The sons of God

[Guest Duane]

I am saying that Man and Angel are the same creation of God, but, as I said earlier it is referring to us from different points of our existance in the overall scheme of things.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;.....

Can no one tell me what this means? I'm not even remotely "Mormon" and so far from New Age it's laughable...but when I read this verse...I can't help but wonder.

If we did not exist in some form - then what does this verse mean? It's an honest question.

I think it means that God knows us before we are ever conceived by our earthly parents.

To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, the saying goes.

But we have no idea as to what "form", if any, we are actually in at that time, since we have no earthly body.

Does the soul or spirit have a "form"?

Maybe that is something only God knows for sure.

[Catsmeow]

I dunno...the bible says we have our own spirit body, although the Holy Spirit also indwells the believer.

I've always understood it to mean that the spirit of a human being is like an invisible body...which houses the soul (mind, will and emotions) and separates from the physical body at the time of death.

My husband had a serious accident many years ago and never told anyone until he met me that as he was on the gurney in the ER, he said he saw a remarkable sight...a tunnel of real bright white light...radiant light. He started to go into it and then it disappeared and he saw the doctors and nurses standing over him.

He'd fallen 25 feet from a building..(he was a welder)...and a beam from the ceiling knocked two men off ...my husband and another man. He was badly hurt and it's a miracle he lived.

Anyway, that's how I understand the body, soul and spirit. I'm not absolute about it but that's how it appears to my limited understanding.

[Guest Duane]

I dunno...the bible says we have our own spirit body, although the Holy Spirit also indwells the believer.

I've always understood it to mean that the spirit of a human being is like an invisible body...which houses the soul (mind, will and emotions) and separates from the physical body at the time of death.

My husband had a serious accident many years ago and never told anyone until he met me that as he was on the gurney in the ER, he said he saw a remarkable sight...a tunnel of real bright white light...radiant light. He started to go into it and then it disappeared and he saw the doctors and nurses standing over him.

He'd fallen 25 feet from a building..(he was a welder)...and a beam from the ceiling knocked two men off ...my husband and another man. He was badly hurt and it's a miracle he lived.

Anyway, that's how I understand the body, soul and spirit. I'm not absolute about it but that's how it appears to my limited understanding.

I have had experiences, but not near death ones.

I too think we have spirit bodies, but in what form do they take, do you think?

Do they resemble our earthly bodies? What are they composed of? I think Light.

But then is it a sphere of Light like a star? Does it have a shape other than spherical?

Would it appear the same to earthly eyes as it does to spirit "eyes"?

It is fun to speculate, but I think certain answers are beyond us unless the Holy Spirit gives us some insight.

[Guest coolwaters]

Duane:

Much of what you say is familiar to me. I use to listen to Arnold Murray of Shepherds Chapel up in Gravette, AR. He has a satellite ministry and he comes across extremely knowledgeable and frank. He preaches many of the same theories as you but much more polished. With a few different twists here and there. All of the so called heretical theories expoused by his ministry are located in areas where the bible does not shed knowledge. He uses his "logic and common sense" to shape, pull and tie ideas together into something his mind can fathom. You seem to be a student of his. I wonder have you listened to him?

[Guest coolwaters]

This may be a bit haphazard, since I really can not recreate the threads in their entirety, but...

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

I had pointed out that the serpent is described as more subtil that any beast that God had made. Not any other beast, but any beast.

And this leads me to believe that the serpent was not a talking snake, as so many think. The snake is a beast that God made, and the serpent is more subtil than any beast.

And Man is no beast, but created in the image of God. And we can see clearly that Man is more subtil than any beast.

And from what we read in Genesis, only Man was created other than the beasts and fish and so on. We see no referrence to angels, yet, only Man. In fact, there is no referrence to when the angels were created in the Bible, just that they were created and existed at or before the foundation of the world.

But as we were chosen in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world, we too existed at that time. And as Adam had yet to be formed from dust, we were in a spirit state, just as the angels.

It was also pointed out that at times certain men are referred to as Satan or the devil. Jesus called Peter Satan, and addressed Peter as Satan, when Peter rebuked the Lord. And Jesus called Judas a devil.

Cain is said to be of the wicked one, but Cain is clearly of Adam. The wicked one refers to the devil, Satan, the serpent.

The arguement was that the Lord addresses the serpent and Adam separately, so therefore they are separate individuals.

But just as Jesus addresses Peter both as Peter, and as Satan when Peter is outside of the will of the Father, the Lord could also have addressed Adam and the serpent separately even though they could be the same individual.

