951753

This Site Is No Longer Active

Check out RESTITUTIO.org for new blog entries and podcasts. Feel free to browse through our content here, but we are no longer adding new posts.


Today I Have Begotten You

  

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.  Acts 13:32-34 [KJV]

People have interpreted this verse in a least a couple of different ways.  Some say that this quote of Psalm 2:7 is making reference to the resurrection of Jesus while others say it refers to the birth of Jesus.  What is interesting is how these differences effect other issues relating to Biblical doctrine, whether it be the relationship between God and Jesus or the new birth.  The KJV seems to show that the verse is talking about the resurrection, because of the word “again;” but it turns out that that word is not in the Greek text.  Most English translations omit it.  That having been said, the context of this speech by Paul, makes explicit reference to the resurrection both before and after this verse.  In verse 22, we have reference to David being raised up, certainly not in resurrection, but neither in birth; rather in becoming king.  Plus it is a different word used in the Greek for “raised up” than that used in verse 33.  My own take is to lean heavily to the idea that it’s talking about Jesus’ birth in regards to Psalm 2:7 here in Acts, but I am not 100%.  As much as I recognize that the resurrection is God putting His imprimatur on Jesus as the son of God, [Romans 1:4] he was the son before his resurrection.

So, I’m looking for some input here.

43 Responses to “Today I Have Begotten You”

  1. on 02 Dec 2008 at 5:56 amMichael

    Hello Brian,

    You wrote “My own take is to lean heavily to the idea that it’s talking about Jesus’ birth in regards to Psalm 2:7 here in Acts, but I am not 100%”.

    Do you believe that this is speaking of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem?

    You also wrote that “he was the son before his resurrection” which is true but do you believe Jesus was God’s only begotten Son before the resurrection?

    Michael

  2. on 02 Dec 2008 at 11:29 amSean

    Brian,

    I’m in agreement with you that Acts 13.33; Hebrews 1.5; and Hebrews 5.5 (all the NT quotes from Ps 2.7) refer to Jesus’ conception. I think that being raised up in the case of David (v22) and Jesus (v33) should probably be better understood in terms of election than resurrection.

  3. on 02 Dec 2008 at 11:29 amMark C.

    The context of Acts 13 is talking about more than just the birth or just the resurrection. After a brief overview of Israel’s history, verse 23 states that from the offspring of David, God has brought forth a savior, Jesus. It continues talking about Jesus being the promised one to come, including John saying he wasn’t that promised one. Verses 32 & 33 then say, “…we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus.”

    The term “raised up” does not automatically mean resurrection, if the words “from the dead” are not included. It can also mean to be raised up to prominence (as in Acts 5:36,37; 7:18). It is used this way specifically referring to God “raising up” Jesus as a prophet and high priest (Acts 3:22; Acts 7:37; Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 7:15). The context in Acts 13 is talking about the entire body of prophecy concerning the promise to send the Messiah.

    Verse 33 refers to God raising Jesus to prominence, and is linked with “This day have I begotten thee” (Psalm 2:7). Only in the next verse (v. 34) is the resurrection from the dead specifically mentioned, and it is linked with two other prophecies, “I will give you the sure mercies of David” (Isaiah 55:3-4) and “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16:9-10).

    The context and the use of the word for “raise up” show that it’s talking about the whole of Jesus’ coming in fulfillment of God’s promise.

  4. on 02 Dec 2008 at 11:37 amSean

    Mark C.,

    How do you link together “raising Jesus to prominence” with “this day I have begotten you”?

  5. on 02 Dec 2008 at 3:14 pmJohnE

    Mark C.,
    it is true, the verb “raised up” does not automatically mean resurrection, but let’s not part with the immediate context of verses 32-34.

    Starting with verse 26, Paul says “to us the message of this salvation has been sent”. How is that salvation possible? It was made possible by the death and resurrection of the Messiah.

    Therefore, Paul continues to talk exclusively about the death & resurrection of Christ, starting in verse 27 by saying that

    – the rulers have condemned Jesus to death (27)
    – asking Pilate to execute him (28)
    – then he was killed, taken down from the cross and put into a tomb (29)
    – but God raised him from the dead(30)
    – and for many days he appeared to many witnesses as a proof of his resurrection (31)

    So nothing else, but the death and resurrection of Jesus. Then come verses 32-34, the ones in question. Is Paul done with the resurrection aspect? No, a fact that can be seen in vs. 34, where he says

    “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way”

    Note that the exact phrase “As for the fact” is not part of the original Greek text, which simply says instead:

    and that He raised Him up from the dead…”

    The word rendered as “and” is “δὲ” in Greek, and according to a lexicon (BDAG 1739), it is:

    one of the most common Gk. particles, used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. When it is felt that there is some contrast betw. clauses—though the contrast is oft. scarcely discernible—the most common translation is ‘but’. When a simple connective is desired, without contrast being clearly implied, ‘and’ will suffice, and in certain occurrences the marker may be left untranslated

    Since I can see no contrast here between vs. 34 and 33, I think the rendering should be “and”, not “but”, and that is what NASB, NAB (New American Bible) and NIV (and others) are doing.

    So what we have here, as the lexicon suggests, is a case of “simple continuation”, the idea expressed in vs. 33 (that the “You are my son, today I have begotten you” prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus) continues in vs. 34, that God raised Jesus from the dead. Saying what he says in 34, Paul simply provides further proof that Psalm 2:7 was fulfilled at Jesus’ resurrection.

    And Paul does not stop even at this point talking about the death/resurrection aspect, but continues in the next verse, 35, up until 37.

    So everything, from 27 to 37, where 32-34 are included, is about the death and resurrection of Jesus. 32-34 are part of that argumentation of Paul. And by the way, Paul refers again to Jesus being “raised up” without mentioning “from the dead”, but clearly referring to Jesus’ resurrection (“but He whom God raised did not undergo decay”).

    The context therefore, strongly suggests that “You are my son, today I have begotten you” was fulfilled at Jesus’ resurrection. This should not come as a surprise, after all, Paul makes this argument again in Romans 1:4, saying that

    “[Jesus] was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead”

    Yes, Jesus became (once again) the Son of God because God gave him life resurrecting him. And that’s what begetting means, isn’t it, someone giving life to his offspring.

  6. on 02 Dec 2008 at 4:40 pmMichael

    Here in Luke is the only reason Jesus was called the Son of God.

    Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    But the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem is not the day that God declared He had begotten Jesus, this happens only at the resurrection. If Jesus sins at any point during his lifetime these words cannot be spoken by God and Jesus cannot be begotten by God.

    The distinctions between these two events are not apparent because of the one point all religions agree upon, that Jesus is not the Son of God ontologically.

  7. on 02 Dec 2008 at 7:08 pmBrian

    It’s nice to see somebody finally responding to this post.

    Michael, I don’t know what this means: “The distinctions between these two events are not apparent because of the one point all religions agree upon, that Jesus is not the Son of God ontologically. ”

    Could you explain it please.

  8. on 02 Dec 2008 at 10:15 pmMichael

    Brian writes…“The distinctions between these two events are not apparent because of the one point all religions agree upon, that Jesus is not the Son of God ontologically. ”

    Could you explain it please?

    Response- All religions deny the Creator procreation so the relationship between God and Jesus is interpreted through this filter which if incorrect leaves one no chance of properly understanding their relationship.

    Jesus is the Son of God and was not adopted.

    Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

    If Jesus had sinned during his life he too would have died in that very day just as Adam did and just like everyone else without a redeemer he could not have been born of the resurrection.

  9. on 04 Dec 2008 at 12:45 amMark C.

    Sean asked:

    How do you link together “raising Jesus to prominence” with “this day I have begotten you?”

    Maybe “raising to prominence” isn’t the best way to word it. Anthony calls it “Bringing him on the scene.”

    Peter had said in Acts 3:22, “Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you.”

    And Stephen in Acts 7:37, “This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel, ‘GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN.’”

    Hebrews also speaks of a high priest “arising” – Heb. 7:11&15 –
    “…what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek….And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek…”

    So with all these references to Christ being “raised up” in the sense of coming on the scene, there is no necessity for assuming that Acts 13:33 is referring to the resurrection.

    Regarding the context, JohnE wrote:

    Starting with verse 26, Paul says “to us the message of this salvation has been sent”. How is that salvation possible? It was made possible by the death and resurrection of the Messiah.

    This is not quite true. The salvation is not only in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, although those are important elements. Salvation is in believing in who he is and believing the words that he spoke, as well.

    Therefore, Paul continues to talk exclusively about the death & resurrection of Christ…

    Not exclusively. Paul’s address starts with verse 17. He talks about how God had chosen the fathers, led them out of Egypt, put up with them in the wilderness, settled them in the promised land, and gave them judges. Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul. Then, starting in verse 22:

    22 “After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.’
    23 “From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
    24 after John had proclaimed before His coming a baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
    25 “And while John was completing his course, he kept saying, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. But behold, one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie.’
    26 “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent.
    27 “For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him.

    So the overall theme is not exclusively the resurrection, but the promise that a king descended from David would be sent, and that Jesus was in fact the fulfillment of that promise. It’s about who he is, primarily. That includes, but is not limited to, the fact that the Jews in Jerusalem rejected him and had him crucified, “but God raised Him from the dead.”

    Then verses 31 & 32 say, “…and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers…”

    What is the good news of the promise made to the fathers? Is it exclusively that Jesus would die and be raised? No, it is about who he would be and what he would preach as well. It is about the entire coming of the Messiah. That is the promise referred to when Paul says, in verse 33, “…that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’” There is no scripture that necessitates the idea that this quote from Psalm 2 is only fulfilled at the resurrection.

    The context is talking about the whole promise of a coming Messiah being fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. His being “raised up” or coming on the scene fulfilled Psalm 2:7, and then the following verses tell how his resurrection fulfilled two other prophecies (Isaiah 55:3-4 and Psalm 16:9-10). The resurrection is what proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the Son of God, and that God would and could raise us up when the Kingdom comes. That is why Romans 1:4 says that he “was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead…” It doesn’t say he became the Son of God at that point. It says he was declared the Son of God. Luke clearly tells us that he was called the Son of God because of his supernatural conception.

    By the way, Hebrews is the only other place where Psalm 2:7 is quoted, and it is linked with his birth.

    Heb. 1:
    5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
    6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

    BTW, lest you think this is just some idea I made up, F. F. Bruce wrote of this in his book, The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 1951, p. 269):
    “The promise of Acts 13:23, the fulfillment of which is here described [Acts 13:33] has to do with the sending of the Messiah,
    not his resurrection, for which see v. 34.”

    Regarding Michael’s statement that “All religions deny the Creator procreation…”, if I’m understanding you correctly, I must disagree. The Biblical Unitarian view of Christ’s relationship with the Father is specifically the procreation of the Creator: God begot a son in Mary, and he was born as God’s only begotten Son.

  10. on 04 Dec 2008 at 2:26 pmJohnE

    I wrote:

    Starting with verse 26, Paul says “to us the message of this salvation has been sent”. How is that salvation possible? It was made possible by the death and resurrection of the Messiah.

    Mark C.:

    This is not quite true. The salvation is not only in the death and resurrection of the Messiah, although those are important elements. Salvation is in believing in who he is and believing the words that he spoke, as well.

    Mark, you probably didn’t understand what I was saying. I am not talking about the salvation of a particular individual here – of course that one must believe Jesus. But even the salvation of Jesus’ disciples, those who believed in him, would not be possible if Jesus wouldn’t have died. The salvation of the world was made possible by his death and resurrection. We adhere to this salvation by having faith in Jesus and acting according to that.

    I wrote:

    Therefore, Paul continues to talk exclusively about the death & resurrection of Christ…

    Mark C.:

    Not exclusively. Paul’s address starts with verse 17.

    Mark, you’re talking about vs 17 and then you quote vs. 22, referring to something I didn’t refer to. I said:

    Therefore, Paul continues to talk exclusively about the death & resurrection of Christ, starting in verse 27 by saying

    You wrote:

    So the overall theme is not exclusively the resurrection, but the promise that a king descended from David would be sent

    Again, never said anything about an overall theme. I was talking about vs. 27-37. Those verses, I was saying, have as theme Jesus’ death and resurrection. Your idea, that vs 33 is talking about God raising up Jesus in the sense that He brought him on the world scene, is already expressed by Paul in vs.23, where he says “God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus”. By the time of vs 33, this idea has already been made by Paul! Is he repeating things? No, the end of vs. 27 is opening the death and resurrection theme, which ends in verse 37… The “message of salvation” in vs. 26 has to do with the death and resurrection, that’s what Paul continues to talk about after mentioning the “message of salvation”.

    You wrote:

    Then verses 31 & 32 say “[…] And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers…” What is the good news of the promise made to the fathers? Is it exclusively that Jesus would die and be raised? No, it is about who he would be and what he would preach as well. It is about the entire coming of the Messiah.

    I’m glad you brought this up because it sheds light on this issue. What is the good news of the promise made to the fathers? Before delving into that, please note that Paul is already in the middle of presenting the death and resurrection of Christ (end of vs.27 until vs 37). He only ends this theme in verse 37! So the “the good news of the promise made to the fathers” (vs 31,32) is part of that theme. But according to you it’s not, it’s more like a digression from the death and resurrection theme, isn’t it? I say it is not.

