- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Hi TT,
Jesus is appointed to rule over God's creation, till he hands back the kingdom to God.[1Cor15]thinker………Nick is right brother, Scripture shows Jesus' Authority is a temporary one, because he turns over rule to GOD the FATHER at the End of HIS reign and becomes subject to the FATHER also, as I Cor 15:28 says.
love and peace………………gene
1 Corinthians 15:28
And when … – In this future time, when this shall be accomplished. This implies that the time has not yet arrived, and that his dominion is now exercised, and that he is carrying forward his plans for the subjugation of all things to God.
Shall be subdued unto him – Shall be brought under subjection. When all his enemies shall be overcome and destroyed; or when the hearts of the redeemed shall be entirely subject to God. When God' s kingdom shall be fully established over the universe. It shall then be seen that he is Lord of all. In the previous verses he had spoken of the promise that all things should be subjected to God; in this, he speaks of its being actually done.
Then shall the Son also himself be subject … – It has been proposed to render this, “even then shall the Son,” etc.; implying that he had been all along subject to God; had acted under his authority; and that this subjection would continue even then in a sense similar to that in which it had existed; and that Christ would then continue to exercise a delegated authority over his people and kingdom. See an article “on the duration of Christ' s kingdom,” by Prof. Mills, in Bib. Rep. vol. iii. p. 748ff. But to this interpretation there are objections:
(1) It is not the obvious interpretation.
(2) It does not seem to comport with the design and scope of the passage, which most evidently refers to some change, or rendering back of the authority of the Messiah; or to some resumption of authority by the Divinity, or by God as God, in a different sense from what existed under the Messiah.
(3) Such a statement would be unnecessary and vain. Who could reasonably doubt that the Son would be as much subject to God when all things had been subdued to him as he was before?
(4) It is not necessary to suppose this in order to reconcile the passage with what is said of the perpetuity of Christ' s kingdom and his eternal reign. That he would reign; that his kingdom would be perpetual, and that it would be unending, was indeed clearly predicted; see II Samuel 7:16; Psalms 45:6; Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14; Luke 1:22-23; Hebrews 1:8. But these predictions may be all accomplished on the supposition that the special mediatorial kingdom of the Messiah shall be given up to God, and that he shall be subject to him. For:
(a)His kingdom will be perpetual, in contradistinction from the kingdoms of this world. They are fluctuating, changing, short in their duration. His shall not cease, and shall continue to the end of time.
(b)His kingdom shall be perpetual, because those who are brought under the laws of God by him shall remain subject to those laws forever. The sceptre never shall be broken, and the kingdom shall abide to all eternity.
ÂChrist, the Son of God, in his divine nature, as God, shall never cease to reign.
As Mediator, he may resign his commission and his special office, having made an atonement, having recovered his people, having protected and guided them to heaven. Yet as one with the Father; as the “Father of the everlasting age” Isaiah 9:6, he shall not cease to reign. The functions of a special office may have been discharged, and delegated power laid down, and that which appropriately belongs to him in virtue of his own nature and relations may be resumed and executed forever; and it shall still be true that the reign of the Son of God, in union, or in oneness with the Father, shall continue forever.
(5) The interpretation which affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father in the sense of laying down his delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise his mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all times. This remark is of value only, because, in the interpretation of plum words, it is not probable that people of all classes and ranks in different ages would err.
The Son also himself – The term “Son of God” is applied to the Lord Jesus with reference to his human nature, his incarnation by the Holy Spirit, and his resurrection from the dead; see the note on Romans 1:4. (For the evidence of the eternal sonship, see the Supplementary Note on the same passage.) It refers, I apprehend, to that in this place. It does not mean that the second person in the Trinity, as such, should be subject to the first; but it means the Incarnate Son, the Mediator, the man that was born and that was raised from the dead, and to whom this wide dominion had been given, should resign that dominion, and that the government should be re-assumed by the Divinity as God. As man, he shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion. This does not mean, evidently, that the union of the divine and human nature will be dissolved; nor that important purposes may not be answered by that continued union forever; nor that the divine perfections may not shine forth in some glorious way through the man Christ Jesus; but that the purpose of government shall no longer be exercised in that way; the mediatorial kingdom, as such, shall no longer be continued, and power shall be exercised by God as God. The redeemed will still adore their Redeemer as their incarnate God, and dwell upon the remembrance of his work and upon his perfections Revelation 1:5-6; Revelation 5:12; Revelation 11:15; but not as exercising the special power which he now has, and which was needful to effect their redemption.
