All posts by David Stevenson

Jesus death by crucifixion is an undisputed fact

Jesus death by crucifixion is an undisputed fact

Jesus death by crucifixion is an undisputed fact.
This is attested by Christian and Non Christian sources.

Multiple Attestation

Firstly, Jesus’ death by crucifixion is multiply attested, by a fair number of ancient sources, both Christian and non-Christian alike.

In regards to Christian sources which mention his death, I list from the first century AD all four canonical Gospels, Acts, Paul’s Epistles, all within the Bible; then Ignatius’ Epistles (dating around 110 AD, for example, his Letter to the Symrnaeans, chapters 1 and 2). Many, if not all, of these sources are independent.

Here’s one example I focused on recently in preaching through Mark (usually dated as the earliest Gospel). The narrative in Mark 15:44-45 makes it clear Jesus really was dead. The history books record that men who were crucified sometimes took two or three days to die. A more rapid death was unusual. So in this case, the governor Pilate gets the expert executioner to confirm the death certificate! The observation that Roman centurions were professional soldiers and didn’t make mistakes is well taken. So satisfied, Pilate permitted the body of Jesus to be buried.

By the way, there was a very low probability of surviving execution by crucifixion. Apparently there is only one extant account (in Josephus) of one person surviving crucifixion out of the hundreds reported in ancient literature. (And that case was only when excellent medical care was immediately provided by the Romans, and even so, only one out of three who were so rescued actually survived!)

Criterion of Embarrassment

Mark also stresses that it was women who witnessed the events: death, burial and empty tomb. And each time, verbs of seeing are emphasized. And each time, some of them are named. Mark 15:40 says that when Jesus has just died, at least three women are there. Two of these same women witnessed the burial (Mark 15:47). And in Mark 16:1, all three women are again mentioned as arriving back at the tomb on resurrection Sunday. The appeal to these women’s role as eyewitnesses couldn’t be clearer.

And notice how Mark reports only two of the three are at the burial? Presumably because that’s how it was. Mark wasn’t going to exaggerate. This precision shows a real concern for accuracy.

And presumably these people are mentioned by name in the Gospels, because they were well-known in early church times for their testimony to these crucial events in the origins of Christianity. It’s an accepted method of ancient historiography: the appeal to witnesses, many of whom could be cross-examined. It would have been hard to write, if there were not real people around to back up these claims.

Now both Graeco-Roman and Jewish sources from around the Mediterranean at this time indicated that a woman’s testimony was mostly considered unreliable at law. Much as it sounds sexist to modern ears, with the prejudice of those days, women were seen as gullible. So if you were embellishing a ‘Jesus story’ later on, you wouldn’t compound the difficulty by inventing women as key witnesses!

So the obvious reason for naming women is that the embarrassing fact was true. This is the criterion of embarrassment. Ironically, the reason for the report’s lack of credibility in the 1st century is the reason for its credibility in the 21st century!

Non-Christian sources

In regards to non-Christian sources, I mention Josephus (Antiquities 18:3, writing c. 93 AD, citing Jesus’ name, the method of crucifixion, and the governor who ordered it, Pilate), Tacitus (Annals 15:44, writing c. 115 AD, mentioning execution under Pilate, but not the method), and a bit later, Lucian (b. c.125 AD in The Death of Peregrine). I could add many others later, all of which pre-date the Qu’ran by a several centuries.

In regards to reliability of Josephus, and his so-called ‘Testimonium Flavianum’, there is enormous literature debating this issue. There are three main positions. The first, a minority position among scholars, favours its entire authenticity. The second, also a minority position, treats the entire section as Christian interpolation. The third, which is by far and away the majority position among scholars suggests Josephus mentions Jesus in this text but his words were subsequently doctored. While there is debate about how much of the material is interpolation, most include the reference to Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate, while excluding part or all reference to the resurrection.

By contrast, it is an interesting exercise to ask sceptics for any extent examples of ancient non-Christian sources to the contrary, dating in the first or second century, and insisting that Jesus did not die by Roman execution, for example, suggesting that it only looked like Jesus was crucified!

Early dating

These reports, especially those in the New Testament, are early. Paul mentions the death of Jesus no later than 55 AD in 1 Corinthians and earlier in Galatians. And he reports he preached the same message to the Corinthians when he was with them in 50-51 AD, which is within 17-21 years of the time Jesus is said to have died (depending on whether you go for 30 or 33 AD). And the oral tradition formula he reports preaching in 1 Cor 15:3ff is widely assessed by scholars who have considered the subject to have been composed very early, reflecting what was taught by the Jerusalem apostles, very likely within a few years, or maybe even months of the events being reported.

For example, atheist scholar Gerd Ludemann, in The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (2004), agrees that,

the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional formulations is one of the great achievements of recent New Testament scholarship. (p. 37)

Indeed Ludemann thinks the formula within 1 Corinthians 15:3ff was composed very early, within,

the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus. (p. 31)

All this underlines my point about the earliness of the reports of the death of Jesus. This is the criterion of antiquity.

By contrast, the Qu’ran dates no earlier than 610 A.D. when Muslims indicate that the angel Gabriel first appeared and began to speak to Muhammad. And so its testimony that Jesus did not really die on the cross dates more than 5 centuries later than the earliest written claims of his crucifixion. There is a massive gap back to the events it claims to report.

The verdict of modern historians

Historians judge on how they assess the balance of probabilities. Almost all scholars who have studied the subject conclude Jesus died by crucifixion. Here are some representative samples.

