Jesus as the Servant

[MH84]

I have been looking at the Acts of the Apostles lately, and I just wanted add a comment again to this post.

You are looking at Acts 4 like a Fundamentalist, not like a mature and rational person. **The passage in Acts 4 that you site is not a video-taped documentary of the historical event, but rather an account of the event as presented by the author of Acts (St. Luke), who was a) a Gentile who wasn’t personally there and b) writing a theological work (the Acts narrative) which merely draws from history and uses history as a basis to communicate theological truths, but which does not seek to meticulously document every facet of the historical event in question. **

When you used the point that St. Luke personally “wasnt there”, to explain the difficulty I had with Jesus being referred sometimes both publically and privately amongst the early Christians as a Servant/servant (depending on translation), I dont think is satisfactory. I say this because Luke not being a witness to a lot of the events doesnt mean that he was less inspired when he wrote the book does it? And the bible is inerrant. Anyway he would have learnt a great deal from Paul and Barnabas and others, and he was very capable in learning considering that he was a physician.

But I think a far more important point which I think can answer point “a)” can be found in the Gospels. We see many times where the authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) include in their texts sayings and actions of Jesus that they would have probably had no opportunity to be witnesses in person. Why would the authors have contributed these occurrences if they were not true:

Some examples
a) The angel Gabriel appearing to Mary
b) The child Jesus in the Temple
c) Jesus praying in the garden of Gethsamane (The apostles were sleeping and not near Jesus)

For point b): A point I want to raise is that why did Luke record the prayer in Acts 4 and particularly, why did he decide to use those words that I was talking about then? If you think that the wording is basically no big deal (which is what I sense), why did Luke add in the word “servant” here:

Acts 4:
28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

www.biblegateway.com

I mean why did Luke even bother including “servant” here. Why didnt he just say Son? Remember, that this is a private prayer in which Peter and John were present? I have also noted that Luke called the disciples “servants” in the same prayer (see v. 29
In other words, what you are reading in Acts 4 is not a documentary of what literally took place in some “private meeting” among the Apostles. Rather, what you are reading is St. Luke’s theological rendition of what took place, which is designed for the benefit of PUBLIC reading by his intended audience (a certain “Theophilus”/“God-lover” - see Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1), who was apparently still learning about the Apostolic Faith and desirous of receiving a theological overview of all that Christ and the Apostles did.

We do not know what was said literally and historically at this private meeting. Rather, all we have is Luke’s theological rendition of it, which gives us the gist of it and focuses on a particular theological point, namely, that the Apostles were pleased to become suffering servants, even as their Lord Jesus was God’s suffering Servant.

Why would theological truth exclude historical truth? How do you know for sure that Luke was merely paraphrasing/summarising the words/actions of the early church? Why would Luke bother including less important (?) events such as the prayer in Acts 4 if it was not said? Why didnt Luke just included what he knew and just say that the apostles prayed to God for strength and to thank Him etc?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1. I was reading parts of Acts last night and I came across the verses where Jesus is referred to as God’s servant. I have to admit I’m still not comfortable with reading those verses, because I tend to think: what if the apostles thought that Jesus was merely a servant of God, although still mankind’s saviour. Any way, in regards to the following verses:

Acts 4:23-31 (NKJB)

As you can see, Peter and John were released from the Sanhedrin after they were arrested after teaching the people about the “doctrine of the resurrection”. Then they go to the community and pray.

Let’s assume that the apostles were referring to Jesus being the mysterious suffering Servant of Isaiah (Acts 3:13) and the prophet who was destined to arrive after Moses (Acts 7:37) to explain to the Jews that Jesus is the fufillment of the prophecies of old. Now this is what I don’t understand. Why is it when Peter, John and the community (presumably all believers of Jesus) pray, they still refer to Jesus as God’s holy Servant? Do you know what I mean?

It is one thing to preach that Jesus is the Servant to others who don’t know or didn’t belive Jesus. But now, John and Peter all already know that Jesus is the Christ and the Annointed One, and presumably God the Son, but they still refer to Him as “Servant”.

