Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
3Resurrections
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by 3Resurrections » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:08 pm

Hi Singalphile,

Hope you don't think I am trying to slap a female gender onto the Spirit of God, since we do have Christ telling the disciples that when the Holy Spirit would be given to them that HE would guide them into all truth. Lots of male pronouns going on there in John 16:7-15 describing the Spirit of truth, the Comforter. All I was trying to express (maybe awkwardly) is that there are qualities within the Trinity that both male and female humanity can relate to and appreciate across the spectrum of the way the two genders think, feel, operate, and communicate. We are a pale reflection of God's image, but even in our fallen state, we can recognize some of the similarities to God's image, planted within us at creation.

I do confess to a slight obsession for numbers; particularly dates for events in scripture. Bishop Ussher's Annals of the World is one of my special dog-eared favorites by now, though he isn't perfect, of course. That's because, unlike Josephus, Ussher gave dates for every entry he made in his book. For example, he absolutely nailed the no-gap 70-week prophecy to the very year, which intersects perfectly with a fulfilled millennium of a literal thousand years ending in AD 33. And don't get me started with the number 7. God loves that number, too.

Sure wish I was retired already, and didn't have to sew drapes for a living. I'd sit on the computer and pester people with my writing all day long, I'm afraid. ;)
Wish me luck on this week's set of green velvet fringed draperies with Italian stringing that are going in the library of a 4.5 million mansion for sale....

3Resurrections
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by 3Resurrections » Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:38 pm

Hi again Paidion,

Agreed that the term "born again" is usually tossed around by evangelists incorrectly. If I had a dime for every time I heard that term growing up in Christian schools.... The way I understand it though, it's a term that really applied particularly to those of Jewish parentage who were staking everything on the presumed superior value of their genealogical descent from Abraham. That natural birth relation meant the world to them, since they assumed it granted them special exclusive status in God's eyes, above the pagan Gentile "sinners", as they considered anyone outside of Jewish tribal lineage.

Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus demonstrated that Jewish ruler's struggle with Christ's doctrine which emphasized the necessity of a different type of birth - one of spiritual faith - not Jewish genes. I really don't see how this sense of the "born again" term could ever apply in our current generation, since Jewish genealogical records of the tribes were burned up in AD 70's temple fires. God intended to totally erase any way of tracking tribal lineage after that point. These days, I wouldn't think we would boast of our natural birth lineage as claiming any special status in God's eyes. Maybe there are some that would, but it's not the usual case.

What you have presented, Paidion, is not just TWO births for us, but THREE. First, a physical conception and natural birth. Next, a spiritual birth by a spiritual regeneration within. Then, another birth in the resurrection. Are you also claiming three births for Christ too? It sounds like it. First, you say Christ was birthed by God begetting Him before all ages. Next, He was given birth in the incarnation process. Then, He was given birth in the resurrection as the "First-born". That makes three births, according to how you have laid this out. Is that what you intended?

Here's a question I haven't seen proposed yet in this thread: What do you do with how Christ is described in Hebrews 7:3, when directly compared to Melchizedek, who was "without Father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually" ? I think scripture does show us which man Melchizedek was (the translated Enoch), but aside from that, if Melchizedek provided a prototype of someone with no beginning of days, just like the Son of God, how can you claim that Christ was begotten or generated before all ages? That sort of ruins the whole identical-to-Melchizedek comparison that Hebrews gives us, I would think.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by darinhouston » Tue Mar 12, 2019 6:25 pm

3Resurrections wrote:Hi again Paidion,



Here's a question I haven't seen proposed yet in this thread: What do you do with how Christ is described in Hebrews 7:3, when directly compared to Melchizedek, who was "without Father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually" ? I think scripture does show us which man Melchizedek was (the translated Enoch), but aside from that, if Melchizedek provided a prototype of someone with no beginning of days, just like the Son of God, how can you claim that Christ was begotten or generated before all ages? That sort of ruins the whole identical-to-Melchizedek comparison that Hebrews gives us, I would think.
Here’s one view (biblicalunitarian.com):

Hebrews 7:3
Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he [Melchizedek] remains a priest forever. (NIV)

1. There are some Trinitarians who teach that Melchizedek was actually Jesus Christ because this verse says he was without Father or mother, beginning or end of life, etc. This cannot be the case, and misses the point of this entire section of Scripture. Knowing the Old Testament, specifically the Law of Moses, and then knowing about the genealogy of Jesus, the Jews did not believe that Jesus could be a high priest. The Law of Moses demanded that priests be descendants of Aaron and of the tribe of Levi. Of course, Jesus Christ came from the tribe of Judah. This “problem” is actually clearly set forth in the book of Hebrews itself: “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests” (vs. 14).

