CHRIST’S KINGDOM IS FUTURE
VOLUME
II
INTRODUCTION OF THE KING
by
W. E.
Best
Copyright © 1992
W. E. Best
Scripture quotations in this book designated “NASB” are from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, and 1977 by the Lockman Foundation, and are used by permission. Those designated “translation” are by the author and taken from the Greek Text. All others are from the King James Bible.
This book is
distributed by the
W. E. Best Book Missionary Trust
P. O. Box 34904
Houston, Texas 77234-4904 USA
9 John’s Message Of Repentance
11 Joel’s Prophecy Of Baptism In The Spirit And Fire
12 John’s Prophecy Of Baptism In The Spirit And Fire
13 Partial Fulfillment Of The Prophecies Of Joel And John
14 Complete Fulfillment Of The Prophecies Of Joel And John
Partially Fulfilled Prophecies
18 The Kingdom Prepared From The Foundation Of The World
This is Volume II of an extensive series on the subject of Christ’s future Kingdom. Volume I covered the King’s genealogy. Volume II covers the introduction of the King. Future volumes will be released periodically. The complete series will comprehensively cover all aspects of Christ’s future Kingdom as revealed in the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
There is one true and living God, one true concept of man’s origin, one plan of deliverance from sin, one New Testament assembly which Jesus Christ is building, and one future kingdom of Jesus Christ. When the Holy Scriptures are handled correctly by a Christian whose mind is free from deception, he will readily admit that all conflicting views about theology, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology cannot be true. Hence, all the discussion about ecumenism is a sham, because it is a manifestation of deception.
Apart from the grace of the sovereign God, an obedient life to the revealed will of God, and a clear understanding of the whole counsel of God (all the major Biblical principles), one not only will misrepresent many Biblical principles but also will try to conceal his own lack of knowledge and character. Persons who think they cannot be deceived are the most reprehensibly deluded, because the most studious believer knows that no Christian is beyond seduction to some degree.
(See Rom. 16:17,18; I Cor. 3:18; Eph. 5:6; I John 3:7.) Thus, the greater knowledge one has of the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), the less deceit he will experience. Conversely, one who has little knowledge is incapable of withstanding the deluder’s craftiness, and he tries to defend his own fraudulence. No wonder Hosea said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hos. 4:6).
Persons who are denominationally oriented cannot honestly make an objective examination of any Biblical subject. When a Biblical subject is examined from the viewpoints of the Reformed Faith, Baptist Faith, Methodist Faith, etc., those making the perusal have already admitted that they are viewing the subject through denominationally colored glasses. Scripture speaks of “one faith” (Eph. 4:5), and that one faith (system of truth) “has been once for all delivered [paradotheise, aorist passive participle of paradidomi, which means to deliver, entrust, hand down, pass on, or teach] to the saints” (Jude 3—translation). There is nothing superfluous in the sphere of God’s objective truth, because it is God’s gift once for all given to the saints, not to the unregenerate. Therefore, a Biblical subject must be studied not from the viewpoint of some “denominational faith” but by gathering all the Biblical data on the subject under investigation in order to view the subject in the light of the whole of Scripture rather than a few isolated passages.
The following things illustrate that every so-called “denominational faith” is built on a few excessively emphasized isolated passages of Scripture: (1) Those who teach baptismal regeneration have their “pig trail” of Scriptures which they think support their particular institutions (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:27; I Pet. 3:20,21). They are so deceived by their misinterpretation of these verses that they are unable to see that God’s purpose in His eternal covenant of grace, redemption by the blood of Jesus Christ, and Divine quickening (regeneration) by the Holy Spirit must precede water in the Divine order. (2) Others, like those who believe in baptismal regeneration, isolate a few passages which they think teach that baptism in the Holy Spirit is for men today. This neopentecostalism is the result of John Wesley’s experiential theology, which was followed by Charles Finney’s experiential methodology. Although there are only seven references in the New Testament to baptism in the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; I Cor. 12:13), the unsuspecting are led by neopentecostal religiously-zealous people, without Biblical knowledge, to think the Bible is full of the subject of baptism in the Spirit. The seven references mentioned are divided into two sections. The first five point to Pentecost and the last two point backward to what happened at Pentecost. (3) Others take a few verses, like the “kingdom is at hand,” “the kingdom of God is come unto you,” “it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom,” “the kingdom of God is within you,” and “translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Matt. 3:2; 12:28; Luke 12:32; 17:21; Col. 1:13), and try to fit the whole subject of the kingdom into these few texts without explaining them within their own contexts. They deny a future kingdom and spiritualize these verses to mean either no future kingdom, a present realized kingdom, a kingdom in the heart, a present spiritual reign, gospel kingdom, etc. However, one cannot state too emphatically that a literal promise spiritualized is an interpretational hoax or breach of confidence.
Following Paul’s reference to the defection of some from the truth (II Tim. 1:13-18), he personally exhorted Timothy to be strong and to commit the things he had heard from Paul to the charge of faithful men, who shall be capable to teach others also (II Tim. 2:2). Since every Scripture is God-breathed, men who are responsible to instruct God’s sheep can never permit revelation apart from the written word. To do so would be a denial that the Bible is perfect and complete. The man of God is qualified to teach others because he has been permanently equipped (perfect passive participle of exartidzo, which means to furnish perfectly or to be perfectly equipped) (II Tim. 3:17). Having been permanently equipped, he must not do the following things: (1) He must not believe in God’s sovereignty and deny His unconditional covenant which is associated with His eternal purpose. (2) He must not hold to God-breathed Scripture and deny the authenticity of some of them. (3) He must not do wrong in order to have the opportunity of doing right. (4) He must not associate with those who reject the truth of God. (5) He must not be contemptible enough to profess one thing and believe and practice another. (6) He must not desire to embrace some passages but reject others that do not fit his organization. (7) He must not talk about loving the Lord and His word while giving little or no time to either.
People want a one minute answer to a question on Biblical principles that involves hundreds or thousands of hours of examination. A complex question can never be resolved with a simple answer, because every Biblical subject is composed of many interconnected thoughts and parts. This may be illustrated with an interrogator and a physician. The interrogator may ask the physician what causes blood to flow throughout the arteries and veins in the human body. The physician would answer that the heart, a muscular organ, by rhythmic contractions and relaxations keeps the blood circulating throughout body. The answer may seem simple until the interrogator asks a second question, what causes the heart to contract and relax? Many physicians would give a scientific explanation of life; however, the life principle cannot be explained apart from God, the Giver of life. When God is brought into any discussion, the subject becomes so complex that it includes His eternal purpose. Hence, one can understand that most people have a meager (lacking fullness or richness) understanding of Divine principles.
The richness and fullness of Divine principles can never be experientially known apart from a laborious study of God’s gold mine of eternal verities. The following is a brief list of important Biblical principles where understanding is lacking:
FIRST—The difference between the revealed and concealed things of God’s will is known to few “professing believers.” “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29 NASB). These are not two variant wills. That would be dualism (the theory that there are two basic principles), which contradicts the Biblical fact that God has one eternal purpose. God’s will is like a giant globe of which man is capable of seeing only the hemisphere of what God has been pleased to reveal. Man has always quarreled with God over what He has not been pleased to reveal, even though nature itself proves that in the Divine administration secrecy and benevolence coexist. God has not been pleased to reveal the mystery of the new birth in the changed life of one He chose in Christ (Col. 1:27). God has not chosen to divulge the mystery of His breaking off some of the natural branches in order that the Gentiles shall be grafted in among them (Rom. 11:17-26). Our ignorance of many things does not mean we cannot be sure of some things. Beware of the idea that everything unknown to you should be considered the secret things of God when you are too lazy to search the things which have been revealed.
SECOND—God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility are immensely misunderstood. Some basic things are absolutely essential in order that one may have the Biblical understanding of God and man: (1) Man “was” in a state of uprightness as he came from the sovereign God (Eccl. 7:29). Before the fall, man was straight with the will and law of God. God did not create him and then make him upright. He created him upright. Had Adam’s uprightness been essential to his being, he would have lost his being in the fall. (2) Man “is” in a state of depravity because of his sin in Adam. How could Adam, who stood in created uprightness, fall? Do not make the mistake of failing to distinguish between Adam’s state of created uprightness before the fall and his state of uncreated righteousness with which God clothed him subsequent to the fall. A frequently repeated question is, why did God make man capable of falling? Although God made the sun and moon incapable of falling, He did not create upright man incapable of falling because in passing from matter to life He passed from comparative to probable certainty. Since God cannot create God, He created human life with a will which man himself could exercise. In exercising his will to refuse God’s command not to eat the forbidden fruit, man lost his uprightness and thereby became incapable of choosing that which is good. (3) God’s elected ones among men “shall” actually be in a state of grace. All the elect are in grace electively by the Father and redemptively by the Son before they are actually in grace by the Spirit of regeneration. Thus, the “shall” is made sure by election and redemption. All the regenerated will repent, but we must not assume that since we cannot regenerate a person we are free from the responsibility to reach people indiscriminately with the gospel for the conversion of those the sovereign Spirit regenerates.
THIRD—The proper distinction between the present assembly which Jesus Christ is building and the future kingdom is made by few professing Christians. By not making this distinction, many are deceived and are deceiving others, thus robbing them of spiritual blessings. The kingdom was not designed to be the means of reaching the elect of God, but it was intended to be the completion and perfection of God’s eternal purpose concerning the elect. In II Timothy 4:1—"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God, and Jesus Christ, who is going to judge the living and dead at His coming and His kingdom" (translation)—Paul mentioned four solemn events: (1) recognition of Christ as the present searcher of hearts, (2) judgment that is destined to come, (3) Christ’s personal coming or appearance, and (4) Christ’s future kingdom. “Then the king shall say to those on his right hand, come, you who have been blessed of my Father, come into possession of the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world” (Matt. 25:34—translation). We are commanded to eagerly make our calling and election sure (II Pet. 1:10). “For in this way the entrance shall be richly provided for you into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 1:11—translation).
The success of God’s eternal purpose depends on His, not man’s, faithfulness. Man’s unfaithfulness never prevents the fulfillment of what God decreed. Therefore, the unfaithfulness of the first generation Jews did not prohibit the nation of Israel from entering Canaan (Num. 32:13; Josh. 12:1). Furthermore, the Jews’ rejection of Christ during His first advent did not nullify God’s promise that “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom. 11:26). Israel’s past and future are based on God’s election; therefore, election does not rest on Israel’s faithfulness but on God’s faithfulness.