1. Btw I also what to point out that several times in the D-R bible and KJB, the word "child" is used instead of "servant". Which is the right translation, because I understand that in the Greek(?), child and servant share the same word?

I think the word is likely servant.

Isaiah 53
1Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall **my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. **

12Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The suffering servant is based on all of Isaiah 53. Basically, in the context of Acts, Jesus is viewed as God the Father’s servant. In the gospels, Jesus says to his Father, “no my will, but your will be done”. Phil 2 teaches us that the Son of God came to earth as a servant, one being obedient to God the Father. In the epistles we are servants of Jesus because we are obedient to him.
Basically, Jesus became the servant of all out of obedience to God the Father. We follow his example of obedience in our lives.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Acts 3:13
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

Acts 4:27
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.

Acts 4:30
Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."

Acts 26:16
" ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.

Romans 1:1
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God—

2 Corinthians 4:5
For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:

Colossians 4:12
Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured.

Titus 1:1
Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness—

James 1:1
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Jude 1:1
Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:
**
In short, when looking at verses where words like obedient, servant, etc., are used we need to look at whom is obeying whoose will. Jesus obeys the will of his Father, we obey the will of both the Father and of Jesus. **

2 Corinthians 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Philippians 2:8
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Titus 3:1
Doing What is Good ] Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,

1 Peter 1:14
As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In short, Jesus is a servant because he followed his Father’s will. We are servants of Jesus because we follow his will.

Matthew 26:42
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

John 5:19-23 (New International Version)

19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Basically, the gospels in general use the word “God” to refer to the Father, expect in verses like John 1:1c where it is saying that the Logos is God by nature – “the Logos was God”.

Jesus was shown, made perfect through obedience and suffering,

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From what I’ve read, it seems that you are open to the idea that “the apostles and early Christians saw Jesus as being the annoited ruler or prince of the nations; the new David. Not neccessarily God the Son.”

I want to say again, that I think that the argument holds up that early on the apostles preached the fufillment of the Suffering Servant. But then why did they in private still refer to Jesus as servant.

If they were doing so in this passage, that would reflect one way of understanding Psalm 2 - which is quoted here - as a Christological psalm. If they meant “son”, that would be equally appropriate.​

The questions are whether:

• pais means “son” - as ben in the Psalm does
• they are understanding Isaiah 53 as fulfilled in Ps. 2
• " " " Ps. 2 as being fulfilled in Isaiah 53
• we have here a Lucan construction
  ISTM that Luke is presenting the Church in Jerusalem as saying that Jesus is the Davidic King of Psalm 2, who is addressed as “son” by God; & that he is making the further point, in the light of what has happened, that Jesus is also the Servant of Isaiah 53: that His Kingship is revealed on the Cross.

Until Jesus, the conceptions of the Servant, & of the suffering & dying Messiah, & of the Davidic King, had been kept apart. Jesus re-interprets these conceptions, & sees them as fused together in & verified in Himself.

So there is no choice of meanings - to be true to the sense of the text, we have to take both meanings of pais together, and not separate them; because there is no reason to think that Luke or the Jerusalem Church separated them, & plenty of reason to think they kept them unseparated.

From what I have seen that phrase has either been interpreted servant of God or child of God. So basically we are not sure of what the phrase means? This is a big thing in my book, because if the apostles did not think that was equal to God, how did the Church come to that conclusion?

The word means both - not one or other. This is inconvenient in English - it affects our understanding of Luke’s meaning; not what he meant, nor what they meant. For pais is a Greek word - not an English word ​

As for the deity of Christ:

• did the Apostles conceptualise it in that way ?
• Did Luke do so ?
• is it being stated in that passage ?
• The Jerusalem Church does not preach that He was God - it does proclaim Him as risen & as Lord.
  They may have thought at this stage that He was the Son of Man of 1 Enoch, who is a heavenly being; he is not God, but is His servant, albeit one who is more excellent than the angels (Cf. Hebrews on this point). Luke, writing later than the events here described, may have held a higher Christology - one in which Jesus is not less than of Divine status (even though we are a long time away from the precise dogmatic formulae of the councils).

