|
BRAVO! Well written and Bill has clearly shown why an
understanding of the original languages is SO important. Thanks
Bill,
Jeff
Life makes warriors of us all.
To emerge the victors,
we must arm
ourselves with the most potent of weapons.
That weapon is
prayer.
--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004
14:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
I will respond in black.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 7:50
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind of
Christ
Bill you have overlooked and
completely negate the fact that Jesus as God's Son was begotten on a certain
day:
No, Judy, I have not overlooked this, nor do I
negate it. To begin this conversation I will simply agree with MacArthur:
"the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that
takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to
employ terminology with temporal overtones ("this day have I begotten thee"),
the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal
decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken
of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a
point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood
as figurative, not literal" (emphasis added).
Phil 2:5-11 and Isa
7:14, 9:6 refer to the incarnation when God the Word, the second person
of the Divine Trinity emptied Himself to take on a human body and
redeem mankind. <snip>
Philipians 2.5-11. You misunderstand the
kenosis, the question being What does it mean that the Son "empied"
himself? (I use the term "Son" interchangeably with Jesus Christ here
because as we see in verse 11 he did this -- the kenosis -- to the
"glory of God the Father." Just as the Son is the eternal Son of the Father,
the Father is the eternal Father of the Son. If there were a time when the
Son was not, then there must also have been a time when the Father was not:
Are you willing to go this far, Judy?) We read in verse 5 that Paul's desire
is that the mind of his readers be that of Jesus Christ. What does it mean
that we have the mind in us that is in Christ? We look to the following
verses to receive our answer. When Paul states that Jesus "emptied" himself,
he is not saying that the Son divested himself of deity or that he gave up
his divine nature. To the contrary, this could not be what Paul meant to
convey. Jesus interpreted himself as divine: "He who has seen me has
seen the Father" (see Joh 6.46). The Son could not empty himself of
divinity, "the very morphe of God," and at the same time claim to
be the visible _expression_ of God, "God with us." The Jews understood
this quite well. In their culture to call yourself the Son of God was to
equate yourself with G-d; it was to claim the status that only he
enjoyed; it was to declare yourself divine. There is no missing this
point. Again I quote MacArthur: "The son was, after all, of the very
same essence as his father, heir to all the father's rights and
privileges--and therefore equal in every significant regard. So when
Jesus was called 'Son of God,' it was understood categorically by all
as a title of deity, making Him equal with God and (more significantly)
of the same essence as the
Father. That is precisely why the Jewish leaders regarded
the title 'Son of God' as high blasphemy." Indeed to know Jesus
was to know his Father, that is, to know exactly what God was like through
the visible earthly witness of his Son -- Emmanuel.
No, it was not his divinity that the Son -- or as
you choose to call him, "the Word" -- divested himself of. What was the
kenosis? In taking on the form of a slave the Son emptied himself
of the glory, the honor, the equality that he deserved and had share with
his Father from eternity. The key word to understand the meaning of this
passage is arpagmos. It is found in verse 6. Our English
translations render it as "robbery" or "something to be grasped"; however,
these translations do not do service to the thrust of this word.
Arpagmos appears only this one time in the New Testament; it is not
used in the Septuagint and it is rarely used in contemporaneous
extra-biblical writings; hence the difficulty in translating it. Yet Paul
was astute in his scholarship, acute in his wording. On those ocassion where
the word was used, it meant something on the order of exploitation or
taking advantage of a situation.
Paul writes in verse 6 that the Son did not
regard his equality with God something to be used for his own advantage.
With this definition in tow we can now begin to grasp the meaning of both
the kenosis and how it is that we too might employ the mind of
Christ. In becoming Emmanuel, the Son of God came to bear and disclose the
heart of God, to the Jews first and then to all humanity (Joh 10.38). In all
he did he came to show the world what God was really like. He did this
not in overwhelming power and blinding glory, as the Jews expected. No, his
was not to overwhelm his creation. The heart of God is humble. Ours is the
only God in the universe who stoops. Every other "God" demands that humans
climb their way to him. Our God stoops to meet us where we are. When he came
to show us who he was, our God looked up to us from a position of
servitude. Our God is a humble God.
In this passage we see that the Son did not
consider his equality with God something to be exploited. This one who,
before becoming human, possessed divine equality did not regard that status
as something to take advantage of; instead he emptied himself of the glory
he had shared with his Father and interpreted his status as a vocation
to obedient humiliation and death. At any point of his earthly ministry
he could have grasped at, or taken advantage of, or exploited his glory, his
power, his equality, the honor he deserved, but in so doing he would not
have been demonstrating the heart of his Father: "He who has seen
me has seen the Father." No, the Son did not divest himself of divinity
in the kenosis; instead he maintained and demonstrated divinity via
the path of humbling service, even unto death. We read in verse 11 that this
pleased the Father, who exalted this Godman, his Son Christ Jesus to
the glory that had previously only been excercised in divinity. Thus it was
in the exaltation that Christ extablished his Lordship, indeed a human being
becoming equal with God the Father, over humanity.