The coming kingdom is for not only the Jews chosen in Christ but also the Gentiles who are likewise chosen in Christ. The chosen Gentiles, being wild by nature, are grafted into the olive tree; and they shall partake of the blessings of the kingdom with the chosen Jews. Nothing in history has satisfied the description of events accompanying Christ’s coming and kingdom, such as destroying Satan’s power, casting him into the bottomless pit, delivering creation from the bondage of corruption, restoring all things, every eye seeing Jesus Christ, and His knowledge covering the earth as the waters cover the sea.
2
The day of Jesus Christ’s birth was the saddest day in history because God’s chosen people, upon whom He had poured His blessings, refused Him: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (John 1:11). The people who studied the prophets rejected the One the prophets predicted, “...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Is. 7:14). Since the Jews, by whom and to whom the Old Testament Scriptures were given (Rom. 3:1,2), were so spiritually blind that they did not recognize the One of whom the Scriptures spoke, the attitude of mankind in general is not difficult to understand. “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (John 1:10). No wonder the so-called Christmas season is a time of debauchery and sinning. David prophesied of the greater David: “I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them. They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards” (Ps. 69:11,12). Quotations from the New Testament establish the relation of this Psalm to the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:34; John 2:17; 15:25; Rom. 15:3).
People may have sight without insight. This is descriptive of many of the Jews to whom Isaiah must declare “...see ye indeed, but perceive not” (Is. 6:9). They exercised the power of observation but had no heart for what they saw. They had eyes, but not for spiritual vision. Everything was surface phenomenon because there was no internal ministry of the Spirit to fill them with holy awe. Surface sight is natural, but the ability “to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge...” is supernatural (Eph. 3:18,19). Hence, the two ways of looking at something are by sight and insight. One may look at the Bible and see nothing more than a book. He might consider it a waste of time and money for men to labor in translating the Hebrew and Greek to record some ancient history. That is sight without insight. Conversely, the person who looks at the Bible and sees it as the revelation of God’s mind to His people, the Book of redemption, wisdom, and hope, has both sight and insight. The eye salve of spiritual illumination is necessary for insight (Rev. 3:18). “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God” (Matt. 5:8). “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things...” (Ps. 119:18).
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ has been more bitterly assailed throughout the ages than any other Bible truth. God anticipated the attacks by the critics and made this great truth foolproof. The virgin birth was the sign God promised the nation of Israel. Some argue that since the Hebrew word translated “virgin” of Isaiah 7:14 means a young woman, it has nothing to do with chastity. This argument is a falsification of fact. The Hebrew word almah means a young woman of marriageable age who was under the care of her parents and was hidden from the public (Gen. 24:43; Song of Sol. 1:3; Is. 7:14). It is the feminine of elem, which means something kept out of sight—a lad. The Septuagint uses parthenos, which means virgin (a female without sex experience) to translate almah. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit directed Matthew (Matt. 1:23) to use the word parthenos to describe the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. The Greek noun parthenos is used 14 times in the New Testament and speaks not only of chaste females but also of chaste males (II Cor. 11:2; Rev. 14:4). What would be a sign in some young woman giving birth to a child? The birth of which Isaiah spoke was one that would startle the world and give evidence of the fulfillment of God’s promise that Jesus Christ would be the “seed of the woman.” Thus, the One who would come in human flesh would derive His human nature from a woman minus man (Gen. 3:15).
The male plays the active, initiatory role in natural, human generation. Therefore, in order for the human nature of Jesus Christ to be the “seed of the woman,” the initiatory role was with the Spirit of God. In this manner, Mary was with child before she and Joseph came together (Matt. 1:18). Mary asked, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:34), “And the angel responding said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall fall upon you; for this reason also the Holy thing being begotten shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35—translation).
Human life has been brought into existence four ways: (1) by God in creation, as in the case of Adam; (2) by man minus woman, as in the case of Eve; (3) by man plus woman, as in the case of procreation; (4) by woman minus man, as in the case of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The latter was the only possible choice for the first advent of Jesus Christ. Woman was elected by God to fulfill the essential, passive role as the one through whom God would act to accomplish His gracious salvation for sinners.
The verb “begat” (egennesen) is used 38 times in Matthew 1:2-16, but there is a change in the inflected form in its use in verse 16: “And Jacob begat [egennesen] Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born [egennethe] Jesus, who is called Christ.” The word egennesen is the aorist active indicative and egennethe is the aorist passive indicative of the root verb gennao. Going from the active to the passive voice proves the virginity of Mary at the time Jesus Christ was born. Further confirmation of Mary’s virginity is found in the words of the angel’s message to Joseph: “...Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt...” (Matt. 2:13).
Joseph was represented as the guardian but not the father of Jesus Christ. Some “supposed” that Joseph was the father of Jesus Christ: “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph...” (Luke 3:23). “As was supposed” is the translation of hos enomidzeto. The verb enomidzeto is the imperfect passive indicative of nomidzo, which means to suppose or assume. The verb nomidzo is used 15 times in the New Testament and has the meaning of supposition rather than actuality (Matt. 5:17; 10:34; 20:10; Luke 2:44; 3:23; Acts 7:25; 8:20; 14:19; 16:13,27; 17:29; 21:29; I Cor. 7:26,36; I Tim. 6:5). The Lord Jesus has neither a father on earth nor a mother in heaven.
Matthew spoke of Joseph as a husband (Matt. 1:19) and Mary as a wife (Matt. 1:20), but this can be accounted for under the Hebrew law of betrothal. The Hebrew law of betrothal constituted a binding legal contract between the persons concerned. Mary was espoused (mnesteutheises, aorist passive participle of mnesteuo, which means to ask in marriage or betroth) to Joseph (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:27; 2:5). Marriage in Israel was a covenant of two parts: (1) a betrothal period and (2) the established marriage state. The betrothal period was so binding that sexual unfaithfulness during that time was the only thing that could break the agreement (Deut. 22:13-21). A divorce could be granted for sexual unfaithfulness during the betrothal period (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Punishment by death of the guilty one rendered the living person either a widow or a widower.
Mary’s joy was accompanied with both trial and submission. The trial came when Gabriel appeared to her and said, “...Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:30,31). Mary’s submission to God is stated in Luke 1:38: “...Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”
The angel appeared to Mary privately, but Mary would have to explain becoming pregnant during her betrothal period. Although she had assurance from the Lord and acquiesced in His word, Mary knew she would be exposed to severe criticism. In the eyes of those who did not understand, her character would be ruined. The religious Jews would demand the death penalty. Her friends would mourn over her. Her husband (one to whom she was espoused—the first part of the two part Jewish marriage contract) could ask for a divorce on the ground of fornication. However, Mary did not try to conceal the fact of her pregnancy. She ran to the fountainhead of law and judgment to report her condition. She went to the wife of the officiating priest, Zacharias (Luke 1:39-56). Mary brought extraordinary blessings with her when she came to Elisabeth. One was on the way who would be called the Son of the Highest.
Mary was representative of that humanity with which Jesus Christ would be identified. In Christ’s earthly life, He never identified Himself with the degradation of fallen mankind, but He identified Himself with that which was of God. All titles and designations which the Lord Jesus assumed indicate His identification with the elect as the subjects of Divine grace. One would blaspheme to say Christ was identified with fallen mankind, except in the atonement.
Mary’s pregnancy was as much a trial to Joseph, her espoused husband, as it was to her. Joseph was a righteous man; therefore, he knew the principles of chastity regarding love and marriage. He would not expose Mary to public ridicule; but as a righteous man, he must defend the principle of marriage fidelity. He was in a difficult position. Knowing the law, Joseph could make one of three choices. He could appeal to Deuteronomy 24:1 and say, “I have found some uncleanness in her.” He could present her case in the light of either Deuteronomy 22:13-24 or Deuteronomy 22:25-29. In Deuteronomy 22:13-24, there are two different instances of fornication, but the penalty for both is death. The first applies to the whore and the second to the virgin who became unfaithful during the betrothal period. In Deuteronomy 22:25-29, the fornicators were put to death. The first applies to the sin which was committed outside the betrothal period and the second to the girl who was the victim of rape.
Joseph chose to follow the course of having found some uncleanness in her and granting her a divorce (Deut. 24:1). The words “put her away” in Matthew 1:19 are the translation of the Greek word apolusai, aorist active infinitive of apoluo, which means to loose, release, or divorce. However, while Joseph was thinking about divorcing Mary, the angel appeared to him and explained her pregnancy. What a glorious victory this was after such severe trial.
The virgin Mary “found with child of the Holy Ghost [Spirit]” (Matt. 1:18) is beyond natural understanding but not beyond apprehension by faith. According to nature, virginity is gone before conception; but Mary’s pregnancy by the Holy Spirit was a sign above nature that was predicted by Isaiah. The God of nature is not bound to the rules of what we call nature; therefore, there is no reason that this truth should seem incredible. As light passes through glass without destroying the glass, the Holy Spirit passed through the virgin Mary without destroying her virginity. This was a supernatural act of the sovereign God, and the power of the Doer is the reason the thing is done. “...God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). “God said” is the Word in action. “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth....For he spake, and it was done...” (Ps. 33:6,9). “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37).
In the sense that Jesus Christ “knew no sin” (II Cor. 5:21), Joseph did not know experientially the sexual function of a husband until after the birth of Jesus Christ. “And he was not knowing her [imperfect active indicative of ginosko] until she gave birth to a son: and he called his name JESUS” (Matt. 1:25—translation). The Greek verb means to know, perceive, or understand. It is used as a euphemism (indirect or mild expression) of sexual relations.
The One born of the virgin Mary was named Jesus, the Savior of His people. To be Savior, He must be Emmanuel—God with us. Emmanuel indicates His vocation, which was to bring God to His people that they might be with Him forever. These names attributed to Jesus Christ indicate what He must be and do to save His people. Emmanuel is the name which portrays the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in one Person. The miracle of the virgin birth assures the elect of the new birth. Jesus Christ is the only accepted “once born” person. He is the unique Person who needed no second birth. Had He been peccable, as many religionists affirm, He would have needed the new birth. Jesus Christ’s conception and death were very much unlike those to whom and for whom He came into the world. The doctrine of the virgin birth places the initiative in the hands of the Godhead. It completely excludes human initiation thus protecting the human nature—the holy thing—from contamination with original sin.
3
Mary was the offspring of a nation chosen by God for a special purpose. Among the blessings that have come from the nation of Israel, the advent of the eternal Son of God through the virgin’s womb was the highest (Rom. 9:4,5). God’s purpose in Mary’s life was to give us Emmanuel—"with us is God" (Matt. 1:23—translation). The manifestation of Jesus Christ in the flesh is the supreme point in the purpose of God.
