The baptism of Jesus is one of Pentecostalism’s strongest foundations for its theology. Jesus was about 30 years old, which under the law is the age required for priesthood (Num 4:3). He obviously was not receiving the Spirit for cleansing, for He had no sin, so it is thought that it must have been for ministry.
While it is understood by all that He could not have had sin, it is assumed by some that He did not yet have power. Others in the Old Testament received the Spirit for ministry, such as those who served in the tabernacle and the elders who helped Moses.
They were not born of the Spirit in the Old Covenant and so needed an external anointing, rather than simply a manifestation of the life of Christ already within. Luke speaks of the anointing in terms of ministry (Luke 1:67, 2:25), before the new birth and also speaks of Jesus’ ministry in this way (Acts 10:38).
In Acts 1:8 Luke continues the power theme for New Covenant Spirit baptism, but does not limit this power to service, showing that it includes “repentance and life” (Acts 10:15-18). Acts does not show a consistent anointing for power theme. It shows anointing for cleansing and for power. The Holy Spirit is seen consistently to work in regard to both these in one baptism.
Seeing Spirit baptism as power for service only and not in terms of New Covenant sonship is not the gospel. The meaning of empowering in the New Covenant is receiving power to become sons of God (John 1:12). The Greek word for power in John 1:12 is exousia, meaning “ability, privilege, force, competency, freedom, power…” (Strong’s Greek Dictionary).
This is the anointing (enablement) that John says we have all received (1 John 2:27). This power is not merely forgiveness, or authority, but a dunamis that changes the nature. We cannot be born again without dunamis (Greek for power, as in dynamite). “The gospel is the power (dunamis) of God to salvation…” (Rom 1:16). This gospel was received at Pentecost. See also 1 Cor 1:18 (dunamis).
Jesus went into the wilderness and fasted and then came out in the power of the Spirit. Some see this as a preparation for ministry and encourage others to follow the example for power. Nothing in the Gospels or the epistles of the New Testament supports this analysis. His power was not derived through works, but resident in Him as Son.
As God, the power was His own. As a Jewish man, He served under the law and was anointed by the Holy Spirit and gave Himself for our redemption. He was raised from the dead by the Spirit, but also through His own power (Rom 10:11) and by the glory of the Father (Rom 6:4). There is no doubt that the trinity act in concert in life of Christ. Concerning His life, Jesus said:
I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again…(John 10:17-18).
If we say that God anointed Him because He overcame temptation and fulfilled the law, besides the power that Christ already had as Son of God but submitted to the Father, then this also cannot apply to us in the New Covenant. Our anointing is freely given by the righteousness of Christ, through faith and it is not based on our own works.
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Monday, 6 September 2010
Jordan was His Annunciation
Both Luke and John say that the purpose of the Spirit alighting on Jesus at Jordan was not for His sake but for ours. “And I knew Him not: but that He should be made manifest, therefore I am come baptising with water.” (John1:31). The Father did three things to identify that Jesus was the Messiah to take away our sins:
1. He spoke from heaven, “This is My beloved Son.” (Luke 3:22).
2. He gave the vision of His Spirit alighting as a dove, to show that it is Jesus who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.
3. He sent John the Baptist to testify, saying to John ahead of time, “Him whom you see the Spirit ascending on as a dove, this is He. I sent you to bear witness of this to the world.” (John 1:31-34). This was the sign that the Father gave John.
So the purpose of the water baptism was not to empower Him who is eternal power, but it was for our sake: it was His manifestation to the world. “Behold the Lamb of God…” (John 1:29). That is what the text states. There is no mention, not even a hint, in the text that Jesus’ example is paradigmatic of a second experience for New Covenant believers.
When the Father said “This is My Son…” it was not for Him but for us. Jesus did not need reassurance. When He prayed for Lazarus He said, “I pray not for Myself, for You always hear Me, but for those who stand by…” (John 11:42). The purpose of Jesus’ baptism was so we could identify the one that the prophets said would come.
Pentecostalism is often similar to Nestorianism. It tends at times to see Jesus as a man needing help, not as God. This is a misconception of the Incarnation. Pentecostalism so builds up its Pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit) that it’s Christology is left in tatters.
The Reformed position on Pneumatology is Christological. There is no separation. That is, the “Spirit proceeds from the Son.” (Nicene Creed). Jesus does not need to be baptized in the Spirit. Likewise, “He who has the Son has life.” (1 John 5:12). We receive Son and Sprit together.
