What John 17:24 conveys is the existence of the Father - Son relationship from the foundations of the world.
David Miller wrote:
John 17:24 (24) Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
I see this passage like Judy does. I don't see how it conveys the existence of the Father - Son relationship from the foundations of the world. It only speaks about how the Father loved him before the foundation of the world.
John Smithson wrote:
Are you saying that the Father loved the Son before He, the Son, existed and that this passage teaches this?
There needs to be some clarification of this phrase, "before the Son existed." First, Judy has been clear that this son of man, Yeshua, has always existed as God. The way I think she is reading you is to say that he was not known as the Son until his birth in the flesh. In other words, I think you are saying one thing but Judy is reading you as saying something else because of her past correspondence with you that she does believe that Jesus Christ existed as God from eternity past.
My answer to your question is the passage does not say anything at all about whether Yeshua was the son of man or the son of God before the foundation of the world. It does not define exactly what kind of relationship existed except for a relationship of love. What we know from this passage is that God the Father loved Yeshua before the foundation of the world.
If somebody were to believe that Yeshua did not exist at all until he was born in the flesh, this passage could still be understood to suggest a love that the father had for his yet non-existant son, much like a mother like Hannah who desired a son and loved him before he was born. This is not what I believe, but the passage itself does not refute such a concept, especially if you take the position that time was created at the foundation of the world and did not exist before creation.
John Smithson wrote:
all those passages teach one thing ----- a pre-existent Son (IMO).
Which is something we agree upon. We agree that the person known as the son of man or the son of God existed before the foundation of the world.
John Smithson wrote:
When we give an explanation for the meaning of a passage that effectively changes the very wording of that passage, we can assume that we are wrong. At least, that is one of my personal hermeneutics.
I agree with this hermeneutic principle, which is why I have not yet embraced the eternal sonship doctrine. I do not need to change any of the wording of these passages that you have shared if I were to adopt Judy's position. On the other hand, I would have to change the wording of Psalm 2:7 and Luke 1:35 and Acts 13:33 and Heb. 1:5. These passages are the troublesome passages for the eternal sonship doctrine.
David Miller wrote:
You appear to read into them your bias
John Smithson wrote:
This is only true if, in fact, there is no other way to read a passage.
No, there may be numerous alternative understandings, and bias can still lead us down a particular path. Sometimes that bias will lead us down the right path, but sometimes it takes us down the wrong path.
John Smithson wrote:
The only question then, is this, with which bias do we find the best approximation for the meaning of a given passage -- esp those in question -- a bias that changes the wording of a passage or one which allows the original wording to exist and exist in full force. I go with the latter.
I go with the latter also. What passage do you think I need to change the original wording of in order to embrace Judy's position? I don't know of any at all. My problem is that Bill interprets Psalm 2:7 so figuratively that "this day" actually means "every day." Are you comfortable with that? I'm not. For me, it is like the theistic evolutionists who interpret the phrase in Genesis, "and there was evening and there was morning, one day" not to mean one day but rather millions of years.
John Smithson wrote:
You have stated on a number of occasions, of late, that you have not made up your mind either. Apparently that is no longer the case.
It is still the case. It seems to me that the revelation of Scripture points to him being begotten at his birth, but I have received no personal revelation no this matter. If the entire Christian world was against the eternal sonship doctrine, then I would probably more readily reject it. The fact that so many embrace it makes me more thorough to investigate a matter before rejecting it. I still have more study to do on the matter.
One other thing that bothers me is that the very word "begotten" must be changed to accept the eternal sonship doctrine. The creed says, "begotten, not made." Yet, outside of this doctrine, this word begotten has not meant "not made." When I have time, I plan to do some original language study on the appropriate Greek and Hebrew words. I also need to study the creeds a little closer on this phrase, because the creeds have not been static and etched in stone. There is some changing of words here in particular that I need to examine carefully in a historical context.
David Miller wrote:
and I still can't get past Psalm 2:7, "this day have I begotten thee."
John Smithson wrote:
You have stumbled onto a very important point, David. Ps 2:7 is a passage you are familar with. I would say it is and has been a part of your theology for sometime.
Actually, no, it has not been part of my theology for sometime. I've read it, but I have not put it into any significant theological framework in regards to when Jesus became a son.
John Smithson wrote:
When this discussion came up, you began your search/discussion from this passage. I did not. My mind went immediately to the prayer of the Son of God in the garden (John 17). The reason why we can have more than one viable opinion about so many biblical teachings is this very consideration -- where we begin our study. Your understanding Ps 2:7 forces you to conclude that there is more to John 17:24 than meets the eye. John 17:24 forces me to conclude that there is more to the "begotten" in Ps 2:7 than meets the eye. Judy may have started with, yet, a different passage. I thought "begotten" was fairly well dealt with by Bill and Slade.
There is something more significant to our difference in approach than what you mention here. It seems to me from your statements here that you look for confirming passages for a particular viewpoint. I take a very different approach. When I consider a viewpoint, I ask, "what passages would refute this viewpoint." I take a falsification approach whereas you take a proof and verification approach. For the sake of full disclosure, I did not learn this approach from the Bible. I learned this approach to truth from my scientific training, in particular, from the philosopher Karl Popper and the biologist John Platt. For a short treatment of this approach, you might consider an article by Platt published in Science, called, Strong Inference. It is available freely on the internet at http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/fs/gradprog/courses/radosevich/science.htm.
Therefore, the reason I look at Psalm 2:7 is not because this is where I start. Rather, it is the ultimate source of contradiction to the viewpoint of the eternal sonship. I actually first looked at Hebrews 1:5, which led me to Psalm 2:7. Then I considered Acts 13:33 and then Luke 1:35. The reason I go to these passages is because I am looking for what would discount the viewpoint of the eternal sonship. Most of those passages that you shared has been in my background. The eternal nature of Christ is firmly rooted in me and will never change. That is not the question here for me. The question is, what does Psalm 2:7 mean. What is it trying to communicate to us? It appears to be speaking something contrary to the eternal sonship viewpoint.
Something else occurred to me yesterday. I have always been uncomfortable with this idea of "begotten, not made." I am not uncomfortable with the idea that Jesus was not made, but rather I am uncomfortable with the fact that begotten does not mean, "not made." It truly seems to make more sense that "begotten" refers to when the Son of God was begotten in Mary's womb by the power of the Holy Ghost. Luke 1:35 certainly seems to carry this message, that because she knew no man, and because what was born in her was conceived of the Holy Ghost, her son would be called the Son of God.
John Smithson wrote:
It is not the fourth century creeds that influenced my decision. I would be interested in their statements, but the stongest authority for this teaching (to me at this writing) is the biblical message.
Then how do you deal with Psalm 2:7? He says, "This day have I begotten thee." What would lead you to think that this verse does not mean what it says, except for your leap of logic that the eternal existence of Jesus Christ and the unchangeable nature of Christ must mean that he has always been the begotten son of God.
I must point out that John 17:5 speaks of a different kind of glory which Jesus would receive when he returned to the father, a glory which he had in the beginning, but now as the son of God did not have. Philippians 2, as Judy pointed out, also speaks of this. The relationship between the father and Yeshua clearly has not always been the same through all eternity. His humanity changed some aspects of it. Judy hinted at this with her reference to John 14:28 (my father is greater than I).
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
