Another verse in the deity of Jesus debate
Because I have recently started another Bible-in-a-year devotional reading journey, in the NT I'm back to the Gospels, where today's chapters included this scene, found in Matthew 9.2-8... (emphasis added)
2 And just then some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 Then some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.” 7 And he stood up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Mt 9:2–8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
In his narration of the story of the paralytic's healing, Matthew makes a clear distinction between God and the human being Jesus to whom God had granted the authority to forgive sins.
That's my view of the text, of course. I will welcome your view, especially of the meaning of v.8.
Comments
-
Mt 9:2-8 is probably not a good passage to prove Christ's divinity.
“So Jesus said to them [the disciples] again, “Peace be with you. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you.” And after he said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”” (John 20:21–23)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Because I have recently started another Bible-in-a-year devotional reading journey, in the NT I'm back to the Gospels, where today's chapters included this scene, found in Matthew 9.2-8... (emphasis added)2 And just then some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 Then some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic—“Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.” 7 And he stood up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.
The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Mt 9:2–8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
In his narration of the story of the paralytic's healing, Matthew makes a clear distinction between God and the human being Jesus to whom God had granted the authority to forgive sins.
That's my view of the text, of course. I will welcome your view, especially of the meaning of v.8.
Poor work Bill.
This does not affirm that Jesus is not God. This affirms that he was also human, and that is what the crowds would have recognized at that point in time. Most had not realized he was God. This is not Matthew giving a declaration that Jesus is not God.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Poor work Bill.Drat! I SO wanted you to tell me I had done "good work," David. Now I fear that God will say to me, "Poorly done, poor and faithless servant." Needless to say, I'm crestfallen.
This does not affirm that Jesus is not God. This affirms that he was also human, and that is what the crowds would have recognized at that point in time. Most had not realized he was God. This is not Matthew giving a declaration that Jesus is not God.
However poor my work - and likely also my observation skills - I must note that the text gives NO indication that the scene declares something "also" true about Jesus' identity (e.g. that Jesus is "also human").
The text says the crowd glorified God, the one who had given "such authority to human beings." By using such language, the text clearly distinguishes between God and the human being recipients to whom God had given authority.
The issue then becomes, to what "authority" does Matthew 9.8 refer? In my view, the answer is found in Matthew 9.6, where Jesus says "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Putting the two verses together, it's clear, in my view, that Matthew believes Jesus is a recipient of authority from God. There is NO indication in the text that Matthew believes God has given authority to forgive to one who is human AND ALSO God.
Where IN THE TEXT, David, do you believe Matthew declares a belief that Jesus' humanity is an attribute IN ADDITION TO his deity? IN THE TEXT, isn't the most obvious meaning of Matthew 9.8 that Matthew believes Jesus is a human to whom God has given authority to forgive sins?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Poor work Bill.Drat! I SO wanted you to tell me I had done "good work," David. Now I fear that God will say to me, "Poorly done, poor and faithless servant." Needless to say, I'm crestfallen.
This does not affirm that Jesus is not God. This affirms that he was also human, and that is what the crowds would have recognized at that point in time. Most had not realized he was God. This is not Matthew giving a declaration that Jesus is not God.
However poor my work - and likely also my observation skills - I must note that the text gives NO indication that the scene declares something "also" true about Jesus' identity (e.g. that Jesus is "also human").
The text says the crowd glorified God, the one who had given "such authority to human beings." By using such language, the text clearly distinguishes between God and the human being recipients to whom God had given authority.
The issue then becomes, to what "authority" does Matthew 9.8 refer? In my view, the answer is found in Matthew 9.6, where Jesus says "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." Putting the two verses together, it's clear, in my view, that Matthew believes Jesus is a recipient of authority from God. There is NO indication in the text that Matthew believes God has given authority to forgive to one who is human AND ALSO God.
Where IN THE TEXT, David, do you believe Matthew declares a belief that Jesus' humanity is an attribute IN ADDITION TO his deity? IN THE TEXT, isn't the most obvious meaning of Matthew 9.8 that Matthew believes Jesus is a human to whom God has given authority to forgive sins?
