“You Yourselves bear me witness that I said ‘I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him’.” (John 3:28)

Of course John’s comment is in light of his ministry. For he says that he was to announce the Christ because he is not the Christ: his role was to prepare the way. John sees that his own life isn’t purposeless but is actually tied up in the work of God by the presentation of the Lamb of God.

He was sent to preach repentance and when he saw the Lamb of God he pointed him out, openly acknowledging that this is the provision that God had made. (John 1:19-34)

To John’s mind, this probably meant something else. He probably thought as Jesus as the Lamb ruler who would forcefully take away the sins of the World. After all, it was only a short time later that he would be imprisoned, still waiting for the Christ to reboot this entire world, and wondering why it hadn’t happened yet.

In Matthew 11, John, seeing that Herod is still in power (and he’s still in jail) sends a message to Jesus via disciples: “Are you the Christ that we’re waiting for?” He spent his life pointing out this person, he could’ve sworn that this was the very thing he was called to do, but things had turned out so differently and dire: could he have been wrong?

Christ responds neither yes nor no but pointing out the work of God. The Lame walk. The blind see. The Gospel is being preached.

The next historical note we have about John is that he’s beheaded at a party for a cruel mother and her daughter. (Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29; Luke 9:7-9).

You see, Christ explains, John wasn’t merely some spectacle in soft clothes out in the wild—some oddity to ogle. This John was God’s prophet: the very Elijah who was supposed to come (if they would have had him) before the end of the age: the one who prepared the way of the coming of the Lord Himself. This John, in prison who eventually died of beheading, was the greatest of the prophets (Matt 11:11a).

Without a miracle. Without a sign. With a backwater ministry in the Jewish outback. John functioned where he was supposed to function doing what all the prophets before him did, but better. Point to Christ.

Every single prophet in the Old Testament pointed forward to Christ via the power of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes fuzzily. Sometimes explicitly. But always predicated upon God’s revelation and looking forward to God’s distant promises. John alone, out of all the prophets, announced Him within days, inaugurated him via baptism, and witnessed the descending Holy Spirit upon Him. None of the prophets were given that position (Heb 11:39).

But John didn’t see everything. He was still an Old Testament prophet. He didn’t see  the crowds cheering around the one who comes in the name of the Lord (Mark 11:9; John 12). To him wasn’t given the horror of seeing the Messiah rejected and pinned to a tree (John 19). He would never witness the wonder of the risen Messiah (John 20). To him wasn’t given the chance of listening to the risen Lord for several days before he was taken up into heaven (Acts 1). To him wasn’t given the chance of participating in the prophesying in tongues which was a witness of the Holy Spirit being poured out in the last days (Acts 2).

None of those things were given to him; God didn’t grant John that role.

And he knew that at this point.

Technorati Tags: gospel, israel, john in prison, john the baptist

An obvious fallacious conflation of categories: why conflate bad breath and miscalculations with affirming erroneous beliefs—indeed, even morally wrong beliefs (which they may use examples as slavery, monarchism or patriarchies)?

Yet, this question about the ontology of a human as it relates to a human product cannot be so easily brushed away when one approaches the letter to the Hebrews. The author looks beyond the human author to establish all his arguments—and this refutes the Nestorian⁽¹⁾, or even Kenotic Arian⁽²⁾, view of Scripture.

I will establish the Author’s reasoning by briefly sketching his idea of Scripture in three major points: Point 1: God speaking through others; Point 2: God speaking in Scriptures; and Point 3: God speaking in Time.

At this juncture, some may be tempted to insert new meanings to my text. God speaking through others winds up meaning the Spirit of God speaking through a believer; God speaking through Scriptures becomes God sometimes speaking through a small voice as we read certain passages; and God speaking in Time might be tied to some sort of continuationism where God continues to speak in the present via the miraculous.

Even if those things were true, they serve no function here: it is better to allow us, myself and the author to the Hebrews, to speak and carefully establish the points that underlie both arguments.

