Church attendance & membership is a biblical given for all believers until Christ returns. Though some would like to contend otherwise, they have no Scriptural basis for such a claim. The whole of the New Testament record of the universal Christian body points towards the Apostles’ primary work of propagating & prospering the individual church bodies. Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, etc. were not individuals, but church bodies that Paul addressed. Moreover, the Lord Jesus Himself targeted His words in Revelation 2 & 3 not to individual Christians, but Christian assemblies.
There is no support to the idea of an insular Christian being accommodated by the apostles, while in contrast, there is much substantiation for the idea of all believers belonging & submitting to a local fellowship. Possibly nowhere else is this more addressed than by Paul’s first letter to that most dysfunctional of churches- the Corinthian. After a brief initial greeting, he immediately launches into a stiff censure of their “divisions” & “quarreling”, which was causing them to fail in the goal of being “united in the same mind and the same judgment.” Everybody was doing their own thing, as they each thought best, never instead acquiescing to the greater good of Christ & His earthly body. Yes, Paul addressed them as one body, but in reading chapter after chapter of their predilection towards self-centeredness, one can only conclude this manner of address to be purely nominal in nature. They selfishly only considered themselves- in regards to following various shepherds (ch. 1-4), sin & righteousness (ch. 5-8), the communion (ch. 10-11), & their spiritual gifting (ch. 12-14). It is here, as Paul begins to call out the irony of God’s gifts being used to feed man’s arrogance, that the apostle gives a most poignant presentation of the need for a humble & submissive fellowship of Christians:
1 Corinthians 12:4-30 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; (5) and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; (6) and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. (7) To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (8) For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, (9) to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, (10) to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. (11) All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. (12) For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. (13) For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free- and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (14) For the body does not consist of one member but of many. (15) If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. (16) And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. (17) If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? (18) But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. (19) If all were a single member, where would the body be? (20) As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. (21) The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." (22) On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, (23) and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, (24) which our more presentable parts do not require.
But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, (25) that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. (26) If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (27) Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (28) And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. (29) Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? (30) Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?
From here, of course, Paul enters in to chapter 13, closing there with the inference that the “greatest” gift is the one that ends in the display of love for another. Indeed, as Ignatius of Antioch (2nd century) states on his road to martyrdom:
“Wherefore none of the devices of the devil shall be hidden from you, if, like Paul, ye perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ which are the beginning and the end of life. The beginning of life is faith, and the end is love. And these two being inseparably connected together, do perfect the man of God; while all other things which are requisite to a holy life follow after them.”
What brother can the insular Christian reach with this “greatest” gift if he remains an island unto himself? If the end goal of God’s working within us is love for another (instead of the heretofore Corinthian model of self-love), then should it not be concluded that the Christian can never be brought to maturity insofar as he continues his rejection of Christ’s earthly body? For it is only in His body that God refines us into the likeness of Christ. That is one way that God brings honor to Christ’s only current tangible presence on earth. Witness Jesus’ call to minister as a community in His absence to the same degree as one would minister unto Him in His presence:
Matthew 25:31-40 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. (32) Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (33) And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. (34) Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (35) For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, (36) I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' (37) Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? (38) And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? (39) And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' (40) And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
To disparage Christ’s body on earth, however flawed & weak it may be, is to disparage Christ Himself. To slander the former is to slander the later, for biblically, they are inexorably linked:
Ephesians 5:29-32 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, (30) because we are members of his body. (31) “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (32) This mystery is profound (megas), and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Reason upon Faith, part 1
The Christian is often accused of using invalid reasoning in using Scripture to prove Scripture; e.g., using nothing more than 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Tim. 3:16, etc. to validate the idea that God’s Word is actually God’s Word would be entirely circuitous logic; apart from elsewise evidence, such confidence would rightly be unfounded. But Paul’s statement that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” only reaffirms what Scripture’s many manifold witnesses (prophecy, natural & archeological history, early church fathers, as well as the less tangible, but no less real Holy Spirit) cause us to reasonably embrace- that God has preserved His revelation of all man needs to understand of both the natural & supernatural in the 66 books of Scripture.
Nevertheless, there is the fact that most of what is called knowledge & reason is primordially founded upon faith. Logically deduced knowledge, if extensively traced to its origin, finds some postulate made as a fundamental starting point. Take the “Big Bang” model of natural creation; astrophysicists devote their lifetime to constructing reasonable causations that assimilate with one another in order to arrive at an integrated, rational timeline from the very nanosecond of the singularity’s “bang” all the way to the present day.
But what they don’t tell you as they boldly assign precise dates to all the events of their timeline (so often with such certitude that those dates & events seem to be as sure as yesterday’s news events) is that all their reverse-engineering of the universe is presumed upon three fundamental faith-filled suppositions:
1. The ubiquity of current classical & quantum mechanics; in other words, is the empirical physics of today acting in same way, with the same metrics, as the physics of 13.7 billion years ago? Especially questionable since science seems all too eager to toss established physics in the pursuit of a rational early ontology, i.e. the period of time prior to "Planck time". If it can be said the physical laws of the universe somehow “changed” at the onset of “1 Planck”, then how can we be so confident of anything transpiring prior to that? Or even after that? How are the physical laws “changed”, & if so, then have they morphed again & again, or just that once? Indeed, after thousands of years of observation, we still don’t comprehend all the physical laws acting upon us right now, so any theory based on unempirical physics has to viewed with extreme skepticism.
