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)
