Bill: 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")
jt: Why not? Psalm 2 is
prophetic but Hebrews certainly spells out what day this is.
This conflicts with other parts of scripture and since ALL
scripture is given by inspiration from God by way of the Holy
Spirit who uses spiritual words to convey spiritual truths (1 Cor 2:12,13) .
Why would one assume that some scripture has temporal
overtones?
Bill: 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).
jt: I don't see it Bill since
the begetting is a point in time ie: "this day"
Why would anyone consider the language to be "temporal" and say it
is not literal? A decree is a decree, is a decree and there are
several words used for "decree" in scripture; this particular one is
choq #2706 which means "enactment, appointment of
time, space, appointed." Phil 2:5-11 and Isa 7:14, 9:6 refer to the
incarnation when God the Word, the second part of the Divine Godhead emptied
Himself to take on a human body and redeem mankind.
<snip>
Bill: 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?)
jt: No Bill. The above
appears more like an exercise in logic than the mind of Christ. Where
does the _expression_ "kenosis" come from and can you show me the foundation
for the above in scripture?
Bill: 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?
jt: Depends where one is
walking Bill. Paul clearly states in 1 Cor 2:16 that we have the
"mind of the Spirit"
Bill: 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."
jt: Jesus was the "image" of God
who had taken on the "likeness" of man during his earthly ministry
Bill. ATST Paul wrote what he meant and Jesus layed aside the glory
that he had with the Father. During his earthly ministry he was a spirit
filled man with the same limitations the rest of us have only He was given
the "fullness" rather than "a measure. The walk of salvation is supposed to
conform us to the "image of Christ" but I wouldn't call this "the very
morphe of Christ" An image is just that.
Bill: 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.
jt: What does this "essence" business mean? This
is another non-scriptural theological word. I'd much rather see your thesis
validated by scripture than by MacArthur Bill. Jesus was born a
Spirit being through the Eternal Spirit and at his Baptismal anointing for
ministry he received the "fulness" of the Spirit rather than just a measure
like the rest of us.
Bill: 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.
jt: Most of the Jewish leaders were
in the dark both before and after the crucifixion - why look to them for
wisdom? How many of them showed up in the upper room?
Bill: 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.
jt: Wasn't it the form of a
"servant?" I don't know about this "kenosis" but we can know what the
glory looked like because we have an image of Him in the book of Revelation
when he got it back and he sure didn't look like that during his earthly
ministry - even John the beloved who leaned on his breast at the last supper
was so "taken aback" that he fell at His feet.
Bill: 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."
jt: He wouldn't have been doing the
will of the Father. When Peter suggested he avoid the cross, he said "Get
behind me Satan" and told Peter he was preferring the way of man (my
paraphrase)
Bill: 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 ?
jt: We must walk after the Spirit
and not fulfill the lust/mind of the flesh.
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.
Bill: 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.
Bill: 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