2. The isotropic (same in all directions) nature of the universe.
3. The homogeneous nature of the universe (e.g.- is the entire universe composed of the same basic elements, e.g.- hydrogen & helium?)
I'm not saying that their model is wrong, I'm simply saying that it takes a tremendous degree of faith to believe that it is right.
Science of the day rests its beliefs upon its chronologically & spatially narrow viewpoint of the physical universe. Should I confidently claim to know that all birds can fly simply because all the ones I’ve been able to observe from my residency in Florida have been able to do so? Or that no snake can kill simply I’ve never seen anyone die from one? This is the weakness of inductive logic, & much of the in vogue establishment (money-hungry) science is rife with it. They preach Copernicus (that we hold no special place or viewpoint in the universe), but, so ironically for them, this makes science’s dependency on induction so much the greater, due to this lesser vantage point. Yes, deductions are made, but the problem is they are boastfully touted, all the while the frailties of the founding inductions are ignored.
In other words, their knowledge is founded on faith. The only problem- it is not honestly spoken of as such.
Unfortunately, man is so myopic in his ability to perceive even his own tangible sphere while concomitantly being so arrogant in claiming understanding of things his limited vision prevents him from seeing. Witness the episode of “Seinfeld” where the character George goes around making outrageous claims about things he thought he saw after losing his glasses. With a modicum of humility, he could have said “I think I might have seen…”, but unfortunately, humility was not his forte. So people were led astray, & in the end, George had to endure embarrassment for his cocksureness in the midst of his clear myopic hindrance.
Science desires to do likewise. They have wasted billions on building & operating radio telescopes around the world for fifty years now hopelessly trying to detect a single sign of extraterrestrial intelligent life, only to incessantly hear the same interstellar static that any of us can hear for free in our car on an empty radio frequency. They spend untold billions on particle colliders in an effort to demonstrate the existence of a “God particle” (the Higgs-boson particle- a hypothetical particle that would allow for the construction of mass into massless particles), while leaving God Himself forlorn in their lifelong examinations of the physical causes of creation. They treat this potential particle as if it were capable of excluding God from the act of creation (therein its media name), all the while feigning ignorance that, as elementary as this particle would be to the theorized Big Bang model, something still would have had to create it. As science states, neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed, they can only change forms (& even massless photon particles are considered as mass in this case, subject to the same laws of conservation). Thus there exists no rational theory, or even a founding postulate, of how the Higgs-boson “God-particle” came to exist, despite the fact that its supposed reality has flaunted by science for over 40 years now. No atheistic physicist (they’re not all atheists, but many are deists) has been so bold to propose a “first cause” for their “God”; its cause is essentially taken on faith. This type of challenge is known as the “ontological argument” & it is just as relevant today, despite the tremendous increase in scientific knowledge in the 1000 years since Anselm first used it to add reason to a faithful belief in God’s existence. It is the most fundamental bulwark against arrogant atheistic claims to have an ontology based purely on reason. They present the atheism vs. theism debate as solely about reason vs. faith, instead of truthfully stating it as two separate ontologisms, each with an abundance of reason, but each also founded on faith.
The fact is, for both, it is not a matter of reason vs. faith, but reason built upon faith.
The bigger question: which is more believable- that matter & energy are self-creative, that a singularity containing all the potential of the universe just appeared without a causal dynamic, or that God exists “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalms 90:2)? Neither gives any rationale for the academic to rally around to explain how something can come from nothing. God never tells us in His Word how He can exist infinitely in the space-time continuum; He simply says that He does. Atheists may mock such blind faith in a self-existent God, but to me at least, it seems eminently more reasonable that the supernatural can have this quality than the natural.
Indeed, such is my fundamental schoolyard-style challenge to the atheistic bully - that my blind faith is better, more reasonable even, than your blind faith.
Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (25) who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish.
Nevertheless, there is the fact that most of what is called knowledge & reason is primordially founded upon faith. Logically deduced knowledge, if extensively traced to its origin, finds some postulate made as a fundamental starting point. Take the “Big Bang” model of natural creation; astrophysicists devote their lifetime to constructing reasonable causations that assimilate with one another in order to arrive at an integrated, rational timeline from the very nanosecond of the singularity’s “bang” all the way to the present day.
But what they don’t tell you as they boldly assign precise dates to all the events of their timeline (so often with such certitude that those dates & events seem to be as sure as yesterday’s news events) is that all their reverse-engineering of the universe is presumed upon three fundamental faith-filled suppositions:
1. The ubiquity of current classical & quantum mechanics; in other words, is the empirical physics of today acting in same way, with the same metrics, as the physics of 13.7 billion years ago? Especially questionable since science seems all too eager to toss established physics in the pursuit of a rational early ontology, i.e. the period of time prior to "Planck time". If it can be said the physical laws of the universe somehow “changed” at the onset of “1 Planck”, then how can we be so confident of anything transpiring prior to that? Or even after that? How are the physical laws “changed”, & if so, then have they morphed again & again, or just that once? Indeed, after thousands of years of observation, we still don’t comprehend all the physical laws acting upon us right now, so any theory based on unempirical physics has to viewed with extreme skepticism.
