Friday, December 2, 2022

3rd Human Jesus Conference: Barbara Buzzard

For the Love of Jesus: The Mark of Jesus

We are marked men and women (or we should be).

What mark has this human Jesus left on you?

There should be no “life as usual” after an encounter with Jesus and his message. While it can be said that the O.T. can be summarized in saying that God spoke — the people didn’t listen, the New Testament offers new possibilities, i.e. because of Jesus — the disciples became bold, even to the point of losing their lives. They were marked by Jesus with character changes, previously unknown passion, and love for fellow men and for the words of Jesus.

Someone put it this way: I was in a dark room. I backed into a light switch and what I saw was such that I could never un-see it. That could be what an encounter with Jesus might look like.

You can only follow Jesus if you can determine which direction he went — not geographically, but spiritually — what he believed and stood for.

What is ahead after a Jesus encounter? Danger, falling rock, construction, delays, roadside crews. But Jesus and his Father through the Scriptures provide guard rails. Staying the course can only happen if you are going — moving — in the right direction.

Having a continual and profound affirmation of Jesus’ humanity will give us the possibility of so much more of a relationship with him than for those who think he has two natures. We can interact with ALL of him without having to divide him or split him up. The deification of Jesus hinders our identification with him.

Our affirmations of Jesus’ humanity make the parallel between Adam and Jesus so much more striking.

Our assertion of Jesus’ humanity gives us common ground. His perfect obedience was not based on the memory of a prior existence or a previous experience. Jesus’ assurance as he lived a persecuted life was based on the same thing that ours must be — based on the assurance of the promises — inheriting his Father’s Kingdom.

Jesus paid the price of living according to Scripture all during his life — as he was dis-believed, questioned not only about his identity but his sanity as well.

It was Mark Twain who said that the two most important days of your life are the day you were born and day you found out WHY. This surely is energizing.

Consider this in relation to the “mark of Jesus”: “But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed, perplexed, but not in despair, persecuted, but not abandoned, struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body.”

Our Environment

An odious means of cultural destruction is underway in the form of sabotage of the language — a conspiracy to change the meaning of words to suit the purposes of the ones in charge. Words that at one time had a negative connotation are turned into positives, and vice versa. 

Before we look at Jesus’ teaching, we must reckon with the world we have inherited. George Orwell in his book 1984 identified the technique of changing the meaning of words — leading to doublethink as a technique which allows a person to hold two contradictory thoughts at one time and hold both to be true. As is obvious, it is a form of lying. We see this most clearly in theology and now in very many aspects of our world. 

Lying has become such a universal and acceptable behavior that one is “marked out” by telling the truth. Lying has become a primary way of life for some. There are institutions and practices such as abortion wholly built on lies. Since we live in a world of lies and deception, the ability to detect these lies is a major difference separating the foolish from the wise. We have been warned that most human grief and sorrow and man-made disaster didn’t come from ignorance but from the consequences of lies. “It’s not from things we don’t know, but things we know that aren’t so.”  And Twain was the one who originated the saying that “A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”

Lying takes such subtle and unexpected forms: “Our hearts still fall into that same satanic groove [as did Eve], quickly moving from confessing ‘I believe in God’ to talking about ‘the God I believe in,’ to making the most dire and pretentious utterance of all: ‘I could never believe in a God who…’” We do not notice the disparity between saying “I believe in God” and “the God I believe in.”

We all have a propensity to create our own idea of God or of His Messiah. We all have a bent to fabricate a God and a Messiah out of our own wishes, and the real possibility is that we could create them out of falsehoods.

We have a huge capacity for self-deception but that is the most dangerous of all forms of lying — lying to one’s self. It takes the form of justifying our actions, being delusional about our own wrong doing. We are very good at fooling ourselves, lying to ourselves. We are rather good at making it up — i.e. “the God I believe in would never do such a thing,” or “I could never believe in a God who…” We twist God to our liking and then pronounce our “creation” as the real thing. Jesus was very aware of this as was David when he prayed: “Keep me from lying to myself.”

A vivid example here is the “principle of dissimilarities,” which is to say that if something sounds Jewish, then Jesus could not have said it! Please be suitably shocked. And there was also a so-called Jesus Seminar where actual votes were cast as to the question: “Could Jesus have said that?” These were some of the leaders in unbelief, but we have sophisticated the field with much subtler approaches.

Could this be the meaning of 1 John 5:21: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,” i.e. creating Jesus as we would like him to be.

Jesus or Bambi?

When we add to our tendency toward self-deception, the philosophy adopted almost universally as advocated in the movie Bambi and said by Thumper: “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all” — then we have a combination that just could be dangerous. Please don’t get me wrong — I love the Bambi movie and don’t mean to demean it. I also respect that there are times to hold one’s tongue, and I do believe in being “nice.” There are many Scriptures about guarding our tongues. What I am calling a “Bambi philosophy” is a sweet sentiment and many times is probably good advice. However, it has taken on a role and a life of its own as a valued philosophy of Christian behavior. But is it valid? Did Jesus operate this way?

No, he did not. Jesus was direct (sometimes shockingly so). Jesus shoots straight and he knows his audience.

He manages to indict us all as he speaks about those character flaws that must be acknowledged and repented of and changed. Jesus’ words were so right on every occasion and with reference to everyone. He spoke so truthfully about the nature of man and his proneness to do wrong. Jesus’ words always get you. Spot on. They nail everyone. No one gets off scot free. Man is true to what had been written: “deceitful in all his ways.”

It seems that we make “not to offend” our modus operandi. That has become the measuring stick of being a good person. Our aim is to make those around us feel comfortable. And this certainly has its place, for instance at the Thanksgiving table. I am all for tact and diplomacy and good manners. But as one writer said: “We’ve got too many people being quiet so other people can be comfortable.” 

