Matthew 1:23 is the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 which reads, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, (God with us). How can that be if Jesus is not God? Matthew is presenting to us the fact that the birth of Christ fulfilled prophecy, which is Isaiah 7:14.
A virgin was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That's what Joseph came to understand. And when Joseph made that last final procedure of adopting Jesus by giving Him His name Jesus, Jesus Christ became the legal heir to the throne of David. That's when it became official. So it didn't come from Joseph. Even some Jews were expecting Messiah to come from a virgin. Very interesting!
That is something to look forward to because the Bible says it will happen. We haven't received our new name yet though. We can be called the sons of God as Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus is our Brother and God is our Father. Jesus had to pray like us to be delivered from the oppressor. He even fasted 40 days to resist the devil. Hebrews 5:7-10 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Acts 20 : 28 Feed the Church of God that he has purchased with his own Blood....The redemption of Humanity wd be of no effect unless Jesus was God the Son....Man's Blood cd not atone for sins PERIOD....All men carried the stain and the spot of Adam....There was none righteous no not one....Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.....The blood of God...Jesus....As he was the LIVING WORD made flesh and blood.
Does the Bible say :"Lamb of God" or "God the Lamb", "Son of God" or "God the Son". It seems to me changing the order of the wording changes the meaning. I couldn't agree more with the statement without Jesus atoning sacrifice we would have not a hope of salvation. I haven't received a response from anyone if they felt Jesus could have sinned. Me know he didn't but could have he.
You pose a question that many have spoken to over the centuries-whether Jesus was able to sin or not. There have been two school's of thought concerning this question-those who think Jesus was capable of sinning but always chose not to disobey the Father, and those who think He was not able to sin because of His divine nature was unable to sin.
I suggest that you research these two trains of thinking and discover more information for your answer. I have studied it some. Even so, I cannot say that I learn towards one view more than another.
Another question related to this one is if Jesus had a sinful nature that He resisted always or did He only possess a nature void of sin like the first Adam, only Jesus did not let the sinful nature enter into Himself by sinning. I tend to think that the latter is correct. This is because Jesus, as the pre-ordained Redeemer of mankind needed to be without any sinfulness to be truly spotless and because I think the following:
The first Adam, within Himself, was not able resist the temptation to disobey God. He would have eventually given into sin. I think this is because of the way God created humanity-good, but able to sin. Jesus, being both God and Human, possessed sinless human nature like the first Adam, but with the Divine nature, He was able to resist sin perfectly-showing that man on his own can never fulfill all righteousness, but God and man united in one Person is the only one who can fulfill all righteousness. Jesus is this unique union of humanity and divinity and only He could fulfill all requirements of the redemption of mankind from sin in the sinless sacrifice of His life for the sins of the world.
This is a deep topic and I do recommend that people who wish to go deeper to study this topic online from reputable Christian sites in order to gain more insights and biblical support. I, on my own, cannot duly explain either of these two topics.
Thanks GiGi for the response. I agree with you and Chris in regard to Jesus not carrying the sin nature, but was tempted and could have sinned. The scripture Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" wouldn't have much relevance if He couldn't have sinned anyway. I appreciate the contrast between the old and new testament to relay the power available to the believer because he offered himself "without spot". Hebrews 9:13,14 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hi Douglas. I may have missed your question earlier, "if they felt Jesus could have sinned". I believe that since Jesus came as a Man, fully human, He didn't inherit the sin nature through Mary, as we do through our parents. Jesus was wholly pure - if He wasn't, He would be unacceptable to be the spotless Lamb of God sacrificed for our sins.
But in His temptations from Satan, & no doubt throughout His earthly sojourn, Satan endeavoured to cause that sin nature to be created in Jesus, by causing him to be tempted and to sin. But Jesus resisted Satan at every point, thereby remaining pure from that sin nature, by not entertaining sin. So yes, Jesus could have sinned, if He allowed sin to take root making him a sinner - but He refused Satan's thrusts & remained the fully acceptable Sacrifice for those of us ensnared by sin.
