Bible Study Was Jesus a Prophet?

[Nathan12]

I don't know why you have highlighted vv 15, 18-19 as the context indicates this is not referring to Messiah, the Prophet

Why would you arrive at that conclusion, when the words of Moses are quite plain: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (Deut 18:18)

Moses was a type of Christ. But the Law was given by Moses. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Jesus made it crystal clear that the words He spoke were the very words of God. This is also confirmed in Hebrews 1:1,2: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Furthermore, anyone who disregarded the words of Christ would be damned: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

No doubt that passage in Deuteronomy has more to say about true and false prophets, but the key is the prophecy regarding Christ as "the Prophet". And that is why the word "Prophet" has been capitalized in verses 15 and 18. So when the Jews came to John the Baptist and asked "Art thou that prophet?" they were referring back to what Moses had said.

JOHN 1
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

 

[for_his_glory]

Luke 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

This was the main purpose of Christ, but yet He also gave prophecy like that in Matthew 24.

 

[Nathan12]

...sounds like an angry God that requires sacrifice....

The pagan false gods were "the angry gods" (demons) who required sacrifices to appease themselves. But God's absolute righteousness, holiness, and justice demand that the penalty be paid for each and every sin, before He can offer grace and mercy.

HEBREWS 10
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

 

[GodsGrace]

The pagan false gods were "the angry gods" (demons) who required sacrifices to appease themselves. But God's absolute righteousness, holiness, and justice demand that the penalty be paid for each and every sin, before He can offer grace and mercy.

HEBREWS 10
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

What about verses 5 to 8?
Is there some conflict here?

It would seem that God does not want sacrifice.
But we're taught that Adam's sin was so great that only God could atone for it.

Then how does one explain Adam's sin?
Why did God knowingly put a tree in the middle of the Garden when He knew that Adam would sin? Why create the situation for which the sacrifice would become necessary?

Doesn't it make more sense that Jesus wanted to show us how to become members of the Kingdom?

What does By His Wounds We Are Healed mean?
Could it mean something different?
The WoF movement thinks it means that any affliction we may have MUST be healed by God.

(I'm still thinking this thru)

 

[WIP]

I found these verses. Interesting.

Mark 6:1-4 NKJV
Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

I've understood this as Jesus speaking of Himself.

Matthew 21:10-11 NKJV
And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, “Who is this?” So the multitudes said, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.”


In John 4:19-20 NKJV the woman at the well identifies Jesus as a prophet and Jesus did not deny it.
The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

 

[for_his_glory]

I'm not going to argue this with you FHG, but in theology it is said that John is the last Prophet.

When he came on the scene about 400 years did pass, but the Jews were still worshipping in a synagogue, Rabbi's still existed and the Temple was in Jerusalem....those that could still made a trip there, sacrifices were still in effect and Chrisitanity was no where in sight until Paul....

I don't like to argue the word with anyone, but just put this out there as I felt it was important to the conversation. I will bow out and you have a good evening

 

[OzSpen]

Nathan,
I can't reply to you right now.
I'm going through some kind of change and I don't have my thoughts straight.

Did Jesus come PRIMARILY as the savior of the world?
Or did He come primarily as God's oracle...His prophet?
A prophet is someone that speaks the words of God,,,
That states what God would state, and gives us God's message.

I take my thoughts all the way back to Genesis 3:15.

Paul put forth the idea of Jesus being the savior and, I believe, he created the concept of the atonement theory as penal substitution.
I'm not sure I believe in this anymore. I believe more in Cristus Victor, and the Moral Influence theory.

The above theories would get us into heaven.
The Penal Substitution theory teaches a wrathful God that requires a human sacrifice for Adam's sin.

I wonder what OzSpen thinks of this?
And you?

This link is short and sweet...
http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/

(I couldn't find anything on the above on OzSpen 's web page)

wondering,

My difficulty with the Christus Victor view of the atonement is that it is only a partial explanation and doesn't tell us how our sins were expiated / propitiated by Christ.

It is not really a full blown theory of the atonement because it doesn't tell us how Christ's death could reconcile the world of sinful humanity to God.

William Lane Craig has a good explanation of this issue in, Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement.

As for the moral influence theory of the atonement, it suffers from the same shortcomings as Christus Victor. It doesn't demonstrate how the sins of humanity can be appeased so they can be in the presence of the absolutely holy God.

I must get a movin' to that neurologist in the CBD.

Oz

 

[Nathan12]

It would seem that God does not want sacrifice.

What those verses are saying is that God did not want animal sacrifices to continue forever, since they could only COVER sin for a season. They could not "take away" sins. Hence the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was repeated year after year, and there were daily sacrifices in the tabernacle and the temple.

