The Woman’s Curse
The Body and the Blood
The Seed of Woman
Tolerance
How Could Christ Increase in Wisdom?
Tim wrote: I was in a recent discussion with a new man at work and he mentioned Jesus growing in wisdom. Wisdom? The creator of Heaven and earth needing to grow in WISDOM?
Remember John 13: 3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
He already knew everything. What does growing in WISDOM mean when it comes to Jesus?
James replies: To answer your question, Tim, let us first consider what the Bible says regarding Christ incarnate:
Philippians 2:5-7 Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; (ASV)
Jesus became a man and gave up some of the things He had before He was incarnate. “All wisdom” was one of those things He gave up. “All power” was another. He also gave up the glory that He had with God before the world was.
Jn 17:5 Now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself. Give me the same glory I had with you before the world existed. (CJB)
While He was on the earth, Jesus did not enjoy the same glory as He had before He came to earth (Jn 8:59, 10:31), Jesus had emptied Himself of His glory. He also emptied Himself of His full grown likeness of God because He was a babe in body. Therefore, we should not be surprised to find that He had also emptied HImself of all wisdom and grew up as a normal boy would grow up.
I think that His success in avoiding sin was not due to having the full attributes of God expressed in His person before the HS came, but rather due to His divine character and His being born directly from the Father (Lk 1:35) and not from Adam (I Cor 15:45) and thus not being under the curse of Adam (Gen 3:17-19).
It is also interesting to note that at Christ’s baptism that the Holy Spirit was given unto Him (Mt 3:16). If He already had all power and all wisdom in heaven and on earth, then why did He need the HS? Christ would have already been equal to God in every respect and Christ receiving the Holy Spirit would have been bringing coal to Newcastle, so to speak. If Christ was already equal to God in every respect while He was on earth, of what significance was it that He was given all power in heaven and on earth (Mt 28:18) because of His obedience (Php 2:8-9)?
In summary, I believe that when Jesus was a babe in the manger, He was no more spectacular than any babe, except that He was well behaved. While He was subject to His parents (Lk 2:51), He was no more spectacular than a normal obedient teenager, for His brethren did not believe He was the Son of God (Mk 3:21, Jn 7:5). Jesus received His powers after His water baptism when He was baptized with the HS. After He was annointed of God, then He began to work miracles (Jn 2:11). Before His baptism, except for His obedience, you could not have distinguished Him from any other boy. The evidence is that Jesus grew in wisdom just like He grew from a babe into a full grown man.
2 John 9 – What is the meaning of “doctrine of Christ?”
Robert wrote: I think we agree that the idea some hold that all are lost that have not perfect knowledge and perfect practice of all N.T. teachings is absurd.
James replies: Yes, if we had to have perfect knowledge of the law and keep God’s will perfectly, then we would surely fail, and that nullifies God’s will (II Pet 3:9), His grace, and the security of the believer. With the teaching on II Jn 9 currently favored among the brethren, you cannot have any assurance of heaven (cp. II Pet 2:11, II Tim 4:18).
I also believe it is true that it is sinful to go beyond what is written (I Cor 4:6, I Pet 4:11). I just do not believe that II Jn 9 teaches that. If you take the position on II Jn 9 that it means the teaching from Christ, then you are logically forced into the perfectionist thinking. That thinking does not harmonize with other scriptures that permit Christian growth (II Pet 3:18, Php 3:12-16, Heb 5:12-14, I Jn 1:7). Taking the meaning to be “teaching from Christ”, there is no provision in II Jn 9 for introducing grace or allowing for the imperfection of babes in Christ. To paraphrase it, II Jn 9 teaches that whosoever knowingly or ignorantly disobeys is without God and therefore without His help and therefore going to hell. It is just a flat statement of condemnation of the sinner for all sin if you take the meaning to be the teaching from Christ. There is no logical middle ground.
II Jn 9 was a scathing rebuke by the apostle directed toward those arrogant disregarders of God’s word who were subverting the very basis of Christianity, i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. These men were teaching that Christ had no flesh. If Christ had no flesh, He could not die. If He did not die, then He offered no blood for cleansing sin and no sacrifice for sin. Therefore all men are still under the curse and destined for gehenna. It was a hideous doctrine, and John rightly taught that men who denied the sacrificial death of Christ, did not have God. Anyone who denied God’s sacrifice of His Son denied God’s love for man (Jn 3:16) and rejected the means of man’s redemption (Acts 20:7). The Gnostic teaching is a denial of Christianity. That is why John flatly stated that those men did not have God and we are not to bid them Godspeed. They are destroyers of others and self-condemned by rejecting the sacrifice of Christ. The teaching has nothing to do with a blanket condemnation of sin. You cannot get a blanket condemnation of sin out of II Jn 9 without creating hopeless contradictions between II Jn 9 and other scriptures.
