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)
