Christology PDF

 

Page 1 of 205

 

Christology 

A Class on the Person and Work of our Lord Jesus Christ

Hosted by: Living Hope Bible Church “An Oasis of Hope in Christ” 6N171 Gary Avenue Roselle, Illinois 60172 (630) 529-8489

 

Christology: Introduction

I.

1 of 15

Page 2 of 205

Introduction A. Definition of Christology

1. Christianity is a "monolithic religion of a teleological kind in which everything is related to Christ, the Redeemer" (Schleiermacher). 2. "Christology is the name for the theological interpretation of the meaning of belief in Christ; it is the doctrine of the person and work of Christ" (Wilhelm Pauk). 3. "In the study of the revelation concerning the Second Person of the Godhead, Christology, the greatest one theme of Theology, is in view. Because of the restricted character of Theology Proper, Christology, as a subdivision of it, is limited to the contemplation of the Person  of  of Christ. As a Person , He is revealed as occupying seven positions-preincarnate, incarnate, dead, raised, ascended and seated, returning and reigning, and as having completed and as having surrendered His mediatorial service. Likewise, three essential facts as to the nature of His Person, with all their implications, must be investigated-the absolute and unalterable Deity of the Second Person in every position in which He is seen, and in every circumstance in which He is placed; His absolute and impeccable humanity secured through the incarnation; and the hypostatical union, or the combining of these two natures in one Theanthropic Person, in which union no aspect of Deity is surrendered and no supernatural exaltation of humanity is wrought. About these three great issues-the undiminished Deity, the unexalted humanity, and the hypostatical union-the Church, in all her generations, has borne her testimony and has waged her contentions" (Lewis Sperry Chafer, "Unabridged Systematic Theology," Bibliotheca Sacra  91:361:8-23).   91:361:8-23). 4. "Since in Theology Proper only the Person of Christ is contemplated in the division devoted to the Second Person of the Godhead, it is reserved to Soteriology to set forth His saving work on the Cross. As a true preparation for this great division of Theology, Christ must be seen in all His varied positions and ministries, as Prophet, Priest, and King, in His sonships, and in His relationships. 5. "The saving work of Christ in its fullness is based on His sufferings in life,His Hispresent sufferings in death, His return. burial, His resurrection, His ascension, session, and His According to

 

Christology: Introduction

2 of 15

Page 3 of 205

the Scriptures, the great theme of Salvation is presented in three tenses: (1) past , or salvation unto eternal life and from the guilt  and  and penalty  of  of sin; (2) present , or salvation unto sanctification and from the reigning power  of  of sin; and (3) future , or salvation unto eternal perfection and glory and from the presence  of  of sin. Almost every feature of Christology is anticipated in the types, foreshadowings, and prophecies of the Old Testament; especially enriched is this portion of the Scriptures as it bears on His sufferings in life, His sufferings in death, and His resurrection. In fact, it is probable that what may be termed the central passage of the whole Bible on the sufferings and death of Christ is to be found in the first five chapters of Leviticus. The wealth of truth there revealed is not on the surface, but is disclosed only to the spiritual mind which is exercised by long and patient study. First importance must always be given to the direct, antitypical statements found in the New Testament; but these are enriched beyond estimation by the typical teachings of the Old Testament, including Abel’s lamb, Isaac, the Passover, various features of the Tabernacle, the five offerings, the two birds, the red heifer, and the day of Atonement. So, also, the student should recognize the place given in each book of the Bible to the sufferings and death of Christ. The result of such extended personal research is both imperative and priceless. 6. Salvation, as wrought by God in grace, incorporates at least twelve important subdivisions or doctrines, namely, Redemption, Reconciliation, Propitiation, Conviction, Repentance, Faith, Regeneration, Forgiveness, Justification, Sanctification, Preservation, and Glorification. The extent of this field of truth is obvious. Added to this, the student should be familiar with the multiplied details which enter into the divine objectives in the death of Christ, including the following: He became a substitute for sinners, presenting His own merit in their behalf and bearing the condemnation due them because of demerit; He became the end of the law for all those that believe; He dealt finally and perfectly with all pre-Cross sins; He became a redemption toward sin, a reconciliation toward man, and a propitiation toward God; He spoiled Principalities and Powers; He provided the ground for the cleansing and forgiving of the Christian who has sinned; and on the ground of His sacrifice God will yet take away Israel’s sins and purge both earth and heaven. A worthy knowledge of Soteriology includes the theories, both true and false, as to the extent  of  of the value of Christ’s sufferings and death. Was it a limited, or was it a universal, redemption?" (Ibid). B. Significance of Christology

 

Christology: Introduction

3 of 15

Page 4 of 205

1. Significance to the All Theology a) "Throughout its history the chur church ch has realized that Christology, of the study of what is to believed about the person of Jesus Christ, is of the greatest importance. Since Jesus is at the very center of our faith, and since what is believed about him is the very touchstone of our Christianity, this doctrinal endeavor is of paramount importance" (Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 9). b) "Beware of studying doctrin doctrine, e, precept, or experiences apart from the Lord Jesus, who is the soul of all. Doctrine without Christ will be nothing better than his empty tomb. Doctrine with Christ is a glorious high throne, with the king sitting on it" (Spurgeon, MTP, 35:206). c) "Christ is the beginning, middle, end… nothing is, or can be found, apa rt from Him" (Calvin, Commentary on apart Colossian, p. 146). d) Christ is the arch of all ttheology. heology. If He is taken out, all must fall into chaotic rubbish. See Luke 24:27 2. Significance to the d doctrine octrine of Theology Proper a) "Christ is that image in which God present to our view not only his heart, but also his hands and his feet. I give the name of his heart to that secret love which he embraces us in Christ" (Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, 1:64). b) "Christology constit constitutes utes the heart of theology, since it focuses on God's work of salvation in the historical figure Jesus of Nazareth. To know the nature of God we must see his face in in Jesus Christ. To know the plan of God for the world we must see this plan realized in the cross of Christ and fulfilled in his resurrection and Second Advent…. The way to know God is through knowledge of Christ, and they way to knowledge of Christ is by faith in his promises as revealed in the Bible" (Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord , 15-16).

 

Christology: Introduction

4 of 15

Page 5 of 205

c) See John 1:18; 6:46; 14:1-14; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:1-3 3. Significance to the doctrine o off Anthropology a) Christ is offered as the only rremedy emedy for man's plight of depravity b) He is the perf perfect ect man c) He is the model of the image of God, which man essentially is. d) "We have seen that m man an was created to llove, ove, serve and fellowship with God. We have also seen that man fails to fulfill this divine intention for him; in other words, all humans sin. Because God lov loved ed man, however, he chose to act through Christ to restore man to the intended condition and relationship. Thus, our understanding of the person and work of Christ grows directly out of the doctrines of man and of sin" (Erickson, Christian Theology, 661). 4. Significance to the doctrine o off Salvation a) The doctrine of Christ (Christology) (Christology) therefore follows logically upon that of divine grace as the cardinal article of the Christian faith, with which the Church stands or falls. While usually this expression is applied to the doctrine of justification, and rightly so, we must not forget that without the vicarious satisfaction of Christ there could be no doctrine of justification by grace, through faith. Hence, as the redeeming work of our Lord is the foundation of the doctrine of divine grace, so it is the foundation also of the doctrine of justification" (Muller, Christian Dogmatics , 255). "Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation…. It is not simply a phase of the application of redemption; it underlies every aspect of redemption" (John Murray, Redemption Applied and Accomplished, 201, 205). 

b)

c)

"The whole gospel is contained in Christ" (Calvin,

Romans, 15. 

