Featured The Son Learned Obedience

IMHO, by learning obedience Heb 5:8, and becoming obedient unto death Phil 2:8, the Son became the faith of God, his Father, therefore the Son is, obedience of faith, spoken of in Romans 1:5 and 16:26 therefore Paul was made apostle to the nations to preach the gospel to the nations.

No, obedience by the Son, equals, no faith therefore there would have been no gospel nor no apostle.

The Son learned obedience through sufferings becoming obedient unto death even the death of the cross, that is the sinless Son dies for our sins. What if, God the Father had not raised him from the dead? Would your sins be covered? Would there have been any faith? 1 Cor 15:17 YLT and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins;

IMO Because of, "obedience," the Father raised him from the dead, therefore we could be washed of our sins by his blood.

Phil 2:8,9 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore ( διό dió, dee-o'; from G1223 and G3739; through which thing, i.e. consequently:—for which cause, therefore, wherefore.) God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

In Hebrews 1:1,2 it is stated that the Son is the heir of all things. In verses 3 and 4 it is stated he obtained a name, by inheritance, more excellent than the angels when it was said, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee," which Acts 13:34 relates to the resurrection.

 

When Jesus was in heaven prior to His birth, He was in total harmony with the Father. The result of the incarnation was His humbling of Himself, there are several times in the Gospels where Jesus makes statements like I do not my own will, but the will of Him who sent me, and I do always the will of my Father who is in Heaven etc

Hope this helps

 

Hello Tyndale1946,
This is a really interesting question. I take it that you are asking how the Lord Jesus Christ 'learned obedience.' How is it possible for God, who is omniscient, to learn? I'm not sure I have the right answer, but I'll have a stab at it.

When a young couple take their marriage vows, they promise that their marriage will be 'for better, for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health.' They know what the words mean and they intend to keep them, but probably they have no real understanding of what commitment they are making. It is only when an elderly husband cares for his wife with advanced dementia, or a wife for her husband paralysed by a stroke, that he or she learns by experience what 'in sickness and in health' really means.

So what is 'obedience'? It is subjection to the will of another; it is owning the authority of another; it is performing the pleasure of another. We learn in Phil. 2:6 that Christ was 'in very nature God.' Before His incarnation, He had occupied the place of supreme authority. From then throne of heaven, equal with the Father, He had issued commands and required submission to them. Obedience was something He observed in others, not experienced Himself. But when He became a Man, He 'made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and.....humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross' (Phil. 2:7-8). He learned experimentally the meaning of true obedience.

'....And having been perfected.....' That is, have a complete experimental knowledge of what absolute obedience entails, 'He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him.' We, who offer willing obedience (cf. John 14:21 etc.) to our Lord and Saviour know that we are not obeying some celestial autocrat who has no conception of what it means to be a servant, but rather Him who was obedient unto death.

I hope that helps.

 

Our "suffering servant" learned that while in the flesh, obedience to the Father, came with a price, pain, suffering and death.

I think everybody believes is hurts really really bad to be shot, but only a few of us actually know the pain first hand. Christ knew, before the incarnation, what was in store for Him as the Lamb of God, but as an obedient Son, He "learned" (gained first hand experience) the price of obedience.

 

Help me out MM.

Take the passage you used above from Phil 2.

Let's go a little further. Verse 9. Wherefore. What does that word mean?

Who is God in verse 9? Who is him in verse 9? Did someone actually give another someone something? Does the word, "wherefore," imply a reason for the giving? What do you think the name was that one someone, "gave," to another someone?

Jesus asked a couple of interesting questions, interesting to me anyway, of two diverse groups.

He asked the disciples, "But whom say ye that I am?"
What was the answer and from whom was the answer revealed?

He asked the Pharisees. "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?"

This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Matt 3:17 Does that statement have any real meaning?

Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Heb 5:7

Was that really a Son talking with his Father or was that just for experience?

let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

 

I'll try!

Greek dio kai, 'And so;' 'therefore... also' (NKJV).

'God,' I suppose, is God the Father. 'Him' is the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father has given to the Son the name which is above every name. I believe that the name is 'King of kings and Lord of lords' (Rev. 19:16). If that is not the name, then nobody knows it except Christ (v.12).

I'm not sure why you want me to answer these questions, since you must know the answers, but I'll play along. 'Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God"........"Flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but My Father in heaven"' (Matt. 16:16).

'They said to Him, "The Son of David"'

I am sure it does, in several ways. It would be helpful to know what you're getting at. There was never a time when the Son was not God the Son, but there was a time when He took on flesh and the nature of a servant to fulfil the Father's will.

I'm sure it really was the Son talking with His Father. I have sometimes wondered what it was that the angel of Luke 22:43 did. Whatever it was, it didn't make the bad stuff go away: 'And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly.' It was a cold night, cold enough for them to light a fire in the courtyard (Luke 22:55), yet the sweat poured off our Lord like great drops of blood- the natural effect on a man of impending trauma. At this point, if not before, He knew the real meaning of obedience.