Jesus was believed to be of fully Divine status by the composers of some of the NT documents at least - whether this belief was held, & how it was articulated, in the years just after the Resurrection, in the Jerusalem Church, are two different questions.

That doesnt explain why in private, they still called Him “servant”. It’s one thing to use the reference when preaching, but why in private when you already ‘know’ who Jesus is.

For the reasons given, it’s hard to say what they knew. Sketching in some of the details of what they may have thought is relatively straightforward - it’s a question of the history of ideas; unfortunately for the purposes of dogma, it cannot give the degree of certainty dogma requires.​

 

[MH84]

…The Jerusalem Church does not preach that He was God - it does proclaim Him as risen & as Lord.

They may have thought at this stage that He was the Son of Man of 1 Enoch, who is a heavenly being; he is not God, but is His servant, albeit one who is more excellent than the angels (Cf. Hebrews on this point). Luke, writing later than the events here described, may have held a higher Christology - one in which Jesus is not less than of Divine status (even though we are a long time away from the precise dogmatic formulae of the councils).

Jesus was believed to be of fully Divine status by the composers of some of the NT documents at least - whether this belief was held, & how it was articulated, in the years just after the Resurrection, in the Jerusalem Church, are two different questions…

For the reasons given, it’s hard to say what they knew…

I want to express that I think this is a very honest opinion here and a sober one; and it makes a lot of sense to me. I too have no reason not to believe that the Apostles/early Christians viewed Jesus as being higher than the angels and as the risen Lord.

I want to make it clear here that I am not debating the fact that the Church declared officially in the 3rd and 4th centuries that Jesus is God and of one substance with Him. However, when I read the bible I do not see the same level of high Christology about Jesus that was later developed and expressed by the Church. Again, I am not saying that the Church is/was wrong, but I feel that it should be admitted that the Apostles didnt think of Jesus and God in the same way that we now do.

IMO, if you look at the bible alone there are just too many texts where the early Christians claim that although Jesus is Lord and Christ and He is the Only Son of God, that He is not equal to the Father. I am saying in other words, that unless one starts to wrench the scriptures according to what he wants to hear, there is not much evidence to say that the Apostles ever believed that God was a Triune God.

There are some verses which seem to back this up:

• In Acts 2, Peter declared Jesus was made both Lord and Christ (Daniel has provided some explanations on this in another thread)
• Acts 3:13, 4:27 etc: Jesus is mentioned more as a Servant than as God
• What about 1 Corinthians 15 -

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
www.biblegateway.com

1 Corinthians 11
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and **the head of Christ is God. **

Whenever the letters of the New Testament talk about Jesus being a man eg. man sent from God, they never clarify that Jesus is God.

Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Never do the Apostles say to the Jews that their previous concept of God is false, that now they need to consider that Jesus is part of the Godhead.

Although, Jesus is referred to as Son of God, only real mediator between God and man, Lord, Master, that doesnt necessarily mean they thought Jesus was God at the time.

How come the apostles were surprised that Jesus rose from the dead if they knew he was God?

On the road to Emmaus, the disciples called Jesus a prophet only. :

18One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19"What things?" he asked. ** “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.**

Without the development and reflection later by the Church, there is not much evidence ro believe that anyone knew who Jesus really was, or for that matter that God is Triune. Youd think the bible would mention it at least once.

Although, the prologue of John does offer some powerful words. But even the meaning of “…and the Word was God” is even debatable.

 

[jcrichton]

I want to express that I think this is a very honest opinion here and a sober one; and it makes a lot of sense to me. I too have no reason not to believe that the Apostles/early Christians viewed Jesus as being higher than the angels and as the risen Lord.

However, when I read the bible I do not see the same level of high Christology about Jesus that was later developed and expressed by the Church. but I feel that it should be admitted that the Apostles didnt think of Jesus and God in the same way that we now do.

IMO, if you look at the bible alone there are just too many texts where the early Christians claim that although Jesus is Lord and Christ and He is the Only Son of God, that He is not equal to the Father. I am saying in other words, that unless one starts to wrench the scriptures according to what he wants to hear, there is not much evidence to say that the Apostles ever believed that God was a Triune God.

