Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?

From: Vernon Jenkins (
Date: Sun Aug 19 2001 - 17:31:45 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?"


    First, to clarify the point I was making. In an earlier post I had
    written, "Is it reasonable to believe that he (Jesus) would offer
    a_myth_as the 'sign' of his own death and resurrection?"; to which you
    replied, "Short answer. Yes." It was on that basis that I suggested you
    might as readily jettison other of the Lord's statements - in
    particular, his reading of the Books of Moses, and his implied
    acceptance of the Creation narrative, of the lineage of the Patriarchs,
    and of the reality of the Mabbul.

    Of course, you make the perfectly valid point that, as a man, he would
    not necessarily have had first hand knowledge of what he had achieved as
    Creator (which I had implied). This raises the more general question of
    the true nature of the Lord's manhood. Regarding this important matter,
    a highly-respected and gifted preacher, Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones has

    "... it is a mistake to think of our Lord as the Son of God with just a
    human body. He had a human soul also. He had a human mind. He had human
    reason. And it is essential that we should bear that in mind. He is not
    our Saviour if that is not true. He cannot save men unless He truly
    became man in a real sense. So you will find a statement like this about
    Him in Luke 2:52: 'And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in
    favour with God and man'. He could and He did increase in wisdom as well
    as in stature. So the statement is that He took unto Him a true human
    nature, and He took that human nature unto Himself from the Virgin Mary.
    And the result is that we find in the four Gospels that He not only
    grew, but that He experienced hunger; He experienced thirst; He
    experienced grief. He said He didn't know certain things. He did not
    know when the final end of the world was to come...As Son of Man he was
    ignorant of that particular thing. He suffered pain, and He did
    literally die." He later goes on to say: "(however) He is distinct from
    man. Our spirit is not holy; His spirit is holy, because He is Son of

    Until his baptism by John (Mt.3:16) - which marked the beginning of his
    ministry proper - we gather that he was little more than a person of
    above average IQ, possessing wisdom and a sound knowledge of the
    Scriptures (Lk.2:42-47). During his baptism he received the Spirit of
    God; following his temptation in the wilderness, we read that 'angels
    ministered to him'. That heavenly counsel was made freely available to
    him thereafter is made clear in Mt.11:27 where he says, "All things are
    delivered to me of my Father". Clearly, the information that was thus
    imparted to him must have included details of his pre-incarnation
    existence, for he says, "...before Abraham was, I am." (Jn.8:58)

    So, while his Father in heaven may have withheld certain things - for
    reasons best known to Himself - it is hardly likely that any Scriptural
    errors would have remained unreported. Clearly, the Lord was provided
    with all the information he needed to complete his earthly mission; and
    that must have included a reliable testimony from Moses and the



    John W Burgeson wrote:
    > Vernan asked: "I presume you would also question the Lord's belief in the
    > writings of Moses and the prophets (expressed by Father Abraham -
    > Lk.16:31), on the basis that he - the Creator - was obviously unaware of
    > the Theory of Evolution."
    > Not sure of your point here. Maybe I'm brain-challenged this morning. Try
    > again, being more specific on what you are asking.
    > One question that might be pertinent is this: Was Jesus aware during his
    > earthly life of the "true" history of the earth, or did he have the
    > conventional understandings of other Jewish people of his day?
    > Specifically, if I were to go back in time, meet Jesus, and ask him his
    > outlook on relativity theory, or quantum mechanics, or the "old earth vs
    > YEC, would he have any idea of what I was talking about?
    > I suggest that he would not have. But I'd listen to arguments on the
    > other side.
    > John Burgeson (Burgy)
    > (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
    > humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 18:29:17 EDT