Unlike you, I look at the Bible as a whole. You fail to recognize that the Bible in it's original form does not contradict itself. Therefore you must look at the whole when executing proper exegetical work on a passage.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Unlike you, I look at the Bible as a whole. You fail to recognize that the Bible in it's original form does not contradict itself. Therefore you must look at the whole when executing proper exegetical work on a passage.So does this mean that in your view, no other part of the Bible contradicts the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/diety, AND that the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' identity does not contradict the clear meaning of any other part of the Bible?
-
Contribution to the conversation: Truth found truth shared.
**Jesus' Ministry in Galilee (Second Passover, A.D. 29 - Third Passover, A.D. 30) **
Reading across the gospels: (Mark 2:1-12, Matt 9:2-8; Lk 5:17-26)
Context: Jesus teaches in Capernaum. People press into the location, preventing further entry. Therefore, the friends of a paralytic lower him through the roof. As Jesus speaks of the forgiveness of the man's sins, he perceives that the teachers are thinking blasphemy, for in their minds none but God can forgive sins. "This incident marks the first of Jesus' several controversies with the Jewish authorities during his Galilean ministry".The "Teachers of the Law" (Mark 2:6) that were sitting there were spies. Jesus addresses the question to them, in effect, "Which would you find easier, to forgive a man's sins or to heal him of paralysis?" The objective of the miracle is not left to doubt, for Jesus makes it plain, "that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." This miracle, like the healing of the paralytic at Bethseda (John 5:1-9) brands Jesus as a blasphemer (John 5:18). Jesus harmonizes the healing with the transformed life.
Miracles established the credibility of his divine mission and the truth of his message. Jesus first removes the cause of the disease and lays bare the need of the soul. "Jesus offered a miracle that all could see as evidence of the reality of a far greater miracle that they could not see (cf. Rom 1:12)".
Focus: Jesus uses a counter question in this and similar situations of conflict or debate, characteristic of his response, i. e. Mark 3:4; 11:30 and 12:37.
Results: The rulers compare themselves and their abilities with Jesus. Jesus confronts them with evidence of his Messiahship by the title he uses to address himself. As understood in Judaism, "Son of man" is one of the names for the Messianic ruler. The title establishes his claim as the incarnate Christ. Jesus' act is a culmination of his power to work the miracle, and his authority to forgive sins.
The biblical record states: "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." In full view of them all, the man does exactly that. Amazement and praise echo, "We have never seen anything like this!" (Mark 2:12). The man in need went away in joy; those steeped in self-satisfaction, pride and malice went away "dumb with amazement and overwhelmed with defeat". The spirit with which one approaches God correlates the outcome. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Contribution to the conversation: Truth found truth shared.CM, I see nothing in the commentary you quoted that engages the central reason for my reference to Matthew 9.8, a verse in which Matthew reports the crowd's praise of God as the one who gives to human beings the authority to forgive sins, authority Jesus had just leveraged in his healing of the man suffering from paralysis. I contend that the last verse in the passage makes a clear distinction between God and the "human beings" to whom God gives "such authority." I see nothing in the commentary you quoted that engages that issue, most likely because Matthew's version of the scene is the only one that references God's grant of authority to humans.
In your view, what "authority" is it that the crowd praises God for giving to human beings in Matthew 9.8? What "human being" recipient of that authority could Matthew be referring to in the verse other than Jesus, the one who exercised his "authority" to forgive sins in Matthew 9.6?
Isn't the simplest, most direct reading of the Matthew passage that the writer believes God is God and Jesus is the human being to whom God gave authority to forgive sins?
The spirit with which one approaches God correlates the outcome**. CM
The "spirit" with which I try to approach this and all Bible texts, is first to let the text speak for itself. When I do so, I come to the conclusion I have reported. I respect the fact that you may come to different conclusions.
-
Read wider and deeper. Pray for illumination. The Holy Spirit will enlighten you beyond human reason and self-imposed opinions. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Unlike you, I look at the Bible as a whole. You fail to recognize that the Bible in it's original form does not contradict itself. Therefore you must look at the whole when executing proper exegetical work on a passage.So does this mean that in your view, no other part of the Bible contradicts the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/diety, AND that the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' identity does not contradict the clear meaning of any other part of the Bible?
Yes.