The virgin Mary, like any other person that God elected to salvation, was a recipient and not a dispenser of grace. Mary acknowledged God as her Savior: “...My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Luke 1:46,47). Although the word “salvation” is used variantly in Scripture—physically as well as spiritually—the rejoicing by Mary was the fruit of spiritual deliverance. She was the recipient of God’s grace, manifested by her exalting the Lord and rejoicing in His salvation. Any person who rejoices in God his Savior is conscious that God has put away
his sins. The jailor rejoiced as soon as he was saved (Acts 16:30-34). Mary’s joy was not superficial. It was not excited by the kindness shown by Elisabeth who said, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:42,43). Mary’s joy was motivated by the Spirit of regeneration, which caused her to acquiesce in God her Savior and the trial that always accompanies salvation. David, from whom Mary descended, expressed his joy: “And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation” (Ps. 35:9). The worship that God requires of us is that of a saved sinner, and He required nothing less of the virgin Mary.
The statement by Mary, “...my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,” of Luke 1:47 is used by the Roman Catholic Church as Mary’s deliverance from every class of spiritual and temporal evil to which mortal man is subjected in his life on earth. They say the word “saviour” is used in a different sense than salvation from the guilt and power of sin. Roman apologists teach that with the exception of Mary, all other human beings contract original sin and therefore need redemption. They say the virgin Mary, in view of her becoming the mother of Jesus Christ, was preserved from contracting original sin. Therefore, according to the apologist, Christ did not purge the soul of Mary from sin by His blood but preserved it clean. Such teaching is made in the face of Paul’s statement, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). A fact is expressed by a point action Greek verb, with the note of time not emphasized, in the statement “for all have sinned.” The second aorist active indicative of hamartano gathers up the whole of mankind into one statement of timelessness. The virgin having brought a “bloody sacrifice” at her purification reveals that she knew her need of cleansing as much as any other woman. “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him [Jesus] to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord...And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:22,24).
There is no doubt that Mary, in her hymn of praise of Luke 1:46-55, counted herself among those the Lord had brought into positional grace. The sacrifice that was brought to the temple was not for Jesus Christ. Those who believe Jesus Christ was peccable should say that it was, but that would be blasphemy. Jesus Christ cannot be connected with the “new creation” (the regenerated), but He is connected with the eternal generation—that which goes back to God.
Although Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ, she must not be deified. Such honor is a totally reprehensible sin. This honor has never been given to a created being. Some state that the worship of the virgin Mary grew up in a world wearied by the violence and passion of masculine strength, injustice, and tyranny; in a world trodden by armies, corrupted by lust, and dominated by ambition. The worship of the virgin was a living protest against war and sensuality. Many believe Mary was the symbol of strength and glory consistent with tenderness and gentleness. While this may have given some reason for going from one social extreme to another, it was turning from one form of evil to another more deadly. To make a god out of a creature, whether man, birds, fourfooted beasts, creeping things, or the virgin Mary, is the worst kind of crime. (See Rom. 1:19-25.) Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ; but no one can say that she is intrinsically the mother of God. God absolutely considered has no mother. Jesus Christ as the God-Man has no father.
Sin is attached to every descendant of Adam, but it is not connected with the God-Man. Mary was poor, yet rich. God was pleased that in connection with Jesus Christ there should be the humblest and smallest sacrifice. (See Lev. 1:14; 12:8.) God brought in His saving grace in a form that was insignificant to the world. Nothing could be greater proof of this than a baby lying in a manger and Christ’s circumcision as a sign of the covenant that prefigured His death. A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons offered in sacrifice to God reveal the humility of grace. Mary had been humbled by being “much graced.”
Mary was selected by God from among all other women to be the mother of Jesus Christ. “And the angel who has come to her, said, Hail, the one having been favored, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28—translation). “Having been favored” is the translation of a perfect passive participle of the verb charitoo, which means to bestow favor on, favor highly, or bless. It is used only in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6, and it speaks of what God does for all the elect. In both instances, it means to be brought into a relationship with God by means of grace. To ask why God singled out Mary is like asking why He chose Israel out from all other nations, Naaman from all other lepers, the widow of Sarepta from all other widows, and Saul of Tarsus from other Pharisees. These were not selected because they were better than others but because God chose to choose them. The reason for God’s choice is wrapped up in the good pleasure of His will, which He is not obligated to reveal.
The church of Rome has translated “highly favored” of Luke 1:28 as full of grace. However, Mary was highly favored but not full of grace. Mary is not a dispenser of grace, but she was the recipient of God’s favor. The perfect passive participle tells us that grace had been permanently bestowed on Mary. Therefore, her present state of favor was due to God’s eternal purpose. Since Mary was chosen by God, she was “endued with grace.” Like Mary who found favor with God (Luke 1:30), God will endear His own to Himself that they shall find favor with Him. God thinks highly of His people. We are His treasure (Ex. 19:5), portion (Deut. 32:9), rest (Ps. 132:14), crown of glory (Is. 62:3), joy (Is. 65:19), inheritance (Eph. 1:18), and habitation (Eph. 2:22). Having chosen His people in Christ, God likewise highly favors us. There is no reason outside the “good pleasure of God’s will” why He has favored those who are His.
Jesus Christ, the incarnate One, is the only One “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). The Greek word for “full” (pleres) means full, filled, abounding in, wholly occupied with, completely under the influence of, complete, or perfect. It is used of Jesus Christ to state that He was “full of the Holy Ghost” (Luke 4:1). Christ was not given the Spirit by measure (John 3:34). The word used with reference to a Christian cannot have the same degree of meaning as when it applies to Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is full of grace because He is the fountain—dispenser—of grace. The Christian is full of grace not in the sense of a fountain but as a vessel. When Christ dispenses grace, the fountain is not less full; but if the vessel could dispense grace, it would be less full each time grace is dispensed. We have received of Christ’s “fullness” (pleromatos, from pleroma, which is the ablative of source) (John 1:16). This speaks of the fullness of God in Christ (Col. 2:9). Christ’s fullness was not for Himself but for us. He did not need grace and truth: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself” (John 5:26). This means that the Father, as head of the mediatorial economy, appointed the Son to hold and exercise independent power of conferring life. This is the characteristic property of Deity, which both Father and Son equally possess. Therefore, grace proceeds from the flowing fountain into the tabernacle of Christ’s flesh. From the tent of His flesh, it flows to the elect at God’s appointed time.
The fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Jesus Christ is the reason the recipients of grace have received of His fullness. Fullness dwelling bodily in Christ signifies those perfections and qualities which fill up the Godhead to absolute perfection. Hence, there is not a portion of God dwelling in Christ, but the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Him. The adverb “bodily” means that which is real and substantial in contrast to types and shadows. Such fullness cannot dwell in peccable human nature, but it dwelt bodily in Christ’s impeccable human nature during His earthly ministry and presently dwells in His glorified bodily state.
Grace is followed by grace from Christ’s fullness—"grace for grace" (John 1:16). One must have grace to feel the need of, ask for, and use grace when it is given. One grace is followed by another. Hence, the grace of justification is followed by the grace of sanctification, and the grace of sanctification is followed by the grace of glorification. The world gives a little that it may give no more. It gives to make one feel obligated, because the spirit of the world is selfish. Conversely, Christ gives that He may continue to give: “...he giveth more [meidzona, accusative singular of megas, which means great, much, or extraordinary] grace...” (James 4:6).
Grace comes by degrees—grace on grace. There is grace at the beginning, but there is more to follow. One grace prepares for the next. The grace of eternal election prepared for the grace of redemption. God’s grace of redemption prepared for the grace of regeneration. His grace of regeneration prepares for the grace of Christian living. Grace expands the heart and gives one the capacity for receiving more grace. Therefore, one is not ready for the grace of glorification until he has been educated by the degrees of grace given in time.
Anyone who affirms that Mary is a co-redemptrix blasphemes. Scripture proves that Jesus Christ gave “...his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28); “...he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27); “...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:12); “...he...put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26); “...this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). The Lord Jesus Christ alone satisfied the demands of the holy law of God. Furthermore, those who affirm that Mary is a mediatrix blaspheme: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5). To say that Mary is a mediatrix is to attribute such attributes as omnipresence and omniscience to her. How can millions gain an audience with Mary at the same time? In contrast, Christ has promised that He will hear all who come to Him. As every recipient of grace knows where the source of grace is, he also knows the One through whom he must go to reach that source. Christ showed by His statement to Mary in John 2:4 that her control of His actions ceased as soon as His public ministry began: “...Woman, what have I to do with thee....”
In Mary’s song of praise, she said, “all generations shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). This, however, does not justify the venerable title, “The Blessed Virgin Mary.” The Greek verb for “call me blessed” (from makaridzo) means “to count as blessed.” Mary was blessed “among” not “above” women (Luke 1:28). She was called “blessed” because of the fruit of her womb. She was saved by faith in Jesus Christ who was that fruit and not because she was the mother of Him who was called Jesus.
4
The incarnation and virgin birth stand or fall together. “Unto us a child is born” has reference to the virgin birth; “unto us a son is given” refers to the incarnation (Is. 9:6). God saves man by identifying with him, and that identification has come through the virgin birth. Incarnation is the teaching that the second Person in the Trinity assumed human form in the Person of Jesus Christ. Virgin birth is the dogma that the conception and birth of Jesus Christ did not impair the virginity of Mary. The importance of this subject revolves around the degree to which the eternal Son of God identified Himself with man in the incarnation. A false conception of the extent of God’s identification with man would render both salvation and its consummation in the kingdom invalid (without foundation).
The distinctive characteristic of the incarnation is the hypostatic union of the Divine and human natures in one Person. “...Great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh...” (I Tim. 3:16). John identified the incarnate Word with the eternal God of creation (John 1:1; Gen. 1:1). The creating speech of the first chapter of John is equivalent with an aspect of the one God who was both with God and was God (John 1:1). An imperfect Greek verb (en, from eimi), which means “to be” or “to exist” is used three times in this verse to signify that Jesus Christ was in the beginning with God, and He was God. He is called the Word (logos), but the Word is not the same as the One with whom He was existing. He who is with God was God. Jesus Christ as logos could not be seen; as flesh, He could not be heard; but the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14) could be seen and heard. The three parts of John 1:1 teach the following things concerning the incarnate Word: (1) When the Word was—in the beginning. Since He existed in the beginning, He was before the beginning. The designation “Word” means He is eternal. (2) Where the Word was—with God. This denotes His personality. He is a Person in the Godhead; therefore, He is deity. (3) Who the Word was—God. He is the ever present I AM. The mystery of the first verse became more understandable to the elect in verse 14. He who was in the beginning was made flesh in time. He who was with God tabernacled among men. He who was God became veiled in human nature.
