Studies In The Person And Work Of Christ

Extensive studies over many years by the author in the Greek language, the original language of the New Testament Scriptures, have resulted in refinements in the interpretation of certain verses of Scripture contained in this book — nothing that would alter the basic concept of the book. These studies are reflected in later books/pamphlets, such as CHRIST COULD NOT BE TEMPTED and HONORING THE TRUE GOD.

(Back to Contents)

INTRODUCTION

Much controversy exists over the Person of Jesus Christ. Christians affirm the truth that Jesus Christ could not sin. Common teaching among religionists is that Christ assumed man’s imperfect nature which bears the consequences of sin and tendencies to temptation. This concept is expressed in the following words: “Jesus had the capacity to sin, but did not do so. If it were impossible for Jesus to do otherwise, His temptations were not real. He played a part which was a sham.” This is a clear view of the heresy that is being taught.

The point of view that Christ “could” sin is designated by the idea of “peccability,” and the fact that He “could not” sin is expressed by the term “impeccability.” To suggest the capability or possibility of sinning would disqualify Christ as Savior, for a peccable christ would mean a peccable god.

Holiness is far more than the absence of sin; it is positive virtue. The advocates of peccability say, “Christ could have sinned, but He did not.” To say that He could have sinned is to deny positive holiness. To deny positive holiness, therefore, is to deny the holy character of God. Holiness is positive virtue which has neither room for nor interest in sin. The Lord Jesus could not sin because the days of His flesh meant only addition of experience, not variation of character. Holy humanity was united to Deity in one indivisible Person — the impeccable Christ. Jesus Christ cannot have more holiness because He is perfectly holy; He cannot have less holiness because He is unchangingly holy.

The favorite saying of some is, “Let us not say that Christ could not sin, but that He did not.” This may satisfy those who merely profess Christianity, but not the possessors of Jesus Christ. The answer should not be left to those who profess Christ, but to those who know Him as Savior and Lord. Satan attacks the Rock of the assembly, the Person of the Son of God (Matt. 16:18). His work, testimony, and death would be absolutely nothing to us if He were not God. Christ’s Person supports His sacrifice; in that same sense, He is our Rock. Peter’s confession embraced the Person of Christ, even while he was ignorant of His sacrifice. His confession was evidenced by the declaration, “...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). His ignorance concerning Christ’s sacrifice was demonstrated by the utterance, “...Be it [suffering] far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee” (Matt. 16:22). Just to say that Christ “did not” sin is to deny the positive virtue of holiness.

There is no aspect of the impeccable Savior’s Person that is not mysterious, but Christian ministers are the “stewards of the mysteries of God” (I Cor. 4:1). They must keep these “mysteries” from being corrupted by human philosophy and vain deceit (Col. 2:8). A false opinion concerning the Person of Christ cannot be condemned without showing the tragic end to which it leads. Christians cannot sit in silence while the blessed Person of Christ is being attacked. It has been said that a false system has for accomplice whoever spares it by silence. The guardianship of the glory of the Person of Christ forms the chief part of the Christian witness. This is emphasized by John, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (I John 2:23).

A serious mistake is made in the study of Christology when the Person of Christ is made a faint object while His work is made the great subject. The work of God— election, regeneration, calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification—is crowned by making believers objects of grace. If Christians are objects of Christ’s love and grace, should not the Person of Christ be the object of the saint’s love and adoration? The Person of Christ, not religion, is the supreme requisite. Christ makes new creatures of us; therefore, He is changed from the center to the circumference. “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree...” (I Peter 2:24). “That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death” (Phil. 3:10). “My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord” (Ps. 104:34). “...greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (I John 4:4). As Christians love His fellowship by the Spirit now, so they hope for His coming in Person. “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord” (I Thess. 4:17). Formalities and superficialities cannot take the place of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Christians believe the perfection of Christ’s humanity. Holy humanity was united to Deity in one indivisible Person—the impeccable Christ. The Son of God was as unstained in the virgin’s womb as He was in the Father’s bosom. He was as unspotted in the midst of the world’s corruption as when He was the Father’s delight before the creation of the world. He remained the Word when He became incarnate; therefore, He was unchanged in His Person. His Deity may be contemplated apart from His human nature because it existed from eternity. But His human nature is inseparable from Deity and cannot be thus contemplated. Christ has not forsaken His human nature since He ascended to heaven. It was neither defiled nor made Divine. Even though His human nature is exalted above the glory of angels and men, it is still a creature and must not be adored apart from Deity. Christ’s taking of the human nature into union with the Divine nature involved no subtraction from the fullness of His Person. It was a nature prepared for Him and was in perfect harmony with His Divine nature.

One of the most startling expressions in all the Bible is Luke 1:35: “And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Human nature in all its stages is a wonderful thing in our universe of things. Human nature, however, is but a thing until a far more wonderful thing than itself is identified with it. The uniting of a nature to a person results in a human being. When the “Holy Thing” was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary, the Holy Thing, henceforth and forever, became united to the Son of God. If God is so holy that He cannot look upon sin (Hab. 1:13), then the Holy Thing He assumed was as holy as He is holy. He experienced at the incarnation a birth-holiness that we shall not experience until the glorification of our bodies. What is the true nature of His glorified body? How can we know since it does not yet appear what we ourselves shall be (I John 3:2)! But this one thing we know—His human nature began where we shall end.

The two natures of Christ are so united that if His human nature were able to sin, God could have sinned. In the mysterious constitution of Christ’s Person, there are two distinct natures: the Divine, which is eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent; the human, which had a beginning, was finite, impotent, and earth bound. Jesus Christ was both infinite and finite— unlimited and limited— but never impeccable and peccable.

Those who believe in peccability offer the following objections: “Would not the uniting of two natures in one person imply that when one nature sins the other also sins? What about Christ who was ‘asleep on a pillow’ (Mark 4:38) —or ‘Christ died for our sins’ (I Cor. 15:3)?” Are we to assert from these passages that God was asleep or that God died? To say that God was asleep or that God died is to deny the Scripture— “Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps. 121:4), and “...Who [God] only hath immortality...” (I Tim. 6:15, 16). What is the answer to this seeming dilemma? It is erroneous to say that God was asleep or that God died. It is equally false to claim that He who was asleep and died was not God. Both assertions would be false. The Scriptures teach that He who is the Son did assume flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death and bring life and immortality (II Tim. 1:10) to the elect. Immortality alone can go through death because it is not subject to death as we are. The Person who died and slept was truly God; although, the Divine nature neither died nor slept any more than the soul of man dies or sleeps when breath leaves his body.

The Christian has no question concerning the kind of nature Jesus Christ assumed in the incarnation. If He had a nature that was capable of sinning, then the following would be true:

His mother was stained with the sin of unchastity.
He was the seed of the man and not the seed of the woman.
He was an illegitimate child.
He was a natural person; therefore, He was not the God-Man.
He was reduced to the level of a natural man.
He was not the second Person of the Trinity.

(1) If He is not the second Person of the Godhead, then we are without the manifestation of God.

(2) If there is no second Person of the Godhead, then there is no Trinity.

(3) If there is no second Person, then there is no Mediator.

(4) If there is no Mediator, then there is no Savior.

(5) If He is no Mediator, then Immortality has not been brought to light; and we stand on the edge of darkness, silence, and the grave.

He was not free from depravity and actual sin.
He would have had to pray, “Father forgive us,” rather than, “Father forgive them” (Luke 23:34).
He had a depraved nature, and having a depraved nature could never have made the distinction, “...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father: and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17).
He was peccable on earth; and if He were peccable on earth, He must have experienced some kind of conversion in His nature before He ascended to heaven.

The doctrine of impeccability is questioned on the point of whether an impeccable Person can be tempted. The questioner says, “If it were impossible for Jesus to do otherwise, his temptations were not real. He played the part of a sham.” The answer to this foolish statement is simple to the spiritually enlightened mind. It is possible for a chihuahua dog to attack a lion, but it is impossible for the little dog to conquer the lion. God, absolutely considered, cannot be tempted (James 1:13). But Jesus Christ, as man, was tempted; temptability does not imply susceptibility. The incarnate Christ was attacked by Satan, but there was not the inner struggle of the two natures as in the case of Paul (Rom. 7:15-25). If the human nature had been contaminated by original sin as in mankind, then there would have been the possibility or capability of the incarnate Christ sinning. But such possibility is completely removed by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the conception, birth, and life of His human nature.

Although no human being is beyond the possibility of temptation, he may, by sovereign grace, be beyond the possibility of yielding. But this could never be said of our Savior, for He never had a fallen nature with which to struggle. His human will was always subservient to the Divine will and could not act independently (John 8:28-30; I Cor. 11:3). All Christians agree that the Divine will of God cannot sin. Since this quality was the controlling factor in Christ’s human will, the capability of sinning was eliminated. The complete subordination of Christ’s will to the will of the Father removes any idea of conflict between the Divine and human natures of Christ. The conclusion, therefore, is not that Christ, the impeccable Savior, played the part of a hypocrite, but those who question His impeccability are hypocrites because they pose as Christians, but deny the very foundation of Christianity. They seek to rob Christ of His impeccable nature and reduce Him to someone like themselves (Ps. 50:21).

Jesus Christ, the impeccable Savior, is the infinite sacrifice for sin. A peccable person is a finite person who could never make satisfaction to the infinite God, who was injured by sin. Jesus Christ is the impeccable Christ and therefore infinite. Infinite retribution cannot be borne by a finite creature, but Jesus Christ was able to bear the infinite punishment for sin. The infinity of Christ’s Person abundantly compensates for the eternity of retribution, for sin is against the infinite God and therefore merits infinite punishment.