1. He spoke from heaven, “This is My beloved Son.” (Luke 3:22).
2. He gave the vision of His Spirit alighting as a dove, to show that it is Jesus who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.
3. He sent John the Baptist to testify, saying to John ahead of time, “Him whom you see the Spirit ascending on as a dove, this is He. I sent you to bear witness of this to the world.” (John 1:31-34). This was the sign that the Father gave John.
So the purpose of the water baptism was not to empower Him who is eternal power, but it was for our sake: it was His manifestation to the world. “Behold the Lamb of God…” (John 1:29). That is what the text states. There is no mention, not even a hint, in the text that Jesus’ example is paradigmatic of a second experience for New Covenant believers.
When the Father said “This is My Son…” it was not for Him but for us. Jesus did not need reassurance. When He prayed for Lazarus He said, “I pray not for Myself, for You always hear Me, but for those who stand by…” (John 11:42). The purpose of Jesus’ baptism was so we could identify the one that the prophets said would come.
Pentecostalism is often similar to Nestorianism. It tends at times to see Jesus as a man needing help, not as God. This is a misconception of the Incarnation. Pentecostalism so builds up its Pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit) that it’s Christology is left in tatters.
The Reformed position on Pneumatology is Christological. There is no separation. That is, the “Spirit proceeds from the Son.” (Nicene Creed). Jesus does not need to be baptized in the Spirit. Likewise, “He who has the Son has life.” (1 John 5:12). We receive Son and Sprit together.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
The Baptism of Jesus
Edward Irving, a Presbyterian minister in 1830 in London, who many regard as a forerunner of modern Pentecostalism, emphasised the humanity of Christ in a similar way to the Nestorians. He claimed that without the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which he said Jesus received when He was baptized, He could do no miracles nor resist temptation. See Edward Irving's Incarnational Christology by David Dorries.
Pentecostal scholars today often claim that the experience of Jesus at Jordan is a pattern for all Christians. (See Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke.) They claim that all believers need to be filled with the Spirit in a second experience, after being saved and that this filling is to empower them for ministry. This is how they define the term baptism in the Holy Spirit.
However, reading the texts in Luke and John we see quite a different statement of purpose for the Spirit alighting on Jesus like a dove at His water baptism. John, for example, shows how Jesus was the Word with all power well before His baptism, even before birth (John 1).
The reason that Jesus gave why no public miracles were done before His baptism was not that He lacked power, but because His time had not yet come for Him to be revealed (John 2:4). Jesus, as God, could do miracles at any time He pleased. He could have come down off the cross.
The only reason why Jesus did not do miracles at any particular time was because He was submitted to His Father’s programme. His will was in complete subjection to His Father’s will by choice. It was voluntary inability, not a dynamic inability.
At Nazareth He “could” do no miracles because of their unbelief (Matt 13:58). This was not unbelief in miracles, but unbelief in the Son. Because they did not honour the Son, the Father did not lead Christ to show forth His power. This is not inability in terms of lacking power. When He said He could do nothing but by the Spirit, He was not saying that He lacked power. He confessed the opposite, “Before Abraham was I am.” (John 8:58).
Jesus was always filled with the Spirit, because the Spirit proceeds from Him. He did not wait until Jordan to be filled with the Spirit. Jesus is a member of the trinity. There is never a time in which He is not filled with the Godhead. The position of both Roger Stronstrad (referred to above) and Irving seems a little like Nestorianism.
It seems to us that another difficulty with Stronstrad is that in drawing examples for Christians from before Pentecost, he does not acknowledge the distinction between the Old and New Covenants. He claims that Zechariah (John the Baptist’s father) and others in the Old Covenant had the Sprit come upon them, or fill them, for service, which is true.
But saying that a coming on of the Spirit for ministry is a New Testament pattern is comparing apples with oranges. We cannot compare the two covenants. Whereas the Spirit upon was a term used in the Old Covenant for service, in the New Covenant it is used for initial baptism for sonship and service. After that there is a permanent indwelling of the Spirit in believers in the New Covenant.
Jesus ministered in the Old Covenant, fulfilling the law and thereby had the Spirit upon Him in the Old Covenant sense, though He could also have done anything at anytime as the Son of God. So the Spirit anointing Him, after He was about the age 30, could also have been associated with the law and therefore the Father’s time. This is not a New Covenant pattern.