There are some verses which seem to back this up:

• In Acts 2, Peter declared Jesus was made both Lord and Christ (Daniel has provided some explanations on this in another thread)
• Acts 3:13, 4:27 etc: Jesus is mentioned more as a Servant than as God
• What about 1 Corinthians 15 -
  1 Corinthians 11
  2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
  3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and **the head of Christ is God. **
  Whenever the letters of the New Testament talk about Jesus being a man eg. man sent from God, they never clarify that Jesus is God.
  Never do the Apostles say to the Jews that their previous concept of God is false, that now they need to consider that Jesus is part of the Godhead.
  Although, Jesus is referred to as Son of God, only real mediator between God and man, Lord, Master, that doesnt necessarily mean they thought Jesus was God at the time.
  How come the apostles were surprised that Jesus rose from the dead if they knew he was God?
  On the road to Emmaus, the disciples called Jesus a prophet only. :
  Without the development and reflection later by the Church, there is not much evidence ro believe that anyone knew who Jesus really was, or for that matter that God is Triune. Youd think the bible would mention it at least once.
  Although, the prologue of John does offer some powerful words. But even the meaning of “…and the Word was God” is even debatable.

***Hi, MH!

…you completely lost me… first I thought you were having a problem with language… all the while introducing an earthly kingdom theology (Jehovah Witnesses) and finally you went all out suggesting and then stating that there’s no clear “Bible alone” theology that Christ is God… :whacky:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God! Confusing, isn’t it?

In the Old Testament we find Yahweh very adamant about not sharing His Power with anyone; He is the Only God… Then comes Jesus, introduced to the world as the Immanuel, which fulfills the ancient prophecy (Yahweh dwell among His people).

While you struggle to believe John tells you that the Word, the Immanuel, became flesh and that He came to His own (because the Word Created everything that exists) and He was rejected so He gave the Power to become children of God to all who believed in Him… (believe in Yeshua, not Yahweh)

…and you still struggle to believe while Jesus tells you “I and the Father are One” and "do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? And His disciples tell Him: “now we know that you know everything,” and “You are the Son of God.” What about the religious elite? “We do not want to kill you for no reason, but because you blaspheme against God, for you call yourself the Son of God,” and “you make yourself equal to God;” further, “no one can forgive sins but God.”

There are more passages that state that Jesus is God:

Paul: “for I’ve not receive the Gospel by human means, but it was Christ Himself…”

Paul?: “for he did not deem to equal Himself to God and obeyed to the death (Servant) and death on a cross”

Still another?: “for he emptied Himself of His Divinity…”

I am rushing this post… so please forgive the lack of Scriptural references; if you would like, please let me know and I’ll post them for you.

Here’s one to mull over (and don’t fall for that stupid trick of translation/language/solid caps vs only first letter…): if Yahweh is so headstrong about sharing His Power/Glory why is it that the Old Testament, almost exclusively calls Yahweh Lord and the New Testament applies Lord almost exclusively to Christ (specially when Paul states that there is only One Lord: Christ!)?

Maran atha!

Angel ***

 

[MH84]

…you completely lost me… first I thought you were having a problem with language… all the while introducing an earthly kingdom theology (Jehovah Witnesses) and finally you went all out suggesting and then stating that there’s no clear “Bible alone” theology that Christ is God…

I dont no where you think I believe in the “earthly kingdom theology” of the Jehovah’s W’s? I hardly know what that belief means. I still (currently) stand by that fact that the Trinitarian doctrine is not clearly stated in the bible alone. That’s well known. The Church has declared the doctrine repeatedly and explicitly by using scripture and Tradition. The Church Fathers were much more smarter than me. But please don’t start being condenscending by quoting John 1:1 and saying that Jesus is God like its so obvious purely by reading the Bible, because its not. Christadelphians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arians, Muslims, some Protestants and even some uninformed Catholics and so forth have had different opinions.

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God! Confusing, isn’t it?

