LLC, why again are you objecting to the common answer that ‘Jesus was made sin’, that is the holy made unholy, rejected, for the purpose of being mankind’s sacrifice of atonement? Though crucified by mankind, Jesus willingly subjected himself to this suffering because of his obedient love for God the Father and also his decision to love mankind. And even though Jesus went the whole way to death itself he knew that after the atonement was accomplished he would be raised from the dead. Why do you object to this simple explanation?
LLC, you are quite right in saying that God did not forsake Jesus, or cause His crucifixion. I don’t think any of us are suggesting such a thing.
What I am saying, is that the pre-incarnate Son of God was fully human when He was born as a human being—not a God-Man hybrid, but fully human. For that reason He had human emotions. When He was about to die by crucifixion, He cried out in His humanity, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me…” (Matt 26:39 NASB). When the Father didn’t prevent His death, in his humanity, He FELT forsaken by the Father. But human feelings can be deceiving. Out of his humanity (in the days of His flesh), Jesus cried out strongly to the Father and wept, desiring to be saved from death and suffering. Though the Father didn’t save Him FROM death, He did save Him OUT OF death, as the writer to the Hebrews states:
Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up both supplications and entreaties to him who was able to save him out of death, with strong crying and tears; (and having been heard because of his piety;) (Hebrews 5:7 Darby)
How did the Father save Him out of death? By raising Him to life again. Unfortunately, most translations have this verse saying “who was able to save Him FROM death.” But the Greek word is “εκ” and the most usual translation is “out of.”
So it’s not that the Father was able to save Jesus FROM death, but He didn’t. Rather, it’s that He was able to save Him OUT OF death, and He did!
Because of Jesus’ piety, God heard His loud cries, and saw His tears. The Father responded to His supplications and entreaties by raising Him to life!
Great post!
Noone take offense at this, Please!
Do you really think it could be, that the pre-existent Son (not a belief I hold btw) was somehow converted into DNA? Seriously - Mary’s egg was fertilized somehow, right? And it had to be human DNA? I mean - think about the implications - for Him to be fully human, he would have to be conceived as fully human - and fully human beings are not born with memories, recollections, visions, etc. - we are all limited beings.
Well you can think about that if you like- there are many more implications to the whole concept.
No, I don’t think so.
Wrong. It is possible that it was unfertilized and that the spirit of God caused it to grow into a human being without a father. Even in nature there are forms of life with a mother and no father. Even from the egg of a honey bee, a female develops from a fertilized egg, and a male from a non-fertilized egg. Jesus’ birth was unique. He was the only human being to have pre-existed His birth. For that reason, perhaps no one can explain the modus operandi by which He became human. But He did it, according to the apostle Paul:
Think among yourselves that [thinking] which was also in Messiah Jesus, who beginning in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having been begotten in the likeness of human beings. He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death—the death of the cross. (Php 2:5-8)
This passage tells us that Jesus began in the form of God [having been begotten by God as God’s first act], but did not attempt to seize equality with God [as Satan perhaps did] but emptied Himself [divested Himself of all His divine attributes] and then was begotten in a way that He resembled any other human being. The only thing He retained of His former existence was His identity as the only Son of God.
His DNA, all of which came from his mother was human—yes.
Not exactly. His birth was unique. No one else ever pre-existed. Even He was not born with memories, etc. As a baby He cried for His mother’s milk notwithstanding the Xmas carol “Away in a Manger” that has the line, “The little Lord Jesus, no crying He makes.” He wet his diapers (or the equivalent from those days) like any other baby. I am not sure when He first became aware of His former identity, but I think He had that knowledge at least by the age of 12 when He went to the temple listening to the teachers and asking them questions. Later, He asked His parents, “Don’t you know that I must be about the things of my Father?” So it seems He understood that God was His Father in a special way at least by that time.
Think among yourselves that [thinking] which was also in Messiah Jesus, who beginning in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, having been begotten in the likeness of human beings. He humbled Himself, having become obedient until death—the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)
Messiah Jesus was begotten (came forth) as the first of God’s acts in the form of God (fully divine), as God’s divine Son. But He didn’t think of seizing equality with God for Himself, but emptied Himself of all his divine attributes, and having been begotten from the womb of Mary as a complete human being, He became the slave of God, always obedient to God, right until His death. As a human being, He was fully human—not a God-man, but a human being only. As a man, the only thing He retained of his former existence was his identity as the Son of God. He had all the weakness of the human nature, tempted in all points such as we are, but through his trust in his God, he never yielded to wrongdoing. In his humanity, He had no super-powers. All the miracles ascribed to Him were performed by his God through Him. Jesus Himself said, “Truly, truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord…" (John 5:19) and “I can do nothing on my own” (John 5:30).
So Jesus was neither a God-man or a mere human being like any other human being. In his pre-incarnate state He was fully divine, but He emptied Himself of His divine attributes and became fully human. He continued fully human throughout his life until death. But God raised Him to life again and "highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Php 2:9-11 ESV). Jesus was not only restored to his former divine condition but was glorified to an even higher state as God’s reward for full obedience.
