If Jesus Yielded his spirit to God
Does this mean he stayed dead for the 3 days
And that it is his Spirit that God gave back to him on the 3rd day?
The answer to your question is yes he stayed dead for three days And God gave his spirit back on day three.
Jesus came in the likeness of Adam. In order to overcome the curse he has to participate in it, which is ...
When Jesus died he surrendered his spirit - his mortal human spirit, back to his Father and God. John 20:17
The NT explicitly says Jesus was a man - still is. By his own words, Jesus says,
you seek to kill me, a m-a-n who has told you the truth that I heard from G-o-d. John 8:40
there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ ...
There is great significance to John 19:33 – this relates to the prophecies of Psalms
I will break this down in parts;
Psalms & NT – bones will not be broken
Psalms & NT – Jesus was saved
Reliability of Johns gospel
1 Psalms & NT – bones will not be broken
John 19:36 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of ...
Besides humility and service, Jesus’ act of washing his disciples’ feet also represents his love and forgiveness. Through his action and the words that accompanied them, Jesus was essentially telling his disciples that he knew who they were, that they were good men, though not perfect, but that he loved and forgave them nonetheless.
v10 Jesus said to him, “...
Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.
What does "Yeilding up his Spirit" mean?
The spirit is a real entity that exists in the spiritual realm. At this time, by Jesus' command, his spirit left his physical body.
If Jesus Yielded his spirit to God
It simply means that He expired, or died: "I am the First and the Last, even He that liveth. And I became dead: and behold I live for ever" (Revelation 1:17). Death is not, after all, any kind of end or destruction, except as regards the body: and Jesus' body was not allowed to corrupt according to the natural course, since it was raised ...
That would depend on what you understood his spirit to be. Some religious groups say it was merely "the breath of life" that has to keep going in and out of the lungs for physical life to continue. The implication of such an idea is that Jesus breathed out his last lungful of air and then deliberately refused to take in more air.
However, if the ...
John 13:7 What was Jesus referring to when he said "You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
Correctly as you said, "this action of washing his disciple's feet is put forward as an example of service and humility to their brethren ." Besides the caring of the physical needs of his followers Jesus cared for their ...
I’m quite surprised that Austin's interpretation of John 10 is getting so much praise here in the forum. I for one find such an interpretation quite problematic, for which just one of those reasons GratefulDisciple briefly touches on: To interpret John 10:34-36 (cf. Ps. 82:6) in such a way, dethrones Jesus from that lofty position — where He dwells on high (...
It is the spiritual significance behind Jesus washing His disciples’ feet that is of real importance.
Jesus was graphically illustrating a lesson that He taught verbally many times (Matthew 18:2, Luke 9:46). “Whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man ...
Is the understanding of this action ever explain in scripture?
I think so, in few verses later, John 13:
12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them.
Now Jesus explained:
13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. ...
John 1 :14 and Philippians 2:5-8 are not describing the same event.
If we take John 1:14 to mean that Jesus was God incarnate, then he was not the second Adam; That makes his death and resurrection a farce. If Jesus had incarnated, God does not need to transfer his life in to Mary’s womb for Jesus to be born. He could have materialized to a mature ...
There is a binary nature to this judgment, Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the ...
3 Yes, he loved his people,
all his holy ones were in his hand;
so they followed in your steps,
receiving direction from you,
He came to his own,
and his own people did not receive him.
In terms of forms, the two verses look quite different. They don't look parallel.
Is John 1:11 an antithetical parallel to Deut. 33.3?
Look at the full context of John 3:17:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not ...
Those who arrogate themselves above the Lord and not accept Him as the Savior, by a pretense that they know it better and they, not Him, are true heirs of Law and Moses (John 9:29) are blind and incorrigible, because being blind they think to see (John 9:41); but those who confess that Moses is not enough for salvation and that Moses' Law cannot be fulfilled ...
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (πέτρος), and upon this rock (πέτρᾳ) I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it. (Matthew 16:18, KJV)
The word Peter signifies a stone--a rolling stone.
Peter was not the Rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord ...