What is the solution to this problem? This section of Hebrews shows that if Melchizedek can be a priest recognized by the great patriarch Abraham, and he had no priestly genealogy, then Christ can be a priest when he has no priestly genealogy. The Jews were very aware of the “qualifications” for the priesthood, and if someone claimed to be a priest but could not produce the required genealogy, he was disqualified (see Ezra 2:62). Thus, when this verse says Melchizedek had no genealogy or beginning or end, the Jews understood perfectly that it meant he did not come from a line of priests. They never thought, nor would they believe, that he had no father or mother or birth or death. They understood that if Melchizedek could be a priest to Abraham without being a descendant of Aaron, the first priest, then so could Jesus Christ.

2. Jesus Christ cannot be Melchizedek. Hebrews 7:3 says that Melchizedek was without Father or mother and without genealogy (i.e., without one given in Scripture). However, Jesus did have a father, God, and a mother, Mary. He also had a genealogy, in fact, two—one in Matthew and one in Luke. Furthermore, this verse says that Melchizedek was “like the Son of God.” If he was “like” the Son, then he could not “be” the Son of God.

Buzzard, p. 35

Snedeker, p. 464


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3Resurrections
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:32 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by 3Resurrections » Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:43 pm

Hi darinhouston,

Nah, I'm not one of those who believe that Melchizedek was Jesus Christ Himself. It's quite evident they are not the same person from Hebrews 7:15, when it says that Jesus Christ was "ANOTHER priest" that arose after "the similitude of Melchizedek. So I would agree with the #2 point in your link above, of course.

As the Son of God, of course Jesus did have a genealogy. Matthew and Luke both itemized His ancestors, first from Joseph's line giving Him the legal right to David's throne, (even though Joseph was not his physical father), and next from Mary's line descending also from David, giving Him the actual physical connection to the human race that was necessary for Him to become our representative high priest. But as for "The Word" which later became flesh in the incarnation, there was literally "neither beginning of days, nor end of life". That's because "The Word" as God had the quality of eternality, and as such, cannot possibly have an origin. Similar to the character known as Melchizedek who emerged on the scene in ancient history, apparently without any father or mother at all that people knew about, no beginning of days, and also a life that had no ending. This was more than just Melchizedek not having a recorded priestly genealogy; to those who knew him, he had no parentage at all, no children, and he had no birth date, and no death date either.

If you or anyone else is interested in my observations from scripture about how Melchizedek was the translated Enoch, ancestor to Abraham, you may want to check out comments #79 and 80 at this link:

http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_ ... izedek/79/

The ancient prophesies of Enoch quoted in Jude and elsewhere tell me that this man must have still been alive on earth in order to be quoted so precisely by the NT writers. The translated Enoch never left this planet for heaven back in ancient days after his translation, since Christ stated quite plainly to Nicodemus that no man had yet ascended to heaven as of that time. A translated Enoch would not have been producing children of his own, either, after that translation (similar to the "without descent" description given for Melchizedek). A translated Enoch did "not see death" (similar to Hebrews 7:8 which testified that Melchizedek was still living at that time). I believe God selected Enoch to be the one-and-only person to ever be translated in all of human history (no other exceptions - not even in I Thess. 4:17 or I Cor 15:51-52). It was a totally unique experience given to this single individual man Enoch, known later by the alias of Melchizedek, in order to establish the special "order" of a deathless high priest. That "order of Melchizedek" would finally be filled later by the role of Jesus Christ, serving as our ultimate high priest that "ever liveth to make intercession" for us.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by darinhouston » Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:12 am

Thanks. I’m not sure I can see The Word as a “character”/person any more than Wisdom/Sophia. “It” is personified/enfleshed in Christ. But that doesn’t mean it was a sentient being/person prior to the incarnation. It’s possible. But that would be pure conjecture. It is much a mystery and I don’t understand dogmatizing mystery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4805
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by Paidion » Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:58 pm

And I start to think, well, if God is particularly fond of 3, then why don't we have 3 arms and 3 legs and 3 eyes instead of 2? Maybe He is fond of 2. And so on. And then we split into yet more denominations. ;) :)
That's a good one, Singalphile!

But then again, a lot of people like the number 7, and consider it to be lucky. Maybe God (or at least the writer of Revelation) is fond of the number 7.

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Revelation 5:6)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 23 years old. I am now 81.

Singalphile
Posts: 888
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Proverbs 30, and Jesus' pre-incarnate "sonship"

Post by Singalphile » Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:31 pm

Paidion wrote:
And I start to think, well, if God is particularly fond of 3, then why don't we have 3 arms and 3 legs and 3 eyes instead of 2? Maybe He is fond of 2. And so on. And then we split into yet more denominations. ;) :)
That's a good one, Singalphile!

But then again, a lot of people like the number 7, and consider it to be lucky. Maybe God (or at least the writer of Revelation) is fond of the number 7.

And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. (Revelation 5:6)
Yes, there's something about 7. 3Resurrections wrote much the same thing, but don't get her started with that. She's got some very fancy-sounding draperies to finish! ;)

(Briefly, 3Resurrections, I understood your statements about the Holy Spirit as you last clarified. No worries.)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”