John McIntyre, “The Uses of History in Theology”, Studies in World Christianity 7.1, 2001:

Even those scholars and critics who have been moved to depart from almost everything else within the historical content of Christ’s presence on earth have found it impossible to think away the factuality of the death of Christ. (p. 8)

Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry, 2004:

Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable. (p. 50)

JD Crossan, who denies the authenticity of many of the saying and deeds attributed to Jesus in the canonical Gospels, says in The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, 1999:

 [there is not the] slightest doubt about the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion under Pontius Pilate. (p. 375)

He’s repeating his point from Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, 1994:

That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be. (p. 145)

Geza Vermes, the late Jewish New Testament scholar, The Passion: The True Story of an Event that Changed Human History, 2006:

The passion of Jesus is part of history. (p. 9)

Bart Erhrman, renowned textual critic, but no friend of traditional Christianity, in The Historical Jesus: Lecture Transcript and Course Guidebook, 2000, says:

One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. (p. 162)

Roman Catholic scholar, RE Brown, The Death of the Messiah, 1994:

Most scholars accept the uniform testimony of the Gospels that Jesus died during the Judean prefecture of Pontius Pilate. (p. 1373)

It’s getting a bit tedious. I could cite many other scholars to this end.

Conclusion

I have used several standard aspects of reputable historical method (e.g. the criteria of multiple attestation, of embarrassment, of antiquity).

And the assessment that Jesus’ death by crucifixion is factual is shared by a very wide consensus of scholarship, including many of those unsympathetic to biblical Christianity. In fact, the wideness of the consensus is almost unprecedented in biblical scholarship.

I think it fair to say this manages the bias of my own horizons more than adequately. I am not so sure about others who ignore this consensus.

And so I am confident to say the Bible is absolutely correct and truthful when it says Jesus died by crucifixion and therefore (although I am sorry to put it so bluntly) the Qu’ran is wrong when it asserts Jesus did not die this way.

Jesus death totally crushed Satan at the Cross

Jesus death totally crushed Satan at the Cross

Jesus death was not shameless and helpless

The day is coming, God says, when you (not just your offspring) will be defeated and removed from the earth. The offspring of this woman will crush you (see Romans 16:20 and Hebrews 2:14). That decisive blow was struck by the perfect offspring of the woman, Jesus Christ, when he died on the cross. This is one of the reasons why the eternal Son of God had to become a man ” because it was the offspring of the woman who would crush Satan.

Colossians 2:14″15 describes what God did for those who trust his Son, when he died on the cross: “[The record of debt that stood against us] he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.”

When Christ died for our sins, Satan was disarmed and defeated. The one eternally destructive weapon that he had was stripped from his hand, namely, his accusation before God that we are guilty and should perish with him. When Christ died that accusation was nullified. All those who entrust themselves to Christ will never perish. Satan cannot separate them from the love of God in Christ (Romans 8:37″39).

Jesus Declares All Food Clean

Jesus Declares All Food Clean

Matthew 15:10-11… After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

After scolding the hypocritical scribes and Pharisees for their
traditions that had taken priority over the Scriptures, Jesus “called the
crowd to Him” in order to correct their thinking, for they had been
misled by their teachers. Calling them to both “hear” and “understand,”
Jesus was about to make a solemn point that all Jews needed to know. What Jesus was about to tell them would rock the very foundation of their entire belief system about food and cleanness.

The Jews were given many dietary restrictions by God upon their release
from Egypt under Moses (cf. Lev. 11). God gave these restrictions to
Israel not only to keep His people healthy (for many of the animals He
restricted them from eating were, unbeknownst to them, disease carrying animals) but also to separate His people from the rest of the world. Though the Jews did not understand bacteria and its harmful effects in those days, God did. The world was thus to look upon His people as God-fearing, healthy people who displayed the glories of God in their daily life and health. Yet abstaining from those foods did not make them holy. They remained sinners in need of God’s grace in spite of their diet. Obedience to these restrictions was indeed intended by God to point to something much greater, namely a fulfillment in their Messiah, Jesus.

Jesus came into the world, not to abolish the law but to fulfill it
(Matt. 5:17). Therefore, when He told the Jews in v. 11 that what enters
a person’s mouth is not what defiles that person but what “proceeds out
of the mouth, this defiles the man,” He was fulfilling the dietary laws
spelled out by Moses in sections of the Torah like Leviticus 11.
Essentially, Jesus told the Jews that a person can indeed eat with
unwashed hands, eat port, etc. and not be ceremonially unclean. This in
no way abolished the law; rather, Jesus was fulfilling the law. After
all, one is not made morally clean by washing their hands but by placing
their faith in their Messiah, namely Jesus. Uncleanness is of the heart,
and it can be made clean only by trusting in Christ.

Christians today can look to the dietary laws given to the Jews and actually share the gospel by preaching them. After all, they point to Christ! He makes the unclean clean. The moral repugnancy of man is not reflected in his diet; rather, it is observed through his mouth. Man uses his mouth to vilify other races of people, to curse, to malign, etc. This is the moral uncleanness of man, reflecting his depraved, defiled spirit (cf. 12:34). Moral purity, however, is reflected in how one behaves. For instance, one can honor his parents through physical and financial aid, not only because he loves them, but because he knows it ultimately honors God. Yet those who honor their parents in order to inherit their wealth or simply because they want the accolades their parents might give them do not honor God but honor themselves. One might say that even though folks like this act morally, they remain in a state of uncleanness since they lack faith.

