The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Colossians
Administrator

Posts: 170

The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God Dec 22, 2013 4:49:46 GMT

Post by Colossians on Dec 22, 2013 4:49:46 GMT

This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.

Note: Because of the editing limitations of BBCode and internet browsers, in order to preserve the intended alignment of the graphically-oriented text in this work, this work should be viewed with your browser's zoom setting set to 100% or less.

__________________________________________

THE LEGAL PROOF THAT JESUS CHRIST IS GOD

The reader is invited to spend a minute or two studying the following 4 verses from Romans chapter 7. It is upon these 4 verses that our proof shall be based.

[1] “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? [2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. [4] Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

The “Christ is God” scenario

Paul uses the marriage-widowhood paradigm to show us that, based on the fact that Christ is God – a fact coextensive with our having been given to Christ by the Father before the world began – we are free from the law by virtue of the death of Christ.

We begin with God.

[God]

God consisted of the Father and the Son, the Son being in the Father.¹

[Father[Son]]

¹ We omit here considerations of the 3rd person of God, the Holy Spirit, as such degree of specificity is not required for our proof that Christ is God.

Just as Eve was in Adam, so we the elect were in the Son.

[Father[Son[Woman]]]

The Father plucked His right hand, which is His Son, out of His bosom. However because the Son was nevertheless (still) the Father’s (own) right hand, He necessarily remained part of the Godhead. We have therefore not juxtaposed the Son with the Father, but have simply drawn attention to their (several) distinctness by separating them with “/”.

[Father/Son[Woman]]

Adam’s being put to sleep was a figure for the Son’s (eternal) death to self before the Father. Just then as with Adam the result of such ‘death’ was the externalising of the woman within him, so too with Christ. We have therefore (now) juxtaposed the woman with the Godhead.

[Father/Son], Woman

Because the woman was now separate to the Godhead, she was naturally without the knowledge of God and therefore of necessity plunged into the realm of vanity – the corporeal realm – where the law would act as her schoolmaster.

[Father/Son] – the law – Woman

Just as she who was taken out of Adam was Adam’s wife, so too she who was taken out of the Son was the Son’s wife. Constrained by the marriage covenant then, the Son would of necessity follow His wife into the vanity in order to redeem her.

[God] – the law – Son, Wife

This can also be represented as:

[God] – the law – Son

[God] – the law – Wife

Because the Son was nevertheless still God, the law remained between Himself and His wife:

[God] – the law – Son

..............................................I

.......................................the law

..............................................I

[God] – the law – Wife

Because the law which remained between the Son and His wife demanded the same faithfulness from His wife that the “law of the husband” did of a human wife, the law between the Son and His wife was the spiritual equivalent of the “law of the husband”.

[God] – the law – Son

..............................................I

...................."the law of the husband"

..............................................I

[God] – the law – Wife

Our husband was crucified by the law, and so disappeared from the picture.

[God] – ?.?.?.?.? – ?.?

..............................................I

...................."the law of the husband"

..............................................I

[God] – the law – Wife

Because our Husband was no longer in the picture, the “law of the husband” which bound us to Him, also disappeared.

[God] – ?.?.?.?.? – ?.?

..............................................I

......................................?.?.?.?.?

..............................................I

[God] – the law – Wife

Because “the law of the Husband” between our Husband and us, was none other than the law between God and us, the law between God and us also disappeared.

[God] – ?.?.?.?.? – ?.?

..............................................I

......................................?.?.?.?.?

..............................................I

[God] – ?.?.?.?.? – Wife

As a result we were dead to the law and in a direct (copulative) relationship with God.

[God – Wife]

Given that the reason we had become dead to the law was that we might be married to “Him who is raised from the dead”, (the) God with whom we were now in direct (copulative) relationship (i.e. (the) God with whom we were now in a true marriage), was necessarily one and the same person as He who had been raised from the dead.

