1-3-9-The Son of Man
Every man and woman has a human nature, Jesus Christ is the only person who has two natures. “Son of Man” is the title most used by Jesus when He was talking about Himself (e.g. Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 12:8; 13:41; 16:27; 17:22-23). The title “Son of Man” was used to describe the Messiah in the Old Testament by the prophet Daniel. According to Daniel 7:13, where did the Son of Man appear in his vision?
Underline these verses Daniel 7:13-14 in green.
The title “Son of Man” emphasizes the Body of the Messiah. A human person passes through several stages. Before appearing in the clouds, the Body of the Son of Man also had to pass through these stages. For example, each human being appears in the world at the moment of his and leaves at the moment of his .
A child grows in two ways in body and in knowledge. The clothes of a child of five years don’t fit him when he’s 15 because his has grown.
A child of 3 won’t understand a university course because he still hasn’t grown in .
Read Luke 2:52. Which are the two ways in which Jesus, the Son of Man, developed?
Yes, Jesus, because of His human nature, was a real man. There is only one thing in which the Son of Man is different from all other human beings. He is perfect. Read Hebrews 4:15.
He was tempted in everything just like we are, but unlike us He never .
After His resurrection, Jesus was on earth in His Resurrected Body for 40 days. Where did the risen body eventually go? Read Acts 1:9-11.
Soon Jesus with His very same human body (although transformed will come back again for the second time on earth. Where will Jesus come from in His human body, in His Second Coming? Read Acts 1:9-11.
The five stages Jesus, the perfect Son of Man, passed (or will pass). , ,, Ascension, .
Look up Daniel 7:13-14. Which of the five stages of the Son of Man is Daniel referring to as coming in the clouds of heaven, , to establish an external kingdom for all nations?
The Jews were so taken up with the hope of the Son of Man coming to set up an external kingdom that they rejected the idea that the Messiah would have to suffer and die.
Which human stage of the Son of Man did the Jews refuse to accept?
Let’s look at this conversation between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16:21. In this verse Jesus tells Peter:
Although Peter recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, like a typical Jewish man; he accepted only the part which fit his own ideas about the Son of Man.
Underline Matthew 16:21 in Green in your Bible.
Was Peter happy about the idea that Jesus would suffer? Read Matthew 16:22.
Time after time Jesus had to teach His disciples about these two stages (suffer and die, be raised from the dead). Read the two following Bible verses: Matthew 17:9; 22-23.
Peter still had to grow in knowledge. He thought He knew it all, but he only knew part of the truth. Who is it that wants us to know only part of the truth so that we always remain spiritual children in knowledge, and never grow?
Jesus taught Peter and the rest of the disciples much about the Son of Man. It was one of His favorite themes. What was he trying to teach them in the following verses:
We have learned a lot about the five human stages of the Son of Man, all of which relate to the Body of Jesus Christ. However, you must remember that Jesus has Only one Personality, which can not be split into two. Therefore, in all these human stages, we see Jesus also as true God.
When Jesus asked Peter, “who is the Son of Man?” Peter answered, “You are the Son of . Read Matthew 16:16.
We never should get tired of repeating the truth that Jesus Christ is God and at the same time Man. This is called the doctrine of the Incarnation. “Carnis” is the Roman word for Flesh. The word Incarnation means that God took upon Himself the form of human Flesh. (1 Timothy 3:16, Isaiah 9:6, John 1:14).
Let us ask God to make us grow as Peter did, so that we will be better able to share the truth of Jesus, Real Man and Real God, with Many other people.
In the rough and tumble of our abrasive twentieth century, humility is scarcely considered a virtue. Such qualities as meekness and gentleness are not the sort that most people seek in order to succeed. We are fast moving, masterful, permissive people who from the cradle learn to shove and push and scream and scramble to get ahead – to plant our proud feet on the top of the totem pole.