As Christian we dare not rule over
people with power and glory and prestige; for when we do so we fail to
employ the mind of Christ. The mind of Christ is not given to exploitation.
And so in answer to Paul's desire, how do we let this mind be in us which is
in Jesus Christ ? By living godly lives -- lives like the Son lived,
when God was here on earth. To have the mind of Christ we must humble
ourselves, take the form of servants, and look up to people from the heart
of God.
As God the person we now know of as Jesus Christ had no beginning,
was not begotten, was not a Son, and did not come into being. He always
existed as God (Psalm 90:2, Micah 5:2, John 1:1-2, Hebrews 1:8); but as a
man and as God�s Son He was not eternal, He did have a beginning. He was
begotten - this being at the same time Mary had a Son. Therefore the doctrine of
eternal sonship of Jesus Christ is irreconcilable
to reason, is unscriptural and is contradictory to
itself.
Eternity has no
beginning, so if He has been God from eternity, then He could not have a
beginning as God. Eternity has no reference to
time, so if He was begotten �THIS DAY,� then it was done in time and not in
eternity. The word Son supposes time, generation,
father, mother, beginning, and conception - unless one is a son by creation as Adam (Luke 3:38)
and angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7; Genesis 6:1-4.
Time, created,
beginning, are opposites to God and eternity and are absolutely impossible
to reconcile with them. If Sonship refers to deity, not to humanity, then
this person of the Deity had a beginning in time and not in eternity. It is
plainly stated in Psalm 2:7, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5 that God had a Son �THIS DAY� and not in eternity. It is stated in Hebrews 1:5-7, Luke 1:36, Matthew 1:18-25
when this took place. It was something over 1900 years ago. It had been
predicted that God would have a Son (Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, Hebrews 1:5, Matthew
1:18-25, Luke 1:32-35). When the Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost (Matthew
1:20), this was fulfilled, and not at any other
time.
Please read John MacArthur; on this issue he is
clear and on the mark. No, he does not go into great detail, but such
was not his intent. One can read his words and be confident that he did
not come to this conclusion lightly. If after reading him you are not
persuaded, do what he did, inquire further. There is two thousand years
worth of orthodoxy waiting to teach you. Please do not let this
opportunity pass you bye.
To say that God had an
eternal Son would mean He had two; but it is plainly stated that
Jesus was �THE ONLY BEGOTTEN
SON OF THE FATHER� (John 1:14, 18; 3:16-18; 1 John
4:9.
No, Judy, it means that the Son now had
two natures -- one fully human, one fully, eternally divine: one person, two
natures, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Bill
jt: He was the Word
of God from the foundation of the world. He
became a son at the incarnation when God provided Him a body. He was begotten, not made and His blood was/is the eternal
blood of the New Covenant which is non
sectarian in spite of the fact that
He was born under the law of
Moses to a young Jewish girl -
To the contrary, Judy:
As far back as God goes, the Word was God --
- "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with the God, and God was the Word." (John 1.1 -- wooden
literal translation)
The Word "became flesh." (see John
1.14)
But he was always the Son; i.e., he is the
eternal Son --
- "Jesus answered, 'If I honor Myself, My
honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He
is your God.' ... Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you,
before Abraham was, I AM.'" (John 8.54,58)
- "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with
Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world
was." (John 17.5)
- "Father, I desire that they also whom You
gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which
You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the
world." (John 17.24)
He was a Jew from the Seed (sperma --
Literally "sperm") of Abraham --
- "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the
promises made. He does not say, 'And to seeds,' as of many, but as of
one, 'And to your Seed,' who is Christ." (Galatians
3.16)
He was a Jew from the fruit of
David's body (karpou tes osphuos autou -- Literally the
"fruit of his genitals") --
-
"Men and brethren, let me speak
freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried,
and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit
of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the
Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning
the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor
did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of
which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right
hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy
Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David
did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to
my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your
footstool."' Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly
that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and
Christ." (Acts 2.29-36)
Judy, in all sincerity may I suggest
that you not push this one. You are treading on sacred ground. At the same
time you are bordering on denying both the full divinity of Christ
and his human heritage. Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, the
Word of God; he is also fully human, born of a Jewish woman of the
line of David, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham. Please reconsider what you are
saying. This one is too important to deny.
Sincerely, your brother,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004
9:30 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Mind
of Christ
jt: He was the Word of God
from the foundation of the world.
He became a son at the
incarnation when God provided Him a body.
He was begotten, not made and
His blood was/is the eternal blood
of the New Covenant which is
non sectarian in spite of the fact that
He was born under the law of
Moses to a young Jewish girl -
He was the Son of the Father, the Word who
was with God and was God "in beginning," and when he appeared in a flesh
body, he had Jewish blood running through his veins.
Bill
jt: Actually He
was the Word of the Father, who, in the fullness of time, appeared
among us in a flesh body.
I AM attempting
to get rooted in That Mind! Was Messiah a Greek or
Hebrew? -
slade
jt: Slade and Lance,
is there any good reason why we can not forget about both
Greek and Hebrew
mindsets and begin to
focus upon and discuss "the mind of Christ"?
jht
|