Pentecostal scholars today often claim that the experience of Jesus at Jordan is a pattern for all Christians. (See Roger Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke.) They claim that all believers need to be filled with the Spirit in a second experience, after being saved and that this filling is to empower them for ministry. This is how they define the term baptism in the Holy Spirit.
However, reading the texts in Luke and John we see quite a different statement of purpose for the Spirit alighting on Jesus like a dove at His water baptism. John, for example, shows how Jesus was the Word with all power well before His baptism, even before birth (John 1).
The reason that Jesus gave why no public miracles were done before His baptism was not that He lacked power, but because His time had not yet come for Him to be revealed (John 2:4). Jesus, as God, could do miracles at any time He pleased. He could have come down off the cross.
The only reason why Jesus did not do miracles at any particular time was because He was submitted to His Father’s programme. His will was in complete subjection to His Father’s will by choice. It was voluntary inability, not a dynamic inability.
At Nazareth He “could” do no miracles because of their unbelief (Matt 13:58). This was not unbelief in miracles, but unbelief in the Son. Because they did not honour the Son, the Father did not lead Christ to show forth His power. This is not inability in terms of lacking power. When He said He could do nothing but by the Spirit, He was not saying that He lacked power. He confessed the opposite, “Before Abraham was I am.” (John 8:58).
Jesus was always filled with the Spirit, because the Spirit proceeds from Him. He did not wait until Jordan to be filled with the Spirit. Jesus is a member of the trinity. There is never a time in which He is not filled with the Godhead. The position of both Roger Stronstrad (referred to above) and Irving seems a little like Nestorianism.
It seems to us that another difficulty with Stronstrad is that in drawing examples for Christians from before Pentecost, he does not acknowledge the distinction between the Old and New Covenants. He claims that Zechariah (John the Baptist’s father) and others in the Old Covenant had the Sprit come upon them, or fill them, for service, which is true.
But saying that a coming on of the Spirit for ministry is a New Testament pattern is comparing apples with oranges. We cannot compare the two covenants. Whereas the Spirit upon was a term used in the Old Covenant for service, in the New Covenant it is used for initial baptism for sonship and service. After that there is a permanent indwelling of the Spirit in believers in the New Covenant.
Jesus ministered in the Old Covenant, fulfilling the law and thereby had the Spirit upon Him in the Old Covenant sense, though He could also have done anything at anytime as the Son of God. So the Spirit anointing Him, after He was about the age 30, could also have been associated with the law and therefore the Father’s time. This is not a New Covenant pattern.
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Christ’s Divinity
The scriptures claim that the Messiah is God. He has all the attributes of God, was eternal before creation and was the Creator and is the Sustainer of creation. Jesus Himself acknowledged this. Jesus also received worship (Matt 28:17). He was either a liar, insane, or the eternal Son of God.
…has in these last-days spoken to us by his Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds. Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb 1:2-3).
There are many such passages in the Old and New Testaments that declare the completeness of the divinity of Jesus Christ. His taking on of flesh did not in any way, at any time before or after His birth, reduce His divinity.
As the Nestorians tended towards a rejection of His complete divinity, others tended towards a rejection of Christ’s humanity. The earliest Gnostic philosophies held that Christ was a spirit only and did not come in the flesh. They did this because in their dualistic doctrine the flesh was evil. Their teaching concerning Christ was the spirit of antichrist that the Apostle John spoke of (1 John 4:3).
The antichrist is not a person, but a false doctrine that opposes the doctrine of Christ, chiefly that He came as God in the flesh to redeem us by His blood. John said whosoever denies that Christ came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. He said that there were many antichrists in the world and that we know antichrist is coming. That is, there would be more doctrines against Christ.
The Christians at Alexandria, the early Mary worshippers, tended to deny humanity. They were more Gnostic and denied the flesh. They claimed to focus on the spirit and sought to punish the flesh in asceticism in the monasteries. When the Reformation came many years later, Luther sought to dispute humanistic liberal theology (more Antiochean) on the one hand and allegorical superstition and idolatry (more Alexandrian) on the other.
…has in these last-days spoken to us by his Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds. Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb 1:2-3).