And in respect to a change in meaning if using "God the Lamb or God the Son", it would be so if Jesus' first appearance was as a Man, born of Mary by the Power of God. But if Jesus had a pre-incarnate existence, coming to Earth from God, as He said He did, then I have no problem in how the Lamb & the Son are presented in those phrases, as His inclusion within the Godhead are indeed God's Expression as the Lamb & the Son.
Thanks brother Jesse. I had not looked at Matthew chapter 1 in that way. That gives greater clarity & substantiates the miraculous birth of Jesus as One wholly from God without any human input.
I've always maintained that Mary contributed nothing to Jesus' Conception except being the 'vehicle' for delivering the Son of God, but often hear that Jesus received His Human side through her (i.e. her blood, DNA, etc.). Maybe that's true in part but I feel that this Holy Embryo had no human contribution to it.
I believe that what you've shared in these pages now, prove that this Birth was wholly of God, & His Humanity was in fulfilment of the prophecies that went before Him, His identification with the people He (primarily) came for, and of course, that His Life might be sacrificed as an atonement for theirs & our sins. That the sacrifice had to be from within the Deity (seen now as His Son in the flesh), or else any other sacrifice would not satisfy the oft declared Nature of God, i.e. of His great Love for all mankind.
Would any other sacrifice suffice to adequately deal with our sin, except that divinity should take on humanity for the suffering of death? Can we read of God's great love for us in the Word & believe that anything other than Himself could truly express that love? I don't believe anything or anyone else could - it had to be all of God. Thanks again for sharing those insights into the Word.
Hebrews 2:7 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hi Doug. Great Scriptures to show that Christ has come in the flesh - He is indeed the Son of God & the Son of Man. And as a Man, He was made "like unto his brethren" & as a Man "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin". I would certainly never argue the humanity of Christ.
But interesting that you quoted 1 John 4:3, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." This is the wonderful Truth from John, about the spirits that influence men what to believe & proclaim (as the false prophets of verse 1 did). That spirit that does not confess that Christ has come in the flesh is the spirit of Satan (antichrist).
Some have glossed over these verses, but in the past, I felt compelled to consider, 'surely a spirit that does not confess Christ coming in the flesh, must be a different spirit that believes that Jesus was a real Person?' The spirits themselves believe Jesus was real, the Jews & Romans believed, even the Gnostics (about whom John was warning the believers), believed - there was no denial that there was a Man going around by the Name of Jesus & saying & doing all that He did. But these same Gnostics & others I've mentioned will never confess one thing. And that is, that Jesus came out from God to become a man. Because gnostics believe that Divinity cannot unite with the material, especially sinful flesh, therefore the incarnation is an impossibility. And so John issued the warning to try (test) the spirits (that by which these men spoke); that there is a spirit that denies that Jesus came down from Heaven into a body of flesh. John 3:13; John 17:5.
Chris, I thought your statement "the miraculous birth of Jesus as One wholly from God without any human input" was implying you didn't believe he was human. I believe he had the spiritual nature (form of God) and found in the fashion (outward circumstance) as man. God can't be tempted with sin, but Jesus was tempted and resisted, was sinless and therefore could become the perfect sacrifice for sin. We have to become born again to receive the divine nature so "we can walk as he walked".
Hi Doug. The phrase that you quoted was a part of my comment to Jesse. And I explained what I meant by it, i.e. Christ's birth (in human form) was wholly from God and that Mary did not contribute anything to the birth.
Some believe that God provided His Divine Seed & that Seed fused with Mary's ovum, to produce this miraculous birth. Though I did not state it, as it wasn't necessary in that post, I feel that if Mary did contribute to the conception, that it would mean that the human sin nature from her would also be transmitted to the Babe. I know some teach that this was the case & that Jesus with sinful flesh (sin nature) resisted Satan at every point so that He remained pure. I wondered about that. Rather, I considered that there was no sinful flesh in Jesus (hence the Seed was totally from & of God), & that Mary was appointed to simply bear the Son of God.
The other point is, if Jesus was born with a sin nature, could it be truly said that He was the Last Adam, where the first Adam was created sinless? Even though "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" ( 1 Corinthians 15:47), both were brought forth by God to Earth & as such were sinless. However, Adam failed God sealing his & our fate. But Jesus remained pure, fulfilling the Plan of the Father and breaking that seal by sealing our redemption (for those who believe) in His Blood.