 

Christology: Introduction

5 of 15

Page 6 of 205

"All the blessings of God come to us through Christ" (Calvin, Romans, 19). 

d)

Robert Dabney states, “It is through this union to Christ that the whole application of redemption is effectuated on the sinner’s soul” ( Systematic Theology , 612). 

e)

(1)  Believers have eternal life in Christ (Rom. ( Rom. 6:23) (2)  Believers are forgiven in Christ (Rom. 8:1) (3)  Believers have all the promises of God in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20) 

(4)  Believers are new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) (5)  Believers are free in Christ (Gal. 2:4) (6)  Believers have every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph. 1:3) (7)  Believers have been raised up and seated in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 2:6) 

(8)  Believers have been created unto good works in Christ (Eph. 2:10; Jn. 15:5) (9)  Believers are complete complete in Christ Christ (Col. 2:10). (10)  Believers have a fellowship with all believers in Christ (1 Cor. 12:13-27) (11)  Believers have a future resurrection in Christ (1 Cor. 15:47, 49)

5. Significance to doctrine of the Church

a) “Ecclesiology,” says University of Basel professor, Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “is simply Christology.” He argues that all sociological attempts to explain the church are futile because the church can only be explained by its link to the person and work of Christ. The church is the body of Christ (sw'ma Cristou',  ), and Christ is the head (kefalhv, ) of the body (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; cf. 1 Cor. 12:12–13, 27). These metaphors stress the unity of

 

Christology: Introduction

6 of 15

Page 7 of 205

Christ and His people, and the term head specifically stresses that He is leader or ruler over the church. He exercises a position of power and authority over His people. The early church witnessed to the headship of Christ by recognizing no individual man as the head of the church. Leadership was always invested in a plurality of leaders (first apostles and soon elders). This was true of the universal church and of the local church, which is a replica or a miniature of the universal church.  b) The primacy of Scripture in its tteaching eaching that Christ is the sole head (“Chief Shepherd,” 1 Pet. 5:4) of the church was denied in practice soon after the death of the apostles. A plurality of elders gave way to a monarchical bishop, and the institutional Church was ultimately ruled by the Supreme Pontiff, i.e., the Pope, in Rome. Even in the Protestant churches the pastor as an officer over the flock is a firmly entrenched tradition — a tradition that denies to Christ His place as head of the church. 6. Significance to Eschatology a) "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10) b) The design of prophecy is to bear testimo testimony ny to Jesus. The language does not mean, of course, that this is the only design of prophecy, but that this is its great and ultimate end. The word prophecy here seems to be used in the large sense in which it is often employed in the New Testament—meaning to make known the Divine will, and the primary reference here would seem to be to the preachers and teachers of the New Testament. The sense is, that their grand business is to bear testimony to the Saviour. They are all—whether angels, apostles, or ordinary teachers—appointed for this, and therefore should regard themselves as "fellowservants." The design of the angel in this seems to have been, to state to John what was his own specific business in the communications which he made, and then to state a universal truth applicable to all ministers of the gospel, that they were engaged in the same work, and that no one of them should claim adoration from others.

 

Christology: Introduction

7 of 15

Page 8 of 205

c) "Thus understood, this passage has no direct reference to the prophecies of the Old Testament, and teaches nothing in regard to their design, though it is in fact undoubtedly true that their grand and leading object was to bear testimony to the future Messiah. But this passage will not justify the attempt so often made to "find Christ" everywhere in the prophecies of the Old Testament, or justify the many forced and unnatural interpretations by which the prophecies are often applied to him" (Albert Barnes, Notes Notes On the New Testament). C. Source of Christology

1. Christology from Above a) Associated with Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Emil Brunner) b) Key elements: (1)  The key to understanding of Jesus is not in the historical Jesus, but in the preaching of the Church (2)  Focus is placed on Paul and John, rather than synoptic Gospels (3)  Faith in Christ is not based upon or supported by rational proof.

c) Key Quotes: (1)  We are bound to oppose the view that the Christian faith springs out of historical observation, out of the historical picture of Jesus of Nazareth. Nazareth. Christendom itself itself has always known otherwise. Christian faith springs only out of the witness of the Church of the preached message and the written word of Scriptures. The historical picture is indeed included in the latter…. But his picture itself is not the basis of knowledge" (Emil Brunner, The Mediator, 158). (2)  "If once the conviction is regained that the Christian faith does not arise out of the picture of the historical Jesus, but out of the testimony to Christ as such-- this includes the witness of the prophets as well as that of the Apostles-- and that it is based upon this testimony, then inevitably the preference for the Synoptic Gospels and for the actual words of Jesus, which was

 

Christology: Introduction

8 of 15

Page 9 of 205

the usual position of the last generation, will disappear" (Ibid., 172).

d) Fallacies: (1)  Cannot substantiate belief (2)  Is the Christ of faith the same as the Christ of history? (3)  Too subjective

2. Christ from Below a) Associated with Wolfhart Pannenberg b) Key Elements: (1)  Historical inquiry is possible and desirable

(2)  There is no special redemptive or sacred history (3)  This can give us a human Jesus, but it cannot ca nnot substantiate a divine history, especially when it is attached to denying the supernatural events of the Bible.

c) Key Quotes: (1)  "The task of Christology is to offer rational support for belief in the divinity of Jesus, for it is this which is disputed in the world today. Christology from above is unacceptable in that it presupposes the divinity of Jesus" (Pannenberg, ( Pannenberg, Jesus-God and and  Man, 34). (2)  Strictly speaking, a Christology from above is possible only from the position of God himself, and not for us. We are limited, earthbound human beings, and we must begin and conduct our inquiry from that perspective" (Ibid., 35).

d) Fallacies (1)  Divorces the Christ of faith from the Christ of history (2)  Denies the supernatural

 

Christology: Introduction

9 of 15

Page 10 of 205

3. Orthodox Christ a) Associated with Augustine b) Key elements (1)  Faith precedes but does not remain permanently independent of reason. Faith provides the perspective perspective or starting point from which reason may function. (2)  The preaching of Christ is the starting point and is used to interpret and integrate the data supplied (3)  See how the Pharisees saw Jesus perform miraculous healings through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22-32; Mark 3:20-30; Luke 11:14-23) (4)  There is a supernatural assistance that must take place (Matt. 16:15-17) (5)  There is also a considering of the facts of Jesus (Luke 7:19).

 

Christology: Introduction

10 of 15

Page 11 of 205

D. Schemata of Christology

1. "The doctrine of Christ is commonly treated under three heads: A. the doctrine of the Person of Christ; B. the Doctrine of the States of Christ; C. the Doctrine of the Work of Christ (de officio Christi). Under these three heads it is possible to group all truths which Holy Scripture reveals concerning our Lord and His work and to refute whatever errors have been voiced against them" (Muller, 255). 2. Doctrine of the Person of Christ a) Deity b) Humanity c) Personal Unity 3. Doctrine of the States (or Estates) of Christ a) Humiliation ((e.g., e.g., incarnati incarnation, on, death, burial) b) Exaltation (e.g., resurrection, ascension, session) 4. Doctrine of the Offices of Christ a) Office of Prophet (Teachings) b) Office of Priest (A (Atonement, tonement, intercession) c) Office of King (Second Advent, M Millennium) illennium)

E. Bibliography of Christology   1. Best Surveys of Available Literature a) *Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980.Dunn is reader in New Testament Studies at a t the University of Nottingham. Technically a study on the incarnation, the work has much to offer the interested student in the other areas of Christology as well. Dunn must be read cautiously and judiciously due to his views on the unity of Scripture (see his Unity and Diversity in the New Testament) and his adoption of some of the baggage that accompanies historical criticism. Recognize the