-
@C_M_ said:
Read wider and deeper. Pray for illumination. The Holy Spirit will enlighten you beyond human reason and self-imposed opinions. CMThanks for the counsel to "read wider and deeper," CM, but such advice doesn't help me understand how you read the Matthew text, specifically v.8 in its context at the end of the chapter nine passage. I hope you will be willing to return to the questions I posed to you in my previous post.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
So does this mean that in your view, no other part of the Bible contradicts the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/diety, AND that the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' identity does not contradict the clear meaning of any other part of the Bible?@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes.Excellent. Thanks, David. Now let's address the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/deity.
MY TAKE:
1. Matthew 9.8 makes a clear distinction between God and the human beings to whom God grants "such authority."
2. The language by which Matthew makes said distinction rules out the possibility that the human beings to whom God grants "such authority" can also be God.
3. The "such authority" granted to human beings by God in v.8 is the authority to forgive sins that in Matthew 9.6 Jesus says the Son of Man possesses.
4. Therefore, the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/deity is that Jesus is a human being to whom God granted the authority to forgive sins, a human being who was not also God.That's my take on the clear meaning of the Matthew 9 text (and only the Matthew 9 text), David. Please share your take on the same text, then we can address the question of whether the clear meaning of the Matthew 9 text contradicts the clear meaning of any of verse/passage in the Bible.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Bill_Coley said:
So does this mean that in your view, no other part of the Bible contradicts the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/diety, AND that the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' identity does not contradict the clear meaning of any other part of the Bible?@davidtaylorjr said:
Yes.Excellent. Thanks, David. Now let's address the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/deity.
MY TAKE:
1. Matthew 9.8 makes a clear distinction between God and the human beings to whom God grants "such authority."It makes clear that those who were there recognized the humanity of Christ, yes.
- The language by which Matthew makes said distinction rules out the possibility that the human beings to whom God grants "such authority" can also be God.
No. It doesn't rule that possibility out at all. It was recording the reaction of the crowd.
- The "such authority" granted to human beings by God in v.8 is the authority to forgive sins that in Matthew 9.6 Jesus says the Son of Man possesses.
Agreed
- Therefore, the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/deity is that Jesus is a human being to whom God granted the authority to forgive sins, a human being who was not also God.
No I don't agree with that statement.
That's my take on the clear meaning of the Matthew 9 text (and only the Matthew 9 text), David. Please share your take on the same text, then we can address the question of whether the clear meaning of the Matthew 9 text contradicts the clear meaning of any of verse/passage in the Bible.
Given my reading that this was merely recording the reaction of the crowd and not some deeper theological statement about the nature of Christ, I do not see any contradictions with other passages.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
MY TAKE:
1. Matthew 9.8 makes a clear distinction between God and the human beings to whom God grants "such authority."@davidtaylorjr said:
It makes clear that those who were there recognized the humanity of Christ, yes.It's not as clear to me as it is to you in Matthew 9.8 that the crowd has any reaction at all to Jesus' humanity (I see no evidence in the text that his humanity was ever in question for the crowd). In v.8, I think, the crowd reacts to God, the one who Matthew contends gave "such authority to human beings," including Jesus. My point about the verse is that its language makes clear God is different from the human recipients of "such authority."
@Bill_Coley said:
2. The language by which Matthew makes said distinction rules out the possibility that the human beings to whom God grants "such authority" can also be God.@davidtaylorjr said:
No. It doesn't rule that possibility out at all. It was recording the reaction of the crowd.The verse claims God gave "such authority" to human beings. I don't see how it's possible for such word choice to mean that God was both giver and recipient.
@Bill_Coley said:
3. The "such authority" granted to human beings by God in v.8 is the authority to forgive sins that in Matthew 9.6 Jesus says the Son of Man possesses.@davidtaylorjr said:
AgreedCommon ground.
- Therefore, the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/deity is that Jesus is a human being to whom God granted the authority to forgive sins, a human being who was not also God.
@davidtaylorjr said:
No I don't agree with that statement.
Given my reading that this was merely recording the reaction of the crowd and not some deeper theological statement about the nature of Christ, I do not see any contradictions with other passages.The passage seems clearly to say that Jesus was a human being to whom God gave the authority to forgive sins. How is that not "deep"?