We must understand the terms “infinite” and “finite” in order to properly understand the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. When we say that God is infinite, the meaning is that He is unlimited, immeasurable, and incomprehensible. “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite” (Ps. 147:5). “Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding” (Is. 40:28). “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out” (Rom. 11:33). He is not bounded by space; consequently, He is everywhere. He is not limited by time; so He is eternal. He is an independent Being; so all creatures depend on Him— He depends on none. God who is without bounds restricts everything. He set bounds to the sea (Job 38:10, 11), the nation’s habitation (Gen. 10:32), the heavens (Ps. 148:6), redemption (John 6:37), and wickedness (Rev. 17:17). God is infinite in all His attributes; therefore, we must learn to admire and adore where we cannot fathom. “Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven: what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7-9). In heaven we shall see God clearly but not fully, for He is infinite. The revelation will be according to the size of our finite vessel, not according to the infinity of His nature. Man is bounded, limited, measurable, and searchable because he is finite. God is unbounded, unlimited, immeasurable, and unsearchable because He is infinite.

When enlightened by the Spirit of God, one will see how Jesus Christ— the infinite Son of God and the finite son of Mary— gives to us the one God-Man, the Mediator (Phil. 2:5-9; Acts 13:38; I Tim. 2:5). The title “Son of Man” could not be correctly applied, except prophetically (Dan. 7:13), until the incarnation. The expressions, “The Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13) and “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” (John 6:62), are not inconsistent with this view. His personality was not less connected with the human than with the Divine nature. We do not mix the natures nor divide the Person. The Son of Man ascended where He was before as the Eternal Son of God. He is there now not only as the Son of God but as the Son of Man. The human nature enables Him to come in contact with the sinner; His Divine Nature gives merit to His work in the human nature.

Since it was man who sinned, justice requires that man give the satisfaction. It was imperative that the Savior of man must, in the nature of man, satisfy the justice and wrath of God. “If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?...” (I Sam. 2:25). Thus, the Scripture states that if one finite person sins against another finite person, the finite judge shall judge him; but if a finite person sins against the infinite God, who shall entreat for him? Finite man cannot entreat for the sinner, but the infinite Savior can entreat for him. The doctrine of peccability stabs the very heart of Christ and His redemptive work.

(Back to Contents)

THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD

The subject of Christ’s eternal Sonship yields in importance to none. If our thoughts on this subject are not God’s thoughts, we will not only dishonor the Lord but will bring damnation to our own souls. The thoughts of God expressed in the Scriptures must be understood in their obvious significance.

Matthew records the first reference in the New Testament of the title “Son of God” (Matt. 16:16). Was Peter’s confession due to the fact that Christ’s mother was a virgin? This confession could be attested by “flesh and blood” on the recognized principles of evidence, but the Lord declared that His eternal Sonship was a revelation from heaven. “...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God” (I John 4:15).

We recognize that, in some sense, God may be described by the recognized principles of evidence (Ps. 19:1-11; Rom. 1:19, 20), but the elect will not rest in descriptions of God. They demand a revelation of Him which must be given by Himself. This is sufficient proof that the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, is a Divine Person. The revelation is not that He is a Son, or the Son born of a virgin, or the Son raised from the dead, though all these are truths concerning Him; it is a revelation of Divine Sonship. God is not known as the Father if the Son in the glory of the Godhead is not acknowledged. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also” (I John 2:22, 23).

Eternal Fatherhood demands eternal Sonship. Those who deny the Deity of Christ argue, “If the Father begat the Son, He who was begotten had a beginning of existence. So there was a time when the Son did not exist; therefore, the begotten is inferior to the Begetter.” There is priority in the Godhead but not superiority. If by inferiority is meant inferiority of relation, we admit the position that the Begotten is inferior to the Begetter. This is what Christ meant when He said, “...my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). The Sender is greater than the Sent; therefore, the word “greater” has reference to authority and not character. As Mediator in His state of humiliation, Christ was the Father’s subordinate and servant. If by inferiority is meant inferiority of character, such a notion should be opposed as the greatest heresy ever devised by the depraved heart of man.

Filiation implies not only equality but identity of nature. The begotten must share the nature of his begetter. Where there is no communication of nature, there is no real generation. Our Savior said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). This is in the neuter which refers to one substance, not in the masculine which would refer to one person. Thus, the relation of Christ to the Father is an unanswerable argument for Christ’s Deity. Among men the action of the future father is necessary to the production of his offspring, but this is a consequence of human nature. Among Spiritual Beings, however, paternity and filiation are independent of all human necessity. The Father cannot in any sense exist before the Son in eternal generation. The relation of Father and Son is correlative and simultaneous. It is foolish to think of the eternal generation of the Son of God in terms of the human. The terms Father and Son, as used in the Godhead, imply co-equality in nature and co-eternality. Christ, therefore, never refers to the Father as His Lord. He says “My Father” (His by eternal generation) and “your Father” (ours by regeneration) in order to make the proper distinction between Deity and humanity.

The original Greek uses two words for son— one refers to dignity of position and the other to relationship by birth. The second is never used with reference to our Lord Jesus in His relationship to the Father. The Greek word translated “Son” in the expressions “Son of God” and “Son of Man” is not always used to designate the thought of being born of God or born of man, as many false teachers assume. The word often carries the thought of being identified with. The same word is used in the following passages: “children of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:38); “children of the bridechamber” (Mark 2:19); “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17); “children of this world” (Luke 16:8); “children of disobedience” (Eph. 2:2); “children of day, of light” (I Thess. 5:5).

The Son of God is the only Begotten of the Father (John 1:18). This “only begotten Son” is the same Person who is designated the “Word” (John 1:1); and of whom it is said, He “was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). Those who object to the Deity of Christ say, “If you have been ‘begotten’ then you are not ‘eternal.’ He cannot at the same time be the eternal Son and the begotten Son.” Person begets person and like begets like in human generation, but the Father begat the Son in eternal generation.

There is similarity between begetting and speaking. It can be said that they both bring forth. When we speak, we do so either within ourselves or without to others. Hebrews 1:1-6 portrays the glory of the Son of God in eternity and in time. “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person...” declares His pre-existent and eternal being. “Being made so much better than the angels...when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world...” affirms His manhood in time. He always had Sonship as God, but by inheritance He obtained it as Man. Thus, He who was eternally with the Father was brought forth in time (II Tim. 1:9, 10).

“Only begotten” is a term which denotes endearment (John 1:18; 3:16). Isaac was not Abraham’s only begotten (Heb. 11:17), for Ishmael was begotten by him too. Isaac was his darling. Why was Isaac his darling? The reason was he was the only begotten of Abraham by his wife Sarah. His other children were called “sons of the concubines” (Gen. 25:6). As Isaac was Abraham’s darling, so Christ is God’s darling. “Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling [Hebrew—my only one] from the lions” (Ps. 35:17). Thus Christ, as the only begotten of the Father, was the sole representative of the Being and Character of the One who sent Him. He is of the same essence with the Father, yet He is a distinct Person from the Father. As the inherent splendor of the sun cannot exist without the inherent splendor from which it proceeds, so the inherent Essence of God cannot live without its manifested Essence, nor the manifested Essence without the inherent Essence from whom He came.

The Son of God is the firstborn Son. Firstborn is used to express the sovereignty, dignity, and prerogative of heirship of Christ’s position among many brethren (Heb. 2:11-17). This term is used twice in the New Testament without referring to Christ (Heb. 11:28; 12:23), and seven times as His title. An examination of these references will reveal a threefold use in the New Testament: (1) Before all creation (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15) —eternal; (2) Firstborn of Mary (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7; Heb. 1:6) —His pre-incarnate and incarnate Person; (3) Firstborn of resurrection (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5) —first to be raised from the dead in resurrection life.

The Son of God is both the Word and Son. These two metaphors supplement and protect each other. To think of Christ merely as the Word might suggest an impersonal faculty in God. On the other hand, to think of Him only as the Son might limit us to the conception of a created being. When the two terms are combined, there is no room for either an impersonal faculty or a created being. The substance of John 1:1-18 is that He who is the logos was with God and was God. In John 1:1, three great facts are presented: (1) When the Word was— “in the beginning”; (2) Where the Word was— “with God”; and (3) Who the Word was— “God.”

FIRST— “In the beginning was the Word.” The sun, moon, and stars “were made” in the beginning, but the Word “was” in the beginning. Christ’s existence and theirs differ radically. Had John said “before” the beginning, he would have presented eternity under the laws of time. This would have been as serious as to describe the infinite under the laws of the finite— as difficult as trying to measure the waters of the ocean by one drop in the kitchen sink. But John ascends, in spirit, far above time and space to the peaceful calm where God dwells.

SECOND— “The Word was with God.” This expression implies that He had an existence distinct from the Father. He was with Him. For example, He that is with me is not me. The Word was at home in the bosom of the Father; therefore, He never felt as an inferior with a superior but as a loving Son with a loving Father (Prov. 8:22-31). God took unspeakable delight in His Word, for in Him He beheld His own express image (Heb. 1:3).

THIRD— “The Word was God.” Sonship is, in truth, the great bulwark of the Deity of Christ. From eternity, the Son of God sustained to the Father a relationship involving identity of nature. If in the Godhead, there is no filiation, neither is there paternity; if there is not a Divine and eternal Son, neither is there a Divine and eternal Father. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father...” (I John 2:23). “...He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him” (John 5:23).

The eternity of our election depends on eternal Sonship (Eph. 1:4; II Tim. 1:9). If He is not eternal, our election is not eternal, for we are elected in Him. The integrity of our redemption depends on eternal Sonship, for He is the Lamb that was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). Our eternal preservation depends on eternal Sonship. He said, “Because I live, ye shall live also” (John 14:19). Nothing can survive to eternity but that which came from eternity.

Our choice is between inferiority of nature and inferiority of relation. Christians believe that there is subordination in the Trinity, but strongly deny inferiority of nature in the Godhead. To the Christian, there is no alternative but the good confession (I Tim. 6:13) of an eternal and Divine relation between the Subsistences of the Trinity. The Father, as God, begets; the Son, as God, is begotten; the Holy Spirit, as God, proceeds. To call God Father and deny that He begets is as absurd as to call Him a sun and deny that He enlightens. Those who believe in peccability choose inferiority of nature rather than inferiority of relation; thus, they become religionists who are without an impeccable Savior.

