Judy wrote: > I believe you are adding your theorozing (for whatever > reason) to Rom 8:3; could be time for a Gk refresher. > Likeness in Rom 8:3 is #3667 Strongs which my Gk > Word Study Dictionary defines as follows: > "In His essence (morphe) He was God, but took upon > Himself, in addition to His deity, the likeness of men > (with a true human nature in a real body), yet without > sin (Heb 4:15). For this reason we ae told that he was > made en homoiomati anthropon, "in the lineness of men," > not merely that He became man. > In Phil 2:7 the second word used is homoioma, "But made > himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a > servant, and was made in the likeness (homoioma) of men. > Paul declares here that Jesus Christ whose essential preincarnate > form was Spirit (pneuma 4151), emptied Himself and took > upon Himself the form of man, But His was, as Rom 8:3 says, > not the flesh of sin, but sinless flesh. He became man so that > He could die for the sin of man. It was as the Son of God that > Christ became the Son of Man, He never ceasing to be the > Son of God...
In the past you have argued against the eternal Sonship doctrine, but here you quote Zodhiates in support of it! What you do not seem to understand is that this is not a Greek definition, but an expanded commentary by a Greek scholar. Unfortunately, he is introducing his Christology here and is going far beyond defining the Greek language. Phil. 2:7 says, "made in the likeness of men." Zodhiates says the word "likeness" is used here because Jesus was always the Son of God from before his incarnation. I say hogwash. Likeness has a more broad use that Zodhiates is allowing for here. Phil. 2:7 says "likeness of men," but Jesus was more than just like a man. He was a man. 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Romans 5:15 says, "the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ." In like manner, Romans 8:3 says in the likeness of sinful flesh, but other passages say that Jesus was flesh. John 1:14 says that the Word was made flesh. 1 John 4:2-4 likewise teaches this. Now I am not taking the position that the word likeness cannot be used to express the likeness of a counterfeit or imitation that would deceive someone. Rather, I am simply saying that this word is not always used in this way. The word can be used to refer to true likeness and similarity, to emphasize its sameness. This is what Phil 2:7 does, because we know that Jesus was a man, yet he uses the word likeness in his phrase, "likeness of men." It is not because Jesus was a counterfeit or imitation man. It is because he was emphasizing the sameness. Judy wrote: > I am not "doing the very exact thing" you and Bill are > doing David. A Study Bible with historical notes and > that kind of background is not denominational, tradition, > or a theological commentary. Where did that accusation > come from?? A study Bible brings along with it much theological baggage. I personally have no problem with you reading them and consulting them, but ultimately you cannot hold their notes above the authority of Scripture. Sometimes you have to depart from them when their theological paradigm unduly influences their comments. Whether you realize it or not, you are doing something similar to both Bill and me when we quote from sources. The primary difference is that we quote from sources with which you are unfamiliar. Most of my quotes are from primary historical sources, not from commentaries or even a study Bible's notes. I never quote such as an authority, as you have done here. I might share their comment for consideration, but not as an authority that defines once and for all what a particular passage means. Zodhiates actually changed the phrase "sinful flesh" to "sinless flesh." I don't know if that was a typo at the publisher or an overzealous mind. I actually read somewhere (I don't remember where) the argument that he did not have a flesh of sin but a sinful flesh, so I suspect there was a typo or misreading somewhere along the line. Judy wrote: > Like is just what it says David; a zircon is LIKE a diamond > but is not the real thing. Jesus may have looked LIKE sinful > flesh, but who He was in the inside is who He was/is and > always will be. We are to be conformed to the image of > Christ. This will not make us Him. At best we will be LIKE > Him. I certainly agree that we will not be him, but only like him, but surely you are not going to argue that we are going to be a counterfeit Jesus or an imitation Jesus that only superficially resembles him like a zircon does a diamond, are you? I started this thread with only the question of whether you recognize that the word "likeness" might be used in different ways. It might be used to describe the likeness of a counterfeit to a real thing, but it also might be used to describe the sameness of two things to one another. For example, Scripture teaches us that Jesus came in the likeness of men, but it also teaches us that he was a man. Similarly, Jesus came in the likeness of the flesh, but he also was made flesh in actuality. So the phrase "likeness of sinful flesh" might mean that the nature of his flesh actually was sinful, not that he had ever sinned, but that his flesh has a propensity toward sin. The flesh would cause him to have feelings and passions that would tend to be contrary to the spirit. Therefore, he would have a source of temptation while he lived in the flesh that he would have to be victorious over. David Miller wrote: >> And so if you accept that he was made sin, why do >> you revolt at the idea that he was sent in the likeness >> of sinful flesh? Judy wrote: > Because "sinful flesh" is not who He was ever. You are using your present theology to dismiss the idea rather than giving it some consideration. If he was made sin at some point, then the concept of coming in the form of sinful flesh should be less revolting. It is easier to see how he would be in the form of sinful flesh and yet be holy and pure than it is to see that he would be made sin and yet still be holy and pure. 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.