Jesus did not commit Suicide

Jesus did not commit Suicide

“killed himself by himself”? So He comitted suicide did He? You are as delusional as your controlling spirit is demonic.

Another day another Muslim straw man another hearsay parrot MD Khalid posted: “If Jesus be God or Son of God why he allowed to be suicidal? Isint suicide a sin?”

We often see this sort of fallacious argument used by Muslims in their desperation to denounce the crucifixion.

Let’s debunk the myth. Jesus allowed Himself to be killed and die an unjust death to save others. That self sacrifice is the most noble and greatest expression of love possible:

“No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13 HCSB)

And Jesus had the authority to sacrifice Himself it was not a random selfish act of a needless waste of life, as characterizes suicide:

“No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have the right [KJV “power”] to lay it down, and I have the right [power] to take it up again. I have received this command from My Father.” (John 10:18 HCSB)

Suicide means you take your own life. It is an active choice (even when mental issues such as depression are involved). But where do we draw the line? If someone sits on train tracks knowing a train will come because they no longer wish to live, it’s suicide. If someone throws themselves on a grenade to protect others, it’s not.

In other words, suicide is defined more by the reason for dying than it is the act of dying.

Jesus had no desire to die. His prayer in Gethsemene proves that. “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.” (Luke 22:42)

Of the many things that made Jesus the Son of God, one is that He had the choice to live. All other people who have and will live on earth only have the choice to die. We can, if we so choose, decide the moment of our deaths. But none of us, facing that moment, can choose to avoid it. We can choose not to die in that we choose not to raise a gun to our heads today. But we cannot choose to live once the trigger has been pulled.

But Jesus could choose to live: “Or do you think that I cannot call on My Father, and He will provide Me at once with more than 12 legions of angels? How, then, would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way? ” (Matthew 26:53‭-‬54 HCSB)

At any moment, even while hanging on the cross, He could have commanded the angels to lift him down. The onlookers mocked Him for His failure to save Himself. He could have commanded his wounds healed. He could have chosen to live (and was even once tempted by Satan to abuse this power, Matthew 4:6). But the atonement required a willing sacrifice ” a person willing to throw themselves upon the proverbial grenade to protect others ” and that choice had to be absolute in every possible way. With his last breath He could have chosen to live, but the rest of us were more important to Him than His own life. He allowed Himself to die that we may live. That is the essence of love.

A willing sacrifice is an act of selfless love and respect for others. Suicide is inherently selfish, an effort to remove oneself from burden or responsibility. It is also inherently sinful because God alone has the right to take life and the form and moment of His choosing.

So it’s not the fact of death it’s the WHY a person chooses to die that determines whether or not the act was one of suicide or sacrifice.

Therefore, no, Jesus did not commit suicide. He remains not guilty of sin. And having lived a perfect life, He has the privilege of judging all sin. And while I do not understand all things, I believe I understand this well enough to be content and at peace with my faith.

MAKE NO MISTAKE: #JESUS_died_that_we_might_LIVE

didJesus not know the Hour?

didJesus not know the Hour?

Matt. 24:35-37, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. 36But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. 37 For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.”

If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn’t He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn’t know all things, then He cannot be God.

This objection is most often raised by Muslims. It is a good question.

Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union, that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 it says Jesus was “. . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . .” Also, in Phil. 2:5-8 it says that Jesus “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . .” Col. 2:9 says, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.” Jesus was both God and man at the same time.

As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says “Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Therefore, at this point in His ministry He could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God but a confirmation of His being man.

Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove He was God, wouldn’t it?

He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep” (John 21:17–NASB).

Jesus did not correct Peter and say, “Hold on Peter, I do not know all things.” He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true.

What if we have a verse that says Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn’t that a contradiction? No, it is not.

Before Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn’t until after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience was attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus’ resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man; it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man, and He knew all things.

Jesus Did Not Know The Day Or Hour Of His Second Coming

Jesus Did Not Know The Day Or Hour Of His Second Coming

God is All-Knowing But JESUS DOESN’T KNOW THE DAY OR HOUR OF HIS SECOND COMING!

Mark 13:32 (Matthew 24:36)
“But about that day or hour no one knows, NOT EVEN THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN, nor the Son, but only the Father.

The basic rule in the Bible interpretations is to sum up the words of God about a topic or an issue to determine the truth and then HARMONIZE the words.
Psalm 119:160 ►
The sum of your word is truth,

From the CONTEXTS of both Matthew and Mark, Jesus is able to tell the disciples the many signs that will signal the nearness of the second coming, isn’t it strange if you will think He is ignorant of the time?

Now, Let us sum up the words of God:
The Bible says that Jesus is all-knowing.
John 21:17
“‘Simon, son of John, do you love Me?’ Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, ‘Do you love Me?’ And he said to Him, ‘Lord, YOU KNOW ALL THINGS; You know that I love You’

John 16:30
Thus his disciples said, truly, “Now we know that YOU KNOW ALL THINGS, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God”

But why Mark and Matthew said Jesus does NOT KNOW THE time of His second coming? This will CONTRADICT the other words of God saying that Jesus knows all things. Is this really what Mark and Matthew want to say? Let me remind you people that you are reading ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS not the language it is originally written.

The word “know” used in Mark 13: 32 and Matthew 24:36 is from the Greek word ‘’eido’’ which can be translated to mean to know or make known.
From Strong’s Greek Dictionary:
1492. eido, i’-do; a prim. verb; used only in certain past tenses, the others being borrowed from the equiv. G3700 and G3708; prop. to see (lit. or fig.); by impl. (in the perf. only) to know:–be aware, behold, X can (+ not tell), consider, (have) known (-ledge), look (on), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand, wist, wot. Comp. G3700.