 

Christology: Introduction

11 of 15

Page 12 of 205

work as a contribution in the area of biblical theology and make use of the extensive (49 pages!) bibliography and extensive (84 pages!) of footnotes. b) Ramm, Bernard L. An Evangelical Christology. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985. Ramm is professor of Christian Theology at the American Baptist Seminary of the West in Berkeley, CA. C A. In this Christology Ramm deals in an ecumenical fashion with the orthodox doctrines of Christology. The book has an extended bibliography which lists the major contributions to theology in the last century of scholarship. Some strengths of the volume include a critique of Bultmann’s demythologization approach to the Scriptures and critical examination of some of the more contemporary neo-orthodox approaches to Christology. The volume lacks any indices and the arrangement of doctrine according to creedal statements does not enhance the book. This is a volume which used in profitably by the backgrounds. discerning student who iscan wellbe versed Christological When used with care, the volume will make an excellent contribution toward broadening the exposure of the pastor/student to the literature of Christology 2. Recommended volumes in Christology  a) *Baillie, Donald Macpherson. God Was In Christ. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948.  An important and penetrating investigation of the historical Jesus by the Scottish theologian and former professor of systematic theology at St. Andrews University in Scotland. The message of Christ is reconstructed and interwoven in this volume into the NT teaching on the incarnation and the atonement. There is a helpful appendix on Christology and mythology. b) Berkouwer, G. C. The Work of Christ. Translated by Cornelius van Til. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1965. Berkouwer was professor of Systematic Theology at Free University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The study is wide ranging and for this reason suffers from Berkouwer’s tendency to say too much, but it has some excellent treatments of some individual topics such as the chapter on the “Aspects of the Work of Christ.”

 

Christology: Introduction

12 of 15

Page 13 of 205

c) __________. The Person of Christ. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Co., 1954. Berkouwer e examines xamines the historical pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, the Christian confessions, and the nature, unity, and sinlessness of Christ from a Reformed perspective. d) Boice, James Montgomery. Vol. 2. God the Redeemer. Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Varsity Press, 1978. This Presbyt Presbyterian erian pastor-scholar in tthe he evangelical tradition has provided a helpful study on the provision of God for man’s salvation in Jesus. The section on Christology is helpful and worthwhile reading for the average person in the pew. e) Walvoord, John F. Jesus Christ Our Lord. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978. A tradit traditional ional study by the Chancellor at Dallas Seminary. Outline in format, the work is not an interactive Christology (concerning modern trends). of The main value of the work is in the systematization the biblical data concerning Christ with a minor emphasis on the creedal and historical perspectives of the doctrine. The book lacks critical interaction with scolars of opposing viewpoints. 3. On the Incarnation  a) Anderson, Norman. The Mystery of the Incarnation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1978.   A work of some value for its assessment of the various theories on the humanity of Christ. b) Erickson, Millard J. The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. The primary v value alue of this work is its treatment of recent Christologies from a solidly evangelical perspective. Erickson, who is professor of theology (and dean) of Bethel Seminary, puts forth a substantial treatment of recent Christological issues related to the incarnation from existential, liberation, black, feminist, functional, process, universalist, and other Christological perspectives. Erickson finds fault with Chalcedon inasmuch as it stated what Christ was not rather than affirming substantially what He is. The book lacks a bibliography but issowell-documented, cross-referenced, and indexed that the former

 

Christology: Introduction

13 of 15

Page 14 of 205

problem is not overwhelming. of special interest to this writer is the section on “Views of the Continuing Incarnation” (pp. 565ff.) It is doubtful that Norman Geisler would allow his position on the resurrected body of Jesus (and therefore of believers) to be described as “semi physical.” It seems that Erickson has misread Geisler on this point and, indeed has not thought out the consequences of his critique from a consistent logical and philosophical basis. The suggestion of a two-stage exaltation is interesting, but one is left to wonder how the 1 John passages are dealt with in Erickson’s treatment. Students of Christology will be poorer for their failure to read this exhaustive ex haustive treatment. c) *Wells, David F. The Person of Christ: A Biblical and Historical Analysis of the Incarnation. Westchester: Crossway Books, 1984. Wells has prov provided ided us with an excellent scholarly interaction with liberals on the subject of the incarnation. The book is divided into three parts: Biblical foundations, development, and modern interpretation. Wellshistorical considers not only what theologians have said about Jesus but why they have said it. He has substantive interaction in some 26 pages of footnotes. In the first 15 pages of the work he present some of the basic presuppositions that underlie his approach (all of them conservative and evangelical contra redaction and form criticism). He sees the unity and diversity of the NT as complimentary rather than contradictory elements (p. 15). The advent a dvent of the kingdom in the person of Jesus is the sine qua non of a proper understanding of Christology in his view. This volume is a must for the introductory study of Christology by the Trinity professor. 4. Other Volumes in Christology  a) Buell, Jon A A.. and Hyder, O. Quentin. Jesus: God, Ghost or Guru? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978. b) Bultmann, Rudolph. Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958. c) Chemnitz, Martin. The Two Natures of Christ. Translated by J. A. O. Prues. St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1971.

 

Christology: Introduction

14 of 15

Page 15 of 205

d) Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised edition. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963. e) Dabney, Robert L. Christ our Penal Substitute. Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897. f) Douty, Norman L. The Death of Christ. Irving, TX: Williams and Watrous, 1978. g) Dorner, I. A. History of the Development of the Person of Jesus. 5 volumes. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, n. d. h) Green, Michael. Editor. The Truth of God Incarnate. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977. i) Gromacki, Robert. The Virgin Birth. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Press, 1974. j) Gunn, James. Christ the Fullness of the Godhead. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1983. k) Hengstenberg, Ernst W. Christology of the 0ld Testament. 4 vols. in one. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1956. See the review in OT Theologies. l) Hick, John, editor. The Myth of God Incarnate. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1977. m) Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. London: SCM Press, 1970.

n) MacDonald, H. D. Jesus - Human and Divine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1968. o) Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. p) Mackintosh, Hugh R. The Doctrine of the Person of Christ. 3rd edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914. q) Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977.

 

Christology: Introduction

15 of 15

Page 16 of 205

r) Owen, John. The Glory of Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1949. First published in 1696. s) Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus: God and Man. Trans. by L. Wilkins and D. Priebe. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. t) Pittenger, Norman. Christology Reconsidered. London: SCM Press, 1970. u) Warfield, Benjamin B. The Person and Work of Christ. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1950.

 

Page 17 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 1 of 19

II.

The Person of Christ A. The Deity of Christ

1. Introduction a) While often disputed by anti-supernaturalists both in and out of the church, the deity of Christ is a well established fact of the New Testament. b) "Not one rrecognized ecognized religious leader, not Moses, Paul, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, etc., has ever claimed to be God; that is, with the exception of Jesus Christ. Christ is the only religious leader who has ever claimed to be deity and that the only individual who has convinced a great portion of the world that He is God" (Thomas Schutlz, The Doctrine of the Person of Christ with an Emphasis upon the Hypostatic Union , 209. c) "But the reason overshadowing all othes, which led directly to the ignominious execution of the Teacher of Galilee, was His incredible claim that He, a simple carpenter's son among the shavings and sawdust of His father's workshop, was in reality God in the flesh" (Robert Anderson, The Lord from Heaven, 49). d) "I am tryi trying ng here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing hat people often say s ay about Him: 'I am ready rea dy to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' This is one thing we must not say. A man show was merely a man and said s aid the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse" (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 40, 41). 2. The Savior's claim to deity. a) The cl claim aim of oneness iin n essence with tthe he F Father ather (John 10:30-31).

