01-01A

Beginning the Life of Christ Series of tapes by Steve Gregg.

This series will attempt to harmonize the gospels. The idea is to take each event in the life of Christ and see what each of the gospels has to say about it.

However, in studying the life of Christ, there’s something that we need to get clear early on. The life of Christ is quite different than the lives of us normal people. When we speak of Christ’s life, we’re talking about more than just a chronological biography of historical events.

Joh 1:4 In him was life;

The life of Christ was the life that was in Him.

We may say that each of us has life also, at least to the extent that we are alive. Our heart is beating, our blood is circulating, our cells are reproducing… there is life in us. But the life that’s in us is not self-inherent. We didn’t create it, and we are not the source of it. We don’t even sustain it. The best we can do is support it with those biological requirements necessary to keep it going. In this respect, there is little that separates us from the animal kingdom.

Act 17:28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

But Christ’s life transcends mere biochemistry.

Joh 1:4 …and the life was the light of men.

Christ’s life provides us with the light of understanding. All people have this light to some extent. This is true regardless of whether they acknowledge, or are even aware of it. It is this light that separates mankind from the animals.

This is claim of the scriptures.

Given this perspective, Christ’s life takes on a more dynamic meaning. His life becomes an active influential force in our lives. In studying the life if Christ, we are studying far more than just a series of historical events.

So, even though the chronological historical events of Christ’s life will form the framework of these studies, we must endeavor to keep in mind that Christ is alive, and working with each and every one of us.

The approach will be to examine the biblical account of each event in Jesus’ life as recorded in the gospels. To do this, we use whichever of the gospel accounts describes the event most clearly, and introduce the differences, details, and nuances from the other gospels, and indeed, from the rest of scripture, as appropriate.

Given this approach, then, we turn first to the book of John.

Even though there is no birth story of Jesus in John’s gospel, we find it is here that we find the earliest record of His life. The first eighteen verses of John’s gospel provide a prologue to John’s historical account of Christ’s life. They are a theological interpretation of His life. The actual history that John records, begins in verse 19, which occurs at some point after the Christ’s temptation.

This prologue describes the transcendent concepts of Jesus as God.

We must begin with the word “word“.

In Greek, John uses the word, Logos. It has the same root as our word “logic”. It is also the same root that we use in our words like, biology, psychology, meteorology, and all other “…ology” words. In these latter cases we use it to mean, “the study of”. In our study of the word, logos, we are engaged in a bit of etymology… the study of words. Indeed, in studying this word in particular you might even say we’re engaging in logo-ology.

It may be that John chose the word “logos” in order to appeal to his Greek readership. Early Greek philosophers used the word “logos” to refer to the first cause of everything. They used this word to describe the eternal mind, the universal mind, and wisdom in general. In doing so, they were not thinking of a personal god as we think of God. It may be, then, that John is attempting to meet his Greek readers at a common reference point.

However, John’s account also possesses an unmistakable and clearly deliberate resemblance to the opening line of Genesis. In this, John is also meeting his Hebrew readership at a point of common reference. In Genesis, nothing happens until the word is spoken. The word introduces God’s creative fiat. God’s spoken word has creative power, it has creative force. When God speaks, things happen. It is the agency of His creation.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Our words, too can have a certain power to them. But not like God’s word. God’s Word is a person, and can be rightly referred to as “He”. John refers to the Word as "HE", and "HIM". This would have been quite a departure from the Greek way of thinking.

What was Jesus' status in his Pre-Incarnate State?

In referring to the person who was to become Jesus, John uses the word logos. Prior to His arrival on earth in the form of the baby Jesus, we don’t see the word referred to as the Son. Orthodoxy says that Jesus was always the Son. But Jesus is never referred to as the son in any context that refers to something prior to His birth. It may be true, but it's not stated in scripture.

Psa 2:7 I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Mic 5:2 But thou, Beth–lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.

Jesus had no beginning... but what was his status prior to being born in Bethlehem? He was the Word. This seems like a greater, more intimate union than that of father and son. He was God forever, but not the Son prior to His birth, at least we have no biblical evidence of this.

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life

1Jn 1:2 (and the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us);

Jesus is referred to as that which was from the beginning... and also as the Word of life.

Jn 5:8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.

The authenticity of this verse is highly questionable. It is not found in any of the earliest texts.

Rev 19:11 And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon, called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

Rev 19:12 And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written, which no one knoweth but he himself.

Rev 19:13 And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Revelation was also written by John. We may be seeing here evidence that Revelation was written prior to John's other writings. The insight that Jesus=Word may have come from while John was on Patmos, and then later incorporated into his gospel and epistles.

In John's view, Word=life=light=life of men=Jesus=God.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The doctrine of the trinity is based heavily on this verse.

Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, And there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I have wounded, and I heal: And there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last, I am he.

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he; before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

The doctrine of the trinity is man’s attempt to resolve the separate ideas presented in scripture that God is one God, and yet the obvious distinctions made between Christ, God the Father, and the Holy spirit.

All analogies fall short.

According to Paul this is a great mystery.

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.

There is much about God that is mysterious. There is much even about mankind that is mysterious as well. We don’t understand, for example, our this glop of gray matter in our skulls can be self ware, can reason, can write symphonies, and can love to the point of self-sacrifice.

Jer 9:23 Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:

Jer 9:24 but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth, and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

This mystery of the dual nature of God (that He is one, and yet manifests as separate persons) is mysterious, but no more mysterious than that He always existed, and that nothing caused Him to exist. Of course, if something had caused Him to exist, then the question just transfers back a generation into, what caused the thing that caused Him to exist, to exist.

So we admit that there are things about God that we can understand or describe logically. The oneness of God and the distinctness of the God Persons as simultaneous truths is just such a mystery. Whether this truth is best described by the doctrine called “The Trinity”, I can’t say.

My chief objection to the trinity doctrine is this: Trinitarians by and large, it seems to me, make of this doctrine a litmus test. If you adhere to it, it’s a sign that you’re probably a pretty good Christian. If you question it, then you’re at beast border-line, probably a heretic, and, at worst, part of a cult.

I think this is an arbitrary and foolish distinction to make. I don’t think there’s anyone, even the proponents of the doctrine, who suggests that it’s simply and easily (or perhaps even can be) comprehended. Paul referred to it as a great mystery. I’ve seen lengthy discussions from intelligent, and, to my mind, godly folk on different sides of this debate. Inevitably they have to draw upon the minutia of techniques for translating Greek words and idioms in order to make their respective points. They point to the creeds of men, and to circumstantial evidences about what the early church believed.

Both sides do this with equal conviction that they are proving their point.

Apparently, at one point, what is generally considered orthodoxy (whatever that is) hung by the thread of a single man’s vote.

I just can’t see God judging non-Trinitarians as harshly as most Trinitarians seem to, when there’s so much room for debate on the details.

To understand and know God, is not necessarily to understand and know everything about Him. This is similar to how I can understand and know my wife, without necessarily knowing how her pituitary gland functions. When we ourselves want to be known and understood, it's not necessarily in our clinical, medical, biological make up that we’re interested in.

We want people to understand us as thinking individuals. We want them to know what we like, and dislike, how we think, what our feelings are.