Now note how the word “Eido” is used in the other Bible verse:
1 Cor 2:2 For I determined not to know (eido) any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
In the above verse, Paul is saying that his only desire is to make known Jesus, in other words to preach the Gospel

Apply it to Mark 13:32 (Matthew 24:36) can be paraphrased as:
“But about that day or hour no one will make known, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Or in other words, Jesus was saying that NOBODY can proclaim or reveal the time of His coming neither Him nor the angels BUT THE FATHER. The phrase “not even the angels” is the CLUE. Why would Jesus mix up the angels if it is a top secret of God, right?

The Hebrew word for “angel” is mal’ak (Strong’s Hebrew: 4397) which means Messenger. One of the jobs of angel is to bring/ proclaim/ reveal news to mankind. Jesus was saying that concerning the time of His second coming it is NOT the job of angels nor His Job but the Father’s to make it known or reveal to mankind!

*******************
Another way of understanding Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32) is through Jesus’ parables of the Ten Virgins in Matthew 25. Jesus was the groom in the parable. While He was on earth He refers to Himself as the bridegroom (Matthew 9:14-15). In the parable, the Kingdom of Heaven (Church) was likened to the “Ten Virgins” Church is composed of sanctified, purified people who were cleansed by His blood so they were compared to virgins. Church is the bride.

In the ancient Jewish wedding tradition, the bridegroom’s father arranges the wedding (Matthew 22:2). During the engagement period the groom prepares everything for the bride (Jesus is now preparing mansion for His bride in John 14:2), When everything is ready someone will announce the coming of the groom(Matthew 25:6). In His second coming according to Jesus it is HIS FATHER’S privilege to do the announcement.

So in Matthew 24:36 Jesus is not saying that He is ignorant of the hour of His second coming, but rather, He cannot reveal it, neither can angels, because according to the Jewish wedding protocol, it is reserved for the Father’s groom only to announce that the groom is coming!

Jesus is God!

Is Jesus Eligible to be the Messiah?

Is Jesus Eligible to be the Messiah?

The Genealogies of Jesus

by Jeffrey J. Harrison

from https://totheends.com/eligible.htm

There is an objection to Jesus as the Messiah that penetrates right to the heart of Christian teaching. The argument is that Jesus, since he had no earthly father, cannot be a direct male descendant of David, and that he therefore cannot be the Messiah. Is this a valid objection?

A version of this objection came to my attention recently in an article explaining Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus by Rabbi Shraga Simmons at www.aish.com. Most of the reasons given are familiar objections that can easily be refuted. But there was one point that presents a more serious challenge to Christian belief. Here’s the point as made in the article (the second part of point 2B in the original article together with its footnote). I have added the numbers in bold for easier reference.

[1]“The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father’s side from King David.

[Footnote 1] “In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

“a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

“b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)…

[2]“To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

“a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

“b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

“c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes the lineage of David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

“d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a messianic progenitor.”

This objection makes use of the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. As anyone can see that reads through them, these two genealogies match up before the time of King David,* but are quite different after David, giving them the appearance of being the genealogies of two different people, both of whom are descendants of David. Christians have responded to this discrepancy in several different ways, but the most obvious answer is that the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph, Jesus’ adoptive father, and the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary.**

* Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry to Adam, Matthew begins with Abraham.

** This approach can be documented back to the 8th cent. AD. Before that (from the 3rd cent.), levirate marriage was used to explain that both genealogies belonged to Joseph, an explanation still accepted by many traditional churches today. The weakness of this approach is that it introduces individuals and marriages about which Scripture is silent.

Evidence to support the view that these are the genealogies of Joseph and Mary are given by the genealogies themselves. The genealogy in Matthew directly claims to be that of Joseph (“…Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary,” Matt. 1:16).* But Luke traces Jesus’ lineage through Eli rather than Joseph: Jesus…being a son, as was supposed, of Joseph, [but actually] the son [i.e. the descendant] of Eli (Luke 3:23).** Since Jesus’ actual physical descent was through Mary, his closest male ancestor would be Mary’s father, Eli.*** This makes Luke’s genealogy a record of Mary’s ancestry (versus Simmons’ objection in 2a above).

* Matthew is careful not to say that Joseph was the father of Jesus, as with the other births in his genealogy, but rather that he was the husband of Mary, from whom was born Jesus, the one called Christ (Matt. 1:16).
** The word “son” in Hebrew can be used of multi-generational descent, as in the English word “descendant.”
*** That Eli was Mary’s father may also be confirmed by the rabbis of the Jerusalem Talmud. Here a Mary the daughter of Eli is mentioned in an uncomplimentary setting (Tractate Hagigah 2:2, given as 77d in John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 1674, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1995, 2nd ed., vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p. 55). This may be one of several instances in rabbinical writings in which characters from the New Testament are presented in a negative light, often with veiled names or descriptions. However, the text of modern versions does not match that used by Lightfoot. This may have been an intentional change to obscure the reference, as was done with other controversial Talmudic passages. The traditional names of Joachim and Anna for the parents of Mary come from The Protoevangelium of James (also known as the Gospel of James), a fictitious writing filled with historical inaccuracies (2nd cent.).