 

Page 18 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 2 of 19

b) The acknowledgment of the great P Petrine etrine confession (Matt. 16:16-17). In response to Jesus' question, "B "But ut who do you say that I am?" (Matt. 16:15) Peter responds, "You are the Christ, Christ, the Son of the living God." Rather than rebuking and correcting him for speaking spe aking error or blasphemy (which the Lord did, not too long after, when Peter misspoke himself, see Matt. 16:21-23) Jesus not only accepts the assessment asses sment but identifies it as divinely revealed truth. c) The absolute ""II am" claim (John 8:58). (1)  In three occurrences of this construction c onstruction ["I am," in John 8:24, 28; 13:19], the omission in the Greek of the predicate nominative "He" may be explained in light of the contexts, since there are clearly identifiable antecedents (cf. 8:12, 23 with 24; cf. 8:28a with 28b; cf. 13:13 with 13:19). (2)  The supplying of the pronoun "He" in these cases is in order, since it is inferred from the context. context. This is not true in John 8:58. Here there is no antecedent antecedent in the context, and the obvious obvious contrast intended between the two main statements ("before Abraham was born" and "I AM") is heightened by the fact that neither a predicate nominative nor a predicate pre dicate adjective is used. (3)  By the use of prin (before), a word with unmistakable temporal meaning; by the reference to Abraham, a historical personage of paramount importance as the physical, natural, and spiritual progenitor of Israel; and by the use of the aorist infinitive genesthai (was born), which emphasizes the historical fact of Abraham's existence, or, better, entrance into existence, one half of the great contrast is set forth.

Then by a(from dramatic change verb (from ginomai (4) and aktionsart punctiliar toof linear) the second halfto is eimi) stated. While genesthai describes describes entrance into existen existence ce from a state of non-existence, eimi describes timeless being and essential existence (cf. John 1:1).

(5) That Jesus was consciously identifying Himself with Yahweh of the Old Testament is beyond refutation. The parallels between this passage and Exodus 3:13-15 are too exact to be set aside. aside. When Moses asked God His name so that he could tell it to Israel, the answer was "I AM." The text then goes on, "And God, furthermore, said to Moses, 'Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, the LORD [Yahweh, which is derived from hayah , to be; since eimi is the Greek equivalent to hayah (cf. Ex. 3:14 LXX) it is apparent that in making the claim "I am" Jesus was

 

Page 19 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 3 of 19 claiming to be Yahweh], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham . . . has sent me to you. This is my name forever, and this is my memorial-name to all generations.'" (6)  As John 8:59 shows Jesus' hearers recognized the relationship between Jesus' words and those of Exodus 3:13-15, and thus they reacted as it was customary to react to blasphemy: they picked up stones to stone Him (W. ( W. Robert Cook, The Theology of John, pp. 57-8).

 

Page 20 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 4 of 19

d) Statement at trial (Mark 14: 14:61-64) 61-64) e) Equality with the Father (John 10:20-33; 5:17, 18) f) Same honor due Him as the Father (John 5:22, 24) g) Knowing Him is tto o know the Father (John 8:19; John 14:9) 3. NT Descriptions of Christ as Jehovah/ Yahweh Of Yahweh

Mutual Title or Act

Of Jesus

Isa. 40:28

Creator

John 1:3

Isa. 45:22; 43:11

Savior

John 4:42

1 Sam. 2:6

Raise dead

John 5:21

Joel 3:12

Judge

John 5:27; Cf. Matt. 25:31 ff.

Isa. 60:19-20

Light

John 8:12

Exodus 3:4

I AM

John 8:58; Cf. 18:5, 6

Psalm 23:1

Shepherd

John 10:11

Isa. 42:8; 48:11

Glory of God

John 17:1, 5

Isa. 41:4; 44:6

First and Last

Rev. 1:7; 2:8

Hosea 13:14

Redeemer

Rev. 5:9

Isa. 62:5; Hosea 2:16

Bridegroom

Rev. 21:2; Cf. Matt. 25:1ff.

Psa. 18:2

Rock

1 Cor. 10:4

Jer. 31:4

Forgiver of Sin

Mark 2:7, 10

Psa. 148:2

Worshipped by Angels

Heb. 1:6

Throughout

Addressed in prayer

Acts 7:59

 

Page 21 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 5 of 19

Psa. 148:5

Creator of Angels

Col. 1:16

Isa. 45:23

Confessed as Lord

Phil. 2:11

4. Important Passages on the Deity of Christ a) John 1:1-- ""In In the begi beginning nning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (1)  The term logos, translated by the English term "word," " word," has as its basic idea that of disclosure disclosure or revelation of God. A comparison of John 1:1 with 1:14 shows that the Word of verse one must be a reference to Christ. Of him it is said he w was as (en) in the beginning (cf. Gen. 1:1; John 17:5). Thus there never was a time when he was not. Whenever the beginning was he already was. This refers to the pre-existence and eternity of the Logos. God. "With" has (2) Further, it is said that he was with (pros) God. the sense of "toward" or "facing" "giving the picture of two personal beings facing one another and engaging in intelligent discourse. The use of the same verb that was used used in the first clause of verse 1 (en) indicates that ho logos and ho theos have always been two separate centers of consciousness or individual persons.

(3) There should be no confusion of the two" (Cook, The Theology of John, p. 49). This, then, speaks of fellowship, fellowship, sharing, and exchange. It implies equality as well as association and points to personality.  (4)  Not only was he "in the beginning" and "with God," but the scriptures also declare he "was God."

(5) The third clause of verse 1 speaks of the nature of the Word. He is of the very essence of deity. deity. The words theos en ho log logos os have been the target of various cultic and aberrant forms of pseudo-Christian theology theology since John first penned penned them. They have been variously translated as "God was the Word," "the Word was a god," "the Word was divine," divine," and so forth. The only grammatically and exegetically correct translation, and therefore the only theologically correct translation, however, is "the Word was God." 

 

Page 22 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 6 of 19 (6)  While Colwell has demonstrated that in such a construction as this theos does not need the article to be definite (E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, L II, 20-21), nonetheless it is to be construed as a predicate nominative rather than as the subject. This is not a convertible convertible statement with either noun capable of being construed as subject. The article could have had beenthere usedbeen withthe theos or ittocould been omittedof with logos intent have have "God" as subject the clause. "God" is in the first position position in the clause for emphasis because this is the climactic statement of a series of remarkable statements. Not only was the Word already in existence at the beginning, and not only was He a personal being in fellowship with God, God, but He was Himself God. Furthermore, the statement "God was the Word" is in direct contradiction with everything else John teaches about God (to say nothing of the rest of the New Testament). He has already, in the second clause, distinguished God and the Word, and he will continue to do so throughout his his writing. John was trinitarian and this translation would make him a unitarian. . . .

(7) The translation "the Word was a god" is openly intended to

denigrate the obvious obvious assertion of deity. This, too, does not stand the test of grammar or of the analogy of faith, and it totally ignores the development of the argument in the context. As has already been noted, theos does not need the article to be definite in such constructions constructions as this. this. Furthermore, if the sense sense of an anarthrous construction is to be captured in English, it is rarely best accomplished by the use use of the indefinite article. Such constructions rather qualify then specify; so the sense is "the Word was of such a nature as God is." is." As the Athanasian Creed puts it, "the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God." Also, the translation translation "the Word was a god" teaches teaches polytheism, which is in direct conflict with John's teaching elsewhere (John 10:30) and with the rest of the New Testament (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:4-6).  (8)  When one translates the third clause of John 1:1 as "the Word was divine," it is usually with the implication that divinity is something other and less than absolute deity [see e.g., John A. T. Robinson, Honest To God, God, p. 71]. If John had meant "divine" "divine" as the sense of the statement, he had access to the word theios. Although theios does express a biblical truth, John was identifying person (logos) with person (theos) here, not person with attributes (Cook, op. cit., pp. 49-51).