Jesus made Simon ''rock'' (Πέτρος -Peter). Based on the context, this rock (Πέτρος) refers to a ''foundation'' (e.g. ''upon which the church is built'').
18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
Simon as 'Cephas/'Peter' refers to Simon being the first rock/...
Superficially there is the obvious and direct reference you mention to Peter as a rock of the Church Jesus was to build. But the significance of the name becomes a little clearer when read in the original Languages. The reason being Peter isn't the only name with significance. Both of his names - Simon and Peter - have significance and meaning. It is the ...
In the OT, the rock is often used to refer to God,
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.
This metaphor is repeated in the NT, 1 Corinthians 10:
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that ...
This is an important question with many implications. Thank you for asking!
First of all, you are correct to note that the renaming of Peter occurred not when Peter confessed Christ in Matthew 16, but when they first met in John 1. We might note that several of the disciples had nicknames:
Thomas = Didymus;
James & John = Boarnages.
Are John 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-8 describing the same event?
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal ...
Lets put the Gospel accounts together and see if they make sense. John's Gospel assumed familiarity with the Synoptic; so, the Synoptics first.
When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. 21 And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” 22 And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after ...
Not really uncharacteristic at all. The verses you quote are from the book of John. Let’s look at another translation of verse 23…
JOHN 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. [NKJV]
‘Leaning’ - anakeimai - reclining next to. That is, John was directly next to Jesus, in the natural position to be able to ask Him. ...
John describes an "event"; Philippians describes a "concept"
Back to Hermeneutics, the Gospels are accounts of events. The Epistles are letters with explanation, correspondence, reproof, encouragement, instruction, et cetera.
Opinion from experience:
Is there an overlap of the topic in these passages? Many systematic theologians seem to ...
Who are the "we" and "I" at the end of the gospel of John?
And we know that his testimony is true. "We" by this John refers to his fellow apostles.
Who knows of "his testimony", John opens the prologue to his letter with delight, Jesus other Apostles have also seen and heard him speak, and saw the miracles that ...
This is an excellent question that points out a number of issues on how we understand terms in the original language and therefore how they are then translated into English.
As has been pointed out, this term only occurs twice in the New testament, here in 14:2 (where it is rendered as "mansions" (KJV) or "rooms" (NASB) and later in 14:...
Bones are hard, strong, and durable. There are many symbolic references to bones throughout the Bible: Ezekiel's dry bones (see Ezekiel 37), the Pharisees being compared to sepulchres filled with dead men's bones (see Matthew 23:37), etc.
Because they are unbending and enduring, bones symbolize the principles of God's law. Jesus' bones were not to be ...
This answer is inspired by
Ashley Roberts' comment.
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you.
Jesus was talking about the Paraclete. The Father would send in the name of the Son. He affirmed that 2 chapters later in
7 But I tell you the ...
I tried to look for their explanation in the footnotes of those Bible versions, but it seems they did their best to conceal any explanation for their translation. My take is that this rendering of "himself God" is an interpretation of theos. We don't find ESV "the only God" problematic because it is an unambiguous simple translation of ⸂...
There is a textual matter in John 1:18 that I will not discuss here. However, if we accept the NA28/UBS5 text, then we have:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ
πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. = God no one has has ever-yet seen. [The]
unique God, the one being in the bosom of the Father, that-one has declared
(made known) [Him]. (...
The Greek text for John 1:18 says:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ
πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο (TR)
Let's break that down, word-by-word, in order to help understand it.
Before answering whom it is who sends the Spirit, one must be careful to understand the relationship between the Father and the Son.
The Son is human in whom God dwells and through whom God speaks.
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed
unto us the word of ...
The Father promised, and it is the Son who gives and who baptizes.
He (the Spirit) is from the Father's bosom, but His Word (Jesus) does the giving/baptizing in the Spirit.
Ask Him (the Spirit) for yourself! "He will teach you ALL things..."
Interesting view of "the Father is greater than I" and the master greater than the servant in John 13:16.
In context, Jesus is comparing a human master and his slave/servant, not to Jesus Himself and His Father (God). Therefore, there is no superior vs inferior view.