2. The isotropic (same in all directions) nature of the universe.
3. The homogeneous nature of the universe (e.g.- is the entire universe composed of the same basic elements, e.g.- hydrogen & helium?)
I'm not saying that their model is wrong, I'm simply saying that it takes a tremendous degree of faith to believe that it is right.
Science of the day rests its beliefs upon its chronologically & spatially narrow viewpoint of the physical universe. Should I confidently claim to know that all birds can fly simply because all the ones I’ve been able to observe from my residency in Florida have been able to do so? Or that no snake can kill simply I’ve never seen anyone die from one? This is the weakness of inductive logic, & much of the in vogue establishment (money-hungry) science is rife with it. They preach Copernicus (that we hold no special place or viewpoint in the universe), but, so ironically for them, this makes science’s dependency on induction so much the greater, due to this lesser vantage point. Yes, deductions are made, but the problem is they are boastfully touted, all the while the frailties of the founding inductions are ignored.
In other words, their knowledge is founded on faith. The only problem- it is not honestly spoken of as such.
Unfortunately, man is so myopic in his ability to perceive even his own tangible sphere while concomitantly being so arrogant in claiming understanding of things his limited vision prevents him from seeing. Witness the episode of “Seinfeld” where the character George goes around making outrageous claims about things he thought he saw after losing his glasses. With a modicum of humility, he could have said “I think I might have seen…”, but unfortunately, humility was not his forte. So people were led astray, & in the end, George had to endure embarrassment for his cocksureness in the midst of his clear myopic hindrance.
Science desires to do likewise. They have wasted billions on building & operating radio telescopes around the world for fifty years now hopelessly trying to detect a single sign of extraterrestrial intelligent life, only to incessantly hear the same interstellar static that any of us can hear for free in our car on an empty radio frequency. They spend untold billions on particle colliders in an effort to demonstrate the existence of a “God particle” (the Higgs-boson particle- a hypothetical particle that would allow for the construction of mass into massless particles), while leaving God Himself forlorn in their lifelong examinations of the physical causes of creation. They treat this potential particle as if it were capable of excluding God from the act of creation (therein its media name), all the while feigning ignorance that, as elementary as this particle would be to the theorized Big Bang model, something still would have had to create it. As science states, neither energy nor mass can be created or destroyed, they can only change forms (& even massless photon particles are considered as mass in this case, subject to the same laws of conservation). Thus there exists no rational theory, or even a founding postulate, of how the Higgs-boson “God-particle” came to exist, despite the fact that its supposed reality has flaunted by science for over 40 years now. No atheistic physicist (they’re not all atheists, but many are deists) has been so bold to propose a “first cause” for their “God”; its cause is essentially taken on faith. This type of challenge is known as the “ontological argument” & it is just as relevant today, despite the tremendous increase in scientific knowledge in the 1000 years since Anselm first used it to add reason to a faithful belief in God’s existence. It is the most fundamental bulwark against arrogant atheistic claims to have an ontology based purely on reason. They present the atheism vs. theism debate as solely about reason vs. faith, instead of truthfully stating it as two separate ontologisms, each with an abundance of reason, but each also founded on faith.
The fact is, for both, it is not a matter of reason vs. faith, but reason built upon faith.
The bigger question: which is more believable- that matter & energy are self-creative, that a singularity containing all the potential of the universe just appeared without a causal dynamic, or that God exists “from everlasting to everlasting” (Psalms 90:2)? Neither gives any rationale for the academic to rally around to explain how something can come from nothing. God never tells us in His Word how He can exist infinitely in the space-time continuum; He simply says that He does. Atheists may mock such blind faith in a self-existent God, but to me at least, it seems eminently more reasonable that the supernatural can have this quality than the natural.
Indeed, such is my fundamental schoolyard-style challenge to the atheistic bully - that my blind faith is better, more reasonable even, than your blind faith.
Isaiah 44:24-25 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, (25) who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Jesus’ Anthropomorphism in Relation to Omniscience & Omnipotence
Most of my blog entries are from my Sunday School lessons & nursing home sermons, so they are pretty basic evangelical fare, as I believe is right; for neither S.S. nor a nursing home is the place putting forth concepts debatable within the reformed community.
But as a membership class has taken the S.S. time slot for the next couple months (a very needed thing), I will take this opportunity to blog a few of the ruminations I’ve been chewing on for the past year or so…
Luke 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
It is common for Christians to consider Christ in His earthly estate as being the same as He was (and is) in His heavenly estate- God in every respect. We think of Jesus as God, in all His fullness, walking amongst mankind, performing all manner of supernatural miracles of His own innately inborn power. This is how the Gnostics pictured Jesus, with their contrived stories of a pubescent Jesus supposedly using His power in a malevolent manner. They had Jesus, in His earthly form, completely backwards, picturing Him in youth as being fully imbued with the power of God, but lacking in character. Something akin to an young, immature Superman…
The Biblical picture is quite the opposite.
Luke 4:1-13 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness (2) for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. (3) The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." (4) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'" (5) And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (7) If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." (8) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'" (9) And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, (10) for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,' (11) and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" (12) And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (13) And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.
Luke opens this passage by mentioning the fact that Jesus “was led by the Spirit”, which naturally begs the question- Why would an omniscient Jesus need the Spirit to lead Him? What void, what lack was there within an innately almighty Christ for the Spirit to fill up? Implicit here is the notion that the Spirit had knowledge that Jesus was not privy to in His wilderness wanderings.