Could any of the prophets or biblical authors have adhered to this “see no evil, speak no evil” philosophy? The problem is that it stifles critical thinking, which is essential to the process of honest living. In its wider context it stifles the telling of Truth. Could it possibly be the most subtle of lies? We must balance that Bambi philosophy with this brilliant insight: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil; God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” 

There are situations where we have the responsibility to not remain silent. Martin Luther King put it this way: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Hand in hand with the “see no evil, speak no evil” Bambi philosophy goes our substitution of sincerity for Truth. Jesus’ love of Truth must not be exchanged for sincerity. And I move from Bambi to a rather more sophisticated source: the noted and brilliant writer Wiley Jones:

“Saul and others ‘verily thought’ that they were doing God service when they were ‘making havoc of the church’ by cruel persecutions, but did their sincerity turn their crime into a virtue?..Sincerity will not render harmless the believing of error any more than it will the drinking of poison. The modern theory of sincerity is not found in the Bible…And Paul did not preach to them that modern gospel of sincerity (which is a delusion and a snare), but faithfully declared to them ‘the gospel of the kingdom,’ as the Master commanded (Mat. 24:14, Acts 20:25).”

This is a challenging statement: “Everyone on some scale of life is compelled to be an intellectual force. They must think. They must value. They must act. Avoidance of such is the very nature of depravity and the root of society’s ills.”

Jesus and his Teaching — i.e. Jesus and his Mission

“It may be said that the teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God represents His whole teaching. It is the main determinative subject of all of His discourse. His ethics were ethics of the Kingdom; His theology was theology of the Kingdom; His teaching regarding Himself cannot be understood apart from His interpretation of the Kingdom of God.

“And it may not only be said that all His teaching had relation to the Kingdom, but also His action, everything He did from the days of His baptism…all the events of His life until the final culminating event, the crucifixion, had reference to the coming of the Kingdom. From His baptism on, His whole life was dedicated to the mission of announcing the Kingdom’s approach and of calling men to prepare for entering it upon the conditions which by divine authority He announced.”

Jesus spoke much about deception. And he spoke much about discernment. His love for us required that he warn us of the obstacles to come — of the nature of the beast. Our nation is sometimes referred to as a Christian nation. More correctly, it is a prodigal nation, guilty of idolatry, complacency and pride. 

At the very heart of Jesus’ teaching is repentance, a condition of entry into the Kingdom. His teaching about repentance and his requirement of it are distinct features of his teaching. 

This requirement dictates that sin has to go. As we know one cannot repent and continue in sin. Today, this requirement of repentance is often missing. We have lost a critical factor in not seeing the connection between repentance and our beliefs. Repentance has as much to do with wrong ideas as it has with wrong behavior. The Mark 1:14-15 scripture is the model for us to follow and to utilize in evangelism: “The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in that Gospel.” In this case repentance refers to a thought process and the turning or repenting requires a change to a belief in the Gospel of the Kingdom. Not only must we repent of moral wickedness but of wrong thinking, and that wrong thinking would be non-acceptance of the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Jesus did not leave us in any doubt about what he meant by obedience. Could he have been any more specific than in the Sermon on the Mount? But this kind of obedience is radical and costly. That is why it is explained away or only obeyed with lip service. Let’s not play down how extremely difficult these teachings are: for example, we are told to love our neighbors (we naturally love our friends), but then Jesus adds this radical new element: we are told to love our enemies as well. Who is left?

This encompasses everyone. No exclusions — no way out. An incredibly tough assignment!

Are we antagonistic in any way to anything he said? A self inventory would be valuable. Is any part of it unacceptable? Do we succumb to this — “the Jesus I believe in” would not…?

Something is expected of us! It is only reasonable that Jesus expects us to demonstrate in thought, word and deed that we are giving our very best efforts to obey all that he directed.

Jesus knew the spectacular difficulty of obedience. That is why he promised the spirit of his Father and of himself to transform us with a new nature to enable us to obey.

The thing is — anything short of obedience is rebellion. It is treachery.

“If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your own father and mother, wife and children, brother and sisters — yes, more than your own life. Otherwise you cannot be my disciple.” 

One of Jesus’ favorite sayings was “It is written.” One of our biggest problems is that we want to behave as though it had not been written. We want optional extras when there are none. We want an “it’s all good” type of freedom. We want to have our own Truth. We want negotiables when there are none. We pretend that in the controversy over same sex marriage there is no mandate. There is a mandate — it is written. Our instructions and guidelines have been written. The case of our not liking what is written does not give us license to erase it, or ignore it, or change it. It is written — a non-negotiable for believers.

Image Bearers

Jesus’ words are to be engraved into the depths of our being. They will provide us the strength to remain strong in times of moral conflict. Moral courage will come from imitating Jesus; this is our vocation. We are to be doing what Jesus did.

How striking it is that texts that were applied to Messiah are now applied to Christians. The text in Psalm 2:8-9 is repeated in Revelation 2:26-27, but this time the promises are applied to Christians. This is the most amazing proposition: that what Jesus gets, we get! That we share in his inheritance is a not-to-be-missed, enormous Promise. Jesus was inclusive before we even knew it as a word. Jesus’ plan to share with us the administration of justice is what makes our roles in God’s Kingdom so exciting.

Praying Like Jesus — The ABBA prayer

“It was a characteristic of Jesus’ approach to God in prayer that he addressed God as ‘abba’ and that the earliest Christians retained an awareness of this fact in their own use of ‘abba.’”

“Abba Father” is one of the most significant names we can use for God. The word is Aramaic and translates as “Father” or “dear Father.” It denotes a very close relationship. This relationship is unique in that, while God is the Creator of all children, all children are not children of God until they become that through faith and obedience. This relationship should heighten our sense of brotherhood with Jesus. That we, like he, can call God our Father is an amazing thing. It’s all about relationships — as God’s children we have access to His throne room.

This has been spoiled for us in a way. It was at one time said by author Jeremias that Abba meant “Daddy” as in the language of a small child. And that idea became very popular. However, Jeremias later retracted this and said that Abba isn’t “Daddy,” but instead it is the language that grown-up sons and daughters would use. Unfortunately the previous error lives on, and as is often the case we remember the erroneous version rather better than the correction. Some pastors still teach that “Abba” equates to “Daddy.”

Dunn speaks of the Abba prayer as something distinctive, a distinguishing mark of those who shared in Jesus’ inheritance. By this, we are invited to be on intimate terms with the Father.