As to the first point, the author clearly sees God speaking perfectly through other individuals—but these individuals are all writing in Scripture. This might be ignored if all we had was the writer’s introductory statement:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, (Heb 1:1 // NASB95)

“Well” says one “he means the revelation that occurs every now and then through prophecies” but that is not the writer’s point. For when we arrive at certain places we see God explicitly speaking through persons.

He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.”(Heb 4:7 // NASB95 cf. Ps 95:7)

As if that weren’t enough he goes and quotes the narrator of the book of Genesis and ascribes the text to God speaking:

For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”; (Heb 4:4 // NASB95 cf. Gen 2:2)

This act of God speaking through others isn’t something that the writer is saying happens Out There Somewhere In The World but rather it is happening explicitly in the written texts, even in the very inane passages which are mere narration.

This tells us that the author to the Hebrews has a view of Scripture in which God’s speaking pervades those who are writing the text, from narration to song—not just explicit “God said” quotes. Now this isn’t to imply the original writers are in a trance: there is no mention about the mode which God employed to ensure that the writers speak His words—that’s not the author’s concern. But God explicitly and perfectly speaks through others as they record Scripture.

Which leads us to our second point: the author notices God speaking in Scripture.

Now, this might appear as if I’m merely repeating the first point but there is a real difference. The author has no problem differentiating between God the Father speaking in this text or the Son of God speaking in that text or even the Holy Spirit speaking in this other text.

So we’ll see the writer note the Holy Spirit speaking:

Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you hear His voice, (Heb 3:7 // NASB95)

The Son of God speaking:

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; (Heb 10:5 // NASB95)

And God the Father speaking:

But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”? (Heb 1:13 // NASB95)

And these passages are not unique proof-texts that pop in here or there in the letter to the Hebrews. The writer often notes in Scripture that God speaks (Heb 1:6,8; 4:3;10:30;12:25), the Son speaks (Heb 2:11-12; 10:9) and the Spirit speaks (Heb 9:8; 10:15).

This tells us that the Author sees God speaking so perfectly through others (first point) and that he can distinguish which person of the Godhead is speaking and to whom.

Once again, this says nothing of the how of it all. God speaking via Prophets and then the Son (Heb 1:2) does not in any way necessitate a human-puppet, empty of volition, who spews out the words of whichever member of the Godhead wants an instrument to speak through.  God, in all three persons, has no problem speaking clearly through Others and These Others have been recorded in Scripture so as to allow one to hear what they said.

Or are saying: which brings us to the third point regarding tense or The When of it all. It can easily be argued that these bits are God speaking in the past (Heb 1:1) and they might consist of times when God uttered words to bring things about in the past:

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. (Heb 11:3 // NASB95)

It can even be said that the writer has no problem recording when God is speaking of the future—such as when the Son again comes into the world (Heb 1:6) or better:

And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” (Heb 12:26 // NASB95)

But it is not merely that God spoke in the past and-here’s-the-proof: it is that God spoke in the past Here at Point A then he spoke in the past here at point B which is after Point A, and this has been left open to show that he is speaking right now to us in Point C.

In other words, the recorded Scriptures are God speaking but not only speaking in some far removed distant past but speaking right now to the present readers.

He again fixes a certain day, “Today,” saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts.” (Heb 4:7 // NASB95)

Or elsewhere:

See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. (Heb 12:25 // NASB95)

This should shake the Kenotic Arian view of Scripture to the core. God is right now speaking perfectly from heaven through humans who recorded Scripture in the past so that it can address people who are presently reading.

This isn’t even some weak idea about the reader getting inspired by words. Rather, this is God’s utterances which reverberate from the throne room of heaven and specifically through the vehicle of the human-written text to address us in the now.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb 4:12 // NASB95)

This is the power that is being ascribed to God’s word—and here some folk might like to quibble about semantics (ie: The Word of God refers to God’s redemptive message; not to the Bible) without really addressing all the points that came before—in a pervasive sense.

And others might want to quibble about the how of it all: the text is silent on that issue. But it assumes some very shaking  things about God’s utterances that leaves the operation open but casts no doubt on the power.