(Back to Contents)

THE SON DECLARES THE FATHER

Jesus Christ claims the incommunicable name— I AM (Ex. 3:14; John 8:58). The name signifies unchangeable essence and everlasting duration. Change is written on everything earthly; Christ is unchangeable (Heb. 13:8), for He is God. The statement, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58), has no reference to Christ’s coming into existence before Abraham. He never came into being. The Jews understood this to be a claim to Deity, and they took up stones to stone the Chief Cornerstone (Eph. 2:20; John 8:59) for blasphemy. They knew that the title “I AM” referred to Deity, but they were blinded by their religious traditions to the fact of Christ’s Deity. Paul said, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them” (II Cor. 4:3, 4). The unsaved do not know Christ as God, but the saved do. Our Savior claims pre-existence; He unveils the fact of eternal being, for there is no mention of His beginning or ending. Theos, the Greek word for God, is used in reference to Father (John 6:27), Son (Heb. 1:8), and Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3).

The gospel of John has been called the bosom of Christ because it reveals the heart of Christ. Christ came from the heart of God to the heart of man. He said, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father” (John 16:28). As God said to Israel, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself” (Ex. 19.4), so John portrays Christ bearing the elect of God upon the wings of sovereign grace into the presence of the Father Himself. “Father, I will that they also, whom thou has given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory...” (John 17:24). John 16:28 gives a perfect outline to the entire gospel of John. The apostle pictures Jesus Christ (1) coming from the Father for His incarnation (John 1:1-18), (2) coming into the world for our salvation (John 1:19-11:57), (3) leaving the world for our sanctification (John 12-17), and (4) going to the Father for our glorification (John 18-21). The first three gospels are a presentation of Jesus Christ; the gospel of John is an interpretation— it proves that Christ is the eternal Son of God.

The aim of the incarnation was to reveal the Father. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” God had spoken by the prophets in a piece-meal manner. He had a “Word” to spell; the Word was His own Name. Christ, coming from the Father, spelled the Name out in such absolute perfection as to need no one else to speak. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son...” (Heb. 1:1, 2). He has spoken once and twice (Ps. 62:11); a third time He will not speak. We must not look for any additional revelation since there is nothing more to seek in the perfect revelation of truth. Christ is the substance of the types and shadows of the Old Testament. He leaves nothing before the heart of the worshiper but His own glorious Person, Truth Incarnate.

Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos. He was not from the beginning; He already was in the beginning. He was not only with God, He was God. No exegetical jugglery can hide the force of the truth contained in John 1:1. As a word may be distinguished from the thought it expresses (for the two are not identical), so can the second Person of the Godhead be distinguished from the first. There cannot be a word apart from the thought behind it; neither an apprehension of the existence of “God” and the “Word” without one another. They are distinguishable but inseparable.

The Son of God has the same substance as the Father— “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). Christ did not hesitate to place Himself first. He was not speaking as a subordinate, but an equal. The word “one” is not a reference to a single unit in the exact mathematical sense, but one in the sense of a compound unit— a unity which involves plurality. (See Gen. 2:24; 11:6; 41:1, 5, 25; I Kings 22:13; Neh. 8:1; John 17:22; Acts 4:32; I Cor. 3:8; Eph. 2:14; and I John 5:7). Two people (husband and wife) constitute one flesh; Paul the planter and Apollos the waterer are one; Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ; believers are described as being of one heart and one soul. When Christ said, “My Father,” He spoke from the standpoint of His absolute Deity. Thus, “...my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) contemplates Christ as Mediator— the position of subjection to the will of the Father. There is priority of position but never inferiority of nature. The statement, “I and my Father,” affirms the unity of nature or essence— one in every Divine perfection. There is not one perfection to be found in the First Person of the Godhead that does not exist in the Second. This annihilates the concept of peccability. “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:15).

Jesus Christ is as eternal as the Father. He is the brightness of God’s glory (Heb. 1:3). The brightness issuing from the sun is of the same nature as the sun. Brightness cannot be separated from the sun, nor can Christ be separated from the Father. The brightness, though from the sun, is not the sun itself; Jesus Christ, though from the Father, is not the Father. “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me” (John 8:42). As the glory of the sun is the brightness, so the glory of the Father is Christ. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5). “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. 4:6). As the light which the sun gives the world is by this brightness, so the light which the Father gives the world is by Christ. Christ said, “...He that hath seen me hath seen the Father...” (John 14:9). Jesus Christ, therefore, is the brightness of God’s glory; He is greater than all the sparks and flickering candles (the prophets) that preceded His incarnation. The Savior is such brightness that He is incapable of eclipsing the Father’s glory.

The Son of God is equal with the Father. Christ is the very impress of God’s substance. “For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). The Greek word for “express image” means exact expression (Heb. 1:3). All that God is, in His nature and character, is expressed absolutely and perfectly by the incarnate Son. As to the Son’s firm impressions of the Father’s character He is greater than all the vanishing shadows under the law.

Was not Adam made in the image of God? If Adam, who was a peccable person, was made in the image of God, then what about Christ being the image of God? How can an image of something be the thing of which it is the figure? The answer is not difficult to the Christian. Adam was a type of Christ, as incarnate, who only is the express image of His Father’s Person and the likeness of His excellent glory. The things in Adam were of a created substance, but those in Christ were uncreated.

The Son of God is the image of the Father’s glory as the incarnate Son. His Godhead was not an image. His works were infinitely perfect by virtue of His Godhead, and this Divine perfection was revealed in the flesh. When an image is looked upon, another is seen. Thus, the Person and work of Christ manifest the perfection and glory of the Father. Philip asked Christ to manifest the Father, and the Lord Jesus replied, “...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father” (John 14:9). The Father, therefore, must be seen by us through the Son in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells (Col. 2:9).

How can Christ be the image of the invisible Godhead? The Deity of Christ is as invisible as the Father; but being clothed with flesh, God’s works can be seen. Christ presents the excellency of the Father in figure.

Indwelling is not identity. “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (John 14:10). A demon may dwell within a man (Luke 11:26), but that does not make the demon the man nor the man the demon. Jesus Christ is in the believer (John 15:4; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:17; Col. 1:27; Rev. 3:20), but that does not make Christ the believer. We are in Christ (Eph. 1:6); however, that does not make believers christs. As the Father must be distinct from the Son who is in Him, so the Son must be distinct from the Father in whom He is. The Father and Son, though of one and the same nature, cannot be one and the same Person. The doctrine Christ preached was not of Himself as man, but of the Father who dwelt in Him.

Man could never know the Father apart from Jesus Christ. Abel, Noah, Abraham, and all the Old Testament saints knew God, but they did not know Him as Father. Here is where we need to distinguish names and titles: (1) The name of Patriarch is Almighty; (2) The covenant name is Jehovah; and (3) The relationship name is Father. The relationship name of Father is a revelation by Jesus Christ. Observe the number of times the word Father is found in John 14.

Jesus Christ came into the world not only to reveal the Father but to redeem the sinner. He came not as the president of our country would go into a disaster area to look upon the poor helpless victims, but He came to redeem the victims of depravity whom the Father gave Him in the covenant of redemption. Christ came not to redeem by appointed methods, but by Himself. He came not to stand by and prescribe, but to minister and provide the means of salvation. The Savior came not only to provide salvation, but to be that salvation (I Pet. 1:18, 19; Rev. 1:5).

After the Savior finished the work of redemption, He ascended to the Father to represent the saints in their sanctification. Believers, having been positionally set apart by regeneration, stand in need of experimental sanctification. Sanctification is not something Jesus Christ gives believers; it is Himself in Christians. “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (I Cor. 1:30). God’s method is for His men to “...go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life” (Acts 5:20). When “all the words of this life” are preached, they will include salvation, holiness, and all the other truths related to life. This is the reason Paul said, “For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (I Cor. 2:2).

The Savior returned to the Father for the believer’s glorification. Christ said, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). Christians have been called unto eternal glory (I Pet. 5:10; I Thess. 2:12); they are prepared for eternal glory (Rom. 9:23; II Cor. 3:18; II Cor. 4:16, 17); and they shall be brought unto eternal glory (Heb. 2:10). Our destiny therefore is glory. Glory is generally understood to be fame, fortune, and pleasure— things extraordinary and rare. All this, however, is but a dim shadow of what God means by glory; yet, out of the shadow, we may obtain a little inkling of what the substance must be. “When he [Christ]) shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day” (II Thess. 1:10). Christians have an incomprehensible fortune; they are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17). Only Christians know true pleasure; their pleasure is God’s pleasure, for God works in them “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13). The Psalmist said: “Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16:11).

(Back to Contents)

THE MYSTERY OF GODLINESS

The manifestation of God in the flesh is both a mystery and a revelation. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh...” (I Tim. 3:16). Many things are made known to the understanding of natural man, but some things are impenetrable to him in his natural condition. The things of God revealed in creation are not considered mysterious. “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). But God’s manifestation of Himself is hidden from the natural man. The manifestation of godliness is not something about God, but God Himself. I Timothy 3:16 speaks not only of a mystery, but a manifestation. We must not become so occupied with the “mystery of godliness” that we overlook its manifestation. In order for the eternal Son to fulfill the blessed mission on which He was to embark, a body was prepared for Him (Heb. 10:5); in that body He made His appearance on earth. “For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us” (I John 1:2).

The natural man has no faculty by which he can comprehend or evaluate the things of the Spirit. A great amount of controversy has emerged from the meaning of the word “natural.” “Natural” is used in the New Testament as indicative of an unrenewed nature. Paul said, “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Cor. 2:14). The natural man is earthly, sensual, devilish, and has not the Spirit (James 3:15; Jude 19). Paul said, “...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). Man by natural birth is so far from God that regeneration is a necessity if he is to understand the things of the Spirit. Regeneration is the communication of the principle of life to man by the operation of the Spirit. It is the work of God alone, and as far beyond the natural ability of man to perform as his first birth.

The first sin of humanity put the mind out of balance for the perception of spiritual truth. Adam became wise with a wisdom alienated from God when he partook of the forbidden fruit. Since then, man has sought to know God by processes of reason; but he has found his search to be futile. The wisdom of this world is vain— whether it be its philosophy, science, poetry, art, or religion. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God...” (I Cor. 3:19).