The Creed of Jesus — The Shema

“If this creed, and this prayer, was important to God’s people in the time of the Messiah, and important to the Messiah himself, then it’s imperative that we, as the people of God, give consideration to The Shema, not just as a creed, but as a prayer.” Interestingly, by praying the Shema we can learn, we can follow, and we can obey. There is an expectation of action due to listening. Listening entails and demands action. This author points out that the pronouns for humans in the Greatest Commandment are not singular but plural, and so he renders this possibility: “YHVH is OUR God. And y’all will love YHVH y’all’s God with all y’all’s heart, and all y’all’s soul and all y’all’s strength.”

What sustained Jesus? What therefore can sustain us? It appears that as with the prophet Jeremiah, Jesus would say: “Your words are what sustain me.” Jesus put it this way: “It is written.” Again, this favorite saying of Jesus actually occurs some sixty times in Scripture!

It can be said that we “know” how Jesus would react to abortion because we “know” his heart. He has revealed his thinking in his teaching; his words reveal his heart. What he would find blasphemous we should find blasphemous. He was familiar with the words of Jeremiah who commanded the people to stop murdering the innocent.

The mark of Jesus on our lives is reflected in our living out his words. He warned us to “Beware of false prophets,” “Beware of the scribes,” “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (which is to say hypocrisy), and “Beware of covetousness,” and many other cautions.

As N.T. Wright says, “What stops us from being genuine human beings bearing the divine image is not only sin, but the idolatry that underlies it. What is required for God’s new world and for renewed humans within it is for the power of the idols to be broken.”

One of those idols might just be being spiritually sedentary — just watching the world go by. We surely all know that sin is rebellion, but indifference — does that qualify as rebellion? But of course, because faith is a thing we do. Indifference is an attribute of non-active faith. Consider this please: Indifference, not hatred, is love’s opposite. 

We have all been told that we mustn’t hate. Which is to say we mustn’t hate anyone. Matt Walsh asserts that indifference, not hatred, is love’s opposite. He argues that whether it is a good hatred or a bad hatred depends on what it is aimed at. Of course, hatred aimed at a cancer patient is bad, but hatred aimed at the patient’s cancer is good.

“The Bible repeatedly speaks of this holy and righteous hatred, and commands us—not merely allows us, but commands us—to have this sort of hatred in our hearts.” Please see the several Scriptures that attest to this.

It is right that God’s children raise their voice in protest against immorality.

It is right that we stand in opposition to godless trends.

It is right that we join the battle to save unborn lives. (After all, you have to join the side you are on.)

Anything less than that is tantamount to surrender (!). It is capitulation to the “evil one.”

For moral courage — imitate me, says Jesus. Get rid of your fear of being different. Rejoice in it!

This is a challenging statement: “Everyone on some scale of life is compelled to be an intellectual force. They must think. They must value. They must act. Avoidance of such is the very nature of depravity and the root of society’s ills.”

It is not right that pastors should consider some moral issues off-limits, as in “This won’t preach.” How can we say we love Jesus and cower at his radical demands? Is it true, as Matt Walsh writes, that we have a Church of Cowards?

What Would Jesus Say and Do?

Not only is our vocabulary being perverted — but since words are the building blocks of thought, so too does thinking become corrupted. “Tolerance is never commanded or even mentioned in the Bible because it is a false virtue. A Christian …should tolerate the color of his neighbor’s car and the shape of his neighbor’s head. But he should hate his neighbor’s wickedness just as he should hate his own wickedness. And the more he loves God, the greater this hatred will be. If he cannot hate wickedness …then he is nowhere in the vicinity of loving God.”

Acceptance and tolerance are being treated as if they are more or less interchangeable. They are not. Our culture is now demanding acceptance and even celebration of moral choices and lifestyles that cannot be approved of by a Christian. The culture further demands that in our acceptance of sinful lifestyles, we “acquiesce or assent to those sins.”

As our world takes a dive into the unthinkable, we must prepare ourselves and our responses. We must ask ourselves what is required of us; Jesus would have agreed with Micah: walk humbly with our God and do justice. For the love of Jesus and for the love of our fellow man and most urgently, for the love of children, we must opt out when society contradicts Scripture — and consider most importantly what Jesus would say or do.

How Do We Get to Be With Jesus?

This is not a child’s question — but a most excellent question from an adult. I wish it could be one of the primary topics that we teach children because they can relate to it in a way that no amount of mythical teaching about knocking on the door of your heart could possibly compare. It is our responsibility to foster this desire and this Truth in children — to undo some of the fairytale thinking and to make this ambition real. We have a very distinct advantage in our Christology of Jesus being human and I am not sure that we use it to our full advantage. Children naturally want to be with their heroes; the idea that this is not only possible but is The Plan should be taught and reinforced at every possible opportunity. We have the decided advantage here in our teaching of a human Jesus and we need to make the most of that advantage for the sake of the children.

We are so very blessed to have the notion of being with Jesus, the best friend we could ever have, in our thinking as an attainable goal and within our grasp — so if we identify him early as our hero, our brother in the faith, the one who had our backs, the one who received the highest possible praise from the Father, the one to whom the Father gave everything — we would do well.

Sometimes we have things a bit skewed. We hear constantly the earnest and genuine plea for people to “accept Jesus.” It is probably more biblical, however, for Jesus to accept us. “But now that you know God, or rather are known by God…” And also the fact that “We love because he first loved us.” This is important because it puts the responsibility on us to follow, to obey, to be found acceptable in his sight. It is important because we are all prone to be people pleasers — another idea we need to repent of — and the more we consciously work to please both Father and Son, the better. This concept of becoming acceptable in the sight of God and His Messiah needs to be in the forefront of our thinking so that it may dislodge and outweigh the pressure to please men.

We get to be with Jesus by responding to the Truth he teaches. He wants and deserves a response, not a passive acquiescence but an active, participating hearer (which means doer) of his teaching. These attributes are the same, whether we are living at the time of Jesus’ return or whether we have died — and in that case it is resurrection which will allow us to be with Jesus.

For the love of Jesus it follows (at least it does to me) that what Jesus is against, we must be against; what Jesus hates, we must hate. To do otherwise would be to consign our brains to an off mode.