Just by using that quote alone, like you have, how do we know that although Jesus has been appointed or made God over us, he is actually of the same substance as the Father. I’ll leave it to the Church to define it, not by reading the Bible alone. But I would still like answers to the bible questions that I don have because scripture and truth are not contradictory.

In the Old Testament we find Yahweh very adamant about not sharing His Power with anyone; He is the Only God… Then comes Jesus, introduced to the world as the Immanuel, which fulfills the ancient prophecy (Yahweh dwell among His people).

Again, using the Bible alone, how do we know that it wasnt God in Jesus. Also, what about Genesis 3:8 "

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day

: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. The Israelites believed that God previously “walked” among us.

While you struggle to believe John tells you that the Word, the Immanuel, became flesh and that He came to His own (because the Word Created everything that exists) and He was rejected so He gave the Power to become children of God to all who believed in Him… (believe in Yeshua, not Yahweh)
…and you still struggle to believe while Jesus tells you “I and the Father are One” and "do you not believe that I am in the Father and that the Father is in me? And His disciples tell Him: “now we know that you know everything,” and “You are the Son of God.” What about the religious elite? “We do not want to kill you for no reason, but because you blaspheme against God, for you call yourself the Son of God,” and “you make yourself equal to God;” further, “no one can forgive sins but God.”

Using the bible alone, how do we know that “I and the Father are One” is not a way of saying that They are one in purpose, not of substance (therefore the Son would be subordinate)?

There are more passages that state that Jesus is God:
Paul: “for I’ve not receive the Gospel by human means, but it was Christ Himself…”
Paul?: “for he did not deem to equal Himself to God and obeyed to the death (Servant) and death on a cross”
Still another?: “for he emptied Himself of His Divinity…”

The last quote seems to be in conflict with Catholic doctrine. What I mean is that its impossible for the Son to give up His divinity. Therefore while He was man, He was always fully God as well. So how could He empty Himself of His divinity

I am rushing this post… so please forgive the lack of Scriptural references; if you would like, please let me know and I’ll post them for you.

I would have heard most of them by now. But the problem is, if the scriptures are that clear why are there so many interpretations, of the same verses in some cases.

CONT.

 

[MH84]

Here’s one to mull over (and don’t fall for that stupid trick of translation/language/solid caps vs only first letter…): if Yahweh is so headstrong about sharing His Power/Glory why is it that the Old Testament, almost exclusively calls Yahweh Lord and the New Testament applies Lord almost exclusively to Christ (specially when Paul states that there is only One Lord: Christ!)?

Explain this then: Why did St. Peter say Jesus was “made” both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). If “Lord” always equals “God” how do we explain this, because its impossible for God to be made God.

Finally please answer these questions directly if you can, not round about, which seems to often happen due to the complexity of the subject:

1. What does St. Paul mean that Jesus will be subject to God in these verses?:

1 Corinithians 15
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] **Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. **

1. I have asked this before but would like more opinions. Can you address the queries I had posted about Acts 4:23-31 in Posts #1 and #21? Why was Jesus still called a “Servant” privately (when they really knew Jesus was God) by the early apostles even after His Ascension into glory? I mean I don’t call Jesus servant now. Please refer to the other posts (1 and 21) for more detail.

Thanks

Quotes taken from www.biblegateway.com

 

[jcrichton]

…“earthly kingdom theology”…
***Hi, MH!

This theology teaches that Jesus is not God but some type of angel/demigod who is created for the purpose of bringing about an earthly kingdom. I gathered from your posts that you were supportive of such notion–it seems that I misunderstood your position.

I still (currently) stand by that fact that the Trinitarian doctrine is not clearly stated in the bible alone. That’s well known. The Church has declared the doctrine repeatedly and explicitly by using scripture and Tradition. The Church Fathers were much more smarter than me.

 

[jcrichton]

Explain this then: Why did St. Peter say Jesus was “made” both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). If “Lord” always equals “God” how do we explain this, because its impossible for God to be made God.