(9) When John 1:14 is compared with 1:1 a note of particular significance is the change of verbs and the change of the tense of the verbs. the the verb "was" in the Greek imperfect tense, whileIninverse verseone fourteen theisverb is "became" (egeneto) in

 

Page 23 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 7 of 19 the Greek aorist tense. This verb and tense would hav havee been inappropriate in verse one as well as a s vice versa. The aorist suggests that there was a time, namely na mely the incarnation, when he began a mode of existence, which had not hitherto been true. (10)  Note well that it is the eternal, personal, divine Word who became flesh, that that is, as Word he became flesh. In this experience there was an addition not a subtraction.

(11)

Also note that he became flesh, that is, he was no mere semblance of man. The term "dwelt" in verse fourteen is better translated "tabernacled" or more literally "pitched his tent." tent." This was done "in our midst" or "among "among us." He not only became a man in form but also in fellowship, in actual daily living. (12)  The glory which was beheld (etheasametha--refers to careful deliberate looking; scrutiny) was such as an only begotten from the Father's side side would have. This could well be an intimation of a personalizing of the Old Testament Shekinah glory (Exod. 40:34). This one from the Father was full of grace grace and truth. There was nothing else than this in him for if he was full of these things there was no room for ungracious or untruthful actions, thoughts, etc. (13)  Because he is spirit (John 4:24) God is invisible and thus unknown by man who moves and understands primarily in the realm of matter, space, and time. John 1:18 declares that "God only begotten," that is the one referred to in verse fourteen as the Word become flesh, and in John 3:16 and 18 as the Son of God given for salvation, has interpreted (exegesato) or exegeted God to man in personal manifestation (see Heb. 1:2-3).

b) Romans 9:5-- "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (1)  In Romans 9:5 it is stated “Christ…is over all, God blessed forever.” (2)  While it has often been contested c ontested as to whether this passage teaches the deity of Christ the most natural way to understand the phrases of this passage is appositionally appositionally.. (3)  Also, they are in keeping with other Pauline teaching regarding Christ as is seen, for example, in 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Titus 2:13; Philippians 2:6; and Colossians 2:9. (4)  After a survey of Greek manuscripts, early translations, and other grammar and structure of the passage, Bruce M. Metzger

 

Page 24 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 8 of 19 concludes that "if one confines one's attention to the verse itself, the balance of probabilities favors referring theos to Christ ("The Punctuation of Romans 9:5," Christ and Spirit in the New Testament, edited by Barnabas Linders and Stephan S. Smalley, Smalley, p. 109). (5)  As Metzger points out Paul does not hesitate to call Christ Lord of the living and the dead (Rom. 14:9), the Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:8), the one through whom all things hold together (Col. 1:17), to whom all creatures are to bow (Phil. 2:10); he is, moreover, the veritable image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) and the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Paul represents Christ as preexistent (Gal. 4:14, 2 Cor. 8:9), as being in the form of God and having equality equality with God (Phil. 2:6) (Carl F. H. Henry, God Revelation and Authority, V, 197-98). (For a full discussion of this passage from an exegetical standpoint see John F. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II, 245 ff.)

c) Titus 2:13-- "Looking for that blessed hop hope, e, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" (1)  Titus 2:13 declares, ". . . our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." That this declaration is to be understood as stating stating that Jesus Christ is God as well as Savior is supported by Granville Sharp's rule which states, "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participles, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle; i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first-named person" (see (see H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 147). (2)  In an article that clarifies the proper use of Sharp’s rule Daniel B. Wallace also demonstrates its validity in relation to Titus 2:13 (“Granville (“Granville Sharp: A Model of Evangelical Evangelical Scholarship and Social Action, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41, 4 (Dec. 1998), 604-612).

d) Colossians 2:9 (1)  Also supports the deity of the second person in that it states, "in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. . . ." (2)  Theotetos means deity or godhood and this is predicated regarding Jesus Christ.

 

Page 25 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 9 of 19

e) 1 John 5:20-- "A "And nd we know that the Son of God iis s come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (1)  This Jesus Christ (the last-named Person) is the true God" (identifying Him thus with the Father in His attribute, "the only true God," John 17:3, primarily attributed to the Father) (Jamieson, Fauset, and Brown) (2)  "There has been much difference of opinion in regard to this important passage; whether it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, the immediate antecedent, or to a more remote antecedent—referring to God, as such. The T he question is of importance in its bearing on the doctrine of the divinity of the Saviour; for if it refers to him, it furnishes an unequivocal declaration that he is Divine. The question is, whether John meant  that  that it should be referred to him? Without going into an extended examination of the passage, the following considerations seem to me to make it morally that by the Christ. phrase "this is the true God," etc., he did refercertain to the Lord Jesus (a)  The grammatical construction favours it. Christ is the immediate antecedent of the pronoun this—Greek. This would be regarded as the obvious and certain construction so far as the grammar is concerned, unless there were something in the thing affirmed which led us to seek some more remote and less obvious antecedent.  No doubt would have been ever entertained entertained on this  point, if it had not been been for the reluctance to admit admit that the Lord Jesus is the true God. If the assertion had been that "this is the true Messiah;" or that "this is the Son of God;" or that "this is he who was born of the Virgin  Mary," there would have been no difficulty difficulty in the construction. I admit that this argument is not absolutely decisive; for cases do occur where a pronoun refers, not to the immediate antecedent, but to one more remote; but cases of that kind depend on the ground of necessity, and can be applied only when it would be a clear violation of the sense of the author to refer it to the immediate antecedent. (b)  This construction seems to be demanded by the adjunct which John has assigned to the phrase "the true God"—" ETERNAL LIFE." This is an expression which  John would he likely to apply apply to the Lord Jesus, considered as life, and the source of life, and not to God as such. "How familiar is this language with John, as applied to Christ! ‘In him (i.e. Christ) was Life, and the

 

Page 26 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 10 of 19  LIFE was the light of men—giving men—giving LIFE to the world—  the bread of LIFE.—my words are spirit and LIFE —I am the way, and the truth, and the LIFE. This LIFE (Christ) was manifested, and we have seen it, and do testify to you, and declare the ETERNAL LIFE which was with the Father, and was manifested to us,’ 1Jo 1:2."—Prof. Stuart’s Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 83. There is no instance in eternal the writings of bestowed John, in which the appellation LIFE, and Life, is upon the Father, to designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life; and as this occurs so frequently in John’s writings as applied to Christ, the laws of exegesis require that both the phrase "the true God," and "eternal life," should be applied to him. (c)  If it refers to God as such, such, or to the word "true"—  Greek —it would be mere tautology, or a mere truism. The rendering would then be, "That we may know the true God, and we are in the true God: this is the true God, and eternal life." Can we believe that an inspired man would affirm gravely, and with so much solemnity, and as if it were a truth of so much magnitude, that the true God is the true God? (d)  This interpretation accords with what we are sure  John would affirm respecting respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ. Can there be any doubt that he who said, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" that he who said "all things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made;" that he who recorded the declaration of the Saviour, "I and my Father are one," and the declaration of Thomas, "my Lord and my God," would apply to him the appellation the true God! (e)  If John did not mean to affirm affirm this, he has mad madee use of an expression which was liable to be misunderstood, and which, as facts have shown, would be misconstrued by the great portion of those who might read what he had written; and, moreover, an expression that would lead to the very sin against which he endeavours to guard in the next verse—the sin of substituting a creature in the place of God, and rendering to another the honour due to him. The language which he uses is  just such as, according according to its natural interpretation, interpretation, would lead men to worship one as the true God who is not the true God, unless the Lord Jesus be Divine. For these reasons, it seems to me that the fair interpretation of this passage that it should beitunderstood referring to the demands Lord Jesus Christ. If so, is a direct as

 

Page 27 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 11 of 19 assertion of his divinity, for there could be no higher  proof of it than to affirm affirm that he is the tru truee God" (Barnes  Notes on the New Testament, Op. Cit.)

