Print Page | Add To Favorites | Close Window | Send To A Friend | Save This Page
FAQ # 203
QUESTION 203 : Does
'the Son' mean 'the flesh' of Jesus of Nazareth? (bible.ca)
Because of “the divine nature speaks to the fleshly
nature” sayings, by teachers explaining the conversations Jesus had
with the father, it is only logical to conclude that the Son means the
flesh of Christ. However, let me explain what is meant by the explanation
and who is the Son. But first, here is someone who astutely disagrees
with some Apostolics’ language, failing to realize that “as our own thoughts
respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting him is absurd:”
If we bifurcate [Divide] Jesus
into His two component parts of Deity and humanity, and then demand that
the humanity as such be worshipped, how can we escape the charge of idolatry?
Simply, are you different from you? The flesh is you, yet the spirit (soul)
is you, but flesh will fade and spirit (soul) remains. A fact that cannot
be apologize by a woman and a dress, or man getting into a vehicle. The “bifurcate” that is alleged is the exact
thing that takes place in every human, flesh versus spirit. With Christ
it’s the opposite and an example for us that our spirits, once regenerated
should be in harmony with the flesh; in that the flesh is now ruled by
the spirit (Matthew 26:39).
Secondly, where were we demanded to worship humanity? The scripture tells
us, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit
and in truth (John 4:24). In other words, when you worship Jesus, you
are worshipping the spirit, GOD. The flesh only exists because of the
spirit, so he could have said which is an example to us, “Most assuredly,
I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the
Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner"
(John 5:19). Much like how your flesh cannot move except you will it to
move. What willed it to move is your mind which is connected to your spirit
(soul).
Good points. For instance, he rightly said, “The flesh
only exists because of the spirit.” Exactly, we are living human beings
not because of the flesh only, but because that flesh is willed by our
spirits (souls). That is what we are trying to say; the spirit that was
in Jesus' flesh is God the Father. The flesh alone is not human (it makes
us human), but rather the composite of Spirit and Flesh is human. If God
the father were to take upon himself a human form, he would still be God
the father (Spirit) in flesh; all we would see is flesh. That is what
happened with Jesus Christ. Since the flesh distinguished his appearance
(being born), he is called the “Son of God” and the "Son
of Man," epitomize by the virgin birth; Son referring to the incarnation.
He’s God coming to earth as a man. This was a mystery, but after Pentecost,
clearly understood by all his followers; until the second century, when
the logos Christology teachings was brought in by the philosophers and
bred the trinity.
The opposition to gaining this understanding is that
while God the father was in flesh as Jesus, he seemingly spoke to someone
else called father; and by logics that would show a clear separate divine
being from himself. They are several reasons for this, most fully explained
in FAQ number 168. One of the foremost reasons is for us to understand
the mystery and sacrifice God made in coming to redeem man. This is fully
explained in Chapter 7 (Jesus?), under the section “‘Father’ and ’Son’”
– go there again and see why. When it is said the flesh commune with the
spirit, it is not saying the flesh, which has a life and intelligence
of its own commune with its spirit that has a separate life and intelligence
of its own; that’s ludicrous. But rather, it was pointing to the mystery
of why God became a man. I could also back this theology greatly by saying
that it is similar to how we commune with our self and it is perfectly
normal (Eph 5:19). Why then can’t God use soliloquies to teach us?
Or, in another sense, notice that the same Holy Spirit can be speaking
to 1000 different persons with 1000 different things at the same time,
yet the Holy Spirit is One being. As the “Son of God,” all the Father
was trying to do is mirrored in this quote, “his
desire to see all men and women know life as He intended it is so strong
that he has tried again and again throughout the history of man to redirect
us into His predestined path. The life,
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is His final attempt” (In Pursuit
of Purpose, Dr. Myles Munroe).
Also, this verse sums it up, "Inasmuch then as
the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared
in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power
of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Hebrews 2:14-15). In
other words, Jesus Christ is simply God the father in flesh. It clearly
stated that: “Inasmuch then as the children [WE] have partaken
of flesh and blood [ARE HUMANS], He [GOD THE FATHER OF US],
himself likewise shared in the same, [BECOME HUMAN]”. It can’t
get any plainer than that - God incarnate.
God took on the challenge and enfleshed himself, or
become human, not only to prove that he can be victorious over it, but
also to free us who are unable to overcome it. That’s why the scripture
taught us, “we have not an high priest [CHRIST] which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted
like as we are” (Heb 4:15). That’s why he prayed, he orated what the flesh
was pulling on – “not my will,” “glorify me from” this fallen Adamic flesh;
something we need glorification from. That’s why he fed, he knew what
it means to be hungry. That’s why he forgives sins, he knew what it meant
to have devils tempting and tormenting. That’s why he came, that’s why
he paid the price, that’s why he redeemed us where the Law or our own
efforts couldn’t. No wonder they call him the savior. He had always sent
saviors (Neh 9:27) but they couldn’t do what he could. So he finally came
himself and knew what it meant to be in an fallen Adamic flesh surrounded
by devils. He finally could be touched by what we felt and thus wiped
our slate clean, “forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke
23:34).
Part 2
In addition to the above, Pastor Douglas Joseph brought a very serious
point to the forefront and further confirms that the Apostolic Orthodoxy
is correct as against the Trinitarian Orthodoxy. He wrote:
“Key to an understanding of crucial differences between
Oneness theology and Trinitarian theology is an examination of various
concepts of distinction and consequent uses of words like distinction,
relationship, and similar terms.
