1 Timothy 3:16

Answer me a simple question- Is Jesus a man or not?

It seems to me that you may have some problems understanding the Hypostatic Union. To deny the manhood of Christ is just as grave an error as to deny his divinity.

 

Sal avoids answering yet another direct question, and attempts to hide behind what is conceivably an honest mistake; Mexdeaf's action is excuseable since it was never specified as to which version of MH was being used. Perhaps Sal hoped that we would not be earnest and persistent in our pursuit for truth.

Now notice: the word "Mediator" is never even used in Part I (or the brief Introduction, or even Part III) for 1 Timothy 2 in the longer Matthew Henry's Commentary (italics are in original) --

Chapter 2​

In this chapter Paul treats, I. Of prayer, with many reasons for it (v. 1-8). II. Of women’s apparel (v. 9, 10). III. Of their subjection, with the reasons of it (v. 11–14). IV. A promise given for their encouragement in child-bearing (v. 15).

1Ti 2:1-8

Here is, I. A charge given to Christians to pray for all men in general, and particularly for all in authority. Timothy must take care that this be done. Paul does not send him any prescribed form of prayer, as we have reason to think he would if he had intended that ministers should be tied to that way of praying; but, in general, that they should make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks: supplications for the averting of evil, prayers for the obtaining of good, intercessions for others, and thanksgivings for mercies already received. Paul thought it enough to give them general heads; they, having the scripture to direct them in prayer and the Spirit of prayer poured out upon them, needed not any further directions. Observe, The design of the Christian religion is to promote prayer; and the disciples of Christ must be praying people. Pray always with all prayer, Eph. 6:18. There must be prayers for ourselves in the first place; this is implied here. We must also pray for all men, for the world of mankind in general, for particular persons who need or desire our prayers. See how far the Christian religion was from being a sect, when it taught men this diffusive charity, to pray, not only for those of their own way, but for all men. Pray for kings (v. 2); though the kings at this time were heathens, enemies to Christianity, and persecutors of Christians, yet they must pray for them, because it is for the public good that there should be civil government, and proper persons entrusted with the administration of it, for whom therefore we ought to pray, yea, though we ourselves suffer under them. For kings, and all that are in authority, that is, inferior magistrates: we must pray for them, and we must give thanks for them, pray for their welfare and for the welfare of their kingdoms, and therefore must not plot against them, that in the peace thereof we may have peace, and give thanks for them and for the benefit we have under their government, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Here see what we must desire for kings, that God will so turn their hearts, and direct them and make use of them, that we under them may lead a quiet and peaceable life. He does not say, "that we may get preferments under them, grow rich, and be in honour and power under them;’’ no, the summit of the ambition of a good Christian is to lead a quiet and peaceable life, to get through the world unmolested in a low private station. We should desire that we and others may lead a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, implying that we cannot expect to be kept quiet and peaceable unless we keep in all godliness and honesty. Let us mind our duty, and then we may expect to be taken under the protection both of God and the government. In all godliness and honesty. Here we have our duty as Christians summed up in two words: godliness, that is, the right worshipping of God; and honesty, that is, a good conduct towards all men. These two must go together; we are not truly honest if we are not godly, and do not render to God his due; and we are not truly godly if we are not honest, for God hates robbery for burnt-offering. Here we may observe, 1. Christians are to be men much given to prayer: they ought to abound herein, and should use themselves to prayers, supplications, etc. 2. In our prayers we are to have a generous concern for others as well as for ourselves; we are to pray for all men, and to give thanks for all men; and must not confine our prayers nor thanksgiving to our own persons or families. 3. Prayer consists of various parts, of supplications, intercessions, and thanksgivings; for we must pray for the mercies we want, as well as be thankful for mercies already received; and we are to deprecate the judgments which our own sins or the sins of others have deserved. 4. All men, yea, kings themselves, and those who are in authority, are to be prayed for. They want our prayers, for they have many difficulties to encounter, many snares to which their exalted stations expose them. 5. In praying for our governors, we take the most likely course to lead a peaceable and quiet life. The Jews at Babylon were commanded to seek the peace of the city whither the Lord had caused them to be carried captives, and to pray to the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof they should have peace, Jer. 29:7. 6. If we would lead a peaceable and quiet life, we must live in all godliness and honesty; we must do our duty to God and man. He that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile; let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and pursue it, 1 Pt. 3:10, 11. Now the reason he gives for this is because this is good in the sight of God our Saviour; that is, the gospel of Christ requires this. That which is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour we should do, and should abound in.

III. A direction how to pray, v. 8. 1. Now, under the gospel, prayer is not to be confined to any one particular house of prayer, but men must pray every where: no place is amiss for prayer, no place more acceptable to God than another, Jn. 4:21. Pray every where. We must pray in our closets, pray in our families, pray at our meals, pray when we are on journeys, and pray in the solemn assemblies, whether more public or private. 2. It is the will of God that in prayer we should lift up holy hands: Lifting up holy hands, or pure hands, pure from the pollution of sin, washed in the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness. I will wash my hands, etc., Ps. 26:6. 3. We must pray in charity: Without wrath, or malice, or anger at any person. 4. We must pray in faith without doubting (Jam. 1:6), or, as some read it, without disputing, and then it falls under the head of charity.