That said, I acknowledge that I struggle to discern the relevance of the "depth" of the Matthew 9 passage's theological statements about Christ. In your view, if those statements aren't "deep," does that somehow limit their authority, credibility, or accuracy?
It's not yet clear to me what in your view is the clear meaning of Matthew 9.2-8 on the issue of Jesus' humanity/deity. I know you don't think it contradicts other passages, but I don't know what you think the passage's clear meaning is. Please share.
-
The crowds - according to @davidtaylorjr perspective - seem to have understood that the God Jesus gave the man Jesus the authority to forgive sins and cause the subsequent miraculous healing incident?
Such an idea of course makes Matthew's record a deep theological interpretation of even deeper theological understanding of the crowd present at the time ... they must have all had been trinity college graduates .... which Matthew just forgot to mention
-
@Wolfgang said:
Such an idea of course makes Matthew's record a deep theological interpretation of even deeper theological understanding of the crowd present at the time ... they must have all had been trinity college graduates .... which Matthew just forgot to mention
-
@Wolfgang said:
The crowds - according to @davidtaylorjr perspective - seem to have understood that the God Jesus gave the man Jesus the authority to forgive sins and cause the subsequent miraculous healing incident?Such an idea of course makes Matthew's record a deep theological interpretation of even deeper theological understanding of the crowd present at the time ... they must have all had been trinity college graduates .... which Matthew just forgot to mention
Nope not what I am saying at all. The crowds were amazed that a man could forgive sins. They were not aware yet that Jesus was God.
-
Something missing from the discussion about Christ's divinity. Those who believe Jesus is God have faith that he is. Those who do not, doubt that he is.
In another observation, if we walk by sight we will see the historical Jesus. But if we walk by faith we will see him in ways sight cannot.
So it's essentially a debate between believers and unbelievers. The unbelievers might say they have faith that Jesus is not God but this is still unbelief that he is.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
Thanks, Bill Coley for calling our attention to Matthew 9:2~8.
Questions:
Were, the crowds right in believing that human beings have the authority to forgive sins that weren't committed against them? In the NT do we have evidence of other individuals (not associated with Jesus) forgiving sins and or healing people at the same time? Or, is this unique to Jesus ministry and that of his disciples who did so in his name?Why does Jesus use the phrase "The Son of man"(Matthew 9:6)? Does he do so simply to indicate that he was a human? Did others go around calling themselves "the son of man" in ancient culture, was it a common practice? Or was it something that Jesus specifically did for some reason? If, so what might that reason be?
-
@Mitchell said:
Questions:
Were, the crowds right in believing that human beings have the authority to forgive sins that weren't committed against them?It's not clear to me from the Matthew 9 text that the crowd is thinking about the healing Jesus performs in terms of forgiving sins not committed against him. Granted, Jesus interprets his action as evidence that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins (note his use of the umbrella category, which does not specifically rule out sins committed against others) but in my view, the text does not make clear whether the crowd's awe is in response to the forgiveness Jesus offers, or the healing Jesus performs.
I think a reasonable argument can be made that the crowd is awed by the healing, not the forgiveness.
In the NT do we have evidence of other individuals (not associated with Jesus) forgiving sins and or healing people at the same time? Or, is this unique to Jesus ministry and that of his disciples who did so in his name?
I know of no such forgiving or healing in the NT, which makes sense to me because I think the NT's view is that God authorized Jesus uniquely to forgive sins (consider Colossians 1.14; 1 John 2.12).
Why does Jesus use the phrase "The Son of man"(Matthew 9:6)? Does he do so simply to indicate that he was a human? Did others go around calling themselves "the son of man" in ancient culture, was it a common practice? Or was it something that Jesus specifically did for some reason? If, so what might that reason be?
In the OT, "son of man" principally points to a human being (multiple references in Ezekiel, all to the prophet; Numbers 23.19). In the Gospels, in my view, Jesus uses "son of man" as a third person self-reference. In many of those references, the "son of man" is the one who returns at the culmination of history (e.g. Matthew 20.30) but in other references, "son of man" refers to the earthly Jesus (e.g. the earthly son of man will be betrayed into the hands of his enemies in Matthew 17.22)
I see no indication of divinity in Jesus' use of the title "son of man," but rather a nod to the one whom God will glorify in the resurrection and then send to earth at the close of the age.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
It's not clear to me from the Matthew 9 text that the crowd is thinking about the healing Jesus performs in terms of forgiving sins not committed against him.Then do you believe that Jesus was forgiving the man of sins that were committed against himself?
