Topic #3 Christ's "obedience" and "will".

[Deavonreye]

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Philipians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Christ/Jesus was obedient to god? Is Jesus "one with god", or does Jesus have a will apart from god?

 

[Drew]

[/B]Christ/Jesus was obedient to god?

I am sure what I am about to post will be met with much disapproval, but........

I suggest that in this text, Paul is saying something very particular about what Jesus was obedient "to". Many will say "to the Law of Moses". Others will say "to God's will in general terms".

I suggest that the primary point Paul is making here is this: Jesus, as the specifically Jewish Messiah, is obedient to the covenant obligations of the nation of Israel.

 

[Deavonreye]

I definitely wasn't wanting to take this thread in this direction, and perhaps it can be a small sidenote, . . . but Judaism, and those who have practiced it for millenia, did not see Jesus as "the messiah", and being that they are aware of what "the messiah" was suppose to fulfill, . . . I'm not sure if that is the "obedience" spoken of.

It seems like Jesus must be obedient to another [god], or has a "will" different to that other [god].

 

[stovebolts]

but Judaism, and those who have practiced it for millenia, did not see Jesus as "the messiah"

Are you saying that Jesus wasn't a Hebraic Judaic? What about Paul, or the other Apostles, or wouldn't they have also fell under "Judaism"?

and being that they are aware of what "the messiah" was suppose to fulfill,

Some certainly figured out what the messiah was supposed to fulfill and became followers of Jesus. Others rejected him just as scripture stated would happen.

 

[Deavonreye]

I can't speak for all hebrews/jews. I just know that people don't throw away an obvious truth if it is there. Because there still IS Judaism, and not under Jesus, and their scholars have no reason to conclude him as such, I find that interesting.

Regardless, I know that the two religions don't see eye to eye on this, and I'm not really wanting to debate it. I'm more interested in the OP.

 

[Drew]

I can't speak for all hebrews/jews. I just know that people don't throw away an obvious truth if it is there. Because there still IS Judaism, and not under Jesus, and their scholars have no reason to conclude him as such, I find that interesting.

Well, I know a little bit about the Old Testament and I would agree that it is actually not "obvious" that Jesus of Nazareth "fits" the Messianic role. I think that He does, but I do not think its easy to see this. For one thing, there is very little Old Testament evidence that the Messiah figure would be divine. An example of an error many Christians make is that famous text from Isaiah 53. From the perspective of 21st century Christianity, it is "easy" to see the "suffering servant" figure as Jesus. But that is not really true to a proper understanding of the Isaianic context. The suffering servant has to be Israel. So the only way to rescue the "Jesus is the suffering servant" model is to see Jesus as the incarnation of, yes, Israel.

I would say this about the relation of Jesus to Judaism: To see Jesus as Jewish Messiah is entirely legitimate, assuming that one is willing to buy into the proposition that many Old Testament texts have a true meaning that is different from the "obvious" meaning. So, I suggest, this all turns on the degree to which see certain texts are seen as "open" to readings that are not the obvious one.

 

[Deavonreye]

Okay, so whether or not, . . . I'm curious about the OP.

 

[Sparkey]

I'd like to offer Hebrews chapter 5 to the discussion:

For every high priest taken from among men is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. He can have compassion on those who are ignorant and going astray, since he himself is also subject to weakness. Because of this he is required as for the people, so also for himself, to offer sacrifices for sins. And no man takes this honor to himself, but he who is called by God, just as Aaron was.

So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You." As He also says in another place: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek"; who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

[Hebrews 5:1-9 NKJV]

 

[Strangelove]

Christ/Jesus was obedient to god? Is Jesus "one with god", or does Jesus have a will apart from god?

Both.

How many topics left until I lose my faith Deavon?

Is it a 12 step plan?

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes, it's a 12 step program.

If Jesus is "one with the father", why would there be a need for "obedience"? Why would there be a differing "will"?

 

[Drew]

Yes, it's a 12 step program.

If Jesus is "one with the father", why would there be a need for "obedience"? Why would there be a differing "will"?

I believe that the answer lies in a correct understanding of what Jesus was obedient to, seen in the light of a fundamental commitment that God made at the time of creation.

As I have already stated, I believe that Paul's fundamental point about Jesus' obedience was that He (Jesus) was obedient to the covenantal obligations which His people, Israel, failed to fulfill. Now to put this in the right context to address your question:

1. At the beginning of the Genesis account, God makes a commitment: the universe he is creating needs to have human beings "in charge". Thus, God places Adam in this position.

2. Adam falls, and now the universe will not run properly, since its "guardian / steward" has fallen.

3. God calls Abraham as the man who will fix the Adamic fall by using Abraham to father a people who will, in fact, take back the role of being "human stewards" of creation. Remember, God is committed to having human beings at the helm of the universe (at least in some sense).