Fiercely we contend for our rights believing the strange philosophy that to be big and bold and brazen is best. We subscribe to the idea that since no one else will blow my horn for me, I must blow my own bugle loudly and long. We are completely convinced that unless we make our own mark in the world we will be forgotten in the crush – obliterated from memory by the milling masses around us.
From the hour we begin to take our first feeble, frightened steps as tiny tots we are exhorted to “stand on your own feet.” We are urged and encouraged to “make it on your own.” We are told to “make your own decisions.” We are stimulated to be aggressive, self-assertive, and very self-assured. All of these attributes we are sure will lead to ultimate greatness.
In the face of all this it comes to us as a distinct shock to hear our Lord declare: “whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” …
The selfless, self-effacing character of God’s love simply does not permit it to strut and parade itself pompously. It will have no part of such a performance. It is not proud, arrogant, puffed up with its own importance.
(From A Gardener Looks at the Fruits of the Spirit by Phillip Keller)
Pride makes us drift from God’s commands. We feel “I can do it on my own,” or we become confident in our own ability to handle each day. Pride is idolatry – the idol is self. Follow his advice in every area of your life. Have you become self-reliant.
During the first part of our lesson we have been studying the doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. We learned that: He was born of the from whom He received His nature. He was conceived by the from whom He received His nature.
We know that this is Sound Doctrine because it is clearly taught in God’s revelation, the Bible. In Titus 1:9, Paul explains that an elder must be able to give instruction in Sound Doctrine, and this he is able to do by holding firm the as taught.
According to 2 Timothy 3:16, where are we to find the doctrines that we teach to others? in the . How do we know that this is Sound Doctrine? Because all is .
Read Titus 2:1. You must teach what is in accord with doctrine. On the other hand, there are false doctrines which come from the father of lies and in 1 Timothy 4:1 are things taught by .
The title of this part of the lesson is False Doctrine, and we are going to study the things which certain cults have said about the person of Jesus Christ. These are things which cannot be found in the Bible. All of these groups say that they believe the Bible; but, they also say that they have a special revelation from the prophet of their particular group.
False Doctrine, then comes in part from the , but more from the special revelations of .
Who is it that inspires false prophets and their doctrines?
The Mormons are a very large cult. They profess to love the Lord and to believe the Bible, but they actually put more emphasis on what their prophets say. This is especially true of the writings of there two founding presidents, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
We are going to look at one of the doctrines taught by Brigham Young. On April 9, 1852, Brigham Young preached the following words. They are printed in the official registers of the sect in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, pages 50 and 51.
“Adam… is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.”
This was the beginning of the Adam-God false doctrine which taught that Adam was God. Brigham Young actually taught that Adam was NOT made by God of the dust of the earth, but that he came to the Garden of Eden with a heavenly body and that he hoped to make and organize the world (Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, page 50).
According to the Bible in Genesis 2:7 and 3:19 of what material did God make Adam?
Did Brigham Young agree with this Bible teaching?
Now let’s return to the sermon that Brigham Young preached on the 9th of April, 1852. He said…
“When the virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family… the same character that was in the Garden of Eden.”
Brigham Young taught that Jesus was NOT conceived by the Holy Spirit, but by the “Father.” According to him, this “Father” was no less than the first of the human family… the same character that was in the Garden of Eden.”
According to Brigham Young, the father of Jesus was Adam. Brigham Young taught that Jesus was NOT conceived by the Holy Spirit, but by the “Father.” According to him, this “Father” was no less than the first of the human family… the same character that was in the Garden of Eden.”
Throughout the official Mormon documents there are many such references to this Adam – God doctrine. One Mormon, Rodney Turner, made a complete study of these documents for his master’s thesis at Brigham Young University itself. On page 58 of this thesis he states.
“A careful detached study of his (Brigham Young’s) statements, as found in the official publications of the Church, will admit of no other conclusion than that the identification of Adam with God the Father by president Brigham Young is an irrefutable fact.”