There are many such passages in the Old and New Testaments that declare the completeness of the divinity of Jesus Christ. His taking on of flesh did not in any way, at any time before or after His birth, reduce His divinity.
As the Nestorians tended towards a rejection of His complete divinity, others tended towards a rejection of Christ’s humanity. The earliest Gnostic philosophies held that Christ was a spirit only and did not come in the flesh. They did this because in their dualistic doctrine the flesh was evil. Their teaching concerning Christ was the spirit of antichrist that the Apostle John spoke of (1 John 4:3).
The antichrist is not a person, but a false doctrine that opposes the doctrine of Christ, chiefly that He came as God in the flesh to redeem us by His blood. John said whosoever denies that Christ came in the flesh is the spirit of antichrist. He said that there were many antichrists in the world and that we know antichrist is coming. That is, there would be more doctrines against Christ.
The Christians at Alexandria, the early Mary worshippers, tended to deny humanity. They were more Gnostic and denied the flesh. They claimed to focus on the spirit and sought to punish the flesh in asceticism in the monasteries. When the Reformation came many years later, Luther sought to dispute humanistic liberal theology (more Antiochean) on the one hand and allegorical superstition and idolatry (more Alexandrian) on the other.
Friday, 3 September 2010
The Nature of Jesus Christ
Christ was born in Bethlehem of a virgin. He took on a mortal body, yet without inherited sin. In His nature He is fully God and fully man, in one nature and one person. His nature became a controversy in the 5th Century, known as the Nestorian Controversy.
Theodor and his pupil Nestorius (386-451AD) championed Nestorianism, holding that Jesus had two separate natures, the human and the divine. They were trying to counter an overemphasis on Christ’s divinity in the Alexandrian sector of the church, where Mary received the title mother of God. The Nestorians held that there was divisibility in His nature, so that Mary was mother only of His humanity.
Some saw Nestorianism as reducing Christ’s divinity. Some have taken the Nestorian position further and claimed that Jesus was a man who became the Son of God at His baptism, when the Holy Spirit allegedly entered Him. Nestorians differed in their position, but their official position was not always heretical.
Nestor was part of the Antioch Syria School of theology. This school was humanistic. They were semi-Pelagian. They did not see human nature as fully corrupted. They emphasised the humanity of Jesus. They were literal in their interpretation of the Bible, in opposition to the allegorical hermeneutics of the ascetic monasteries of North Africa.
In their humanist approach they sought to demystify all mysteries, such as the nature of Christ. How the human and divine can be one person in Christ is beyond human reason. Demystifying God is really an attack on faith. Nestorians also applied this to the communion, holding that the bread and wine were symbolic only.
In the 16th Century Luther rejected this, saying we must not deny what the Bible states and that Christ is present in the communion in a mystery. Science wants to see the chemical structure of the bread and would demand the same in relation to the claim that “Christ is in us”. For Luther, authority was in faith. The trinity, the nature of Christ, election and even water baptism (which is just water, but also the answer of a good conscience) are mysteries (1 Pet 3:21).
Their humanistic approach lent the Nestorian movement to syncretism in their missionary endeavours. Syncretism means that the gospel is adapted in line with human meanings found in local cultures. Though the Nestorians reached many nations in mission, in most places they so mixed the gospel with human values for ready acceptance that the church eventually died out.
The Roman position on the Nestorian dispute was that Christ had the two natures in one substance or person. It is difficult to know what this means, unless it was a compromise between Nestorianism and the African position. It seems to us that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, in one nature, for how can a person have two natures? It is a mystery, but we accept it on faith, because the scripture teaches it.
And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim 3:16).
The humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ are indivisible in one person and one nature. The Arians arose in the 4th Century, saying that Christ was only human. This claim was also made by the liberal heretics of the 19th Century, who denied the miraculous, the spirit world and eternal life. Much of the Western mindset today is rationalistic, extending from the humanism of Nestorianism.
Theodor and his pupil Nestorius (386-451AD) championed Nestorianism, holding that Jesus had two separate natures, the human and the divine. They were trying to counter an overemphasis on Christ’s divinity in the Alexandrian sector of the church, where Mary received the title mother of God. The Nestorians held that there was divisibility in His nature, so that Mary was mother only of His humanity.