Lucifer, also thought to be angel, and Satan, is also called a man in the one passage that speaks of Lucifer, that other bright and morning star.

And another passage in Ezekiel that is said to refer to Satan:

Ezekiel 28:12 ...Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

But this too could refer to Adam. The cherub part could be Adams state when, or before he was formed of dust, or of a later time.

But this passage too is addressed to the king of Tyrus: 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. ...

It is actually talking to a man, not an angel.

And now I bring up the point of the term son of God. And how it refers to both Man and Angel.

There is a bit more, I think, but that should do for now.

In Genesis 3 we have neither allegory, myth, legend, nor fable, but literal historical facts set forth, and emphasised by the use of certain Figures of speech .

All the confusion of thought and conflicting exegesis have arisen from taking literally what is expressed by Figures, or from taking figuratively what is literal. A Figure of speech is never used except for the purpose of calling attention to, emphasising, and intensifying, the reality of the literal sense, and truth of the historical facts; so that, while the words employed may not be so strictly true to the letter, they are all the more true to the truth conveyed by them, and to the historical events connected with them.

But for the figurative language of verses 14 and 15 no one would have thought of referring the third chapter of Genesis to a snake; no more than he does when reading the third chapter from the end of Revelation (chapter 20:2). Indeed, the explanation added there, that the "old serpent" is the Devil and Satan, would immediately lead one to connect the word "old" with the earlier and former mention of the serpent in Genesis 3: and the fact that it was Satan himself who tempted "the second man", "the last Adam", would force the conclusion that no other than the personal Satan could have been the tempter of "the first man, Adam".

The Hebrew word rendered "serpent" in Genesis 3:1 is Nachash (from the root Nachash, to shine, and means a shinning one. Hence, in Chaldee it means brass or copper, because of its shining. Hence also, the word Nehushtan, a piece of brass, in 2Kings 18:4.

In the same way Saraph, in Isaiah 6:2,6, means a burning one, and, because the serpents mentioned in Numbers 21 were burning, in the poison of their bite, they were called Saraphim, or Seraphs.

But when the LORD said unto Moses, "Make thee a fiery serpent" (Numbers 21:8), He said, "Make thee a Saraph", and, in obeying this command, we read in verse 9, "Moses made a Nachash of brass". Nachash is thus used as being interchangeable with Saraph.

Now, if Saraph is used of a serpent because its bite was burning, and is also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a burning one), why should not Nachas be used of a serpent because its appearance was shining, and be also used of a celestial or spirit-being (a shining one)?

Indeed, a reference to the structure of Genesis 3 (on page 7) will show that the Cherubim (which are similar celestial or spirit-beings) of the last verse (Genesis 3:24) require a similar spirit-being to correspond with them in the first verse (for structure of the whole chapter is a great Introversion). The Nachash, or serpent, who beguiled Eve (2Corinthians 11:3) is spoken of as "an angel of light" in verse 14. Have we not, in this, a clear intimation that it was not a snake, but a glorious shining being, apparently an angel, to whom Eve paid such great deference, acknowledging him as one who seemed to possess superior knowledge, and who was evidently a being of a serperior (not of an inferior) order? Moreover, in the description of Satan as "the king of Tyre" 1 it is distinctly implied that the latter being was of a super-natural order when he is called "a cherub" (Ezekiel 28:14,16, read from verses 11-19). His presence "in Eden, the garden of 'Elohim" (verse 13, is also clearly stated, as well as his being "perfect in beauty" (verse 12) his being "perfect" in his ways from the day he was created till iniquity was found in him" (verse 15), and as being "lifted up because of his beauty" (verse 17).

These all compel the belief that Satan was the shining one (Nachash) in Genesis 3, and especially because the following words could be addressed to him :- "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brihgtness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee" (verse 17).

Even supposing that these things were spoken to, and of, an exalted human being in later days (Ezekiel 28), still "the king of Tyre" is not compared to a being who was non-existent; and facts and circumstances which never happened are not introduced into the comparison.

There is more about "the king of Tyre" in Ezekiel 28:11-19 than was literally true of "the prince of Tyre" (verses 1-10). The words can be understood only of the mightiest and most exalted supernatural being that God ever created; and this for the purpose of showing how great would be his fall. The history must be true to make the prophecy of any weight.