Interesting verse to describe how God had to anoint Jesus with the Holy Ghost and power. Act 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
Does Jesus ever tell lie ? No , he definately does not ever lie . John Ch 10 V 36 . John Ch 10 V 30 , John Ch 14 V 20 . John Ch 14 V 6-10 . Honestly , it seems very clear to me .
I agree, Jesus never told a lie. In fact, it is impossible for Him to lie, for Jesus Himself is truth. And yes, those verses you list are pretty clear. Thank you!
I believe all of those scriptures that Christ is one with God and the Father is in the Son. I also believe that we are one in God and Jesus, but we do not exchange names with them and call ourselves God or Jesus. Some verses ... John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be (one in us): that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." I think when we use words that the Bible does not use it can complicate the scripture. Example: God the Son or God in the flesh. It is simpler to use the Son of God and ponder what that means. 2 Cor. 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. God dwells in us and walks in us, but we don't call ourselves "God in the flesh" just because he is in our flesh. Maybe a relevant point to consider concerning this topic is if we believe Jesus could have sinned.
I believe that Jesus could have sinned , if he couldn't have sinned then how could he have been tempted to sin ? That's just illogical and God is not the author of confusion , how could Jesus b the victor over sin if he wasn't capable of sin ? Where is the victory over sin if he couldn't have sinned ? If there's a victory there must first b a battle , he faced the same battles that we do , with our sinfull human inclinations and weaknesses . Sin is just disobedience to God's command .
I agree, that to fulfill the law one had to be capable of transgressing the law. There are in the scripture two Adams part of Gods' plan, the first was formed from the dust of the ground, earthy. He was without sin and the Holy Spirit could dwell in him and God could have a relationship with man. He was disobedient to God and ate of the tree God said not to eat from, therefore sin entered, and God could not dwell in him. The dwelling place/mansion was corrupted by sin that passed to all men/women.
The last Adam was our Lord from heaven, he took on the same flesh as the first Adam without sin, and as the first Adam, he was capable of transgressing the law. The difference between the two was the last Adam was obedient to the Father. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous".
The last Adam repaired/prepared that place, what we see in John 1:1-3 that He said He was going (going to the cross) to do. When He told them this, it was just before He was taken and crucified that finished the work He was sent to do.
With what the last Adam, Jesus, The Son of God did, He became our high priest and the only mediator between us and God, knowing what it is like to be tempted and battle sin made it possible for God through His Holy Spirit to dwell in man again and become the tabernacle of God.
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"
I agree that using words that are not in the bible can complicate the scripture, but that is not always the case. The problem is when we use words that are in total opposite of what the scriptures teach, not necessarily the words we use. For instance, we use the word rapture when the bible never uses that word.
You mention that "It is simpler to use the Son of God and ponder what that means," but I think even that term can complicate things with so many believers today, and it does because the phrase Son of God meant something different to the Jewish mind when Jesus spoke those words than it does to some of us today.
That's why some people today say "How can Jesus be God when the bible says He's the Son of God. Well, that phrase "Son of God" to the Jews was equivalent to saying you are God, and Jesus made that claim to be the Son of God. And the Jews took up stones to kill Him for making Himself God.
Some see the word Son and they misapply the word. Jesus is not a Son by birth. The word Son when applied to Jesus is the word HUIOS. The other word for son, which means a son by birth is the word TEKNON. The word TEKNON is never applied to Jesus.
So when I see Jesus making the claim to be the Son of God, I believe He meant the same thing that those Jews understood Him to be saying. I believe He was making Himself equal with God, and claiming to be God. The only difference would be that I would not accuse Him of blasphemy for His claim as the Jews did.
Is Jesus Christ God?
Matthew 1:23 is the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 which reads, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, (God with us). How can that be if Jesus is not God? Matthew is presenting to us the fact that the birth of Christ fulfilled prophecy, which is Isaiah 7:14.
A virgin was conceived by the Holy Spirit. That's what Joseph came to understand. And when Joseph made that last final procedure of adopting Jesus by giving Him His name Jesus, Jesus Christ became the legal heir to the throne of David. That's when it became official. So it didn't come from Joseph. Even some Jews were expecting Messiah to come from a virgin. Very interesting!