Some saw Nestorianism as reducing Christ’s divinity. Some have taken the Nestorian position further and claimed that Jesus was a man who became the Son of God at His baptism, when the Holy Spirit allegedly entered Him. Nestorians differed in their position, but their official position was not always heretical.
Nestor was part of the Antioch Syria School of theology. This school was humanistic. They were semi-Pelagian. They did not see human nature as fully corrupted. They emphasised the humanity of Jesus. They were literal in their interpretation of the Bible, in opposition to the allegorical hermeneutics of the ascetic monasteries of North Africa.
In their humanist approach they sought to demystify all mysteries, such as the nature of Christ. How the human and divine can be one person in Christ is beyond human reason. Demystifying God is really an attack on faith. Nestorians also applied this to the communion, holding that the bread and wine were symbolic only.
In the 16th Century Luther rejected this, saying we must not deny what the Bible states and that Christ is present in the communion in a mystery. Science wants to see the chemical structure of the bread and would demand the same in relation to the claim that “Christ is in us”. For Luther, authority was in faith. The trinity, the nature of Christ, election and even water baptism (which is just water, but also the answer of a good conscience) are mysteries (1 Pet 3:21).
Their humanistic approach lent the Nestorian movement to syncretism in their missionary endeavours. Syncretism means that the gospel is adapted in line with human meanings found in local cultures. Though the Nestorians reached many nations in mission, in most places they so mixed the gospel with human values for ready acceptance that the church eventually died out.
The Roman position on the Nestorian dispute was that Christ had the two natures in one substance or person. It is difficult to know what this means, unless it was a compromise between Nestorianism and the African position. It seems to us that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, in one nature, for how can a person have two natures? It is a mystery, but we accept it on faith, because the scripture teaches it.
And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Tim 3:16).
The humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ are indivisible in one person and one nature. The Arians arose in the 4th Century, saying that Christ was only human. This claim was also made by the liberal heretics of the 19th Century, who denied the miraculous, the spirit world and eternal life. Much of the Western mindset today is rationalistic, extending from the humanism of Nestorianism.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Eternal Sonship
Some have said that Jesus was the Word and became the Son at His birth in Bethlehem. This is not true. He is the Word, but was also the Son in the Old Testament, in His various appearances, such as in the fiery furnace in Babylon. He has always been the Son.
There is debate whether the Old Testament appearances were of Christ or an angel, but He received worship on several occasions. Christ appeared to Abraham (Gen 18:3), as Jesus said in John 8:56. He appeared to Moses (Ex 33:11), to Joshua (Josh 5:14), to Samson’s parents and to others in the Old Testament (Jud 13:20).
These are called pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. It has been said that the one in the furnace in Daniel was “like the Son of God” only (Dan 3:25), but this term “like” is also used in Dan 7:13 describing the ascension of Christ to the Father’s right hand.
His title “firstborn” does not mean there was a time when He did not exist, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim (Col 1:15, 18). (They do not witness to the Jehovah of scripture.) Firstborn is a designation for the pre-eminent one. It means the superior one, the heir of the promises, the one who overcame.
In the Old Covenant the firstborn was the heir, not the one who was necessarily born first, as seen in the cases of Esau and Jacob (Ex 4:22) and Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48:7, Jer 31:9). Firstborn in Hebrew usage means He is Lord and inheritor of the kingdom. It is not talking about an actual birth at any time in history or in pre-history. It means pre-eminent one.
There is debate whether the Old Testament appearances were of Christ or an angel, but He received worship on several occasions. Christ appeared to Abraham (Gen 18:3), as Jesus said in John 8:56. He appeared to Moses (Ex 33:11), to Joshua (Josh 5:14), to Samson’s parents and to others in the Old Testament (Jud 13:20).
These are called pre-incarnate appearances of Christ. It has been said that the one in the furnace in Daniel was “like the Son of God” only (Dan 3:25), but this term “like” is also used in Dan 7:13 describing the ascension of Christ to the Father’s right hand.
His title “firstborn” does not mean there was a time when He did not exist, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim (Col 1:15, 18). (They do not witness to the Jehovah of scripture.) Firstborn is a designation for the pre-eminent one. It means the superior one, the heir of the promises, the one who overcame.
