4

are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

There are several issues presented here, but the focus is on Jesus being sent.

There are some ideas about how can Jesus only be sent if he pre-exists in some other state or place. We also have the example of Jesus sending the disciples/apostles into the world - but only after they were prepared and properly equipped - a maturity is required.

When Jesus was born - holy and without sin, he was not ready to become the Lamb. In fact he had to be made perfect or complete first.

Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered. And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation Heb 5:8-9

We could say that his temptation was a pre-requisite for his ministry and sacrifice and him being sent. Sent to reveal the Father, to train the disciples, to become the Lamb, to become the High Priest etc.

Considering the above, when was Jesus sent?

7
  • 5
    It would make life easier and you would get better answers if you gave the impression that this and similar questions were genuine question rather than "gotcha" opportunities to further your theology. Your last sentence betrays your real agenda. – Dottard Mar 3 at 0:53
  • My theology is from the bible, my agenda is to share and learn the truth of the bible. If that represents a 'gotcha' to you then that is quite sad. – user48152 Mar 3 at 1:06
  • There is much involved in Jesus being sent. From the good minds here and familiarity with the word, there could be some good input on this topic - hence the Q. 'When' seemed important in pondering what, how and why of his being sent. – user48152 Mar 3 at 1:15
  • 7
    You fail to realise that all users of this site make identical claims that, "My theology is from the bible, my agenda is to share and learn the truth of the Bible". Te fact that you say something does not make it true. The reality is that nobody fully understands the Bible and all knowledge is incomplete. There is no room for theological arrogance here or anywhere. – Dottard Mar 3 at 2:15
  • 5
    The question is clearly stating an interpretation of 'sanctified' 'world' and 'sending', limiting all three to an earthly and temporal context. It is focusing on a single text to do so. This question is, therefore, a statement of opinion and not an hermeneutic exercise. – Nigel J Mar 3 at 7:02
3

John 10:36 Berean Literal Bible

do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world

sent
ἀπέστειλεν (apesteilen)
Verb - Aorist Indicative Active - 3rd Person Singular
Strong's Greek 649: From apo and stello; set apart, i.e. to send out literally or figuratively.

world
κόσμον (kosmon)
Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular
Strong's Greek 2889: Probably from the base of komizo; orderly arrangement, i.e. Decoration; by implication, the world (morally).

The verb "sent" is in the aorist tense. It was a single, discreet action in the past.

The same aorist "sent" is used twice in John 17:18

As You sent Me into the world, I also sent them into the world;

Jesus sent his disciples to the same world.

Jesus took on flesh and sent by the Father into the physical world. Later, Jesus had prepared his disciples and sent them to the immoral physical world.

1
  • The aorist does imply that the action was completed. It does not necessarily mean completed in the past, although I agree with you that here that is the intended meaning. It does usually imply that the action was a single, discrete thing, but it can also have a meaning more like the previous preparation of things in a certain state, which arguably could be what is meant here. I.e., the "sending" could, just based on the grammar, be a state of affairs that took place over time but is now in place. This answer doesn't seem to address the OP's question about the preparation of Jesus. – Ben Crowell Mar 3 at 17:26
2

ἀποστέλλω and πέμπω

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent (ἀπέσταλκέν) me, even so I am sending (πέμπω) you.” (John 20:21) [ESV]

Jesus uses two different words to describe "sending," one of which He applies to Himself and the other to the disciples. Specifically the Father sent ἀποστέλλω Jesus. However, Jesus sends, πέμπω, the disciples. If the sense of being sent is to go from one place to another, then the distinction in how Jesus uses the words is in recognizing the point from which one is sent. What Jesus says could be paraphrased:

As the Father has sent (ἀπέσταλκέν) me [into the world from heaven], I am sending (πέμπω) you [into the world from where you already are].

In recognizing the distinction it is significant the Father also sent (πέμπω) Jesus:

36 But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent (ἀπέσταλκεν) me. 37 And the Father who sent (πέμψας) me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, 38 and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent (ἀπέστειλεν). (John 5)

The distinction is being sent (ἀποστέλλω) to take away the sin of the world (1:29) and being sent (πέμψας) to do works which show He was sent (ἀποστέλλω) to take away the sin of the world. Similarly, the disciples are sent (πέμπω) by Jesus to do works by which the world will know Jesus was sent (ἀποστέλλω) by the Father (cf. 17:3, 21)

ἡγίασεν and ἀποστέλλω
In the passage in question, Jesus says He was both consecrated and sent:

do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent (ἀπέστειλεν) into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:36)

The Father consecrated, that is set Him apart. The "when" of being sent is after He being consecrated. In His prayer to His Father Jesus asks to be with the Father with the glory He had before the foundations of the world (17:24). Therefore, the Father consecrated and sent Jesus before He became flesh.