If God’s utterances can bring into nothing the very cosmos (Heb 11:3); and result in a shaking by which all will be shaken off save God’s unshakeable kingdom (Heb 12:26); and if he can easily speak through finite creatures to bring about his will in the past and the future then how easily can he speak from heaven to affect those who read right now…and then another right now that follows that past right now? As God says elsewhere:

So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.(Is 55:11 // NASB95 )

And:

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (Ro 10:17 // NASB95 )

This is an eye-opening view of how the author to the Hebrews approaches his argument: it is not merely him making these points, it is God who has been speaking—even now—and the author is merely putting it together in his short word of exhortation (Heb 12:5).

Indeed, this view should give Evangelicals no pause as they stand on their high and proper view of Scripture. This isn’t some strange Docetism, or even puppeteering: this is the Creator God speaking perfectly through Humans so that change may be affected right now.

Let the Non-Evangelical Liberals speak on, leading their Kenotic Arian charge against a high view of Scripture—it collapses under the weight of the Word of God spoken inerrantly from heaven, right now, through human authors of the text we call The Scriptures. Let them, in their desire to capitulate to their own reason over the Creator’s mandates, call this view of God’s Utterances wrong, harmful or dangerous. If the very fiber of a human is laid bare by this Speaking, it is dangerous indeed but not in the way they would like.

As God says:

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

⁽¹⁾ A Nestorian view of Scripture would take the Scripture to be a completely human book that is adopted by the community and thereby becomes part of their divine narrative. It is a completely human work that unites with the divine.

⁽²⁾ Kenotic Arianism is further expanded on by Char Moore, but such a view of Scripture would suggest that as God took the Scriptures, he first completely emptied himself from the will of the Human authors so as to leave them doing the work on their own (thus accommodating to their weaknesses and foibles). But in so doing, the Scriptures are not a product of God’s work at all: he merely influences the process by occasionally speaking.

Technorati Tags: hebrews, inerrancy, kenotic arianism, scriptures

Admittedly the question likely arises because of the ambiguity of the term. Son of God can mean anything from the progeny of deity to the socio-political terminology used in the Old Testament. The waters are further muddied by Christians coming along with their big theological boots, stamping around and saying things like “we believe in the only Son of God eternally begotten or generated of the Father”.

Was Jesus the Son of God in the flesh and is He the Son of God now?
Yes, just about everyone answers. The texts are pretty clear in this respect. In the nativity announcement Luke records that the son Mary was to give birth to would be called the Son of God (Luke 1). The Baptist when he sees Jesus at the beginning of His ministry says “This is the Son of the most high God (Jn 1:34). When Jesus was on trial and used the very elusive statement “Son of Man” the Jewish leaders asked Him if He was the Son of God, Christ answers that their words are correct (Lk 22:69-70). Peter, recalling the transfiguration event  pens the words which he heard that Jesus is the Son-of whatever voice was speaking (2 Peter 1:17). Post resurrection and as a summarizing point for writing the Gospel, John says that he wrote it to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31). Luke records Philip (Acts 8) and Saul (Acts 9) preaching that Jesus is the Son of God.  John, in the epistles, has the belief as Jesus as Son of God as confessional to being in God-in John’s writings meaning “being In the Faith” (1 Jn 4-5). In the Book of Revelation, the image is of Christ proclaiming He is the Son of God to the churches (Rev 2).

Son of God before Birth of the Son of God.
Too many people take the term to mean “Son of Deity”. Pagans often had gods copulating with women and giving birth to a mini-God (ie: Herekles, Minos, etc.) but the Jews saw that sort of thing not only as stupid but sheer idolatry.

So when you have Ugaritic mythology talking about the Sons of El as mini-Gods of whom El is the Head God, the Genesis account has the beneha-elohim (Sons of God) as beings that actually do something wrong (with the daughters of men) and it is only Elohim Yahweh who creates and acts and moves and judges things as Good or Constantly Wicked. Beneha-elohim are very minor players in the story, but I deal with the interpretative issues in another post.