Robert, this statement will be particularly meaningful to you, but I believe that the brethren’s view of II Jn 9 is one of two drivers for the current witch hunt in MDR. Because men differ on MDR, one of them cannot be right, and therefore, according to popular view of II Jn 9, the one who is wrong does not have God and is therefore lost and going to hell. Of course the other reason is not to company with one who is called a brother who is a fornicator, but II Jn 9 is a strong motivator for the brethren’s hostile attitude toward all who differ from them on MDR.
Hath Not God — 2 Jn 1:9
2 Jn 1:9 Is Not a Generic Condemnation of Evil
The Ratio of the Males to the Firstborn in the Exodus
As I was doing some research on the Levites as a type of Christianity, I ran across some very odd numbers. The number of firstborn forms a very small ratio of firstborn to males. Notice the following citations.
Numbers 1:2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of their names, every male by their polls;
3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies.
Moses counted the male children of Israel 20 and older and came up with the following numbers:
[Coming out of Egypt]
Numbers 2:32 BBE These are all who were numbered of the children of Israel, in the order of their fathers’ families: all the armies in their tents together came to six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty. (603,550)
[Coming out of the wilderness]
Numbers 26:51 These were the numbered of the children of Israel, six hundred thousand and a thousand seven hundred and thirty. (601,730)
Having noticed that there were 603,550 males over 20 who came out of Egypt, we notice that at the same time there were only 22, 273 firstborn males.
Numbers 3:42 BBE So Moses had all the first sons among the children of Israel numbered, as the Lord said to him. 43 Every first son from a month old and over was numbered by name, and the number came to twenty-two thousand, two hundred and seventy-three. (22,273)
The firstborn is the first male born to a man no matter how many wives he has. He may have many sons but only one firstborn. If you compare the number of firstborn males with the number of males in the children of Israel, you observe some astounding statistics. There are 603,550 / 22,273 = 27 males for every firstborn male. That means that every firstborn male has 26 brothers and presumably that many sisters. Every firstborn would therefore have had about 54 brothers and sisters. Such an astounding ratio at once excites our curiosity. The only possible way that I have been able to reconcile the number of the children of Israel with the number of firstborn involves polygamy. If the men of Israel had on the average ten wives with five children each, then you could account for the 54 brothers and sisters of the firstborn. Why would there have been such an astounding ratio of men to women? If we reflect upon Israel’s recent past we remember Pharaoh’s command
Ex 1:22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
Can it be that the ratio of firstborn to males reflects the enormous discrepancy between men and women caused by Pharaoh’s command to kill all male children? It would be reasonable then to find that many of the women of that generation had to settle for being a second, third, fourth or even later wife. We know that the practice of killing male infants was begun before Moses was born and he was 80 years old when he returned to lead Israel to freedom. If Pharaoh’s command had been in force for 80 years, then it would account for the huge difference between males and females in Israel. For 80 years the children of Israel had been forced to kill most of their male children. The result was a population that was highly skewed toward women. The continuation of Pharaoh’s policy does not, however, account for the large numbers of males implied by the ratio of 27/1. In order to account for the large ratio of males to firstborn there must have been very large families with a presumably normal distribution of male and female children. That is, most adult males must have had harems and very large families with an almost equal number of boys and girls. In order for men to have had large numbers of male children and low numbers of firstborn, the men must have had large numbers of wives and Pharaoh’s policy of killing boys must have ended.
In order for the high ratio of males to firstborn to be observered but the gender distorting effects of Pharaoh’s policy to have persisted until the Exodus, the old policy of Pharaoh must have ended about 20 years before the Exodus. The men of the generation who had somehow lived through the murder of the infants must have had many wives and many sons, but their sons must have been too young to begin families of their own. If the generation produced after the end of Pharoah’s command was old enough to have children, then the ratio of males to firstborn would have fallen dramatically to about 6/1 due to the greatly increased availability of men who would start families and produce children with just one wife. In the generation that grew up in the wilderness, the ratio of men and women would have returned to normalcy (about 1/1) and harems would no longer have been necessary.