The “Adam-God doctrine” taught by Brigham Young has causes a great amount of trouble within the Mormon church. A great many Mormons will deny that their group actually does teach this. However, we have seen that their own documents prove that Brigham Young did indeed teach that Adam (man) is God.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses
The Jehovah’s Witnesses is another cult which teaches false doctrine with regard to the person of Jesus Christ. They use part of the but also the writings of their . Charles Russell and Judge Rutherford were their prophets.
The following is taken from a book of the Jehovah’s Witnesses called “Study the Scriptures.”
“Our redeemer existed as a Spirit before being made flesh and blood and living amongst men. He was known as the archangel Michael.”
Angels are spirits. The archangel Michael is one of the chief angels. The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is a spirit and is the archangel Michael.
John 1:1 says that Jesus Christ is God and not merely a created spirit. Either the Bible is true or it along with Jesus is in error and should not be followed.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses say that Jesus Christ laid aside His angelic (or spiritual) nature when He came to earth and lived as a man and that when He left earth He laid aside His human nature.
A mere man cannot pay the price of our sins. Only one who is also Divine or God can do this. Therefore, the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus death is able to save us.
Charles Russell, and Judge Rutherford Deny the Christian doctrine of God made manifest in a human body (Christian Doctrine-Incarnation).
People who have moved the world have been Spirit-filled. Filled with the Spirit, the reformers started the spiritual blaze which became the Reformation. Filled with the Spirit, Francis Asbury, George Fox, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, and David Brainerd set the mountains and prairies of America aglow with the fires of real Christianity. Dilled with the Spirit, D. L. Moody and Ira Sankey shook two continents out of their spiritual lethargy. Corrie ten Boom and Mother Teresa impacted their world greatly.
The tides of civilization have risen, the courses of history have been brightened by people who have been filled with the Spirit of God….
Have you yielded your life to Christ without reserve, asking Him to fill you and use you for His glory?
(From The Secret of Happiness by Billy Graham)
God always provides strength to do his will. Pray for strength. Pray for yourself and others close to you: your family, pastor, friends. Let the Holy Spirit do extraordinary work in you.
The New Testament: Its Name and Content
The name “New Testament,” which is given to the second half of the English Bible, comes from the Latin “Nouun Testamentum” which is itself a translation of the Greek “Hekaine Diatheke”. The Greek term really meant an arrangement made by one party that might be accepted or rejected by another party, but that he could not alter; and that, when accepted, bound both parties by its terms.
The term covenant used in the Revised Version is derived from the Old French “covenir,” “to agree,” which in turn is derived from the Latin “convenire,” “to come together.” It means an agreement, a covenant obligates both parties concerned in it.
The New Testament, then, is the record of the character and establishment of a new dealing of God with men through Christ. God sets the terms; men can accept or reject them but cannot alter them, and when man accepts them, both he and God are obligated to fulfill their requirements. The New Covenant embodies a revelation of the holiness of God in an utterly righteous Son, who empowers those who receive the revelation to become sons of God by making them righteous (John 1:12).
Christianity as a movement owes its origin to the person and work of Jesus Christ, its Founder and its Head. Except for a fragmentary statements, the authentic records of his life are contained only in the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which the Christian church has regarded as canonical from the earliest period of its history.
This course deals with the Gospels as a harmony (blended together), but were written at different times and in different places for distinct constituencies. Obviously they were read separately when first published rather then as we will study as parts of a harmonistic ensemble, and each was regarded by its writer and its audience as comprising a narrative complete for its purpose.
The Gospels themselves do not claim to be exhaustive accounts of all that Jesus said or did. On the contrary, at least two of them deny explicitly any such possibility, and the other two negate it by implication. John states that “many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book” (John 20:30), and Luke acknowledges that “many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1). Matthew announced that he was writing “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ” (Matt. 1:1), and Mark entitled his work as “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). Each Gospel was selective according to the purpose of the author, and is complete in the sense that it carries out his intent.
The individual differences of the Gospels are counter balanced by strong resemblances of order, content, and phraseology. Numerous events in the life of Christ are narrated in all four. Since they are dealing with the same person, it is only natural that there should be substantive agreement on the selection and the description of the main features of Jesus career.