My point from the Son of God usage in this section is that they are not listed as born; they are listed as being Sons of God, before the incarnation. If someone wanted to they could argue that The Ultimate Son of God was one of this group (like some belief systems do). I personally wouldn’t argue this point and think it opens up a path to lots of mistakes, but it doesn’t legitimately make it possible that Christ’s Sonship is pre-incarnation.

Titular Functional Sonship
Of course, I wouldn’t exclusively go the previous route. What I would do is take that and then further reflect on Sonship throughout the Old Testament from which I would draw the conclusions that “Son of God” language doesn’t necessitate birth, progeny, same family, can depend on a single attribute or function of the father and is sometimes even the result of declarative action (such as in Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 7, Ruth 4, Exodus 4, Gen 48, Hosea 11). I’ve argued for this reading of Son of God in another post but the gist of it is that the term has wide usage.

Jesus was using the term “Son of Man” that also had cetrain (yet narrower) usage in the Old Testament, but it wasn’t popular enough to garner the kind of suspicion (?) that “Son of God” would bring (so you have passages like John 10 where folk ask Jesus to speak plainly and tell them if he’s the actual Christ-Anointed-Son-of-God). But it is upon asking Him directly (Luke 22:66-71), if He’s the Son of God, when Jesus answers “Yes I am” that the Jewish leaders say that they have no further reason to hold court, and carry him off to Pilate.

They have in their theological an eschatological connection with Son of God language in the Old Testament that culminates with The Ultimate Son of God who has certain divine prerogatives: for instance judgment of the world.

The Sent Son, the Eternal Word
So for me, one of the tightest relationships between Christ’s Titular Functional Sonship and preexistence would be His own usage of the terminology in light of what the Son of God was to accomplish in redemptive history.

This one was to be the figure that comes with judgment, which would set affairs in order, who would reestablish Jerusalem as central, who will uphold the Law, who would judge the nations with equity and in so doing also being the lifeblood of the nations flocking worship to God.

So when Christ speaks of Sonship he says things that the Father gave the Son (Jn 3:16), that the Son came into the world (Jn 3:13 Son of Man), that the Son was sent (Mk 9:37, Jn 3:17)

And in addition to that sending language there is also the statement Christ employs to undergird His Sonship in John 5.

Christ looks back to the Sabbath keeping practices of the Jews and the debate of God working on the Sabbath, and makes the connection for them that both He and His Father work on the Sabbath and not only that, have been working up until now:

1) The Son does nothing on His own, only what the Father does
2) The Father loves the Son and shows the Son all things
3) The Father raises the dead and gives life; so does the Son
4) The Father doesn’t judge, judgment given to the hands of the Son
5) Believing in Christ and the One Who Sent Him

In so doing, He establishes that His Sonship is based on equality with the eternal God and coexistence with the eternal God for redemptive purposes of God. Staying within the metaphor of a Father-Son relationship in the carpenter shop: how can the Father teach the Son to Create Life if the Son isn’t at creation creating Life?

This is why John’s introduction (John 1) becomes one of the greatest ties to Christ’s eternal Sonship taking up themes that have rippled throughout the New Testament (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1; Heb 1:2-3). The Word is in the beginning with God, and is actually also God; the Word creates everything; the Word emptied Himself and becomes flesh; this Word-Become-Flesh is witnessed by other people who point him out-specifically the Baptist who says, in more words “This is the Son of God who was sent into the world to take away the sins of the world” (John 1).

In the end I find that the connection to the Son is one of Title, Function (doing things only God does), Equality, Preexistence (with the Father at the beginning), and sentness (in subjection to the Father, although equal to the Father). My answer to the question: “When did the Son of God exist” would be the instant the omniscient, eternal, preexistent Godhead decided to send the Word; necessarily The Son Always Was The Son of God slain before the Foundation of the World.