But the questions for the believer in the corporeal, but still omnipotent 1st century Jesus should not stop there. In His prior (& subsequent) Heavenly estate, Christ commands the host of Heaven, & most certainly Satan as well. The image of that Person, with all His cache of utter authority over Heaven & Earth, actually being (potentially) tempted by such trivial things as dominion over the earthly kingdoms seems an outright silly concept. It would be like walking into a fine chocolatier’s confectionary to try to tempt the owner to trade it all for a Snicker’s bar; surely a laughable concept, because he presently owns, & is currently presiding over something far greater. But catch that owner far from his establishment, in a weak & lowly condition, & if paired with feeble character, the temptation becomes so much more plausible. Christ’s testing was in line with Esau’s testing, except it was a hundredfold times worse (Gen. 25:33). Quite literally in fact; Esau’s character failed in missing a single meal, while Jesus stood the test after missing approximately a hundred meals (40 days x 2-3 meals a day). Understand, what was being tested here was the measure of Christ’s character, & the only way His testing could be sincerely real would be for His intrinsic authority to have been divorced from His Person for a time. Only then could a temptation towards a lesser unordained authority be conceptually real. Only then would His testing be in line with Esau’s testing.
Only then would the chief chocolatier be truly tested.
And, only then could Hebrews 4:15 be candidly true- “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
If He had, perchance, gave that command for the stone to become bread, it surely would have taken place, but only by the abiding authority of the explicitly fore mentioned Holy Spirit. This brings to mind the primary contention in favor of “Superman” Jesus- that power most certainly seemed to emanate from His Person upon several occasions…
Luke 8:43-46 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. (44) She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. (45) And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!" (46) But Jesus said, "Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me."
Firstly, what seems odd here is the fact that her healing happened “immediately” upon the woman’s contact with the garment. If it had been innate "power" going out from Jesus (meaning of His own Person), then one would think that His cognition of the woman & her condition would surely be pre-requisite. Indeed, we don’t picture Jesus as a magical object, indiscriminately blessing anyone who touched His Person, as a pagan would be apt to think; in fact, the context bears this point out as it mentions the abundance of people “pressing in on” Him. No “power” went out to any of them, only this woman. Being a given that Christ’s healings were not universally nor haphazardly given (Matt. 13:58), the authority to dispense this “power” must have come of God’s Spirit, in His singular providence & ability. Jesus clearly felt the Spirit act, but just as clearly omniscience was not with our Lord at this juncture, & in light of other passages, it can be forthrightly taken that omnipotence was not either. It was the Spirit of God healing the woman through Christ, so as to “draw all men unto” Jesus as Master & Savior even while He was in such a lowly estate. It should be accepted that is precisely the primary purpose of the miracles (John 9:3-5). But it should also be accepted that the “power” does not need to emanate directly from the Savior, it (or more astutely- He- meaning the Spirit) only needs to operate through the Savior, in order to accomplish the goal of drawing God’s elect towards their Lord.
Continue reading in Luke to perceive that “power” within Christ to perform miracles was entirely the Holy Spirit…
Luke 4:14-18 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. (15) And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. (16) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. (17) And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, (18) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”
Luke 5:17 On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal.
This last sentence, & particularly the word “with”, strongly suggests the idea that such power was not always with Him, or at the very least, it was not naturally of Him.
Yes, an argument can be made that the power was of Jesus because of the instances wherein He anointed others with power (Matt. 10:1). But couldn’t the argument be given in support of the apostles also having innate authority, as in Acts 8:17? Indeed, such ability seemed outwardly to the uninitiated, like Simon the magician, as distinctly particular to the apostles themselves, something to be bartered for & used for personal gain. Paul reminds Timothy, in both extant letters sent to him, that he should “not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” In 2nd Timothy, the Pauline language is even more direct along these lines as he speaks of Timothy’s gifting only being there by Paul’s own initiative:
2 Timothy 1:6-7 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, (7) for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
What do we believe? That Paul was a "little god", giving spiritual gifts entirely of his own volition? The Mormon & Word-faith disciple may go there, but the true student of Scripture would never think in that way. In fact, verse 7 indicates the true source of Timothy’s anointing- “the (God-given) Spirit…of power and love and self-control.” Paul endeavors to remind his student of the laying on of his hands only so Timothy would likewise treasure the apostle’s words in these letters just as much. See, both have the same source- God’s Spirit- so in trumpeting the import of his God-given laying on of hands, Paul is likewise trumpeting the import of his God-given instruction.
So, despite the strong inference in language indicating inherent spiritual abilities- within either Paul or Jesus- we must contrast & interpret such notions with the rest of Scripture before arriving at any conclusions.
Acts 2:22-24 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know- (23) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (24) But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
Again, the word “through” lends tremendous evidence to the idea that the miracles were not of Him, but came from another Person of the triune God working “through” Him.
Acts 10:36-40 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), (37) you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: (38) how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
In stating God’s (the Father’s) simultaneous anointing of Jesus with both "the Holy Spirit & with power", Peter was confirming that power entered Christ only as the Holy Spirit entered Christ. Even if one declares these two occurrences to be purely coincidental (a difficult argument, to be sure) what one cannot deny is that the power was not something that descended along with His Person naturally; another Person of God had to specially “anoint” Jesus with power.
