COGR – Not “That” Jesus
February 10, 2024
Good day! I am writing a series of short reviews of abbreviated COGR video clips. I am looking for input and comments. If it makes it easier, I will gladly supply a Word document so comments can be put in the document, and we can communicate directly. My email address is lattema@icloud.com. I hope you find these reviews helpful.
Transcript:
“And so what we’re doing, again, according to the revelation, it’s a revelation of Jesus Christ throughout this time period.
And again, I’m gonna… some of these things we’ve said, we’re saying again. It’s not the revelation of the second person of the Trinity that sits in the heaven on the right hand of the throne of God, but it’s a revelation of Jesus in the flesh, Jesus in the church.
Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. You are… You are the body of Christ.”
Commentary:
This is a mix of old and new material. Ray revisits Revelation 1:1, where he treats the genitive Jesus Christ as an objective genitive when it is more likely to be a subjective genitive. That is, Ray is opting for the less popular understanding that the revelation is about Jesus. Most commentators understand it is a revelation possessed by Jesus which he is sharing. He then tells us that the revelation is not the second person of the Trinity but is a revelation of Jesus in the flesh, Jesus in the church. This goes back to John’s vision of the golden candlestick, which Ray says showed Jesus merged or mingled with the candlesticks, inseparable. This error resulted from Ray misinterpreting the meaning of a word to get the desired result. We again encounter the same problem that exists with Ray’s explanation. If Jesus is on the throne as the second person of the trinity, who is the Jesus that is now part of the church? It appears we have one too many Jesus’. The new material that we see is the use of two verses that are supposed to demonstrate support for Ray’s position.
Genesis 2:23 “The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” This verse speaks of a man’s relationship to a woman. Even here, it is not a claim to identity. Man has not become a woman. In some sense, there is a relationship, a bond that exists. But the man does not infuse the woman with his being. The verse does not make Ray’s point.
1 Co 12:27: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. The verse is a metaphorical statement or figurative language. It uses the metaphor of a body to illustrate the interconnectedness and unity of believers within the Christian community, with each individual playing a unique role, much like different body parts contribute to the functioning of the whole. Jesus is the head and we are the body. We do not become Jesus.
Overall, Ray has misrepresented or misunderstood the Trinity, altered the nature of Jesus, and misused two verses. It is not a good look for a church leader.
Leave a comment