That God may be all in all – That God may be supreme; that the Divinity, the Godhead, may rule; and that it may be seen that he is the Sovereign over all the universe. By the word “God” ( ̔ ̀ ho Theos ), Whitby and Hammond, I think correctly, understand the Godhead, the Divine Nature, the Divinity, consisting of the three persons, without respect to any special office or kingdom.
Barnes Notes
Source: http://bibletools.org/index.c….sIsa 1:18…………..given enough words we can make anything out of a simple straightforward scripture brother. My question would be why do Trinitarians have to go to such extreme explanations of there beliefs. To get around simple plain scriptures, that even a child could understand. I have no problem just reading it as it is written. Jesus said “tho art the (ONLY) ONE TRUE GOD”. Isn't that straight forward, does it need pages of explanations. Anyone can force the text with enough words brother.
peace and love to you and yours brother……………………………….gene
Quote (Gene @ April 21 2009,03:05) thinker………Nick is right brother, Scripture shows Jesus' Authority is a temporary one, because he turns over rule to GOD the FATHER at the End of HIS reign and becomes subject to the FATHER also, as I Cor 15:28 says. love and peace………………gene
Amen to that post brother Gene. Then at that time it will be proved God that alone will be over and through all.Love and peace to you
AdamQuote (Gene @ April 21 2009,12:50) Isa 1:18…………..given enough words we can make anything out of a simple straightforward scripture brother. My question would be why do Trinitarians have to go to such extreme explanations of there beliefs.
Hello Gene,
I would say that there are many scriptures that on the surface seem straightforward in their English rendering but have nuances that are not obvious until the original langauge is examined. Usually when these nuances are brought to the surface insight is gained and we progress in our understanding. English words also have multiple definitions and we need context to determine which is applicable, this is not always simple either, and BTW the word “life” would fall into that category. Some people, myself included, appreciate a thorough exegetical explanation. I agree that commentaries are not the be all and end all, or are indispensible in building an accurate understanding of scripture. But they are useful nonetheless. I frequently quote Barnes and Robertson because I have found them to be reliable and because they are generally respected across the theological spectrum. Aside from this, we actually need teachers to grow in our understanding of the Word. That's exactly what Paul was to all the churches he planted.Quote To get around simple plain scriptures, that even a child could understand. I have no problem just reading it as it is written.
I see this notion bandied around a lot on Heaven Net -namely “scripture is so simple even a child could understand it”. I think it's a rediculous view. Yes, many of the messages in scripture are lucid and able to be understood by small children. But analysis of the scriptural texts definately requires an adult's mind. How would your typical 5 year old interpret Hebrews or Revelation? It would be entertaining to find out, but not particularly productive. They just have not developed the cognitive skills to deal with the text. We need to move from milk to meat.Quote Jesus said “tho art the (ONLY) ONE TRUE GOD”. Isn't that straight forward, does it need pages of explanations. Anyone can force the text with enough words brother.
This is a quotation of John 17:3 I take it? If this one verse comprised the entirety of data we had on the ontology of Yeshua I might have cause to question my theology. But it does not and you would have to take it out of context to draw the conclusion you have anyway. I am not unfamiliar with this verse Gene, and it's application in trinitarian/antitrinitarian dialogue. In fact I addressed it in the debate I had with t8 (which is yet unfinished!!). I'll be lazy and appeal to that as my answer to you, here's the link:https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….79;st=0
Blessings
Isa 1:18………….Thanks for you response, and while I do agree with you that some of the text is harder to understand then other parts are, because there has been some tampering and mistranslations due to language differences and theological influencing over two thousand years. I still believe with GOD'S Spirit the true understanding can be (REVEALED) to a person. Let me give you an example.