3
  • You make an interesting point that John 20:21 uses the two different verbs, but it's not clear to me what conclusions you're drawing from that or on what basis. From the LSJ entries for these two words, they do have different shades of meaning, but are you using that kind of information in your argument somehow, or just trying to guess the shades of meaning from the way in which John uses the words? – Ben Crowell Mar 3 at 14:03
  • αποστελλω means to send away, banish, or dispatch on a mission. These meanings emphasize the separation, απο-. πεμπω is often used for messengers and spies. So I don't think you have to say, "He set apart and sent ἀπέστειλεν Jesus," because the setting apart is included in the meaning of αποστελλω. He's sort of banishing part of himself. – Ben Crowell Mar 3 at 14:05
  • 1
    @BenCrowell The OP here, as elsewhere seeks to prove Jesus did not exist before coming to earth. So the specific language is important. Jesus used different words regardless of how a lexicon identifies the distinction. That differences might be slight does not remove the fact Jesus saw a distinct difference. I do not think any of the disciples present would conclude Jesus did not intend a difference. And the obvious difference is where they were sent from: Jesus from heaven and the disciples from Jerusalem. – Revelation Lad Mar 3 at 22:26
1

Jesus Christ was sent from heaven when He incarnated as a man. Isaiah 9:6, For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders, And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God."

Then there is John 6:42, John 3:13, "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven." One more verse out of maybe 10 or 11 more. John 6:36, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me."

Now, common sense and logic dictates that if one is sent they had to have preexisted. John 1:1-3 and many other verses prove Jesus preexisted His incarnation as a man. As the "Logos/Word" He was with God and was God.

John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." Please explain to all of us here how without Him "all" things have come into being. Colossians 1:16-17 supports this and eve His own Father supports this at Hebrews 1:10.

Moreover, Revelation 3:14 explains that Jesus Christ is the "arche." the beginning of creation. We get are English word "architect" from the Greek word "arche." An architect is a person who plans, designs, oversees and is the "origin" of anything that is built or created.

Also, I find it interesting you happen to have brought up John 10:36. Did you read the context? At John 10:30 Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." "One," (hen) is a neuter number to indicate equality of essence, attributes, design, will, and work. It is already obvious that the Father and the Son are one in purpose according to the context of John 10:25-29.

How? Because the sheep are equally safe in the Fathers hands as well as in the Son's hands. Also at John 10:28 Jesus gives them eternal life and they shall never perish. How is it that a man, who is not God can give other men eternal life?

Getting back to John 10:30 and what Jesus said why did the Jews pick up stones "again" to kill Him? Do you really think it was for being one in purpose? The Jews at John 10:33, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You being a man, make Yourself out God." Can you give me an example of someone accused of blasphemy for being one in purpose?

And what's most interesting is Jesus bringing up Psalm 82:6. "Has it not been written in your Law, "I said, you are Gods?" Jesus Himself brings up the subject of "gods" for a reason or to make a point?

Which brings us to the verse you quoted, John 10:36. Jesus' usage of Psalm 82:6 was to imply that what the Scriptures call humans "allegorically, He was in actuality since He does what only God can do. Forgives sins, raise the dead, gives eternal life etc.

Since at vs35 the Scriptures cannot be annulled, how can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and SENT INO THE WORLD is blaspheming because I said, "I am the Son of God"? Vs38, "If you don't believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

0
1

I would suggest not trying to take this one word from this one verse and use it as if to draw some dramatic, over-arching conclusion. Many people come to these texts with very different assumptions. They have a lot of ambiguity and can be read in many different ways.

Let's look at the context surrounding this verse. Jesus is being threatened with execution for the crime of blasphemy, for claiming to be the son of God. He rebuts the charges with a reference to Psalm 82, which has this (WEB):

God presides in the great assembly. He judges among the gods.

He goes on to tell them to defend the weak, and ends with:

I said, “You are gods, all of you are sons of the Most High. Nevertheless you shall die like men, and fall like one of the rulers.” Arise, God, judge the earth, for you inherit all of the nations.