We must hate and despise falsehood as does Jesus, as does his Father. “I hate and despise falsehood.”

We must tell The Truth about the lies, lies more toxic than DDT. And again, we must broaden or correct our thinking about what unrighteousness actually means: “Loving truth means refusing to believe what is not true, and standing up for this. Believing falsehood debilitates and dilutes the energy of the spirit of the truth which is designed to animate and invigorate us. Truth is life-imparting and falsehoods undermine our very being. Falsehood is a poison to our system and not better than adding cyanide to our coffee. Believing what is untrue is to be rejected with maximum conscientious effort. The antichristian threat is that we would not love the truth but believe what is not true, and thus love unrighteousness (Paul in 2 Thess. 2: believing the truth is contrasted with ‘believing what is false, and being unrighteous.’)”

We are not free to ignore evil, cover for it, appease it, accommodate to it, compromise with it, excuse it, or be blind to it. We are saturated with approved ways to keep our noses clean, not get involved, keep our heads down, and all that nonsense. But the fact remains that God hates evil. An astonishing corollary is that, according to Scripture, it is evil to be deceived. This unpleasant fact that it is a sin to be deceived is often ignored or not even recognized. But, nevertheless, it is there. We are told that “Wicked people and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived.” How carefully we must read the Scriptures! How tenaciously we must apply these principles! How diligently we must pray for protection from the evil one! How aware we must be of the evil one’s desire to derail us!

As we are to imitate Jesus, we must note that one of his characteristics which brought him his Father’s approval and anointing is that he “loved righteousness and hated wickedness.”

The End of the Matter

And so — we fight the language perversions and we know that they are only a minuscule picture of the cultural perversions. We fight our human nature, those traits that Jesus shone a light on. We fight the societal and governmental lies that surround and envelop us.

But Jesus is bound by his own righteous character to help us. As one writer put it: he is a man for others.

The resolve that we shall have to have is exhibited by Paul when he says, “We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the Truth of the Gospel might remain with you” (Gal. 2:5).

Jesus exhibited a kind of royal law of love which we must employ — with loyalty, perseverance, and dedication. He was the second Adam, the perfect Adam who “had our backs” long before the expression was even born. 

Jesus lived the life we were created to live.

One of the most wonderful scriptures for meditation and encouragement is surely this picture of the Kingdom and beyond: “But there are also many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25). I look forward with great anticipation to finding out what all these things were. Boredom will be impossible!

May we be challenged by the honest words of Christian and humorist Erma Bombeck who says: “When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, ‘I used everything you gave me.’”

Loving Jesus and loving the Truth must be done full strength. Dilution is dangerous. Do not dilute!

“But you must continue to believe this truth and stand in it firmly.”

In response to Jesus’ love of us and our desire to be disciples, his confession of faith must be ours. May we show the love of Jesus!

And may we love his appearing (2 Tim. 4:8).

May we all develop a strong compulsion to recognize and accept our duty to bear witness to the Truth, and to stand to defend it. Integrity demands that we do so.

For the love of Jesus we:

  • Love our neighbors and our friends and our enemies.
  • For the love of Jesus we hold firm to and remain faithful to “the faith of Jesus.” His confession must be ours.
  • For the love of Jesus we cherish and protect “the faith of Jesus.” We do not allow it to be manipulated, diluted, compromised, or explained away. There are constraints, and prohibitions. If these are not honored, we have broken faith.
  • For the love of Jesus we exercise our greatest powers of discernment and continually seek wisdom.
  • For the love of Jesus we imitate his courage and act boldly to speak the Truth.
  • For the love of Jesus we testify to and for his cause: giving Jesus the greatest possible respect by showing that we recognize his commission (Luke 4:43) and want to be a part of it. 
  • A hunger for Truth is the noblest possibly way to show our love for Jesus because it is his Father’s Truth that we are seeking.

We are invited to seek that quality of love for Jesus which really does obey.


3rd Human Jesus Conference: Anthony Buzzard

               John 1:1-14: The Classic NT Passage

“In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was fully expressive of God Himself. This was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through it, and without it nothing of what came into being existed…And the word became a human being” (John 1:1-3, 14).

The great prologue of John 1:1-14 is arguably the greatest section of holy Scripture, dedicated to the “word” (not Word with capital), meaning the reason and whole point of the Genesis creation, recalling the light and life of Genesis 1 where 10 times “God said.” The “word” is the most precious and yet also vulnerable and twistable word in Scripture, since as Jesus observed in Luke 8:12, “whenever anyone is exposed to the word [of the Kingdom, Matt. 13:19), the Devil is there ready to snatch that Kingdom word/Gospel from his/her heart, so that he/she cannot believe it and be saved.” This must be one of the greatest intelligence reports to come from the lips of Jesus. It tells us about how to be saved and how not to be saved!

These then are issues of salvation! According to Jesus it matters very much how we understand “word,” and the Devil understands that well and so works to make the “word” unintelligible. I think he has succeeded well even among unitarians. Paul made the same point when he warned that Christians must have “a love for the truth in order to be saved” (2 Thess. 2:10). This reminds us too that “salvation is given to those who obey Jesus” (Heb. 5:9), and thus not given to those who disobey Jesus – not given to those who do not have a love for truth.

That Gospel of the Kingdom word (Matt. 13:19) was finally embodied uniquely in Jesus (John 1:14), who is never in John or the epistles of John ever called “the word” (exception in Rev. 19:13). This is the central truth of Scripture.

I think that the Bible writers show us here that they deliberately reserve the word “word” for what God and Jesus say, and they avoid the confusing proposition that “Jesus is the word” or “Jesus is the Gospel.”

John is deliberately working against the appalling idea that Jesus is other than a genuine human person, i.e. “flesh.” John also wants you to know that Jesus is the first and authoritative Gospel-Message speaker. Everything depends on what Jesus says. Our culture however has been propagandized to think that what really matters is the work of Jesus, his death and resurrection, to the exclusion of the words and message of Jesus. Hence the memorable saying of Billy Graham that “Jesus came to do three days’ work — to die, be buried and rise.” Clever! But what got left out? The word and words of Jesus and Jesus’ own summary purpose statement that his own mission was expressly to “proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom” (Luke 4:43).