    Now what is the good news of the promise made to the fathers? It has to do with Jesus being a Savior because Paul said earlier:

    Acts 13:23 From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus

    Jesus brings salvation, right? “to us the message of this salvation has been sent” vs. 26. How is that salvation possible, what does Paul talk about next, after mentioning the salvation? About the death and resurrection. Yes, Jesus is a Savior BECAUSE his death and resurrection. Take away the death and resurrection, and Jesus is NOT a savior. How is Jesus a savior? Jesus “released us from our sins by His blood” (Revelation 1:5). “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses“. Yes, that is how Jesus is able to save us, because his blood was shed, meaning, he was put to death; through this blood, death, we are saved from the condemnation to death that our sins condemn us to. THAT’s the saving Jesus does, it all points to his death! But he is not a savior only because he died, but because he was resurrected too:

    “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. […] If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Corinthians 15:13-14 ,17-18) He’s a savior because of his resurrection as well.

    So is this “the good news of the promise made to the fathers”? Yes it is! Notice what Paul says after he finishes talking about the death and resurrection, as a conclusion:

    Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you

    Link this forgiveness of sins that is “proclaimed to you” with “we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers” from vs. 32. While talking about Christ’s death and resurrection Paul just finished explaining what this promise to the fathers was. The forgiveness of sins! Where was this promise made to the fathers? Here:

    Isaiah 53:1-12 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. 11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

    THIS is the promise to the fathers, this is the good news. His death and resurrection, forgiveness of sins, are all over the place here in this promise. And Paul repeatedly links this good news with Jesus’ resurrection:

    Acts 26:6-8 And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly serve God night and day. And for this hope, O King, I am being accused by Jews. Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?

    2 Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel [good news],

    1 Corinthians 15:1-8 Now I make known to you, brethren, the good news which I preached to you, which also you received, […] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles

    Acts 17:18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, “What would this idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”– because he was preaching [lit. “evangelizing”, that is lit. “preaching to good news about”] Jesus and the resurrection.

    You wrote:

    That is why Romans 1:4 says that he “was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead…” It doesn’t say he became the Son of God at that point. It says he was declared the Son of God. Luke clearly tells us that he was called the Son of God because of his supernatural conception.

    Yes, he was Son of God even before being raised up, but why the need to “declare” him Son of God because he was resurrected? Have you ever asked yourself that? But please do not let translation stay in your way. The verb here is ὁρίζω and it does not mean “declare”, but “to determine, appoint”! (Thayer 3836). Same verb is used in these places:

    – Luke 22:22 “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
    – Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
    – Acts 10:42 “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
    – Acts 11:29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
    – Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
    – Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
    – Hebrews 4:7 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.”

    So Jesus was not “declared” Son of God as a consequence of his resurrection, he was “determined” to be Son of God as a consequence of his resurrection, he was “appointed” to be Son of God as a consequence of his resurrection.

    Why was this necessary since he was the Son of God even before his resurrection? It is really simple. Yes he was the Son of God before. But he died. Even when humans have sons who died, they speak of them in the past tense saying: “I had a son”. No one will say after their son died that “I have a son”. The dead cease to be sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, etc.

    That’s why Jesus was determined to be a Son of God, because raising him, God DID BEGET HIM. Do you agree that a father begetting his son means this father gives life to his son? Even Jesus said once that:

    Luke 20:36 for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

    That is why Ps. 2:7, “today I have begotten you” really matches the resurrection of Jesus. That day, when the Father has given life to Jesus, He begot him. And that is apparent from what Paul says in Acts 13. I see no reason to understand “raised up” as “bringing him on the scene” because Paul is in the middle of the death and resurrection theme. He just mentioned Jesus being raised up from the dead in vs. 31, then goes on to say he appeared to many witnesses as a proof that he did not suffer decay like all dead do but was resurrected, and after saying that yes, the promise is fulfilled in him being raised up (33), he goes on and adds that “AND that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.'”. He is STILL talking about resurrection, up until 37, where he is STILL talking about resurrection:

    He whom God raised did not undergo decay.

    I cannot snatch vs. 33 from Paul’s death and resurrection argument. Even when he doesn’t mention “from the dead”, but just “raised”, he refers to “raised from the dead” as can be seen in 37. But when he means that Jesus “was brought on the scene”, he does not use “raised”, but “God has BROUGHT to Israel a Savior” (23). Furthermore, just remove the comma before “no longer” in vs. 34 and the meaning of 33 will become even clearer:

    Acts 13:34 “And that He raised Him up from the dead no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’

    Paul just mentioned Jesus having been raised up, and the next verse just brings proof that this “raising up” means he no longer returns to decay, making this “raising up” one from the dead…

    You wrote:

    By the way, Hebrews is the only other place where Psalm 2:7 is quoted, and it is linked with his birth.

    Heb 1:6 is not linked to his birth. Please see my comments on http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/10/13/heb-16-yet-future/#comment-35150

    BTW, lest you think this is just some idea I made up, F. F. Bruce wrote of this in his book

    Mark, it does not matter whether you reached your conclusions alone or not 🙂 F.F. Bruce is not infallible, and neither am I. But I do not verify my beliefs against what others might believe, only against the Scripture. To me, the only ones who I look up to when believing something are Jesus and the apostles. That is not to imply that you base your beliefs on F.F. Bruce, of course not. Just making the point that when determining biblical truth, his testimony is optional.

  11. on 04 Dec 2008 at 2:37 pmJohnE

    Forgot to mention, about my remark that

    Furthermore, just remove the comma before “no longer” in vs. 34 and the meaning of 33 will become even clearer

    Commas, as you probably already know, are not a part of the original language manuscripts. They are added by translators as they see fit.

  12. on 04 Dec 2008 at 5:39 pmMark C.

    Again, never said anything about an overall theme. I was talking about vs. 27-37.

    But if you take vs. 27-37 out of their context (Paul’s whole address in vs. 15-41) you can easily miss his point.

    Those verses, I was saying, have as theme Jesus’ death and resurrection.

    But they are within the overall context of Paul’s address, which is the promise of the coming Messiah.

    Your idea, that vs 33 is talking about God raising up Jesus in the sense that He brought him on the world scene, is already expressed by Paul in vs.23, where he says “God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus”.

    Which is part of what shows us the overall context!

    By the time of vs 33, this idea has already been made by Paul! Is he repeating things?

    No, he’s continuing the context.

    No, the end of vs. 27 is opening the death and resurrection theme, which ends in verse 37… The “message of salvation” in vs. 26 has to do with the death and resurrection, that’s what Paul continues to talk about after mentioning the “message of salvation”.

    This is how the point is missed when taking it out of context. When he “opens” the death and resurrection theme, he is not changing the subject. He is still talking about the promise of the coming King being fulfilled, but is now narrowing it down to specific points, namely the validation of who Jesus is (v.33) and his death and resurrection (v.34-37).

    So the “the good news of the promise made to the fathers” (vs 31,32) is part of that theme. But according to you it’s not, it’s more like a digression from the death and resurrection theme, isn’t it? I say it is not.

    I am not saying it is a digression. You are claiming that Jesus’ death and resurrection are the whole theme of this section, but reading the entire address from the beginning shows that it is not.

    Your lengthy exposition on the importance of the resurrection was unnecessary. I am in no way denying its importance. What I am saying is that “the good news of the promise made to the fathers” is the whole theme of Paul’s address, but the good news, as I said, INCLUDES the death and resurrection, but is not LIMITED to those aspects.

    The context of the Paul’s whole address, as well as many other sections of the NT makes this clear. A big part of what Jesus preached in the Gospels had to do with believing WHO HE IS before anything about his death and resurrection were mentioned.

    Yes, he was Son of God even before being raised up, but why the need to “declare” him Son of God because he was resurrected?

    I didn’t say there was a need to declare him Son of God “because he was resurrected.” I said it was the resurrection which declared him Son of God. I understand that the verb means to “determine” or “appoint” in many of its uses, but Strong’s defines it as:
    to mark out or bound (“horizon”), i.e. (figuratively) to appoint, decree, specify:” and the NAS Greek Lexicon defines it as: “to mark off by boundaries, to determine:” Most English versions translate it as “declared” in Rom. 1:4. Weymouth translates it as “decisively proved” and Young’s Literal Translation has it as “marked out.”

    It is the resurrection that decisively proves that Jesus is in fact who he said he was – the Son of God and Messiah, the promised king. It is also the point at which God decisively demonstrated that death was not the final end for man, but that He could raise the dead. That’s why the resurrection is central and without the resurrection there is no Christianity. But it is incorrect to say that the good news of the promised Messiah was ONLY about the resurrection and nothing else.

    That’s why Jesus was determined to be a Son of God, because raising him, God DID BEGET HIM. Do you agree that a father begetting his son means this father gives life to his son?

    No, I don’t agree. It is more than giving life to him. It is bringing him into existence. Jesus did not exist before he was born (we agree on this point) but he DID exist before the resurrection. He was the Son and the promised King before he died and rose again.

    Granted, Col. 1:18 figuratively calls Jesus the “firstborn from the dead” (in the midst of several other figures) but I don’t think that figure can be imposed on every reference to the resurrection, to say that God begot him then rather than before. A simple reading of Acts 13:17-41 shows that, rather than “snatching vs. 33 from Paul’s death and resurrection argument” it is simply developing the theme of God’s promise being fulfilled.

    After the overview (vs. 17-23) of God’s dealing with Israel, vs. 24-27 deal with validating who Jesus was; then vs. 28-31 deal with his death and resurrection. We then see the same pattern again in the following verses.

    Verse 32 and the beginning of v.33 make the overall declaration that the promise of God is fulfilled. The rest of v. 33 says that his coming on the scene is in fulfillment of “This day have I begotten you,” and then vs. 34-37 say that his resurrection from the dead fulfills “I will give you the sure mercies of David” and “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” These are three points which expand on the whole theme of God’s promise being fulfilled. If you carefully observe the flow of Paul’s entire address you see that he was speaking of the entire Gospel message, which includes, and in fact culminates with, the resurrection, but is not JUST about the resurrection and nothing more.

  13. on 04 Dec 2008 at 8:11 pmJohnE

    But if you take vs. 27-37 out of their context (Paul’s whole address in vs. 15-41) you can easily miss his point.

    But I do not. Instead, you take 33 out of it’s death & resurrection context, the detail picture, and apply it outside of that, to the big picture. That’s how you miss the fact that it is the detailed picture this verse belongs to, it is the detail picture Paul is inspecting!

    Your idea, that vs 33 is talking about God raising up Jesus in the sense that He brought him on the world scene, is already expressed by Paul in vs.23, where he says “God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus”.

    Which is part of what shows us the overall context!

    Again, yes, the overall context, but 27-37 are finer grains of this overall context. What I’m saying is that 33 is part of this focus of Paul on death & resurrection, while you say no, although it is embedded into it, it is not part of this finer grained focus which is the death & resurrection, but is outside of it.

    When he “opens” the death and resurrection theme, he is not changing the subject.

    Of course not, I explained above. He is focusing on the DETAIL of the overall theme.

    He is still talking about the promise of the coming King being fulfilled, but is now narrowing it down to specific points, namely the validation of who Jesus is (v.33) and his death and resurrection (v.34-37).

    Exactly. But since you mention 33 and 34-37, please mention that the D. and R. sub-context was started in vs. 28! Please acknowledge the “raising up” in verse 33 is part of the D. & R. sub-context!

    So the “the good news of the promise made to the fathers” (vs 31,32) is part of that theme. But according to you it’s not, it’s more like a digression from the death and resurrection theme, isn’t it? I say it is not.

    I am not saying it is a digression. You are claiming that Jesus’ death and resurrection are the whole theme of this section, but reading the entire address from the beginning shows that it is not.

    Again, yes, I am claiming the D. & R. is the whole theme of 28-37,a sub-theme of the entire theme. So in fact you are saying IT IS a digression, but notice, I didn’t say a digression from the overall theme, you effectively say 33 is a digression from the D&R theme! When it’s embedded into it!

    Your lengthy exposition on the importance of the resurrection was unnecessary. I am in no way denying its importance.

    Mark, from your words I see that you didn’t really understand my point about death & resurrection. I did not even think that you believe they’re not important or anything of that sort. What you missed is that I was connecting Jesus’ status as SAVIOR with the death and resurrection theme. I was connecting the “promise made to the fathers” (32) with the fact that “according to the promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus” (23). Do you see the connection, promiseSaviorsalvation? I’m going this route because vs. 32,33 says that this promise – of Jesus as Savior – was fulfilled in God raising up Jesus. But you miss the fact that this promise (the biggest one, not the only one) is the forgiveness of sins. Paul’s purpose for saying what he does in 28-37 is to tell these Jews

    Acts 13:38 THEREFORE let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him FORGIVENESS OF SINS IS PROCLAIMED TO YOU,

    This forgiveness of sins was made possible, yes, by God bringing the Messiah on the world scene (23), but TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, TO BE MORE EXACT, TO BE MORE FOCUSED, by the death and resurrection of him. Simply bringing Jesus on the world scene (at his birth or at his baptism, you choose) did not fulfill the promise of salvation from sin and death. WHAT REALLY DID FULFILL IT was his death and resurrection. THAT is what sealed the deal. So that’s why, when Paul says in 32,33 that

    “that God has FULFILLED this promise to children” he is referring to what fulfilled that promise of salvation from sin and death: Jesus being killed and raised up from the dead, not simply being raised on the world scene. That exactly, is the fulfillment of the promised Jesus as a Savior! You should not take away vs. 33 from the death and resurrection sub-context that completely surrounds it, because you lose focus on the means of the salvation: the death and resurrection!

    Yes, he was Son of God even before being raised up, but why the need to “declare” him Son of God because he was resurrected?

    I didn’t say there was a need to declare him Son of God “because he was resurrected.”

    Mark, I didn’t say you did say that. But you think Jesus was only “declared” the son of God at resurrection, so why would he need to be “declared” as such through resurrection?

    I said it was the resurrection which declared him Son of God.

    But why was the resurrection that which declared him Son of God?

