Ruler of God?

[trumpet152]

1. Jesus is God.
2. Herod ruled over Jesus.
3. Herod was the ruler of God.

Obviously this doesn’t sound right. But what is the difference between saying this and mother of God? (Real question. I’m not a fundamentalist.)

 

[tee_eff_em]

trumpet152:

Obviously this doesn’t sound right. But what is the difference between saying this and mother of God? (Real question. I’m not a fundamentalist.)

I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong with saying that. But I think it does need two caveats:

1. As Jesus told Pilate: “You would have no authority over me had it not been given you from above” – Pilate (nor Herod) wasn’t particularly powerful or deserving, he was just the guy to whom lawful authority had fallen.
2. Jesus submitted himself to the law and the authorities. His choice, not theirs.

:twocents:
tee

 

[JimG]

I agree with tee. In his human nature, Jesus, who is God, voluntarily subjected himself to human rulers.

 

[scylla]

I am pretty sure an angel didn’t come to Herod and talk to him about ruling over Jesus. And no-one is quoted as saying how is it that the ruler of my Lord (Jesus) has come to see me? or something similar.

That is an interesting question, I have never heard that before. Now watch someone pick it up and we will see it on a Baptist board.

I think a relationship between a mother is vastly different from a political office, as he is just the guy appointed to that position. (as a previous poster pointed out)

God Bless
Scylla

 

[drforjc]

Applying the theological concept of communicatio idiomata, the statement would be acceptable.

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

Someone who freely allows someone to rule over himself is still the ruler. It’s just another method of getting someone to do what one wants him to do.

Jesus wanted to freely offer His Life for us and used Herod, Pilate, and the high priest as His instruments. They were willing instruments. He could have struck them dead at any time if He wanted to.