I think a reasonable argument can be made that the crowd is awed by the healing, not the forgiveness.
Good call perhaps I am reading to much into this. I am still curious about the use of "human beings" in your translation which is plural. The Crowds see Jesus doing something, but then they jump to the conclusion that this authority to do some undefined act is given to humans in general rather than a human? Notice your text states:
"When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings."
Are the crowds right to think so?
I see no indication of divinity in Jesus' use of the title "son of man,"
Please re-read my question and notice that I did not ask about divinity. I did, however, ask about the use of the term "son of man" in common practice and in ancient culture. So, for example in the first century and maybe a little before how did Jews use the term "the son of man"? Or rather how did Jesus contemporaries use the terms?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
It's not clear to me from the Matthew 9 text that the crowd is thinking about the healing Jesus performs in terms of forgiving sins not committed against him.@Mitchell said:
Then do you believe that Jesus was forgiving the man of sins that were committed against himself?My statement wasn't clear enough. Sorry. I should have written that it's not clear to me from the Matthew 9 text that the crowd is thinking about the healing Jesus performs in terms of forgiveness. I don't believe the identity of those against whom the forgiven sins were committed is at issue in the crowd's reaction. I think the crowd responds to the healing, not to the forgiveness.
Good call perhaps I am reading to much into this. I am still curious about the use of "human beings" in your translation which is plural.
It's worthwhile to note that the translation I used was not mine, but the NRSV's.
The Crowds see Jesus doing something, but then they jump to the conclusion that this authority to do some undefined act is given to humans in general rather than a human? Notice your text states:
"When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings."
I read that verse differently. I think it's Matthew, not the crowd, who observes that God "had given such authority to human beings." I think the crowd is "filled with awe" in response to the healing, not the forgiveness. It's Matthew, the Gospel writer, who adds the clause about the source of Jesus' authority to forgive sins. I don't think the crowd is focused on the forgiveness; I think they're wowed by, and praise God for, the healing.
Please re-read my question and notice that I did not ask about divinity. I did, however, ask about the use of the term "son of man" in common practice and in ancient culture. So, for example in the first century and maybe a little before how did Jews use the term "the son of man"? Or rather how did Jesus contemporaries use the terms?
I didn't mean to suggest that you asked about divinity, Brian. I added that topic to my response, much in the way we all at times expand our responses to posts beyond their specific parameters.
As for the term "son of man," I think the Ezekiel and Numbers examples I cited in my previous post suggest that in the first century, there was at least historical/scriptural precedent for its use as a referent to human beings.
-
MORE....
@Mitchell said:
The Crowds see Jesus doing something, but then they jump to the conclusion that this authority to do some undefined act is given to humans in general rather than a human?This is a fascinating question!
The way I read the text, Jesus is THE human to whom God has given the authority to forgive sins; but that doesn't mean God couldn't authorize other humans to forgive sins.
Again, however, I point out my view that the crowd responds to the healing, not the forgiveness. I think Matthew is FAR more engaged with the forgiveness end of the healing than is the crowd.
-
@Mitchell said:
@Bill_Coley said:
I see no indication of divinity in Jesus' use of the title "son of man,"
>
Please re-read my question and notice that I did not ask about divinity. I did, however, ask about the use of the term "son of man" in common practice and in ancient culture. So, for example in the first century and maybe a little before how did Jews use the term "the son of man"? Or rather how did Jesus contemporaries use the terms?