When the “mystery of godliness” is driven to the heart by the Spirit, the disposition of the recipient is affected. A person knows no more of Christ than he values in Him; so his life will be brought into conformity only to the things he esteems. When the things which he claims to respect do not work practical godliness in his life, he has but a human knowledge of Divine things. Christianity is not a mere mental assent to certain Biblical truths, but godliness which follows holiness (Heb. 12:14).

Godliness is either the principle of Christianity, or the inward disposition of the soul toward God. The inherent cause of godliness is Jesus Christ. The faith of God’s elect acknowledges the truth which is after godliness (Titus 1:1). But the non-elect “...consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself” (I Tim. 6:3-5).

The mysteries of God should not cause man to despair. The excellency of the Teacher who is the Holy Spirit, not the natural ability of the scholar, unveils these things to the heart of man. The Holy Spirit gives discernment where He finds none. He has a prerogative over all other teachers; He not only teaches the mysteries of God, but gives enlightenment and understanding. Christ said, “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:15). The Savior was talking to His disciples about the prerogative of the Holy Spirit. John said, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him” (I John 2:27).

Godliness is not only a mystery, but a great mystery. Paul does not call godliness riches, but unsearchable riches (Eph. 3:8). When he speaks of its fruit, he says it passes knowledge (Eph. 3:19). It is great because of the Persons involved in it. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had a part in the “mystery of godliness.” So great is this mystery that the angels desired to look into it (I Pet. 1:12). The greatness is consummated by bringing God and man together. God, who descended from the height of heaven to God manifest in the flesh, brings man from the depth of sin to the height of grace.

To be and to be manifested are two different things. God has always been in existence, but He has not always been manifested. In order to manifest Himself, He had to be abased. Man’s natural desire is to hide his abasement. If things go well with him, he wants the trumpet blown and the alarm sounded; however, if things go ill, he says, “Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets...” (II Sam. 1:20). The Pharisee publicizes his success, but he will go to any extent to hide his failure. But Jesus Christ abhorred not to become flesh; He despised not to have His condescension manifestly known. His poor manger was manifested by a star (Matt. 2:2, 11); His destitute earthly existence was visible by the fact that He had no place to lay His head; His shameful death was published by a great eclipse; finally, the abasement of Christ is to be displayed to the whole world by the proclamation of the gospel. Paul said, “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (Gal. 3:1). We are concerned with both mystery and manifestation.

The “mystery of godliness,” though it is now revealed, is still a mystery. It remains a mystery because we cannot, by searching into the depths of it, fully comprehend it. The “mystery of godliness” was concealed from all men until God brought it forth from His own bosom. God, who decreed that man would fall, devised a plan to save fallen man by the death of His Son. Salvation by the death of Christ was a plan devised by the Trinity; it was hidden in the secret closet of God’s bosom. This great mystery was brought forth from the bosom of the Father when the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among men. This mystery is now revealed, but it is manifested to only the chosen. “So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen” (Matt. 20:16). It was revealed to the elect Jews of the Old Testament by being wrapped in ceremonies and types, but it was hidden from the rest of mankind under the covering of the same ceremonies and types. When Jesus Christ came, He was revealed to the elect Jews and Gentiles; but the rest of mankind were blinded. Paul said, “Even so then at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” (Rom. 11:5-7).

Godliness is a mystery to the elect. Although they see some part of it, they do not see it fully. It is a mystery in regard to what they do not know. They see Divine things wrapped in the mirror of the written Word, but there will be a clearer sight when they see the face of God in Christ. The sight which the elect have now is small in comparison with what they shall have in heaven (I John 3:2, 3). Is there not an element of mystery in all the graces? For example, there is peace in turmoil, rest in bondage, strength in weakness, and gain in loss. There is a glorious assembly hidden under the scorn of the world. The assembly (church) is in the world, but she is not of the world. She has life, but it is a hidden (mystical) life (Col. 3:1-4). Christians, therefore, are a strange kind of people— poor, yet rich; living, yet dying; glorious, yet base (II Cor. 8:9; 4:10-12; I Cor. 1:2; 4:9, 10).

The true Assembly (ekklesia) (the elect of God) is a company of people for whom God cares more than all the rest of mankind. The world stands for the sake of the Assembly, and not the Assembly for the world—except to gather all the members of the elect family (Acts 15:14; II Pet. 3:9). Christ is the Head of His Body which is the Assembly; therefore, it is natural for the Body to be conformed to the Head. Since the Son of God wrought our salvation in a state of abasement, Christians should work out this salvation in humility (Phil. 2:12). God sanctifies afflictions and poverty for the spiritual good of His people. Pride feeds upon some outward or inward excellency. To take away Paul’s inward excellence, God gave him a thorn in the flesh; to remove his outward excellence, God gave the apostle persecution and poverty (II Cor. 11:16-28; 12:1-7). Shall we complain against God’s providence if it goes contrary to our desires? Is not God’s desire for us greater than our own? His care for us is seen in His providence. The glory of God in the Assembly is brighter when the Assembly is outwardly abased. It was more evident in the days of the Assembly’s persecution than it is in the day of religious prosperity.

The greatness of the mystery is Jesus Christ. Therefore, the “mystery of godliness” is godliness (piety characterized by a Godward attitude) embodied in and communicated through the doctrine of Jesus Christ (II John 9-11). This greatness is without controversy because it is confessedly great. The word “controversy” in the Greek is also translated “confessedly.” “And confessedly great is the mystery of piety: Who was manifested in the flesh.” The Divine Name does not appear in the oldest manuscripts, but that does not destroy the greatness of the subject. Who was made flesh and dwelt among men? The Word, the eternal Logos, was made flesh. The eternal Logos was “...justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” So great is this “mystery of godliness” that it makes the persons associated with it great. What made John the Baptist greater than all the prophets and others who preceded him? He saw Christ come in the flesh. “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist...” (Matt. 11:11). The comparison is between degrees of light and opportunity, not their persons. What made those after John greater than he? They saw Christ ascend to glory after He had finished the work of redemption. John was not blessed by this wonderful sight. “...Notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he” (Matt. 11:11). Consider the Christian’s present sight of Jesus Christ— dead, buried, raised, glorified, and seated at the Father’s right hand!

Persons know no more of Jesus Christ than they value and esteem in Him. With this fact before us, what do those who believe in peccability value and esteem in Christ? In their desire to produce a gospel relevant to modern man, the teachers of peccability make the tragic mistake of losing their relevance to God, Christ, and the salvation of depraved men. Their evaluation of the Son of God is so low that they see in Him no more than they see in any religious leader. Such serious departure from the high esteem of impeccability is a damnable heresy, and the warning about it is as relevant now as it was when Peter gave his warning: “But there were false prophets also among the people...who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (II Pet. 2:1).

(Back to Contents)

THE MANIFESTATION OF GODLINESS

There are three Persons in the Godhead, but only one of the Persons is manifested. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh” (I Tim. 3:16). The manifestations of God’s character and perfection are revealed in the world, Assembly (ekklesia), providence, and the written Word. These are manifestations of character and perfection; whereas the manifestation of godliness is the manifestation of God Himself. There is a manifestation of the Father in His children, a manifestation of the Son in those whom He is not ashamed to call His brethren, and a manifestation of the Spirit in all whom He regenerates. These are manifestations of Persons although they are not personal manifestations of the Godhead. I Timothy 3:16 speaks of a personal manifestation of God— God in the second Person was manifested. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, but they were not all made flesh.

We are told that the Holy Spirit came down in bodily form like a dove, but the Holy Spirit was not a dove. The dove was only a symbol of the Holy Spirit in purity, peace, sensitivity, and discernment. The eternal Son of God was manifested in the incarnation as Son of Man. God was manifest in the flesh by clothing Himself in human nature. He assumed the nature into His Person so that God the Son and the Man Christ Jesus were not two Persons, but one Person with two natures.

The union of the Divine and human natures is not like any other union. It is unlike that union between soul and body of man; body and soul compose but one nature between them. Christ’s union with believers cannot be compared with the union of the Divine and human natures in Christ, for the distinct personality of both Christ and believers is maintained. Nor is it like the union among the Persons of the Trinity. In Christ, there is One Person and two natures; in the Trinity there are three Persons and one nature.

Why was God revealed in the Son? Only the One who possesses the “image” of God (Heb. 1:3) can restore fallen man to his rightful image. The word “image” involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation. Man was created in God’s image, and after His likeness; therefore, man was created as a visible manifestation of God for the purpose of representing God on the earth. Though man was created for this purpose, his fall prevented him from being a perfect vehicle for the representation of God. Christ, who is the perfect image of God, renews the elect “...in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:10).

Jesus Christ has power over all flesh: “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him” (John 17:2). Power over all flesh denotes authority over all creatures. Unless Christ has power over all flesh, there could be no salvation of the lost. Every obstacle must be removed from the sinner for the entrance of the light of God’s glory to the heart. Earth and hell are united to oppose those whom the Father has given the Son, but Christ is given power over all opposition. It is not enough that hindrances be removed; one must be qualified to enjoy eternal life. He who gives eternal life as Mediator supplies the qualification for the enjoyment of it. To bestow eternal life on lost sinners is the glory of the Father; to be the means and channel for the application of that eternal life is the glory of the Son— who was made flesh.

God absolutely considered cannot be seen. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18). When one thinks of God absolutely, without thinking of Him as manifested in the flesh, he considers Him only in the capacity of the invisible God. “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen” (I Tim. 6:16). “God manifest in the flesh,” however, can be seen; this was made possible by the incarnation. “For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us” (I John 1:2). God absolutely considered cannot be approached, but God manifest in the flesh can be; therefore, we have access to the Father through Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:14-16). “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:19-22). Thinking of God absolutely devours one’s thoughts, but to think of God “manifest in the flesh” is a comforting consideration. For example, to see the sun alone in its glory and lustre is impossible without blinding the eye; but to see the sun in eclipse, shaded by the shadow of the earth, is possible to the naked eye. No man can see God absolutely, but to see God in the flesh is to see Him in eclipse.