One of the drawbacks of a Forum is my temptation to throw a few ‘zingers’ and consider the problem solved.
If anyone is willing to read for 15 or 20 minutes, here is an exegesis of Ph. 2.5-8 that will reward some attention. I’m not saying it will convince you, but the arguments are strong that the ‘form’ (morphe) being talked about is an outward form, not an inner nature, and that nothing in the verses teach either Trinitarianism or the pre-existence of the Son.
Maybe we’ll take up that ‘mere man’ theme at some time.
For now,I think this is important, and would love to get your feedback:
christianmonotheism.com/media/text/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Philippians%202-6-8.pdf
A very short excerpt towards the end:
While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians
2:6-8, an unfortunate thing has occurred—the loss of the actual meaning of the verse.
The verse is not speaking either of Christ’s giving up his “Godhood” at his incarnation or
of his God-nature being willing to “hide” so that his man-nature can show itself clearly.
Rather, it is saying something else. Scripture says Christ was the “image of God” (2 Cor.
4:4), and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him, he had seen the Father. Saying
that Christ was in the “form” (outward appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in
another way. Unlike Adam, who grasped at being like God (Gen. 3:5), Christ, the Last
Adam, “emptied himself” of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of
the King. He lived in the same fashion as other men. He humbled himself to the Word
and will of God. He lived by “It is written” and the commands of his Father. He did not
“toot his own horn,” but instead called himself “the son of man,” which, in the Aramaic
language he spoke, meant “a man.” He trusted God and became obedient, even to a
horrible and shameful death on a cross.
Jeff, I object to the common answer because it sounds odd and leaves one with too many questions. Usually this is an indication that there is something wrong with the explanation. Jesus knew from the start that He was going to die for the truth and He was ready and willing to do so because He believed in and trusted God with all His heart and mind. He states several times that yes, man would forsake Him, but God was with Him. He also says that all He had to do was ask and God would send many legions of angels. He knew where he was going upon His death as He says “I am going to the Father” We are told to have faith in God, that He will always be there for us, and that even in our darkest hours we are to fear no evil “for thou art with me”. It does not sound right to say that Jesus believed all of this, yet on His very last breath He somehow feels that God has totally abandoned Him.
As you say, He was made a sinner. However, this was not God’s doing. The leaders of Israel and those who rejected God were the ones who “numbered Him with the transgressors.” They cast Him aside because He did not follow THEIR laws. How dare He turn His back on the god of Israel and not follow their laws and ways. According to them, He was an unrighteous, unholy sinner who deserved to be put to death. The truth is that Jesus WAS the true God and THEY were the ones who had forsaken Him.
I believe the egg in Mary’s womb was fertilized by the seed, the Logos, the Word. That is the DNA of YHWH, so Jesus grew up as a true being(I Am), undivided in His love for the Father and his fellowmen.
We also are born, not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God, by the incorruptible seed, that living and abiding word of God- and the new creature in us is also a true being, undivided in love for the Father and our fellowman.
Hi Dave,
I read the article, and the thrust of it seems to be to show by many examples that “morph” refers to outward form. I agree that that is the case.
But I don’t see that fact as affecting my position at all.
The quoted passage from Philippians 2, states that Jesus BEGAN in the form of God. That is God begat His Son, the first of His acts, as Another exactly like Himself—same form, but different Individual. That He was exactly like the Father comes out in His words: “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Yet, even in His pre-incarnate state, He was in a secondary position to the Father, and was always subservient to Him; He did not attempt to seize equality with God, but in becoming a man, “emptied Himself” of His divine attributes and became fully human. After His sacrifice on our behalf, and after God raised Him to life again, He was exalted to an even greater position than He had prior to having become a man.
Among other things, I’m not at all sure that what he emptied himself of was ‘divine attributes’. That would still leave, if I follow you correctly, his divine ‘nature’ - which would make him a two-nature being, and not fully man (Unless we do some real verbal gymnastics and imo torture the meaning of the words.)
I think he emptied himself of those things the Phillipians were full of - “selfish ambition” (1:15; 2:3) and “vain conceit” (2:3) - things that fully human beings are so prone to - and thus Paul told them to emulate Christ, who even though was in the form of God, emptied himself of those besetting characteristics.
Time to stir up a hornet’s nest.
Where does spirital healing fit into this day and age? St. Paul did talk about the gift of healing, and other gifts. Now:
The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, say it is available with the canonized saints, relics and holy places
The Pentecostals say it is now available, with the gifts of the holy spirit
Some TV evangelists tell me it’s still available.
Other spiritual traditions, like the Native Americans, Sufism and the Bruno Groening Circle of Friends, tell me it’s still available.