Hebrews 2:5-10 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. (6) It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? (7) You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, (8) putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (9) But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (10) For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.
In verse 7, man’s authority is described as a little lower than the angels, & verse 9 likewise relates Jesus’ 33 year existence by using the very same words. Note that verse 7 describes that status of man as beneath angels being so only “for a little while”. What essentially makes man temporarily “lower” than the angel sent by God to tend to that man? Spiritual insight & power. Insight of the sort that Elisha & his servant were given by the Spirit (2 Kings 6:17), & power to work in accord with that greater vision (& of course, God’s will). What has direct power in the spiritual, has like direct power over the physical, but those with direct power only in the physical (such as kings & judges) have nothing but mere pleadings to effect events in the spiritual. So they rank beneath, however temporarily (in the case of the elect), those angels with authority in the broader spiritual realm.
But what is especially noteworthy in Hebrews is verse 9, where Jesus’ visitation is spoken of in the same terms: “(He) was made lower than the angels”. Here, Christ’s corporeal existence is described in the same terms as any other man, reduced to having to depend upon the ministry of those temporarily greater than Him, though of course, only in the sense of innate spiritual vision & power. Where His Godliness was never reduced was in His Godly character or nature. He had our flesh with all of its diverse trappings, but what He never lacked was the most prevalent thing that makes God righteous in all He does- His utter goodness of character; this never has, nor ever will be divorced from Him. He was like us for a time, a jar of clay, weak & fragile; but unlike the natural man, that weak vessel was filled to the uttermost with the complete goodness of a Godly nature.
He was, for a time, as we are- stripped of innate power & insight into the spiritual realm, for the twin purposes of that Godly nature being fully tested by the flesh, & now, consequently, being able to rightly minister to us as One who has felt every sort of temptation & distress the flesh has to offer, & so can offer priestly “help in time of need”:
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (16) Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
An earthly priest could often commiserate with the petitioner’s needs, because he had often experienced the same lowly fleshly temptations, & Christ is no different in His ministry as our one & only priestly intercessor with the Father. This starts to get to the crux of the reason why this matters: if Christ was Superman in those 33 years, meaning naturally enabled with special x-ray vision & tremendous strength, more naturally insightful & powerful than us, then it really can’t be said that He was tempted like us “in every respect”. Our greatest distress & temptation to sin comes in that time when we cannot perceive the spiritual realm (or when we fool ourselves to think that they do not see us). Understand, most of the Elisha’s servant, denying Peter, & doubting Thomas moments of trial in our lives would never occur if we were always enabled with spiritual insight & power into the realities of the Spirit world beyond our normal reach. None of those 3 persons would have been perfected by their trials if they were always enabled to see & work as freely in the spiritual world as they could in the natural world. Likewise, for Christ’s many diverse temptations to have been truly poignant & truly perfecting, He would have to have just as spiritually blind & weak as we are in those same circumstances. Only then could He fully “sympathize with our weaknesses”, for innate spiritual blindness & powerlessness are part & parcel of those weaknesses.
2 Corinthians 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
This verse is a great encouragement to those “weak vessels” who become overwhelmed by the task of following Christ. “Jesus was God, but I am not, so I could never become like Him” is the rationale given to by those babes not pursuing sanctification, despite the biblical injunction that we should follow Him, not only in word, but in deed as well. In a individual sense that thought above is right, because we do not have the righteousness of God inherently, as Jesus did; but where it falls short is in the failing to accept Christ’s call to represent Him in this world in the interim before His appearing. We are, corporately, the “body” of Christ in this place until that day, so that means that, corporately, we are to be exactly like Him. Individually, we are “weak in Him”, but corporately, through the Spirit, we are the tangible Jesus in the world this day.
God’s Spirit makes the Person of Jesus Christ personal to us.
The fictional person of Sheriff Andy Taylor often revealed high character by facing distressing events without the comfort & confidence of a weapon. He felt better suited towards his role to be devoid of that power which his fellow Mayberryians did not possess, therein making himself more like them, despite his greater office. He desired to walk among them as they were, without imbued power, himself possessing nothing greater than the power of a higher calling, to serve their otherwise forlorn needs.
He made himself fully like them- so as to better serve them.
Hebrews 5:7-10 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. (8) Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. (9) And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (10) being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Kings do not learn obedience sitting on their throne, dispatching commands & ensconced in their place of authority (e.g. Daniel 4). No, learning some new measure of obedience would require them to forsake such authority & enter into a lowly condition. While all will agree Jesus wasn’t on His throne for those “days of His flesh”, if He walked this earth with royal scepter in hand, then, in a sense He was still on His throne, & not really “made lower than the angels”.
Only then, in such a destitute condition, could He have truly “learned obedience”.
Also, because of vs. 7b above, many read this passage with only the cross in view, only thinking of Jesus as weak as He was crucified. But verse 7a’s opening phrase “in the days of His flesh” indicates that the subsequent discussion of Christ’s weakness was applicable to His entire 33 year corporeal existence.