God absolutely considered is a consuming fire who demands justice and condemnation, but “God manifest in the flesh” is a purifying fire who gives satisfaction and grace with commendation. Every person is related to God either as a “consuming fire” without blood, or as a “consuming fire” with blood. Fire without blood is condemnation; fire with blood is commendation. The children of Israel were blessed in the offerings they made because the offerings included both “fire” and “blood” (Lev. 1-5). The “live coal” that was taken from off the altar purified Isaiah’s lips (Is. 6:5-8) because it came from off the altar where the offering of blood was made by fire. If the “live coal” had not come from the altar of sacrifice, Isaiah would have been destroyed. The sacrifice of blood gave the fire a purifying rather than a destroying effect. On the contrary, it will be well to observe the results of fire and no blood. Sodom and Gomorrah and Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by fire because there was no sacrifice of blood. Men will suffer the eternal fire of hell because they reject the blood of Jesus Christ: “...without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

The Lord Jesus took not upon Himself the nature of angels; He veiled Himself “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Professing Christendom is taught that Christ is like unto themselves. Christ is unlike man, however, because in this “likeness” He lifts the elect from the pit of depravity into the likeness of Himself. Jesus Christ was sent, not in the “likeness” of flesh, but in flesh. He was sent, however, not in sinful flesh, but in the “likeness” of sinful flesh. Nothing can more clearly prove that the Lord Jesus Christ, though He assumed human nature, took it without taint of sin or corruption. Christ was not made in the likeness of the flesh of unfallen man, but in the likeness of man’s fallen flesh. There was no corruption in Christ’s human nature, but He had all the sinless infirmities of that nature. The word “likeness” refers not to the word “flesh,” but to the word “sinful.” Thus, the Lord Jesus took unto Himself our nature—sin excepted—in order that He might take us unto Himself—after sin was put away by the sacrifice of Himself.

Christ is manifested in the mortal flesh of Christians. “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh” (II Cor. 4:10, 11). As the flesh of Christ was first set apart, then abased, and then glorified; so the flesh of every Christian must be content to be first set apart, then abased in service for Christ, and then glorified. This is the Divine order, and there is no short cut from sanctification to glorification.

Christians must ever take heed of pride. The Son of God emptied Himself; shall His children be full of pride? Christ made Himself of no reputation; shall His sheep stand upon their honor? The Lord Jesus Christ took upon Himself the form of a servant; shall His people be lords to be ministered to and not to minister? Some believers may feel too proud to imitate humble men, but they must not think themselves too good to follow the humble Savior. Christ must be manifest in our flesh; consequently, when a person sees a Christian, he sees Christ manifest in him.

Have Christians forgotten in this age of religious tolerance how the Savior lived and died? The saints do not bear the dying of the Lord Jesus “in the body” by wearing a cross on their persons, nor by sitting on the pinnacle of religious praise and honor. To bear “in the body” the dying of the Lord Jesus is to bear the stigma of the cross for the sake of the gospel. What is the gospel? It is the truth of the Person and Work of the impeccable Savior. Bearing in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus is not something borne occasionally—when it is convenient or expedient—but always. The Christian who always uncompromisingly stands up for the impeccable Savior knows what it is to always bear “in his body” the “dying of the Lord Jesus.”

Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by God’s consuming fire because they offered “strange fire” before the Lord (Lev. 10:1, 2). The “strange fire” was a foreign substance introduced to the Divine system. There is only one way to obey God, and that is by doing what He commands. There are always some who try to materialize the supernatural. This is what Nadab and Abihu did. “Strange fire” is but a human imitation of that which is Divine. To be preserved from what is “strange,” there must be the confession of “Jesus Christ come in flesh” (I John 4:1-3). In what kind of flesh did the Son of God make His appearance? Was His flesh peccable or impeccable? If it was peccable, then He was disqualified as savior; but if it was impeccable, then He was qualified as the Savior. Those who teach peccability are offering “strange fire”; they shall, like Nadab and Abihu, be destroyed for their introduction of a foreign message into the Divine system.

(Back to Contents)

THE INCARNATION

The faith of the gospel has had to be defended in every generation — ours is no different. Many are now saying that the incarnation of the eternal Son is positive mythology. The “New Theology” teaches that humanity is divine in essence, and Christ came to the consciousness of the identity with God. They say the incarnation is in mankind; God realizes Himself in His universe, supremely in man and typically in Jesus Christ. They accuse orthodoxy of restricting the description “God manifest in the flesh” to Jesus Christ alone; they would extend it in a lesser degree to all humanity. According to this heretical concept, the incarnation is not God condescending to become man, but man ascending to be God. This heresy carries us no further than man himself, but the Truth of the Gospel carries believing sinners into the arms of the infinite God.

Christ’s Incarnation is the foundation truth upon which Christianity rests. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...” (John 1:14). Jesus Christ is not God mutilated by the flesh, but God manifest in the flesh (I Tim. 3:16). The Person of Christ was not deprived of absolute perfection by His manifestation in the flesh, nor did He surrender His oneness with the Father. Our Lord used the word “flesh” (John 1:14; I Tim. 3:16) to signify nature, for flesh is not a person. Had He used the term “man,” He would have meant a person; thus, He would have made Himself two persons rather than One Person with two natures. Jesus Christ is not a man, but the Son of Man (John 3:13). So important is the incarnation that the Bible says, “...Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist...” (I John 4:2, 3). The denial of the incarnation is two-fold: “not of God” is negative, and “of antichrist” is positive. Denial of the absolute perfection of Christ’s Person (His impeccability) can be attributed only to the spirit of antichrist.

There is an inward test to which every person is subjected with regard to the incarnation. “...And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us” (I John 3:24). The subjective Spirit confesses the objective fact that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” The reason for such confession on the part of the Spirit is that He had so much to do with the flesh in which Christ came. He prepared for Him an impeccable body — that Holy of Holies — wherein “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). It is the flesh of Christ that brings Him within the range of the Spirit’s gracious care. He said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor...” (Luke 4:18). “...for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him” (John 3:34). Christ’s human nature was animated and sustained by the Spirit. He was not only made and lived in the flesh, but also suffered in the flesh (I Pet. 3:18). He gave His flesh to be the life of the world (John 6:51; Heb. 10:19-22). As the purpose of the Holy Spirit is to animate and sustain the flesh of Christ, so also it is His object to make the elect of God one with Christ who is come in the flesh. To deny that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh” is to deny the Father. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father...” (I John 2:23). Faith, which is the gift of God, knows that the human nature of Christ is as impeccable as His Divine nature.

The work of the Godhead is included in the “Word made flesh.” There are many religionists who deny the Trinity; but if there is no Trinity, there is no incarnation; hence, no objective redemption. If there is no objective Redeemer, then man is without a Mediator. Redemption was not purchased by the Father who planned it, nor by the Holy Spirit who applies it. Our salvation was purchased by the Eternal Son who offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit. Consequently, He accomplished eternal redemption for the elect. (See Eph. 1:3-14; John 3:16; Heb. 9:14.)

There are three great dispensations corresponding to, and successively manifesting, the three Persons of the Godhead in the history of redemption. The dispensation of the Father began with creation and continued to the beginning of Christ’s public ministry. The dispensation of the Son was the important period in which redemption was worked out objectively. It began with Christ’s public ministry and continued to the day of Pentecost. That of the Holy Spirit began with His descent on the day of Pentecost and continues to the end of the age. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to subjectively apply the redemption which was objectively purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross and electively purposed by the Father (John 3:8; II Thess. 2:13; I Pet. 1:22).

Jesus Christ did not cease to be God in the incarnation; He only veiled His Deity “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). He did not take upon Himself all that we are in Adam, but took part of the same (Heb. 2:14). “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren...” (Heb. 2:17). Christ did not identify Himself with the fallen race, but with man viewed in Divine grace. The statement “his brethren” refers to their election in eternity; this is according to the eternal purpose of God (Eph. 3:11). His incarnation, which was in time (Gal. 4:4; II Tim. 1:9, 10), was not only for those brethren who preceded—in time—His incarnation, but for all those who shall believe on Him—in time to come—through the word of the apostles (John 17:20). It was proper that He should be like them in nature — as viewed in Divine grace — and thus be free from any contamination of the fallen Adamic nature. He calls them “His brethren.” “...He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one...” (Heb. 2:11).

The mysterious part of the incarnation was not publicly proclaimed until after Christ’s resurrection. There is not a single allusion to the Divine production of Christ’s human nature throughout His earthly ministry. He often called Himself the Son of God and spoke of God as His Father, but He never mentioned the miraculous conception of His human nature in the womb of Mary. None of the companions of Christ doubted that He was a man; they were convinced that there was something extraordinary about Him. “...What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him” (Mark 4:41).

The fact that Christ was publicly known as “Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45) is irrelevant to the question of His virgin birth. (See Matt. 13:55; Luke 2:27, 33, 48; Mark 6:3.) Both Matthew and Luke show how the expressions “son of Joseph,” “the parents,” and “thy father and I” are to be understood. Joseph and Mary were espoused (an ancient custom as binding as wedlock itself) by a special providence to protect Mary from being accused of harlotry. The Bible says: “...before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:18). The conception and birth of Christ cannot be determined by the laws of evidence in the same way as the resurrection. There were eyewitnesses to the resurrection; there were none, apart from God, to the miraculous conception. God had done something new that would never be repeated in the earth; therefore, there was no analogy by which to explain it. If no mother knows the manner of her natural conception, what presumption to question the manner in which the Son of God took flesh of the man whom He created! Was it not as easy for God to make the body of the Second Adam in the womb of Mary as to make the body of the first Adam out of the dust of the earth?

The Lord Jesus hid the glory of His eternal nativity under the veil of an earthly nativity. This subject deserves our most serious consideration. The glories of Christ are threefold: personal (essential), which is His from all eternity; official, the glory given Him in the offices to which He had been set apart; and moral, the glory which had been given Him and could be given the disciples (John 17:22). Christ’s essential glory was veiled by flesh, except where faith apprehended it. His official glory was also veiled; He did not walk through the earth in His official capacity, for He was a Servant. But His moral glory could not be hid; He could not be less than perfect in everything since He is the impeccable Savior. His perfect life qualified Him to be the “one perfect sacrifice for sin” (Heb. 10:10, 14). Since He was free from sin, He was the efficient sacrifice for sin.