Again, the word rendered "subtle" in Genesis 3:1 (see note) means wise, in a good sense as well as in a bad sense. In Ezekiel 28:12 we have the good sense, "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom"; and the bad sense in verse 17, "thou hast corrupted thy wisdom" (referring of course, to his fall). So the word rendered "subtle" is rendered "prudent" in Proverbs 1:4; 8:12; 12:23; 14:8; and in a bad sense in Job 15:5. 1Samuel 23:22. Psalm 83:3.

The word "beast" also, in Genesis 3:1, chay, denotes a living being, and it is as wrong to translate zoa "beasts" in Revelation 4, as it is to translate chay "beast" in Genesis 3. Both mean living creature. Satan is thus spoken of as being "more wise than any other living creature which Jehovah Elohim had made". Even if the word "beast be retained, it does not say that either a serpent or Satan was a "beast", but only that he was "more wise" than any other living being.

We cannot conceive Eve as holding converse with a snake, but we can understand her being fascinated 2 by one, apparently "an angel of light" (i.e. a glorious angel), possessing superior and supernatural knowledge.

When Satan is spoken of as a "serpent", it is the Implication; it no more means a snake than it does when Dan is so called in Genesis 49:17; or an animal when Nero is called a "lion" (2Timothy 4:17), or when Herod is called a "fox" (Luke 13:32); or when Judah is called "a lion's whelp". It is the same figure when "doctrine" is called "leaven" (Matthew 16:6). It shows that something much more real and truer to truth is intented. If a Figure of speech is thus employed, it is for the purpose of expressing the truth more impressively ; and is intended to be a figure of something much more real than the letter of the word.

Other Figures of speech are used in verses 14,15, but only for the same purpose of emphasising the truth and the reality of what is said.

When it is said in verse 15, "thou shalt bruise His heel", it cannot mean His literal heel of flesh and blood, but suffering, more temporary in character. When it is said (verse 15), "He shall crush the head", it means something more than a skull of bone, and brain, and hair. It means that all Satan's plans and plots, policy and purposes, will one day be finally crushed and ended, never more to mar or to hinder the purposes of God. This will be effected when Satan shall be bruised under our feet (Romans 16:20). This, again, will not be our literal feet, but something much more real.

The bruising of Christ's heel is the most eloquent and impressive way of foretelling the most solemn events; and to point out that the effort made by Satan to evade his doom, then threatened, would become the very means of insuring its accomplishment; for it was through the death of Christ that he who had the power of death would be destroyed; and all Satan's power and policy brought to an end, and all his works destroyed (Hebrews 2:14. 1John 3:8. Revelation 20:1-3,10). What literal words could portray these literal facts so wonderfully as these expressive Figures of speech ?

It is the same with the other Figures used in verse 14, "On thy belly shalt thou go". This Figure means infinitely more than the literal belly of the flesh and blood; just as the words "heel" and "head" do in verse 15. It paints for the eyes of our mind the picture of Satan's ultimate humiliation; for prostration was ever the most eloquent sign of subjection. When it is said "our belly cleaveth unto the ground" (Psalm 44:25), it denotes such a prolonged prostration and such a depth of submission as could never be conveyed or expressed in literal words.

So with the other prophecy, "Dust shalt thou eat". This is not true to the letter, or to fact, but it is all the more true to truth. It tells of constant continuous dissapointment, failure, and mortification; as when deceitful ways are spoken of as feeding on deceitful food, which is "sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth shall be filled with gravel" (Proverbs 20:17). This does not mean literal "gravel", but something far more disagreeable. It means disappointment so great that it would gladly be exchanged for the literal "gravel". So when Christians are rebuked for "biting and devouring one another" (Galatians 3:14,15), something more heart-breaking is meant than the literal words used in the Figure.

When "His enemies shall lick the dust" (Psalm 72:9) they will not do it on their knees with their literal tongues; but they will be so prostrated and so utterly defeated, that no words could literally depict their overthrow and subjugation.

If a serpent was afterward called a nachash, it was because it was more shining than any other creature; and if it became known as "wise", it was not because of its own innate positive knowlwdge, but of its wisdom in hiding away from all observation; and because of its association with one of the names of Satan (that old serpent) who "beguiled Eve" (2Corinthians 11:3,14).

It is wonderful how a snake could ever be supposed to speak without the organs of speech, or that Satan should be supposed able to accomplish so great a miracle?

It only shows the power of tradition, which has, from the infancy of each one of us, put before our eyes and written on our minds the picture of a "snake" and an "apple" : the former bassed on a wrong interpretaion, and the latter being a pure invention, about which there is not one word said in Holy Scripture.