Some argue that “In the beginning” in John 1:1 means the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. But as the Pulpit Commentary notes, “From early times expositors have perceived…here a comparison with the ‘in the beginning’ of the first verse of the book of Genesis. This can hardly be doubted…The Socinian view that it referred to ‘the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel’ [is] not now seriously maintained.”[1]

So also a former schoolmate of mine, Don Cupitt, later a professor of theology at Cambridge: “John’s words ought to be translated, ‘the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was the Father’s own Word,’ to stress that the Word is not an independent divine being, but is the only God’s own self-expression.’” This preserves monotheism.

In John 1:1 “the word” cannot be a person. The preposition pros in the “word was with God” is used when a thing, not a person, is with a person. Thus the word cannot be a person, but rather the word or Gospel Message. When John means a thing with a person he uses pros, as in John 1:1.

Note too, the neuter “light” of John verse 5 becomes the masculine person, Jesus in verse 10. That is, the “it” of the light becomes the “him” of the Messiah who as the prologue develops, appears as the uniquely begotten Son, there being almost certainly a reference to his virginal begetting in John 1:13 (reading “he who was begotten by God”).

Then in John 1:14 “the word became flesh” describes the same transition and transformation as the “water became wine,” and “stones become bread.” The word “became” here marks, of course, a vivid superseding of water by wine. Thus also the word becoming flesh means that the word changed from one thing or form to another. It is logically impossible for the “word” of John 1:1 to be Jesus!

Such a reading would empty the word “became” of all meaning. The point can be made like this. When egeneto = “became” is found with a complement, in the form A became B, then B cannot equal or be the same as A. Thus Jesus is a human being who perfectly speaks the word or message of God his Father. The “word” of John 1:1 has assumed an exciting brand new definition (v. 14), a human person, Jesus. God now speaks uniquely, as Jesus keeps saying.

The meaning of “became flesh” is agreed by all the standard lexicons. The word became flesh (o logos sarx egeneto). “Of persons and things, which change their nature, to indicate their entering a new condition: become something” (Bauer’s Lexicon). As also in: “I became a minister.” “It became a large tree.” “He did not exalt himself to be made high priest.” “Water became wine.” Lot’s wife “became a pillar of salt.” The “staff became a snake.” Daniel Wallace: “as in sarx egeneto [became flesh], sarx [flesh] expresses the state into which the divine word entered by a definite act.”

Compare, by contrast, “the word was God” (John 1:1: een, verb ‘to be,’ not ‘become’). There is no change or becoming in verse 1! “Was” in verse 1 is not the same as “became” in verse 14. “Observe the contrast between the egeneto (became) of John the Baptist’s appearance [v. 6] and the een (was) of the logos, between the man John, sent from God, and the ‘word became flesh.’”[2]

As Goppelt says so well, Jesus is what the word became, not one-to-one equal to the word: “The logos of the prologue became Jesus. Jesus was the logos become flesh, not the logos as such.”

“Became” in verse 14 marks the transition. Note how obviously Jewish all this is:

 “One of the most interesting correspondences in the Qumran literature is in fact with John 1:3: ‘By his knowledge everything has been brought into being. And everything that is, he established by his purpose; and apart from him nothing is done’ 1QS 11:11). The equation Knowledge = Wisdom = Logos would not be hard to make.”[3]

Compare this with Genesis:

“‘And God said’ at the beginning of each work of creation including the two providential words of verses 28, 29 — ten times in all (hence the later Jewish dictum: ‘by ten sayings the world was created,’ Aboth 5:1)…In the fact that God creates by a word, there are several important truths implicit. It is an indication not only of the ease with which He accomplished His work, and of His omnipotence and also of the fact that He works consciously and deliberately. Things do not emanate from Him unconsciously, nor are they produced by a mere act of thought…but by an act of will of which the concrete word is the outward expression. Each stage in His creative work is the realization of a deliberately formed purpose, the word being the mediating principle of creation, the means or agency through which His will takes effect. Cp. Ps. 33:6, 9, also 107:20, 147:15, 18 in which passages the word is regarded as a messenger between God and His creatures.”[4]

All this information is meant to help us avoid the very false capital “W” in John 1:1 in almost all translations, which: 1) destroyed both monotheism and 2) the human Jesus (which is antichrist, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7-9). “That Jesus has come in the flesh separates belief from unbelief.”[5]

So the docetists (docetism is belief that Jesus only appeared to be a man, but really was not) ended up twisting John, who was deliberately wanting to be anti-docetic!

Today we still have to oppose the false notion that “the word” was a person, before it finally became a person in the summary verse 14. We see then that 1 John (the Epistle) is John’s own effort (with its 7 times, including 2:24, repeated “that which,” not “he who”) to frustrate and correct the error being created out of his Gospel! Of all errors, the greatest error!

Any Jew would hear wisdom = word. Jesus is the incarnation (not “Incarnation,” capital “I”) of wisdom and word. He is fully human, and to say otherwise, i.e. that he preexists, makes him not human! “Preexistence” creates apostasy and polytheism! Kegan Chandler (The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma) wrote a whole chapter on “another Jesus,” the Jesus who cannot be really human because he begins as non-human.

On a related subject, I note that we do not pay enough attention to the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. These surely tell us that Jesus was human! The only Jesus there is! God can obviously not have a genealogy!

The celebrated work by Lord Hervey on the Genealogies of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (free online) shows that the royal line from Solomon came to a screeching and tragic end when Jehoiachin was cursed and not permitted to have sons as royalty fit to sit on the throne of David (the ultimate privilege and honor). So what has to happen? They brought in a legal successor to Jehoiachin as in Matthew 1:12. His name was Salathiel and he was descended from another son of David, i.e. Nathan. This ensured that Jesus was the true Messiah who, to qualify, must be a descendant of David, and could not be via the Solomon’s line cursed in Jehoiachin (Jer. 22).