The Divine Son of God did not assume a human person but a human nature. The Divine Trinity was not modified by the incarnation. Only the second Person experienced a change from a one natured Person to a theanthropic Person having the Divine nature, a human nature, and a human body. Although the Person of Jesus Christ is theanthropic, His nature is not because that would make the infinite finite and the finite infinite. Therefore, the natures in Jesus Christ retained their own properties and attributes which prove the Divine nature was not humanized and the human nature was not deified.
The eternal Son of God did not in His incarnation identify Himself with either man’s unfallen (Adam’s nature before the fall) or fallen (Adam’s nature subsequent to the fall) nature. His human nature was called “the holy thing being begotten” (Luke 1:35—translation) and described as “...God having sent his Son in the likeness of sin of flesh” (Rom. 8:3—translation). Anyone who claims to accept the truth of the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ in the womb of the virgin Mary while at the same time insisting on the human doctrine of peccability (the teaching that Christ had the capability of sinning) advocates that the Holy Spirit produced an unholy thing. Jesus Christ was holy not merely in conduct, but He was absolutely holy as to His human nature. He asked the religious Pharisees, “Who from among you convicts me concerning sin?” (John 8:46—translation). Since a noun rather than a verb is used in the question, it is not who from among you convicts me of “sinning” (sins of nature) but who from among you convicts me of “the nature of sin”? Christians do not demand further documentary evidence of a truth so explicitly stated and so implicitly believed by all who possess God-given faith. Although the Assumer and what He assumed cannot be the same, the holiness of the Assumer demanded that what He assumed be holy.
The Person of Jesus Christ must be distinguished from the person of man: (1) The Person of Christ was uncreated; the person of man was created. Therefore, Jesus Christ did not assume a sinful person any more than God made man deity. (2) Christ’s God-given name is “Jesus,” which means Savior; there are no saviors among men. Only a Divine Person could be called Savior; and yet, He is a Man having been attested by God: “Jesus Christ is the Nazarene, a man having been attested [perfect passive participle of apodeiknumi, which means attest, approve, or show forth] by [apo, ablative of agency] God” (Acts 2:22—translation). (3) Jesus Christ is God’s Man by incarnation; Adam was God’s man by creation. (4) Jesus Christ is God’s Man from heaven; Adam was God’s man from the earth. (5) Jesus Christ is the “only begotten”; therefore, He is the only one of His kind, the unique one. Adam was created, but he was not the only one of his kind. (6) The essential Divine nature in Jesus Christ cannot grow; the God-like nature in Christians grows. (7) Jesus Christ was not born a human person, but man is born a depraved human person. In the incarnation, He assumed a human nature, the weakness of which was not sinful. Hence, Luke was saying in Luke 1:35 that the Person coming through the womb of the virgin was, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, the eternal Son of God now living in a holy tabernacle which He had assumed. Mary experienced the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit to protect the holy nature Christ assumed from her depravity. Unlike man, Christ’s ego always pleased the Father.
All the wonders of the world must take a back seat since the mystery of the incarnation (I Tim. 3:16). The incomprehensible incarnation is not beyond the ability of one with God-given faith to embrace on the basis of the following Biblical facts: (1) Jesus Christ who made woman was made of a woman (Gal. 4:4). (2) Abraham’s birth preceded the birth of Jesus Christ; and yet, Christ existed before Abraham (John 8:56-58). (3) He who was the seed of David according to the flesh was David’s Lord (Matt. 22:43,44; Rom. 1:3,4). (4) He who had a Father in eternity had a mother but no father in time. (5) He who had neither beginning of days nor end of life had a beginning of days and an end of life on earth. (6) He whom the heavens could not contain was contained in the womb of the virgin (Luke 1:35). (7) Jesus Christ was the fruit of the womb but not of the loins (Luke 1:42).
The Mediator between God and man is the middle Person in the Godhead. Therefore, Jesus Christ mediates between the Father, the first Person in the Trinity, and men who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of regeneration, the third Person in the Trinity. While there is only one God, there are in the one Divine essence three distinct Persons. Each Person in the Godhead fulfills a separate department in the economy of human redemption. The second trinitarian Person did not begin at the incarnation, but the theanthropic personality of Jesus Christ did begin when the Father sent Him in the likeness of men. Hence, the name Jesus, which means “Jehovah is Savior,” proves that only a Divine Person can save (Acts 4:12; Mark 2:7); and yet, He is a Man attested by God (Acts 2:22).
The record proceeds from the God-given name of Jesus (Jehovah is Savior) of Matthew 1:21 to Emmanuel (with us is God) of verse 23—the name which the recipients of salvation call Him. Only the elect who have been saved experientially know the meaning of Emmanuel. The uniqueness of Christ’s Person is displayed in His becoming the God-Man. Jesus Christ is equal with the Father, but He is different from the Father because He possesses a human nature. The Son of God was made in the likeness of man, but He was different from man because He possessed a Divine nature. During Christ’s earthly ministry, He spoke as (1) God—"I and my Father are one" (John 10:30); (2) Man—"I thirst" (John 19:28)—God does not thirst; and (3) the God-Man—"Come unto me...I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28).
The prophecy concerning Jesus Christ who shall be called Immanuel is given by Isaiah (Is. 7:14). His prophecy of the incarnation came at a dark time in Israel’s history. The prophet’s unusual commission from the Lord was to preach to a people who would not hear him (Is. 6:9,10). Isaiah’s first experience of his commission was his call to speak to King Ahaz. Ahaz was the son of the good King Jotham. A king may pass on the crown, but he cannot pass on a holy disposition. From the beginning of his reign, Ahaz reversed the policy of his father and threw himself into the arms of the heathen. He did not plunge into idolatry from want of good advice. Good instruction had come to Ahaz from both his father and God’s prophet; but in spite of his instruction, Ahaz abused the house of God by cutting up its vessels and closing its door. He dishonored God’s altar by making himself altars in every corner of Jerusalem, and he turned his back on the God of Israel by sacrificing to the gods of Damascus. To Ahaz, the worship by the chosen Jews was dull and monotonous. The one true God of Israel did not satisfy his depraved mind. Depraved hearts seek false inspiration. Idolaters are zealous in their digging descents to hell. Ahaz was so wicked that he sinned against God’s providence: “...in the time of his distress did he trespass yet more against the LORD...” (II Chron. 28:22).
Isaiah was told to meet Ahaz “at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field” (Is. 7:3). The prophet was instructed to go to the “end” of the aqueduct, to the very place where it poured its waters into Jerusalem. The waters were brought down from the “upper pool.” The “pool” signifies blessing because water is a necessity (John 4:10-14). Water comes from the “upper pool” which symbolizes the source from which the purposed blessings of God are made available to the elect (I Pet. 1:18-20). Spiritual blessings are provided in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, and they are applied by the Holy Spirit. The “end” is the place where the blessings reach the recipients. The blessings do not reach the recipients in either the incarnation or the life of Jesus Christ, which constitute the preparation of the satisfaction which was made at the cross.
“The highway of the fuller’s field” was a path clearly defined (Is. 7:3). It was raised up, and it led upward. It was the highway that ascended—the path that shines more and more to the perfect day (Prov. 4:18). Since the “conduit” was the way by which the water came down, the “highway” is the holy path which leads up to the source of all blessings: “The highway of the upright is to depart from evil...” (Prov. 16:17). It is the way of holiness (Is. 35:8). “The fuller’s field” means the field of Him who washes the garments of the elect. “Garments” are the habits of believers who need cleansing (John 13:10). The life that has come down by the grace of the sovereign God leads upward by the path of practical holiness (II Tim. 2:19).
The spot on which the prophet stood with his son, Shear-jashub (the name means “the remnant shall return”), in his meeting with Ahaz symbolized the One who would be the only “conduit” of blessing from the most high God. Judah was immortal until the fulfillment of the “sign” God would give His people. God’s sign would serve as a token or guarantee of something either present or future. The present tenses in the Hebrew further validate the certainty of the remote future as well as the near future of the prophecy as though it were already accomplished. Since the Hebrew has no “tenses” in the sense of the English language, the two “states” are expressed by the perfect and imperfect verbs. The perfect verb expresses any kind of completed action, and the imperfect verb denotes any incomplete action whether past, present, or future. Therefore, the sign of Isaiah 7:14 extends further than the circumstances of the time of its near historical setting.
Some think the “sign” of Isaiah 7:14 refers exclusively to some event in the time of the prophet, and others say it refers exclusively to Jesus Christ. However, the context proves that it is a prophecy with both near and remote fulfillments. Isaiah was granted a son subsequent to Shear-jashub. When he approached the “prophetess” (by association, a prophet’s wife), she conceived and gave birth to a son who was named Maher-shalal-hash-baz (the name means “haste in seizing the prey”), the near fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Now, the question is asked, how can the word “virgin” apply to Isaiah’s wife in Isaiah 8:3? First, let us seek to find the meaning of the word “virgin” of Isaiah 7:14. The Hebrew word is almah, which means a young woman of marriageable age who remains under the care of her parents hidden from the public (Gen. 24:43; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Is. 7:14). We must not suppose that the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3 was a virgin at the time Maher-shalal-hash-baz was born, but she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was given in Isaiah 7:14. However, there is another problem that must be solved. How could the prophetess of Isaiah 8:3 have been a virgin since Maher-shalal-hash-baz was the second son of Isaiah. The record does not state that she was the mother of Shear-jashub. Therefore, we must assume that the mother of Shear-jashub was dead, and Isaiah had married a young woman who was a virgin at the time of their marriage.
The close connection of the historical record of Isaiah 7-9 proves that the prophecy had reference to not only something in the prophet’s time but also to a higher fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The same Holy Spirit prophesied through Isaiah and Matthew. The great difference between the near and the remote fulfillments is that the mother of Maher-shalal-hash-baz was a virgin when she married Isaiah but not a virgin when her son was born; whereas Mary was virgin before and at the time Jesus Christ was born. Furthermore, deliverance from the threatened invasion during the time of Ahaz and universal deliverance in the remote future were predicted (Is. 8:5-10; 9:1-7). It has been said that most prophecies take their start from historical facts.
In view of the near and remote aspects of a prophecy, there is nothing in Scripture to refute the theory that the Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 was also to be called Maher-shalal-hash-baz of Isaiah 8:3. Thus, he was a symbol or type of the incarnate Christ coming through the womb of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:22, 23) and also of God’s wrath which shall come before the establishment of the kingdom (I Thess. 1:10). All we know about the sons of Isaiah is revealed in the meaning of their names. The prophet said, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion” (Is. 8:18). Therefore, the following prophetical lessons are taught in these names: (1) There was an ascending from Shear-jashub to Immanuel. (2) There was a descending from Immanuel to Maher-shalal-hash-baz. (3) There was another ascending from Maher-shalal-hash-baz to the Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6,7).