    I understand that the verb means to “determine” or “appoint” in many of its uses, but Strong’s defines it as:
    “to mark out or bound (”horizon”), i.e. (figuratively) to appoint, decree, specify:” and the NAS Greek Lexicon defines it as: “to mark off by boundaries, to determine:”

    See? No “declare”. BDAG says its basic meaning is “‘to separate entities and so establish a boundary’”, from where the sense of “determined”, “appointed” are derived.

    Most English versions translate it as “declared” in Rom. 1:4. Weymouth translates it as “decisively proved” and Young’s Literal Translation has it as “marked out.”

    The verses quoted by me are all the ones containing this verb in the NT. As you can see, there’s not one instance, when this verb does not mean “determine” or “appoint”. Why would some (and they’re not “most”, just some) translations give a new meaning to this verb? Beats me. Bias? I think for some, it was doctrinal issues that decided how this word will be translated, not linguistic ones. I mean, how can Jesus be determined to be a Son by being resurrected, wasn’t he already a Son???

    That’s why Jesus was determined to be a Son of God, because raising him, God DID BEGET HIM. Do you agree that a father begetting his son means this father gives life to his son?

    No, I don’t agree. It is more than giving life to him. It is bringing him into existence. Jesus did not exist before he was born (we agree on this point) but he DID exist before the resurrection. He was the Son and the promised King before he died and rose again.

    But giving him life is exactly that: bringing Jesus into existence! Do you somehow suggest that Jesus existed while he was dead? Are you somehow suggesting that Paul, Peter, John, etc, exist now, somewhere, in some state, before being resurrected at Jesus’ second coming?

    And I see you kind of ignored the fact that the resurrected ones are Sons of God through resurrection (Luke 20:36)? Why are they “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection”??? Aren’t they already sons of God (John 1:12)? Is it perhaps they were dead and ceased to be, but then God gave them life bringing them into existence???

    Again, Mark, please do not ignore the fact that vs. 33 is part of the death and resurrection sub-context. There’s absolutely no reason to take 33 away from this sub-context, when it’s sitting right in the middle of it. Please acknowledge that Paul in 37 refers indeed to Jesus being just raised up, without mentioning “from the dead”, but still referring to being raised up from the dead…

  14. on 04 Dec 2008 at 11:35 pmJohnE

    Mark, regarding your remark:

    By the way, Hebrews is the only other place where Psalm 2:7 is quoted, and it is linked with his birth.

    I responded:

    Heb 1:6 is not linked to his birth. Please see my comments on http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/10/13/heb-16-yet-future/#comment-35150

    But I noticed that in fact Heb 1:6 was not the verse where Psalm 2:7 was quoted, it is vs. 5 in fact. My apologies brother. Ok, so let me discuss it. Nowhere in Heb 1 is it indicated that Ps. 2:7 is fulfilled at Jesus birth. So why not go directly to Psalm 2:7, where it is said:

    Psalm 2:7 I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’.

    Let’s inspect the context, the entire Psalm 2, and see when exactly it is fulfilled? Vs. 1-3 say:

    Psalm 2:1-3 Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!”

    But we know when exactly the beginning of this Psalm was fulfilled, don’t we? Yes we do. 1st century Christian exegesis said:

    Acts 4:24-28 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, ‘why did the gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? 26 ‘the kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ.’ 27 “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

    These verses have their fulfillment, as these Christians said, when “in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur”. That is, they are indicating the time when Jesus was arrested and put to death.

    Then the psalm continues, showing what happens afterwards:

    Psalm 2:4-6 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them. 5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying, 6 “But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”

    Did God install Jesus as His King? Yes! Look at how Daniel sees this:

    Daniel 7:13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

    Yes, after his resurrection indeed, Jesus says:

    Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

    The apostles say:

    Acts 2:34 “For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘the Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”‘ 36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ – this Jesus whom you crucified.”

    Acts 5:30 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

    Philippians 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth

    Then the psalmist continues, saying:

    Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’.

    Notice how the installation of His King, of Jesus, is put right next to the decree ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’. I was saying, based on Acts 13:28-37 and Romans 1:4 that yes, Jesus is determined to be Son of God through his resurrection, that Psalm 2:7 is fulfilled after Jesus dies. And that is exactly what the chain of events presented by this Psalm shows.

    Now one interesting thing: vs. 7 says that the phrase ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You’ is a “decree of the LORD“! What does Romans 1:4 say? That Jesus was ὁρισθέντος the Son of God by being resurrected. As I pointed out before, this verb means “determine/APPOINT”. If this is a decree of the Lord as Ps. 2:7 says, then yes, Jesus WAS INDEED APPOINTED to be the Son of God by being resurrected! And by the way, here are some more lexicons on this verb:

    Friberg: of persons appoint, designate; as making a definite plan appoint, decide, determine;
    Barclay Newman: decide, determine; appoint, designate
    Louw-Nida: (figurative extension of meaning of ὁρίζω ‘to set limits on,’ not occurring in the NT) to come to a definite decision or firm resolve – ‘to decide, to determine, to resolve.’
    Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie: M: to establish, to ordain (an ordinance)

    So this verb definitely looks fit to express the idea of a decree of God, the decree by which God appoints Jesus as Son by begetting him, by the resurrection from the dead.

    As already mentioned, Jesus receives Kingship and authority right after he was resurrected, after he was begotten by God.Verse 8 continues this idea:

    Psalm 2:8 Only ask it of me, and I will make your inheritance the nations, your possession the ends of the earth.

    This the equivalent of vs. 6, detailed above. Next it says:

    Psalm 2:9 ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.'”

    Jesus will do this in the future because he was installed as king in God’s kingdom – see Rev. 2:26,27

    So in conclusion, yes, this Psalm is fulfilled after Jesus’ death, verse 7 is essentially the twin of Romans 1:4.

  15. on 05 Dec 2008 at 12:06 amMichael

    Mark C writes…What is the good news of the promise made to the fathers? Is it exclusively that Jesus would die and be raised? No, it is about who he would be and what he would preach as well. It is about the entire coming of the Messiah. That is the promise referred to when Paul says, in verse 33, “…that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’” There is no scripture that necessitates the idea that this quote from Psalm 2 is only fulfilled at the resurrection.

    Response- As you know in Acts 13: 14 Paul goes into a synagogue on the sabbath day and sits down and after the reading of the law and the prophets Paul stands up and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience, he is not about to preach to believers.

    He takes them through an overview of their history from being chosen and exalted to being led from Egypt, through the wilderness to the land of Chanaan.

    From judges to Samuel the prophet to their want of a king bringing them Saul and David of whom God said “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will.”

    Then Acts 13:23 Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Savior, Jesus.

    Paul speaks to them of John preaching of the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel and how the rulers rules, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him and though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.

    Then in Acts 13:39 Paul said “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher but God raised him from the dead.”

    Acts 13:32- 33 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again….

    So here is Paul in the synagogue speaking to the Jews of a history they all know very well tells them that the point of this history has been fulfilled in their lifetime.

    Paul has given them overview of their scripture and has made the claim that the very point of that scripture has been fulfilled to them and will now back up this tremendous claim with the very scripture it has fulfilled,

    Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

    It was not just the raising of Jesus from dead that fulfilled the promise it was what the raising from the dead did to Jesus, it had him begotten by God.

    Jesus was not God’s only begotten Son until after the resurrection.

    Mark C writes… Regarding Michael’s statement that “All religions deny the Creator procreation…”, if I’m understanding you correctly, I must disagree. The Biblical Unitarian view of Christ’s relationship with the Father is specifically the procreation of the Creator: God begot a son in Mary, and he was born as God’s only begotten Son.

    Response- If God had an ontological Son, a Son of his own could that Son be tempted, sin or die?

    Could God have an ontological Son with a human woman?

    Again, if Jesus had sinned during his lifetime then as Adam he would have been rendered dead by being unable to be begotten by the resurrection.

    Mark C writes… Granted, Col. 1:18 figuratively calls Jesus the “firstborn from the dead” (in the midst of several other figures) but I don’t think that figure can be imposed on every reference to the resurrection, to say that God begot him then rather than before. A simple reading of Acts 13:17-41 shows that, rather than “snatching vs. 33 from Paul’s death and resurrection argument” it is simply developing the theme of God’s promise being fulfilled.

    Response- God declared the very day that Jesus was begotten by him so how can it be figurative?

    John E writes…I mean, how can Jesus be determined to be a Son by being resurrected, wasn’t he already a Son???

    Response- Jesus was the Son of God before the resurrection by seed and the seed could only remain by a sinless life and only be quickened by death.

    1Corinthians 15:35-38 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
    Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
    And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
    But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

    After the resurrection of Jesus we have what Adam and Jesus did not have; a savior and a new covenant. We have a covenant that protects us from losing God’s seed when we sin.

    1John 3:9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

  16. on 05 Dec 2008 at 12:44 amJohnE

    Michael,

    John E writes…I mean, how can Jesus be determined to be a Son by being resurrected, wasn’t he already a Son???

    that wasn’t exactly my question. I imagine this question was in translators’ heads when they came up with “declared” in Rom 1:4.

    Jesus was not God’s only begotten Son until after the resurrection.

    Actually he was the only begotten Son even before resurrection:

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

  17. on 05 Dec 2008 at 1:56 amMark C.

    But I do not. Instead, you take 33 out of it’s death & resurrection context, the detail picture, and apply it outside of that, to the big picture. That’s how you miss the fact that it is the detailed picture this verse belongs to, it is the detail picture Paul is inspecting!

    I am not taking v. 33 out of its context; I am interpreting it within its context. We are both saying that the death and resurrection are details within the big picture of the promise of salvation. What we seem to disagree about is the nature of that salvation, and whether it is entirely about the resurrection or if there is another element to it.

    I demonstrated how the pattern of the whole context describes: 1) the importance of WHO Jesus is, and 2) the death and resurrection. Please reread what I said was the pattern, you’ll see that I am not talking about a digression but two aspects of the whole, which therefore show that v. 33 does not need to be about the resurrection.

    As for the meaning of the verb for “declare” in Rom. 1:4, it means (when used figuratively) “to decree or specify,” that is, “to mark off by boundaries, to determine.” He was marked off or determined to be the Son of God, by the resurrection. It is, as I said, the resurrection that decisively proved that he is the Son of God.

    The verses quoted by me are all the ones containing this verb in the NT. As you can see, there’s not one instance, when this verb does not mean “determine” or “appoint”.

    Since “determine” and “appoint” don’t mean exactly the same thing in their literal usage, it doesn’t even make sense to say that it always means “determine” or “appoint.” They are two different ways that the word is used.

    Why would some (and they’re not “most”, just some) translations give a new meaning to this verb? Beats me. Bias? I think for some, it was doctrinal issues that decided how this word will be translated, not linguistic ones. I mean, how can Jesus be determined to be a Son by being resurrected, wasn’t he already a Son???

    It isn’t a “new” meaning. It is one of the ways in which the word is used. You seem to be misunderstanding what “determine” means. It is not what made him the Son, it is what determined, or made known, or proved, or established, the fact that he was the Son of God.

    I don’t even want to get into a debate again over the passage in Hebrews 1, as it would derail this thread too far.

  18. on 05 Dec 2008 at 6:32 amMichael

    JohnE writes…Actually he was the only begotten Son even before resurrection:

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

    Response- The only Jesus God could give for eternal life was the risen Jesus.

    If Jesus cannot be begotten by the resurrection because of a sin in his life then God has nothing to give.

    Just as the second Psalm is only quoted in reference to Jesus after his death “only begotten” is never used with his birth in Bethlehem and is quoted only after his death.

    How do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, in title or ontologically?

  19. on 05 Dec 2008 at 9:14 amSean

    Michael,

    Isn’t Jesus the son of God because God is his Father? I have a son, named Noah. He is my son because I begot him. According to Luke 1.35 the same is true for Jesus. God begot him via the holy spirit over shadowing the virgin Mary. The result? Jesus is “biologically” the son of God and the son of Mary.

  20. on 05 Dec 2008 at 12:10 pmJohnE

    I am not taking v. 33 out of its context; I am interpreting it within its context.

    Mark Mark 🙂 I hope you’re not pulling a straw man on me? Whenever I say your taking 33 out of its death and resurrection sub-context, you respond you’re not taking it out of its context, leaving out the words “death and resurrection sub-context”. Come on, please say “I am not taking v. 33 out of its death and resurrection sub-context”. Can you?

    What we seem to disagree about is the nature of that salvation, and whether it is entirely about the resurrection or if there is another element to it.

    I say the nature of the salvation is salvation from the bond of sin and death. Death and resurrection in themselves make the salvation possible. Jesus’ birth does not in itself make salvation possible. Those 2 in themselves are the means of saving those who believe in him. Is there anything else on Jesus’ part that makes the saving possible? Not something that gives Jesus reason or will to save, but something that in itself, makes the salvation possible?

    As for the meaning of the verb for “declare” in Rom. 1:4, it means (when used figuratively) “to decree or specify,” that is, “to mark off by boundaries, to determine.” He was marked off or determined to be the Son of God, by the resurrection. It is, as I said, the resurrection that decisively proved that he is the Son of God.

    Not exactly Mark. It is not used figuratively to mean “to decree or specify”. Please provide some examples (I wonder from where?) where we encounter this figurative use. All verses in which this verb shows up use it in a clear non-figurative way.

    Since “determine” and “appoint” don’t mean exactly the same thing in their literal usage, it doesn’t even make sense to say that it always means “determine” or “appoint.” They are two different ways that the word is used.

    They don’t have to mean exactly the same thing. If somebody is appointed to a position, the decree that made the appointment is that which determines his right to be in that position, his privileges/obligations that come with that position. But either way, determine or appoint, it has nothing to do with “declare”.