Mitch,
Studying this passage a little more, I think understanding the title "son of man" is key. In this, the deity of Jesus is understood. The rabbis have taught that you may interpret the Scriptures in four ways, in thirteen ways, in thirty-two ways, you have the right to explain them in as many ways as you wish, but we must read out the passage and not into it. This is not the final word, but a contribution to the truth: Consider Jeremiah 23, Jesus was the Son of man, and he was also the Son of God. It was because He was the one that He only could save the people, was because the Son of God, as well as the Son of man, was centered in Him.The Bible says. ‘Behold, the days come, said the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch." Who was this Branch? Was He the Son of man? He must be, because he came from David, and David was a man. "And a king shall reign and prosper." Then this man who was to come from David was to be a King."In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely." Then this Branch of David, this Son of man, when He did come would save Judah and Israel. He was to bring salvation to Judah and Israel. Then there would be a Son of man who was to bring salvation — "And this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS", — here you have it. Here is the Son of man who is also the Son of God, and His name is Y-HO-VA TS-ID-KAA-NOO. All this was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the Son of man, and He also is the Son of God. Therefore He, and He alone can give salvation. One step closer to ultimate truth. CM
-
Bill,
Did you missed this post of mine? It was too Mitch. I will repeat it again for your reconsideration:
Mitch,
Studying this passage a little more, I think understanding the title "son of man" is key. In this, the deity of Jesus is understood. The rabbis have taught that you may interpret the Scriptures in four ways, in thirteen ways, in thirty-two ways, you have the right to explain them in as many ways as you wish, but we must read out the passage and not into it. This is not the final word, but a contribution to the truth: Consider Jeremiah 23, Jesus was the Son of man, and he was also the Son of God. It was because He was the one that He only could save the people, was because the Son of God, as well as the Son of man, was centered in Him.
The Bible says. ‘Behold, the days come, said the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch." Who was this Branch? Was He the Son of man? He must be, because he came from David, and David was a man. "And a king shall reign and prosper." Then this man who was to come from David was to be a King."In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely." Then this Branch of David, this Son of man, when He did come would save Judah and Israel. He was to bring salvation to Judah and Israel. Then there would be a Son of man who was to bring salvation — "And this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS", — here you have it. Here is the Son of man who is also the Son of God, and His name is Y-HO-VA TS-ID-KAA-NOO. All this was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the Son of man, and He also is the Son of God. Therefore He, and He alone can give salvation. One step closer to ultimate truth. CM
In addition, please review of the meanings (terms) for "Son of man" and "the Son of God". As for the "crowd", they have been like some people today, cynics giving voice to their Skepticism. Please remember everybody didn't believe and accepted Jesus, even it the midst of healings and miracles. Keep studying and reflecting. CM
-
Studying this passage a little more, I think understanding the title "son of man" is key. In this, the deity of Jesus is understood.
You talk about the term "son of man", and then claim in this is the deity of Jesus understood???? Sort of like, talk about apples, and in this the value of bananas is understood ????
Jesus was the Son of man, and he was also the Son of God. It was because He was the one that He only could save the people, was because the Son of God, as well as the Son of man, was centered in Him.
Yes, the MAN Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God .... Seems that you make of the terms "son of man" and "son of God" that Jesus was actually TWO separate living beings, same as claiming that he was man and God, and that at the same time.
The Bible says. ‘Behold, the days come, said the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch." Who was this Branch? Was He the Son of man? He must be, because he came from David, and David was a man. "And a king shall reign and prosper." Then this man who was to come from David was to be a King."In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely." Then this Branch of David, this Son of man, when He did come would save Judah and Israel. He was to bring salvation to Judah and Israel.
Jesus was A MAN _ A HUMAN BEING - "the Son of man". And this MAN was to be not only the savior of the people of Judah and Israel, but Gentiles also.
Then there would be a Son of man who was to bring salvation — "And this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS", — here you have it.
Yes .. what you have here is that THE MAN who would come of the line of David would be the God ordained savior.
Here is the Son of man who is also the Son of God,
Where is there any mention of anything in these verses about "Son of God" ???
and His name is Y-HO-VA TS-ID-KAA-NOO. All this was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus is the Son of man, and He also is the Son of God. Therefore He, and He alone can give salvation. One step closer to ultimate truth.
Sure, in Jesus the prophecies of the coming Messiah in the OT scriptures were fulfilled ... and, yes, the man Jesus was son of man and as a human being he was the only begotten Son of God.
But is that, what you actually tried to convey with your post? Or did you have something entirely different in mind ??
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
