1) How do the names of Jesus in the New Testament help us to see God's character? Which of these means the most to you and why?
Each name given to Jesus in the New Testament reveals a characteristic of God. It is revealing of the character of God in that Jesus is the exact imprint of the invisible God. Therefore, when a name is ascribed to Jesus it should likewise be attributed to God Himself. They are not just names being given to Christ but they are describing the very nature of who He is. Among all of the wonderful names given to Jesus I come down to Jesus as Mediator and Jesus as Savior. I believe that Jesus as Savior is the name though that I connect with the most. It is Jesus as Savior that even makes it possible for us to have a relationship with God. I don't think I could ever overlook this fact.
2) How does the rest of the New Testament reveal Christ as a relational savior?
Among the many names that help to reveal Jesus as a relational savior are the names Savior, Mediator, High Priest, and Reconciler. Perhaps this is the reason I chose Savior and Mediator as the two names that mean the most to me. They reveal part of God's very character that makes it possible for sinful people like us to have a relationship with Him when we are so far from deserving. I believe the relational part of Jesus is what makes Him worth living and diving for, as well as everything in between.
3) What do you think of the statement on page 82 that Jesus was not really divine but functioned in that role ("Functional Christology")?
It is ridiculous. Heresy at it's height. It is necessary for Christ to have been divine. If Christ was not God he could not have been perfect, thus He would not have been a sufficient Savior for mankind. All of Christianity banks on the fact that Christ was both human and divine.
4) Does the New Testament say anything about the background and nature of Jesus? If so, what?
Of course it speaks about the background and nature of Jesus. John 1 is a wonderful passage which reveals to us that not only was Jesus with God from the beginning, but that he is in fact God Himself. Also, Colossians chapter 1 shows us that Jesus was preeminent from the beginning of the world and that all things hold together through Him. Also, Philippians 2 shows the humility of Christ, willingly emptying Himself of all of His rights as God to become a man. The question should not be whether the New Testament says anything about Christ, but what it says and how much.
On a side not, it is passages such as the ones that I listed which make the very prospect of Functional Christology insane. We know who Christ is IN HIS NATURE because the Bible reveals to us who he is. And to say there is nothing there which presents Christ's divinity is unfounded.
I love the passion you show when defending the silly idea (for saying the least) of the Functional Christology. You are right, there is enough evidence of Jesus pre-human existence and His divinity and as Nathan says, denying His divinity is as much as saying anybody could have done the work of Salvation; but as you remark nobody can be perfect as He is, nor make the work of Salvation like He did. Besides going to the laws of probabilities for a person to fulfill the entire specific and detailed predictive prophesies about the Messiah is absolutely impossible. Many claim to be the Messiah but only one Jesus fulfill all which had been spoken about Him hundreds or maybe more years previously. It is an ignorance to make such affirmation.
ReplyDeleteWhat is your second favorite name (just curious)?
ReplyDeleteI hadn't even heard of functional Christology until now, but I agree Tim, one cannot read the Gospels or Paul's letters and determine that Christ was not divine. It would take a very liberal hermeneutic to conclude this.
ReplyDeleteMan, I just wrote a very long deal on here that the computer messed up and did not send through. Dirty.
ReplyDeleteSo, what I said in a condensed statement is that the Son of Man is my second favorite title for Him, even though Mediator carries a lot with it that speaks to our need for Christ in order to have fellowship with the Father. Mediator is a beautiful title.
Son of Man, though, is my second favorite for a couple reasons. First of all, He refers to Himself as Son of Man I believe more than any other title. His frequent use of the title speaks to its significance in revealing His nature to us. Next, the implications that are wrapped up in the name from the book of Daniel and all the Old Testament is mind boggling. On a more personal level though all of mankind has been waiting for the Savior to come along. The Son of Man, in current language, is loaded with importance.
What about John 14:6, would they be considered titles, that Jesus gives himself? I don't remember them being mentioned in Scott's book.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Nathan, I know this verse by hearth and I don’t think Scott mentions any of them. Now maybe Timothy can help us better here. I don’t know if they can be called names for our Lord or I don’t know symbols that tell us about His mission such us: making a way for us to have direct access to the Father, the only true God, and the eternal life only He can provide for us through His sacrifice. Interesting remark!
ReplyDeleteYeah Nate. I would def. put them in that category. And yes, I believe they are self given titles that reveal to us who Christ is. For that matter, I would consider all of the "I am" statements in John to be in that category. On those in particular I do believe Scott makes mention.
ReplyDelete