    “Declare” isn’t a “new” meaning. It is one of the ways in which the word is used.

    Mark IT IS a new meaning. No writer uses it like that. No translator renders it “declare” in any other verses. The only times when out of the blue, it suddenly means “declare” is in Rom 1:4! The fact is that when it comes to persons, this verb is always translated as “determined” or “appointed”, NEVER AS “DECLARED”.

    You seem to be misunderstanding what “determine” means. It is not what made him the Son, it is what determined, or made known, or proved, or established, the fact that he was the Son of God.

    Well, English is not my first language but believe me, I understand what “determine” means. Just try to replace “determines/appointed” with “made known, or proved” in the verses using this verb (quoted well above) and see that you can’t do that. For your convenience, I copied them below. You simply can’t, the sense of the phrase is changed.

    – Luke 22:22 “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
    – Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the determined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
    – Acts 10:42 “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
    – Acts 11:29 And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.
    – Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
    – Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
    – Hebrews 4:7 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.”

    “Established” yes, in some cases, but you can’t switch “establish” with made known, or proved. Come on, let us let Scripture interpret itself. Psalm 2:7 says that “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” is a “decree of the Lord“. When it said about somebody that by decree, he is something, that decree’s primary effect is to APPOINT that somebody to be that something. As a side-effect, if it is made public, you will know that this person was appointed by decree to be something.

    It is never said that Jesus was “declared” Judge over humanity. He was appointed as Judge (Acts 10:42; 17:31). When God brings him into existence at his resurrection, God’s begetting is effectively making Jesus to be His son. Jesus is appointed to be His son this way.

    I don’t even want to get into a debate again over the passage in Hebrews 1, as it would derail this thread too far.

    Well, I see you completely ignore some of my points. You seem to be avoiding the fact that the resurrected ones are sons of God because of their resurrection (Lu 20:36). You do not comment that indeed, dead people do not exist anymore, making the resurrection true begetting, when God gives life to the resurrected person, bringing that person into existence. You also seem to completely ignore what I wrote on Psalm 2, which psalm proves the fact that “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” is not fulfilled in Jesus’ birth.

    Michael,

    The only Jesus God could give for eternal life was the risen Jesus.

    No. God gave the not-resurrected-yet Jesus for humanity’s sins.

  21. on 05 Dec 2008 at 2:27 pmMark C.

    Yes I can say it. “I am not taking v. 33 out of its death and resurrection sub-context” because I don’t agree that the death and resurrection is the ONLY sub-context within the overall context of Paul’s address, which is God’s promise being fulfilled. I maintain that Acts 13:33 can be best understood in light of how it fits in the flow of the overall context of vs. 17-41. Let me reiterate:

    vs. 17-23 – God’s dealing with Israel
    vs. 24-27 – validation of who Jesus was
    vs. 28-31 – his death and resurrection
    vs. 32-33a – overall declaration that the promise of God is fulfilled
    (“And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children…”)
    vs. 33b – example 1: his coming on the scene is in fulfillment of “This day have I begotten you”
    vs. 34-37 – example 2: his resurrection from the dead fulfills “I will give you the sure mercies of David” and “Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption”
    vs. 38-41 – Exhortation to believe because salvation is offered through Jesus.

    As I said, the heart of our disagreement seems to be the nature of salvation. You wrote:

    I say the nature of the salvation is salvation from the bond of sin and death. Death and resurrection in themselves make the salvation possible. Jesus’ birth does not in itself make salvation possible. Those 2 in themselves are the means of saving those who believe in him.

    That’s not what Jesus himself said. He referred to the Gospel of the Kingdom as the seed of the new birth, and to his words as the key to eternal life. He preached the Gospel of the Kingdom long before his death was ever mentioned. You might want to look into some of the resources on the Kingdom of God resource page (link at the top of this page). (Again, let me emphasize that the death and resurrection are vitally important, but it is not correct to say that they IN THEMSELVES constitute the saving gospel.)

    Regarding horizo, just because a word is translated a certain way in the other verses in which it appears, it does not necessarily follow that it must be translated the same way everywhere. A word can have different shades of meaning depending on how it’s used, so context and usage must determine its meaning. There are many cases in which a Greek word is translated by a particular English word only once, even though it is translated differently in many other passages.

    According to the two resources I quoted, horizo can mean “to decree or specify” and “to mark off by boundaries, to determine.” In the verses you quoted, the word, whether translated as “determined” or “appointed”, carries the idea of a decision being made, either by God (“Son of Man is going as it has been determined”) or by people (“each of them determined to send a contribution”). If you decide someone should have a certain position, then you are “appointing” them. On the other hand, if I decide after careful observation that a person has certain qualities, I have “determined” that. Two shades of meaning, but both are legitimate usages of the word horizo.

    In Rom. 1:4 it is used in the sense of the resurrection being the ultimate deciding factor about him being the Son of God. He is “marked out” or “determined” to be the Son of God because God raised him from the dead. This is a legitimate usage of the word which is corroborated by the fact that most of the English versions translate it as either “declare” or, in a few cases, another word or phrase that carries the same meaning (“marked out” or “decisively proved”).

    Even though English is my first language, I don’t claim to understand it better than the many scholars who translated it this way, or the commentators who interpret it this way. No, they are not infallible, but it would take a better linguistics scholar than you or me to prove the majority of them wrong. It’s not just “some” translations, BTW. Check out this page:
    http://bible.cc/romans/1-4.htm

    To interpret this passage as meaning he was appointed the Son of God at the resurrection would be reading into it something that the Bible does not say. He is the Son of God because God begot him. He was decisively proved, or marked out as, the Son of God because God raised him from the dead. It’s simple really.

    As for your other points that I didn’t respond to, I’m trying to stick to the subject of this thread. It was started by Brian, who wanted input about the understanding of Acts 13:33. We have both presented our views on the passage, and it is clear we don’t agree. Perhaps we should leave it at that and let Brian decide which interpretation he prefers. It is not worth dividing over, after all.

  22. on 05 Dec 2008 at 6:17 pmMichael

    Sean writes… Isn’t Jesus the Son of God because God is his Father? I have a son, named Noah. He is my son because I begot him. According to Luke 1.35 the same is true for Jesus. God begot him via the Holy Spirit over shadowing the virgin Mary. The result? Jesus is “biologically” the son of God and the son of Mary.

    Response- What day did God declare that he had begotten Jesus?

    It was not the day of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem but it is easier to make it that day because it is birth as we know it, of course making that the day God declared He had begotten Jesus causes some obvious pitfalls.

    How can God who is not a man have a “biological” son with a human being and that son be a human being?

    Trinitarians say that Jesus is totally man and totally God is the Unitarian Jesus a hybrid being half man and half God?

    How can God who cannot be tempted, sin, or die have a son that could?

    What would have happened if God’s “biological” son had sinned, what would have become of him?

    But God declared the day of resurrection as the day He had begotten Jesus and yet no one believes it. What words would God have to use to make someone believe He had really begotten Jesus by the resurrection because “Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee” does not seem to make the point?

  23. on 05 Dec 2008 at 6:50 pmSean

    Michael,

    When I say that Jesus was “biologically” the son of God I meant that God created him (i.e. Jesus had no human father). Do you agree that God begot Jesus in the womb of Mary? I’m struggling to understand what exactly it is that you believe on this?

  24. on 05 Dec 2008 at 7:07 pmJohnE

    Mark,

    Yes I can say it. “I am not taking v. 33 out of its death and resurrection sub-context” because I don’t agree that the death and resurrection is the ONLY sub-context within the overall context of Paul’s address

    Ok, so what you are saying is that Paul chooses to state that promise of God is fulfilled right between two big chunks of verses that belong to the death and resurrection sub-theme: 28-31 and 34-37. So Paul starts in 28 to talk about Jesus’ death and resurrection, suddenly interrupts this train of thought by pulling out of the death and resurrection theme stating the promised was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus, and then suddenly returns back to the death and resurrection theme. It’s like a slalom. Now he’s talking death and resurrection, now he’s not, now he is again.

    Well, I do not believe that. Mainly because I see vs. 32-33 not as digressions from Jesus’ death and resurrection theme, but part of it. When Paul says in 33 that “God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus”, he refers to Jesus’ resurrection. It’s really simple, without his resurrection, no promise of salvation can be fulfilled. Jesus can speak the words of salvation, Jesus can teach how we can be saved, Jesus can die for us, all these are nothing without his resurrection, as his chosen apostle said (1 Corinthians 15:13-14 ,17-18).

    Without his resurrection, the promise of salvation is simply not fulfilled. Why this aspect is not clear to everybody beats me. Anyway, I am really surprised Mark that you’re saying discussing Psalm 2 would be off-topic, since it is the context of the very verse in question: Ps. 2:7, the one quoted in Acts 13:33 as the fulfillment of the promise, the raising up of Jesus. I have to say again, I really don’t understand your reasoning of not wanting to inspect this psalm.

    What Psalm 2 does is proving that the raising up of Jesus, the fulfillment of the promise of salvation, is not about Jesus being born – brought on the scene – but on the contrary, it has to do with his arrest, death and resurrection. That’s why I can’t really understand how Acts 13:33 (Psalm 2:7) can really be applied to his birth.

    Another thing I cannot understand is why the raising up/begetting of Luke 22:36 is off-topic. Isn’t this the very thing Acts 13:33 deals with?

    Regarding Ro 1:4 Mark wrote:

    A word can have different shades of meaning depending on how it’s used, so context and usage must determine its meaning. There are many cases in which a Greek word is translated by a particular English word only once, even though it is translated differently in many other passages.

    So many cases? Please provide one.

    According to the two resources I quoted, horizo can mean “to decree or specify” and “to mark off by boundaries, to determine.” In the verses you quoted, the word, whether translated as “determined” or “appointed”, carries the idea of a decision being made, either by God (”Son of Man is going as it has been determined”) or by people (”each of them determined to send a contribution”). If you decide someone should have a certain position, then you are “appointing” them. On the other hand, if I decide after careful observation that a person has certain qualities, I have “determined” that. Two shades of meaning, but both are legitimate usages of the word horizo.

    I understand that you prefer the second case, “I decide after careful observation that a person has certain qualities”, since you also said earlier that “the resurrection decisively proved that he is the Son of God”. So it’s like some people said “oh wow, Jesus was resurrected, so he must be indeed the son of God”. People decided/declared after careful observation that Jesus is the Son of God.

    Well, this is exactly what I think is not the case in Romans 1:4. It is not people who declare he is son because he was resurrected, it is “according to the Spirit of holiness” as the verse says. This is not the case where the Spirit said “hey, this must be God’s son because he was resurrected” but exactly the opposite: according to the Spirit, he is the Son through resurrection (the same Greek word is used for the titles of the gospels: according to Matthew. according to Mark, etc).

    Even when this verb is expanded into “declare”, it goes hand in hand with Psalm 2:7 where God declares “you are my son”. But I cannot ignore the fact that every time Paul uses this verb when referring to Jesus (Acts 10:42; 17:31), he uses it in the sense of “appointed’. I cannot ignore the fact the “you are My son” is a “decree of the Lord” (Ps. 2:7) and that the verb used in Romans 1:4 means also “appoint”, I inevitably see a connection here. But I’m fine with “declare” in Romans 1:4 as long as it is God that declares Jesus Son and not men amazed that he was resurrected, so that he must be the son of God.

    To interpret this passage as meaning he was appointed the Son of God at the resurrection would be reading into it something that the Bible does not say.

    That is not true. Romans 1:4 says exactly that. It is not reading back into the text. The text itself says Jesus was “appointed” (a legitimate translation of the verb) Son of God by resurrection! Where’s the reading back into the text??? The real problem is that you Mark are not willing to accept that by resurrection people are given life and are being brought into existence – and you really didn’t explain why. Once you accept that (and why wouldn’t you?, it’s the truth!), you won’t be having any problems accepting that Jesus was begotten at his resurrection.

    And I have to state again, contrary to what you have stated, that the majority of translators do not render this verb as “declare”. I’ve counted 47 translations, including the ones you listed from http://bible.cc/romans/1-4.htm, and it turns out that 15 of them say “declare”, 22 of them do not. Here’s the breakdown:

    – declare: 15
    – proved: 2
    – established: 2
    – designated: 3
    – marked out: 3
    – demonstrated: 1
    – predestined: 1
    – known: 3
    – appointed: 3
    – shown: 3
    – before-ordained: 1

    And here are each of them:

    New American Standard Bible:
    who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

    New American Bible:
    but established as Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness through resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

    New International Version:
    and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Geneva Bible:
    And declared mightily to be the Sonne of God, touching the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection from the dead)

    New Jerusalem Bible:
    was born a descendant of David and who, in terms of the Spirit and of holiness, was designated Son of God in power by resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ, our Lord,

    KJV:
    And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

    Revised Standard Version:
    and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

    Complete Jewish Bible:
    he was powerfully demonstrated to be Son of God spiritually, set apart by his having been resurrected from the dead; he is Yeshua the Messiah, our Lord.

    God’s Word translation
    In his spiritual, holy nature he was declared the Son of God. This was shown in a powerful way when he came back to life.

    American Standard Version:
    who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

    Bible in Basic English:
    But was marked out as Son of God in power by the Holy Spirit through the coming to life again of the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord,

    Bishops’ New Testament:
    And hath ben declared to be the sonne of God, with power after the spirite that sanctifieth, by the resurrectio from the dead, of Iesus Christe our Lorde.

    Holman Christian Standard Bible:
    and was established as the powerful Son of God by the resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of holiness.

