cannot suddenly be made to see and that men do not walk on water. A determined relationship exists between the elements of the water, gravitational forces and the mass of the human body that make this impossible. Everything we know about the natural processes of this world tells us that once a person is dead they stay dead! There is no way to overturn the finality of this experience. With these displays of miracles, Jesus challenged every ideological reality that they had embraced based on human lived experiences. In spite of all of the evidence of the miracles, many simply could not accept him in terms of his claims. It was quite a revolutionary idea to realize that not even death is determinate. With this, came the realization that man is not in control of his world. Man would not accept that he himself is non-determinate. In retaliation, man attempts to overcome the light in the perceived interest of self-preservation. By killing him, they will attempt to prove that they are ultimately in control of their world, only to discover that the Logos is determinate, not death, and certainly not the men who put him on the cross for HE WILL NOT STAY DEAD.
For others however, this revelation produced its desired effect for some received him. This represents a changing belief structure. Some embraced the light. They recognized the reality of their own intellectual darkness. To these he gave eternal life. One lesson we learn from those who opposed the Light is that false teachers fear the truth because truth always exposes. Man must be exposed to the genuine article before he can recognize a fraud. This is precisely what the Light accomplished for those who would receive him as the Word of God.
far from being irrelevant it was vital. it was the lineage of descent of the heir to the throne of Israel. When Joseph adopted Jesus by naming Him, Jesus became heir to the throne of Israel. From then on He would be seen as the true 'firstborn' son of Joseph.
Matthew included it for the reason I have described.
Wrong as I have shown you. There was no mystery about the authorship of Matthew. It was confirmed at a time when John at least was still alive. And he makes quite clear that Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin.
That is simply childish. There is no parallel to the birth of Jesus in Greek or any other literature. I suggest you read Machen's 'the Virgin Birth of Christ'.
How exciting. More fairy tales?
Matthew included it for the reason I have described.
Wrong as I have shown you. There was no mystery about the authorship of Matthew. It was confirmed at a time when John at least was still alive. And he makes quite clear that Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin.
That is simply childish. There is no parallel to the birth of Jesus in Greek or any other literature. I suggest you read Machen's 'the Virgin Birth of Christ'.
How exciting. More fairy tales?
Thanks for responding, but I am trying to unseat a long-held understanding of "begotten" as the OT uses "begat," and I'm not getting it.
You haven't answered my question as to the exact meaning of this "begotten,"
a statement in the form of this statement: "begat" is "to sire."
So, "begotten" is "to . . . . . . . . . . ."?
You haven't answered my question as to the exact meaning of this "begotten,"
a statement in the form of this statement: "begat" is "to sire."
So, "begotten" is "to . . . . . . . . . . ."?
Last edited:
S
No God does not want glory from the head, but the heart. Many come onto sites like three for example and make all kinds of demands for salvation, demands neither demanded from the overwhelming ministers in churches, nor the bible.
Doubtless it is because they are led of the egotistical mind of man, not the Holy spirit, for the word of God states:
Do not go beyond what is written1cor4:6
Doubtless it is because they are led of the egotistical mind of man, not the Holy spirit, for the word of God states:
Do not go beyond what is written1cor4:6