Re: Is Jonah to be taken literally?

From: george murphy (
Date: Sun Aug 19 2001 - 19:27:41 EDT

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Why YEC?"

    Vernon Jenkins wrote:

    > John,
    > 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
    > written:
    > "... 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
    > God."
    > 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
    > Prophets.

    Vernon -
            In your concluding statement you have begged the question at issue -
    i.e., whether or not the testimony of Moses (in the sense of traditional
    attribution of the torah to the Moses) was in fact written by the historical
    Moses. How do we know that some of the information that the Father in heaven
    withheld didn't include the actual authorship of the Pentateuch?
            Moreover, there are indications that the things Jesus didn't know
    during his earthly ministry included not just exalted secrets like the time of
    the parousia, but quite mundane things. While it can't be proved, I think it's
    most reasonable, & in accord with the view of the Incarnation which you have
    cited, to think that when Jesus asked "Who touched my garments?" (Mk.5:30), it
    was because he really wanted to know.



    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 19 2001 - 19:27:14 EDT