Geoff has said that "the first rule of Bible study is that we are to understand the words according to their obvious meaning unless a figure or metaphor is indicated."
In a private email Geoff said "I cannot understand why you will not apply the first rule of Bible study to the discussion. "God is the Father of Christ, Christ is the Son of God." "The Son of God in truth." If you want to infer a different meaning to what is obviously stated, then it is up to you to show cause why. Are you forgetting that the Bible was not written for theologians, "but the common man, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is in the best position to understand the Scriptures."
First off, I want to say that I am no theologian, I have not had any theological training, so according to the quote (I'm not sure where it is from) I should be in the "best position to understand the Scriptures".
Geoff has asked for several things:
1. Why I don't apply the first rule of Bible study specifically to the terms "Son of God" and "Father" (I'm not sure that "Father of Christ" is a Biblical reference)
2. That I show cause for inferring that Jesus is not the literal Son of God but figurative.
Before we begin, the big difference between myself and Geoff is that Geoff believes that Jesus is the literal Son of God ie. that God actually Fathered Jesus and Jesus is not from eternity past but had a beginning. I believe that Jesus is a figurative Son of God, from eternity past, without beginning.
Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent).
So why do I say Jesus is the figurative Son of God.
1. Jesus is the antitypical Son - he is the original Son - we are all typical. The type is not always the same as the antitype in every particular. The sacrificial lamb was a type of the "Lamb of God" but not exactly the same. In many ways Jesus was like the sacrificial lamb just as Jesus is, in many ways, like human sons. More importantly, in what ways are human sons and fathers, like the antitypical Son and Father? Geoff would say "in procreation", I say "in close relationship".
2. "Son" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal son". Ezekiel is repeatedly called the "son of man" as is Jesus, this is redundant if "son" is literal. Jesus is called the "son of David" (Mt 1:1, Mk 10:47) as is Joseph (Mt 1:20). Even though both were descendents of David, neither are literal sons. The overcomer is promised to become God's son (Rev 21:7). John says we are already sons of God ,1 Jn 3:1,2, Jn 1:12, as does Paul in Rom 8:14. James and John are called "sons of thunder" (Mk 3:17) by Jesus. These are the examples I could think of at present.
3. "Father" in the Bible, does not always mean "literal father". In John 8, Jesus calls God His Father many times which may or may not be literal. The Jews claimed Abraham was their father (v39) and that they only had one Father - God (v41). Jesus said that the devil was their father (v44) and that the devil was the father of lies (v44). None of these later references can be literal.
4. "Monogenes" (usually translated "only begotten son") is about "preciousness" not literal sonship. I say this because the writers of the New Testament used monogenes in the context of the Old Testament. They called Isaac monogenes even though he was not Abraham's "only son" (Heb 11:17). I could find two occurrances of monogenes in the Septuagint, which is the Old Testament most readers of the New Testament in the first years of the Christian church were most familiar with. These references were Psalms 22:20 and 35:17 where it is translated "my darling" (in NKJV it is translated "my precious" and life is added in both cases). These would be the references most people reading the New Testament would apply to that word at the time it was written.
To sum up, it is quite possible that the original writers of the New Testament meant "Son of God" as a figure or metaphor, so I infer that Jesus is the figurative Son of God. The writers may also have meant it to be taken literally, which is why I'm not dogmatic and certainly won't ask anyone to change their mind on this matter.
Does that answer your question Geoff?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." John 7:17. If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error…. {DD 38.4}
So when the Father says (twice) "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." If we take the Bible as it reads, according to its obvious meaning then we have no reason to believe it means something different to what is said. David and Jonathon had a special relationship, so we can understand a special relationship between equals, but God did not describe His relationship to Jesus like that.
"Lamb of God." Does anyone with any familiarity with the Bible have a problem understanding that a figure is intended?
"Ezekiel is repeatedly called the son of man." Does that mean he is not a literal son? How could he be called the son of man if he were not a literal son?
"Jesus is called the Son of David, as is Joseph." Only because both were sons in a literal sense. If Joseph were not the literal son of someone in David's line, he could not be called a son of David. When I am called a son of one of my ancestors, it does not mean I am not a literal son, in fact it is only because I am a literal son that I can be called a son of my great great grandfather. More on that later.
"John says we are already sons of God." How? By spiritual birth.
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,"-- not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father's person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection." ST May 30 1895 par. 3
There is no evidence to suggest that the Father Son relationship is something other than literal.
"Jesus said the devil was their father." Does anyone think the devil was their literal father? No the meaning is obvious. They received their enmity against Jesus from the devil. In every case, without exception, the expression father or son involves the concept of source (father) and recepient (son). When we apply the principle we have no problem understanding the meaning.
"They called Isaac "monogenes' even though he was not Abraham's "only son." But he was his only son of promise. To say he was not his only son is a half truth. Can you establish a doctrine on a half truth?
To say that it is quite possible that the original writers meant "Son of God" as a metaphor is pure speculation with no supportive evidence.
By the first rule of Bible study, when the Father says, "This is my beloved Son" then that is what we should believe.
My post was rejected as being too large. So I will have to send it by installments. I will do that later, but in the meantime here is a warning to consider.
"And Peter, describing the dangers to which the church was to be exposed in the last days, says that as there were false prophets who led Israel into sin, so there will be false teachers, "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. . . . And many shall follow their pernicious ways." 2 Peter 2:1, 2. Here the apostle has pointed out one of the marked characteristics of spiritualist teachers. They refuse to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God." PP 686
I said in the quote: "Ultimately both positions are unprovable and we must both infer from Scripture (and from Mrs White, to some extent)."
I agree with you about obvious meaning, but still infer from the statements as I did in the post. That is the glory (and the pain) of inference Geoff, you can't prove it wrong unless you have positive testimonies.
"The expression father or son involves the concept of source (father) and recipient (son)"
The places I see these expressions used by God and Christ in Scripture (and Mrs White) it is emphasising a close and loving relationship more than source/recipient. When it is used of Christ by men it usually emphasises His miraculous and divine powers or His character. Once again I fail to see source/recipient but do agree that while He was on earth this was the case.
So using my inference that Christ was the figurative Son of God and looking at the context of 2 Peter. I believe that here Peter is complaining about these spiritualisers denying Christ was the Son of God by refusing to acknowledge his:-
- Lordship and majesty (1:17)
- honour and glory (1:18)
- return (3:4)
- creatorship (3:5)
- judgement (3:13)
There is one warning in 2:12 that we both should note; they "speak evil of things that they understand not".
Are we in danger of doing this with the Godhead of our glorious God? We argue over His form and try to prove each other wrong... Could we be speaking evil of things that we don't understand?
Post a Comment