I read your comment, you believe we are one with The Father and the Son John 17:21; but you don't believe we exchange names.
Are we the bride (the wife) of our HUSBAND (Christ)?
Does the WIFE not always take the NAME OF HER HUSBAND?
Revelation 3:12...and I (CHRIST) will write upon him (my wife) the NAME OF MY GOD ......and I will write upon him My NAME.
God Bless You.
You pose a question that many have spoken to over the centuries-whether Jesus was able to sin or not. There have been two school's of thought concerning this question-those who think Jesus was capable of sinning but always chose not to disobey the Father, and those who think He was not able to sin because of His divine nature was unable to sin.
I suggest that you research these two trains of thinking and discover more information for your answer. I have studied it some. Even so, I cannot say that I learn towards one view more than another.
Another question related to this one is if Jesus had a sinful nature that He resisted always or did He only possess a nature void of sin like the first Adam, only Jesus did not let the sinful nature enter into Himself by sinning. I tend to think that the latter is correct. This is because Jesus, as the pre-ordained Redeemer of mankind needed to be without any sinfulness to be truly spotless and because I think the following:
The first Adam, within Himself, was not able resist the temptation to disobey God. He would have eventually given into sin. I think this is because of the way God created humanity-good, but able to sin. Jesus, being both God and Human, possessed sinless human nature like the first Adam, but with the Divine nature, He was able to resist sin perfectly-showing that man on his own can never fulfill all righteousness, but God and man united in one Person is the only one who can fulfill all righteousness. Jesus is this unique union of humanity and divinity and only He could fulfill all requirements of the redemption of mankind from sin in the sinless sacrifice of His life for the sins of the world.
This is a deep topic and I do recommend that people who wish to go deeper to study this topic online from reputable Christian sites in order to gain more insights and biblical support. I, on my own, cannot duly explain either of these two topics.
But in His temptations from Satan, & no doubt throughout His earthly sojourn, Satan endeavoured to cause that sin nature to be created in Jesus, by causing him to be tempted and to sin. But Jesus resisted Satan at every point, thereby remaining pure from that sin nature, by not entertaining sin. So yes, Jesus could have sinned, if He allowed sin to take root making him a sinner - but He refused Satan's thrusts & remained the fully acceptable Sacrifice for those of us ensnared by sin.
And in respect to a change in meaning if using "God the Lamb or God the Son", it would be so if Jesus' first appearance was as a Man, born of Mary by the Power of God. But if Jesus had a pre-incarnate existence, coming to Earth from God, as He said He did, then I have no problem in how the Lamb & the Son are presented in those phrases, as His inclusion within the Godhead are indeed God's Expression as the Lamb & the Son.
Yes, without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we would have no hope!
I've always maintained that Mary contributed nothing to Jesus' Conception except being the 'vehicle' for delivering the Son of God, but often hear that Jesus received His Human side through her (i.e. her blood, DNA, etc.). Maybe that's true in part but I feel that this Holy Embryo had no human contribution to it.
I believe that what you've shared in these pages now, prove that this Birth was wholly of God, & His Humanity was in fulfilment of the prophecies that went before Him, His identification with the people He (primarily) came for, and of course, that His Life might be sacrificed as an atonement for theirs & our sins. That the sacrifice had to be from within the Deity (seen now as His Son in the flesh), or else any other sacrifice would not satisfy the oft declared Nature of God, i.e. of His great Love for all mankind.
Would any other sacrifice suffice to adequately deal with our sin, except that divinity should take on humanity for the suffering of death? Can we read of God's great love for us in the Word & believe that anything other than Himself could truly express that love? I don't believe anything or anyone else could - it had to be all of God. Thanks again for sharing those insights into the Word.
But interesting that you quoted 1 John 4:3, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." This is the wonderful Truth from John, about the spirits that influence men what to believe & proclaim (as the false prophets of verse 1 did). That spirit that does not confess that Christ has come in the flesh is the spirit of Satan (antichrist).