Thirdly, we can also glean from this text the point that Christ “was heard because of His reverence”; “was heard” denotes His reliance on the other Persons of the trinity, but “His reverence” highlights the aspect of His human existence that made Him most radically stand out as God amongst the sea of depraved humanity- His superior character. See, being stripped of His innate Godly power to exercise the supernatural allowed “His piety” (NASB) to stand out for all its brilliance. Like a table covered with intensely radiant jewels, it is hard to examine & test any single component of God’s glory when it is all on display together. But veil all the jewels save one, & the individual magnificence of that one can be thoroughly examined, tested, & appreciated for all its integrity. This, once again, is the purpose for Christ’s lowly weakness prior to the cross; the Father certainly knew of the Son’s radiant integrity heretofore, but He desired that such pure piety would be lucidly seen & embraced by all, for eternity; putting such a precious stone in temporary “setting”, completely to itself, accomplishes that goal.
This begs the philosophical discussion of what most makes God “better” than us. There are many reasons to be sure, even apart from the fundamental concept that Creator will always be greater than His creation. But if we consider God is better than us simply because He is more powerful or more knowledgeable, it would be in line with fallen Satan’s original temptation towards Eve that caused her & Adam to fall as well- that simply attaining the omniscience of God was to be “like God” (Gen. 3:5). This stems from a lesser recognition of God’s glory. They, & we, prove ignorance of what attribute of God primarily makes Him “better” than us- when reducing it to something less noble than simply His goodness & righteousness.
Consequently, pure righteousness, brilliantly exhibited by God in the Person of Jesus Christ, shines ever more brilliant as it is exhibited in the austerity of an otherwise fully anthropomorphic corporeal Christ.
In closing, I can understand the reticence to picture Christ in this fashion. For 2000 years, some have failed to embrace either His humanity or His Godliness, & the current trend is definitely skewed towards denying His divinity. I hope no one misjudges me, to put me into this later category, for few things could further from the truth. Having been raised in a religion that does fall into this later category, I have since sought to pound the pulpit on no point of doctrine more so than the Glory of Jesus Christ. But I also cannot ignore the seemingly clear adjuring of Scripture to accept this view of our Savior’s earthly visitation.
But as a membership class has taken the S.S. time slot for the next couple months (a very needed thing), I will take this opportunity to blog a few of the ruminations I’ve been chewing on for the past year or so…
Luke 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, (22) and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
It is common for Christians to consider Christ in His earthly estate as being the same as He was (and is) in His heavenly estate- God in every respect. We think of Jesus as God, in all His fullness, walking amongst mankind, performing all manner of supernatural miracles of His own innately inborn power. This is how the Gnostics pictured Jesus, with their contrived stories of a pubescent Jesus supposedly using His power in a malevolent manner. They had Jesus, in His earthly form, completely backwards, picturing Him in youth as being fully imbued with the power of God, but lacking in character. Something akin to an young, immature Superman…
The Biblical picture is quite the opposite.
Luke 4:1-13 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness (2) for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry. (3) The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." (4) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.'" (5) And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, (6) and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (7) If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." (8) And Jesus answered him, "It is written, "'You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.'" (9) And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, (10) for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,' (11) and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" (12) And Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (13) And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.
Luke opens this passage by mentioning the fact that Jesus “was led by the Spirit”, which naturally begs the question- Why would an omniscient Jesus need the Spirit to lead Him? What void, what lack was there within an innately almighty Christ for the Spirit to fill up? Implicit here is the notion that the Spirit had knowledge that Jesus was not privy to in His wilderness wanderings.
But the questions for the believer in the corporeal, but still omnipotent 1st century Jesus should not stop there. In His prior (& subsequent) Heavenly estate, Christ commands the host of Heaven, & most certainly Satan as well. The image of that Person, with all His cache of utter authority over Heaven & Earth, actually being (potentially) tempted by such trivial things as dominion over the earthly kingdoms seems an outright silly concept. It would be like walking into a fine chocolatier’s confectionary to try to tempt the owner to trade it all for a Snicker’s bar; surely a laughable concept, because he presently owns, & is currently presiding over something far greater. But catch that owner far from his establishment, in a weak & lowly condition, & if paired with feeble character, the temptation becomes so much more plausible. Christ’s testing was in line with Esau’s testing, except it was a hundredfold times worse (Gen. 25:33). Quite literally in fact; Esau’s character failed in missing a single meal, while Jesus stood the test after missing approximately a hundred meals (40 days x 2-3 meals a day). Understand, what was being tested here was the measure of Christ’s character, & the only way His testing could be sincerely real would be for His intrinsic authority to have been divorced from His Person for a time. Only then could a temptation towards a lesser unordained authority be conceptually real. Only then would His testing be in line with Esau’s testing.
Only then would the chief chocolatier be truly tested.
And, only then could Hebrews 4:15 be candidly true- “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”
If He had, perchance, gave that command for the stone to become bread, it surely would have taken place, but only by the abiding authority of the explicitly fore mentioned Holy Spirit. This brings to mind the primary contention in favor of “Superman” Jesus- that power most certainly seemed to emanate from His Person upon several occasions…
Luke 8:43-46 And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. (44) She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. (45) And Jesus said, "Who was it that touched me?" When all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!" (46) But Jesus said, "Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me."