 

This is my first thought, too, tempered by the quote below by John Calvin.

8. Yet learned he obedience, etc. The proximate end of Christ’s sufferings was thus to habituate himself to obedience; not that he was driven to this by force, or that he had need of being thus exercised, as the case is with oxen or horses when their ferocity is to be tamed, for he was abundantly willing to render to his Father the obedience which he owed. But this was done from a regard to our benefit, that he might exhibit to us an instance and an example of subjection even to death itself. It may at the same time be truly said that Christ by his death learned fully what it was to obey God, since he was then led in a special manner to deny himself; for renouncing his own will, he so far gave himself up to his Father that of his own accord and willingly he underwent that death which he greatly dreaded. The meaning then is that Christ was by his sufferings taught how far God ought to be submitted to and obeyed.

It is then but right that we also should by his example be taught and prepared by various sorrows, and at length by death itself, to render obedience to God; nay, much more necessary is this in our case, for we have a disposition contumacious and ungovernable until the Lord subdues us by such exercises to bear his yoke. This benefit, which arises from the cross, ought to allay its bitterness in our hearts; for what can be more desirable than to be made obedient to God? But this cannot be effected but by the cross, for in prosperity we exult as with loose reins; nay, in most cases, when the yoke is shaken off, the wantonness of the flesh breaks forth into excesses. But when restraint is put on our will, when we seek to please God, in this act only does our obedience show itself; nay, it is an illustrious proof of perfect obedience when we choose the death to which God may call us, though we dread it, rather than the life which we naturally desire.​

 

I think you'll labor in vain to find that sentiment in scripture. Always the WORD of God (John 1:1, Rev 19:13). Scripture never once mentions anything about "Eternal Son" or "God the Son", those are tradition apart from scripture.

How did God say "Today I have begotten you"? That was fulfilled at His baptism, not mentioned as having been spoken eternally

Huios - Son of maturity. He is, was, and always will be the Word of God. But He became a Son. And He was made perfect (or mature) through those things which He suffered. He learned what it's like to be tempted by flesh, and He overcame the same. He can relate to our weaknesses because He endured the same

 

Jesus is eternal God. There was never a time where this is not true.
A denial here is a denial of the trinity

Phil 2 demonstrates this along with jn 17.

 

Be very, very careful here. You're saying there is a point in time when God became the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and that Christ's person had changed. What was God before said baptism?

 

I think you should learn how to read and comprehend English. Then, go read again what I wrote.

There isn't anything you wrote which even remotely addresses what I wrote. And if you can't see that, then you are considerably lacking the intellectual resources necessary to discuss the issue

 

Psalm 110:7. 'I will announce the decree: the LORD has said to Me, "You are My Son. Today I have begotten You.' When were the decrees of God issued? In eternity (Acts 15:18; Rev. 12:8). Christ was made flesh in time, but He was declared to be God the Son in eternity. God lives in an eternal 'today.'

 

I'd say some brethren on here need to see how devoted they are to tradition as opposed to a devotion to scripture.

You seem all too willing to put words in somebody's mouth and start crying heretic, when it seems you might not even know or understand what was stated.

 

JamesL

I try ....

It was bad enough the first time.

sure it does:thumbs:

[/QUOTE]

Oh....this clears it up:laugh:

I thought your posts were just consistently bad novelties...who knew?

All this time.....I lack the intellectual resources to comprehend your genius insights:laugh:

You are so special and unique...no one in orthodox church history see's it your way, no one on BB see's it your way....now we know why....

You are a super genius poster...so us regular guys just can never get it..... as I look over your posting this is your M.O......no one gets your keen insights ...but you:thumbs:

 

Maybe you need to be clearer in your posts. Claiming to be misunderstood is usually the first cry of the incompetent.

 

I stated very plainly that He is, was, and always will be the Word of God, and left 2 references - John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13

And that gets followed by an idiotic charge that I'm denying Christ's divinity. Yeah, that's clearly my fault. Ok.


Then there's the poster who left the near heretical claim that Jesus was born into sinless flesh, which clearly contradicts scripture - Romans 8:3, Hebrews 2:14-17, Hebrews 5 and others.

Sure thing, brother

 

I hope that isn't a reference to my post. Jesus, the Son of God, born of woman, was sinless. Unlike all others born of woman he never sinned. All other flesh to be born of woman have been sinners, sinful flesh.




For my reference to sinless

 

I underlined that above in your OP and will ask;

What are your thoughts concerning verses 5 and 6 and the high priest?

Being the Christ did glorify himself to be high priest, exactly who did glorify him?

Did the same entity, glorify and also be glorified? What are your thoughts on what the Christ was glorified with? When did this glorifying take place? What what was the Christ given and by whom was it given that qualified the Christ to be high priest?

Just asking for your thoughts.