Jesus Christ is the Immanuel of Isaiah’s prophecy. The name “Immanuel” is a compound word which denotes the same as theanthropos and has reference to the personal union of the human and the divine natures in Christ. Immanuel means “with us is God.” In this name, the elect have a promise of God’s presence. One might ask, was God not with the Old Testament prophets and patriarchs as well as with us? God was with them but not in the Incarnate Word. He was with them in types and shadows, but God was not with them in the hypostatic union.
“God” is the most important part in the compound word “Immanuel.” Although it is the most important, it is the last part of the word. The two parties involved are God and us, the elect. In order for God and the elect to be brought together, God had to be made like the elect so the elect could be made like God. Therefore, the eternal Son took the form of a servant for the purpose of suffering and dying for His own (Phil. 2:5-8). Christ’s great love for us is expressed in the Ephesian letter: “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour” (Eph. 5:2). How humbling to learn that “with us is God.” God who is above and the elect who are from beneath are brought together through Jesus Christ and His redemptive work: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:13).
There is no “with us” like that in the theanthropic Person. God was with Israel in His sacrifices on the altar of the tabernacle and temple, but God was with all the elect in His sacrifice on the altar of the cross. From that great “with us” all the others follow. The satisfaction of Christ’s death has made His “with us” a reality in His resurrection, ascension, exaltation, life, and death; and it will be a reality to the end of the age and forever (Col. 3:1; Eph. 2:6; II Tim. 4:18; Ps. 23:4; Matt. 28:20; Rev. 21:3).
The name of our Savior is Jesus (the name means “Jehovah is Savior”), and the saved shall call Him Emmanuel (the name means “with us is God”). No greater honor can be received by poor and strengthless sinners than to be included in the name of Emmanuel. Inclusion of the elect in the name is one thing, but their being placed in the forepart of that name is humbling. Surely there is some reason why the order of the name is as it occurs. The names of the twelve tribes of Israel engraved on the stones of the ephod and borne on the shoulders by the high priest as a memorial should tell us something about God’s love for His own (Ex. 28:9-12). The onyx was a precious stone, and its meaning, “to shine with the luster of fire,” is significant. As Aaron presented the names of his people before the Lord, our High Priest presents us before the Father. As God looked down on Aaron and saw the names of His people indelibly engraved in the shining onyx stones, He looked on His only begotten Son and saw His people as part of the name, Emmanuel. As the names of Aaron’s people were borne in the forefront of his priestly garment, the elect are in the forefront of Christ’s name, Emmanuel.
The elect are sheep who have gone astray (Is. 53:6). Jesus Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Those who have gone astray did not seek Christ, but the Savior sought the sheep (Rom. 3:11; John 10:1-16). Separation from God began with man, but man’s reconciliation must begin with God. Apart from the quickening Spirit of God, the elect have no more concern for the Person signified by the sign than King Ahaz had for the sign of the Person of Christ (Is. 7:10-16).
We often hear the question, what is in a name? Although names mean little to people in our generation, proper names in the Bible do have important spiritual connotations; but they have specific signification when they apply to God. The supernatural nature of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ is displayed in some of the many names given to Him in Scripture. There is majesty in the name “God,” independent being in “Jehovah,” Savior in “Jesus,” unction in “Christ,” power and authority in “Lord,” affinity (relationship) in “Emmanuel,” intercession in “Mediator,” help in “Advocate,” and royalty in “King.”
5
Matthew portrayed Jesus Christ as King of the Jews. After interrogating Jesus Christ prior to His crucifixion, Pilate called Him “the King of the Jews” (John 18:39). When he brought Jesus Christ forth to the Jews for their decision to crucify Him, he said to the Jews, “Behold your King” (John 19:14). Furthermore, he wrote the title “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” on the cross (John 19:19). In His answer to Pilate, Jesus Christ told him the kingdom which is His is spiritual, and it is not out of this world’s system (John 18:36). He did not say it will not be “in” the world, but it is not made up “from” this world’s system. In answer to Pilate’s question, “Art thou a king then?” Christ affirmed that He is King: “...Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth...” (John 18:37).
The following things should be observed concerning Christ’s statement to Pilate in John 18:36—(1) He spoke of the kingdom as His. “My kingdom” denotes His covenanted kingdom. (2) His kingdom being not of this world means it is not of humanly devised order or arrangement. (3) If His kingdom were of this world, His servants would be fighting to prevent His crucifixion. Christ’s kingdom is of Divine origin, and its establishment is future. (4) His kingdom is not from this place, signifying that it is not related to this age but to the age to come. (5) As believers are not of this world but remain in the world, Christ’s kingdom is not out of this world’s system but it shall be in the renewed world system. (6) Jesus Christ was born King of the Jews, but we must distinguish the King de jure from the King de facto. (7) Distinction must be made between the kingdom on earth and God’s sovereign rule over the earth. The kingdom belongs to Christ as the Son of Man. Sovereignty is vested in Him as the Son of God. Conclusively, Jesus Christ was born King, and He recognized that He was born King. He confirmed it before He died, and Pilate inscribed that message on the cross.
As soon as the birth of the Lord Jesus was announced, the wise men from the east came to Jerusalem asking, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” (Matt. 2:2). This is the first question in the New Testament, and the first question in the Old Testament is “Where art thou?” (Gen. 3:9). What made these men from the east wise? In the child, they recognized Christ the King. They worshipped Christ, not His mother. They came to give and not to get (Matt. 2:1-12). They knew something about Old Testament prophecy and believed it. Therefore, their wisdom came from the word of God and not from some dream or the figment of someone’s imagination.
The wise men had seen “his star” in the east, and they came to worship Him (Matt. 2:2). The New Testament opens and closes with the star of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ said of Himself that He is “the root [the Divine nature of Jesus Christ] and the offspring [the human nature of Jesus Christ] of David, and the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Hence, Christ’s star is connected with His first and second advents. This is not merely “a star” but “the star” of prophecy: “I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel...” (Num. 24:17).
The wise men evidenced their recognition of the deity of Jesus Christ, the King of the Jews, by bringing the gift of gold; His impeccable life, by bringing the gift of frankincense; and His going to the cross, by bringing the gift of myrrh. Thus, their spiritual wisdom led them to acknowledge that Jesus Christ came the first time to die, not to set up His kingdom. Suffering precedes glory. These men had been made wise by the grace of God.
The Lord Jesus is from the royal line of David. Matthew used the title “King” fourteen times and “son of David” nine times to refer to Christ. He employed the term “kingdom” fifty-five times, thirty-two of which are “kingdom of the heavens.” He also recorded twelve parables to depict the kingdom of the heavens.
The center and goal of all prophecy is the Lord Jesus Christ who was born King of the Jews. Union of the Divine and human natures in the King formed the foundation for a perfect kingdom. The reign of the Son of Man, in accordance with the Davidic covenant, and the union of His people with Himself in that rule alone will satisfy the cravings of a redeemed people. The kingdom will sweep away all the false hopes for a man-made utopia by fallible men. As the perfection of Christ’s human nature cannot be denied, the perfection of His work, which finds its completion in the kingdom, cannot be refuted. The past and present are only preparatory stages for the coming kingdom. This kingdom is the theme of the covenants and prophecy. It is the special honor given to Jesus Christ by the Father (Luke 19:12-15). The kingdom of the world shall become the kingdom of Jesus Christ (Rev. 11:15).
Prophecy is not only a light to Christians in a dark world but also a witness to God when it is fulfilled: “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place...” (II Pet. 1:19). “Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness” (II Pet. 3:17). Having been forewarned by prophecy, Christians are forearmed. Hence, knowing the truth beforehand, we are without excuse for failure to be on guard. A blessing is promised to believers who read, hear, and keep the words of prophecy (Rev. 1:3). As we do not understand everything about food before eating it, we do not have to understand everything about prophecy before we guard and proclaim it. Moreover, the fulfillment of prophecy will become, as it has in the past, a witness to God’s omniscience.
The King of the Jews was born during the reign of King Herod. Herod became disturbed because he feared his own kingdom would be challenged. His response may be illustrated by the Thessalonians’ reaction to Paul’s preaching. The unbelievers caused an uproar in the city “...saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7 NASB). According to Paul’s Epistles to the assembly in Thessalonica, Christ’s second coming as King was prominent in His teaching. Believers look upon the establishment of the kingdom as the overthrow and destruction of the wicked ones and their wickedness. Believers delight not in their ruin but in the clearing of God’s name and glory (II Thess. 1:3-12). Wicked rulers do not want their power challenged: “The kings of the earth set themselves, and their rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Ps. 2:2,3). These words were partially fulfilled by Herod when the eternal Son was born King. There was another King, Jesus Christ. Herod had no problem summoning help from the priests and scribes to learn where the young child was located. Jesus Christ is hated and despised by rulers with the sword, religionists with their human traditions, and the multitudes with their lawless violence. They all have one thing in common. They care not what stars occupy the religious heavens of the world, provided “His Star” is not among them. They will tolerate any kind of religious leader other than the holy, sovereign, and impeccable Christ of Christianity. All this will have its final consummation in the last days before the Prince of Peace establishes His kingdom.
Matthew recorded four historic prophecies in the second chapter. Each had some particular burden: (1) Micah’s burden was authority. He denounced the false rulers of his time; but by prophecy, he saw the true Ruler (Matt. 2:6). (2) Hosea’s burden was the unfaithfulness of Israel (Matt. 2:15). (3) Jeremiah’s burden was the judgment of a sinful nation (Matt. 2:18). (4) The last one refers to no particular prophet, but it is a summary of several prophets (Matt. 2:23).
Micah prophesied Divine wrath and Divine promise. He was contemporary with Isaiah and prophesied in the days of Jothan, Ahaz, and in the early years of Hezekiah, kings of Judah. The three divisions of his prophecy began with the call to “hear” (Micah 1:2; 3:1; 6:1). Micah’s name means “who is like God.” Being like God, the prophet denounced the sins of the rulers and gave a picture of Christ’s kingdom with Christ’s reign of universal peace. He is noted for his rapid transitions from threats to promises. He went from pronouncing the destruction of Jerusalem and captivity in Babylon to prophesying the reign of the Ruler in Israel (Micah 3:12; 4:7; 5:2). “All the chief priests and scribes” (Matt. 2:4) gathered together by Herod proclaimed Micah’s prophecy that Christ, the King of the Jews, should be born in Bethlehem of Judah: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).