The union of two natures in one Person (the God-Man) is the great mystery of Godliness. Paul gives the norm for Christology (Phil. 2:5-11). The “form of God” declares His Deity; the “form of a servant” asserts His humanity. Though there was no inequality in His essential Being, He did not selfishly choose to remain in the enjoyment of that blessed condition. Therefore, He emptied Himself, taking the “form of a servant” and becoming obedient unto death. He did not consider His condescension robbery when He veiled His essential glory during the days of His earthly sojourn. The contrast is between His existence in the “form of God” and in the “form of a servant.” It seems clear, from the context, that we have a change of form — not of content. He did not surrender His Divine nature, but He took a human nature. Thus, we have an unfallen human nature united to the Divine nature in one indivisible Person — the impeccable Christ. This union, in theological circles, is called the Hypostatic Union.

The Hypostatic Union removes any possibility of Christ having the capacity for sin. He would have been capable of sinning only by a completely free opposition of His human will to the Divine will. That was impossible since the controlling agent of His human will was the eternal Logos. (See John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:29; Rom. 15:3.) Christ had a free human will, but the “I” that was active through it was God. It was not a human but a Divine Self who was responsible for the deeds performed through the human will. If the human nature had been the basis of His personality, He would not have been the God-Man (I Tim. 2:5) — but the man-God.

You will observe, with respect to the union of the Divine and human natures of Christ, some deeds performed in one nature and ascribed to the other. For example, in His human nature He is called the Son of Man; yet, under this title, He is described by an attribute which belongs to His Divine nature. Christ said, “...no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). Omnipresence is an attribute belonging only to the Divine nature. On the other hand, you will find Him doing things — in the Divine nature — which are ascribed to His human nature. Scripture says that the Lord of glory was crucified (I Cor. 2:8). Crucifixion cannot be attributed to the Son of God in His Divine nature. God, who has eternal existence, cannot be crucified. His human nature did not act independently of the Divine, nor the Divine of the human; consequently, all His acts were the actions of one indivisible Person acting in the fullness of both natures. Therefore, the various names respecting the Person of Christ are used interchangeably in regard to His two natures.

(Back to Contents)

THE VIRGIN BIRTH

The union of the Divine and human natures was accomplished, in the incarnation of Christ, by the power of the Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary. “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 1:18). Some argue that the word “virgin” simply means an unmarried woman. The birth of a child to a woman is no miracle. There have been many unmarried women who have, to their shame, given birth to babies; but for a virgin to give birth to a child is indeed a miracle. The time had come for the eternal purpose of God to be fulfilled — the Savior was to be born of a virgin. The incarnation, prophesied in Genesis 3:15, was fulfilled in the “seed of the woman.” A virgin bearing a Son was a sign (Is. 7:14) — thus a miracle. If Jesus Christ had come into the world like all other men, then He would have been no different from them in other respects. This would have disqualified Christ from being the Savior of men.

There are some religionists who place no importance on the virgin birth. They pass by all mention of the virgin birth, miracles, and physical resurrection of Christ. They say that good Christians differ sincerely concerning these matters. Their followers are encouraged not to worry about it if they cannot believe these things. This vividly describes the theological heresy our generation faces.

The cry of the day is unity. There is a spiritual unity of which the Bible has much to say (Ps. 133:1; John 17:21). We believe in unity, but let us never forget that the unity of the body is dependent upon its life. When life departs, the body crumbles and its members are separated. How can there be any basis for unity among people when some believe in the virgin birth and some do not? The virgin birth is so basic to the incarnation that it leaves no room for compromise. Conviction is greater than conformity. True unity is not something that men can make or promote, but Christians are exhorted to keep (Eph. 4:3). The only basis for unity is the life of God which comes to the true believer through the incarnation. “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (II Tim. 1:9, 10).

Christ’s incarnation demanded a perfect human nature. The eternal Son has come forth: (1) From everlasting — His place with God in the beginning; (2) From Bethlehem — the place of His birth in time; and (3) From the womb of the virgin — the place of the union of the Divine and human natures in one Person—the impeccable Savior (Micah 5:2, Luke 1:35). His coming through the womb of the virgin was in order that He might have a perfect human nature. The eternal Son assumed a nature — not a person — in the incarnation. The nature is called the “holy thing,” “seed of Abraham,” and the “form of a servant” (Luke 1:35, Heb. 2:16; Phil. 2:6-8). The Assumer and the assumed cannot be the same. Nevertheless, the Assumer is perfect; the assumed must also be perfect. His Deity required the virgin birth because there is a difference between His humanity and ours. The Incorruptible could not unite with the corruptible; the Holy could not unite with the unholy.

Our Savior’s sinlessness required the virgin birth. Birth could not, of itself, secure Christ’s human nature from pollution. Mary is no less a sinner than Joseph, for she said, “And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Luke 1:47). As God protected Christ’s human nature from the pollution of Joseph, so He also protected it from the pollution of Mary by the Spirit in the miraculous conception. She was elected to fulfill the essential passive part in the Savior’s human nature; God was the active Agent in the performance of the miracle.

Why do Mark and John omit any reference to the virgin birth? This is the question raised by those who object to the miracle of the incarnation. Those who take a naturalistic view of Christ’s Person refuse to recognize any supernatural element in His life. If a person doubts the virgin birth because Mark does not mention it, doubt might also be cast upon the fact that Jesus Christ was born at all; he does not mention the birth. John taught that those who believed were not spiritually born “of the will of the flesh” (John 1:13); consequently, Jesus Christ was not physically born of the will of the flesh.

False teachers argue that neither Paul nor any of the apostles ever mentioned the virgin birth. They say that the apostles did not know about it, or they would have mentioned it in their writings. This would be equivalent to saying they did not believe in the existence of Mary because they never mentioned her. The fact is, Paul does speak of the second man from heaven in I Corinthians 15:47, and in Galatians 4:4 — “...God sent forth his Son, made of a woman....” The apostles believed and taught the sinlessness of Jesus Christ. Is not this proof that He was without a human father? Every child of sinful Adam is a sinner by nature (Rom. 5:12); however, our Savior is sinless; and this proves that His human nature is not the same as that of the sinner. It cannot be denied that the apostles believed and taught the incarnation. We do not trace the truths of the resurrection, sinlessness, and Deity of Jesus Christ “from” the virgin birth, but “to” it. If these truths be granted, surely the virgin birth becomes a necessity.

The conception of Christ in the womb of the virgin is beyond our comprehension. We are not to speak of the virgin birth as the immaculate conception (Luke 1:47). That is the religious dogma of some that Mary was conceived and born without original sin. Neither should it be referred to as supernatural conception because that is true of Isaac, nor miraculous birth since the birth itself was no different from others. We understand that virgin and conception are joined without the loss of virginity, and this was accomplished by the Holy Spirit. According to nature, virginity is gone before conception; but this instance is a sign (miracle) which is above nature. Natural things are based upon reason; supernatural things are based on faith. This is supernatural, and the power of the Spirit is the reason for the miracle. The angel concluded, “For with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37). Mary asked, “...How shall this be...?” (Luke 1:34); but she rested in the angel’s resolution: “...My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Luke 1:46, 47). As Mary rested in this resolution, so must we.

To conceive is more than to receive. A vessel is not said to conceive the water that is poured into it. The reason is that it does not yield anything of itself. The virgin, however, gave and took something in the conception. She gave of her substance for the making of the body, but the Holy Spirit was the power by which the body was made. He was the active efficient cause in the production of the body; the virgin Mary was the passive material cause. The conception was a miracle and is called an overshadowing. The preposition “of” (Luke 1:35) must not be understood for the material cause but the efficient cause.

The conception of Christ took place before Joseph and Mary came together in legal wedlock. It is true that Matthew speaks of Joseph as a husband and Mary as a wife, but this can be accounted for under the Hebrew law of betrothal which constituted a legal contract between the parties concerned. Marriage in Israel was a covenant of two parts: the first, the betrothal period; the second, the established marriage union. The betrothal period was so binding that sexual unfaithfulness during that time was equivalent to infidelity in the established marriage relationship. The law states, “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die...” (Deut. 22:23, 24). Matthew asserts that before this marriage was consummated she was discovered to be with child by the action of the Holy Spirit.

How did Mary go about hiding her conception? Mary, the unwed, knowing she was to be a mother, ran to the fountainhead of law and judgment. She could not wait until she had imparted the good news to Elisabeth, the wife of the officiating high priest. The assurance of God’s presence with her destroyed all thought of fear. The presence of Christ in the womb of Mary made John in the womb of Elisabeth leap for joy (Luke 1:41, 44). How could this be apart from the sovereign power of the Spirit? There was no fear of being stoned to death for two reasons: (1) She knew that her conception was of the Holy Spirit; therefore, she was not a harlot; and (2) She had faith in the Sovereign God and knew He would fulfill His promise to give the Savior.

The tremendous honor bestowed upon Mary must not be passed by without looking at the awful burden coupled with the honor. It is always thus in the world. Honor and reproach go hand in hand. The virgin was told: “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also...” (Luke 2:35). She knew what others did not know. Even Joseph had to wait for an answer as to her virginity. The Jews accusingly said, “...We be not born of fornication” (John 8:41); they were saying they were not bastards. Mary knew the reproach, but she also knew the honor that accompanied it. Such is the dual experience of every Christian. We no sooner experience the blessing of salvation, made possible by the impeccable Savior, than we find ourselves going outside the camp bearing His reproach (Heb. 13:13).