You see how important the genealogies are! They prove the human Jesus, just as we prove it also by his “begetting” (coming into existence: Matt. 1:20, Luke 1:35). Salathiel replaces the cursed line in Jehoiachin. This guarantees continuity for the royal line from David to Jesus! There are not two Salathiels, but just one who appears in the Matthew and Luke genealogies to repair the damage done by the failed and cursed Jehoiachin (Jer. 22). These are not small issues, which this conference is tackling. We need to make sure we have taken the information in and are ready to pass it on to others, which is what the Great Commission demands.


[1] “The Gospel of John,” Pulpit Commentary, 1950, p. 4-5.

[2] Ibid., p. 11.

[3] J.A.T. Robinson, Twelve More New Testament Studies, p. 75

[4] Driver, Commentary on Genesis

[5] New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 1, p. 678

3rd Human Jesus Conference: Ken LaPrade

The Prophetic Context of Jesus - and Our Hope

When we carefully consider Jesus’ exact view of Scriptural integrity within his bold use of ancient prophetic statements and quotes, we might marvel at his faithful, unerring grasp of present and future truths! Our ardent Kingdom hope as biblical Christians is most certainly built on his dynamic, joyful hope, as a passionate human being with his vision squarely focused on God Himself (despite severe obstacles.). One might recall the beautiful encouragement which Hebrews 12:1-3 provides (OGF): “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses [in reference to the magnificent examples of faithful believers listed in Hebrews, chapter 11 – who are currently asleep in death], let us also lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with perseverance the race set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfector of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who has endured such hostility of sinners against himself, so that you do not grow weary and give up.” In all such difficult trials, he stands above all others as our supreme model, so that we may carefully emulate his resolve!

It is clear that in the above passage in Hebrews 12:2, the words, “and has taken his seat at the right hand of God” directly refer to Psalm 110:1 in the Hebrew Bible. The First Testament translation presents Psalm 110:1 in the following way, “Yahweh’s proclamation to my lord: ‘Sit at my right until I make your enemies your footstool.’” From Hebrew Masoretic texts, the first word “LORD” (according to many translations in English) in this verse is correctly rendered here as “Yahweh”, the divine name of God Himself (used over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.) The JAV gives the following rendition of this verse with the unpronounced tetragrammaton in place: “YHWH declares to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet!” The New English Translation of the Septuagint declares: “The Lord said unto my lord, ‘Sit on my right until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.’”

In all three of these careful renderings stated above (and in other accurate translations – such as NRSV and NET) the “my lord” is correctly represented with a lower-cased “l”, instead of a capital “L.” That is mainly because the consistent Hebrew vowel points indicate that the Hebrew word here is “adoni” which in its 195 biblical uses always refers to a superior human (or occasionally an angel.) The word here is not Adonai, which in its 449 Scriptural uses always refers to “the Lord God” Himself. The Greek Septuagint is consistent with the documents in Hebrew. This verse cannot be used honestly to promote the doctrine that God was somehow speaking to Himself (perhaps, as a distinct “Person” within Him)!

The November, 2022 issue of Focus on the Kingdom (p. 6) provides this specific documentation under the title: Confirmation from current scholars on adoni, “my lord” – “F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs observe further that variations of pointing, particularly between adoni and adonay are set forth to distinguish between human and divine referents, respectively. In our analysis of all 774 occurrences of the adon root in the Hebrew Bible, we have found this to be strikingly true in the case of these two forms: adoni (see Psalm 110:1) almost always refers to a human lord/master (in a handful of occurrences, the referent is an angelic figure), while adonay (see Psalm 110:5) always refers to the divine Lord.” – Murray Smith, Ian Vallancort, “Enthroned and Coming to Reign: Jesus’s Eschatological Use of Psalm 110:1 in Mark 14:62,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 141:3, 2022, p. 516-517.

So, when Jesus significantly quoted Psalm 110:1, he obviously knew who he was as the fully human Messiah, who could be tempted (Hebrews 4:15), while yet knowing the powerful promise that he would be highly rewarded and exalted upon persevering faithfully until his sacrificial death. As noted briefly at the beginning of this presentation, he is our supreme example of staying joyful in hope (“For the joy set before him”) despite cruel obstacles to be endured.

The first occasion when Jesus boldly called attention to Psalm 110:1 in the Synoptic Gospels can be perused in Mt. 22:41-46, Mk. 12:35-37, and Lk. 20:41-44, very near the end of his ministry. The context of this event is so intriguing - as Jesus had just dynamically answered some questions put to him, from mostly insincere opponents (though not always). (1) He responded about paying taxes to Caesar, and (2) the truth of the resurrection - with his bold (Mt. 22:29) rebuke, “You are much mistaken! You do not know the Scriptures, or the power of God.” (This was in response to the Sadducees – who did not believe in a future resurrection.) Then, (3) Jesus identified (in Mt. and Mk.) the greatest of all commandments (when he so clearly established his unitary monotheistic beliefs by quoting Deut. 6:4 according to the meaningful dialogue in Mk. 12:28-34.) To me, it is extremely significant that the discussion of the Shema (Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord) in Mark 12 is in the back-to-back context with his bold quoting of Psalm 110:1 for the first time! Here then is the record in Matthew 22:41-46 (OGF) of Jesus’ public question put to the gathered crowd (including some Pharisees) after dealing masterfully with the questions asked of him:

While the Pharisees were gathered there, Jesus asked them a question. “What do you think about the Messiah?” he asked. “Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. “So how is it that David by inspiration of the spirit calls him ‘lord’?” Jesus asked them. “David says, ‘The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.’ If David called him lord, how is he his son?” Nobody could give him any answer, and nobody from that time on dared to ask him any more questions.