Firstly, what seems odd here is the fact that her healing happened “immediately” upon the woman’s contact with the garment. If it had been innate "power" going out from Jesus (meaning of His own Person), then one would think that His cognition of the woman & her condition would surely be pre-requisite. Indeed, we don’t picture Jesus as a magical object, indiscriminately blessing anyone who touched His Person, as a pagan would be apt to think; in fact, the context bears this point out as it mentions the abundance of people “pressing in on” Him. No “power” went out to any of them, only this woman. Being a given that Christ’s healings were not universally nor haphazardly given (Matt. 13:58), the authority to dispense this “power” must have come of God’s Spirit, in His singular providence & ability. Jesus clearly felt the Spirit act, but just as clearly omniscience was not with our Lord at this juncture, & in light of other passages, it can be forthrightly taken that omnipotence was not either. It was the Spirit of God healing the woman through Christ, so as to “draw all men unto” Jesus as Master & Savior even while He was in such a lowly estate. It should be accepted that is precisely the primary purpose of the miracles (John 9:3-5). But it should also be accepted that the “power” does not need to emanate directly from the Savior, it (or more astutely- He- meaning the Spirit) only needs to operate through the Savior, in order to accomplish the goal of drawing God’s elect towards their Lord.
Continue reading in Luke to perceive that “power” within Christ to perform miracles was entirely the Holy Spirit…
Luke 4:14-18 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and a report about him went out through all the surrounding country. (15) And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. (16) And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. (17) And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, (18) "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”
Luke 5:17 On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal.
This last sentence, & particularly the word “with”, strongly suggests the idea that such power was not always with Him, or at the very least, it was not naturally of Him.
Yes, an argument can be made that the power was of Jesus because of the instances wherein He anointed others with power (Matt. 10:1). But couldn’t the argument be given in support of the apostles also having innate authority, as in Acts 8:17? Indeed, such ability seemed outwardly to the uninitiated, like Simon the magician, as distinctly particular to the apostles themselves, something to be bartered for & used for personal gain. Paul reminds Timothy, in both extant letters sent to him, that he should “not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” In 2nd Timothy, the Pauline language is even more direct along these lines as he speaks of Timothy’s gifting only being there by Paul’s own initiative:
2 Timothy 1:6-7 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, (7) for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
What do we believe? That Paul was a "little god", giving spiritual gifts entirely of his own volition? The Mormon & Word-faith disciple may go there, but the true student of Scripture would never think in that way. In fact, verse 7 indicates the true source of Timothy’s anointing- “the (God-given) Spirit…of power and love and self-control.” Paul endeavors to remind his student of the laying on of his hands only so Timothy would likewise treasure the apostle’s words in these letters just as much. See, both have the same source- God’s Spirit- so in trumpeting the import of his God-given laying on of hands, Paul is likewise trumpeting the import of his God-given instruction.
So, despite the strong inference in language indicating inherent spiritual abilities- within either Paul or Jesus- we must contrast & interpret such notions with the rest of Scripture before arriving at any conclusions.
Acts 2:22-24 Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know- (23) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. (24) But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
Again, the word “through” lends tremendous evidence to the idea that the miracles were not of Him, but came from another Person of the triune God working “through” Him.
Acts 10:36-40 As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), (37) you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: (38) how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.
In stating God’s (the Father’s) simultaneous anointing of Jesus with both "the Holy Spirit & with power", Peter was confirming that power entered Christ only as the Holy Spirit entered Christ. Even if one declares these two occurrences to be purely coincidental (a difficult argument, to be sure) what one cannot deny is that the power was not something that descended along with His Person naturally; another Person of God had to specially “anoint” Jesus with power.
Hebrews 2:5-10 Now it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. (6) It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? (7) You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, (8) putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. (9) But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (10) For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.
In verse 7, man’s authority is described as a little lower than the angels, & verse 9 likewise relates Jesus’ 33 year existence by using the very same words. Note that verse 7 describes that status of man as beneath angels being so only “for a little while”. What essentially makes man temporarily “lower” than the angel sent by God to tend to that man? Spiritual insight & power. Insight of the sort that Elisha & his servant were given by the Spirit (2 Kings 6:17), & power to work in accord with that greater vision (& of course, God’s will). What has direct power in the spiritual, has like direct power over the physical, but those with direct power only in the physical (such as kings & judges) have nothing but mere pleadings to effect events in the spiritual. So they rank beneath, however temporarily (in the case of the elect), those angels with authority in the broader spiritual realm.
But what is especially noteworthy in Hebrews is verse 9, where Jesus’ visitation is spoken of in the same terms: “(He) was made lower than the angels”. Here, Christ’s corporeal existence is described in the same terms as any other man, reduced to having to depend upon the ministry of those temporarily greater than Him, though of course, only in the sense of innate spiritual vision & power. Where His Godliness was never reduced was in His Godly character or nature. He had our flesh with all of its diverse trappings, but what He never lacked was the most prevalent thing that makes God righteous in all He does- His utter goodness of character; this never has, nor ever will be divorced from Him. He was like us for a time, a jar of clay, weak & fragile; but unlike the natural man, that weak vessel was filled to the uttermost with the complete goodness of a Godly nature.