Never was Satan's wisdom so craftily used as when he secured universal acceptance of this tranditional belief: for it has succeeded in fixing the attention of mankind on the letter and the means, thus blinding the eyes to the solemn fact that the Fall of man had to do solely with the Word of God, and is centred in the sin believing Satan's lie instead of Jehovah's truth.

The temptation of " the first man Adam" began with the question "Hath God said ?" The temptation of "the second man, the Lord from heaven" began with the similar quetion "If thou be the Son of God", when the voice of the Father had scarcely died away, which said "This IS My beloved Son".

All turned on the truth of what Jehovah had said.

The Word of God being questioned, led Eve, in her reply, (1) to omit the word "freely" (3:2, compare 2:16); then (2) to add the words "neither shalt thou touch it" (3:3, compare 2:17); and finally (3) to alter a certainty into a contingency by changing "thou SHALT SURELY die" (2:17) into "LEST ye die" (3:3).

It is not without significance that the first Ministerial words of "the second Man" were "It is written", three times repeated; and that His last Ministerial words contained a similar threefold reference to the written Word of God (John 17:8,14,17).

The former temptation succeeded because the Word of God was three times misrepresented ; the latter temptation was successfully defeated because the same Word was faithfully repeated.

The history of Genesis 3 is intended to teach us the fact that Satan's sphere of activities is in the religious sphere,and not the spheres of crime or immorality; that his battlefield is not the sins arising from human depravity, but the unbelief of the human heart. We are not to look for Satan's activities to-day in the newspaper press, or the police courts ; but in the pulpit, and in professors' chairs. Wherever the Word of God is called in question, there we see the trail of "that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan". This is why anything against the true interests of the Word of God (as being such) finds a ready admission into the news-papers of the world, and is treated as "general literature". This is why anything in favour of its inspiration and Divine origin and its spiritual truth is rigidly excluded as being "controversial".

This why Satan is quite content that the letter of Scripture should be accepted in Genesis 3, as he himself accepted the letter of Psalm 91:11. He himself could say "It is written" (Matthew 4:6) so long as the letter of what is "written" could be put instead of the truth that is conveyed by it; and so long as it is miquoted or misapplied.

This is his object in prepetuating the traditions of the "snake" and the "apple", because it ministers to the acceptance of his lie, the hiding of God's truth, the support of tradition, the jeers of the infidel, the opposition of the critics, and the stumbling of the weak in faith.

[Guest coolwaters]

Duane:

"The Sons of GOD" in Genesis 6:2,4.

It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2 Corinthians 5:17. Ehpesians 2:10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1:13. Romans 8:14,15. 1John 3:1).1

This why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Psalms 29:1; 89:6. Daniel 3:25. (no article). 2 We have no authority or right to take the expression in Genesis 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6:2 the Septuagint renders it "angels".

Angels are called "spirits" (Psalm 104:4. Hebrews 1:7,14), for spirits are created by God.

That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.

The nature of their fall is clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2Corinthians 5:2. Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.

The nature of their sin is stated to be "in like manner" to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.

The time of their fall is given as having taken place "in the days of Noah" (1Peter 3:20. 2Peter 2:7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of "the world that then was" (Genesis 1:1,2. 2Peter 3:6).

For this sin they are "reserved unto judgement", 2Peter 2:4, and are "in prison", 1Peter 3:19.

Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated "giants"), were monsters of iniquity; and being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Appendix 25).This was the one and only object of the Flood.

Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam (Genesis 6:9 see note). All the rest had become "corrupt" (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (defacto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in verse 17 as in verses 11,12.) See futher under Appendix 25 on the Nephilim.

This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.

As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Genesis 6:4, "and also after that" (that is to say, after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Genesis 12:6) "the Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land."

In the same chapter (Genesis 12:10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that it should be in "Isaac". This attempt was repeated in 20:1-18.

This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Enemy stand out prominently:-

The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Genesis 50:20.

The destruction of the male line in Israel, Exodus 1:10,15, etc. Compare to Exodus 2:5. Hebrews 11:23.

The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Exodus 14.

After David's line was singled out (2Samuel 7), that was the next selected for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2Chronicles 17:1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2Chronicles 21:4).

The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2Chronicles 21:17; 22:1).

When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed "all the seed royal" (2Chronilces 22:10). The babe Joash alone was rescued; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2Chronicles 23:3).

Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isaiah 36:1; 38:1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Psalm 136).