It is proper, at this point, that some consideration be given to the step-father of Jesus Christ. Joseph was Christ’s legal, but not His actual, father. Had Joseph been His actual father, He would have been barred from David’s throne (Jer. 22:28-30; Matt. 1:11). No descendant of Coniah (Greek — Jechonias) is to sit on the throne of David; yet the Lord Jesus is to sit on that throne (Luke 1:32). Christ born of the virgin Mary could, through the royal line in Mary’s genealogy, inherit the throne. The Jewish law required genealogy through a father. This requirement was fulfilled when Joseph married Mary after the birth of Christ. Joseph was a righteous man and did not act hastily when he heard about Mary, but waited for God to give the answer (Matt. 1:19, 20, 24, 25). If the Lord Jesus had been an illegitimate child, He could not have been a member of the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:2); consequently, all His descendants would be excluded.

Jesus Christ died because He said that God was His Father (Luke 22:66-71). Caiaphas, who conducted the trial of the Savior, could only say that the law stated that He ought to die. He was crucified, from the viewpoint of man, for just one offense — He said God was His Father. This constituted blasphemy under the Jewish law; and if His claim was not true, He deserved to die. But where was Mary during this time? Did she stand there with mouth closed to save her own reputation? The only explanation of her silence is that Jesus Christ died for a clearly stated fact — He was the Son of God.

The virgin birth is the manner by which the human nature of Jesus Christ is clear of original sin. Had it been otherwise, the human nature would have been infested with original sin. Deity is not humanity, nor humanity Deity; nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that He is the God-Man. This is possible because the names “Word” and “Man” refer to the Person of Jesus Christ who possesses both natures. Thus, by virtue of this union, Jesus Christ bears the office of Mediator; He exercises this office in both natures, for a “...mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one” (Gal. 3:20).

(Back to Contents)

CHRIST’S HUMAN NATURE

The human nature of Christ must be distinguished from the fallen human nature of man. Our Savior saw nothing but sin and misery from Adam to the day of judgment. He said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh...” (John 3:6). The word “flesh” refers to the fallen human nature. Fallen human nature has neither grace nor truth in it, but the human nature of Christ was full of grace and truth. “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). All the sons of Adam come into the world in sinful flesh, but Jesus Christ came “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Likeness is not connected with flesh, for Christ came in real flesh. However, likeness is linked with sinful since Christ’s flesh looked like the flesh of fallen man. The “likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7) does not lessen the reality of the human nature which Christ assumed, but it does intimate a vital difference between the flesh of Christ and that of fallen man. Christ’s human nature cannot be understood apart from the right concept of original uprightness and original sin.

The most significant thing about original uprightness is the fact that Adam was created in God’s image and after His likeness (Gen. 1:26). He was created in a state of conformity to some rule; this rule was the law of God. The law of God is the only perfect, immutable, and eternal rule. For Adam to be made upright, the rule itself was implied. How could it be said that he was made upright if there were no prescribed form by which to measure uprightness? Adam did not have, as was the case with Israel, the law written upon tables of stone; it was written upon his mind. The knowledge of uprightness was created in him. This uprightness was not essential to his being, for then he could not have lost it without the loss of his very being. Nevertheless, it was to him, as man, a natural thing; he was created with original uprightness. As a created being, he was a dependent person.

Unfallen Adam possessed such affections as love, fear, and hope; but these emotions were kept in order and peace by original uprightness. This beautiful order was destroyed in the fall. The same passions remained, but their use was changed. Love for God degenerated into self-love; fear, into evil; courage and hope, into distrust. Man, instead of loving God, now hates Him. Christ said, “But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you” (John 5:42). Reverential fear has deteriorated into evil courage against God. “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed...” (Ps. 2:2). Hope has degraded into unbelief. Our Savior said, “Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” (John 8:46). Thus, the fall of man caused the soul to become a chaos that needed redemption.

Original uprightness was an essential part of Adam’s human nature; it was the bridle that controlled the desires and actions of his nature. There are some who teach that Adam came forth perfect from the hand of the Creator and was subsequently clothed with original uprightness. This makes human nature a finished product apart from original uprightness. If Adam’s nature was perfect before he possessed original uprightness, then it remained perfect after the loss of it. This cannot be true because original sin is more than negative absence of original uprightness; it is positive corruption.

Original uprightness consists of positive qualities. Without these, man could not have answered the purpose of his creation. Adam and Eve heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden (Gen. 3:8). Here is an anthropomorphic (human form or characteristic) representation of fellowship between creature and Creator; this illustrates the ability of man’s rational nature to understand something of the rational being of God as the latter chooses to reveal it. As man knows and loves finitely, so God knows and loves infinitely. God assigned Adam the responsibility of naming all the creatures of air, land, and sea (Gen. 1:20-25; 2:19, 20). This presupposes rationality and scientific knowledge. Adam must have known something about the nature of all these creatures in order to name them. Man was God’s deputy governor in the lower world, and this was an image of God’s sovereignty. While man saw himself as lord of the creatures, he must not forget that he was still God’s subject. Moral duty is implicit in such an assignment, but the moral nature of man is more evident still in the command and prohibition concerning eating of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2:16, 17). God made the beasts looking down toward the earth to show that their satisfaction comes from beneath; the erect posture of man’s body shows that his satisfaction comes from above. The forbidden tree taught man his dependence on God; there was want even in Eden. The intellectual nature of man is usually designated as the image of God in the broader sense; the holy nature is the image of God in the narrower sense. The intellectual sense is never lost, even in hell; the holy nature was lost, even in Eden.

Man was created male and female: “...Male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). Woman was not a separate creation. The Bible presents her as differentiated from the male by being drawn from his side. Man had one thing peculiar to himself; namely, he had dominion over the woman. “...Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16). The woman is compelled to look to her husband for her desires; this is her dependence. As she lives under his authority, her dependence becomes submission. Her place therefore is secondary and dependent. The reason for this is because the woman was formed after and made for man. Paul said, “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I Cor. 11:3). As the woman was to be in subjection to the man, so man must be in subjection to God. This was just another way God revealed to man that while he had dominion over the lower creatures, he must not forget that he is under the absolute dominion of God.

The original uprightness of Adam was mutable. If Adam had been unchangeably upright, he must be so either by nature or by gift. He could not be unchangeably upright by nature; that is proper to God alone and cannot be communicated to any of His creatures. If by gift, then no wrong was done him in withholding that which he could not desire. Adam, whose will was free, chose not the will of God but his own will. If Adam who was in a state of original uprightness chose evil, what about man in a state of depravity? Thus, we understand that created uprightness is capable of sinning because it is finite. The infinite God cannot create infinity; therefore, His creation is inferior to Himself.

Adam was left to himself and fell. If man in created uprightness did not stand, how shall man in his depraved condition stand? The fall came about through his wife whom Satan beguiled. Satan knew that a temptation coming through his wife would be less suspected. He persuaded Eve by subtracting from, adding to, and altering the Word of God. This was Satan’s masterpiece to weaken faith in what God said. When Eve was brought to the place of distrust, she yielded to the temptation. Satan broke over the hedge of original uprightness where it was the weakest (I Pet. 3:7; I Tim. 2:14). He knew he could more easily reach Adam through Eve than by going directly to him. This same approach is revealed in the sin of Ahab: “...Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up” (I Kings 21:25). Satan’s method has never changed.

Adam and Eve sought out many inventions (Eccl. 7:29). Not only were they together in sin, but the ways of their sin (inventions) were many. Among the inventions of our first parents, there were many excuses and pleas sought out to justify their conduct and to make them appear unfortunate rather than criminal. This proves that man was the cause of his fall. Man’s fall could never take away God’s right to command obedience and to punish in the case of disobedience.

It was Adam’s fault that he did not do as God commanded. God made a covenant with Adam to show His sovereignty over all His creatures. Pharaoh made Joseph chief ruler of his kingdom, but he said, “...only in the throne will I be greater than thou” (Gen. 41:40). God dealt with Adam in the same manner. He gave him dominion over all His lower creation. God knew that Adam would transgress, but that was no reason for not giving the law. Shall laws cease to be made because some will break them? God ordained Adam’s transgression to manifest the riches of His grace. This was done by sending Christ who would keep the law by an obedient life and pay the penalty of the broken law by His voluntary death. Though man is a little lower than the angels (to whom he is inferior in nature though superior in destiny), it is a mark of extreme condescension that God visits him in Christ. Man’s original creation was of the earth earthy in contrast to his re-creation (regeneration) in Christ (I Cor. 15:45-49). Consequently, the Christian “...is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him” (Col. 3:10). The righteous state of the Christian is the uncreated righteousness of God, and in this gracious state he can never fall. Where is the foolish person who would exchange the uncreated righteousness of Christ for the created uprightness of Adam?

Original sin is positive as well as negative. It is true that original purity has been lost, and the nature has been defiled. Original sin has contaminated our nature; it has been turned into a depraved spring, and from this spring flows all kinds of sinful acts. When the soul of Adam died (not cessation of existence but separation of existence), it became passive as far as good was concerned. It was incapable of any good, and active to all evil. Original sin is called the old man because man’s original beauty has been destroyed. It is called the law of sin because of its power to bind its subject to sin (Eph. 4:22; Rom. 7:25). Depraved man has not only the love of sin to draw him but the law of sin to drive him. Solomon said, “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15). It is soon seen in the child which way the bias of his heart lies, for “Even a child is known by his doings...” (Prov. 20:11). Do not the children of Adam, before they can go alone, follow their father’s footsteps? The baby first puts everything into its mouth — lust of the flesh; it wants everything it sees — lust of the eyes; it desires to show off — the pride of life. What a vast amount of pride, ambition, sinful curiosity, vanity, wilfulness, and averseness to good appear in children! As soon as they leave infancy, there is necessity of using the rod of correction to drive away the foolishness in their actions. If grace does not intervene, children will grow to be Ishmaels — “wild man” (Gen. 16:12). The rod can only drive foolishness from their actions, but it takes the grace of God to drive it out of their hearts.

Adam is a representative man. While he stood, we stood; when he fell, we fell. Scripture takes particular care to point out that Adam communicates his image to his posterity. “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth” (Gen. 5:3). Compare this verse with Genesis 5:1 — “...In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” The difference between man created and begotten is revealed. Man was created after God’s likeness; the descendants of Adam are begotten in the likeness of Adam who had fallen from original uprightness into a state of corruption. This was original sin. David said, “...In sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5). Having sinned, Adam became mortal and begat mortals; for Paul said, “...In Adam all die...” (I Cor. 15:22).