***Hi, MH!

… did you notice the tone, audience, message? …here’s Peter talking to Israel, a nation that has this exceptional fellowship with the Only God and Creator of the universe, and this Galilean has the unenvious task of bringing them the Good News: an announcement that declares that Yahweh’s Salvific Plan comes into effect through the Immanuel. How else to express it if not that God has appointed Jesus the Lord and Messiah?

If this passage is taken alone, without the benefit of the Church’s guidance and without the support of the rest of the Holy Scriptues, individual interpretations will become chaotic as the various views surface from human intellect.

Finally please answer these questions directly if you can, not round about, which seems to often happen due to the complexity of the subject:

1. What does St. Paul mean that Jesus will be subject to God in these verses?:
   1 Corinithians 15:24-28
   24Then the end will come… then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[MH84]

Jchricton, Im going to quote different parts of your posts and possibly not in order either. Hopefully I won’t take your words out of context.

Jchricton: This theology teaches that Jesus is not God but some type of angel/demigod who is created for the purpose of bringing about an earthly kingdom. I gathered from your posts that you were supportive of such notion–it seems that I misunderstood your position.

I have to admit this past year I have had difficulties in my understanding of Jesus’ divinity and the concepts of the Trinity. This was fuelled largely from reading a Christadelphian book and also from posts here by JW’s, muslims etc. With God’s help I can overcome this.

Jchricton:…too many attempt to use Scriptures as their source for denying Jesus’ Divinity; as they contort Scriptures they arrive at interpretations that claim that Scriptures deny Jesus is God. Even as the Apostles were preaching the Gospel they had to contest the various heresies that were arising against Christ’s Divinity: 1 Jn 1:1-3; 2:22-23; 3:1-3; 4:8b; 3:23; 4:2-3; 4:9-10; 4:14-15; 5:1-5, 10-12; 20-21.

These quotes are actually very good. Sometimes when I read I may go over some of the text too fast. I only couldnt see the following being very apolegetical:

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

I can’t see why you included this

23And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

What does it mean to believe in the “name of Jesus”? Does it mean to believe Jesus or believe in Jesus?

Jchricton:I was paraphrasing Philippians 2:6-8; Jesus coming to the world as a human being does not negate the fact the He is God.

You used it as a proof to “state that Jesus is God”.

Jchricton:… did you notice the tone, audience, message? …here’s Peter talking to Israel, a nation that has this exceptional fellowship with the Only God and Creator of the universe, and this Galilean has the unenvious task of bringing them the Good News: an announcement that declares that Yahweh’s Salvific Plan comes into effect through the Immanuel.

I have thought about this as well. But when you think about it, we would be then saying that Peter had to compromise the truth; why would he do that? I mean the Jews weren’t going to like what he was going to say anyway. And also, when did the church expect to actually tell those who wanted to convert that the Messiah was also God in the flesh? They had to tell them sometime.

Jchricton:How else to express it if not that God has appointed Jesus the Lord and Messiah?

Well, if Peter was using “Lord” to mean “God” there is an obvious problem because obviously Jesus wasn’t made God. But he was “made” to be Messiah I suppose. So he could have just said that “Jesus was made to be Christ”. That’s all he should have said.

However, if Peter was using “Lord” to mean “ruler or king” then that opens up another problem. Because when people constantly refer to texts like in Luke:

Luke 1: 43 But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

What was meant by Elizabeth or Luke here? Is it also Lord (as in God)? If that’s the case, Peter 40 or 50 years later says that God made Jesus to be Lord. Or did Luke/Elizabeth mean Lord as in king? That means that it is highly probable that Mary and Elizabeth didnt know at the time that the child in Mary’s womb was God Himself. They probably “only” thought that the boy was the Messiah of Israel.

I also want to note that the next verses it says:
44 For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. 45 Blessed is she who believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Which Lord is Elizabeth talking about here? I think it would be God the Father. Or was it Jesus? Both God the Father and Jesus are called Lord here, which is good from a Catholic point of view.

Jchricton: …munch on this: was Jesus ever a fisherman?.. why did the persecuted Church use the depiction of a fish to indicate that Christians were present in the immediate environment? The symbol of the fish came to mean that Christ was in their presence! So too “Servant of God” denotes an acquaintance with Jesus the Man of Galilee and not just Jesus the Word Incarnate.