The term "gods" here is "elohim." There's been a great deal written about the use of this word in the tanakh, and I wouldn't claim to be able to resolve that. It often gives the impression that there is some sort of polytheism going on, or that a trace of an older polytheistic religion is being preserved, but there seem to be various counter-arguments to that. Just from googling, it seems that the standard interpretation among Jews and Christians is that "elohim" in Psalm 82 is a rare usage that refers not to gods but to earthly humans who are acting as judges and political rulers. This reading would be supported by the part about "die like men" and "inherit."

Jesus says he was "sanctified and sent into the world" by God. The Greek is ἡγίασεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον. As pointed out in an answer by Revelation Lad, Greek has multiple ways of saying "send," which John uses in different places. The verb used here, ἀποστέλλω, has the prefix ἀπο-, which is a preposition meaning "from." For that reason, it emphasizes that someone is being sent away. LSJ lists as common usages "send away," "banish," or "dispatch on a mission." This totally makes sense in this context, where Jesus is saying that God took his son and sent him out into the world on a mission.

You're asking about the time implications, so we should consider the verb tense of ἀπέστειλεν. This is the aorist, which is actually not so much a tense as an aspect, but anyway its most common use is to indicate an action that took place in the past and was completed. So there is an implication that the "sending away," even if it was an ongoing process, was complete by the time of the debate depicted in this passage of John 10.

I think there are multiple perfectly plausible ways of reading "ἀπέστειλεν" here so as to connect it to something that happened at some time, and I don't think the temporal ambiguity is easily resolvable unless you start with some preconceived theological notions and just intend to force the meaning to support those notions. There are probably at least three different events in the gospels that could be considered "sendings away" of Jesus in the sense of ἀποστέλλω. There's the idea that God sends his son to the planet Earth; there's the holy spirit driving Jesus out into the wilderness (the verb used in Mark 1:21 is εκβαλλει, which is more like "throw out"); and then there's Jesus, after being tempted in the wilderness, going out into the world and embarking on his own mission (this is a literal match for the LSJ's "dispatch on a mission").

When Jesus was born - holy and without sin, he was not ready to become the Lamb. In fact he had to be made perfect or complete first.

In other words, you seem to be asking what Jesus's training was and when it happened, based on the temporal implications of the verb ἀπέστειλεν. Just to emphasize that there is not going to be any unambiguous answer without invoking one's assumptions, I will say that my own assumptions are naturalistic-historical. I think that Jesus's training probably started in childhood when he heard psalms and oral targums; it probably continued as a student of John the Baptist; and after that it consisted of on-the-job training and a process of trial and error (such as in the story of the Syrophoenecian woman, who bests him in debate). My point in sketching this is not that you're supposed to agree with me. It's the opposite: I'm almost 100% certain that my ideas differ from yours. The reason for giving them is simply to emphasize amount of ambiguity present. Different people, operating on different assumptions, will come to very different conclusions about how and when Jesus was prepared to do his life's work.

In summary, this passage from John simply isn't about the timing of when Jesus was sent or what his preparation was. The subject of this passage is how to resolve the apparent contradiction between the fact that Christianity is supposed to be monotheistic and the fact that it says God had a son.

3
  • This attempts to take a whole series of disputed matters and to resolve them all in a few paragraphs. It would be far better (in my opinion) to focus on just one thing and state something definite about that one thing. As it is, we are left without a succinct conclusion (in my opinion). – Nigel J Mar 3 at 16:29
  • 1
    @NigelJ: Actually my purpose was the opposite of that: to show that all these disputed matters are much too complicated to resolve based on one verse from John. My succinct conclusion is that there is no succinct conclusion. That is, I conclude that we can't conclude anything of this type, as the OP had hoped, because this verse simply isn't about the subject the OP asks about. – Ben Crowell Mar 3 at 17:23
  • In that case, a comment was the proper tactic, not an 'answer'. See the Tour and Help. – Nigel J Mar 3 at 17:34
0

Protoevangelium is the fundamental prophecy of the Bible. Everything else hangs on it, although some historic happenings are more outstanding than others. Like the copper snake in the desert, Jonah in the belly of the great fish, etc. Jesus talked about this in Luk 24:13-27. Thus, the Israelian history was created “through and for” Jesus, the promised redeemer. (Other passages are for instance 1 Cor 10:3,4; and 1 Pet 3:20,21)

Consequently, the Father must have had Jesus in mind already at the beginning of time, as well as throughout human history. And to enable Jesus to act out this mission of salvation, he imparted himself onto him from the past and send him out to the Jewish population in contemporary Israel.

This sending developed gradually from young age, until it culminated at Jesus’ water baptism.

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