 

Page 28 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 12 of 19

5. Old Testament Witness to His Deity a) Psalm 2, universal domi dominion nion (Act (Acts s 13:33) b) Psalm 45, etern eternal al throne (Heb. 1:8, 9) c) Isa. 9:6, mighty God, everlasting Father d) Micah 5:2, from of old e) Malachi 3:12, his temp temple le (Mark 1:2) 6. Divine Atttributes Ascbribed to Christ a) Eternity ((John John 8:58; Rev. 1:8, 17, 18; 22:13) b) Immutability (Heb. 13:8; 1:11, 12) c) Omnipresence (John 3:13; Matt Matt.. 28:20) d) Omniscience (John 5:17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 2:23) e) Omnipotent ((John John 5:17; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 11:17) 7. Divine Works As Ascribed cribed to Chri Christ st a) Creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:6, 7) b) Preservation (Heb. 1:3; Col. 1:16, 17; Providence: Matt. 28:18) c) Miracles (John 5:21, 36, etc.) d) Judgment (2 Cor Cor.. 5:10; Matt Matt.. 5:31, 32) e) Election (John 13:18) f) Sanctification (Eph. 5:26) g) Sending of tthe he Holy Spirit (John 10:28) h) Giving of Life (John 10:28) 8. Supreme Worship given to Christ

 

Page 29 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 13 of 19

a) Calling on His name (1 Cor. 1:2) b) Invoked in blessing (2 Cor. 13:14) c) Adoration and Prostration (Phil 2:10, 11; R Rev. ev. 7:10) d) Receiving Praise (Rev. 1:5, 6). 9. Key Terms Concerning Christ a) Only Begotten (1) "Only begotten" (monogenes) means "one of a kind," that is, "having no peer" or "unique." Due to an unfortunate, although although well intended, set of circumstances this crucial term has come to us in many of our translations in a form that suggests that the Son of God was actually begotten, that is, that he had a beginning. 

(2)  The [Old Latin] tin] so correctly translated [monogenes] as unicus, "only,"Laand did Jerome where it was not applied

to Jesus. But to answer the Arian claims that Jesus was not begotten but made, Jerome translated it as unigenitus, "only begotten," in passages like this one [John 1:14] (also i 18, iii 16, 18). The influence of the Vulg. on the KJ made "only begotten" the standard English rendition (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, II, 13).  (3)  In fact, monogenes is a combination of monos and genos (unicus; only of a kind, unique) rather than monos and gennao (monogennetos, unigenitus; only begotten). The point is that while God has many sons (pollous hious) in the redeemed company of believers, he has only one Son who is full of grace and truth, who is in the bosom of the Father, and who has perfectly declared him (John 1:14, 1:14, 18). This sense for the word is well illustrated as it is used of Isaac in Hebrews 11 11:17. :17. "He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only Son. . ."In terms of numbers Isaac was not Abraham's only son but in light of God's promise and his unusual birth he was indeed unique."

b) Firstborn (1)  The term "firstborn" (prototokos) means "prior in rank" (and ( and possibly, on occasion, in time) and may be translated by the English word "chief." (In support of this meaning see “Arius Revisited: The Firstborn Over Over All Creation – Col.Theological 1:15,” by Larry R. Helyer in The Journal of the Evangelical

 

Page 30 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 14 of 19 Society, 31, 1 (Mar. 1988), 59-67.) It is a title of honor. As used of Christ it does not place him first (earliest) in the order of created things but ranks him as chief over the order of created things.

(2) The sense of the term is well illustrated throughout the Old Testament and especially in the lives of the patriarchs Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. None of them were the first son born born to their respective fathers but each became designated as firstborn as they were given the place of honor and double-blessing in the family (see also 1 Chron. 26:10). 

c) Son of Man (1)  The Metaphysical Sense (a)  It may be noted that the term term is sometimes used in relation to his essential nature and thus as an indication of his deity. This may be seen in several ways. Some  passages describe the the second person from the the  pre-incarnate stand by the term "Son" 18; Gal. 4:4). standpoint In thepoint normal historical histori cal sense(John of the1:14, term, then, this means that he existed prior to being made flesh which strongly suggests that he must be divine. (b)  On occasion the term "only begotten" is used with the term "Son" (John 1:14, 18; 3:16). This would not be appropriate if "Son of God" were merely an official title since "only begotten" means "unique" and serves to set him apart from all other sons of God.

(c) There are other passages, which indicate that the Son is divine, such as Hebrews chapter one and especially verse eight, where the Father addresses the Son as God. On occasion JJesus esus addressed God God as "Father" or "my Father" rather than as "our " our Father" (Matt. 6:9; cf. 7:21). 7:21). The scriptural rrecord ecord also gives gives to us instances where the Lord used the term Son regarding himself and he was correctly understood by his auditors to be referring to deity (John 5:18; John 10:22-39, especially verse 36)  (d)  (See also Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 248, and  J. Oliver Buswell, Christian Christian Theology, I, 105.)

(2)  The Official or Messianic Sense

(a) Certain passages use the term "Son" to refer to the

second person as God's anointed, the Messiah, or Christ

 

Page 31 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 15 of 19 (Matt. 26:63-66; 27:40, 27:40, 42; John 1 1:49). :49). This sense is related to the preceding in that it is possible because of the metaphysical sense.  (b)  Of particular note here is the title “Son of Man” which is used repeatedly by Jesus to refer to himself. There is little question that the roots of this title lie in  Daniel 7:13-14 or that this passage is mess messianic. ianic. (On the basis of Daniel 7:18 some early Jewish interpretation understood understood the figure to be a reference to the people of Israel yet, according to R. Steven Notley, “by the first century opinions had changed” (Dispatch From Jerusalem, 24, 1, “Jesus and the Son of Man,” p. 15). He notes that in 1 Enoch Enoch 46-48 “the Son of Man is is identified as the Messiah.”) Jesus’ widespread use of the title for himself provides clear attestation to his messianic self-consciousness self-consciousness (see Matt. 16:13-16; cf.  Matt. 26:64-65).

(c) While the majority of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels may be understood as messianic this does not mean that Jesus is not nuanced in his use of the term. On occasion he seems to be using the term as the equivalent of “I, the Messiah” (e.g. Mark 2:10; Luke 19:10); on others he seems to be saying, “Messiah, the  Judge” (e.g. Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:69); on yet others he seems to be saying, “Messiah, the suffering Servant of Yahweh” (e.g. Mark 8:31; Luke 9:44); and finally sometimes he seems to be saying, “Messiah, a man among men” (e.g. Matt. 8:20, 9:6-8; cf. Ps. 8:3-6 with  Heb. 2:6-8). 