According to the objection in point 1 above, if Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, then Joseph was not his physical father, and Joseph’s descent from David is irrelevant to the question of Jesus being the Messiah. Further, and this is the more troubling part (point 1b above), even if we admit the relevance of Joseph’s descent, the Messiah cannot be a product of the genealogy in Matthew because it includes King Jeconiah of Judah, of whom the prophet Jeremiah said that no descendant would ever sit on David’s throne again (Matt. 1:11)!

The relevant verse here is Jeremiah 22:30, which in speaking of King Jeconiah (or Coniah, also known as Jehoiachin), says: This is what the Lord has said: Write this man down stripped of male children [i.e. record him as being without male heirs]. He will not prosper in his days, for no man of his seed will prosper sitting on the throne of David and ruling again in Judah. A similar idea appears in Jeremiah 36:30, where the prophet says of King Jehoiakim, Jeconiah’s father, He will not have anyone sitting on the throne of David.

The simplest way to dismiss this problem is to understand these prophecies to apply only to the lifetime of Jeconiah (in his days in Jer. 22:30) or to some other limited period of time (he will not have in Jer. 36:30 does not necessarily mean forever). And in this sense they certainly were fulfilled in Jeconiah’s lifetime: Zedekiah, the uncle of Jeconiah and brother of Jehoiakim, who reigned as the last king of Judah, was a descendant of neither of them (2 Kings 24:17-25:7).

But there was also a sense in which Jeconiah was the last legitimate king of Judah, and that the Davidic line had ended with him. This can be seen in the nostalgic closing verses of 2 Kings that mention Jeconiah as a prisoner in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27-30; Zedekiah is not mentioned). It can also be seen in the ancestry of Zerubbabel, the leader of the Jewish people when they returned from exile. His ancestry is traced to Jeconiah (by way of Jeconiah’s son Shealtiel, Ezra 3:2, Hag. 1:1; though Zerubbabel himself did not rule as king). This extends the significance of the prophecy of Jeremiah over a much longer period of time.

On its own, this doesn’t threaten the Christian understanding of Jesus as Messiah. Because as Rabbi Simmons correctly mentions, we can fall back on the genealogy of Mary in Luke, which also traces Jesus’ ancestry from David, although not through the ruling line of Solomon that led to Jeconiah, but rather through Solomon’s brother Nathan.

He objects, though, to using the genealogy in Luke because the Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (point 1). But the verses he provides to support this claim say nothing about this requirement. Genesis 49:10 says only that the Messiah will be of the tribe of Judah (The scepter will not depart from Judah…until he whose it is [the Messiah] comes.* Isaiah says only that he will be a descendant of Jesse (who was the father of King David, Isa. 11:1). Jeremiah says only that he will be a descendant of David himself (Jer. 23:5, 33:17). And Ezekiel calls the Messiah my servant David, which tells us nothing at all about his descent (Eze. 34:23,24). So there is no valid Biblical reason why the Messiah cannot be descended from David on his mother’s side.

* Shiloh that appears here in some translations means literally he whose it is in Hebrew.

But there is a second, more serious, level to this objection: that the Messianic promises given to David were through his son, Solomon (point 2c). It’s true that this is explicitly stated in 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 (his name will be Solomon…and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever; also 1 Chron. 28:4-6). But the prophecy was given with a condition: if you are careful to observe the statutes and the legal decisions that the Lord commanded (1 Chron. 22:13, 28:7). Since Solomon later fell away from the Lord and died in disgrace, it’s obvious that this promise was withdrawn and the promises to David were fulfilled through someone else. That’s why later prophets were looking for a Davidic and not a Solomonic Messiah. So in fact there is no reason why we cannot rely on the genealogy in Luke through Mary and her father to establish Jesus’ descent from David.

The objection that tribal affiliation is only through the father (point 2b) is not always true. In 1 Chron. 2:34-35, an Israelite man with no sons (Sheshan) gave his daughter to an Egyptian slave—who obviously had no tribal affiliation with Israel. Yet their descendants are counted as being descendants of their grandfather Sheshan and members of his tribe. In the same way, since Mary was still living at home and Joseph was not the father of her child, there would be no one else to trace Jesus’ heritage through other than Mary and her father. This is exactly the implication of Luke 3:23: that Jesus was a descendant of Eli.*

* Tribal inheritance could also be passed through daughters (Num. 27:7ff, 36:6-8). This is the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, who received a hereditary possession among their father’s brothers, and you will transfer the inheritance of their father to them (Num. 27:7). This might well have been the case with Mary, since only her sister is mentioned, and not a brother (John 19:25).

The additional objection that Mary’s lineage also traces through King Jeconiah (point 2d) is easily overturned: the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke 3:27 have different ancestors and children than the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of the royal line in Matt. 1:12ff. Anyone who has spent any time doing genealogy knows the danger of similar name combinations when other details don’t match up. There is no evidence that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel of Luke are the same as those mentioned in Matthew. In fact, the genealogies themselves clearly show they are not.

So there is no serious objection to accepting Luke’s genealogy as the actual physical genealogy of Jesus through his grandfather Eli and his mother Mary. He was a physical descendant of King David, and therefore eligible to fulfill the prophecies pointing to the Messiah.

