Hi Jerry,
It's good to be getting on the same page, don't you think? From your post, I can see that you are reluctantly and somewhat covertly admitting that the "changeless" passages are not referring to
every conceivable kind of change, but only a change in
nature. Thus, we need to move on to the next part of the conversation, where we discuss what kind of things can change without a "nature" change. I'll try to bring that theme into my answers below.
Hi Derf,
Earlier I said:
If the Lord Jesus took on a new nature when He came to the earth then it is impossible to argue that He remained the same as He was before. Your idea contradicts what is said here:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).
To this you said:
Please tell me exactly in what way is the Lord Jesus the same yesterday, and today and forever?
To my point above, your question is really just asking what kind of things fit within the term "nature" and which don't. And for now, we'll say that the things that don't fit within the term "nature" are allowed to change from yesterday to today to forever. Things like clothes and hair style, I suppose.
But please note that the context of Heb 13:8 is decidedly about how we are supposed to act--in other words, for that part of Hebrews, the "same yesterday, today, and forever" is talking about moral changelessness, like monogamy (Heb 13:4) and contentedness (Heb 13:5) and respecting leadership/authority (Heb 13:7).
It would not change my nature because I am a man now and when I put on my spiritual body I will still be a man.
Yes, that's good! And how would someone else be able to tell that you are a man vs, say, a catfish? One might say: "a man has 2 arms and 2 legs, is able to talk and walk and hold things with his hands, thinks and creates both tools and art, and breathes air, whereas a catfish has fins and a tail, swims expertly, eats crud from the bottom of lakes and streams, and gets oxygen from water". But for our purposes, we need to determine the differences between a man and God. Here's a first cut:
God | Man |
Everlasting | Can die |
Spiritual | Physical |
Holy--cannot sin | Able to sin |
All powerful | Weak/susceptible to pain and suffering |
Spatially uninhibited | Confined to a single location |
There are no doubt plenty more things to add, but let's look at these five for now. We can back all these up with scripture if you think it's necessary, but I'd rather not just yet.
So, in heaven before becoming a man, I think we'd both agree that Jesus would fit under the category of "God". Would He also fit under the category of "Man" for all eternity? It doesn't seem possible, does it, since these are stated as opposites. So I think we can safely say that Jesus was
not a man for all eternity. And I think we can safely say that Jesus, when He became a man, participated in the characteristics of "Man". (Some would argue with me about "Able to sin", so if that bothers you, please disregard it and just focus on the other four). If my table is accurate, then either Jesus changed in His nature, or something else happened to allow Him to look like He changed in nature, or possibly that He added some contradictory characteristics while keeping His other ones, if that makes any sense. The normal answer is that last one--that Jesus "added" a human nature. This may bother you, and I can't say I'm completely comfortable with it, but I think it is the best fit of my three choices.
Let me know what you think about this. If you don't like my descriptions of the natures of God and man, please provide some of your own for us to discuss.
Now let us look at these two verses again:
"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).
"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).
In both of these verses it is made plain that the Lord Jesus was in heaven as a man before He came to the earth. I said that there is no other way to interpret the verse other than that way.
To which you answered:
Derf said:
I've provided you an alternate translation already, but you've rejected it.
Frankly,I couldn't make heads or tails about what you said. Could you please try again?
You extrapolated beyond what the text says. The text did not say Jesus was a man in heaven, but that HE was in heaven. If He
was not a man before He
was a man, then HE would refer to Jesus as He was before He became a man. But after He became a man, at which time He took on the title of "son of man", He then could say that the son of man came down from heaven.
Here's another way to look at it. Let's say, for example, that Jerry Shugart was born in New Jersey, but went to California for college, met a girl there and settled down in Los Angeles. Now, when Mrs. Shugart is talking to her friends, she might say "My husband was born and raised in New Jersey." Answer me this: does that mean you were married before you were born? If not, then saying that the son of man came down from heaven doesn't mean Jesus was the son of man prior to coming to earth. There's a continuity of person, but not necessarily of title or even of form.
Notice that John 3:13 indicates that as Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, He was also declaring that He was "in heaven", which I believe indicates that while He was spatially located in the room with Nicodemus, He was also somehow located in heaven, too. I don't pretend to know how that works, but it is indicative, possibly, of the fact that He is both God and man (see table above).
And while you are at it, please explain what Paul said in this verse:
"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" (1 Cor.15:47).
Here Paul is explict when He identifies the Lord Jesus as "man." And the meaning of the Greek word translated "from" denotes
"origin--the point whence action or motion proceeds" (
Strong's Definitions).
Therefore, we can understand that the place from which the MAN Lord Jesus came from is heaven.
First, let's talk about what is obviously NOT being said. It is obvious from this verse that Jesus was NOT a man from all eternity. If He were, then there's no way that Adam could be the "first man", since the first man was of the earth, earthy. The second man being the Lord from heaven tells us that Jesus became man after Adam was created. And it tells us that Jesus is a man. But because there have been, as you pointed out so eloquently, quite a few men born since Adam, "second man" must refer to something else besides just any man.
Additionally, since the tense of both static verbs ("is" in both cases) is present tense, it's unlikely that "first man" is really talking about just Adam (since Adam was already dead by this time). As I stated before, Jesus become a second type or race of man, distinct in some way from Adam and his progeny, and the first part of the verse is talking about the first type or race of man.
Now let us look at this verse:
"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).
If we are born with a "sin nature" then that means that the Lord Jesus was also born with a sin nature. And we both know that isn't true. That means that people do not come out of the womb with a sin nature. Men are born with a free will so when they sin they cannot blame it on their nature.
I appreciate your comments, Derf.
I'm not too keen on the idea that men are born sinners in the sense that they have already sinned. But I'm pretty well convinced of the fact that all men except Jesus are born with death as their destiny, due to the sin of Adam. This is one of the things that people call "sin nature", possibly focusing on the guilt aspect. Another option is that we are born with a propensity to sin, and nobody is able to avoid sinning. In both cases it seems like the main reason why we receive this problem (call it "sin nature" or something else) is because we are descended through our fathers from Adam. Jesus was able to die for someone else beside Himself, presumably because He was born of a virgin, whereas all the rest of us cannot do so.
So, when the verse says "in all things", it can't include 1. that Jesus had a sin nature, or 2. that Jesus was appointed to die for the sin of Adam.
If you are proposing that man is not born with a sin nature, because this verse would require it of Jesus, too, I'm not opposed to the idea, as long as it's recognized that somehow all humans need a savior to keep them from death, whatever you want to call that need.