John 2:23-25……> Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them because he knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for he know what was in man.
Isa 1:18…> do you see what was meet by that statement. Do you see Jesus understood men wanted to praise (Him) a Man, because of what they saw him perform. They did not understand Jesus' life was not about Him, It was about the work of GOD the FATHER Not the man Jesus, who they wanted to praise and worship and GLORIFY. Thats the way it is with MAN, Man wants to glorify MAN. But there were some who had God”s Spirit guiding them and they recognized what and who Jesus was and who was doing the WORK through Him and who deserved the GLORY, these Jesus committed Himself to brother. To give glory to Jesus for what the FATHER was doing is to rob GOD The FATHER of His GLORY, this Jesus never did. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
HG,
By the Spirit of God, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge and discernment, he saw the hearts of men as God does.[1Cor12]Nick…….That is true , but that not the point i am trying to make here, I am trying to show Isa 1:18 that Jesus recognized what men wanted to do and that was to worship Him as the one doing those things and Glorify HIM, and they did not see the it was GOD the FATHER who was doing them, But the disciples Know that it was GOD doing the works not Jesus Himself. as the people thought , this is the same as trinitarians and Preexistences do, they look at Jesus as the GOD or a demigod or super being who was doing the Works He did, and not seeing the difference. One is a carnal view the other is a Spiritual view. Jesus committed Himself to those who had the Spiritual view.
Jesus said, He had no need that any Men should testify of (MAN), get it. Jesus was A MAN> He did not need them to testify about HIM. (A MAN)> It was not about the ( Man) Jesus, it is about GOD the FATHER sending His SON to testify about (HIM) GOD.
love and peace………………………….gene
Quote (Gene @ April 22 2009,02:48) Isa 1:18………….Thanks for you response, and while I do agree with you that some of the text is harder to understand then other parts are, because there has been some tampering and mistranslations due to language differences and theological influencing over two thousand years. I still believe with GOD'S Spirit the true understanding can be (REVEALED) to a person. Let me give you an example. John 2:23-25……> Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them because he knew all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for he know what was in man.
Isa 1:18…> do you see what was meet by that statement. Do you see Jesus understood men wanted to praise (Him) a Man, because of what they saw him perform. They did not understand Jesus' life was not about Him, It was about the work of GOD the FATHER Not the man Jesus, who they wanted to praise and worship and GLORIFY. Thats the way it is with MAN, Man wants to glorify MAN. But there were some who had God”s Spirit guiding them and they recognized what and who Jesus was and who was doing the WORK through Him and who deserved the GLORY, these Jesus committed Himself to brother. To give glory to Jesus for what the FATHER was doing is to rob GOD The FATHER of His GLORY, this Jesus never did. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
This verse is saying that Yeshua acted cautiously so as not to preempt His own premature death. That is all.Hi Is 1.18,
Could the God Who cares for sparrows have let His son die early?Matthew 10:29
” Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father.Quote (Gene @ April 21 2009,03:05) thinker………Nick is right brother, Scripture shows Jesus' Authority is a temporary one, because he turns over rule to GOD the FATHER at the End of HIS reign and becomes subject to the FATHER also, as I Cor 15:28 says. love and peace………………gene
Gene,
But until then Jesus is ALL IN ALL (Colossians 3). We have been over this before.thinker
Is. 1:18 wrote:
Quote That God may be all in all – That God may be supreme; that the Divinity, the Godhead, may rule; and that it may be seen that he is the Sovereign over all the universe. By the word “God” ( ̔ ̀ ho Theos ), Whitby and Hammond, I think correctly, understand the Godhead, the Divine Nature, the Divinity, consisting of the three persons, without respect to any special office or kingdom. Barnes Notes
Source: <a href="http://bibletools.org/index.c….s” target=”_blank”>http://bibletools.org/index.c….s[/quote]
Exactly!