So what, then, is the purpose of Matthew’s genealogy? Jesus was born into the betrothed relationship of Joseph and Mary, which was legally a family unit (Matt. 1:18; among the Jewish people, betrothal [kiddushin] established a legal marriage, though not yet consummated). If accepted by the husband, the child became legally part of the family, which Joseph did when he took Mary as his wife (Matt. 1:24-25; that he took her means that they proceeded to the second stage of marriage [nissuin] in which they began living together). In this way, Jesus could also legally restore the royal line from Solomon through Jeconiah without being a physical descendant of Jeconiah and running afoul of Jeremiah’s prophecy. In other words, a miraculous birth was exactly what was needed both to fulfill prophecy and to reestablish the royal line of David. As Amos prophesied: In that day, I will raise up the booth of David which is fallen and I will close up their breaches and his ruins I will raise up; and I will build it as in the days of old (Amos 9:11).

Jesus Never employed the same rebuke He gave Satan

Jesus Never employed the same rebuke He gave Satan

If as you claim, Jesus is not God why didn’t He employ the same rebuke He gave Satan here, on every one of the many times when He Himself was worshipped? This rebuke is NEVER used on any other occasion. I challenge you to explain why not.

“Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” (Matthew 4:10)

Jesus humbled state and what it means

Jesus humbled state and what it means

Jesus’ humbled state and what it means

Many of the non-Christian cults attack the deity of Christ by citing verses such as Jesus not knowing something (Matt. 24:36), where He is growing in wisdom (Luke 2:52), or says that the Father is greater than He (John 14:28). They claim that if Jesus was God He would know all things, would not grow in wisdom, and would not be lesser than the Father — and this is where their analysis stops. Unfortunately, they either purposely (because it doesn’t suit them) or accidentally (through ignorance) skip the biblical references dealing with Jesus in His humbled state where He functioned completely as a man under the Law of God.

Furthermore, those in cults very often fail to incorporate the standard Christian response to their criticisms of Jesus’ deity. That is, instead of responding to and including the Christian answers, they continue to ask the same questions and raise the same points ignoring the answers to their objections. Sometimes they say that the Christian answers don’t make any sense. But that is almost always a blanket complaint to brush away our answers because they do not like them or understand them, not because they are illogical or unbiblical.

Nevertheless, I will address those scriptures and concepts the cults raise to deny the deity of Christ and show why their reasoning is incorrect. I will do this by relating to the fact that Jesus was in a humbled state and under the Law.

Jesus’ incarnation: God in flesh. Hypostatic Union
The nature and natural effects of Jesus’ humbled state
Scriptures dealing with Jesus in His humbled state
1. Jesus’ incarnation: God in flesh. The Hypostatic Union
Perhaps the most commonly misunderstood Christian doctrines among the cults is the Hypostatic Union; that is, that in the single person of Jesus there are two natures: human and divine. John 1:1,14 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

There is absolutely no logical reason why Jesus cannot be both human and divine at the same time. It is not a logical impossibility. The question is whether or not it is a biblical teaching. What does the Bible say?

John 1:1,14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
John 20:28, “Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
Col. 2:9, “For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”
Col. 1:19, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,”
Phil. 2:6-8, “…although He [Jesus] existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Heb. 1:8, “But of the Son He says, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.”
Following is a small chart referencing the Scriptures that support the doctrine that Jesus is both God and Man at the same time. It is not exhaustive but it can help you quickly see that scripture points to both Jesus’ humanity as well as His deity.

Jesus as God Jesus as Man
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33). He worshiped the Father (John 17).
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8) He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1) He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:2). He prayed to the Father (John 17).
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15). He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
He knows all things (John 21:17). He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
He gives eternal life (John 10:28). He died (Rom. 5:8).
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9). He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
Therefore, Jesus is one person with two natures: divine and human. This is not a logical impossibility and it is something that is supported in scripture.

2. The nature and natural effects of Jesus’ humbled state
As a man and as a Jew, Jesus was in a humbled state, under the Law, and lower than the angels. As a result of these conditions, Jesus had to operate in agreement with His humbled condition; that is, He had to act as a man, completely as a man who was under the Law of God. Let’s review:

Incarnation of Jesus means that the Word became flesh, became a man.
John 1:1,14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
Jesus emptied Himself
Phil. 2:5-8, “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
As a man, Jesus is under the Law
Gal. 4:4, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,”
As a man, Jesus was made for a while lower than the angels
Heb. 2:9, “But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels…”
We have already seen that Jesus is the incarnate Word (that was God) made flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), found in appearance as a man, and that He humbled Himself to the point of death (Phil. 2:8). What we also need to understand is that He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and that He was lower than the angels (Heb. 2:9). This is very important because it will tell us what to expect from Jesus as He walks the earth doing His Father’s will (John 5:30).

Being under the Law means that Jesus was subject to the Law. This is natural because He was a man, a good Jew who would properly be subject to the Torah, the Law. Also, since He is God in flesh, and since as God He authored the Law, He would naturally be subject to it. Let me clarify this.

God spoke the Law. The Law is a reflection of the character of God. It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie. It is wrong to bear false witness because God cannot bear false witness. The Law reflects God’s nature and character. God spoke it to us as a revelation of moral truth. Jesus said that we speak out of the abundance of our hearts (Matt. 12:34). Therefore, Jesus, as God in flesh, would naturally live and reflect that Law which God had given so long ago which God spoke out of the abundance of His own heart.

Under the Law
In order for the Word (John 1:1) to be under the Law (Gal. 4:4), He would have to become a man, born of a woman. To be under the Law would mean that Jesus would have to be circumcised. This can only happen if He was a baby. He would then grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). It means that He would be subject to His parents per Exodus 20:12. It means that He would have to wait until the appropriate time in His life to enter into the ministry to accomplish the will of the Father who sent Him. None of these things negates His divine nature.