Several factors should be abundantly clear in this dynamic record. (A) Jesus believed fervently in the absolute integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures. On another occasion, in a discussion about his Messianic, “Son of God” identity (John 10:29-39) Jesus stated, “and the Scripture cannot be broken.” When already resurrected, according to Luke 24:44, he spoke of the Hebrew Scriptures in this way: “that everything which is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms [the first book of the “Writings” – Ketuvim] must be fulfilled.” (B) Naturally, this view of Scriptural precision would include his Mt. 22 use of Psalm 110:1 when he declares that David called the Messiah “lord” – “by inspiration of the spirit.” The precise distinctions we viewed earlier in Psalm 110:1 about the use adoni [a superior human – in this case] instead of Adonai [a reference to the Lord God] would have been extremely vivid in Jesus’ conscience and his exact awareness. (C) Here in Mt. 22 Jesus wisely combined the concept of “Messiah” (Yahweh’s “anointed” from Psalm 2:2) with the “my lord” (adoni) of Psalm 110:1. (D) Jesus’ keen focus on Scriptural integrity went far beyond that of the crowds (including the Pharisees present.) They correctly perceived a truth in 2nd Samuel 7:12-13 about David’s son [or descendant] having his kingdom established forever. However, unlike Jesus, they failed to see how this “son of David” truth fit perfectly with the future status of the Messiah also being David’s human “lord” (Psalm110:1), who would be exalted to YHWH’s right hand, until the future subduing of his enemies!

Perhaps a wider (but very brief) overview of Jesus’ previous ministry could be helpful in appreciating his pivotal use of Psalm 110:1 as considered so far in Mt. 22, (also in Mk. 12, and Lk. 20.) Since childhood Jesus was thoroughly dedicated to learning and applying the truth of Scriptures (Luke 2:46-49), and he grew (2:52): ”Jesus kept advancing in wisdom and years, and in favor with God and people.” As an adult (about 30 years old) he was very bold to begin declaring coming Kingdom truths (alluding to Daniel’s future world government prophecy in Dan. 2:44-45 - with Dan. 7:13-14 clearly in mind) and the dire need now for repentance (or devotion to changed thinking and living). Jesus spoke profusely about such priorities from the very outset of his ministry (Mk. 1:14-15, Mt. 4:17, 23, Lk. 4:43, Mt. 5:43-48). Nevertheless, he did not generally reveal his Messianic role and identity in a public way until much later. (There are very few exceptions, mostly in private conversations: for example, with Nicodemus [John 3] and the Samaritan woman [John 4]). Jesus even rebuked demons early on (Lk.4:41) so they would stop shouting out about his Messianic identity. Meanwhile, future Kingdom realities and repentant living were constantly heralded and taught in depth by Jesus, then the twelve, and a latter group of seventy disciples.

Quite a bit later, there was a dramatic change in Jesus’ overall message and his approach, starting at Caesarea Philippi among the twelve (Mt. 16, Mk.8, Lk.9). He then allowed exclusively, to the twelve themselves - the understanding of his Messianic identity (after Peter’s confession), while charging them not to speak about it to others (Mt. 16:20). He began speaking repeatedly to the twelve (Mt. 16, 17, 20, etc.) about his upcoming death and resurrection, though they failed to really grasp the point. Three of the twelve were even exposed to a private visionary experience (Mt. 17:1-9) to affirm Jesus’ Messianic role in the future coming Kingdom. Even when Jesus first spoke publicly about the truth of Psalm 110:1 (as we viewed in Mt. 22:41-46), he did not directly announce his Messianic identity to the crowds (though some, like the twelve, would have known). In all this, Jesus never rescinded his basic gospel message about the coming Kingdom and repentance, but he did wisely wait until the right time to privately disclose specific details about his death and resurrection (further components of the Gospel) to the twelve. Whether by speaking in parables or by waiting until the right time to unveil certain truths, he did not “cast pearls before swine.”

 Likewise, in Mt. 22:41-46 (which we saw already), Jesus’ timely display of Messiah as David’s exalted lord (adoni) gives us a picture of his own, personal, joyful hope – based on his firm belief in the integrity of the Scriptural declaration in Psalm 110:1. This truth, furthermore, points to Messiah’s intermediate, victorious role after his resurrection and ascension – to be seated at the right hand of God, until his enemies are vanquished (at his powerful, future return).

A bit later, when Jesus endured cruel mocking at his trial, he did not downplay his Messianic identity at all! It was then time to exhibit his identity publicly, even to enemies. His use of Psalm 110:1, (combining it masterfully with Daniel 7:13) to challenge the unbelief of his angry opponents (Mt. 26:63-64, Mk. 14:61-62, Lk.22:68-71) is quite impressive! We will view the Mark 14:61-62 (OGF) record:

But Jesus remained silent and gave no reply. So the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus replied, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Clearly the title, “Son of Man” and the phrase, “Coming with the clouds of heaven” are from Daniel 7:13, whereas the phrase, “Sitting on the right hand of Power [referring to YHWH]” is from Psalm 110:1. Obviously, Jesus, the human Messiah (or “Son of Man”), was willing to stake his very life on the integrity of Psalm 110:1 as carefully connected with precise meaning to other vital Scriptures, with the “joy set before him” of knowing (according to God’s promise) that he would be ultimately resurrected, ascended, and seated at God’s right hand!

Jesus’ joyful hope is thus so tightly linked to our hope as bona fide Christians, who invest our hearts in God’s written promises in Scriptures. We know that as we stay faithful, we are promised by God to be resurrected to Life of the Age to Come - at Jesus’ glorious return: 1st Corinthians 15:22-23 and many other passages.

The rest of the new covenant Scriptures (after the historical time frame of the four gospels) continue to speak of the central truth of Psalm 110:1, showing Jesus to be already seated at God’s right hand after his ascension in Acts 1:9-11. In addition to an abundance of direct quotes, partial quotes, and allusions to this prominent verse in Psalms, every N.T. reference to Jesus as “lord” is, in a real sense, directly rooted in Jesus being the fully human “lord” (adoni – used mostly of a superior human being) in Psalm 110:1, not Adonai – which is used exclusively of the Lord God, (or YHWH Himself.)

In addition to the key, prominent uses of Psalm 110:1 which we have seen in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, here are a few further notable references to this verse (but not at all a complete list). Mark 16:19 (OGF) declares, “Then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God.” On the day of Pentecost Peter commented (Acts 2:33a, 34): “Now that he has been exalted to the right hand of God ….” “It was not David who ascended into the heavens, but David himself said, ‘the Lord said to my lord, “Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ Hebrews 1:3b says, “After he had purified us of our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” and 1:13 states, “But to which of the angels did God ever say at any time, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?’” Hebrews 10:12b mentions that he, “Sat down at the right hand of God, where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.”