Thats an interesting point.

CONT.

 

[MH84]

Jchricton:I cannot answer to your satisfaction…

Believe me you are not the only one, many have tried but go all round about the question or simply say that I am taking the bible too literally or whatever. I read some explanations like yours which make me feel better, but then I come across passages like the ones I mentioned previously, and I see what seem to be conflicting messages. For example, those verses you mentiond in the first letter of John are great. But then how does one deal with some of the difficult to understand verses that Paul and Luke wrote:

If someone can please answer them that would be great.

In Sunday’s readings, the second reading was from Acts. I think it was Acts 10:34-38.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— 37 that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

I personally don’t understand the meaning of vs 38. I seem to understand that Peter was saying that it was because God was with Jesus, that He went about doing good. Peter seemed to think that Jesus was only able to do good because God was with Him. But Jesus is God as well! He can’t help but be good. It’s like, (Im not saying it definately is the case) Peter is saying that if God (presumably the Father) was not with Jesus, He would not have been able to work miracles. Is that true? Was Jesus only able to work miracles because He was given the Holy Spirit? If this was the case, how do we reconcile the fact the Jesus was fully God?

Also, I have an old question that I wouldn’t mind having directly answered:

What does St. Paul mean that Jesus will be subject to God in these verses?:

1 Corinithians 15
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

I have a new question that I have wondered about for a while:

Why is it common for Christians to refer to the Persons of the Trinity as: “God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit”? It doesnt sound right to me. Its like saying “Nature, Person and Person” Shouldnt it be “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”? Because Father is who the First Person of the Trinity is. God is whatthe Father is.

I think I know why this is common (use of the term “God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit”): it’s because it is a biblically based term. For instance, St. Stephen sees Jesus standing at the right hand of God, (not the “Father”). Peter said that God (not the Father), made Jesus both Lord and Christ. In Acts 10:38, Peter says that God, not the Father, "anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. There are others.

Do you all get where Im coming from in all this?

I think that the Apostles weren’t exactly sure about how divine, so to speak, Jesus really was. God was considered the Father of Jesus, we know that. But who was Jesus to them, and therefore to us as well? I dare say that the apostles didnt know, except that he was their “Lord”. However, the Church now knows that Jesus is truly God, only begotten of the Father. You see also the wording is now different. God the Father is now known as the “Father” or “God the Father”, but in apostolic times, the Father was known as God, while Jesus was known as “Lord”.

Please offer some comments if you have any.

Bible quotes were from www.biblegateway.com

 

[ryanoneil]

Also, I have an old question that I wouldn’t mind having directly answered:

What does St. Paul mean that Jesus will be subject to God in these verses?:

1 Corinithians 15
24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

To better understand 15:25-27, I suggest you read (CCC 1042-50). In the last days Christ will triumph over his enemies and transfer his kingdom over to the father. We see this imagery in Psalm 8:6 and 110:1. Remember that man’s original vocation is to stand above all of creation as ruler and steward. Jesus ultimatedly fulfills this. He is the Messiah who is enthroned at God’s right hand and awaiting the subjection of his enemies. Christ assumed this role at his Ascension, where He reigns until all creation bows in homage and His final adversary, death, is defeated (CCC 668, 1008)

In verse 28 then, creation and even the incarnate Son will honor the Father as the Lord of all and the absolute Origin of all life. True and subsistent life consists in this: the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, pouring out his heavenly gifts on all things without exception.

Hope that helps, that’s all I could find.

Peace,

Ryan

 

[jcrichton]

Quote:

1 John 4:8… I can’t see why you included this

 

[jcrichton]

Jesus as the Servant

Well, if Peter was using “Lord” to mean “God” there is an obvious problem because obviously Jesus wasn’t made God. But he was “made” to be Messiah I suppose. So he could have just said that “Jesus was made to be Christ”. That’s all he should have said.

 

[jcrichton]

In Sunday’s readings, the second reading was from Acts. I think it was Acts 10:34-38.