Bethlehem (the name means “house of bread”) was the birthplace of David, and it would be the birthplace of David’s Lord. Jesus Christ is David’s son as well as his Lord: “...I am the root and the offspring of David...” (Rev. 22:16). Although the Son of God came into the world centuries after the death of David, He was before David. In the days of the kingdom’s peril under King Saul, God gave Israel King David. He came from Bethlehem. Bethlehem has become a household name to all Christians. It is first mentioned in Genesis 35:19: “And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem.” It is believed the city was built by Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem, and called after both “Bethlehem Ephratah” in the prophecy by Micah. David is described as “the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem-judah” (I Sam. 17:12). It was also the scene of Ruth’s romance with Boaz. Boaz purchased Ruth the Moabitess to be his wife: “And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem” (Ruth 4:11).
The one who would come forth from Bethlehem is the same one “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). This is a description of Christ’s eternal generation. Here we have the prophecy of the unprecedented King of the Jews of Matthew 2:2. Micah spoke of a twofold going forth: (1) “from Bethlehem” and (2) “from everlasting.” This twofold going forth also speaks of the two natures of the King of the Jews—as God from eternity and as the God-Man from Bethlehem. Hence, the Person who came from Bethlehem Ephratah is more than man; He is the theanthropic Person. The King came forth from little Bethlehem. His royalty is seen in the Divine nature and not in earthly circumstances.
The shepherd life of David depicted Jesus Christ as Shepherd: “He [God] chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds: From following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance” (Ps. 78:70-71). The shepherd life of David was his needed preparation for kingship over Israel. He would rule them for their good, defend them from their enemies, and conduct the affairs of the kingdom in the spirit of a shepherd. Micah saw the new King coming out of little Bethlehem in the implied character of a shepherd: “And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth” (Micah 5:4). The Lord Jesus is called the “good shepherd,” “the great shepherd,” and the “chief shepherd” (John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; I Pet. 5:4). He came to the sheepfold of Israel as “the good shepherd.” The prophet said, “He shall stand,” and “the good shepherd” stood against all the false shepherds who came into the sheepfold of Israel. The strength in which He stood as the “good shepherd” was His own intrinsic power. The “feeding” applies to all the duties of a shepherd, even to giving His life for His sheep. This is what Christ did “in the majesty of His God.” The Lord Jesus was majestic even in His humiliation. The prophet rejoiced to know that God passed by the pride of the city and brought forth the King from a place that was “little among the thousands of Judah.” The advent of Christ would not be according to human expectations. As the “chief shepherd,” He will consummate His work (Micah 5:5-15). Israel will yet be shepherded by her Messiah (Is. 11; 35; Dan. 7; 9; Joel 2; 3; Zech. 9; 14; Mal. 4).
The burden of Hosea’s prophecy was Israel’s unfaithfulness. Hosea was contemporary with Amos, Isaiah, and Micah. His message was principally to Israel (the ten tribes of the northern kingdom). The subject matter of his message was spiritual adultery. The prophet learned the meaning of unfaithfulness through bitter experience. When he had suffered the worst agony that can come to the human heart—the infidelity of one’s mate—God said to him in effect, “Now, you know how I feel about Israel.”
Hosea’s prophecy “WHEN Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt” (Hos. 11:1) was quoted by Matthew: “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Matt. 2:15). The angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph and told him to go into Egypt with the young child and Mary. Joseph fled into Egypt with his family that Hosea 11:1 might be fulfilled.
God loved Israel in Egypt and called Israel “his son” (Ex. 4:22). The Israelites were a highly favored people. God loved, redeemed, educated, guided, and fed them. Pharaoh treated the Israelites cruelly, but God heard their cry and came down to help them. Hosea looked forward as well as backward. He saw that his words had fuller meaning than could be fulfilled by the children of Israel. His prophecy carried a promise that had not been fulfilled. Like Abraham, he saw Christ’s day afar off and was glad. This may seem strange in the light of the context of the prophecy, but the Holy Spirit made no mistake when He inspired Matthew to quote this passage.
The King of the Jews identified Himself with Israel. Israel and Christ are both loved, but Christ is loved by nature and Israel by grace. Both were called “my son,” and both were called out of Egypt. However, Israel was in Egypt because of sin; but Jesus Christ, who knew no sin and in whom is no sin, was there to be identified with the sinners He would deliver. He is the King of the Jews. Before His death, Christ was asked, “Art thou a king then?” He replied, “...To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world...” (John 18:37). Christ’s kingship is of such character that it can be neither invalidated by His arrest nor destroyed by His death. The King was untouchable by the wicked designs of men until the time He voluntarily laid down His life for the sheep (John 10:11,15,17,18).
God chose Jeremiah, a tenderhearted man, to deliver a stern message of judgment. He was contemporary with Ezekiel and ministered to the Jews in Jerusalem while Ezekiel ministered among the captives in Babylon. Matthew quoted Jeremiah 31:15 at the conclusion of the section describing the slaying of the children in Bethlehem: “In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not” (Matt. 2:18). The context of Jeremiah 31:15 gives a prophecy of the Israelites being driven from their land, but there was hope in their future restoration (Jer. 31:15-17). Jeremiah’s prophecy describes the massacre of the tribulation through which Israel shall pass before her final deliverance. Herod’s murder of all the male children from two years old and under is only a foretaste of that future tribulation. The foundation of Israel’s hope of the future is God’s unconditional covenant.
The twofold application of prophecy is common in Scripture. The baptism in the Spirit at Pentecost was the pledge, or foretaste, of the future fulfillment in the kingdom (Joel 2, Acts 2). Therefore, Bethlehem’s mourning over the murdered children was as though Rachel were repeating her lamentation. Rachel, however, represents the remnant that shall be saved by the coming Messiah.
Few attempts have been made to explain and little has been said about the slaughter of the children. Some have said it seems strange that, only a few days before, men had assembled around the newborn King, and now the whole province of Herod was strewn with the bodies of slaughtered male children from two years old and under. The question has been asked, why were innocent children slaughtered? The following answers have been suggested: The lot of the children was a blessed one because they were “safe”—not saved. The Father was plucking His innocent flowers. They died for Christ in order that He might die for them. Had they not died for Him, Christ would have been slain by Herod; and all of Adam’s descendants would have spent eternity in hell.
There is no Scripture to justify the idea of children being either “innocent” or “safe.” The word “innocent” may be used relatively to speak of someone free from a specific crime or wrong, but it cannot be used in the sense of being without sin. Indiscriminate universal death of persons of all ages proves that all persons come into the world sinful—in a state of depravity (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12). What about children destroyed in the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the night of the passover, etc.? Furthermore, the idea of children being “safe” until they reach the age of accountability is ridiculous. What is the difference between “safe” and “saved” if all who die in infancy go to heaven? There is no Scripture which says they go to heaven, not even the one recording the death of David’s son by Bathsheba: “...I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (II Sam. 12:23). “I shall go to him” means that David shall go to the “house appointed for all living” (Job 30:23), and “he shall not return to me” means he shall not return to me in the present, mortal state.
If children are “safe”—saved—until they reach the age of accountability, they lose their safeness and must be regenerated. What is the difference between being safe and being regenerated? Did God give “safe” children grace in Christ before the world began? If so, did they lose it at the age of accountability? (See II Tim. 1:9.) The hypothetical statement, “If the children had not died, Christ would have died by the hands of Herod and all of Adam’s race would have spent eternity in hell,” contradicts the eternal purpose of God. This is not the first instance recorded in Scripture where children were slaughtered. (See Ezek. 9.)
In the last division of Matthew 2, Joseph was told to take the young child and His mother into the land of Israel because those who sought His life were dead. The statement “He shall be called a Nazarene” (Matt. 2:23) does not refer to any particular prophet; but it was the message of the prophets in general. “Nazarene” was a term of contempt: “...Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth...” (John 1:46; 7:52). A person is not to be judged by the place from which he comes or by the work he has been doing. Jesus Christ came from Nazareth, and He was the son of a carpenter. The whole of Galilee was a despised region. The Galileans were accused of being rude, illiterate, and devoid of culture. Hence, the appellation “Nazarene” describes the lowliness of the majestic Person of Jesus Christ who was born King of the Jews. Not only is Jesus Christ the Lamb that was slain but He shall also be the King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, on David’s throne.
6
The two forerunners of the King are John the Baptist and Elijah. John the Baptist has already come and prepared the way for the King’s first advent. Elijah shall come and prepare the way for His second advent. Scripture clearly indicates that John the Baptist was not Elijah, although he came in the spirit and power of Elijah. There are similarities between Elijah and John, especially Elijah’s encounter with Ahab and Jezebel and John’s confrontation with Herod and Herodias.
The necessity of understanding information conveyed in prophecy is emphasized by prophecy distinguishing the first forerunner from the second. Isaiah predicted the coming of the first forerunner: “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Is. 40:3). Malachi foretold the second forerunner: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” (Mal. 4:5,6). The ministry of both Elijah and John is confined to Israel. John’s coming was during Israel’s wilderness condition, and Elijah’s coming will precede the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Since John did not restore all things, one must come who will.
The idea of a postponed kingdom is refuted by the prediction of two forerunners. Could a postponed kingdom mean that if the Jews had received the so-called offered kingdom at Christ’s first advent, John would have fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi 4:5-6? God would have sent Elijah instead of John had He purposed to establish the kingdom at His first advent. Both forerunners were in God’s purpose. Furthermore, the omniscient and omnipotent God is not so unsure of the outcome of His purpose that He gave a contingency. John was chosen by God to be a voice shouting in the desert “And saying, you repent: for the kingdom of the heavens has approached” (Matt. 3:2—translation). Repentance is a prerequisite to entering or seeing the kingdom (John 3:3-7). Prior to the dreadful day of the Lord, John preached the baptism of repentance to qualify the elect for the kingdom which will be established. John and Christ were killed at Christ’s first advent. A martyred forerunner was an appropriate foreground for the King who would be crucified. On the other hand, Elijah’s mission to restore all things will precede the dreadful day of the Lord (Matt. 17:11). This is the reason his name is associated with the mount of transfiguration scene which is a foretaste of the coming kingdom (Matt. 17:1-13).
The suggestion of a postponed kingdom casts reflection on the sovereign God who has infinite knowledge. Persons who think the destinies of men lie within themselves must be subjected to the overruling God who is higher than the highest. The sovereign God turns the heart of man wherever He wishes (Prov. 21:1). Do men think God’s heart is in their hands to do with as they desire? Rising above human reason is a necessity for man, but it is impossible apart from grace which God alone can give. God who has infinite knowledge needs no backup plan. His understanding is infinite (Ps. 147:5). God sees future, present, and past all at once because He is “in one mind” (Job 23:13). Therefore, God’s purpose is fixed and settled. God foresaw no chance of its failure at either Christ’s first or second advent. The events at Christ’s second coming are as certain as those at His first coming. Nothing in God’s providence is by accident. Man alone needs a contingent plan, but he cannot be sure the backup will be successful. No matter how many backups a spacecraft may have, its destruction is sure when God wills it.