Nothing in Part I of MH's Commentary (Full or Concise) for this passage resembles what Sal would have us to believe (my emphasis) --

Henry didn't write anything of the sort for 1 Timothy 2 in Part I. Sal could have saved us all a lot of trouble and just shown us exactly where he was distilling a MH statement to the affect that "the 'Mediator' could be no one other than God the Son due to whose blood it was that could atone for sin for every man" as we asked; now without that, it seems that Sal has perpetuated a fraud.

Sal has butchered quotes and scripture in order to support his own opinions, even towards true doctrines (like the Deity of Christ, or, the Son of God is the Mediator); but for Sal, his end must justify his means. When Sal's methodolgy was challenged, he accused the confronters of slander, or (worse) of attacking God's truth. I would appeal to all here at the BB: let us behave in a God-honoring manner in these discussions by answering most direct questions, keeping everything within context, bring support for your opinions from credible sources, constrain your presuppositions and consider others' positions carefully (don't jump to conclusions), and don't be defensive (often demostrated by being offensive). Difficult, but needed to be said.

 

Matthew Henry has enough reverence for the things of God to always capitolize the "m" in "Mediator" thus showing he firmly believed in the Deity of that Mediator in I Tim 2:5. Otherwise MH would not have done so in his commentary, contrary to what anyone else here would like to have you to believe. (since it is becoming necessary for some to speak to others in the 3rd person, unless it should be looked at as gossiping and talking behind some one else's back. Maybe just another way of degradin one's character by their practise, but not from this perspective.):godisgood:

 

Of course it seems that way to you, you're obviously controlled by your bias.

I have never denied the humanity of Christ nor His deity, I have just learned to never separate the two as you demand.

I know there are places we find His humanity to be in the forefront, but we should also KNOW that His Deity was always in control!

 

That Matthew Henry believed that the "Mediator" is Christ Jesus (Deity) was never questioned. Sal attempts to boldly 'prove' that which has not been doubted.

This implys that MH either made a very similar statement, or made a logical argument for it in Part I of his commentary, but he didn't. Henry did believe it, but he didn't say it in Part I; just as I believe in the Deity of Christ, but it doesn't say it in 1 Timothy 2:5.

This is a classic example of Sal's M.O. as I described previously. Notice how Sal attempts to deflect his guilt in two ways: 1) that it is unnecessary for Sal to actually cite accurately, in this case using MH's reverential capitolization as his excuse. BTW - the KJV does NOT capitolize "mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:5 (does that suggest the KJV doesn't reverence the things of God?). Notice that Sal still refuses to specify his allusion to Part I because he can't (it doesn't exist). Notice that Sal never admits any error, or apologizes for being wrong; and next 2) Sal skips the 'slander' accusation and plays his 'heretic' card: Sal suggests that his confronter would have "you to believe" something "contrary" to what Henry states (but not in Part I); that is, Sal is again suggesting that I am denying the Deity of Christ (I guess he just can't help himself.) It would be absurd for me to introduce Henry's commentary into the thread if I didn't already agree with his thoughts on this verse. No one in the entire thread has denied the Deity of Christ as a true doctrine, while most (including myself) have (several times) affirmed this truth.

I agree with the other posters (including Sal) on the truth of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and that the identity of the Mediator is Christ Jesus; it is Sal's unethical, unreasonable, and unsound methodology that I oppose. I also agree that Henry does denote the Deity with "Mediator". Certainly then, all the Bible versions that have "He" (showing Deity) at 1 Timothy 3:16 are doctrinally sound there as well.

 

Considering the source, nothing could be more ironic! :laugh:

 

Franklinmonroe: //BTW - the KJV does NOT
capitolize "mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:5 (does that suggest
the KJV doesn't reverence the things of God?).//

'Mediator' in KJV1611 Edition
'mediator' in KJV1769 Edition

BTW, you won the debate three pages ago. :wavey::godisgood::thumbs:

when your worthyless opponent conceded that
he couldn't keep up with the converstation.
That was post 158 I think.

 

So now I ask for the fourth time, what exactly is this remark supposed to mean, considering you put it at the end of a post addressed to me? Or is this supposed to be some sort of hidden code, for someone else, perhaps? I honestly do not know what you are referring to.

Here is the post of mine that you "replied" to:

So I simply see nothing about what you could possibly be referring to, with the comment. Would you please enlighten me? How much nicer can I ask?

Ed

 

A sharper genuflect would likely be more acceptable. :tonofbricks:

 

:laugh:

BTW, The NIB. :laugh:

 

A quick "Thank you" to the mods for letting this thread 'run it's course', even though there were some 'blows below the waist'.

 

And likewise, in exactly the same vein as I have asked Salamander, "What exactly is this supposed to mean?" Or what is the reference to?

Some of us dumb farmboy types are not as erudite as some of you scholarly types, and need a little help to understand what exactly it is you are referencing. And also it may come from taking a few too many licks in football, in HS, as well. Or trying to make sense of some posts on the BB, is another possibility, as in -
:tonofbricks:

Ed

 

But, alas, we have reached page 20