The principle of representation teaches that all men without exception sinned in Adam (Rom. 5:12; I Cor. 15:22). This original sin, therefore, was imputed to all of Adam’s descendants as a natural consequence of their involvement in Adam’s act. This means that all of us sinned and are held guilty with Adam in original sin. No person can merit the penalty of death in another unless with and in that person he has sinned. It is not sufficient to say that all die in Adam because we receive from him original sin. Could we not for the same reason say that we die in our parents from whom we directly derived sin? The Bible never states that we die in our parents, but in Adam all die (I Cor. 15:22). This principle is illustrated in the case of Levi who is said to have “...payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father...” (Heb. 7:9, 10). Thus, the imputation of Adam’s sin is real (the reckoning to one of that which is antecedently his) and immediate (preceded man’s corruption and is reckoned to be the cause of corruption).

The relation of a person and his ego must be considered if we are to understand the working of the depraved nature. The ego refers to the entire man — body and mind. The corrupt condition of fallen nature could not be excited to do things if there were no personal ego. The unbalanced powers of the soul cause the darkening of the understanding (Eph. 4:18), and the loss of a free will enables the evil passions to be aroused (Rom. 1:24-28). The unbalanced powers of the soul and the loss of free will could not result in sin if man’s personal ego were not affected by their workings. Sin puts its own mark upon this corrupt and depraved nature only when the ego turns away from God. The unbelieving ego is identified with the old depraved nature.

The old nature is not changed in regeneration, but an entirely new man is implanted. Regeneration affects only our person. Old nature in believers is condemned, but not saved (Rom. 8:3). The principle of grace, which is formed in the heart in regeneration, bears the likeness of Christ; therefore, the believing ego is identified with the new man.

We are now in a position to better understand Christ’s human nature. If Jesus Christ had been born a human person by the will of man, he would have had an ego turned away from God. But He was not born a human person. He took a human nature that was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and this was not by the will of man. Neither could there be in Him an ego turned away from God, nor the weakness of His human nature be a sinful weakness. He was given the Holy Spirit without measure to strengthen the weakness of His impeccable human nature. God the Spirit transformed (not regenerated) Christ’s human nature into a glorified nature by the power of the resurrection.

The human nature of Christ had no subsistence but in the second Person of the Godhead. This raises the human nature of Christ to an infinitely higher level than man’s nature. His human nature had a glorious subsistence. That which Christ did in His human nature was the performance of God. There was but one ego in Jesus Christ. The union of the two natures in one Person made Him the Son of God and the Son of Man in the same Person.

Was the original guilt of Adam imputed to Christ? If it was, then Christ, like all other men, was involved in Adam’s sin and guilt. It was necessary for the purpose of manifestation that Christ become truly human, but impossible for Him in His conception to partake of Adam’s sin and guilt. If guilt had been imputed to Christ at His conception, there would have been both involvement in Adam’s sin and defilement of His Person. This would not only have made impossible the union of God and man, but also His substitutionary sacrifice. He would have had to die for His own sins, justly His because of imputation, rather than dying willingly as the sinless one who voluntarily took upon Himself the judgment for sin. Adam’s guilt is imputed to his posterity, but Jesus Christ is not a descendant of Adam; He existed before Adam. Jesus Christ does not stand under Adam as his head, but He is the Head of Adam (I Cor. 11:3). Does this not reveal the evil of the doctrine of peccability?

(Back to Contents)

CHRIST’S HUMAN BODY

The Temple of Christ’s Body came from a Spirit-separated place in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5). The primitive priest, with his measuring line, would go into the field and measure off a choice portion of ground for erection of the temple; so the Holy Spirit, with His power of separation, went into the womb of Mary and selected a place for the erection of the Temple of Christ’s Body. Not only was this Body negatively sinless; it was from the first positively full of the Holy Spirit. The Son of God took to Himself that sacred site in the womb of the virgin; and within it, He began to build such a holy life that He speaks of it as the “temple of his body” (John 2:21).

When Christ visited Jerusalem at the time of the passover, He found the temple the center of carnal activities (John 2:13-17). The passover had degenerated into the Jews’ passover. God’s house had become a house of merchandise, and this angered the Son of God. The Savior entered the temple and saw His Father’s house invaded by religious hypocrites: “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man” (John 2:23-25). His knowledge of man was not by report — but by Divine wisdom. Christ’s omniscience should cause hypocrites to tremble and Christians to be steadfast.

The Lord did not overstep the bounds of His authority by cleansing the temple. Since the temple was God’s meeting place with men, it was to be cleansed from all foreign substance. It must not be desecrated. Christ’s disciples remembered that it was written: “...The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (John 2:17). Holy zeal is concerned with God’s honor and man’s salvation, but there can be no salvation of men where the honor of God is not asserted. The word “zeal” is described as a boiling heart, a heart boiling over with the intense heat of its own affections, passions, and emotions. Thus, the holy zeal of Christ “ate Him up.” This is an arresting expression. His all-consuming zeal led Him to remove from the temple the zeal which was “not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). Zeal which is not according to Divine knowledge dishonors God; therefore, it must be removed from the place where God’s honor is maintained.

Does the zeal of God’s house (the assembly) eat us up? Is not the assembly, the place where the glory of God is found (Eph. 3:21), to be kept clean from every unholy zeal? There is a zeal which has the appearance of being for the Lord, but it stems wholly from carnal and selfish motives: “Come,” said King Jehu, “and see my zeal for the Lord” (II Kings 10:16). But all the time Jehu’s zeal was for himself and not for the Lord at all. He was zealous for the things that would make him appear great in the eyes of men. Paul, before his salvation from sin, said, “...being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers” (Gal. 1:13, 14). Zeal without knowledge has been the strength and animating demon of every active evil. This is revealed in the failure of traditionalists to turn from their human traditions to the pure revelation of God’s truth (Mark 7:1-9). Christians are a priestly people (I Pet. 2:5-10) called to keep the temple of God pure upon the earth. Many religionists bring their money, sports, and traditions to church; consequently, they are “...almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly” (Prov. 5:14). The great sin of the Corinthians was their failure to discern the Lord’s Body (I Cor. 11:29), and this heinous sin is committed today by many.

The authority of Christ was questioned by the Jews who saw Him cleanse the temple. They asked, “What sign showest thou?” He answered and said unto them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). The Pharisees did not understand this saying. Christ did not refer to the cleansed temple, the zeal of which consumed Him. The temple which had been cleansed was shown to be a figure of something greater. Our Lord proclaimed Himself to be the antitype, the new Temple in which the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. The Savior had the authority to cleanse the temple in Jerusalem and to raise up a Temple which men could destroy but not construct. Christ, therefore, said, “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again...” (John 10:18). Our Lord announced His death by the figure of a destroyed and rebuilt temple. His enemies would destroy the Temple of His Body, but the resurrection thereof would be performed by Himself. The resurrection would prove Christ’s authority for cleansing the temple in Jerusalem and demonstrate who He was.

In the perfection of Christ’s Body there was the vigor of perfect health. His Body was capable of pain and weariness, but not of sickness; it was capable of death, but not subject to it. The Body of the sinless Savior could not know corruption either in life or death. Corruption is the consequence of the fall; hence, it pertains only to those who share in it. No one could ever say that the Holy One of God shared in the fall. In his exaltation of Christ on the day of Pentecost, Peter said, “Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption....He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ...” (Acts 2:26, 27, 31).

During “the days of Christ’s flesh,” He prayed, hungered, slept, and rested because He was “a man approved of God” (Acts 2:22). We must not diminish the glory of Christ’s Deity, nor should we take from His humanity. To do so would destroy our Lord’s sacrificial death and glorious resurrection. Thus, we would have no gospel which would result in no glorious resurrection. There were times when His days were so full that He had no opportunity to partake of bodily food (Mark 3:20; 6:31). On one occasion after a long journey, He sat weary and thirsty on a well; but even in weariness and hunger He labored on, refreshed and comforted by the joy of doing the Father’s will (John 4:34). He was not as Moses and Jeremiah, pleading inability to speak God’s message; on the contrary, He said, “...Lo, I come to do thy will, O God...” (Heb. 10:9), and “...I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29). He, therefore, passed through all the experiences of men — sin and sickness excepted.

The “Temple of Christ’s Body” is the appointed place where God meets men in mercy. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them...” (II Cor. 5:19). This Temple, like the tabernacle in the wilderness, was more glorious within than without. Isaiah described the outside of the Temple by saying, “...he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Is. 53:2). As the priests of Israel beheld the beauty in the tabernacle, so Christians (a royal priesthood) are the people who behold the beauty in the Lord Jesus Christ. The religious Jews saw only the outside of the Savior; therefore, they desired to kill Him, for they saw no beauty in Him. Christians, however, see in Him the beauty of grace and truth and say, “My Lord and my God.”

The Temple of Christ’s Body was offered once as a sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:10, 14). Why does the Holy Spirit emphasize Christ’s Body rather than His Soul? If Jesus Christ suffered in His Body only, He would have been a redeemer of bodies only; but his Soul also was made an offering (Is. 53:10); and this was to provide redemption for souls. Emphasis on the Body was to make plain the fact that redemption was to be accomplished by death. Since the Soul cannot die, redemption must be accomplished in the Body which could die. His Body, however, was not subject to death as our bodies. Therefore, our salvation was accomplished by Christ’s Body going through death (Heb. 2:14) — an experience impossible among men.

The Body of Christ sanctifies the believer forever — “once for all” (Heb. 10:10). The word “once” and the word “for all” (forever) stand or fall together. The once of Christ’s work is the secret of its being forever. The propitiation for sin was so complete that God now remembers the sin no more forever; this indicates that He has forgiven the sinner. Forgiveness signifies that God “forgets away” every sin. Forgetting in the Divine mind is an attribute, but in the human mind it is a defect. Consequently, God never illustrates His Divine forgetfulness by human representations, but by similitudes taken from His own creation. “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12). “I have bl