[Son – Wife]

Thus far

We have shown that Christ’s being God, was a sufficient condition for us to have become dead to the law. However we have not yet shown that it was a necessary condition. In order to show that it was a necessary condition, we must now demonstrate that if Christ was not God, our having become dead to the law could not have been possible.

The “Christ is not God” scenario

We were under the law:

[God] – the law – Woman

The son is born on earth under the law, but because He is not God, there is no legal relationship between Himself and us.

[God] – the law – son of God (but not God the Son)

[God] – the law – Woman

When the Son dies, there is therefore no “law of the husband” between himself and us which might become defunct, and therefore no way by which the law between God and ourselves might (coextensively) become defunct. As a result, we are still under the law.

[God] – the law – Woman

Logic

The dictionary:

X. We are set free from the law by virtue of the (dead) body of Christ
Y. Christ is God.

The argument:

Premise 1: X if and only if Y (by virtue of the combination of the two scenarios above)
Premise 2: X (declaration of scripture)
--------------------
Therefore Y

It is not possible for the conclusion to be false if the premises are both true, therefore it is a valid argument. Additionally, both premises are in fact true, therefore it is a sound argument.

Summary of argument in narrative form

Because we have shown that it was not possible for us to become "dead to the law" unless Christ was God, then given that we are indeed dead to the law, we have independently (i.e. without reference to any scripture which might concern itself with the deity of Christ) proven that Christ is God.

Veredictum

The doctrine of those who declare that Christ is not God, contains no mechanism by which they might be set free from the law.

Their doctrine therefore renders them still under the law and thus still required to obey it.

Amen.

(See also addendum below, and extensions following.)

______________________

ADDENDUM GLORIOSUM

One husband, one wife

The “law of the husband” prohibited only the wife from marrying another: the husband was free to take unto himself additional wives. This follows directly from the fact that she was taken out of him and not vice versa, and she made for him and not vice versa. (See 1 Cor 11:8,9.)

And it is coextensive with the fact that headship speaks to directives: in that there can be no need for any directive but one (see John 13:34, 1 John 3:23), there can be no need for any head but One.

Contrasting, ‘bodyship’ is infinitely divisible, for it speaks to form rather than knowledge: one’s form can be divided into an infinite number of parts. The many wives the Jewish husband might have therefore would speak to the one ‘combined’ wife that would be the (future) NT church.

So:

“And in that day seven women shall take hold of one Man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by Thy name, to take away our reproach.” Is 4:1

The seven women:

the church of Ephesus (Rev 2:1)
the church in Smyrna (Rev 2:8)
the church in Pergamos (Rev 2:12)
the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:18)
the church in Sardis (Rev 3:1)
the church in Philadelphia (Rev 3:7)
the church of the Laodiceans (Rev 3:14)

which are the seven candlesticks seen by John (Rev 1:12,13,20), and which, being joined together in one candelabra, constitute in a figure the church of Jesus Christ indivisible and world-wide.

And thus the primary representatives of the church of the NT-era – the bishops, the elders, and the deacons – are to without exception reflect such singularity of the Bride in their own marriages: they are to be the husband of one wife only. (See 1 Timothy 3:2,12, Titus 1:6.)

“And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” Rev 21:2

“the [W]oman is the glory of the [M]an” 1 Cor 11:7

Last Edit: Sept 24, 2019 4:47:00 GMT by Colossians

Colossians
Administrator

Posts: 170

The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God Dec 22, 2013 5:40:42 GMT

Post by Colossians on Dec 22, 2013 5:40:42 GMT

This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.

Extension 1

What we are also showing, is that Christ was not our substitute, but our sacrifice (see our work: "Christ our sacrifice, not out substitute"), for His coming to earth knowing that the law would crucify Him, coupled with the fact that the law consituted the qualitative 'gap' between Himself and His wife, constituted His very deliberate reliquishing of His 'right's to be 'boss' over - to 'lord it over' - His wife.

That is, He would rather be our Head organically, than synthetically: He would be Head because He had earned it, and not simply because of who He was.