(3)  The Nativistic Sense (a)  On occasion the term "Son" is used in the sense that  Jesus owed his human birth birth to God (Luke 1:31-32, 35). (b)  Thus has the meaning “offspring of”.

10. Key Heresies Concerning deity of Christ a) The Ebionite Error (1)  Description (a)  By this name were designated designated one or more early Christian sects infected with Judaistic errors.

 

Page 32 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 16 of 19 (b)  The word Ebionites , or rather, more correctly, correctly, Ebionæans (Ebionaioi), is a transliteration of an  Aramean word meaning "poor "poor men". (c)  It first occurs in Irenaeus, Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2, but without designation of meaning. Origen (C. Celsum, II, i; De Princ., IV, i, 22) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., III,  xxvii) refer the name of these these sectaries either to the  poverty of their understanding, understanding, or to the poverty poverty of the  Law to which they clung, or to the poor poor opinions they held concerning Christ. This, however, is obviously not the historic origin of the name. (d)  Other writers, such as Tertullian (De Praescr.,  xxxiii; De Carne Chr., xiv, 18), Hippolytus Hippolytus (cfr. PseudoTert., Adv. Haer., III, as reflecting Hippolytus's lost "Syntagma"), and Epiphanius (Haeres., xxx) derive the name of the sect from a certain Ebion, its supposed  founder.

(2)  The Basic Tenets (a)  The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. (b)  They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2;  III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3). (c)  Their doctrines are similarly described by  Hippolytus (Philos., (Philos., VIII, xxii, X, xviii) and Tertullian (De carne Chr., xiv, 18), but their observance of the Law seems no longer so prominent a feature of their system as in the account given by Irenaeus. (d)  Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., III,  xxvii). (e)  Some Ebionites accept, but others reject, the virginal birth of Christ, though all reject His pre-existence and  His Divinity. (f)  Those who accepted the virginal birth seem to have had more exalted views concerning Christ and, besides

 

Page 33 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 17 of 19 observing the Sabbath, to have kept the Sunday as a memorial of His Resurrection. (g)  The milder sort of Ebionites were probably fewer and less important than their stricter brethren, because the denial of the virgin birth was commonly c ommonly attributed to all. (Origen, Hom. in Luc., xvii)

(3)  Condemnation (a)  The early church fathers as seen above rejected this heresy early` Schleiermacher, Ritschl and Walter Walter (b)  Along with Schleiermacher,  Rauschenbusch, Bloesch Bloesch categorizes Donald Baillie Baillie and contemporary liberation theology as ebionite (op. cit., p. 135). 

b) The Arian and SemiSemi-Arian Arian error (4t (4th h century). (1)  Basic Tenets (a)  The Father Alone is God (b)  The Son is preexistent, above all other creatures c reatures (c)  The Son is a created being; "There was a time when he was not"

(2)  Exegetical Arguments (a)  They argue that Proverbs 8:22 speaks of Christ; rather it is only a personificat personification ion of wisdom (b)  Colossians 1:15 speaks of Christ as the firstborn.  However, preeminence is a better understanding understanding of wo work rk (see Psa. 89:26-27).

(3)  Arian Propositions (a)  "And before he was begotten or created or defined or established, he was not. not. For he was not unbegotten. unbegotten.  But we persecuted because we say, 'The Son has has a beginning, but God is without beginning.' We are  persecuted because we say, 'He is from from nothing.' But we speak this insomuch as he is neither part of God nor  forma any substratum" substratum" (Arius, Letters, in Rusch Rusch The Trinitarian Controversy, 30). 

 

Page 34 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 18 of 19 (b)  "He was created by the will of God before times and ages, and he received life, being, and glories from the Father as the Father has shared them with him….but the Son, begotten the Father, created and founded before the ages, was not before he was begotten. Rather the Son begotten timelessly before everything, alone was caused to subsist by the Father. Father. For he is not everlasting everlasting or coeverlasting or unbegotten with the Father" (Ibid., 31).

(4)  Condemned a the Council of Nicea (A. D. 325). (a)  Subject of 50 years of controversy (b)  Modern day representatives representatives include Jehovah Witnesses, United Pentecostals, Apostolic Faith (c)  I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, very God with of very begotten, not made,Light beingofofLight, one substance theGod, Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who  proceedeth from the Father Father and the Son; who with th thee Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

(5) Semi- Arianism. (a) This was a more conservative error, reacting both against Arianism and the Nicene position which it felt tended to modalism.

(b)  It claimed that Jesus Christ Christ was of similar substance substance (homoiousian) with the Father but not of the same.

 

Page 35 of 205

: Christology: Deity of Christ 19 of 19 (c)  Most contemporary liberal liberal theology is ebi ebionite onite or arian in its views of Christ. Christ. Some who fit this category are Wolfhart Pannenburg, John A. T. Robinson, John Cobb, John Hick, Teilhard de Chardin, David Griffin and Hans Kung.

c) The Kenotic error (19th century). (1)  This view held that the Logos laid aside some or all of his attributes at the incarnation. incarnation. These in turn were redeveloped during his earthly life life in some cases. The milder form claimed that the emptying of Philippians 2:7 only included the relative attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence while he maintained the so-called immanent attributes. (2)  However, to give up any attribute of deity, even momentarily, is to do what even God himself cannot do, namely, to lay aside deity; to cease being God. The scripture declares of Jesus Christ that he is immutable as to his essence (Heb. 13:8). (3)  This viewpoint is usually associated with Chemnitz and

Gess but has also been set forth by P. T. Forsyth, H. R. Mackintosh, Vincent Taylor, Geddes MacGregor and Jurgen Moltmann.  (4)  See handout for more detail 

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 1 of 23f

II.

Page 36 of 205

Person of Christ A. His Deity B. His Humanity

1. Introduction to Christ's Humanity a) Most attacks on the hy hypostatic postatic union, the person of Jesus Christ, have been in the area of his deity. b) There have been from earliest time, however, those who attacked his humanity in one way or another. c) Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 John 4:14:1-6 6 were responses to those who disparaged or denied the true humanity of our Lord. d) John viewed this error so se seriously riously tha thatt he designated those who promulgated it as "false prophets," "of the antichrist" and setting forth a "spirit of error" (1 John 4:1-6). 2. Importance of Christ's Humanity a) It was nece necessary ssary ffor or his sympathy with mankind (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16). b) It was nece necessary ssary tto o his substitution for mankind (1 Pet. 2:24; Heb. 2:9). c) "It was requisi requisite te that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer and make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow feeling of our infirmities infirmities;; that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace" (Westminsterr Larger Catechism, Q. 39). (Westminste d) ""If, however, Jesus was not really one of us, humanity has not been united with deity, and we cannot be saved. For the validity of the work accomplished in Christ's death, or at least its applicability to us as human beings, depends upon the reality of his

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 2 of 23f

Page 37 of 205

humanity, just as the efficacy of it depends upon the genuineness of his deity" (Erickson, ST, 706). 3. Proofs of Christ's Humanity a) The Old Testament Witness (1) He was to come from the seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15 (Cf. Gal. 3:16). (2) He would be of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8-10) (3) He was from the tribe of David (2 Sam. 7; Psalm 89). (4) He would be born of of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14) (5) He was to suffer and die (Isa. 53).

b) The New Testament Witness (1) The birth of Jesus was the birth of a human child (Matt. 1; Luke 2; Gal. 4:4) (2) Jesus has human genealogies (Matt. 1-17-- Joseph; Luke 3:23f. -- Mary). (3) As a boy he grew in "wisdom and stature" (Luke 2:52). (4) He was subject to pain, pleasure, hunger, thirst, fatigue, suffering, and death. This is evidence abundantly throughout the gospels. (5) He had flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14) and after the resurrection, flesh and bone (Luke 24:39). (6) He had a true human soul: he increased in wisdom, thought, reasoned, felt joy and sorrow; was ignorant of the time of the day of judgment (Matt. 24:36).