In saying, "the Father is greater than I" Jesus as His Son is not ...
mmm, not very good with english language, but as "Coup de grace" for the condemned to the crucification, Romans will broken the legs of the condemned, thus removing legs support and cause the lungs to collapse, for the position.
This was an act of "mercy", otherwise the sufferings could last for a couple of days.
Please have a look to ...
He submitted to the Father. Therefore the Father must have told Him to go there, and He went in trust that He would receive any instruction and protection He needed.
John 5:19 (KJV):
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, ...
I came here to try to understand why it said Jesus "withdrew"; that word was really confusing because it implies going away from something. However, and reading what is written here in this thread my understanding is this (please tell me if this makes sense or not): Jesus was there in Nazareth his hometown, but above in the post it says, "...
Jesus was delivered to be crucified during Passover (Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1, Luke 22:7, and John 19:13-15).
John the Baptist called Jesus "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.".
Paul wrote and said Jesus was "our [P]assover", who was "sacrificed for us".
As such, it is important to remember YHVH's command ...
The main significance for John to include this in his gospel is to show a prophecy fulfilled from Psalm 34:20:
For the Lord protects the bones of the righteous; not one of them is broken!
For more detail, please read the Christianity.com article What's Important about Jesus Not Breaking Any Bones?.
In the Roman period, being crucified brought tremendous ...
((John 16:9) concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; )
-->convict the world on what it's Not right/proper ( i.e atheism, materialistic greed, sexual lust, Nonchristian religion, humanism, etc).
(( John 16:10 ) and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;)
--->convict the world on what it is Right/Proper( ...
You are right that there are similarities between the two passages in that both reference the time in history when the Word who became flesh dwelt among us on earth. But the focus of each text is very different. John focuses on the glory Jesus had as a man. Paul focuses on the shame and death Jesus experienced as the Son of God.
This is pretty intuitive ...
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.
Jesus prophesied his laying down his life for his friends on the cross.
Did Jesus die for his enemies as well as his friends?
Right on the cross, Jesus prayed in
34a Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
These were his ...
Philippians 2:5-6: John 1:1
form of God forms an inclusio with glory of God in the Christ-poem (vv. 6, 11).
(2:6) Form of God
(2:11) Glory of God
The Greek word ''morphe'' means “form, outward appearance, shape.” (BDAG, p. 659)
The Greek word ''doxa'' means "the condition of being bright or shining, brightness, splendor, radiance" ...
Michael Heiser himself answered your question in a paper he read at the 2012 regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature: Jesus' Quotation of Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34: A Different View of John's Theological Strategy (source: supplementary material for Chapter 4 of his Unseen Realm book, content discussion #2). This answer is based on his paper.
Yes, they do in general terms, for both texts speak about the one who had been of the same level as and equal to God having been incarnated/become human.
That this is the same thing, is evident, for the Biblical view is not circular so as to allow such an event as incarnation of God to have been made and then abolished by God infinite times, which would ...
People regarded Zacchaeus as a sinner and enemy. Jesus bestowed friendship on him. Jesus saw him as a friend, and Zacchaeus believed in him. Jesus wants us to do likewise.
If we forgive our brother, we will be able to lay our lives down. Otherwise not.
There is more than one way that can account for the link between blindness and sin: one is that blindness is the natural consequence of sin (like how speeding can directly cause a car crash), another is that blindness is God’s punishment for sin.
Since the man was blind from birth, one can conclude that the Pharisees did not see his blindness as a natural ...
In the beginning of its history, Rome, as a republican state, was ruled by a Senate but governed by a monarch whose power was limited by the Senate. From BC 510-31 there were 10 such monarchs.
Cato the Elder,
Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Marcus Licinius Crassus
Cato the Younger
Julius Caesar – The Dictator period
An eschatological question. So somewhat shaky’ground’. So whatever the answer, it will not appeal to all. Nevertheless, all views should be put up for consideration. Therefore because this view is not represented yet, I will forward it for consideration….
REV 17:10 They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he ...