thinker
Isa 1:18…….The context does not agree with you assessment of Jesus not trying to preempt His death Brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………gene
For brother Nick,
Here is what the different understanding of Jn1:1 & 14 says as you often quote that Jesus was reborn at Jordan;“Beloved, we need to properly understand the great mystery which lies hidden in the WORD that was with God. We should not do what some Bible translators and interpreters have done by directly equating the WORD with JESUS. Instead of saying that “the WORD was God”, they are saying that “the WORD was Jesus”. This is one of the many classical traditional interpretations among the Trinitarians. If this is the true interpretation, the Beloved Apostle John would have written it that way. The erroneous interpretation was deduced from the words recorded in John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh…”. But this verse has no direct reference to the birth of the child Jesus in Bethlehem nor even His conception in Mary's womb; it refers to the WORD being manifested in the life (flesh) of Jesus, in His ministry, right after God incarnated in Him at River Jordan. Remember, Jesus was the Begotten Son of God, not the Eternal Son of God”.
Source:http://www.propheticrevelation.com/logos1.htm
Hope this will clarify your understanding.
Peace to you
AdamQuote (Not3in1 @ May 29 2007,07:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 29 2007,06:42) Quote (Not3in1 @ May 29 2007,06:34) WJ, so they saw Jesus?
not3I dont know of a scripture that says they “Saw” God!
I know it says they talked to God! They Heard him walking!
Since Jesus is the image of the invisible God [Colossians 1:15], then if anyone at anytime has seen God, then we should expect that they saw the image of the invisible God, the Word, Jesus.
*********************************
Above is a quote straight from the website that you offered.I'll ask my question again: “If” Adam and Eve were able to see God in the garden, would it be Jesus that they saw and talked with and not God, himself? Thanks.
Greetings Mandy…….Is it possible that term walked with God and spoke to God did not include a physical presense,as for my understanding of the scripture is pretty clear,that No Man can survive the physical presense of God….Moses talked to God and was with God on sinai,however,he was unable to see or touch….Quote (gollamudi @ April 27 2009,22:01) For brother Nick,
Here is what the different understanding of Jn1:1 & 14 says as you often quote that Jesus was reborn at Jordan;“Beloved, we need to properly understand the great mystery which lies hidden in the WORD that was with God. We should not do what some Bible translators and interpreters have done by directly equating the WORD with JESUS. Instead of saying that “the WORD was God”, they are saying that “the WORD was Jesus”. This is one of the many classical traditional interpretations among the Trinitarians. If this is the true interpretation, the Beloved Apostle John would have written it that way. The erroneous interpretation was deduced from the words recorded in John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh…”. But this verse has no direct reference to the birth of the child Jesus in Bethlehem nor even His conception in Mary's womb; it refers to the WORD being manifested in the life (flesh) of Jesus, in His ministry, right after God incarnated in Him at River Jordan. Remember, Jesus was the Begotten Son of God, not the Eternal Son of God”.
Source:http://www.propheticrevelation.com/logos1.htm
Hope this will clarify your understanding.
Peace to you
Adam
Adam……….You have posted it Clear and right brother.peace and love to you and yours……………..gene
Gen The clear and right to some is not always the right answer. In this case you are both dead wrong.
I have a question to you both, how do you see when it says:” I came down from heaven.” Or the
Father send me! Send me from where? The Father is in heaven so He send Him (Jesus) from
heaven. He was not just in the mind of the Father, He is real, a being. A Spirit being, like His
Father is. The Bible says that He emptied Himself and became like us, a man, a human being.
Spirit begot Spirit. Also IMO the Father had to send a being like Yeshua ( Jesus)
Any human would have sinned and did not qualify. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Only
that came forth from the Father could qualify. He never sinned and He knew what was at stake.
Even though He was just like us and was tempted, just like we are.What I can't understand why you both can't see this. Is Satan blinding you both? Read W.J. post
He is right on this one.I have tried so many times to show you, I wonder if you don't read all or what.
Peace and Love to you both, Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