Technorati Tags: christ, son of God, the Word, trinity

Starting with their own presuppositions they each make some solid points but I would argue that contra (1) the term refers to something with intent that can only be realized with a preexistent Sonship; contra (2) the term has specific meaning; and contra (3) the terminology’s usage has been properly realized by the New Testament authors.

Usage of “Son of God”
“Sons of God” appears early in Scripture, specifically Gen 6:2-4 to a group that married the daughters of men. There are several interpretations of this term as applied to this group (here you go) but all I want to say here is that with whichever interpretation one goes with, neither of them attest to a connection via progeny of Deiity.

The important thing about the usage of it here (then in Job, and Deuteronomy, Psalms, etc) is that the connection to God is to something He does by nature and is evidenced in those with Sonship. For example: Angels are Sons of God because of their spiritual activity and being; the Sethite line are Sons of God because they’ve been elected to take over the ruling role of Adam (who Luke calls the Son of God) and so they receive special promises from God (thus culminating in Israel as a whole who has been called God’s Son); a group of Kings would be Sons of God because they’re functioning as sovereign over the people just as God is sovereign over all.

We see the same language used in Psalms 2:7 where God speaks to His anointed (presumably King David looking back to the event in Samuel) and tells him “You are my Son; Today I’ve begotten you.” Of course, God isn’t saying “You are my male-born child because today you were born”. God is performing a declarative action which takes the anointed individual and makes him a Son in a very specific function: King. He’s not God’s Son in every sense (he’s not creating, he’s not the ultimate giver of life) but in the sense as being King over the nations, he’s very much God’s Son.

Functional Sonship Evidenced
This is evidenced all over middle-eastern culture, and attested to in the Gospel accounts. Jesus isn’t a Carpenter merely by trade (Mark 6:3), but because he was the Son of a Carpenter (Matt 13:55). The Jews, when arguing with Jesus claim that their father is God. In so doing, they stand on the side of God’s promises and truth: they think they have claimed the high ground with Them under God, and God on their side.

When Jesus turns and says that their real father is the Devil, He is not saying that they’re slaves to the Devil or born from Satan (as I’ve actually heard some Christians argue). He’s saying that insofar as the Devil lies and murders, this group of individuals are liars who plan to commit murder (John 8). In this respect, they are Sons of the Devil.

The sermon of the mount makes use of this functional sonship. Christ says things like “blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Sons of God.” He’s not saying that peacemakers will be called Christians or believers but as much as they are folk who promote shalom (peace and rest) they are functioning (in that single aspect) as a Son, or copier, of God.

The term even winds up being applied to Christians as Sons of God (albeit by adoption: Gal 4:5). Believers are gifted with the Spirit of God and those who are led by that spirit are subsequently called Sons of God (Rom 8:14). Since God is love, argues John, those who know God must themselves love. John understands that Christians will fail (and thus points to Christ the advocate) but openly acknowledges that although we are currently children (in place of Sons) of God when the time comes we will be fully like the Father-putting emphasis on the transformation of the being in how he or she acts.

This usage shouldn’t surprise us. When my son acts really weird, waving around a lightsaber my wife turns to me and says “That’s you’re Son.” She’s not denying the fact that he’s actually her son too, but she’s saying in the way the boy is acting, it reflects outward, revealing me as his father.

Christ as Son of God
When the terminology is applied to Christ it follows this same connection to function (albeit a much different level). So whereas each King or Angel or Christian or Israelite is narrowly functioning as a Son, Christ’s function would entail of all things. He’d say things like “everything the Son sees the Father doing, He Himself does” and then proceeds to show how this means in matters of giving life, of raising the dead, and even in judging. Jesus takes the function to such a level that the Jews immediately think “He’s functionally making himself out to be a god on par with God.” In other words, they saw this Sonship as pitting Christ God Versus Yahweh God.

Christ’s argument is that His Sonship is not in opposition to God, but in functional subjection to God while simultaneously working equally as God the Father.