He was, for a time, as we are- stripped of innate power & insight into the spiritual realm, for the twin purposes of that Godly nature being fully tested by the flesh, & now, consequently, being able to rightly minister to us as One who has felt every sort of temptation & distress the flesh has to offer, & so can offer priestly “help in time of need”:
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. (16) Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
An earthly priest could often commiserate with the petitioner’s needs, because he had often experienced the same lowly fleshly temptations, & Christ is no different in His ministry as our one & only priestly intercessor with the Father. This starts to get to the crux of the reason why this matters: if Christ was Superman in those 33 years, meaning naturally enabled with special x-ray vision & tremendous strength, more naturally insightful & powerful than us, then it really can’t be said that He was tempted like us “in every respect”. Our greatest distress & temptation to sin comes in that time when we cannot perceive the spiritual realm (or when we fool ourselves to think that they do not see us). Understand, most of the Elisha’s servant, denying Peter, & doubting Thomas moments of trial in our lives would never occur if we were always enabled with spiritual insight & power into the realities of the Spirit world beyond our normal reach. None of those 3 persons would have been perfected by their trials if they were always enabled to see & work as freely in the spiritual world as they could in the natural world. Likewise, for Christ’s many diverse temptations to have been truly poignant & truly perfecting, He would have to have just as spiritually blind & weak as we are in those same circumstances. Only then could He fully “sympathize with our weaknesses”, for innate spiritual blindness & powerlessness are part & parcel of those weaknesses.
2 Corinthians 13:4 For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God.
This verse is a great encouragement to those “weak vessels” who become overwhelmed by the task of following Christ. “Jesus was God, but I am not, so I could never become like Him” is the rationale given to by those babes not pursuing sanctification, despite the biblical injunction that we should follow Him, not only in word, but in deed as well. In a individual sense that thought above is right, because we do not have the righteousness of God inherently, as Jesus did; but where it falls short is in the failing to accept Christ’s call to represent Him in this world in the interim before His appearing. We are, corporately, the “body” of Christ in this place until that day, so that means that, corporately, we are to be exactly like Him. Individually, we are “weak in Him”, but corporately, through the Spirit, we are the tangible Jesus in the world this day.
God’s Spirit makes the Person of Jesus Christ personal to us.
The fictional person of Sheriff Andy Taylor often revealed high character by facing distressing events without the comfort & confidence of a weapon. He felt better suited towards his role to be devoid of that power which his fellow Mayberryians did not possess, therein making himself more like them, despite his greater office. He desired to walk among them as they were, without imbued power, himself possessing nothing greater than the power of a higher calling, to serve their otherwise forlorn needs.
He made himself fully like them- so as to better serve them.
Hebrews 5:7-10 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. (8) Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. (9) And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (10) being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Kings do not learn obedience sitting on their throne, dispatching commands & ensconced in their place of authority (e.g. Daniel 4). No, learning some new measure of obedience would require them to forsake such authority & enter into a lowly condition. While all will agree Jesus wasn’t on His throne for those “days of His flesh”, if He walked this earth with royal scepter in hand, then, in a sense He was still on His throne, & not really “made lower than the angels”.
Only then, in such a destitute condition, could He have truly “learned obedience”.
Also, because of vs. 7b above, many read this passage with only the cross in view, only thinking of Jesus as weak as He was crucified. But verse 7a’s opening phrase “in the days of His flesh” indicates that the subsequent discussion of Christ’s weakness was applicable to His entire 33 year corporeal existence.
Thirdly, we can also glean from this text the point that Christ “was heard because of His reverence”; “was heard” denotes His reliance on the other Persons of the trinity, but “His reverence” highlights the aspect of His human existence that made Him most radically stand out as God amongst the sea of depraved humanity- His superior character. See, being stripped of His innate Godly power to exercise the supernatural allowed “His piety” (NASB) to stand out for all its brilliance. Like a table covered with intensely radiant jewels, it is hard to examine & test any single component of God’s glory when it is all on display together. But veil all the jewels save one, & the individual magnificence of that one can be thoroughly examined, tested, & appreciated for all its integrity. This, once again, is the purpose for Christ’s lowly weakness prior to the cross; the Father certainly knew of the Son’s radiant integrity heretofore, but He desired that such pure piety would be lucidly seen & embraced by all, for eternity; putting such a precious stone in temporary “setting”, completely to itself, accomplishes that goal.
This begs the philosophical discussion of what most makes God “better” than us. There are many reasons to be sure, even apart from the fundamental concept that Creator will always be greater than His creation. But if we consider God is better than us simply because He is more powerful or more knowledgeable, it would be in line with fallen Satan’s original temptation towards Eve that caused her & Adam to fall as well- that simply attaining the omniscience of God was to be “like God” (Gen. 3:5). This stems from a lesser recognition of God’s glory. They, & we, prove ignorance of what attribute of God primarily makes Him “better” than us- when reducing it to something less noble than simply His goodness & righteousness.
Consequently, pure righteousness, brilliantly exhibited by God in the Person of Jesus Christ, shines ever more brilliant as it is exhibited in the austerity of an otherwise fully anthropomorphic corporeal Christ.
In closing, I can understand the reticence to picture Christ in this fashion. For 2000 years, some have failed to embrace either His humanity or His Godliness, & the current trend is definitely skewed towards denying His divinity. I hope no one misjudges me, to put me into this later category, for few things could further from the truth. Having been raised in a religion that does fall into this later category, I have since sought to pound the pulpit on no point of doctrine more so than the Glory of Jesus Christ. But I also cannot ignore the seemingly clear adjuring of Scripture to accept this view of our Savior’s earthly visitation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)