11,141
edits
Eternal Sonship: Difference between revisions
→The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
While William Branham also ridicules those that rely on the Greek language for their understanding of the Bible, the plain truth is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and, therefore, those that rely on an English translation are relying on the ability of the translators to convey the appropriate meaning of the Greek words in their context. | While William Branham also ridicules those that rely on the Greek language for their understanding of the Bible, the plain truth is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and, therefore, those that rely on an English translation are relying on the ability of the translators to convey the appropriate meaning of the Greek words in their context. | ||
== Who was with God before the beginning?== | |||
:''IN THE beginning'' [before all time] ''was the Word'' (Christ), ''and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself''. [Isa. 9:6.] ''He was present originally with God''. <ref>The Amplified Bible, John 1:1–2 (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1987).</ref> | :''IN THE beginning'' [before all time] ''was the Word'' (Christ), ''and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself''. [Isa. 9:6.] ''He was present originally with God''. <ref>The Amplified Bible, John 1:1–2 (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1987).</ref> | ||
| Line 68: | Line 70: | ||
:''His goings forth are from long ago, | :''His goings forth are from long ago, | ||
:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref> | :''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref> | ||
==John the Baptists recognized this== | |||
In John 1:15, we read of John the Baptist: | |||
:''John testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ ”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Jn 1:15.</ref> | |||
In all four Gospels, Jesus entered public ministry after John. In a society where age and precedence bestowed peculiar honour, that might have been taken by superficial observers to mean John the Baptist was greater than Jesus. Not so, insists the Baptist: Jesus has surpassed him (lit., ‘became before me’), precisely because he was before him. The peculiar expression means ‘because he was first with respect to me’. It includes not only temporal priority (‘before I was born, he already was’), which picks up the pre-existence emphasized at the beginning of the chapter, but also absolute primacy. That was the Baptist’s proclamation before he knew of whom he spoke.<ref>D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 131.</ref> | |||
According to the witness of John, “He who follows me has surpassed me, because he was prior to me”. This statement moves from the historical chronology (and implied rank) that Jesus first “follows” John to the surpassing greatness of Jesus rooted in his cosmological chronology (and implied rank) that Jesus was actually “prior” to John. That is, the Baptist is stating unequivocally that the successor is greater than the forerunner because the successor is the true forerunner. The Baptist moves the comparison beyond his own historical ministry and harkens back to the Word who was “in the beginning. The appearance of the Son is not merely before the time of the Baptist but before the creation of the world.<ref>Edward W. Klink III, John, ed. Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 112.</ref> | |||
==Conclusion== | |||
'''The major problem with William Branham's reasoning is that he puts God into time and space and, therefore, assumes that the Son had to have a beginning. But based on the proof's above that the Son is eternal, then he exists outside of time and space, in fact, he created time and space and exists outside of both. Beginnings and endings make no sense either in reference to God in the context of the Father or the Son.''' | '''The major problem with William Branham's reasoning is that he puts God into time and space and, therefore, assumes that the Son had to have a beginning. But based on the proof's above that the Son is eternal, then he exists outside of time and space, in fact, he created time and space and exists outside of both. Beginnings and endings make no sense either in reference to God in the context of the Father or the Son.''' | ||