The most amazing thing about this analysis is that the ratio of males to firstborn is exactly what you would expect if the Bible record is true. In an obscure number in a seldom read book the veracity of the Bible record regarding Pharaoh’s command to kill the innocents is validated in a totally unexpected way. Buried in obscure statistics in the Book of Numbers is verification that the Bible record accurately records the history of the times. In a totally unexpected way the Bible is once again shown to be true and thus the word of God, for, as the record says, God cannot lie, and yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar.
Denominations
A denomination is a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith. It is the result of religious division and hence is contrary to the will of Christ who prayed that we might all be one (Jn 17:22). At the beginning of the church in Acts 2 Christ’s prayer for unity was an accomplished fact. However, as time went on, there were people who departed from the faith and went out from the church (I Jn 2:19) to establish their own groups. These included “those of the circumcusion” (Titus 1:10) and those who “confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” (II Jn 1:7). These groups flourished for a while and then mostly disappeared from history though there has been a reestablishment of those who practice gnosticism in recent years.
After the Edit of Toleration by Constantine the church of Christ
became the religion of the Empire. It remained the dominant religion of Western Europe for over 1000 years. During this period the church became politicised and degenerated in its moral and ethical conduct and teaching. While the church of Christ drifted into apostacy during this time, there were brethren here and there who did not share in her prostitution to idolatry. We read, for example, of the Old People in Germany who remained much closer to the truth and existed up until their dispersion by WWII. Generally, however, denominationalism is
traced to the Rennaissance and the weakening of the iron grip that the apostate and oppressive church had come to exercise over men.
Martin Luther, a Catholic Augustinian monk, was the most prominant of the those who protested the secular and immoral practices often apparent among the clergy. One example is the hideous excesses that resulted from the erroneous doctrine of celibacy. In Spain, for example, a monastary and nunnary that were located some distance from each other were found to have been connected by a tunnel. In the middle of the tunnel was a graveyard for babies who resulted from the illicit liasons conducted through that tunnel. Another example is John Tetzel who was commissioned by the Pope to raise money for the
rebuilding of St. Peter’s after it was sacked and burned by the
barbarians. Tetzel carried out his commission by selling indulgences as a sort of spiritual insurance policy against the consequences of sin.
Luther nailed 95 points of contention on the bulletin board (the
castle door) at Worms. It listed complaints regarding the doctrine and conduct of the church and was focused on reforming these practices. The church failed to take kindly to Luther’s 95 theses, and excommunicated him. Unfortunately for the Catholic church, the recent invention of the printing press spread Luther’s theses all over Europe, and they became the subject of heated discussion throughout the land. When the church declared him a heretic and attempted to seize him, because he had friends in high places, he was able to flee
and hide in a castle. Other contemporary reformers such as the Swiss reformer, Zwingli, were not so fortunate. Luther’s writing and ability to avoid death led other men such as John Calvin to also speak out in protest to the church’s obvious problems. The church excommunicated these men, but they had obtained many followers. The result of the excommunication of these protesters was to establish groups of “protestant” churches.
The splits on ideological and moral basis were followed by a division that was more politically motivated. King Henry VIII of England sought a divorce from Ann Bolyn because of his desire to find a wife by whom he could sire a male heir to his throne. When the Pope refused to grant the requested divorce, he declared the church of England to be independent of the Pope. The pope of course excommunicated him, but the result was another permanent split and the birth of a new “protestant” religion, the Church of England.
The process of splitting continued from 1521 to the present day with various doctrines and theories arising among the Protestants that drew away followers after them. The Churches of Christ arose in the the early 1800s on the frontier in America when men like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone pursued a path of using the Bible only as a standard of faith and practice. These men came out of the Presbyterian and Baptist churches respectively. Though these men were historically associated with denominations, they repudiated denominationalism and creeds of men and assumed the plain Bible designation of “Christian” with no denominational affiliation. These two men and others like them continued where the Reformation movement left off. They began what is known as the Restoration movement. They had no creed but the Bible and accepted the Bible only as their sufficient standard for all faith and practice.
Other so called “Christian” relgions have adopted latter day prophets as authorities in addtion to Christ and the Bible. Organizations such as the 7th Day Adventists (Mary Baker Eddy), Jehovah’s Witness (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with Rutherford and Russell), and Mormonism (Joseph Smith) have adopted writings of men in addition to the Bible to provide the basis for their individual practices.
God’s ideal is for Christians to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent. They should have no creed but the Bible and no Lord but Christ. Ideally, Christians should not be of any denomination, but merely individuals belonging to the body of Christ which is the church of Christ (Rom 12:5) of which Christ is the head (Col 1:18).