So Jones did say it, but is it really the context of the passage?
Or did he skip around to come to his own conclusions and give a nice spiritual message quite apart from what the text was actually saying?


Let's just stick to the text itself:

2:11 Wherefore remember, that you (the Ephesians) being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, (what was the problem? they were Gentiles) who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (who was excluding them? The Circumcision in the flesh which refers to the Jewish nation who saw this ritual as their key to acceptance with God)
2:12 That at that time you (Who is he addressing again? He was addressing the Ephesian Gentiles) were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, (what were they aliens from? The commonwealth of Israel) and strangers from the covenants of promise, (who held the covenants of promise? The descendants of Abraham did) having no hope, and without God in the world: (without those covenants of promise what hope did they have?)
2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (Who was Paul addressing when he started this message? The Ephesian Gentiles)
2:14 For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (now is it correct to change the subject? The whole prelude was concerning the Gentiles and the commonwealth of Israel and how the "circumsion" refused to accept the "uncircumsion" into the covenant of promise. There was a huge wall that fenced in the Jews and kept the Gentles out -- Paul fights to pull down this wall all through his writings)
2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; (what was abolished? there was a whole ream of laws and regulations that kept the Jews away from the Gentiles. It was like a fence protecting the Jews from invasion from paganism, but Christ broke down that wall not to expose Jews to paganism but to share His gift of life with all.) for to make in himself of the two one new man, [so] making peace;
2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God (if this is talking about Christ's Divinity and humanity, why would Christ have to reconcile both to God?) in one body the church is the body, Christ is the head of the bodyby the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
2:17 And came and preached peace to you (Gentiles) which were afar off, and to them that were nigh (Jews) (He didn't come to preach to Christ's divine and human nature but to both Jews and Gentiles). 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. (Through Christ both Jews and Gentiles have access to God's throne of grace! "BOTH" is not speaking of Christ's human and divine natures, but of the Jews and the Gentiles.)
3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Let's consider the text to answer this question:



The answer to the question is given in verse 18. Christ became flesh in order to reveal God, whom no one has seen. That is, Christ became flesh to make the Father visible. (I hadn't thought of this before. Thanks for asking this question!)

instead of breaking this up and responding to each part i am going to colorcode.
yes, had Christ sinned death would have claimed Him. in what way did He conquer death? both the righteous as well as the lost will be resurrected, called by Christ Himself, so would that mean that both sets of people had conquered death? will we have conquered death? moses came out of the grave but he did not conquer death. Christ did.

this would seem to be a very valid point except that we are dealing with the concept of God here, something incomprehensible to us, so we stumble trying to be able to understand it. we cant. the Son of God and man became one, "blended", "combined". how that can be is incomprehensible.

how the Son of God, just as much deity as the Father is, could not sin, but yet as man could sin is incomprehensible, also. but we know that in order to save us somehow the two natures were combined, only someone Who was above the law and owed nothing to it could die for us. yet man had to live the law also, from birth through eternity, something we could not do. hence the God-man, two natures united, something only God could accomplish, which is beyond our comprehension, to state it mildly.

we know that Jesus was really dead but how His divinity did not die we cannot understand.

"one hovering above it", i guess would be a picture someone could come up with, but im not sure how.


im not sure how this plays into anything unless were dealing with trinitarianism somewhere here and i missed it.
the bible makes clear that their "Oneness" is in their love for each other and us, in their character.

that is a possiblity. this comes to mind, tho, Deu 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

as well as,
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

but this we can understand:
2Co 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

The verb "to take" in v. 18 is the same greek number 2983 as v. 17. So I don't understand what you mean.

Let me paraphrase John 10:17,18 this way:
17. "therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I [receive it again]G2983.
18. No man taketh it from me, because I lay down of myself. I have power(authority to lay it down, or have permission to lay down my life if I choose), so to choose to(instead of I have power) [receive it] G2983 again (instead of "might take it" again).

To make it simple, we all have a choice to lay down our life -- to let self die --just as Christ had the choice to lay down self daily and His life at the cross. We know if we die daily(self), Christ will live in us, just as His Father lived in Him. We do this daily and some of us maybe will be required to lay our life down facing persecution or just by serving Him in a ministering life. Just like Christ layed down His life for us all and knowing he would receive it back again. Christ made this principle very plain to all of us

Christ of course. Christ is subject to the Father and the Father raised Him. We are subject to Christ and Christ will raise us. There's order in the universe.

Yes, He became flesh to reveal God, He is God MANIFEST.
That has been His mission from the time the Godhead created intellegent beings. To mingle with the Created and show them God!

His name "Michael the archangel" is His name which shows Him at the head of the angelic hosts.

His name "Jesus the Christ or anointed One" is His name which shows Him at the head of the human race.

The truth that the Word, which is with God, and is God, "goes forth" to "manifest God" to His Created intelligent Beings, does not reduce what He is -- but rather shows us His work and how He adapts Himself to the Created beings in order to manifest God to them.

But he also became flesh so He could die. Because divinity cannot die, He took on flesh, mortality, so He could die.

sorry if this has caused confusion.
The above was questioning, it's a "troubling" concept, not presenting my position.
In further posts I made it clear this is not what I believe.
I do not believe there were two "persons" living in one body. That one died, the other stayed alive.
But ONE PERSON -- the Word that became flesh. The Word that held both attributes within Himself --divine and human in one person.
Nor do I believe 1/2 of Christ was alive hovering over His dead body -- which sounds rather spiritist to me. I believe He was dead. Totally 100% unconscious.

Phil. 2 says He emptied Himself, took on the form of a servant, and being found in the form of a servant humbled himself to the death of the cross.

My statement which is closer to what I believe is:
"Somehow, the life within Christ, would have to be an unconsious power while He was dead, sort of like the life in a seed that has to be planted before it springs to life.
Thus when the Father called, the Father would have sparked the "life" slumbering in Christ, enabling Christ to take up Life again."

Sorry for the confusion.

Wow, Teresa: Amen!

that absolutely floored me when i read that on the smyrna
site. that is a contradiction in terms if i ever heard it.

so, yes, 1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

but
1Ti 6:14 .... until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:...
1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

and we do receive eternal life,
Rom 2:7 to those, indeed, who in continuance of a good work, do seek glory, and honour, and incorruptibility--life age-during;

but to receive "original, unborrowed, underived life" is a pure contradiction. if we receive eternal life, it is not inherent in us as it is in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. when, and because, we receive it it cannot be original-it came from God, it will be borrowed from God, it will be derived from God.

all the unfallen beings have unoriginal, borrowed, and derived, life from God.

and that didnt touch on His deity being given to the human race....

Well, I agree with your assessment.

But I'll say no more.

Thanks, Dedication, for helping me out here, as I didn't intend to cause any confusion: nor did I say what it appears you thought I said.


I agree with your studies wholeheartedly.

I wasn't saying divinity is a person, or humanity a person. I'm Colin and I'm a human being: my identity isn't my nature.

Christ's deity isn't his identity, it's just his nature: he is the Son of God, only begotten. He became flesh, for reasons of Jn 1 and Phil 2! He called himself the Son of man, and died as the Son of God in human flesh. His humanity is blended with his divinity - God alone knows how! - but his identities kept their individuality, didn't they?

His divine life he laid aside and it is our eternal life given by him to us: thus he fully died, the Son of God and man.

His identity as Michael the Archangel is another study, also for Tom, who hasn't answered my question to him about why God's Son is Michael, is head of the angels. I don't think it was just to mingle and present God to them.

Otherwise, your study on the Creator of the universe dying on the cross in human form, and being raised forever more in human form, is great.