    Darby:
    marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection of the dead) Jesus Christ our Lord;

    Douay-Rheims American Edition:
    Who was predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead;

    English Revised Version:
    who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord,

    English Standard Version:
    and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

    Etheridge Translation of the NT Peshitta:
    and is known (to be) the Son of Aloha by power, and by the Holy Spirit, who raised him from among the dead, Jeshu Meshiha our Lord:

    Magiera Peshitta NT Translation:
    and was made known [as] the Son of God by power and by the Holy Spirit, who raised Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead,

    Murdock Translation of the NT Peshitta:
    and was made known as the Son of God, by power, and by the Holy Spirit,) who arose from the dead, Jesus Messiah, our Lord,

    New English Translation:
    who was appointed the Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

    New Living Translation:
    and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

    New Revised Standard Version:
    and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

    Tyndale’s New Testament:
    and declared to be the sonne of God with power of the holy goost that sanctifieth sence the tyme that Iesus Christ oure Lorde rose agayne from deeth

    Webster Bible:
    And declared {to be} the Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

    Young’s Literal Translation:
    who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord;

    Weymouth New Testament:
    but as regards the holiness of His Spirit was decisively proved by His Resurrection to be the Son of God–I mean concerning Jesus Christ our Lord,

    World English Bible:
    who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,

    International Standard Version:
    and was declared by the resurrection from the dead to be the powerful Son of God according to the spirit of holiness-Jesus the Messiah, our Lord.

    The Message:
    his unique identity as Son of God was shown by the Spirit when Jesus was raised from the dead

    Amplified Bible:
    And according to the Spirit of holiness was openly designated the Son of God in power by His resurrection from the dead

    Contemporary English Version:
    But the Holy Spirit proved that Jesus is the powerful Son of God, because he was raised from death.

    New Century Version:
    But through the Spirit of holiness he was declared to be God’s Son with great power by rising from the dead.

    New International Reader’s Version:
    By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was appointed to be the mighty Son of God because he rose from the dead. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Wycliffe New Testament:
    and he was before-ordained the Son of God in virtue, by the Spirit of hallowing of the again-rising of dead men, of Jesus Christ our Lord

    Worldwide English (New Testament):
    He came alive from death. That showed he was God’s Son. He had God’s power. God’s Holy Spirit did all this.

    Today’s New International Version:
    and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

    It is not worth dividing over, after all.

    I don’t see having disagreements as being divided…

  25. on 05 Dec 2008 at 8:20 pmBrian

    If Jesus was not the son of God until his resurrection, what was he before that? Was Jesus the Messiah before his resurrection?

  26. on 05 Dec 2008 at 9:06 pmJohnE

    Brian, while dead, did Jesus exist?

  27. on 05 Dec 2008 at 9:14 pmJohnE

    Do dead people exist before resurrection?

  28. on 05 Dec 2008 at 9:51 pmMark C.

    Ok, so what you are saying is that Paul chooses to state that promise of God is fulfilled right between two big chunks of verses that belong to the death and resurrection sub-theme: 28-31 and 34-37. So Paul starts in 28 to talk about Jesus’ death and resurrection, suddenly interrupts this train of thought by pulling out of the death and resurrection theme stating the promised was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus, and then suddenly returns back to the death and resurrection theme. It’s like a slalom. Now he’s talking death and resurrection, now he’s not, now he is again.

    Again, you are missing the entire flow that starts in v. 17, by zeroing in on the death and resurrection in vs. 28-31, forgetting the context before it. You claim it’s interrupting the train of thought, but it isn’t. Twice in this passage he talks about:
    1. The promise – vs. 17-23
    a. Who Jesus is – vs. 24-27
    b. the resurrection – vs. 28-31
    2. The promise – vs. 32-33a
    a. Who Jesus is – vs. 33b
    b. the resurrection – vs. 34-37

    Both a and b are INCLUDED IN and PART OF the whole theme of the promise, which you don’t see if you start in v. 27. It’s not a case of “Now he’s talking death and resurrection, now he’s not, now he is again.” It’s a case of “First he’s talking about the promise, then he specifies two aspects of it – verification of who Jesus is, and the death and resurrection.” The D&R are PART of the whole picture, as is the verification of WHO JESUS IS, which is as important as the D&R, but gets left out in your view of the passage.

    I’ve said this several times already and you keep responding along the lines of “Without his resurrection, the promise of salvation is simply not fulfilled. Why this aspect is not clear to everybody beats me.” That’s true. Once again, I’m not saying ignore the D&R – I am saying that WHO HE IS, the fact that he fulfills the OT promises of a coming King & Messiah, is AS MUCH a part of the message as the D&R, especially in Paul’s address. We don’t need to divide the “sub-contexts” between “about the D&R” and “NOT about the D&R” – it’s all part of the overall context of fulfilling God’s promises. The “sub-contexts,” if you will, are WHO HE IS, and the DEATH & RESURRECTION, but BOTH are to be understood as PARTS of the WHOLE. I’m repeating myself here and it’s really quite simple if you just read the passage from vs. 17 through 41.

    A big part of the reason I don’t want to get into Psalm 2 is because in your previous posts you have indicated that the reign referred to there and in Daniel was fulfilled at the time of his resurrection. I do not agree with that, I believe it is referring to his future reign, but that has been debated endlessly on this site to no avail.

    I will say, however, that the phrase “this day have I begotten thee” in Psalm 2 is probably not even referring to the specific day, as if the day of his birth was the subject of the psalm. It seems, in context, to be a general declaration of the fact that the Messiah would be God’s son. At the time, they probably didn’t understand exactly how that would be, since Israel was called God’s son figuratively in several passages. But the angel specifically announced that he would be called God’s son because the Holy Spirit would overshadow Mary and the baby would be miraculously conceived by God.

    When “This day have I begotten thee” is quoted (in Acts and Hebrews) they both seem to be emphasizing the fact that he IS God’s son and that he did come into the world, more than WHEN he became so. In the most literal sense he “became” God’s son when he was conceived. He showed himself to be God’s son with many signs and wonders throughout his ministry. And he was finally and decisively shown to be God’s son when God raised him from the dead.

    Not in the sense that “people decided after careful observation that Jesus is the Son of God” so much as God marked him out and established or designated him as His son, although the result will be that people can make an informed decision based on God’s marking him out.

    Since you say, “But I’m fine with “declare” in Romans 1:4 as long as it is God that declares Jesus Son and not men amazed that he was resurrected, so that he must be the son of God” then we can agree.

    You also say:

    The text itself says Jesus was “appointed” (a legitimate translation of the verb) Son of God by resurrection! Where’s the reading back into the text???

    The “text” doesn’t say “appointed” since it uses the Greek word horizo, and it is the correct translation of that word which is in question here. Choosing “appointed” over “declared” would be based on the preconceived idea that he was made Son of God at the resurrection, which the Bible never says explicitly.

    All the words in the Lexicons under that word are legitimate translations for that word, depending on the usage and context. The fact that the word is only translated as “declare” once proves nothing. (You asked for other cases in which a Greek word is only translated by a particular English word once, while being translated by other words elsewhere. There are very many; you need only look at a concordance.)

    The real problem is that you Mark are not willing to accept that by resurrection people are given life and are being brought into existence – and you really didn’t explain why. Once you accept that (and why wouldn’t you?, it’s the truth!), you won’t be having any problems accepting that Jesus was begotten at his resurrection.

    While resurrection has something in common with birth, in that it involves the bestowing of life, it is not identical, and not specifically called birth. Birth is not only the bestowing of life, it is bringing forth or generating from oneself an offspring. Jesus is God’s son because God BEGOT him. This is not difficult to understand.

    I didn’t say that the majority of translators render horizo as “declare.” What I said was that the majority render it as EITHER “declare” OR other words that carry the same sense. These include (from your list):
    – declare: 15
    – proved: 2
    – established: 2
    – designated: 3
    – marked out: 3
    – demonstrated: 1
    – known: 3
    – shown: 3

    That’s 32, compared with only 5 that render it as a word that carries a different sense:
    – predestined: 1
    – appointed: 3
    – before-ordained: 1

    The sense of proved, established, designated, marked out, etc. is what I believe to be the correct understanding of Rom. 1:4. However, you are free to believe differently if you wish. The important thing is that we believe he was (and IS) the son of God, and that God raised him from the dead.

  29. on 05 Dec 2008 at 9:57 pmBrian

    JohnE

    Let me rephrase the question. Was Jesus the son of God before his crucifixion? Was Jesus the Messiah before his crucifixion? When Jesus said ” I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” was he the son of God? When Jesus said “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” was he the Messiah?

  30. on 06 Dec 2008 at 4:45 amMichael

    Sean writes… When I say that Jesus was “biologically” the son of God I meant that God created him (i.e. Jesus had no human father). Do you agree that God begot Jesus in the womb of Mary? I’m struggling to understand what exactly it is that you believe on this?

    Response- Because the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary the child was to be called the Son of God.

    Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

    But how is Jesus the Son of God when God is not a human being as Jesus was?

    To understand how Jesus is the Son of God before the resurrection just look at how we can become sons of God and we do it by receiving the word of God, the seed in our hearts and believing.

    When we do this we are changed and begin to renew our minds with the ability to start understanding the things of God.

    But even with this change we are not completely free from sin and must wait for the resurrection or the coming of Jesus to be changed.

    1Corinthians 15:51-52 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

    When Jesus was born he was the Son of God by virtue of the seed, the word of God in him and he was able to understand the things of God from his birth but just as the first Adam if he had sinned then the seed could not have remained in him leaving him dead, unable to be changed.

    1Corinthians 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

    When Jesus died the seed was sown and quickened by the resurrection and God declared” Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee”

    The same thing shall happen to us but we are sons by adoption and Jesus is “The Son of God”

    1John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

  31. on 06 Dec 2008 at 5:28 amMark C.

    I am continually amazed at how people can complicate one of the simplest things in human experience. Nearly everyone has had children or at least knows someone that has children, and everyone without exception was a child, born of parents. When the Bible says that God begot Jesus, and Jesus was therefore His Son, what part of this is so hard to understand?

    Yes, when we receive the seed of the Word it is called a new birth because of its similarity to physical birth. But we are not physically begotten by God, as Jesus was. God brought forth from Himself a Son, who was born into the world. This is not difficult to understand. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

    For those who want to complicate it rather than simply accepting the Bible at face value, I would echo the question put forth by Brian:
    If Jesus was not the son of God until his resurrection, what was he before that? Was Jesus the Messiah before his resurrection?

  32. on 06 Dec 2008 at 7:13 amMichael

    Mark C writes… Nearly everyone has had children or at least knows someone that has children, and everyone without exception was a child, born of parents. When the Bible says that God begot Jesus, and Jesus was therefore His Son, what part of this is so hard to understand?

    Response- That God who is not a human being could reproduce with a human being and produce a human being, I thought it was everything after its kind?

    Mark C writes…If Jesus was not the son of God until his resurrection, what was he before that? Was Jesus the Messiah before his resurrection?

    Response- The Messiah who had not saved anyone yet and the Son that was not God’s only begotten during this time.

  33. on 06 Dec 2008 at 8:37 amMark C.

    Another thing I cannot understand is why the raising up/begetting of Luke 22:36 is off-topic. Isn’t this the very thing Acts 13:33 deals with?

    Sorry I missed this point; I couldn’t figure out what you were referring to until I reread your previous posts. You must have meant Luke 20:36, correct?
    “…for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

    Actually this isn’t quite the same thing that Acts 13:33 deals with, since it is referring to those in the age to come, not to Jesus. Nevertheless, it says they “are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” Saying that people are “sons of” something is not always implying begetting. Sometimes it is used figuratively, referring to their nature, as in v. 34, “the sons of this age” (or James and John being called the “sons of thunder” in Mark 3:17).

    In any case, it does not say that they will have become sons of God by, or only in, the resurrection. If that were the case then it would mean that we are not sons of God now. This is, in fact, one of the doctrinal problems that Brian mentioned in his original post, which arises from misunderstanding Acts 13:33.

    There are some who believe that Jesus was “born again” at his resurrection, and that likewise we will not be born again until our resurrection at Christ’s return. (I used to be involved with a group that believed this.) But that would contradict the verses that speak of the new birth as a present reality, including I John 3:2, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God…”

    Another point about Psalm 2:7 that I wanted to address…
    It says, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'” You referred to it being a decree of the Lord, and I agree. I mentioned in my previous post that it is probably not even referring to the specific day he was born so much as the fact that he would be God’s son. It occurs to me that regardless of whether Jesus’ reign was established at the resurrection or will be established in a yet future age, the point is being made that he “will tell of the decree.” No matter when the decree was made, he will tell about it or make it known. This is a similar idea to what I’ve been saying about Jesus being marked out as the Son of God. Exactly when he was/will be begotten is not stated in this verse. But the “telling” or “making it known” is here connected with his beginning his reign.

    When he begins to reign, there will be no question as to whether or not he is the Son of God. In the meantime, although he was made the Son of God by virtue of his miraculous conception, he was made known as the Son of God by the resurrection, which foreshadows the resurrection to come. The difference is between when he was actually begotten and when it was established that he is the Son of God. This is why the word “declared” is used in Rom. 1:4, as well as other words like “established,” “proved,” “demonstrated,” and “marked out” in other versions.

  34. on 06 Dec 2008 at 9:07 amSean

    Michael,

    I’m still unclear on what you believe. Do you believe Jesus had a human father or that God created him in the womb of the virgin Mary?

  35. on 06 Dec 2008 at 2:20 pmJohnE

    Brian,

    Let me rephrase the question. Was Jesus the son of God before his crucifixion? Was Jesus the Messiah before his crucifixion? When Jesus said ” I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” was he the son of God? When Jesus said “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” was he the Messiah?

    the answers to that are yes, yes, yes and yes. Now can you please answer my questions? While dead, did Jesus exist? Do dead people exist before resurrection?