4. Abraham and his people - the nation of Israel - have certain obligations to fulfill in respect to the covenant that God makes with him.

5. The nation of Israel fails to keep these covenant obligations. Does this mean that God gives up on His plan to put humans back in charge of the universe. No, he finds a single faithful Israelite who will indeed fulfill Israel's covenant obligations on her behalf. That Israelite is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth.

6. Jesus, then has to be obedient to these covenant obligations, which He is.

One needs to have this entire narrative in hand to make sense of why Jesus has to be a human being, who is also an Israelite. With this story in mind, the necessity for Jesus being obedient in this way should be clear.

 

[Sinthesis]

5. The nation of Israel fails to keep these covenant obligations. Does this mean that God gives up on His plan to put humans back in charge of the universe. No, he finds a single faithful Israelite who will indeed fulfill Israel's covenant obligations on her behalf. That Israelite is, of course, Jesus of Nazareth.

I suggest that God sent a "single faithful Israelite" to fulfill Israel's covenant obligations on her behalf, but this was the plan all along. With hindsight we Christians know that Israel, being composed of mere humans, could never have fulfilled those obligations. Today's Judaism still believes they have a chance at it, while their Talmud is simply a rationalization as to how the People of God could be in such a sorry state.

 

[Drew]

I suggest that God sent a "single faithful Israelite" to fulfill Israel's covenant obligations on her behalf, but this was the plan all along. With hindsight we Christians know that Israel, being composed of mere humans, could never have fulfilled those obligations. Today's Judaism still believes they have a chance at it, while their Talmud is simply a rationalization as to how the People of God could be in such a sorry state.

I agree. I intended to qualify what I posted to say exactly this, but thought that it might add unnecessary confusion.

But yes - God knew that Israel could not fulfill her covenant obligations.

 

[Sinthesis]

I agree. I intended to qualify what I posted to say exactly this, but thought that it might add unnecessary confusion.

But yes - God knew that Israel could not fulfill her covenant obligations.

I breathe unnecessary confusion!:D

 

[Sinthesis]

Yes, it's a 12 step program.

If Jesus is "one with the father", why would there be a need for "obedience"? Why would there be a differing "will"?

The Son and the Father are one as God. They are two persons, so they each have their own will. Yet from our perspective we can perceive only the unified will of God because the Son subjugates His will to that of the Father. This is called obedience.

 

[Deavonreye]

The Son and the Father are one as God. They are two persons, so they each have their own will. Yet from our perspective we can perceive only the unified will of God because the Son subjugates His will to that of the Father. This is called obedience.

So, they aren't the same person with two wills, because of the "house being divided against itself not being able to stand", but two distinct people who may be "one" in purpose. This really isn't "monotheism", . . . but there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, right?

 

[Sparkey]

I suggest that God sent a "single faithful Israelite" to fulfill Israel's covenant obligations on her behalf, but this was the plan all along. With hindsight we Christians know that Israel, being composed of mere humans, could never have fulfilled those obligations. Today's Judaism still believes they have a chance at it, while their Talmud is simply a rationalization as to how the People of God could be in such a sorry state.

Even with "hindsight" we would be blind. It is only Christ Sight that reveals. No man knows the Father except the Son. Our Christ, the 'son of man' not only became obedient to the will of the Father, in doing so, he interpreted who God is for us.

Pardon my pointing to the obvious but sometimes we think too highly of our scholarly ways.

 

[Elijah674]

You are right on. Rom. 2:14-15 finds 'us' withonly this great Loving privilage, but not actually needed huh! (Lots of Vain Titus 3:9-11 stuff)

--Elijah

 

[Drew]

So, they aren't the same person with two wills, because of the "house being divided against itself not being able to stand", but two distinct people who may be "one" in purpose. This really isn't "monotheism", . . . but there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, right?

I suggest that we need to be careful as to how understand Jewish monotheism. Now I am not Jewish, nor am I an expert on these matters. But I have studied the view of one respected scholar and his view is essentially this: Jewish monotheism never consisted in any kind of clear denial of "multiplicity" within God, it was always a polemical position, taken to deny the legitimacy of the pagan gods that surrounded Israel.

It is really important to study and know the history and the context. Now I am not going to guarantee that this view of Jewish monotheism is correct, but if it is, I trust you can see how Jesus and the Father as distinct persons does not contradict the doctrine of monotheism. The concept of monotheism needs to be understood from the Jewish context in which it arose, and not by appeal to a simple dictionary definition.

 

[Strangelove]

Yes, it's a 12 step program.

If Jesus is "one with the father", why would there be a need for "obedience"? Why would there be a differing "will"?

To show us how only He can keep the law, and the rest of us can't. thus showing our need for a spiritual Saviour.