I'm starting to get to the limit of my multi-tasking in the different topics we're addressing in single posts. I'd like to narrow down to just one for now, if you don't mind. I'm going to suggest one, but if you'd rather talk about a different one, I'm game. At some point, I'll probably play the off-topic card and try to make sure we're still talking about the thread topic, and then we can take others to new threads if we need to.
The first one I'd like to eliminate is the individual vs corporate salvation/election. I think it's an important topic, and is somewhat related to the thread topic, as depending on how it is perceived, could be a major point in discussions on either side. So I recognize we might and likely will get back into it, but for now, I'd like to get the final word in
and then let it drop for awhile. I propose that salvation is individual (I think you agree with me), and I propose that election scriptures do not specify very clearly whether election is corporate or individual or possibly contingent on future actions. I'd be interested in a new thread, but I can't guarrantee how much time I could invest in it, unfortunately.
The topic I'd like to retain for now is the subject of Jesus nature(s) and how that fits into our perception of time and timelessness.
And now, back to our program...
Let us look how Paul used the term "son of..." when speaking to a sorcerer named Elymas:
"O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord?" (Acts 13:10).
Of course Paul was not saying that Elymas was a literal son of the devil. Instead, he was saying that the "nature" of Elymas is that of the devil. So when it is said that the Lord Jesus is the "son of man" what is being said that His nature is that of man.
I agree with you here about Elymas. I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that the same kind of language is being used of Jesus when "man" is described in such a negative context below:
This translation expresses better what is said:
"God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn't change his mind. When he says something, he does it. When he makes a promise, he keeps it" (Num.23:19; God's Word Translation).
Here Balaam is saying that God is not like the people of the earth who lie
Again, I agree with you on what these passages are saying, but if mankind's nature is to tell lies, change his mind, and not to keep his promises, how can you say that Jesus calling himself the "Son of man" is an indication that He has the nature of man? Surely
that nature of man is not in any way a reflection on Jesus.
Maybe "Son of man" is really just an indication that He was born into the human race. It's the most literal interpretation, and it doesn't seem to have any negative reflection on Jesus, does it? Are you not a "son of man"? Am I not one, too? There must be a reason why that particular title is one He used of Himself in such a way as to distinguish from something else, and I would suggest it is to distinguish Himself from a God that has no familial connection to His creation. In other words, He is at once calling attention to the fact that He is man and calling attention to the fact that He is God, all in the same title. "Son of God" doesn't do that, but "Son of man" sure does.
No, my interpretation of what is said at Hebrews 13:8 is supported by what is said here:
"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed" (Mal.3:6).
According to your ideas the LORD had only one nature before He came to the earth and then later He took on another nature and He experienced no change. The LORD says that He does not change but you say that He does.
I'm not saying He
does, I'm saying He
did. And I'm not saying it based on my own knowledge, but based on what the scriptures tell us--that Jesus was made man. And if He ever changed, then that verse must not mean that He never changes in ANY way. Rather the context, which you've included (thank you), is that He doesn't go back on His promises to the sons of Jacob. God had made a promise to Jacob, that included what He would do with Jacob's progeny, and God was going to keep His promise. Mal 3:6 is not restricting the possibility that God never changes in any way, but it doesn't require it, either. Rather, it appears that God is talking about never changing in His character or His purposes, and part of His character is that He doesn't renege on His promises.
I like to take things to the extreme to see how ideas play out. Imagine then that God really doesn't ever change in any way. Then when you see a verse that says "And God said...", you can immediately throw it out as false, since at one point God was not speaking, and then He spoke. That's a change of state between two opposites: God speaking and God not speaking. If God never changes, then He cannot start speaking, or if He is speaking, He cannot stop.
He also can't befriend anyone, as that would be a change (See James 2:23). Before Abraham was created, God was not his friend, since he didn't exist, but then when Abraham came into existence, God was his friend. If such a change is not allowed by scripture, then God's very nature and existence is contingent on Abraham--without Abraham, God is not complete, since He is, was, and always will be, the friend of Abraham. Abraham, obviously, would have the upper hand in that relationship, as he would have the power to "unfriend" God, but God couldn't unfriend Abraham (as that would be a change). Therefore the God you describe is both finite and powerless, all while being infinite and almighty. God is not contradictory, is He?
Of course, God's relationship with Abraham, even if Abraham were co-eternal, would be very one-sided, as God can't really communicate to him, or even listen to him, since those things would be changes in God. (Which is why Abraham might unfriend God.)
Obviously these things are ridiculous, as we know God is not powerless to act and speak and enter into a relationship with someone, or even break off a relationship with someone. God can change in those ways. And in other ways, too, like being angry but not forever--Jer 3:12, or being merciful but time will run out for each of us. I think we have to let the Bible's descriptions of God drive our conception of how he can change.
Can Jesus, being God, change in such a way that whereas He used to NOT be a man, now He is a man (while also being God)? I struggle to see how anyone can argue with a "yes" answer to that question, but you seem to be doing so.
You are misreading what is said here:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).
According to this no "man" has ascended up to heaven except for the Man Jesus Christ, the same Man who is now in heaven.
I would appreciate just a little attention to my scenario. The point was that you became both husband and father, and yet you are still able to return to your birthplace, as a husband and father, without violating any laws of physics or metaphysics.
In the same way, if Jesus descended to the earth (He must have if He was once not on the earth and then He came to earth--or is that a change that's not allowed by Mal 3:6?), and took on the form of a man, then it's quite likely that the title "Son of man" did not apply to Jesus before He was born to Mary, but now it applies to Him. And when He ascended back to heaven, He retained His title and a human body (of some type that was recognizable both as human and as Jesus).
OK, let us look at these verses:
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:42-50).
From start to finish the subject under discussion by Paul concerns the two types of bodies which Christians will possess at one time or another. He always mentions the "natural" body first and the "spiritual" body second. Then he says, "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."
So in the following verses when Paul uses the word "first" he is using Adam as an example of a natural body. Then when he uses the word "second" he is using the Lord Jesus' body (as it is now in heaven) as an example of a spiritual body. Nothing more and nothing less.
The verses which I quoted are only in regard to the different bodies which Christians possess or will possess in the future and nothing more. You are reading into these verses which are not said. Let us look at these words and interpret them they way that you are trying to interpret these verses:
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).
Regarding the highlighted part of the quote above: If all you are trying to say with those verses is that Adam represents an earthy body like what we have now, and Jesus represents a spiritual body that we hope to be like in eternity, I have no issue with what you are saying, but it also doesn't seem to be germane to our topic. I suggest we eliminate that rabbit trail, too.
Of course we know that the Lord Jesus was not the "second" man because we know that Cain was the second man.
Therefore, if the verses that talk about Jesus being the "second man" mean anything at all, it is not in the same way that Cain was the "second man" (which is that Cain was the second in the same type). But that doesn't mean we can throw out all verses talking about Jesus being the "second man" or "last Adam" as meaning nothing. That's why I proposed, and haven't seen much response to, the idea that Jesus is the head of a second "type" or "race" of man, one that is not subject to the frailties and limitations that the first race of man was subject to ever since Adam.