A Scriptural view of the kingdom is impossible without a Biblical concept of prophecy. The importance of studying prophecy related to Christ’s first advent reveals the necessity of acquiring knowledge of prophecies associated with His second advent. Prophetical Scriptures are part of the word of God entrusted to us. The book of Revelation is basically prophetical. It pronounces blessing on those who read, hear, and keep the words of its prophecy (Rev. 1:3).
The prophecy of Isaiah has two major divisions which correspond with the Old and New Testaments. The first thirty-nine of the sixty-six chapters agree with the thirty-nine Old Testament books; whereas the last twenty-seven are analogous to the twenty-seven New Testament books. The whole prophetical section is a record of the development of evil and the final overthrow of the wicked, who shall be excluded from the messianic kingdom.
Both Isaiah’s last major division and the Gospel according to Matthew begin with the introduction of John the Baptist, the first forerunner of the King (Is. 40:3; Matt. 3:1-3). All four of the Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—quoted from Isaiah 40:3. Both Isaiah and Revelation conclude with the establishment of the kingdom and the reign of Jesus Christ.
With the close of Malachi’s predictions, there was a silence for 400 years. No voice of a prophet was heard until John the Baptist came forth shouting in the desert. He stood in a unique place in human history. As the God-ordained clasp of two Testaments, John was content to be a “voice” declaring the object of all prophecy, the end of all sacrifices, and the hope of all the elect. Thus, the true Shepherd who stood at the door waiting to be admitted was introduced by John. He bowed low as Jesus of Nazareth passed through the door; and he shouted, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).
John was the bright and shining light who must fade into insignificance in the light of Him who is the Light of the world (John 5:35; 8:12). He who spent thirty years preparing for one year of service became a martyr soon after he introduced Jesus Christ. Some think they can prepare in one year for thirty years of service. They can, if they are nothing more than the servants of men. However, God’s servants cannot be too careful about the way they handle the Holy Scriptures. They are not like the schoolteacher who applied for a teaching position and stated in her interview that she had twenty years of experience. The principal asked her if she had twenty years of experience or one year of experience that had been repeated twenty times. Continuous study is necessary for growth.
John the Baptist became a terror to Israel. His preaching was like a succession of lightning flashes. His proclamation of the kingdom passed into a denunciation of his hearers, warning them of wrath about to come (Matt. 3:3,7). He called his congregation of Pharisees and Sadducees an offspring of snakes and demanded fruit from them to prove their repentance (Matt. 3:8).
That congregation of hypocrites to whom John preached boasted of their religious heritage as the seed of Abraham. Therefore, John demanded that they prove their spiritual descendance from Abraham. Similarly, people today boast of certain religious ties. Since John was independent of the offspring of snakes, he boldly renounced them. Every man of God should be so independent of religious connections that he will speak the word of God uncompromisingly. At the same time, he should be cognizant that he must give account before God. Hierarchies of religious denominations often support religionists while seeking to hinder men of God from boldly proclaiming the word of God. John the Baptist stated his belief in the absolute sovereignty of God: “...God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matt. 3:9). John’s message was declared in order that those persons to whom God granted repentance might be qualified for entrance into the kingdom of the heavens. He warned his listeners that “already the ax is being laid at the root of the trees” (Matt. 3:10—translation). Every person who does not bring forth fruit as proof of his repentance shall be judged and cast into the fire, regardless of his ancestry.
John’s imprisonment and death prove that instead of a present kingdom, suffering is the portion that God’s providence has assigned to every Christian. The forerunner was rejected and slain (Matt. 14:1-12). Likewise, the apostle Paul was stoned, and men supposing him to be dead dragged him out of the city. However, he was not dead. He continued proclaiming the gospel, confirming the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and reminding them that they must go through much tribulation to enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:19-22). Their entrance into the kingdom was future. If the assembly of Christ and the kingdom were synonymous, Christians would be entering that which they have already entered. Christians are subjects of the assembly Christ is building and heirs of the kingdom.
John’s confrontation with Herod resulted in his martyrdom. A martyred forerunner was an appropriate foreground for the crucified, not reigning, King. The state put John to death, and the religious leaders by their traditions perverted the word of God preached by John. The brevity of John’s ministry proved Israel’s unfitness for the kingdom.
John the Baptist was appointed by God to preach in the desert of Judea to prepare for the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. He prepared the people for the Messiah and introduced Him to Israel. John’s commission was stated in the angel’s words to Zacharias prior to John’s conception: “And he shall go before him [Jesus Christ] in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn [epistrephai, aorist active infinitive of epistrepho, which means to turn back, to cause to return, or to bring back] the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready [hetoimasai, aorist active infinitive of hetoimadzo, which means to prepare or make ready] a people prepared [kateskeuasmenon, perfect passive participle of kataskeuadzo, which means having been prepared] for the Lord” (Luke 1:17). John the Baptist was commissioned to prepare those already prepared by the Lord. He could prepare no one who had not been previously prepared by God. The preparation of one’s heart by God prior to his preparation by the gospel emphasizes the distinction between regeneration and conversion.
Paul’s record of his regeneration and his testimony of his conversion experience (Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-10; 26:12-18) illustrates that John the Baptist’s preaching was not to regenerate anyone, and his baptizing those who repented and brought forth fruits of their repentance was not for the purpose of regenerating anyone. In Paul’s third account of his having been quickened by God and his conversion experience, he stated that God had sent him to the Gentiles: “To open their eyes, and to turn [epistrephai, aorist active infinitive of epistrepho, which means to turn back, to cause to return, or to bring back] them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18). Paul, like John the Baptist, was sent to prepare a people God had already prepared for Himself. God’s man cannot help people to be ready who have not first been made ready by God. This is the same principle set forth in Jeremiah 31:18-19 concerning Ephraim: “...turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented....”
Isaiah prophesied, “The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Is. 40:3). Matthew referred to the first forerunner of Jesus Christ as a “voice” without saying anything about the announcement of his birth by an angel, his priestly descent, or the thirty years of preparation for such a brief ministry (Matt. 3:3). When John the Baptist was asked who he was, “He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias” (John 1:23).
The prophet of the Highest asserted that he was only a voice. The voice of the messenger was for a fleeting second, but the content of his message was eternal. The truth that has been voiced and not the voice of a highly trained orator should be remembered. The “voice” for God is a witness of Christ, not a witness of nature, reason, philosophy, science, politics, or religion. A mere voice is insufficient for religionists, but it is enough for the elect of God. The “voice” declared, “...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). True humility is manifested in John’s statement, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.”
John the Baptist had nothing about his person to attract anyone. His raiment of camel’s hair, leather girdle, and diet of locusts and wild honey manifested the austerity of his life. He was a self-disciplined man who lived in solitude. He received in solitude the spiritual strength that would enable his candle to shine more brightly when he came forth to preach. Solitude has its place in the Christian life, but one must not remain in seclusion. It is a good school, but the world is the arena in which the good fight of faith must be fought. Privacy is best for communion with God, but society is where the message learned in seclusion with God is to be proclaimed.
John the Baptist, like Elijah, was prepared for his ministry while alone with God. Elijah had a solitary grandeur that was all his own. He was called a Tishbite, but no one knows the location of Tishbe. The prophet’s earnestness in preaching was demonstrated in his message on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18). The preparation for that preaching must not be overlooked. The Lord told Elijah to hide himself by the brook Cherith that was before Jordan (I Kings 17:3). The person who takes a high place before men must take a low place before God. Time in secret must exceed time in public. After preparation in solitude with God, the Lord told the prophet to “Go, shew thyself unto Ahab...” (I Kings 18:1). John the Baptist is spoken of as going before Jesus Christ “in the spirit and power of Elias” (Luke 1:17). Matthew gave no information about the previous history of John the Baptist. He assumed the Jews to whom he wrote understood from the prophecies of Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 who he was. The early life of John was as obscure as the Christ of whom he was a forerunner.
Elijah went forth to meet King Ahab. On his way, he came in contact with Obadiah, Ahab’s governor, who was a good man employed by the wicked king. Obadiah did not extend the Christian cordiality that might be expected. The governor’s greeting was one of cold formality. This should not be surprising because Obadiah’s mission was in keeping with the place from which he had come. Serving Ahab was doubtless not his correct ministry. Some today would consider it another form of ministry. His service to Ahab was not the result of solitude with God. Although Elijah was providentially forced to own Ahab as his king, he would not own him as his master. Subjection to “the powers that be” and cooperating with them differ (Rom. 13:1-7). The missions of Elijah and Obadiah were different. Obadiah was sent by Ahab to find grass for the livestock, but Elijah was sent by God to call the nation of Israel back to God.
The nation of Israel had been without a voice for God for four hundred years when John the Baptist came. Hence, the spiritual condition of Israel was so degenerated that the prophet of the Highest preached in the desert of Judea. The Pharisees and Sadducees continued with the old forms of Judaism, but there was no spiritual power in their forms. John the Baptist, like the one in whose spirit and power he had come, was sent forth to call some out of Israel back to God by “saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of the heavens has approached” (Matt. 3:2—translation).
Elijah challenged the prophets of Baal and of the groves who feasted at the table of Jezebel. The altars of Baal and Jehovah cannot stand side by side. False religion is always attractive to the natural man, whether it is the false religion of Elijah’s day or of the twentieth century. Many want to worship God and Baal simultaneously. However, things that are contradictory cannot be reconciled. Free grace can never be reconciled with free will. If man’s will is sovereign, God is not. Since God alone is sovereign, free will is heretical. When the Pharisees and Sadducees, the greatest enemies of Messiah, came to John’s baptism, he identified them with vipers, the most dangerous of serpents: “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come” (Matt. 3:7). Both the message of John the Baptist during the transitional period and the message of the apostles after the transitional period refute the belief by religious liberals that the spirit of the New Testament differs from that of the Old Testament. The statements by the Psalmist are as true today as the day they were penned: “...thou hatest all workers of iniquity” (Ps. 5:5). “Oh let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end.... God is angry with the wicked every day” (Ps. 7:9,11).
The appearance of Elijah in the transfiguration scene does not invalidate his future coming as Christ’s forerunner (Matt. 17:1-13). Christ had reason for likening John the Baptist to Elijah. He called John “Elias” because he had come “in the spirit and power of Elias.” Three passages of Scripture that mention John the Baptist connected with Elijah should be considered in their chronological order: (1) Gabriel did not say that John the Baptist shall be Elijah himself but “...he shall go before him [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elias...” (Luke 1:17). (2) During the time of John’s ministry, the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask John who he was. When asked if he was Elijah, John replied, “I am not” (John 1:21). (3) After the death of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ gave the disciples a preview on the mount of transfiguration of the coming kingdom. The transfiguration scene was both a reality and a figure of Christ’s future advent. Elijah, who had been seen, disappeared. This brought the question, “...Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come” (Matt. 17:10)? The scribes held that Elijah would be a forerunner of the Messiah before “...the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Mal. 4:5). The disciples, on the other hand, saw Elijah coming subsequent to Jesus Christ. Elijah’s departure from them caused the disciples to question the scribes. The answer to their question is found in the fact that the scribes taught correctly. Christ answered the disciples, “...Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:11-13).