On the other hand, the perfect sacrifice of Christ -- who is God manifest in the flesh -- could actually pay the full penalty for the sins of the whole world (and it did). The Bible says "For he [God the Father] hath made him [Christ the Son] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him". (2 Cor 5:21)

Now that is an amazing statement. Jesus was literally made SIN for us. All the guilt and all the sinfulness of mankind was placed on Him, as He became the divine Substitute for all mankind. And then the penalty of God's wrath against sin was poured out on Christ. And that is why Christ cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

There is no getting away from the Bible doctrine of Penal Substitution. And those who reject it preach heresy, not the Gospel.

 

[ezra]

Jesus was literally made SIN for us.

a sin sacrifice...he knew or had no sin

 

[GodsGrace]

The pagan false gods were "the angry gods" (demons) who required sacrifices to appease themselves. But God's absolute righteousness, holiness, and justice demand that the penalty be paid for each and every sin, before He can offer grace and mercy.

HEBREWS 10
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Basically, you're just confirming what I said.
Humans were sacrificed 4,000 years ago when the Hebrews began to inhabit the land of Canaan. God asked for animals,,,so that was a good step ahead.

But why would a God that could create the entire universe need any sacrifice at all?

Did Jesus Himself ever speak of Himself as being a sacrifice?
I don't think so... I can't remember.

 

[GodsGrace]

I found these verses. Interesting.

Mark 6:1-4 NKJV
Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His disciples followed Him. And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished, saying, “Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His hands! Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house.”

I've understood this as Jesus speaking of Himself.

Matthew 21:10-11 NKJV
And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, “Who is this?” So the multitudes said, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.”


In John 4:19-20 NKJV the woman at the well identifies Jesus as a prophet and Jesus did not deny it.
The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

yes,definitely Jesus is speaking about Himself. He always considered Himself a Prophet,,,which indeed He was.

And I like what Jesus replied to the woman at the well....
The time is coming when God will be worshipped in SPIRIT,,,IOW, no need to go to Jerusalem anymore....We can worship God where we are.

And here Jesus declares Himself to be the awaited Messiah. There had been others, but they were false Messiahs.
John 4:24 God wants our spirit to be aligned with His spirit.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

My difficulty with the Christus Victor view of the atonement is that it is only a partial explanation and doesn't tell us how our sins were expiated / propitiated by Christ.

It is not really a full blown theory of the atonement because it doesn't tell us how Christ's death could reconcile the world of sinful humanity to God.

William Lane Craig has a good explanation of this issue in, Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement.

As for the moral influence theory of the atonement, it suffers from the same shortcomings as Christus Victor. It doesn't demonstrate how the sins of humanity can be appeased so they can be in the presence of the absolutely holy God.

I must get a movin' to that neurologist in the CBD.

Oz

I'm finding that there is not ONE atonement theory that is very satisfying. But the Penal Substitution theory seems, to me, to have come about after Paul wrote Romans and his other writings, which took him 3 years to establish. Was Paul fearful that Jesus' death might be misunderstood? Was HIS theology the same as the rest of the Apostles? His letters do seem much more thought out than the others -- they sound a little different.

Is Jesus' righteousness imputed to us? Or are we more responsible for our own actions than we care to admit?

Maybe my exposure to these persons who feel that Jesus does everything for them is beginning to affect me in a negative way---I don't know.

I just think we have to start thinking in a different way and accept responsibility for our own salvation.

Most definitely by being a follower of Jesus.

 

[OzSpen]

Why would you arrive at that conclusion, when the words of Moses are quite plain: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. (Deut 18:18)

Moses was a type of Christ. But the Law was given by Moses. Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Jesus made it crystal clear that the words He spoke were the very words of God. This is also confirmed in Hebrews 1:1,2: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Furthermore, anyone who disregarded the words of Christ would be damned: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

No doubt that passage in Deuteronomy has more to say about true and false prophets, but the key is the prophecy regarding Christ as "the Prophet". And that is why the word "Prophet" has been capitalized in verses 15 and 18. So when the Jews came to John the Baptist and asked "Art thou that prophet?" they were referring back to what Moses had said.

JOHN 1
19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

Nathan,

That's not answering the issue I raised from Deut 18 and the prophet to which Moses referred.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

My difficulty with the Christus Victor view of the atonement is that it is only a partial explanation and doesn't tell us how our sins were expiated / propitiated by Christ.

It is not really a full blown theory of the atonement because it doesn't tell us how Christ's death could reconcile the world of sinful humanity to God.