Some have glossed over these verses, but in the past, I felt compelled to consider, 'surely a spirit that does not confess Christ coming in the flesh, must be a different spirit that believes that Jesus was a real Person?' The spirits themselves believe Jesus was real, the Jews & Romans believed, even the Gnostics (about whom John was warning the believers), believed - there was no denial that there was a Man going around by the Name of Jesus & saying & doing all that He did. But these same Gnostics & others I've mentioned will never confess one thing. And that is, that Jesus came out from God to become a man. Because gnostics believe that Divinity cannot unite with the material, especially sinful flesh, therefore the incarnation is an impossibility. And so John issued the warning to try (test) the spirits (that by which these men spoke); that there is a spirit that denies that Jesus came down from Heaven into a body of flesh. John 3:13; John 17:5.
Some believe that God provided His Divine Seed & that Seed fused with Mary's ovum, to produce this miraculous birth. Though I did not state it, as it wasn't necessary in that post, I feel that if Mary did contribute to the conception, that it would mean that the human sin nature from her would also be transmitted to the Babe. I know some teach that this was the case & that Jesus with sinful flesh (sin nature) resisted Satan at every point so that He remained pure. I wondered about that. Rather, I considered that there was no sinful flesh in Jesus (hence the Seed was totally from & of God), & that Mary was appointed to simply bear the Son of God.
The other point is, if Jesus was born with a sin nature, could it be truly said that He was the Last Adam, where the first Adam was created sinless? Even though "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven" ( 1 Corinthians 15:47), both were brought forth by God to Earth & as such were sinless. However, Adam failed God sealing his & our fate. But Jesus remained pure, fulfilling the Plan of the Father and breaking that seal by sealing our redemption (for those who believe) in His Blood.
Thank you. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, no spot, no blemish!
I agree, Jesus never told a lie. In fact, it is impossible for Him to lie, for Jesus Himself is truth. And yes, those verses you list are pretty clear. Thank you!
It should be John 14:1-3 sorry about that.
God bless,
RLW
I agree, that to fulfill the law one had to be capable of transgressing the law. There are in the scripture two Adams part of Gods' plan, the first was formed from the dust of the ground, earthy. He was without sin and the Holy Spirit could dwell in him and God could have a relationship with man. He was disobedient to God and ate of the tree God said not to eat from, therefore sin entered, and God could not dwell in him. The dwelling place/mansion was corrupted by sin that passed to all men/women.
The last Adam was our Lord from heaven, he took on the same flesh as the first Adam without sin, and as the first Adam, he was capable of transgressing the law. The difference between the two was the last Adam was obedient to the Father. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous".
The last Adam repaired/prepared that place, what we see in John 1:1-3 that He said He was going (going to the cross) to do. When He told them this, it was just before He was taken and crucified that finished the work He was sent to do.
With what the last Adam, Jesus, The Son of God did, He became our high priest and the only mediator between us and God, knowing what it is like to be tempted and battle sin made it possible for God through His Holy Spirit to dwell in man again and become the tabernacle of God.
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"
Just my understanding.
God bless,
RLW
I agree that using words that are not in the bible can complicate the scripture, but that is not always the case. The problem is when we use words that are in total opposite of what the scriptures teach, not necessarily the words we use. For instance, we use the word rapture when the bible never uses that word.
You mention that "It is simpler to use the Son of God and ponder what that means," but I think even that term can complicate things with so many believers today, and it does because the phrase Son of God meant something different to the Jewish mind when Jesus spoke those words than it does to some of us today.
That's why some people today say "How can Jesus be God when the bible says He's the Son of God. Well, that phrase "Son of God" to the Jews was equivalent to saying you are God, and Jesus made that claim to be the Son of God. And the Jews took up stones to kill Him for making Himself God.
Some see the word Son and they misapply the word. Jesus is not a Son by birth. The word Son when applied to Jesus is the word HUIOS. The other word for son, which means a son by birth is the word TEKNON. The word TEKNON is never applied to Jesus.
So when I see Jesus making the claim to be the Son of God, I believe He meant the same thing that those Jews understood Him to be saying. I believe He was making Himself equal with God, and claiming to be God. The only difference would be that I would not accuse Him of blasphemy for His claim as the Jews did.
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?