2

Jesus said, John 6:57 KJVS As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. Again He says, John 5:26 KJVS For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Is Jesus saying that the Father is his source of life?

Is Jesus saying the Father gave him the ability to live and give life?

It seems that Jesus is saying that without the Father giving to him these abilities, he would not have them on his own. Would this not drastically differentiate him from the Father, seeing that the Father has need of no one to give Him anything, and He is the source of life to all, seemingly even the Son?

Is Jesus not the source of life to man because the Father enabled him to be so?

  • The incarnate Son, yes. The son who took off his glory prior to Creation John 17:5, 24, even in that state yes. Before Creation and After resurrection, no. It’s important to include these details because just prior to Creation He has all these qualities, moments afterwards He took on a dependency of the Father. Great question +1 – Nihil Sine Deo Jan 17 at 19:19
  • I would say yes I believe that as well but even if the Son did set this honor aside isn't it still true that this honor was given to him? Even if it was before he came to earth? I guess because he says, He who is sent is not greater than he who sent him... would this not imply that while he was in the spirit before coming in the flesh, when the Father sent him, the Father was at that time greater, when they were both in the Spirit together but the Father sent him? – Eric Ross Jan 19 at 0:01
  • You are quoting an event that took place after Creation. *“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭10:5-7*‬ Christ accepts to do His will after Creation. ‭Also I don’t know I would reduce the word glory down to honor. Hebrew it’s weightiness. It’s what one is most known for. He took His heaviest attribute off – Nihil Sine Deo Jan 19 at 5:27
  • Traditionally, the Father is the eternal source of the Son. As such their is no earlier then later, but a distinction of persons as being begotten and the begetter. – Sola Gratia Jan 20 at 0:59
  • @SolaGratia Tradition is not biblical hermeneutics and IC you don't attempt to support eternal generation from scripture because it is not possible. No bible writer teaches that false doctrine. – user33125 Jan 20 at 3:28
5

Well I got some good news for you Mr.Ross since you quoted John 5:26. John 1:4, "In Him/Jesus Christ was life, and life was the light of men." The Apostle John is telling us that Jesus had life in Himself "BEFORE" His incarnation. And as a side note John 1:4 comes before John 5:26.

This power was given back to Him AFTER His resurrection, after He accomplished His mission as a man. Now, for a pious Jew to ascribe all power in heaven and earth to ANYONE is for him to acknowledge the absolute deity of that person.

1 John 1:1-3, "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands have handles, concerning the WORD OF LIFE." Vs2, and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father and was manifested to us. vs3, what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."

What happened is explained at Philippians 2:6-8. We are told explicitly that the Son was the very form of God, (Philippians vs2) The Greek word here is, "morphe" refers to the form that reveals or expresses the absolute nature of a thing. Jesus humbled Himself by taking upon Himself the form ("morphe" again) of a servant: the likeness of a man. He was not forced. He CHOSE to do so. That is why the Apostle Paul was using this as an example of humility.

So to sum up, God His Father did not force Jesus His Son to do anything. Like I said Jesus volunteered. Jesus went from being in the form or God or God to another form, i.e a servant/man. In fact Philippians 2:8 says, "And being found in the appearance as a man He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Does that make sense to you?

First a couple of points about what's going on here at John 10:30-38. Some of the arguments presented regarding this text and others like John 5:18, John 8:58, here at John 10, John 19:7 and at the trial of Jesus at Matthew 26:57-66 is that the Jews did not understand, Jesus was "NOT" making Himself out to be God. To that I say complete and utter nonsense. If the Jews did not understand, then why does Jesus here at John 10:34-38 bring up Psalm 82:6,i.e the subject of "gods?" In other words, Jesus is being His own commentary on the subject.

Moreover, whether or not the Jews are correctly or even incorrectly understanding Jesus is not the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus said (at the verses I mentioned above and in their context) that "CAUSED" them to say he was claiming to be God that so upset the Jews?

So why did Jesus bring up Psalm 82:6? There are a couple or more answers. What Jesus is simply doing is taking the Jew's statement about Him blaspheming to its logical conclusion to show that they are being inconsistent. In effect, Jesus is saying, "If you say that I am blaspheming, you must also hold that God is blaspheming because He said to those by whom the word of God came, "ye are gods." Nowhere does Jesus take back His statement and say that He is not one with His Father. (John 10:30). Jesus in fact draws a clear distinction between Himself and those by whom the word of God cam when He says that He was sanctified and sent into the world by God His Father.

Another answer which is kind of similar is the following. If those to whom the word of God came were called "god"--and the scripture cannot be annulled, can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, "I am God's Son?" If I am not doing the works of my Father (i.e. giving eternal life, raising the dead, healing people etc), then do not believe Me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. What's amazing about all of this is nowhere do you find Jesus denying anything He said to the Jews. Jesus Christ is the one and only Son of God as in there are no others, John 3:16 makes this clear.

In Christianity humans become "adopted" sons of God, while Jesus is by nature the true Son of God. I like to ask the following question on this issue. Why would the Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy and want to kill Him for claiming to be the Son of God when the Jews themselves claim to be "sons of God?" One other thing, at John 20:28 Thomas says literally to Jesus, "The Lord of me and the God of me." Why didn't Jesus correct Him and say, "No Thomas, I'm not your God? Hope this helps.

| improve this answer | |
  • Can you support your statement 'the power was given back to him after ...'. 'The Son (of man) which is in heaven' said Jesus of Nazareth, with his feet firmly on the earth. 'I and my Father are one', he also said, during his earthly ministry. But (+1) nevertheless. – Nigel J Jan 18 at 14:35
  • Sure! Since Jesus humbled Himself and became a man to die for us. (Phillipians 2:5-8.) And in doing so John 17:5 says, He had glory with His Father BEFORE the world was or CREATED, that power returned to Him AFTER His resurrection. "I and My Father, WE are one." (John 10:30). That is there are one in nature or essence. The Father and Jesus are already one in purpose. When Jesus made the statement the Jews reacted at vs33, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God." The Jews were correct, the problem is they did not believe Him. – Mr. Bond Jan 18 at 20:37
  • Doesnt it seem clear that Jesus corrects them in the next verse clarifying that he was not claiming to be God? John 10:35-36 KJVS If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; [36] Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? – Eric Ross Jan 19 at 0:04
  • That's an excellent question Mr. Ross and in order to give a good and complete answer I will reply in my initial post. The comments section will not handle the long answer. – Mr. Bond Jan 19 at 0:36
  • Jesus was the "Son of God" as well as the "Son of man" concurrently throughout His ministry. John 5:18-27 and Luke 5:21-24 insists that the "Son of God" and the Son of man had the power--concurrently--early in His ministry--before His resurrection--to forgive sins", JUST LIKE THE FATHER. Moreover, BEFORE John baptized Jesus, he recognized that Jesus--who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost--was "God's Son" according to the "SPIRIT", as well as according to the flesh, when He came to John to be baptized, because he said, "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? Mat 3:14 KJV – Bill Porter Apr 19 at 1:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.