Note: The figure for such (organic) headship with regard to the NT-period church, was Leah's being given to Jacob after he had worked 7 years, and the figure for such (organic) headship with regard to the OT-period 'church', was Rachel's being given to Jacob before he had worked the 7 years for her. That is, in each case the relevant 7 years was a figure for the sacrifice which consisted of the Cross: Leah was given after the 'Cross', and Rachel given before the 'Cross', and therefore because they were both given to Jacob at the same time, we see that there are no soteriological dispensations with God: OT-period believers and NT-period believers are indistinguishable in God's eyes: they are altogether one Body of Christ.

Last Edit: Jul 8, 2018 8:54:19 GMT by Colossians

Colossians
Administrator

Posts: 170

The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God Dec 22, 2013 5:50:42 GMT

Post by Colossians on Dec 22, 2013 5:50:42 GMT

This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.

Extension 2

The question now needs to be asked:

“Given that the law was not only over the Son’s (pre-redeemed) wife, but also over them who would never be His wife (for all human beings are born under the law), how is it that His death redeemed only His wife from the law and not also those who (in hindsight) would never be His wife?”

The short answer is that you can’t redeem that which was never yours. The word “redeem” means “to take back”, “to reclaim”.

The fuller answer is that it was of necessity only for her who had been taken out of the Son, that the law was coextensive with one’s being required to be faithful to a husband, and thus only for such an one that the law could be disannulled (by way of disannulling “the law of her Husband” which was coextensive with the law).

And such is also commensurate with the fact that Christ’s death was not substitution, but sacrifice. That is, substitution is necessarily indiscriminate in its scope – it cannot be contained or limited to a certain number of persons by any other than purely artificial means. But sacrifice consisting of death to self, it is necessarily targeted toward those with whom one is ‘contracted’ to commune, and Christ was ‘contracted’ to commune (only) with her who had been taken out of Him, she who had not been taken out of Him being rather as foreign to Him as flesh is to spirit. (See our work: “Introduction to Statal Calvinism”).

And thus when Paul says in Galatians that the law was our schoolmaster, what is implied is that it is never the schoolmaster of them who will never come to Christ, but only ever the schoolmaster of her who had been taken out of Him and plunged into the vanity for a season.

In a nutshell:

Christ only had the right to desire her who had been taken out of Him.

Christ being righteous in fact desired only her who had been taken out of Him.

Christ died only for her (died to self only with regard to her) who had been taken out of Him, in so doing earning the right to enter her. (See our work: “Understanding Romans 3:31".)

This caused her to give birth to the ‘man child’ (Rev 12:5), the primary manifestation of such being the confession of her faith, which was the point at which she knew that she knew – or more particularly, the point at which she knew that she had known – her Husband. (See our work: “The causal sequence of our salvation".)

Last Edit: Jan 9, 2021 21:27:42 GMT by Colossians

Colossians
Administrator

Posts: 170

The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God Dec 22, 2013 5:53:09 GMT

Post by Colossians on Dec 22, 2013 5:53:09 GMT

This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.

Extension 3

The final question which needs to be asked is this:

“Why would our being released from the law only be able to be effected by Christ’s being crucified by that very law? What if He had rather and simply come and lived a righteous life, and then died a natural death at a good old age – would that have not also released us from “the law of the husband” and therefore from the law which was coextensive with it? Or what if He had asked to be put to death as a martyr – would that not have also released us?”

The answer in both cases is “no”, and that because Christ was not a natural husband (as in a human male-female relationship), but a spiritual husband. He therefore had to be considered not merely naturally dead, but spiritually dead.¹

¹ This is not to say that the scope of the “the law of the husband” in the law extended to the Husband-wife relationship between the Son of God and His wife, but rather, in that Eve was taken out of Adam in the same way that the woman in the Son of God was taken out of the Son of God, the instance of the “law of the husband” in the law constituted the type of the spiritual instance.^1a So it is not as though the law had to crucify Christ in order to release us from “the law of the husband” in the law, but to release us from the spiritual instance upon which such earthly instance was based. That is, “the law of the husband” is first and foremost an (eternal) ontological principle which states that if she stems from him, then she is of necessity under his authority, and as such applies just as readily, in fact primarily, to the spiritual instance as it does to the type which is based upon it.