    Mark, believe me, I am not losing track of the entire flow which starts in v. 17. I am well aware of what’s going before vs. 28. But this picture:

    1. The promise – vs. 17-23
    a. Who Jesus is – vs. 24-27
    b. the resurrection – vs. 28-31
    2. The promise – vs. 32-33a
    a. Who Jesus is – vs. 33b
    b. the resurrection – vs. 34-37

    is not the picture I see. Here’s what I see:

    1. No promise. Ancient history of Israel; aim: David (17-22)
    2. Who Jesus is and what he brings (23-38)
    2.1 Descendant of David (23)
    2.2 Savior (23)
    2.2.1 John is not the Savior (24-25)
    2.2.1.2 John says Jesus is Savior (25)
    2.2.2 Jesus’ Salvation (26-38)
    2.2.2.1 Message of s. sent to Jews (26)
    2.2.2.1.1 Jews rejected his message of s. (27)
    2.2.2.2 Salvation. through Death and Resurrection (28-37)
    2.2.2.2.1 Death (28-29)
    2.2.2.2.2 Resurrection (30-37)
    2.2.2.2.2.1 Proofs of R. (31-37)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.1 Physical: (31)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.1.1 Appeared alive to many (31)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 Promise of s. fulfilled by R. (32-33)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.2 Scriptural: (34-37)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.2.1 Isaiah 55:3 (34)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.2.2 Psalm 16:10 (35)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.2.2.1 Ps. 16:10 not about David (36)
    2.2.2.2.2.1.2.2.2 Ps. 16:10 about Jesus (37)
    2.3.3 Message of his s. sent again to Jews (38)

    You claim it’s interrupting the train of thought, but it isn’t.

    No Mark, I claim it’s interrupting the train of thought the death and resurrection sub-theme. And it is.

    I’ve said this several times already and you keep responding along the lines of “Without his resurrection, the promise of salvation is simply not fulfilled. Why this aspect is not clear to everybody beats me.” That’s true. Once again, I’m not saying ignore the D&R

    Mark, far from me to say you’re saying “ignore the D&R”! I say “continue to keep your eyes on it”. I say the fulfillment of the promise of Salvation is in the Resurrection of Jesus because without the Resurrection of Jesus there’s no Salvation, and you agree with this latter statement. Paul does not place the fulfillment of the promise by mistake/chance in the middle of the resurrection proofs, because the fulfillment of the promise is the resurrection of Jesus – without which again I say, there is NO salvation.

    The real problem is that you Mark are not willing to accept that by resurrection people are given life and are being brought into existence – and you really didn’t explain why. Once you accept that (and why wouldn’t you?, it’s the truth!), you won’t be having any problems accepting that Jesus was begotten at his resurrection.

    While resurrection has something in common with birth, in that it involves the bestowing of life, it is not identical, and not specifically called birth. Birth is not only the bestowing of life, it is bringing forth or generating from oneself an offspring. Jesus is God’s son because God BEGOT him. This is not difficult to understand.

    Mark, earlier you did not agree that Jesus was begotten at resurrection because I merely said that resurrecting him, God gave him life. You said:

    No, I don’t agree. It is more than giving life to him. It is bringing him into existence.

    Now after I’ve dealt with your reason for disagreement, showing that Jesus was indeed brought into existence by being resurrected, you come up with a new criterion for begetting: that the one who does the begetting is generating the begotten one “from oneself“. Well Mark, that is exactly what happened with Jesus at resurrection! Since the dead do not exist anymore, they are generated by God “from Himself“. He gives them life “from Himself“.

    Why do you think Jesus is called in Isaiah 9:6 “Eternal Father”?

    Isaiah 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

    Before I answer this question, I’ll quote you again, about Lu 20:36 now:

    Saying that people are “sons of” something is not always implying begetting. Sometimes it is used figuratively, referring to their nature, as in v. 34, “the sons of this age” (or James and John being called the “sons of thunder” in Mark 3:17).

    What you are implying here is that the resurrected ones are not really sons of God as Jesus says, but only figuratively? Yes, people were “the sons of this age” because they were a product of their age. Jesus called James and John “Sons of Thunder” probably because of their fiery/passionate/hot-blooded personality. Their persona was a product of their personality. Even when used figuratively, the figurative meaning has its roots into the literal meaning, being a product of something. The resurrected ones are “sons of the resurrection” because they are literally a product of the resurrection!

    But no, the resurrected ones are not figuratively sons of God, they are literal sons of God because:

    1) They are brought forth into existence by God.
    2) They receive life from God himself – even when Jesus resurrects them because the life Jesus gives them comes from the Father Himself.

    And now keeping in mind point number 2), that Jesus resurrects the dead giving them life (and bringing them into existence), let me return to my question: why do you think Jesus is called in Isaiah 9:6 “Eternal Father”? He is not a figurative Eternal Father inasmuch as he is not a figurative Wonderful Counselor, not a figurative Mighty God and not a figurative Prince of Peace. He is literally all these.

    He is an Eternal Father to those resurrected by him exactly because of points 1) and 2):

    1) They are brought forth into existence by Jesus.
    2) They receive life from God himself – even when Jesus resurrects them because the life Jesus gives them comes from the Father Himself.

    Yes, the resurrected ones are literally a product of Jesus and God, literally generated from Jesus and God themselves. They are begotten.

    Then you write:

    Actually Lu 20:36 isn’t quite the same thing that Acts 13:33 deals with, since it is referring to those in the age to come, not to Jesus.

    Oh Mark are you serious? Is that the reason, the two don’t refer to the same process because they do not refer to the same people! Wow 🙂 No Mark, that is not a valid criterion. Jesus explains in Lu 20:36 that these raised up ones, being resurrected, are sons of God – in the same vein I explained above. Acts 13:33 effectively says the same thing, that Jesus was raised up as God said ‘You are My son, today I have begotten you’. It’s really simple.

    In any case, Lu 20:36 does not say that they will have become sons of God by the resurrection.

    That is exactly what it says.

    If that were the case then it would mean that we are not sons of God now. This is, in fact, one of the doctrinal problems that Brian mentioned in his original post, which arises from misunderstanding Acts 13:33.

    No, it really does not mean that. At our death we will not only cease being sons of God, we will cease being anything! It is only natural that being resurrected we will become sons of God. Resurrection is a birth.

    A big part of the reason I don’t want to get into Psalm 2 is because in your previous posts you have indicated that the reign referred to there and in Daniel was fulfilled at the time of his resurrection.

    No Mark, you misunderstood me. I’m not saying that Jesus’ reign over the world has begun, not at all! Do you remember that David was anointed as king while Saul was still king? And that David WAS the anointed king of God, but was only “king-elect” (like Obama is only “president-elect”); Saul was still practically the ruling king. Only after Saul died does David become ruling king. But that doesn’t discard the fact that David was anointed king of God way before he gets to actually rule as king of God.

    I don’t want to delve into this now though.

    I will say, however, that the phrase “this day have I begotten thee” in Psalm 2 is probably not even referring to the specific day, as if the day of his birth was the subject of the psalm. It seems, in context, to be a general declaration of the fact that the Messiah would be God’s son.

    Why exactly does this seem to you to be a general declaration? Because it seems to you that Acts 13:33 is not about resurrection? Let me tell you why does it seem to me to be a declaration with a chronological aspect.

    Psalm 2 is a psalm where events succeed chronologically. 1-3 establish the start of these chronological events, they tell about Jesus being arrested, convicted and killed, as Acts 4:25-29 explain. Seeing this happening, in other words, as a result, consequence, God laughs at them (4); after he laughs at them, He speaks to them in anger(5). Up until now, can you see there’s a flow of events here, one following another?

    So when God speaks to them in his fury, he says that “the one against whom you rulers have stood up against, this very one I have installed as My king” (6). Granted, God does not say WHEN he did that, just that He did. But then Jesus cuts in and says:

    Psalm 2:7-8 7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.

    So after God tells the rulers who killed Jesus that He installed (at some point) Jesus as a King, Jesus starts speaking, saying that God told him personally “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”. This statement is anchored in time, it is clearly not an atemporal/general one. There was a day when God personally told Jesus “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”. Is it just a coincidence that Jesus says this after the rulers stood up to him and killed him? Why should it be, since God also tells Jesus on that occasion:

    “Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.”

    And guess what? That’s exactly what the Father did just after his resurrection! Just read:

    Acts 5:30 “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 “He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

    Philippians 2:9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth

    Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth“.

    So this is how I see it based on this Psalm, Acts 13 and on Rom 1:4:

    Rulers kill Jesus. God raises up Jesus and tells him there and then: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession”. And Jesus gets there and then all authority in heaven and on earth, so that every knee should bow before him, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It is really extremely simple.

    Regarding Rom 1:4 you wrote:

    The difference is between when he was actually begotten and when it was established that he is the Son of God. This is why the word “declared” is used in Rom. 1:4, as well as other words like “established,” “proved,” “demonstrated,” and “marked out” in other versions.

    At his resurrection, Jesus was both: actually begotten and established/appointed by the decree mentioned in Psalm 2:7. The world “declared” is in perfect agreement the fact that “You are my Son” is a decree and a declaration of God. “Proved” has no lexical support whatsoever. But then you go on and say:

    The “text” doesn’t say “appointed” since it uses the Greek word horizo, and it is the correct translation of that word which is in question here. Choosing “appointed” over “declared” would be based on the preconceived idea that he was made Son of God at the resurrection, which the Bible never says explicitly.

    Contrary to what you claim, the Bible says that explicitly in Acts 13:33 and Rom. 1:4. The idea itself that “choosing “appointed” over “declared” would be based on the preconceived idea“, is a preconceived idea, based on the claim that resurrection is not begetting. THE TEXT SAYS “APPOINTED” because that is what the verb means in certain instances, and I say it means “appointed” here because the sonship of Jesus IS A DECREE, AND THE DECREE APPOINTS JESUS TO BE GOD’S SON in Psalm 2:7.

    The fact that the word is only translated as “declare” once proves nothing.

    Oh Mark 🙂 You would like it to prove nothing, but it does. If no verse can be produced to demonstrate that it is rendered as “declare”, then it being rendered as “declare” in Rom 1:4 is simply baseless. There’s no precedent for that.

    (You asked for other cases in which a Greek word is only translated by a particular English word once, while being translated by other words elsewhere. There are very many; you need only look at a concordance.)

    Ok, I get it, so you can provide no case 🙂

    I didn’t say that the majority of translators render horizo as “declare.”

    Are you really sure you didn’t say that? Yes you did Mark, you did say that:

    Most English versions translate it as “declared” in Rom. 1:4.

    What I said was that the majority render it as EITHER “declare” OR other words that carry the same sense.

    Ok, let’s see again:

    – declare: 15
    – proved: 2
    – established: 2
    – designated: 3
    – marked out: 3
    – demonstrated: 1
    – predestined: 1
    – known: 3
    – appointed: 3
    – shown: 3
    – before-ordained: 1

    and let’s remember you also said:

    According to the two resources I quoted, horizo can mean “to decree or specify” and “to mark off by boundaries, to determine.” In the verses you quoted, the word, whether translated as “determined” or “appointed”, carries the idea of a decision being made, either by God (”Son of Man is going as it has been determined”) or by people (”each of them determined to send a contribution”).

    It is not “32, compared with only 5 that render it as a word that carries a different sense: predestined: 1 appointed: 3 before-ordained: 1” as you say. Almost all renderings are actually in sync with the idea of a decree, of a decision being made by God, like the one in Psalm 2:7, with “to decree or specify” and “to mark off by boundaries, to determine“:

    – declare: the decree of Jesus’ sonship is something declared and something that declares something;
    – established: the decree establishes Jesus’ sonship;
    – designated: the decree designates Jesus as son;
    – known, shown: the decree makes known by declaration -declares! – the fact that Jesus is son;
    – appointed/ordained: the decree appoints/ordains Jesus to be son;
    – marked out: the decree marks out Jesus as being son; as BDAG says, the “appoint” meaning of the verb stems from “mark out”, like you said, to mark off by boundaries; if I draw a rectangular in the sand and declare “this is mine”, I have marked that piece of land to be mine by drawing its boundaries; by doing this I declared/decreed that it is mine;

    So it is really 15+2+3+3+1+1+9+1= 35 against 2 (“proved”).

  36. on 06 Dec 2008 at 10:31 pmJohnE

    Michael,

    Mark C writes… Nearly everyone has had children or at least knows someone that has children, and everyone without exception was a child, born of parents. When the Bible says that God begot Jesus, and Jesus was therefore His Son, what part of this is so hard to understand?

    Response- That God who is not a human being could reproduce with a human being and produce a human being, I thought it was everything after its kind?

    Michael, the mechanics of a miracle are not meant to be understood by the human mind, but accepted. I, with my limited knowledge, know that conception occurs when a sperm cell penetrates an female gamete (egg), and the two fuse, resulting a zygote and so forth. Now again, I, with my limited knowledge, know, that the only thing I need to make a woman pregnant is :

    – a sperm cell (actually at least 101 sperm cell, 100 is the minimum needed to break down the cumulus mass cells and the zona pelucida of the egg)
    – a way to make this sperm cell to reach the egg

    I have no idea if God needed these two things, but if He chose to, then I don’t understand what part is for you so hard to understand? That God can create a sperm cell, or that God can put that sperm cell in the right place?

    Mark C writes…If Jesus was not the son of God until his resurrection, what was he before that? Was Jesus the Messiah before his resurrection?

    Response- The Messiah who had not saved anyone yet and the Son that was not God’s only begotten during this time.

    The Messiah was God’s only-begotten son before his death, and Jesus attests that.

  37. on 06 Dec 2008 at 10:37 pmMark C.

    It is clear we are not going to agree, so we might as well leave it at that.