Ephesians 1:20-23 (OGF) uses the Psalm 110:1 reality to display the following panoramic, victorious view: “This power He used to raise the Messiah from the dead and seat him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above every ruler, authority, power, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the age to come. He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Ephesians even goes on to state the following, in terms of our (as faithful believers) spiritual identification with the ascended, seated Messiah in 2:6-7: “He raised us up with him and seated us in heavenly places with Messiah Jesus. This is so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of his grace in His kindness to us in Messiah Jesus.” So, in a spiritual sense, we can live faithfully now as God’s right-hand people, “seated in heavenly places” (while emulating Jesus’ faith) until God’s kindness is fully revealed to us at the Kingdom’s arrival on earth!

As I have previously indicated, there are further passages to consider about the powerful biblical understanding provided by Psalm 110:1.

 

 

Wednesday, November 30, 2022

UK study on 1 John 1-2 Notes

 Major Themes

  • Light vs Darkness, e.g., love vs hate; children of God (light) vs children of the Devil (darkness, vv. 5-7; cp, "sons of light" John 12.36; 1Thess 5:5);

Cp. Qumran The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness Scroll.

  • Contra Gnosticism in the form of Docetism, Jesus only seemed human but in reality a preexistent, lesser demiurge, god.

Structure

  • readers note it mirrors that of the Fourth Gospel;

  • a prologue (John 1:1-18/1 John 1:1-4),

  • two major parts (John 1:19-12:50, the book of signs; John 13:1-20:29, the book of glory/1 John 1:5-3:10; 1 John 3:11-5:12);

  • epilogue/conclusion (John 21/1 John 5:13-21).

  • share repeated phrases ('if we claim . . .'), repeated forms of address ('dear children').


Eyewitnesses

  • highlighted by a dozen or so first-person plural references (“we,” “our,” “us”);

  • The Apostles witness to the anointed Son of God, son of man, i.e., a human person!

You are the Christ, the Son of God,” Mar 8:27-30; Mat 16.13-17; Luc. 9.18-21;

John 1.41-51.

He was a man attested by God,” Acts 2.22-23.

  • same with others, Mat 9.8 when people saw him do miracles, "they praised God for giving humans such authority."


Which beginning?

  • ref. to Genesis Creation, cp. "in the beginning," John 1:1;

  • ref. to the one "made manifest" ("made flesh," John 1.14) Jesus, "seen, looked, touched," cp. Mat 1.1 genesis;

  • ref. to the word, the KOG gospel ministry;

All of the above, i.e., the creative word of God that is life and light is now embodied in Jesus.

And in this way God's will and purpose are finally revealed by the proclamation of the gospel.

What’s in a word?

In the OT davar:

  • primarily a prophet’s message to Israel or;

  • a “decree, plan, proposal 2Sam 17.6; 1 Kings 1.7.” (Hebrew & Chaldee Lexicon to the OT).

In the NT code for the gospel about the KOG that:

  • people “hear the word of the kingdom,” Mat 13:19;

  • Jesus “preached this word,” Mark 2:2;

  • Paul says “be bold to preach the word,” Phil. 1:14.

Gospel & 1 John 1 synonymous:

  • John 1:1 the word = the word of life 1 John 1.1, i.e., the promise of light, life in the age to come.

  • This explains John's use of 4 neuter relative pronouns [which or what] into apposition with the masculine logos, the word.

So even if John has the person of Jesus in view, the stress at the opening of both his Gospel prologue and 1 John 1 is on the preaching of the word.

  • Also note the parallels with "the word of God" John 1.1 = the "words of eternal life" John 6.68 = “the word of Life" 1 John 1.1-2.

  • No justification for writing “Word” instead of word and personal pronouns.

  • All English trini translators from the Greek before the KJV in 1611 read “all things were made by it,” (Jn. 1:3) and many did not capitalize “word.”

NOTE in his Gospel or letters John does not use neither noun (gospel) or verb gospel (proclaim/preach the gospel) but the related term "news/message" (angelia) or "eternal life," i.e., of the age to come.

Only once Rev 14.6, "eternal gospel."

With the Father

  • Eternal life of the age to come = the immortality Plan which was “with the Father” (pros ton patera), i.e., in His mind, heart, as we have shown.

  • Cp. Gal. 2:5 the Gospel truth “with [pros] you.”

Summary

From Dunn, Christology in the Making, 1980, pp 245-46.

“The subject of which 1 John 1.1-3 speaks is not Christ, not even Christ the incarnate Word, but that which concerns the word of life (the relative pronouns are neuter, not masculine); and what was manifested is not Christ or the Word, but the life, the eternal life which was with the Father.

In other words, it is clearly the content of the message which is in view, not the person as such….Indeed, were it not for John 1.1-18 we would naturally see 1 John 1.1-3 simply as a more ambitious statement along the lines of Luke 1.2 (cf Phil. 2.16; John 6.68; Acts 5.20).”


Christian sinners

  • What did Jesus say? If your brother "sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, 'I repent,' you must forgive him." Luke 17.3-4;

  • v.9 "if we confess our sins," cp. 1 John 2.1 "if anybody sins we have the parakletos," Jesus;

  • not to be confused with repeated, unrepented sin!


1 John 2:1

Jesus as the parakletos:

  • do not equate Jesus with the Spirit absolutely!

The NET Bible comment on 1 John 2:1 summarizes these scriptures well:

“The reader should have been prepared for this interchangeability of terminology, however, by John 14:16, where Jesus told the disciples that he would ask the Father to send them another paraclete (allos, another of the same kind).

The concept of Jesus’ intercession on behalf of believers does occur elsewhere in the NT, notably in Rom 8:34 and Heb 7:25.”

  • also, fulfillment of John 14; 16

John 14:16

"And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another parakletos."

  • The parakletos another name for the HS;

  • The Greek word translated "another" allos “another (of the same kind)" and not "another (of a different kind),” heteros.

John 14:26

"The parakletos, the holy spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you."

John 16:7

"If I do not go away the parakletos will not come to you."

  • What did Paul say?

1Cor 15:45 ESV

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

2Cor 3.17

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.