John the Baptist was called Elijah by Jesus Christ because he had qualities like Elijah. The Lord had sent Gabriel to announce that he would come “...in the spirit and power of Elias.” Elijah had turned the hearts of some to the Lord and had preached repentance and judgment in difficult and dark days. Conditions were the same when John preached repentance and pointed out the Lamb of God, who was rejected by the nation of Israel. John’s message was not destined to “restore all things,” but Elijah was destined to be successful: “...Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things” (Matt. 17:11). The nation of Israel will not receive the message of repentance, which is prerequisite to the kingdom, until she is made willing in the day of God’s power (Ps. 110:3). That day will not come until the coming of Elijah, the forerunner of Christ’s second advent. John came in the spirit and power of Elijah but was rejected and killed. Christ was also rejected and killed. Elijah shall also be killed (Rev. 11). However, Christ will not be rejected by Israel when He comes the second time. The nation will repent and receive the Lord Jesus as her Messiah: “All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin’s gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king’s winepresses. And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited” (Zech. 14:10,11).
John the Baptist was not Elijah. When asked if he was Elijah, John said, “I am not” (John 1:21). His reply does not contradict Matthew 11:11-14 or Matthew 17:1-13. The word “come” in Matthew 17:11—"...Elias truly shall first come..."—is erchetai, a futuristic present middle indicative of the Greek verb erchomai, which means to come. The verb is connected with the words “and shall restore all things [kai apokatastesei panta]” (translation). The verb apokatastesei is a future active indicative of apokathistemi, which means to restore a thing to its former place or state. Hence, the futuristic present verb indicates a future ministry of Elijah. Following the futuristic present verb for “come,” Christ used a predictive future verb for “restore.”
Christ’s statement—"But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them" (Matt. 17:12)—does not contradict what had been said. What about Elijah having already come? The verb “come” (elthen) is the aorist active indicative of erchomai, which is used culminatively. The culminative use of the aorist emphasizes the end of the action. The other aorist verbs “knew him not,” “done unto him,” and “whatsoever they listed” are used constatively. The constative action is viewed in its entirety. All the verbs point to the past when Christ spoke to the disciples who were unfamiliar with the double fulfillment of prophecy. In verse 13, they understood that Christ was speaking about John the Baptist who had fulfilled his role in prophecy.
All things were not restored by John the Baptist, but they will be restored by one who shall come. Therefore, the prophecy of Malachi 4:5-6 has not been fulfilled, and this proves John the Baptist was not Elijah. At the time Christ spoke these words to His disciples, John the Baptist had already come and died a martyr’s death. Elijah is called “the prophet” (I Kings 18:36), but John is designated “more than a prophet” (Matt. 11:9). Therefore, John is not Elijah. Christ talked about John the Baptist and Elijah in Matthew 17:11-13 when He referred to Elijah. One had already come, but the other was yet to come. If John the Baptist was Elijah, one is forced to believe in reincarnation (the soul coming back in another body).
7
Jesus Christ came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized by John the Baptist. But on His arrival, John tried to hinder Him, because he saw nothing in Jesus Christ to necessitate His receiving the baptism of repentance: “Then Jesus comes from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by [hupo, ablative of agency] him. But he was trying to hinder Him, saying, I have need to be baptized by you, and you are coming to me?” (Matt. 3:13,14—translation). John was administering the baptism of repentance, demanding that the recipients first prove by their lives that they had repented of their sins. He realized that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not fit that category. He had no sin of which to repent. Therefore, John tried to prevent Christ’s being baptized with his baptism.
There is no Biblical substantiation for the opinion that Christ was confessing the sins of Israel in the same sense that Moses and Daniel did (Ex. 32; Dan. 9). Others say He was setting an example for us. Some who believe Christ was setting an example for us actually link Jesus Christ with the baptism of repentance. That concept certainly will not stand the test of Scripture.
It can be said that Jesus Christ was baptized for the following reasons:
1. He was baptized to manifest His dying to natural relationships, such as to parents and vocation. Jesus Christ was more than the Son of Mary. He is the eternal Son of God; therefore, He died to His relationship with Mary. He had been a carpenter, but He also died to that relationship.
2. Baptism, Christ’s first public act in the flesh at the beginning of His public ministry, announced His last act in His flesh and blood.
3. Christ’s baptism verified for John that Christ was the Son of God (John 1:32-34). John was progressively learning about Jesus Christ.
4. Christ’s baptism authenticated John’s message concerning the One coming.
5. His baptism distinguished John’s relationship and Jesus Christ’s relationship to sinners. John had been sent from God with the message of repentance, but Jesus Christ had been sent by God the Father to bring salvation (Luke 19:10).
John and Jesus Christ are distinguished as witnesses. John was a light sent from God to bear witness concerning the Light in order that all may believe through Jesus Christ. John was not that Light (John 1:6-9). The Lord Jesus included John’s name as a witness in John 5:32-37 when He said His own works and the Father bear witness of Him. John was a burning and shining lamp. He was a flickering light in which the Pharisees were willing to rejoice for an hour (John 5:35). Since John was a flickering lamp, he was willing to decrease in order that Christ might increase (John 3:30). As a star loses its brightness in the light of the rising sun, the light John was giving would diminish in the rising of the light of Jesus Christ who is the Light of the world. Christ’s statement that the Pharisees were willing to rejoice in John’s light for an hour explains the light shining in the darkness and men unable to comprehend the Light. No one can suppress the Light sent from God. God’s light will accomplish the purpose for which He has sent it. In contrast to John, the flickering light, Jesus Christ, the Light of the world, “became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we observed His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14—translation).
The missions of John and Christ are distinct. In answer to John’s trying to prevent His being baptized, Jesus Christ said to him, “permit it at the present time: For thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he permitted him. And having been immersed, Jesus went up immediately from the water: and, behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God coming down as a dove, and coming upon Him. And behold a voice from the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I take delight” (Matt. 3:15-17—translation). John could not assist Jesus Christ in fulfilling all righteousness. Furthermore, John waited until sinners came to him and proved by their lifestyle that they had repented before he would baptize them. But Jesus Christ in His incarnation came down where sinners are.
The adverb “thus” (houtos) can refer either to what precedes it, as in Matthew 5:19 and 6:30, or to what follows it, as in Matthew 3:15, Matthew 6:9, and Acts 7:6. This adverb is used the following ways in Scripture: like, in this way, thus, so, like this, or in like manner. Therefore, its meaning must be considered in the light of its context. In Matthew 3:15, it points to something that would follow Christ’s baptism.
The pronoun “us” (hemin) in Matthew 3:15 is plural. Does it apply to John, to future sinners—as taught by those who believe in baptismal regeneration, or to the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Grammatically, it could refer to Jesus Christ and John, called the Baptizer. But theologically, it cannot refer to John. Man cannot assist God in the fulfillment of righteousness. Righteousness was fulfilled by One—Jesus Christ—not two—John and Christ. By the obedience of Jesus Christ, not the obedience of Christ and another, men are made righteous (Rom. 5:16-21). The righteousness which Christ fulfilled was accomplished not at His baptism but at Calvary. His baptism was only a picture of that which He would accomplish at the close of His public ministry. Therefore, it was righteousness which could not be accomplished by Christ and John or by Christ and sinners in their act of obedience to baptism. But it was accomplished by the Persons in the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Jesus Christ, in whom dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9), gave Himself for us (Gal. 1:4). He was crucified for us (Gal. 2:20). He offered one sacrifice forever (Heb. 10:10-14). Jesus Christ offered Himself through the Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14). The Father laid on Jesus Christ all the sins of the elect (Is. 53:6).
How could the Lord Jesus Christ, the impeccable Savior, submit to John’s baptism? It has been said that Christ saw His sheep struggling under judgment. Christ saw the ones the Father had given to Him in the covenant of redemption struggling in their depravity, and He must go in to rescue them. He must become identified with them, taking their place in judgment in order that they might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Hence, Christ’s baptism was a portrayal of that which would take place at Calvary. The One who knew no sin was made a sin offering for the elect, and this was symbolized in His baptism.
Jesus Christ was born under the law which He Himself gave (Gal. 4:4). He had already submitted to circumcision (Luke 2:21) and had been to the temple at the age of twelve (Luke 2:46). Hence, in nothing was He distinguished from the other children of His people until He was publicly identified in His baptism. His relationship with the other children of His people was not one of personal sinfulness, but it involved humiliation under the law. Christ’s baptism in Jordan is a portrayal of His being released from the judgment which He would bear at Calvary for all the elect. God laid on Him the iniquities of all of those the Father gave to the Son.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (II Cor. 5:21). What is the meaning of this verse? (1) It cannot be sin in the abstract, or sin as such. Since He did not have any sins of His own, His being made sin must be in some figurative sense. (2) It cannot be that He was a sinner, because He knew no sin. (3) It cannot be that He was guilty, because that would have disqualified Him as the Savior. (4) It does mean He was a sin offering, or God treated Him as though He were a sinner, because our sins were judicially imputed to Him. Therefore, He in reality bore those sins in His own body on the tree (I Pet. 2:24). The word for sin, even in Hebrew, can mean sin or sin offering. Jesus Christ was a sin offering. He did not become a sinner, but He was judicially treated as a sinner. The sins were not His. They were legally ours, and He paid for them at Calvary.
Where did Christ’s identification with sin take place? It occurred the same place where He fulfilled all righteousness. It did not come to pass at His baptism but at Calvary when He suffered on behalf of those the Father gave to Him. Peter confirmed that Jesus Christ fulfilled all righteousness at Calvary when he spoke to the Jews about their having killed the Prince of life. Peter called the Jews’ attention to the lame man who had been healed (Acts 3:12). He told them the power with which he had been healed was that of the holy and righteous One they had denied and killed (Acts 3:13-16). He added, “And now, brethren, I have known that you acted on the basis of ignorance, as also your rulers. But the things, which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He thus fulfilled” (Acts 3:17,18—translation). Thus, Peter proved that righteousness was fulfilled only figuratively at Christ’s baptism. It was actually fulfilled at Calvary. In His baptism, Jesus Christ identified Himself with the work He came to accomplish at His first advent. His first act in His public ministry foretold His last on account of His elect.