  38. on 06 Dec 2008 at 10:43 pmJohnE

    We can’t always agree on everything, at least we agree on that 🙂 I just want to know if you understand why I believe what I do?

  39. on 07 Dec 2008 at 1:07 amMark C.

    Your view is still missing the importance of the promise of his COMING and the fact that he was WHO HE CLAIMED to be, namely the Coming Messiah.

    Mark, far from me to say you’re saying “ignore the D&R”! I say “continue to keep your eyes on it”. I say the fulfillment of the promise of Salvation is in the Resurrection of Jesus because without the Resurrection of Jesus there’s no Salvation, and you agree with this latter statement. Paul does not place the fulfillment of the promise by mistake/chance in the middle of the resurrection proofs, because the fulfillment of the promise is the resurrection of Jesus – without which again I say, there is NO salvation.

    I’ve said repeatedly that according to Jesus’ own words, as well as the rest of the NT, the fulfillment of the promise is his coming AND the resurrection. Yes, without the resurrection it is not complete, but without the belief in WHO HE IS and the WORDS HE SPOKE it is also not complete. BOTH PARTS are essential. This seems to be one of the fundamental points on which we disagree.

    Mark, earlier you did not agree that Jesus was begotten at resurrection because I merely said that resurrecting him, God gave him life. You said:

    No, I don’t agree. It is more than giving life to him. It is bringing him into existence.

    Now after I’ve dealt with your reason for disagreement, showing that Jesus was indeed brought into existence by being resurrected, you come up with a new criterion for begetting…

    It’s not a new criteria, just a clearer way of presenting my point. What birth is and what it entails is something that nearly everyone understands. It is a little more difficult to pinpoint the exact words with which to define it. Resurrection has similarities with birth, but is not the same and, more importantly, is never explicitly called a birth in the Bible.

    Another part of its definition is to bring someone into existence FOR THE FIRST TIME. This is the meaning of the Greek word gennao (and its related words) as well as our English words “generate” and “generation.” It implies a person’s BEGINNING, which of course is essential when dealing with the “generation of Jesus Christ.” To answer your question, no the dead do not exist between their death and resurrection, but they did exist before. Birth, begetting, generation, etc. have to do with where and when a person has his BEGINNING.

    Why do you think Jesus is called in Isaiah 9:6 “Eternal Father”?

    The word “eternal” is the word for the coming age. Even the Catholic Bible translates this as “the Father of the world to come.” He is called the father of the age to come because of his priority and preeminence in that coming age. But he is never called a father in the literal sense (not even in Trinitarian doctrine which designates him as God the Son), and he is never described as begetting anyone, either literally or figuratively.

    Regarding Luke 20:36 –

    What you are implying here is that the resurrected ones are not really sons of God as Jesus says, but only figuratively?

    No that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that IN THAT VERSE it is not talking about their literal sonship, but their immortal nature. There are other verses that speak of us and them as being literally sons of God, but this verse is not talking about that.

    Then you write:

    Actually Lu 20:36 isn’t quite the same thing that Acts 13:33 deals with, since it is referring to those in the age to come, not to Jesus.

    Oh Mark are you serious? Is that the reason, the two don’t refer to the same process because they do not refer to the same people! Wow 🙂

    NO that is not what I said. (And mocking isn’t necessary.) First of all I said it isn’t “quite” the same thing, since there is some difference, even though there is similarity, namely the “process” of resurrection. I then said, “Neverthelesss…” and proceeded to make my points.

    The main point I was making was: In any case, Lu 20:36 does not say that they will have become sons of God by the resurrection. To which you responded with, “That is exactly what it says.” This is starting to sound like Monty Python’s argument clinic: “No it isn’t! Yes it is! No it isn’t” 🙂 Anyway, I had already pointed out that it says “being” sons of the resurrection, which does not indicate a causative relationship.

    Contrary to what you claim, the Bible says that explicitly in Acts 13:33 and Rom. 1:4. The idea itself that “choosing “appointed” over “declared” would be based on the preconceived idea“, is a preconceived idea, based on the claim that resurrection is not begetting. THE TEXT SAYS “APPOINTED” because that is what the verb means in certain instances, and I say it means “appointed” here because the sonship of Jesus IS A DECREE, AND THE DECREE APPOINTS JESUS TO BE GOD’S SON in Psalm 2:7.

    Again, the text does not say “appointed” – it uses a Greek word that can mean EITHER “appointed” (i.e. giving him the position at that time) OR “marked out” or “demonstrated” (i.e. showing decisively that he is who he claimed to be). Which of the two possibilities you choose depends on which theory you hold to – is resurrection the point at which he was BEGOTTEN or simply the point at which he was SHOWN TO BE the Son of God.

    The fact that the word is only translated as “declare” once proves nothing.

    Oh Mark 🙂 You would like it to prove nothing, but it does. If no verse can be produced to demonstrate that it is rendered as “declare”, then it being rendered as “declare” in Rom 1:4 is simply baseless. There’s no precedent for that.

    I’m sorry, but that is not how Biblical translations work. Many words have more than one sense to them, even in English. If a given Greek word, according to lexicons, can have either sense A or sense B, and it is used in sense A ten times in the Bible, but in sense B only once, it is not demanded that the one time it is used in sense B must be sense A because it doesn’t appear anywhere else that way.

    (You asked for other cases in which a Greek word is only translated by a particular English word once, while being translated by other words elsewhere. There are very many; you need only look at a concordance.)

    Ok, I get it, so you can provide no case 🙂

    That is exactly the opposite of what I said. There are so many that you only need to open a concordance. Forgive me, but seeing from a concordance how words are translated is basic Bible study.

    I didn’t say that the majority of translators render horizo as “declare.”

    Are you really sure you didn’t say that? Yes you did Mark, you did say that:

    Most English versions translate it as “declared” in Rom. 1:4.

    My original statement which you partially quoted above was:

    Most English versions translate it as “declared” in Rom. 1:4. Weymouth translates it as “decisively proved” and Young’s Literal Translation has it as “marked out.”

    It is still true that more English versions translate it as “declare” than ANY OTHER English word. Granted, I did not make that clear in this original post, but I clarified it later:

    This is a legitimate usage of the word which is corroborated by the fact that most of the English versions translate it as either “declare” or, in a few cases, another word or phrase that carries the same meaning (”marked out” or “decisively proved”).

    Which is what I reiterated in the most recent post.

    What I said was that the majority render it as EITHER “declare” OR other words that carry the same sense.

    Then you continued:

    It is not “32, compared with only 5 that render it as a word that carries a different sense: predestined: 1 appointed: 3 before-ordained: 1″ as you say. Almost all renderings are actually in sync with the idea of a decree, of a decision being made by God, like the one in Psalm 2:7, with “to decree or specify” and “to mark off by boundaries, to determine“:

    The words in that list (declared, proved, established, designated, marked out, demonstrated, known, shown) all have the sense of showing forth something as proof. If we’re going to argue about what plain English words mean, I don’t know what else to tell you.

    – declare: the decree of Jesus’ sonship is something declared and something that declares something;
    – established: the decree establishes Jesus’ sonship;
    – designated: the decree designates Jesus as son;
    – known, shown: the decree makes known by declaration -declares! – the fact that Jesus is son;
    – appointed/ordained: the decree appoints/ordains Jesus to be son;
    – marked out: the decree marks out Jesus as being son; as BDAG says, the “appoint” meaning of the verb stems from “mark out”, like you said, to mark off by boundaries; if I draw a rectangular in the sand and declare “this is mine”, I have marked that piece of land to be mine by drawing its boundaries; by doing this I declared/decreed that it is mine;

    So it is really 15+2+3+3+1+1+9+1= 35 against 2 (”proved”).

    All you’re doing here is applying the English words to the decree, which is not what we are talking about. We are talking about applying horizo to the resurrection in Rom. 1:4. The resurrection is what established or marked him out as the Son of God.

    It’s interesting that you have previously mentioned Jesus being appointed Judge in two passages in Acts. Both of those passages say exactly what I’m saying, that the resurrection was the proof of who he is.

    Acts 10:
    39 “We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross.
    40 “God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible,
    41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead.
    42 “And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead.
    43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

    Acts 17:
    30 “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
    31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

    Nevertheless, we can agree to disagree about the minute details of words. If you want to believe he was begotten at the resurrection you are free to believe that. It’s only a problem if you allow it to color your view of the new birth, which I don’t think you do.

    In my opinion, the most critical issue here is the nature of salvation, which you say is based solely on the resurrection. I agree that the resurrection is vital, and the Gospel is not complete without it. But that is not the same thing as saying that the message of salvation is ONLY the death and resurrection (I’ve said this several times now). His coming and the fact that he is the promised Messiah is the other half of the Gospel, which the majority of the Church today has lost sight of. This is the whole crux of what Kingdomready and other similar web sites are trying to promote.

  40. on 07 Dec 2008 at 10:14 pmJohnE

    Your view is still missing the importance of the promise of his COMING and the fact that he was WHO HE CLAIMED to be, namely the Coming Messiah.

    Not at all, you are wrong. My view includes that. Please read more carefully what I wrote about my view.

    I’ve said repeatedly that according to Jesus’ own words, as well as the rest of the NT, the fulfillment of the promise is his coming AND the resurrection. Yes, without the resurrection it is not complete, but without the belief in WHO HE IS and the WORDS HE SPOKE it is also not complete. BOTH PARTS are essential.

    You keep repeating that, but without any relevancy. Belief in who he is and in the words he spoke do not constitute fulfillment of the promise, they are necessary to BENEFIT from that promise. Acts 13 is about what Paul is focusing on, regarding the fulfillment of the promise, and not what aspects you see as the fulfillment of it. Specifically, you talk about belief in the words Jesus spoke, but Paul does not mention ANY words Jesus spoke, and does not focus specifically on the importance of believing the words Jesus spoke. This is just to show you that the view you’re trying to read back into the text is simply not there.

    Yes, even the Apostle Paul himself does not meet your criteria, for he says the fulfillment of the promise of salvation is in Psalm 2:7, which says “You are my son, today I have begotten you”. I guess you would equally say to him he is absolutely wrong, the fulfilment of the promise was HIS COMING AND THE RESURRECTION, WHO HE IS and the WORDS HE SPOKE, whereas you said earlier that Psalm 2:7 means Jesus “being brought on the scene”. Interesting stuff.

    Resurrection has similarities with birth, but is not the same and, more importantly, is never explicitly called a birth in the Bible.

    You are hasty in making that statement. You seem to forget that it is the very thing I’m stating, that the resurrection is called begetting in the Bible as per Rom 1:4, Lu 20:36 and Acts 13:33. This what’s being disputed here, and saying what you’re saying amounts to circular reasoning, that these verses do not explicitly say that resurrection is begetting because the Bible never explicitly says that…

    Another part of its definition is to bring someone into existence FOR THE FIRST TIME.

    Please quote the material or work/dictionary/whatever that comes up with that definition. Or should I just take your word for it?

    This is the meaning of the Greek word gennao (and its related words) as well as our English words “generate” and “generation.”

    “Bringing someone into existence for the first time” is NOT THE MEANING of gennao. I have no idea where you got that from, but here’s what a lexicon (BDAG) says about it:

    1. become the parent of, beget
    2. to give birth to, bear
    3. to cause someth. to happen, bring forth, produce, cause, fig. of various kinds of production

    As to the English word “generate”, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language says:

    1a. To bring into being; give rise to: generate a discussion.
    1b. To produce as a result of a chemical or physical process: generate heat.
    2. To engender (offspring); procreate.

    Nothing here says “for the first time”. Or is this in fact your personal definition?

    To answer your question, no the dead do not exist between their death and resurrection, but they did exist before. Birth, begetting, generation, etc. have to do with where and when a person has his BEGINNING.

    Again I must notice, the emphasized aspect of the BEGINNING makes this a pure arbitrary definition, whose aim is none other than to support your claim that resurrection is not begetting. You keep adjusting the definition of begetting/generation in order to stave off what I write about begetting.

    If you look closely, what gennao really means is to become the parent of somebody. If you deny that this is what’s happening at resurrection, you are effectively saying that God continued to be the Father of Jesus DESPITE the fact that Jesus did not exist anymore. In other words, God is Father to … whom exactly? There’s no Jesus Christ when he is dead. When the only child of a parent dies, how many children does the parent have? Is the parent still a father to his dead son? Is the dead child still a son to his father? As in the case of humans, the relationship Father-Son ends because the relationship needs two entities. If one is missing, there’s no relationship. This should not be hard to understand, it’s just common-sense. That is why God can become Jesus’ Father at resurrection.

    Turning to what the dictionary says about “generate”, it really means “to bring into being”. When you say that Jesus was not generated by his resurrection, you effectively say that the dead really exist before resurrection, and are not brought into existence by the resurrection, effectively contradicting yourself because you said you believe the contrary, that the dead do not exist.

    Why would you go to this lengths, denying what is only common-sense? I guess because you are not willing/ready to accept the consequence of these two simple facts: that resurrection fully satisfies the requirements of begetting.

    Why do you think Jesus is called in Isaiah 9:6 “Eternal Father”?

    The word “eternal” is the word for the coming age.

    That is not relevant here. Or do you think that I believe Jesus will resurrect the dead in a different age?

    He is called the father of the age to come because of his priority and preeminence in that coming age.

    I get it. So he is just called a father, but he surely is absolutely not a father… He is just called a wonderful counsellor, but he surely is absolutely not a wonderful counsellor; he is just called the prince of peace but he surely is absolutely not the prince of peace. Is he or is he not? Excuse me if I don’t believe you.

    But he is never called a father in the literal sense (not even in Trinitarian doctrine which designates him as God the Son), and he is never described as begetting anyone, either literally or figuratively.