Whereas you have a King being declared a functional son of God in regards to ruling and anointed, we now have Christ who was the sent Son with all these other entailments tied into His position. Whereas you have Adam, the Son of God, to be God’s vice-gerent over the created order yet fails dramatically bringing it all down with him, we now have Christ, the Son of God who dramatically obeys before the incarnation (setting aside what He didn’t have to steal: his divinity) becoming a servant obedient to death on the cross, raising again and bringing all of creation up with Him. Whereas you have Israel, the Son of God, as a nation of priests; we now have Jesus Christ, who is both priest and king.

So Christ not merely becomes, but is the Son of God par excellence. All previous mentions looked forward to someone who would encompass all these different aspects and reflect absolute functional Sonship.

Concluding Points
Therefore we can see that (Contra (3)) the New Testament writers haven’t imbued new theological and exegetically unsound meaning but have followed the various threads of functional Sonship to the one big ball of yarn tied up in Christ; (Contra (2)) the term has very specific meaning in regards to function in relation to God but in regards to Christ this is exemplified above and over being God’s Anointed while simultaneously including the Anointing aspect. All Kings (even the bad ones) are functional sons of God, but The Son of God par excellence would necessarily include Messiahship with Shalom-promoter, Eternal Father, Judge, and Giver of Life to the Dead; (Contra (1)) One can see that these threads weren’t merely God’s attributed functions being coincidentally appropriated in Jesus Christ. They each reflected a functional aspects of God (including creative ability, self-existence, imagination-the list is endless) which would necessarily result in a being that already has all those things. Jesus wasn’t born \to become the functional Creator of the World-the Sent Son would have had to have done that already (John 1:1-3). Jesus wasn’t born to become the bringer of shalom, as the Sent Son He would have already been a promoter of shalom

Technorati Tags: israel, jesus, messiah, son of God

Why stop at the 32? How about the 5 girls at the Amish shooting? Or the 13 at Columbine? Or the 168 at Oklahoma City? Or the 2093 on 9/11? How about the 200,000 in Bosnia, the 300,000 in Nanking, the 800,000 in Rwanda, the 2 million in Cambodia, the 6-7 million in the Holocaust and the 1.6 – 60 million in Russia?

Oh maybe someone can say “It’s that the Devil and God are at war: the Devil wins some but God wins in the long term.” And maybe others offer a defense that “God doesn’t know that the evil is going to happen so He can’t stop it!” But honestly, would He be God if He didn’t know what was going to happen and would He really be God if Him and the Devil were on equal footing? As if this was some cosmic chess game where God plays really well but sometimes, the Devil takes a few pawns…

“It’s because there is no god.” Someone else squeaks out, finding comfort that the Pedophile, the Murderer, the Nazi, the Hitlers, the Stalins aren’t evidence of screwed up humans, just an expression of survival of the fittest.

And I’ll give them that final point because the same thinking and moral component that is in the Stalins and Hitlers and Gunmen is also in the Suburban Mom and the Teenage Son and the Working Father. Both of these groups are reasoning humans: they just came to a different conclusion in their reasoning. The fact that one group had the power to implement their reasoning is just an example of what happens when a group gets power.

So yes, it is an expression of survival of the fittest—humans emulating animals in an expression of freedom-worship: humanity gone wild.

You really want to see when humanity went wild? God sent His Son, the Creator Jesus Christ, knowing that people were going to reject Him and stood back as people took Him and crucified Him. Man, the Thinking Beast, in its effrontery stood up on its hindlegs, 6 feet of flesh and raised its puny paws against the Creator of all by killing Jesus Christ.

The question shouldn’t be “How can there be evil in the world?” because we’re in the world, we should know the answer already. And the question shouldn’t be “Why doesn’t he put a stop to it right now?” because in all honesty, we should look back to the crucifixion of His Son and wonder “why is he waiting so long?”

Peter and Paul both come to the rescue: “God isn’t taking his promises for granted—like people are known to do—but He is patient with us, not willing that any get wiped out but that all should repent.” And “What if God, who was extremely willing to show his just anger, patiently endured the actions of those who deserved his just anger?”

So ask the final question: “If he’s properly angry; is he waiting on me to repent?”