The Synoptic Problem
The first three Gospels, however, display a closer interrelation in content and in manner of expression. They have consequently been called the Synoptic Gospels, from the Greek syn., “together,” and “optanomai,” “to see,” since they take a common view of the life of Christ.
How shall the verbal agreement be explained?
Why should three men writing independently show such exact accord in their language?
They assume that the Gospel writer either possessed personal knowledge of Jesus’ works and teachings, or else that he was reproducing the content of preaching that he had heard repeatedly from some apostolic authority. The theory assumes that the facts concerning Jesus had been collected and organized, then memorized, and finally delivered orally in a fairly fixed form.
The most popular theory to date is the documentary hypothesis. It assumes that Matthew and Luke built their Gospels on the basis of Mark, plus a collection of the sayings of Jesus called “Q” from the German Quelle, meaning “source.” The latter source is presumed to have been a document containing sayings of Jesus, although no such written source has yet come to light (but cf. Luke 1:1-2). Students of the Gospels have observed that while Matthew and Luke diverge greatly from each other in content and order, the content of Mark is reproduced almost wholly in the other two. Although Matthew and Mark may occasionally agree against Luke, and while Luke and Mark may agree against Matthew, Matthew and Luke do not agree against Mark. The phenomena are what one might expect if they had used Mark Independently.
Some discourse material, like the Sermon on the Mount, common to Matthew and Luke does not appear in Mark. On the ground that collections of the sayings of Jesus are found in the papyre from an early date, and that the use of such source would parallel the supposed use of Mark, the second source, “Q,” has been reconstructed.
A few facts, however, seem reasonably certain:
The Gospel of Matthew represents the notes that Matthew took on Jesus’ teaching, with a framework of narrative that closely-and at times verbally-resembles Mark. The resemblance could be explained on the basis of common tradition and living contact quite as well as by appropriation of written work.
The Gospel of Mark represents the mainline of narrative preaching about Jesus. It was reproduced by a man who had contact with the apostles from the very inception of the church, and it was written while some of them, at least, were still alive. It’s content was known at a very early date, whether the actual document had been published then or not.
The Gospel of Luke represents the independent account of Paul’s traveling companion, who wrote in the seventh decade of the first century, and who incorporated both the narrative framework of apostolic preaching and the results of his own research. Many of the parables and miracles recorded in Luke are not identical with those of Matthew, and even the teachings of Jesus are organized differently. If Luke and Matthew both used a “Q” one of them certainly took liberties with it. Either Matthew arranged the bulk of its teaching topically as in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) or else Luke scattered its teachings though his Gospel at will. It is more reasonable to assume that Luke may have met Matthew personally, or that his reproduction of the sayings of Jesus had its source indirect contact with the people who had first heard them and with the apostles who preached them.
Unquestionably it was the core of apostolic preaching, for it appears in Peter’s address on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-32), in his sermon in the house of Cornelius (10:36-43), and in Paul’s address in Antioch of Pisidia (13:23-33). The Synopotists could not have been ignorant of this “oral tradition,” as it is called; in fact, Luke’s preface implies that the writer knew what had been handed down “by ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2). While the theory of oral tradition may not explain all of the Synoptic problems it is worth more attention than has been accorded to it is recent years.
The very differences between the writers speak of independence; the similarities reflect a common background if information a common subject of writing, and the common inspiration of God.
Founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, A.B. Simp-
son was born in Canada of Scottish parents. He became a Pres-
byterian minister and pastored several churches in Ontario.
Later, he accepted the call to serve as pastor of the
Chestnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky.
It was there that his life and ministry were completely
changed in that, during a revival meeting, he experienced the
fullness of the Spirit.
He continued in the Presbyterian Church until 1881,
when he founded an independent Gospel Tabernacle in New York.
There he published the Alliance Weekly and wrote 70 books on
Christian living. He organized two missionary societies which
later merged to become the Christian and Missionary Alliance.