In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Esther 3:6,12,13. Compare 6:1).

Joseph's fear was worked on (Matthew 1:18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was "a just man", and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deuteronomy 24:1); hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: "Fear not".

Herod sought the young Child's life (Matthew 2).

At the Temptation, "Cast Thyself down" was Satan's temptation.

At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.

The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.

At length the cross was reached, and the sepulchre closed; the watch set; and the stone sealed. But "God raised Him from the dead." And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Hebrews 10:12,13), hidden in the house of God on high; and the members of "the one body" are hidden there "in Him" (Colossians 3:1-3), like another Jehoshaba; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2Chronicles 23:3).

The irruption of "the fallen angels" ("sons of God") was the first attempt; and was directed against the whole human race.

When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.

When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed.

And when "the Seed of the woman" Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.

[Adstar]

There are things that say we pre-existed. And we do not know in what form that was. But it was not as we are today, except maybe in spirit.

We do not remember the former time, nor will we remember this time in the time to come.

But God Almighty remembers. 

They do not say we pre-existed they say that God knew us before we existed. How can God know someone before they existed? Through His foreknowledge of all human history. God knows all our futures and He knew out hearts before we existed. You are limiting Gods powers by thinking that God does not have the power to know all things even the future. We in our flesh state are confined in the structure of time God has no such limitations. That is why God can say:

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;.....

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Guest coolwaters]

Duane:

"The Man of God"

The first occurrence of this expression is in Deuteronomy 33:1, and is used of Moses.

Its use in connection with Moses (Psalms 90, title), who was, par excellence, the prophet, like unto whom Christ was to be "raised up" (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), shows that it is to be understood of what Moses was, videlicit, "the prophet".

He was so called, not because he foretold, but because he spoke FOR God. This is the meaning of the word "prophet" as taught by its first occurrence in Genesis 20:7. The prophet was God's "spokesman" (Exodus 4:16. Compare Exodus 7:1).

God's spokesman could know what to speak for Him only (1) from His Spirit (Nehemiah 9:30. Compare Hosea 9:7, margin, and see Numbers 11:16, 17, 25-29); (2) from Jehovah making Himself known (Numbers 12:6. Ezekiel 3:17. Jeremiah 15: 19. Compare 2Chronicles 36:12); and (3) from God's written word. This is why Timothy is the only one called a "man of God" in the New Testament (1Timothy 6:11), and why, to-day, one, and only one who knows "all scripture", which is so profitable, can be called a "man of God" (2 Timothy 3:17).

All such are God's spokesmen because they alone know what He wishes to be spoken. They are His witnesses (Acts 1:8; 22:15). Christ was THE prophet because He spoke only those things which were give Him to speak (see note on Deuteronomy. 18:18), and He alone is "the faithful Witness" (Revelation 1:5).

It was for the above reasons that the expression "the man of God" (that is to say, God's man) became the general name for a prophet among the common people.

[Guest Calamity]

There are things that say we pre-existed. And we do not know in what form that was. But it was not as we are today, except maybe in spirit.

We do not remember the former time, nor will we remember this time in the time to come.

But God Almighty remembers.

[Guest coolwaters]

Duane:

THE SON OF GOD.

This title expresses the relation of the Son to the Father (Matthew 1:20. Luke 1:31,35); and of all those who are begotten of God (see note on Matthew 1:1. 1John 3:1).

It differs therefore from the relationship expressed by "the Son of man", which relates to "dominion" in the earth (see XVI, below).

As the Son of God, Christ is "the heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2), and is invested with "all power", and is "the Resurrection and the Life" (John 11:25), having power to raise the dead (John 5:25). As "the Son of man", all judgment is committed to Him (John 5:27) in the earth.

THE SON OF MAN.

This title, when used of Christ, always has the Article; and the word for man is anthropos.

When used of a human being, as in Ezekiel, it never has the Article (see notes on Psalm 8:4, and Ezekiel 2:1).

To the "first man, Adam" was given dominion over the works of the Creator (Genesis 1:26). Through the Fall (Genesis 3), this dominion was forfeited, and lost, and is now in abeyance; no one son of Adam having any right to universal dominion. Hence, all the chaos, "unrest", and conflicts between men and nations, which must continue until He shall come Whose right it is to rule in the earth (Ezekiel 21:27). The great enemy, who wrought all the mischief at the Fall, has tried, from time to time, to exercise this authority by setting up some human head. He tried Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, and others, and in later days Napoleon; but he will finally succeed for a brief period with the Antichrist, until "the second man", "the last Adam" (1Corinthians 15:45), "the Son of Man", to Whom all dominion in the earth has, in the counsels of God, been given, shall take unto Him His great power and reign.

