A Response to the Article "He Became Like Me"

 

(Editors Note: As the editor I try to proof every article I place on this site and send out by e-mail bulletin. I greatly appreciate feedback, clarification and open debate over anything found on this site.

If one wishes to challenge even a single statement in an article I appreciate those who bring it to my attention. Also I am always willing to let one respond on this site to material found on it.

Below you will find a response from brother Tim Haile to a recently added article titled: "He Became Like You" by the late Phil Roberts.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Larry,

I appreciate the work that you do through your website, but I take serious exception with the article that you posted by Phil Roberts ("He Became Like You"). I have seen the article before, and actually address some of Roberts' quotes in articles that I have written and sermons that I preach on the deity of Christ. I feel that I need to address some of his more egregious errors that are contained in the article:

Hebrews 2:17 - Roberts cited this passage and said, "His becoming like us was not just a matter of his taking on the physical appearance of man." Roberts ignores both the immediate and remote contexts on this subject. The Hebrew writer had just stated that "as the children are partakers in flesh and blood, he also himself likewise to part of the same" (Heb. 2:14). Hebrews 10:5 affirms that it was "a body" that the Father had prepared for Christ - "A body you have prepared for me." John 1:14 says that Jesus, the eternal and divine person of "the Word" took upon His preexistent spirit a fleshly body - "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." The conclusion is unavoidable: When the Hebrew writer said that Jesus was made "in all things like his brethren," he had reference only to their physical form. The incarnation gave Jesus a physical human body - It did not remove His divinity (Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). He was the same divine person of "the Word" before the flesh (John 1:1), during the flesh (1 John 1:1) and after the flesh (Revelation 19:13). If the "all things" of Hebrews 2:17 is unqualified by these and other passages, then Jesus was a created being, in both body, soul and spirit! Such a view is an absolute denial of the deity of Christ.

 

John 2:25 - Roberts said, "Though Jesus is frequently said to have perceived the thoughts of those with whom he was speaking, this was often more a result of his perfect understanding of human nature than of miraculous power (Jn. 2:25)." Roberts' kenotic position required him to divest Jesus of His omniscience while in the flesh. His explanation ignores the obvious sense of John 2:24-25, and it ignores dozens of other plain affirmations of Christ's earthly omniscience. Did Roberts forget about Nathaniel, just one chapter earlier? We are told that Jesus knew the personality and character of Nathaniel prior to His ever meeting him! (John 1:47-48) I choose to believe the apostles over Phil Roberts: The apostles claimed that Jesus "knew all things" (John 16:30; 21:17). To "know all things" is the definition of "omniscience." Jesus did not lose His omniscience when He came in the flesh.

 

As for the argument that is made by atheists, Islamists, modernists and Jehovah's Witnesses from Mark 13:32 - that Jesus does not "know" the last day:  Mark 13:32 is a role-of-God passage; not a nature-of-God passage. According to Acts 1:7, the revelation of the last day was within the special purview of the Father's role, and not that of the Son. Too, the word "know" sometimes refers to the revelation of information, not mere cognizance (1 Cor. 2:2; Hos. 8:4; Lk. 8:17). One should be careful before citing this passage or Matthew 24:36 in an effort to rob Christ of His omniscience. If Mark 13:32 means that Jesus had lost His omniscience due to the incarnation, then Hosea 8:4 means that the Father had lost his omniscience while in Heaven! 

Luke 2:40, 52 - Roberts is dangerously wrong again. He carelessly cites these verses as proof that Jesus "grew in knowledge." This was sloppiness on the part of brother Roberts. No Bible text states that Jesus grew in knowledge. We are told that Jesus advanced in "wisdom and stature," but nowhere are we told that he grew in "knowledge." Roberts just made this up. As any Bible student knows, "knowledge" and "wisdom" are not the same thing. "Wisdom" is the use of knowledge. Luke simply makes the point that as Jesus advanced in physical development, He advanced in the application of His knowledge.

 

Mark 9:21 - If Jesus' question implies that He had lost His divine attributes in the incarnation, then Genesis 3:9 would mean that God, the Father had lost His divine attributes immediately after the creation! Roberts was simply wrong. His arguments were flawed and unscriptural.

 

I appreciate your consideration of these things.

     

TIM HAILE

timhaile@insightbb.com

 

(Editors Note: I asked Tim if he had addition material on this subject. Here are the links he sent)

 

Here is my most recent article on this general subject: "The Deity Of Christ" - http://www.biblebanner.com/articles/deity/The%20Deity%20of%20Christ.htm

 

Here is an article I once wrote on Luke 2:52 - "How Did Jesus "Grow In Wisdom?" - http://www.biblebanner.com/ga_art/lk_2_52.htm