One can see it in the recent movie, 'Miracles From Heaven. It’s described at True story behind ‘Miracles From Heaven’
If I take the Christian metaphysical traditions of Christian Science, Unity, Divine Science and the Infinite Way, I can alter them from a theology, to a contemplation on:
[list]The goodness of God
Being created in the image and likeness of God
The healing power of Christ.[/list:u]
Even the Quaker founder George Fox, reportedly had the gift of healing
You might find this talk on Mary Baker Eddy and Joel Goldsmith interesting (think contemplation or meditation - **not **theology) 
Or that Native American Healing presentation:
Nothing is taken away from what modern traditional medicine and complimentary medicine - also have to offer.
So what say ye?
Good point Randy, thanks for the reminder. I added ‘miracles and prophecy’ to the list of God’s sovereign activities. Statements of faith sometimes grow too large trying to qualify and address every issue, but this was easily added to remind us of the good news that God does still work miracles of healing and otherwise. Again I am still listening closely to this post with the goal to tune the statement of faith now just updated below…
====
-
In one true God, existing eternally as one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, John 14:9-21, who is in essence spirit, John 4:24, light, 1 John 1:5, and love, 1 John 4:8.
-
That the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments are the unique, inerrant, inspired Word of God in the original autographs, and the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct, 2 Tim 3:16.
-
In the sovereignty and active rule of God in creation, the fall, history, revelation, miracles, prophecy, redemption, and final judgment, Romans 8:20-21.
-
That man was created by God in His image, but that since Adam’s fall, all men are sinful and by nature objects deserving of God’s wrath, Ephesians 2:3.
-
That Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, fully human and fully divine, eternally existing as God, yet born in time of a virgin, and that He lived a sinless and perfect life, 2 Timothy 2:5.
-
In the historic death of Jesus as the full and only atonement, guaranteeing loving forgiveness for the sins of all mankind, in His bodily resurrection from the dead, and in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, 1 John 2:1-2.
-
That all mankind is justified by the loving grace of God and redeemed on the basis of the death of Christ alone, which is received through faith alone, Ephesians 2:8-9.
-
That the Holy Spirit is the effective agent in regeneration, bringing individuals to faith and transformed lives, 2 Corinthians 3:18.
-
In one invisible, universal church, the Body of Christ, to which all true believers belong, and in local churches accountable to God, governed by officers with the authority to rule in matters of belief and discipline, Hebrews 13:17.
-
That believing mankind is rewarded in paradise after death, while unbelievers suffer punishment in Hades after death merited by their sinful nature and their rejection of the grace of Christ, Luke 16:19-31.
-
In the future, visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory, Titus 2:13.
-
In the final resurrection of redeemed mankind to the enjoyment of God forever, and the damnation of those excluded from the Book of Life to the Lake of Fire prepared for the Devil and his angels for the ages of the ages, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:10.
As I see it, after the divine self-emptying, the only aspect of his former existence that He retained, was his identity as the ONLY begotten Son of God, (begotten as the first of God’s acts). This would not imply that He was a two-natured being. Indeed, his divine nature (including all of its attributes) that He had possessed in virtue of being the divine Son, is exactly that of which He emptied Himself. So He was fully human, but the same Individual who existed prior to his birth from Mary (since He retained his identity).
Though He didn’t have two natures, He did have two births—that birth before all ages—the first of God’s acts, and his birth from mother Mary.
That is a very subtle, if real, distinction between identity and nature. I’m not at all certain that the two can be separated (at birth 
). For one thing, once separated from identity (if that were possible) - whither goes the nature?
C.S. Lewis has an interesting essay on the word “nature” and if I remember correctly, analyzes 17 or so different usages of the word. (Studies in Words)
The word ‘identity’ is also multivocal and ambiguous.
I don’t know if you want to go any further on these issues - we’ll be at least knee deep in analytic philosophy before we’re done.
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your statement of faith. Are you interested in any comments/ queries etc regarding your statement of faith or is it just for info.?
Yes, please! Comments and questions eagerly desired. The goal is to work toward a brief Biblical statement of faith recognizing Christ as the savior of all mankind.
I’d like to ask where your confidence in no. 2 comes from? Specifically, justification for the belief that the 66 books are “The Word of God” and secondly, where your belief that the original autographs are ‘inerrant’ comes from and what value this belief may have considering that the original autographs do not now exist?
Your answers may help to clarify my own position.
Let me add to Pilgrim’s questions.
Why do you believe that those who comprised the Protestant canon of scripture - got things “correct”? As opposed to the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or any other canons of scripture? And why did the others get the canon wrong?
If inerrant is correct, then who or what should a person follow - if they are confused? The Southern Baptist Convention? My favorite TV evangelist? Etc. Whom or what should a person turn to, in order to get a “correct inerrant understanding”?
Thanks for the good questions. I get back to you shortly. I heard you ask…
- How do we know the 66 book are God’s word ( and not more or less )?
- How do we know the documents that God gave us are without error in the original?
- How can those who comprised the Protestant canon of scripture be right as opposed to Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox?
- If we say the Scriptures are inerrant is there then an inerrant interpretation? Which group or tradition should we follow?