Often Trinitarian authors seek to deny Oneness proponents
the freedom to observe any distinction between the Deity manifested in
Jesus Christ and His humanity. Examples are found in The Gospel According
to Oneness Pentecostalism by Mike Barden (self-published via the Internet)
and Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory A. Boyd (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1992). Barden alleges of Oneness:
“Any relationship between the Father and the Son is
between Jesus' deity and Jesus' humanity (in other words, when Jesus prays,
He's really talking to Himself). Otherwise, there is no real distinction
or relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because
‘God is one’; any personal relationship between these ‘modes’ of God is
not real, but only apparent.”
Such attacks are arguments against a straw man. Oneness
proponents do not hold that there can be no distinction observed between
the Deity manifested in Jesus Christ and His humanity. Rather, as stated
by UPCI author David Bernard (in An Answer to a Critic, a review of Gregory
Boyd’s above mentioned work), “a distinction between the Father and the
Son (not of eternal personhood, but relative to the Incarnation) is at
the very core of Oneness theology.” The scriptural distinction between
the Father and the Son is held by Oneness believers as obvious and very
real (not “faked” or “apparent”).
The distinction denied by Oneness adherents is the
Trinitarian concept that seeks to intellectually separate one divine nature
(or one divine being) into three distinct divine beings, or three centers
of divine consciousness. Orthodox Trinitarianism sets forth that there
are three eternal—and eternally distinct—persons, and that the role, rank
and power of deity is ascribed to each. Oneness believers find fundamental
incongruity between true monotheism (God is one, having a basic essence
that is indivisible) and orthodox Trinitarian theology.
The Oneness view sees 1) the Father as the eternal
God, and 2) the Son is Deity only because He is indwelt by the Father
(the Son is the Father incarnated in flesh). The Son is Deity, but not
because He possesses some second or third divine nature that is distinct
from the Father.
Orthodox Trinitarianism—having both the Son and the
Holy Spirit as persons eternally distinct from the Father, and each eternally
possessing their own divine nature, and their divine natures being eternally
distinct from the Father—postulates (whether deliberately or ancillary)
1) the Father as an eternal God, 2) the Son as an eternal God, and 3)
the Holy Spirit as an eternal God. The Son possesses both human nature
and divine nature, and His divinity is supposedly distinct from the Father.
A major flaw is present in Trinitarianism: Accepted
are three distinct, divine natures, among which one distinguishes based
on which distinct person is in possession of his own particular divine
nature.
When writing in defense of their own stance, Trinitarians
accept that a pre-existing divine person and His own human manifestation
can be viewed as one person. I.E. The divine Son (“God the Son”), who
supposedly pre-existed the human Son, was incarnated in the human Son,
and yet there was only one Son. Yet when attacking the Oneness, Trinitarians
do not allow for the fact that a divine person and His own human manifestation
can be viewed as one person. I.E. The Father, who pre-existed the human
Son, was incarnated in the human Son, and yet there was only one person:
Jesus Christ.
To avoid their serious inconsistency, Trinitarians
should either grant to both sides the latitude to view a pre-existing
divine person and His own human manifestation as one person, or concede
that neither side can make such a claim.
If such a claim is not sound, then the Trinity is not
three distinct persons, but four: God the Father, God the Son, God the
Holy Spirit, and the human Son, who must be viewed as a person distinct
from God the Son.
If such a claim is sound, then Trinitarians must admit
that the Oneness position—that God the Father and His own fleshly manifestation
are to be viewed as one person—is a plausible doctrine. The only remaining
question is: Who was incarnated in the Son at the Incarnation? Was the
Son manifested in the Son? Or was the Father manifested in the Son? The
scriptures clearly reveal that God the Father was manifested in the Son.
The easiest way for Trinitarians to understand how
Oneness adherents view the Godhead (and the distinction between the Father
and the Son), is for them to try to grasp how Trinitarians contend that
the (so-called) “God the Son” and Jesus Christ (the man) are viewed as
one person instead of two. It is then but a simple step for a Trinitarian
to realize he or she has been viewing the Incarnation incorrectly—as a
divine Son incarnated in a human Son, instead of the divine Father incarnated
in the human Son.”
{Source: Pastor Douglas Joseph}
Answer
Notes: 1. One verse reads, "To
him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also
overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne" (Revelation 3:21).
Another reads, "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments,
and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess
his name before My Father and before His angels" (Revelation 3:5).
Who is the Speaker? "One like the Son of Man"...who is God:
The "first and the last": 'Do not be afraid; I am the First
and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive
forevermore. Amen" (Revelation 1:17-18). And the Speaker promises
to confess our names before His Father. So how can 'the Son' be 'the
flesh,' when we realize the "first and last" promises to confess
our names before "My Father?" The theory fails. We are not
saying the humanity (fleshly existence) alone is the son, but also a role
– Mediator and high Priest. This exemplary role extends from the humanity
of Jesus into the “Lamb of God” that is seated at “the right hand of God”
(metaphorical analogy), until all who are to be saved is saved; then the
function or role of the son is ceased, because “when that which is perfect
is come, then that which is in part shall be done away” (1 Cor 12:10).
No more Mediator is needed when the mediation has ended or you could say,
no more doctor is needed when you are healed and cannot get sick again.
He would now be back into his first role as God the father, we would acknowledge
him as such – the one and only being that is God – because “we shall see
him as he is” (1 John 3:2).
Go to top of Page | Get the Book | Buy it here or here or here or here | More FAQ's