    Another instance of circular reasoning. He is never called father literally or figuratively, and in Isa 9:6 he is not called father literally or figuratively because he is never called father literally or figuratively. Ok.

    Regarding Luke 20:36 –

    What you are implying here is that the resurrected ones are not really sons of God as Jesus says, but only figuratively?

    No that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that IN THAT VERSE it is not talking about their literal sonship, but their immortal nature.

    If you start by saying “No that is not what I’m saying” than you contradict yourself. That is, you deny thinking that the verse is talking about figurative sons of God, you just think the verse is talking about no literal sons of God. Hmmm. Well let me tell you, the verse deals with more than their immortal nature. It says “they cannot die” – so yeah, immortal nature, it speaks about resurrection, it speaks about sonship towards God. The immortal nature is just the result, but what leads there is the resurrection, which also leads to sonship. They are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

    If I say “they are cohabitants, having rented the same apartment” what are you going to understand? That BECAUSE they rent the same apartment, they are cohabitants. What if I say “they are brothers, being sons of the same mother”? That BECAUSE they have the same mother, they are brothers. Etc. What part of this is so hard to understand?

    Then you write:

    Actually Lu 20:36 isn’t quite the same thing that Acts 13:33 deals with, since it is referring to those in the age to come, not to Jesus.

    Oh Mark are you serious? Is that the reason, the two don’t refer to the same process because they do not refer to the same people! Wow 🙂

    NO that is not what I said. (And mocking isn’t necessary.) First of all I said it isn’t “quite” the same thing, since there is some difference, even though there is similarity, namely the “process” of resurrection. I then said, “Neverthelesss…” and proceeded to make my points.

    Mocking is not only unnecessary, it is nowhere to be found in what I wrote. It is most unfortunate that you see any mocking here.

    Again, the text does not say “appointed”

    Yes it does, and please understand once and for all, I am not talking about the letters “A”, “P”, “P”, “O”, “I”, “N”, “T”, “E”, “D” put together to form “appointed”, I very well know “appointed” is an English word. Or do you really think I believe it to be a Greek word? To a Greek reader, the verb says indeed “appoint”. To another Greek reader the text says “mark out”. So what?

    Which of the two possibilities you choose depends on which theory you hold to

    That is simply not true. I (and not only I) choose “appoint” because the DECLARATION “You are my Son” is a DECREE. Jesus was shown to be the Son of God way before his resurrection, and the disciples believed it. God himself from heaven showed Jesus is his son, and He was heard by the disciples. But you say this was the ultimate proof that he was God’s son (“it is the resurrection that decisively proves he was God’s son”, “the resurrection is what proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was the Son of God”), and that’s true; but then I must say this sounds much like the disputed fulfillment of the promise:

    I say it has to be the resurrection because of “raised up” and because resurrection is the ultimate and most important event in fulfilling the promise, and then you say “you miss the ‘who he is’ and ‘his coming'”. Now let me say likewise, that if you say that “the resurrection is the ultimate and most important proof of Jesus’ sonship”, you are missing all other signs that prove him to be God’s son. How about that?

    The words in that list (declared, proved, established, designated, marked out, demonstrated, known, shown) all have the sense of showing forth something as proof. If we’re going to argue about what plain English words mean, I don’t know what else to tell you.

    That’s the source of your mistake (emphasized text). The sense of those words has to derived from the basic meaning of the verb they supposedly translate, not taking them outside of the lexical domain they were brought forth from, not deriving a meaning by starting with the translated word itself, and going forward with its basic meaning, one which may not be in sync with the word in the original language. That’s why I showed you how all these various words are related to its meaning, that of “determine/appoint”.

    The most basic meaning of this verb according to BDAG (the mother of all Greek-English lexicons) is “to separate entities and so establish a boundary”. Other lexicons say the same thing, “mark off by boundaries”. Entities are separated by being marked off with the help of boundaries, and so, the entities are defined. BDAG places the occurrence of this verb in Rom 1:4 under this main meaning:

    “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set”

    But this meaning has two subsections:

    a) of things
    b) of persons

    Naturally, Rom 1:4 is placed under b), because the verb’s target here is a person, the Son of God. Now section b) is defined as:

    b. of persons appoint, designate, declare.

    Of course “declare” may have different shades of meaning. Which ones are we to consider for Rom 1:4? This lexicon is not merely saying that this verb also means “declare”, but it specifies that this is a sub-meaning of “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set”.

    That’s why saying “If we’re going to argue about what plain English words mean, I don’t know what else to tell you” is clearly a mistake. It is a mistake to argue about what plain “declare, show, etc” means, we have to put the meaning “declare” in the context of “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set”. Those shades of meaning are the valid ones, the ones that have an affinity for “making a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set”. And I have no doubt that most of the 15 translation committees that chose “declare” had in mind “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set” when they chose “declare”. “Declared” in the sense of “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set”.

    Notice how the “declared” in the sense of “showing” Jesus to be a son of God, or “providing the decisive proof” that Jesus is a son of God, fits nowhere in this picture. These have nothing to do with “declare” in the sense of “to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set”. So really no wonder that for the meanings of this verb, every lexicon quoted here by me and Mark provides nothing but a deafening silence on the meanings of “proved”, “shown”, “demonstrated”. Here’s again a survey of what the lexicons say:

    BDAG: to make a determination about an entity, determine, appoint, fix, set: of persons – appoint, designate, declare
    Friberg: of persons appoint, designate; as making a definite plan appoint, decide, determine;
    Barclay Newman: decide, determine; appoint, designate
    Louw-Nida: (figurative extension of meaning of ὁρίζω ‘to set limits on,’ not occurring in the NT) to come to a definite decision or firm resolve – ‘to decide, to determine, to resolve.’
    Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie: M: to establish, to ordain (an ordinance)
    Gingrich: determine, fix, set; appoint, designate, declare
    Thayer: to determine, appoint
    Liddell-Scottto mark out by boundaries; to limit, determine, appoint, lay down, order

    And quoted by Mark:

    Strong: “to mark out or bound (”horizon”), i.e. (figuratively) to appoint, decree, specify
    NAS: “to mark off by boundaries, to determine”

    Some translations which have footnotes for “declare/shown”, want to make sure the reader does not miss out on other legitimate renderings of this verb:

    NIV: “Or was appointed to be the Son of God with power”
    KJV: declared: Gr. “determined”
    NLT: “Or and was designated”

    So when Mark claims that my translation of “DETERMINED/APPOINTED” is not legitimate, he is really wrong. IT IS LEGITIMATE AND CORRECT when at least five translation committees say so (2 with footnotes here, 3 directly in the text).

    In the light of this, why would anyone obstinately object to the “appointed/determined” meaning of this Greek verb and of “declare”, and instead, choose “shown, proven, demostrated”, meanings which are absent from any lexicon in this world? Especially in the light of a crystal clear statement in Psalm 2:7 that the sonship of Jesus is a decree? A decree that determines/appoints/declares Jesus as son of God? Why? Well, maybe because Ro 1:4 speaks of resurrection and the conclusion that Jesus is son of God not only because of his previous birth, but also because of his subsequent resurrection, has to be completely avoided?

    All this is not for me to say that Jesus’ resurrection was not a proof of who he was. It was a proof that he was the Messiah, just as Acts 17:31 says. What I’m saying is that Ro 1:4 says something else.

    In my opinion, the most critical issue here is the nature of salvation, which you say is based solely on the resurrection.

    That is simply false. Please read more carefully next time you think of making statements like this. Thank you.

  41. on 07 Dec 2008 at 11:26 pmMark C.

    I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    God bless.

  42. on 08 Dec 2008 at 5:05 pmJohnE

    Thank you, God bless you too.

  43. on 08 Dec 2008 at 11:57 pmWally

    Hello All,

    It is very compelling to be able to share my insight about this topic. Everyone has a unique point of discussion. I can see this in different angles. However, this is my insight regarding this subject of Acts 13:33 accordingly to my wisdom given by God. The context of this passage Paul and Barnabas were traveling and preaching the good news of Jesus as the Messiah and son of God including his resurrection as the center of faith. (Acts 13:8). The people in Paphos and Perga were putting their faith on what other false teachers were disseminating about God. The interesting part of it is that God always made things possible for those who are seeking for him dearly. I am talking about the proconsul Sergius Paulus. Paul was making parallel about what was said in the prophets regarding Jesus’ resurrection and how these prophecies became fulfilled perfectly at the right time. Paul was also making footnote of the reason why God fulfilled his promise to our ancestors in the Christian faith. Since all the Jews were studying all these things every Sabbath, Paul emphatically pointed out the urgency of acknowledging the fulfillment of these prophecies accordingly with Scriptures such Acts 13:32,& 33, 34 where Jesus has been predicted as the being- the son of God with parallel with Psalms 2:7 and Psalms 16:10 as a confirmation of God’s promises. In the Scriptures only 2 times has God addressed himself to mankind confirming Jesus as his approved son to carry out his promises. One time was when Jesus was baptized and the other time when Jesus manifested the transfiguration to his closer apostles. The meaning of these two passages was a confirmation of God’s promises to our ancestors (a glimpse of the God’s kingdom) as mentioned on Acts 13: 32. It was a big deal for the Jews to see these prophecies to be fulfilled as they always used to study them in the synagogues every Sabbath. Why did Paul compare Jesus’ resurrection with David’s death? Well, he showed the difference of David’s mortality and Jesus’ conditional immortality on earth. Jesus’ corpse never experienced decay. Jesus never inherited Adam’s sin. So our heavenly Father, made arrangements as a promise or (prophecy) to have Jesus his son to be an atoned provision to mankind accordingly to His will. As Jesus progressed to carry it out the Father’s will, his conditional immortality was at hand to be rewarded on behalf of mankind and only vehicle for salvation. When Jesus was tempted by Satan, Jesus showed his devotion to carry it out the Father’ will and eventually he will be showing mankind that God fulfilled his promise to resurrect the righteous ones from dead like David who sinned against God and was shown mercy. Jesus never sinned that is the reason why our heavenly Father arranged these prophecies showing Jesus as the perfect spotless sacrifice to redeem mankind of sin and condemnation. Jesus was the one assigned by promise to become an adopted father, counselor, and prince of peace of mankind, as mentioned in Isaiah. The question is: Why adopted parents attain children? Isn’t it because these children were abandoned by negligence of their parents? How about mankind? Was mankind abandoned by our first biological parents from eternal life? Who was there to save us from condemnation from our first parents’ negligence? Did they know the consequences of disobeying God? Of course! Jesus acted as an adopted earthly figurative father not our heavenly Father; as Jesus himself referred to be good only his Father in heavens. That is why Jesus said about himself that he was the truth, the way, and the Life. Because, Jesus knew his position as mediator before our Heavenly Father, our creator. ….Jesus was mighty not Almighty like his Father. Jesus never claimed to be our creator or God but his Father only. Jesus had the qualities and attributes of a good earthly figurative father. Imagine a pre-arranged marriage in ancient times-why the woman has to fulfill her father’s will so that her father’s reputation is spotless and honored. Imagine God’s name and reputation? When Paul referred the words of Psalms 2:7 and Acts 13:33 were virtually to prove the parallel between David and Jesus. Jesus came from David’s lineage (royals blood) exactly as God promised as a prophecy. Even though, David was an imperfect human, Jesus proved to be the Messiah coming from the stock of David as a perfect human through a spotless woman (virgin) called Mary. Jesus was obedient and a faithful witness of his Father. Jesus was the last sign that the Father gave to mankind. Jesus’ resurrection was another promise that God gave to our ancestors in terms of faith as predicted in Psalms, so that people in their time and our time believe that eternal life is possible through Jesus’ resurrection. I would like to add something regarding heavenly spirits so -called angels. These also were created with conditional immortality because just like Satan is destined to destruction because he sinned against the Holy Spirit. The same with angels serving God in their own capacity and the son of God Jesus who now is at the right side of our heavenly father serving God in his own capacity. Jesus said whoever does my Father’s will never die. This means whoever does not do the Father’s will is doomed to perish. On Genesis 6:1-3, angels are called sons of God, and also in Job 1: 6 and Job 2:1 Satan was coming along with them. However, Satan was called by his name. Now, Satan is bound to be destroyed because his was created with conditional immortality not absolute immortality…..why? Spirits are subject to live by means of staying in the truth and obeying our Father’s will. Jesus called Satan, the son of perdition! The son of whom? He used to be a son of God. But he rejected that privilege to be called the son of God. Because nobody including invisible spirits is able to substantiate or subsist with Life on their own, they need God. Just as we need oxygen and blood in our bodies to subsist. The Father is the only source of Life through his son Jesus Christ but this arrangement is done directly by the Father, the source of celestial lights and power. It’s really interesting knowing about this, I give more details and explanations about this connotation in my book of the coexistence of mortals and immortals. Nonetheless, humans which have different nature than heavenly spirits also have conditional eternal life in which is subjective to subsist as it was in the Garden of Eden. There were two types of trees: The tree of knowledge and the tree of Life. If they would’ve stopped eating from the tree of life, they would’ve die as stated in Genesis 3:22 therein. Humans were created with eternal spirits that is why when we die, the spirit goes back to God – the source of life. We were placed on this earth to learn how to love and grow in love in order to have access to our heavenly Father who is love by nature. Jesus learned how to love unconditionally, that is why he is at the right of God. Jesus had a previous relationship with his father, that meant when he came to earth not only he solidified the love for his father but also commanded his followers to do so as setting the main example as leading king of God’s kingdom. I am here to find enlightment and insight to learn how to love more not to disagree or agree. Love will show us everything we need to know about the Father’s purposes and wisdom!

    Wally Folgar,

  

Leave a Reply