William Lane Craig has a good explanation of this issue in, Christus Victor Theory of the Atonement.

As for the moral influence theory of the atonement, it suffers from the same shortcomings as Christus Victor. It doesn't demonstrate how the sins of humanity can be appeased so they can be in the presence of the absolutely holy God.

I must get a movin' to that neurologist in the CBD.

Oz

I read the link and the way we're reconciled to the world is exactly how the article states....we're are reconciled through Jesus... IOW, those who believe in Him and are His disciples are the ones who will be saved.

Then again,,,the moral influence theory is very useful because Jesus did teach us how to behave and He WAS our example...an example that could be seen.

Maybe it's not just one theory? Maybe it takes a couple?
Maybe the Penal Substitution theory gives food to those that believe one could never lose salvation precisely because Jesus has just given over "eternal life" to them?

Maybe I'm just tired of hearing nonsense.

 

[GodsGrace]

What those verses are saying is that God did not want animal sacrifices to continue forever, since they could only COVER sin for a season. They could not "take away" sins. Hence the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) was repeated year after year, and there were daily sacrifices in the tabernacle and the temple.

On the other hand, the perfect sacrifice of Christ -- who is God manifest in the flesh -- could actually pay the full penalty for the sins of the whole world (and it did). The Bible says "For he [God the Father] hath made him [Christ the Son] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him". (2 Cor 5:21)

Now that is an amazing statement. Jesus was literally made SIN for us. All the guilt and all the sinfulness of mankind was placed on Him, as He became the divine Substitute for all mankind. And then the penalty of God's wrath against sin was poured out on Christ. And that is why Christ cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

There is no getting away from the Bible doctrine of Penal Substitution. And those who reject it preach heresy, not the Gospel.

I was with you till your last paragraph.
How is believing in a different atonement theory heresy?
Does the church, or mainline churches, all agree on one specific theory?

 

[OzSpen]

I'm finding that there is not ONE atonement theory that is very satisfying. But the Penal Substitution theory seems, to me, to have come about after Paul wrote Romans and his other writings, which took him 3 years to establish. Was Paul fearful that Jesus' death might be misunderstood? Was HIS theology the same as the rest of the Apostles? His letters do seem much more thought out than the others -- they sound a little different.

Is Jesus' righteousness imputed to us? Or are we more responsible for our own actions than we care to admit?

Maybe my exposure to these persons who feel that Jesus does everything for them is beginning to affect me in a negative way---I don't know.

I just think we have to start thinking in a different way and accept responsibility for our own salvation.

Most definitely by being a follower of Jesus.

wondering,

It's getting late on Thurs night, so I'll respond in more detail to your post when this old bloke has had a nap. Spent all day on trains and in the CBD to see a neurologist today.

This is something to think about before I get back to you: How can we 'accept responsibility for our own salvation' when Scripture says, 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God' (Eph 2:8 ESV, emphasis added).

To 'accept responsibility for our own salvation' sounds awfully like the heresy of Pelagianism in the early centuries of the church.

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

It's getting late on Thurs night, so I'll respond in more detail to your post when this old bloke has had a nap. Spent all day on trains and in the CBD to see a neurologist today.

This is something to think about before I get back to you: How can we 'accept responsibility for our own salvation' when Scripture says, 'For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God' (Eph 2:8 ESV, emphasis added).

To 'accept responsibility for our own salvation' sounds awfully like the heresy of Pelagianism in the early centuries of the church.

Oz

No Oz!
This is not what I meant....
more later.
Have a meeting soon....

 

[WIP]

Did Jesus Himself ever speak of Himself as being a sacrifice?
I don't think so... I can't remember.

Luke 22:15-20 NKJV
Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

 

[GodsGrace]

Luke 22:15-20 NKJV
Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

Hi WIP....
It shows no sense of Jesus believing He will, in some way, be a sacrafice... does it? I don't think so.

He only knew that He was going to His death...He knew this when He went into Jerusalem at the Passover Feast.

I don't think Jesus saw Himself as a sacrifice the way we understand it today....

What say you?

 

[WIP]

Hi WIP....
It shows no sense of Jesus believing He will, in some way, be a sacrafice... does it? I don't think so.

He only knew that He was going to His death...He knew this when He went into Jerusalem at the Passover Feast.

I don't think Jesus saw Himself as a sacrifice the way we understand it today....

What say you?

Here's something. Jesus knew the Old Testament and the writings of the prophets therefore He would have been very familiar with Isaiah 53. He also knew He was the foretold Messiah.

Also, in Mark 10:45, Jesus identifies His purpose.
"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”