All this and more is contained in His title as "the Son of Man". Its first occurrence is in Psalm 8, where in verses 1 and 8 His connection with the "earth" is proclaimed; and "dominion" over it is given to Him. It denotes Him Who is "the heir of all things", in virtue of which all things shall one day be put under His feet. "But now we see not yet all things put under Him. But we see Jesus, Who was made a little lower than the angels", humbling Himself unto death, even the death of the Cross (compare Hebrews 2:8,9).

In support of this the occurrences and distribution of this title in the New Testament are full of significance and instruction.

(1) As to the occurrences. We find the expression eighty-eight times: Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8,32,40; 13:37,41; 16:13,27,28; 17:9,12,22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18,28; 24:27,30,30,37,39,44; 25:13,31; 26:2,24,24,45,64. Mark 2:10,28; 8:31,38; 9:9,12,31; 10:33,45; 13:26; 14:21,21,41,62. Luke 5:24; 6:5,22; 7:34; 9:22,26,44,56,58; 11:30; 12:8,10,40; 17:22,24,26,30; 18:8,31; 19:10; 21:27,36; 22:22,48,69; 24:7. John 1:51; 3:13,14; 5:27; 6:27,53,62; 8:28; 12:23,34,34; 13:31. Acts 7:56. Hebrews 2:6.4 Revelation 1:13; 14:14. On John 9:35 see note there.

The first is in Matthew 8:20, where the first thing stated of, and by, the One Who humbled Himself is that in this same earth "the Son of man had not where to lay His head."

The second, in like manner, is connected with the earth, and shows that He was God, as well as Man, having "authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matthew 9:6); and so the order of the occurrences may be carried out.

Note, in this connection, the contrast between the relationship to mankind of the Lord, as "the Son of God", and as "the Son of man" in John 5:25-27. Compare Acts 10:40-42; 17:31.

(2) As to the distribution of this title: out of the whole number (88), no less than 84 are in the Four Gospels, which contain the record of His coming for this special purpose; and of His rejection. They are all used by the Lord of Himself.

After these 84 occurrences, we have one in the Acts (7:56) where Stephen sees Him "standing" as though not yet "set down", and waiting to be "sent" according to the promise of Jehovah by Peter in Acts 3:20 (compare Hebrews 10:13); and two in the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:13 and 14:14), where He comes to eject the usurper, and reign in righteousness over a restored earth. Hebrews 2:6 4 is a quotation from Psalm 8, which can only be realized by Him.

This distribution of the title shows us that it has nothing whatever to do with "the Church of God"; and that those who belong to it have no relation to the Lord Jesus as "the Son of Man". They stand related to Him as "the Son of God".

The distribution between the four separate Gospels is equally significant. In Matthew it occurs 32 times. Matthew 8:20 is the first occurrence in the New Testament, and it is interesting to contrast it with the last occurrence (Revelation 14:14). In the first He had "not where to lay His head", but in the last that head has on it "a golden crown", and in His hands is seen "a sharp sickle". With this He reaps in judgment the harvest of the earth, for the time to reap it will then have come. This is emphasized by the word "earth" being 6 times repeated in the verses 15,16,18,19.

In Mark it occurs 14 times, which is twice seven; the two of testimony, and the seven of spiritual perfection of Jehovah's Servant.

In Luke it occurs 26 times.

In John it occurs 12 times, the number which stands associated with Divine governmental perfection.

Similarly significant are the first and last occurrences in the Four Gospels respectively : the first being in connection with the humiliation of "the Son of man", and the last with His glorification. Compare Mathew 8:20 with 26:64; Mark 2:10 with 14:62; Luke 5:24 with 24:7; and John 3:13,14 with 13:31.

Thus, while as "the Son of God" He is "the Heir of all things" (Hebrews 1:2), as "the Son of man" He is the Heir to that dominion in the earth which was entrusted to the first man, and forfeited by him.

THE SON OF ABRAHAM (Matthew 1:1).

Expresses the relation of the Son of man, as being heir to the land given to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-21).

THE SON OF DAVID (Matthew 1:1. Luke 1:32, etc.).

Expresses His relationship, as being the Heir to David's throne (2Samuel 7:12-16. Isaiah 11:1. Acts 2:29-32; 13:33-37. Revelation 5:5; 22:16).