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?
BT: Good question, Judy. But in
this instance it is not mine to answer. Why would you assume that
this scripture must have temporal overtones? I believe these
verses are not temporal but figurative of eternal truths. I believe
they are figurative because if they are not they present all kinds of
problems with the greater narrative of Scripture. In other words I
believe they submit themselves to the texts which define them more
clearly. There is nothing unusual about the employment of figurative
language in Scripture. Slade and Jeff are much more knowledgeable than I
am on the use of figurative language and the idioms of Hebrew culture,
yet even I am able to recognize at certain times that this or that
saying must be figurative in some way or another because if not it
forces a contradiction where I know none exists.
jt: I've never assumed
"temporal overtones" or even thought about it BT, you suggest it in your
first paragraph above where you agree with MacArthur but now you are
saying it is "figurative?" or that it just can't mean what it
says.
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" or "figurative"rather
than literal?
BT: Um, Judy, we need to get
something straight here, lest I get confused and fall off my perch.
Temporal means that which happens in time. It is your argument
that the begetting happened at a point in time. It is mine which states
that the Father eternally begat the Son and that the Son was eternally
begotten. See J I'm a nice
guy; I'm making your argument for you.
jt: Not my argument BT, the
scripture gives us a point in time which is "this day"
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."
BT: I'm sorry, Judy, I have
lost the context for this point. To what are you referring?
jt: The decree is what
MacArthur used to make the begetting an eternal event rather than
something that happened in time, weren't you in agreement with
him?.
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: Scripture tells us
that God is the Father of ALL spirits (Heb 12:9b). Jesus being begotten
at the incarnation does not change this fact. He is a Father period.
So 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?
BT: Kenosis is the
Greek word for "emptied" in verse 7. I apologize for not making this
clearer to you. "Father" is
a relational term, just like husband is a relational term. One cannot be
a husband without having a wife -- this is what I mean when I say it is
a "relational term." You were not a wife until you got married and had a
husband. It would have been non-sensical -- not to mention misleading --
for you to have maintained that you were always a wife from the
date of your birth but that one day you got married and had a husband.
Yet you wrote earlier that the "Trinity" is the Father, the Word, and
the Spirit. If I understand you correctly, you maintain that the
Father is eternal. If this is so, may I ask, whom was he the Father
of? Do you realize that you are suggesting, nay, demanding that God was
the Father of no one and nothing for an eternity before he created a
woman to bear a son? Do you realize that you are implying that God the
Father was actually illegitimate until he begat a son? Do you realize
that you have created a doctrine that makes God dependent upon his
creation in order to be what he claims to have been from eternity: a
Father? Please ponder these things.
jt: The above assumes we
know everything there ever was. How do you know that there was no
pre-Adamic creation Bill? He is the
Creator and Father of all - (see 1 Cor 15:41-48)
Furthermore, may I ask you to
explain to me the nature of the Father's relationship with the Word? Did
they have a personal relationship? Was it a Father/Son relationship, or
was it something other than this? If it was not a Father/Son
relationship, what happened to that relationship on the day that the son
was begotten and the Word became flesh? Did that relationship cease to
exist? In other words, did the eternal God change?
jt: I see
God the Word as an equal part of the Godhead because there are three
that bear witness from heaven and none of them is a Son; they are The
Father, The Word, and The Holy Ghost, and these three are One (1 John
5:7); whereas during His earthly ministry Jesus the Son says "The
Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). In His pre-incarnate state Jesus
The Word of God created all things and holds them all together right now
by the Word of His power (Heb 1:3); whereas during His earthly ministry
He only did and said what He first saw the Father doing and
saying.
The foundation for my position
is everywhere in Scripture. But in order to keep this conversation in a
manageable context, allow me to repost the verses I used to establish
the eternal Sonship of Christ:
- "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)
In verse 54 Jesus
identifies his "Father" as he who honors him. When he calls him Father
he identifies and establishes himself as the Son. It is the Son who is
honored by his Father. In verse 58 this same Son makes a
very clear and distinct reference to the Old Testament name of God. In
other words the Son identifies himself as both divine and eternal. Was
this Son misleading the Jews when he said these words? Of course not --
unless, of course, he was not eternally the divine Son of the
Father.
- "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with
Yourself, with the glory which I had with You
before the world was." (John
17.5)
Again Jesus speaks to the
"Father." He speaks as the Son of the Father. This
Son commands the Father to glorify him with the glory that
he had shared with his Father before the cosmos was, which
of course is many thousand years prior to the date of his incarnation.
Did this Son mislead his hearers when he led them to
believe that he had shared in the glory of the Father before the world
was?
- "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)
The same holds true with this
verse. Here the Son declares that the Father had loved him before the
foundation of the world. This again was millenia
prior to that date of his incarnation. If there was a time when
the Son was not, which is what I hear you asserting, then what
glory is it which he desires his hearers behold? By your argument the
"Son" could not know any glory except that glory which he knew from the
time he had been begotten. Any glory before that time would not be the
glory of the Father to his Son.
jt: In the beginning was
the Word, the Word was with God and the Word WAS God the
same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and
without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and
the life was the light of men (John 1:1-4). That was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the
world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He
came to his own and his own received him not...
Moreover, what kind of "love"
was it that the Father had for this Son from before the foundation of
the world, if it was not the love of the Father for his Son? This goes
back to my relationship question before. We see here that the love of
the Father is the love of the Father for his Son. Jesus said he
knew this love before the foundation of the world. How could he know
this love of the Father if at that point in eternity he was not
the Father's Son? Bill
jt: He took upon Himself the
likeness of man for the sole purpose of becoming the Savior of mankind
and He learned obedience to the Father by the things He suffered so that
He is now a perfect High Priest/Intercessor on our behalf. As for "love"
it is probably the same love and respect one has for an equal since the
nature and character of God is Love and as the Word of God He is both
Alpha and Omega. He is the Word of God at the beginning and He is the
Word of God at the end (Revelation
19:13)