Being under the Law necessitates that He be a man, that He behave as a man, and that being a man means that all the limitations and qualities of being a man are also His — at least to the extent that the Divine allows itself to experience limitation while incarnated. Again, this does not mean that He does not possess a divine nature. It means that as He emptied Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:7) and that He cooperated with the limitations of being a man under the Law. Furthermore, Jesus did all His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit.

By the Power of the Holy Spirit
Jesus was baptized to enter into the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is very significant because it means that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit and did all His miracles by the Power of the Holy Spirit — because He was a man made completely under the Law. Let me lay this out for you here.

Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the legal requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest. To be consecrated as a priest, He had to be washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:16); This was fulfilled in the water of baptism when Jesus was baptized. He had to be anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16), This is fulfilled when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus as a dove. Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old – (Num. 4:3).

Now, if we look at Matt. 12:22-32 we see the account of Jesus casting out demons. The Pharisees said He did it by the power of the devil. But, Jesus responds by stating that you could insult the Father and the Son and be forgiven. But, if you insult the Holy Spirit, that would not be forgiven. Why? Because Jesus was doing His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit because Jesus was completely a man under the Law and functioned as a man just as we would — with the Holy Spirit working through us.

Lower than the Angels
Heb. 2:9 says that Jesus was made for a while lower than the angels. This means that Jesus was in a humbled position. The angels are far greater creatures than humans in power and mental abilities. Jesus was made lower than them. That is, He was made a man. He was not exercising His Lordship over all of creation. This further means that Jesus was operating, walking, talking, living, and acting as a man who was subject to the Law.

What does this mean?
Because Jesus was made lower than the angels, as a man, there are certain ramifications to this humbled and emptied condition.

That Jesus was subject to the Law, (Gal. 4:4).
Jesus was subject to the Father who sent Him, (John 5:30).
Jesus would be circumcised, (Luke 1:59).
Jesus would grow in wisdom and stature, (Luke 2:52).
Jesus would not know all things (Mark 13:32).
etc.
The above facts do not negate the deity of Christ. God could easily become a man, humble Himself, join Himself to human nature and then be subject to the Law, to grow, to learn, etc. This would be a natural result of being a man, wouldn’t it? And, it would not negate the deity of Christ at all. It only demonstrates that the Word made flesh was fully a man. Col. 2:9 says, “For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.”

Now, let’s look at those verses that exemplify the above stated information and see how we might comment about them.