In the Old Covenant the firstborn was the heir, not the one who was necessarily born first, as seen in the cases of Esau and Jacob (Ex 4:22) and Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48:7, Jer 31:9). Firstborn in Hebrew usage means He is Lord and inheritor of the kingdom. It is not talking about an actual birth at any time in history or in pre-history. It means pre-eminent one.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Jesus Christ
Jesus is also called the Word of God and the Son of God. Jesus (Joshua in Hebrew) was His given name when born in the flesh. He has existed eternally as the Son. There was never a time that He did not exist as the Son. He has always been God the Son. The Nicene Creed puts it, “begotten not made”.
“Begotten” did not mean that He did not exist at some point in eternity past. It meant that He proceeds in relationship and hierarchy from the Father. The Athanasian Creed is better, as it states that Christ is the eternal Son, “co-eternal, co-equal”. In the scripture, begotten also refers to coronation, in Christ’s case now as a man for us, after His resurrection. It means to invest with power (Ps 2:7, a coronation psalm).
Jesus Christ contains all the attributes of the Father. Is 9:6 includes “everlasting Father” and “mighty God” among Christ’s titles. His non-use of some powers in His incarnation was not due to inability. It was voluntary. His “not knowing the day nor the hour” was voluntary non-use, not lack of omniscience (Mk 13:32). Christ voluntarily limited His use of powers to do the Father’s will.
Christ chose humility to taste all things we face, to be our perfect High Priest (Heb 2:16-17). His expression: “I could call a legion of angels” and the way the soldiers fell when they came to arrest him, show that He possessed all power in His incarnation and could have used it (Matt 26:53, John 18:6). He gave Himself up to die on the cross because it was the Father’s will. No one took His life (John 10:17).
Mary knew that Jesus had power before His first public use of it at Cana, where He began to show forth His glory. This was the Father’s time (John 2:11). He was not only ministering by the Spirit, but also showing forth His glory. Before this His power was hidden to the public. His debating at age 12 shows He was always Spirit filled. He was Son “about His Father’s business” and Sonship is by empowerment.
The title “only begotten of the Father” means Jesus was the only man who came from the bosom of the Father and could show the Father to mankind (John 1:14, 18). The term does not mean that He was begotten before creation and prior to that He did not exist. The Son is eternal God.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Rev 22:13).
Phil 2:7 does not say that He laid His power aside when He came in the flesh, but that He humbled Himself in His use of it. To deny He had power is to deny Him His glory, which is what He came to show forth. If He did not have power, Satan could not have tempted Him to use it at will. We talk on this more below when speaking about His ministry.
“Begotten” did not mean that He did not exist at some point in eternity past. It meant that He proceeds in relationship and hierarchy from the Father. The Athanasian Creed is better, as it states that Christ is the eternal Son, “co-eternal, co-equal”. In the scripture, begotten also refers to coronation, in Christ’s case now as a man for us, after His resurrection. It means to invest with power (Ps 2:7, a coronation psalm).
Jesus Christ contains all the attributes of the Father. Is 9:6 includes “everlasting Father” and “mighty God” among Christ’s titles. His non-use of some powers in His incarnation was not due to inability. It was voluntary. His “not knowing the day nor the hour” was voluntary non-use, not lack of omniscience (Mk 13:32). Christ voluntarily limited His use of powers to do the Father’s will.
Christ chose humility to taste all things we face, to be our perfect High Priest (Heb 2:16-17). His expression: “I could call a legion of angels” and the way the soldiers fell when they came to arrest him, show that He possessed all power in His incarnation and could have used it (Matt 26:53, John 18:6). He gave Himself up to die on the cross because it was the Father’s will. No one took His life (John 10:17).
Mary knew that Jesus had power before His first public use of it at Cana, where He began to show forth His glory. This was the Father’s time (John 2:11). He was not only ministering by the Spirit, but also showing forth His glory. Before this His power was hidden to the public. His debating at age 12 shows He was always Spirit filled. He was Son “about His Father’s business” and Sonship is by empowerment.
The title “only begotten of the Father” means Jesus was the only man who came from the bosom of the Father and could show the Father to mankind (John 1:14, 18). The term does not mean that He was begotten before creation and prior to that He did not exist. The Son is eternal God.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Rev 22:13).
Phil 2:7 does not say that He laid His power aside when He came in the flesh, but that He humbled Himself in His use of it. To deny He had power is to deny Him His glory, which is what He came to show forth. If He did not have power, Satan could not have tempted Him to use it at will. We talk on this more below when speaking about His ministry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)