^1a This accords with the fact that the (entire) law is itself a type for Christ. For in God’s declaration in Jeremiah that He would write His laws on our hearts, was He not rather referring to the born again experience and therefore to the entering of the Person of Christ into our hearts? Indeed.

Given then that the law is spiritual, it was authorised to declare someone spiritually dead, and that by way of transgression against it. So the crucifixion of the Son by the law was manifestation that the law had indeed rendered Him spiritually dead.

This is why it was absolutely imperative that Christ transgress the law. (See our work: "How Christ transgressed the law, but without sin").

For being condemned by the law and thus rendered spiritually dead, He who was God could no longer claim to be God (hence Mt 27:46), and thus the legal ‘gap’ between Himself and His wife which consisted of (the ontological principle that is) “the law of the Husband” and which was coextensive with the law between Himself (as God) and us, necessarily collapsed with the result that He was joined with His wife in her spiritual death. (For we were dead wherein we were held – see Rom 7:6). And hence the sacrament that is baptism.

And yet because “the law of the husband” was not only coextensive with the law between Himself (as God) and us, but also with the law between Himself (as man) and the Father (for Christ on earth was under the law along with all mankind) and thus with the very law which rendered Him guilty, such latter also necessarily collapsed, resulting in the removing of the very condemnation which rendered Him spiritually dead in the first place. For “for where no law is, there is no transgression” (Rom 4:15).

Thus His joining to us in death, and our irresistible resurrection with Him.

And so we see that it is in Christ that the (existential) ‘form’ of God and the disposition of God come together. For in order to be declared God Christ had first of all to be raised from the dead, and in order for Him to be raised from the dead He had first of all to be declared spiritually dead before God, and in order to be declared spiritually dead before God He had first of all to die at the hands of the law, which, given that the law constituted the (otherwise) demands of God toward His wife, was to die to self. But if Christ who is in fact God cannot be declared God until He has died to self, then of necessity God cannot be declared God until He has died to self.

Last Edit: Jul 8, 2018 8:50:43 GMT by Colossians

Colossians
Administrator

Posts: 170

The legal proof that Jesus Christ is God Dec 22, 2013 5:55:44 GMT

Post by Colossians on Dec 22, 2013 5:55:44 GMT

This material is for the teaching of the Body of Christ, however the author reserves copyright over it.

Extension 4

And so what we have shown here, is that the law wrote itself out of the picture. For in crucifying God, the gap between God and us, which was the law, necessarily disappeared.

In this particular sense then - a fact forced by the law's being not of faith and therefore being unable to recognise God in the flesh - the law made a mistake.¹

¹ See our work: "Exposition of Romans 8:1-14"

We therefore understand that the following verse from Paul:

"the law is good, if a man use it lawfully" 1 Ti 1:8

is not the (invalidly-) circular statement it appears to be, but that rather, this "lawfully" which describes how the law is necessarily used by God, is in reference to another law, the law of faith (Rom 3:27).

That is, because

"the law is not of [(the law of)] faith" Gal 3:12,

then when it is used by the law of faith it is of necessity written out of the picture, leaving us with a "good" result.

And this is why sin is not transgression of the (OT) law, but transgression of the law of faith, which is the law of liberty. (See our work: "Understanding the contrast between the teachings of James and Paul".)

So then, given that the law is the dividing 'wall' between those whose eternal abode is the Spirit of God and those whose eternal abode is the flesh of God (see our work: "Introduction to Statal Calvinism"), on the side of the wall facing the former is written "faith", and on the (other) side of the wall facing the latter is written "law" - which the former have seen for a season but never wish to see again.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" 2 Cor 5:17

Last Edit: Sept 22, 2019 0:54:59 GMT by Colossians