3. Scriptures dealing with Jesus in His humbled state
Matthew 20:23, “My cup you shall drink; but to sit on My right and on My left, this is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father.”
Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish what the Father had given Jesus to do (John 5:30; 1 John 4:10). Since Jesus is the Word made flesh with all the fullness of deity dwelling in Him, this statement of Jesus in no way negates Jesus’ deity. He was completely a man and as a man, He would naturally be subject to the Father.
Mark 13:32, “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Jesus had emptied Himself and was cooperating with the limitations of being a man. Therefore, He did not know all things. However….
In John 21:17, Peter says that Jesus knows all things and Jesus does not correct him. The point is that before the resurrection of Jesus, it is said of Him that He did not know all things. But, after Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus knew all things — and He was still a man since He was resurrected bodily (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39).
Luke 2:52, “And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.”
Jesus was born from His mother Mary. Phil. 2:5-8 says that though he was in the form of God He had emptied Himself and became a man. To be a man, he had to be born. If He is born of a woman, then He would naturally grow up and learn. This is perfectly consistent with what it would mean for the Word (which was God – John 1:1) to become flesh (v. 14) and grow up as a man.
If Jesus has two natures, and if Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man, it would also mean that Jesus’ divine nature was subjected to the human and its limitations.
Luke 18:19, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.”
Was Jesus saying that He was not good? Of course not. Jesus says He is good when He says He is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11). Jesus is not denying His deity. If only God is Good and Jesus says that He is the Good Shepherd, then Jesus must be God.
John 5:19, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”
Jesus, as a man, was performing His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why He did only what He saw the Father doing. Also, can an angel of a mere man do whatever God the Father does? Hardly! Jesus, God in flesh, can do what God the Father can do.
Not doing anything of Himself simply means He was willingly subject to the Father to do the Father’s will — because He emptied Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:5-8). This was the necessary state of Him being a man, lower than the angels, and under the Law.
Interestingly, can we do anything of ourselves? Of course we can. We can walk and talk freely. So did Jesus. So what did He mean by His statement? Probably that since He came for the purpose of doing’s God’s will, that He could do nothing of His own will.
John 5:20, “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and greater works than these will He show Him, that you may marvel.”
As a man and naturally being subject to the Father, the Father would show Him all things.
Interesting to note that the Father does not show all things to anyone else. Only the Son? Why? Perhaps because as God in flesh, Jesus could then know and comprehend all things shown to Him.
John 5:22, “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,”
Judgment was indeed given to the Son. The reason was because Jesus had humbled Himself by becoming a man and made under the Law. Therefore, the Father would give Him the act of Judging people. This is a natural consequence of being human. It does not mean that Jesus is not divine. It means that Jesus was human.
Also, isn’t God the judge of all men? How could such judgment be given to an angel or a mere man? In order to righteously judge all people, the one judging would have to know all things about that person’s life. Only God has such knowledge. Remember, after the resurrection Peter said that Jesus knew all things, (John 21:17).
John 5:26, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”
Jesus, as a man under the Law, was moving and acting as a man who was doing the will of the Father (John 5:30). This is proper since Jesus was a man. Therefore, as a man, life would be given to Him from the Father. Jesus is speaking of His humanity, not His divinity.
John 5:27, “and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.”
Jesus, as a man under the Law, cooperated with the limitations of being a man. As a man, authority would have to be given Him. Remember, Jesus was not moving out of His divine nature, but was moving and walking as a man in order to fulfill the Law completely and properly.
John 5:30, “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
Because Jesus came to do the will of the Father, He could do nothing of His own initiative because it wasn’t His purpose to do His own will. Instead, He did whatever He saw the Father do (John 5:19). His food was to do the will of the Father (John 4:34). This doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t God. It means that Jesus was completely a man just as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches.
John 6:38, “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”
What about this verse means that Jesus is not divine as well as human? Nothing. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is that Jesus is both divine and human and that Jesus humbled Himself to become a man. As a man He didn’t come to do His own will. Jesus simply states that He came from heaven to do the will of the Father. This means that Jesus (the Word) was in heaven with the Father before He came a man.
John 8:28, “Jesus therefore said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.”
Because Jesus came to do the will of the Father, He could do nothing of His own initiative because it wasn’t His purpose to do His own will. Instead, He did whatever He saw the Father do (John 5:19). His food was to do the will of the Father (John 4:34). This doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t God. It means that Jesus was completely a man just as the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union teaches.
John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I.”
Because Jesus was in a lower position that the Father, He could say that the Father was greater than He. This is not denying Jesus deity any more than saying a wife is in a lesser position than her husband (speaking of authority in the family) means that she is different in nature than her husband.
Jesus was simply speaking of position, not nature. Jesus did say, after all, that He and the Father were one (John 10:30) and after say that, the Jews wanted to kill Him because they said He was claiming to be God.
John 17:3, “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”
As a man, Jesus would naturally and properly have someone He would call his God. In this case, He called the Father the only true God because that is the proper thing for a Jew, in this case Jesus, to say.
If the word “only” here means that Jesus cannot then be God, then that same logic applied to Jude 4 means that God is not our Lord. “…ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” This verse using the word “only” must necessarily mean that God is not our Master and Lord — if we use the same logic used by the critics of Jesus’ deity who cite John 17:3. But, of course, we know that to make a doctrine out of one verse is an improper way to do theology.
Acts 2:36, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ”this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Jesus was sent from the Father (1 John 4:10). He was made flesh (John 1:1,14). Therefore, He was made both Lord and Christ by the Father since Jesus position had been humbled, lowered, made under the Law. The incarnation of the Word meant that Jesus was made both Lord and Christ.
Some say that if Jesus is God then He would not have to be made Lord and Christ. But this implies that the terms “lord” and “Christ” both mean God since if He is God He would already be “Lord”. The only way that would be a valid complaint would be if the word “Lord” meant divine. If that was the case then the statement “Jesus is Lord” would mean Jesus is God. Jesus is Lord and Jesus is Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:3, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
Because Jesus was in a lower position than the Father, due to His incarnation, the God the Father would be His Head. This is a natural proper condition of being made a man under the Law. Incidentally, Jesus is eternally a man, (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:25).
1 Corinthians 15:28, “And when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.”
Jesus is a man (1 Tim. 2:5). He is eternally a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek so that He can eternally offer intercession for us (Heb. 7:25). As a man He would eternally be subject to the One He calls His Father. This is a result of His humility that resulted in our redemption. This is consistent with the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union which states that within the one person of Christ are two natures: human and divine.
Hebrews 2:10, “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.”
As a man, Jesus was perfected though suffering. As a man, he was made perfect; that is, He was as a completed sacrifice by the finished work of propitiation. Heb. 10:14 says, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
Hebrews 2:17, “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
This is necessary because Jesus is both human and divine. As a man He was made like His brethren in all things. In no way does this negate the divinity of Christ.
Hebrews 4:15, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”
Some say that Jesus could not be God because He was tempted and God cannot be tempted. But the truth is that God can be tempted. Psalm 106:13-15 says, “They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel, 14But craved intensely in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert. 15So He gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them.” The manner that God was tempted was that someone was presented to Him. In the same way Jesus was tempted. So, as God can be tempted, so can Jesus.
Hebrews 5:9, “And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation.”
As a man, Jesus was perfected though suffering. As a man, he was made perfect; that is, He was as a completed sacrifice by the finished work of propitiation. Heb. 10:14 says, “For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.”
Conclusion
The fact that Jesus moved in a limited context while accomplishing His ministry does not mean that He is not God. It means that He cooperated with the limitations of being a man so that He could do what He had to do. He has two natures: God and man. He emptied Himself to become a man (Phil. 2:7) and He cooperated with the limitations of being a man under the Law. This explains the verses that show His limitless.

Finally, if the cults want to say that the limited aspect of Jesus’ behaviour means that He cannot be divine, then what do they do with the scriptures that teach that He is all knowing and ever-present?

John 21:17, “And he [Peter] said to Him, ‘Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.’ Jesus *said to him, ‘Tend My sheep.'”
After Jesus’ resurrection, so Jesus was in His glorified body, Peter states that Jesus knew all things…and Jesus did not correct him.
Matt. 28:20, “…I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Jesus spoke this to His disciples, and therefore to all Christians. He stated that He would be with them always. This is only possible if He is omnipresent.
If Jesus is not God because He learned, then He must be God if He knew all things. If Jesus is not God because He was a man, then He must be God since He will be with all disciples everywhere.