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 3 of 23f

Page 38 of 205

4. Implication Implications s of Christ's Humanity a) Christ's at atonement onement a avails vails for us b) Christ's intercessory work avails for us c) Christ's life acts as an example to us d) Christ's huma humanity nity br brings ings God tto o us e) Christ's humanity shows that human nature is essentially good 5. Statements on Christ's Humanity a) "We believ believe e that Jesus Christ, being tthe he wisdom of God and his eternal Son, has put on our flesh, so as to be God and man in one person; man, like unto us, capable of suffering in body and soul, yet free from all stain of sin. And as to hi his s humanity, he was the true seed of Abraham and of David, although he was conceived by the secret power of the Holy Spirit. In this we detest all the heresies that have of old troubled the Church, and especial especially ly the diabolical conceits of Servetus, which attribute a fantastical divinity to the Lord Jesus, calling him the idea and pattern of all things, and the personal or figurative Son of God, and, finally, attribute to him a body of three uncreated elements, thus confusing and destroying the two natures" (French Confession, Articl Article e 14) b) "Christ True that M Man, an,the Having Hav ing Real Flesh. W We e also God believe andIsteach eternal Son of the eternal was made the Son of man, from the seed of Abraham and David, not from the coitus of a man, as the Ebionites said, but was most chastely conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the ever virgin Mary, as the evangelical history carefully explains explains to us (Matt., ch. 1). And Paul says: He took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham. Also the apostle John says that whoever does not believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is not of God. Therefore, the flesh of Christ was neither imaginary nor brought from heaven, as Valentinus and Marcion wrongly imagined. A Rational Soul in Christ. Moreover, our Lord Jesus Christ did not have a soul bereft of sense and reason, as

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 4 of 23f

Page 39 of 205

Apollinaris thought, nor flesh without a soul, as Eunomius taught, but a soul with its reason, and flesh with its senses, by which in the time of his passion he sustained real bodily pain, as he himself testified when he said: My soul is very sorrowful, even to death (Matt. 26:38). And, Now is my soul troubled (John 12:27)" (2nd  Helvetic Confession, Article 11). c) "That the e eternal ternal Son of God, who is and continues true and eternal God, took upon Himself the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost; so that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, except for sin (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 35). d) " We confess, therefore, that God has fulfilled the promise which He made to the fathers by the mouth of His holy prophets, when He sent into the world, at the time appointed by Him, His own only-begotten and eternal Son, who took upon Him the form of a servant and became like unto man, really assuming the true human nature with all its infirmities, sin excepted; being conceived in the womb of the blessed virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit without the means of man; and did not only assume human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, that He might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that He should take both upon Him, to save both. Therefore we confess (in opposition to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh of His mother) that Christ partook of the flesh and blood of the children; that He is a fruit of the loins of David after the flesh; born of the seed of David according to the flesh; a fruit of the womb of Mary; born of a woman; a branch of David; a shoot of the root of Jesse; sprung from the tribe of Judah; descended from the Jews according to the flesh; of the seed of Abraham, since (A.V.) he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like unto his brethren in all things, sin excepted; so that in truth He is our IMMANUEL, that is to say, God with us" (Belgic Confession, Article 18).  18).   e) "Christ, the Son o off God, became m man, an, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin" (Westminsterr Shorter Catechism, Q. 22). (Westminste

 

Page 40 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 5 of 23f

6. Issues of Chirst's Humanity a) His Virgin Birth (1)  Importance

(a)  Rex Turner, Sr., said, "There are four cardinal doctrines of Christianity--the doctrine of the virgin birth, the doctrine of the vicarious death, the doctrine of the blood atonement, and the doctrine of the body resurrection of the Son of Man. On these four cardinal doctrines the system of Christianity rests, but the modernist denies all four of the doctrines....Of the four cardinal doctrines of Christianity, none draws a finer line of demarcation than the doctrine of the virgin birth." (b)  Sociologist Jeffrey Hadden conducted a poll of 7,441 Protestant preachers on various Christian issues. Concerning the virgin birth of Christ when asked if they believed in the virgin birth of Jesus: J esus: 60% of Methodist, 44% of Episcopalians, 49% of Presbyterians, 34% of  Baptist, 19% of American American Lutherans, and 5% of  Missouri Synod Lutherans Lutherans said NO! (c)  J. Oliver Buswell said, "If the the Biblical doctrine of of the virgin birth is not historically true, there is no room  for holding the other other evangelical doctri doctrines, nes, for the Bible must then be rejected as an authority for faith and life."

(2)  Significance (a)  The veracity of Scripture (i) The doctrine doctrine of the virgin virgin birth is closely tied to the truthfulness and authority of Scripture. (ii) If one denies the virgin birth, then one is denying the straightforward teaching of the Bible. (iii) If one denies the virgin birth, then he must conclude that the Bible is not telling the truth and that it lacks authority in this area of doctrine. (iv) Machen wisely observed that "if the Bible is regarded as being wrong in what it says about the birth of Christ, then obviously the authority of the Bible, in any high sense, is gone" (Machen, 383).

 

Page 41 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 6 of 23f (b)  The Deity of Christ

(i) The doctrine doctrine of the virgin virgin birth is also linked with belief in the deity of Christ. (ii) Frame writes, "While we cannot say dogmatically that God could enter the world only through the virgin birth, surely the incarnation is a supernatural event if it is anything. To eliminate the supernatural from this event is inevitably to compromise the divine dimension of it" (EDT, 1145; see also Machen, 387-92).

(c)  The Humanity of Christ (i) Similarly, the truth of the virgin birth birth is connected to the doctrine of the humanity of Christ. The Apostle Paul alluded to this truth when he wrote that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4).

(ii) Ignatius, a second-century argued forcefully against the Docetists, martyr, whom he called "certain unbelievers," by stressing that Jesus truly was of the Davidic line, that He was truly nailed to the cross, that He truly suffered, and that He truly rose from the dead. Ignatius was also "fully persuaded" that Jesus Christ was "truly born of a virgin" (AF, 156-157).

(d)  The Sinlessness of Christ (i) Having been born of of the virgin Mary, Jesus was human Offspring. Having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and overshadowed by the power of the Most High, Jesus was holy Offspring—the sinless Son of God. (ii) Therefore, the doctrine of the virgin birth impacts one’s view of the sinlessness of Christ. When Mary "conceived, she passed on her human nature to the theanthropic person, but she was prevented by the Holy Spirit from transmitting a sin nature" (Gromacki, 125). (iii) The other view that one must take into account is one's view of the transmission of sin (mediate, immediate, seminal) and the origin of the soul (traducianism and creationism).

(e)  The Descent of the Messiah

 

Page 42 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 7 of 23f

(i) The doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah, also depends upon the virgin birth. (ii) The Messiah was promised to come as as a descendant of King David (2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Chronicles 17:14; Psalm 89:3-4, 26-37; Isaiah 9:7; Matthew 9:27, 12:23, 20:30, 21:9, 22:41-45; Luke 1:32-33; see also Ezekiel 34:23-24). In fulfillment of these promises, Jesus was born "the son of David" (Matthew 1:1,6). (iii) The Old Testament, however, not only portrays the Messiah as a descendant of David, but also mentions a curse against all of David’s royal seed descending through the line of one of Judah’s final kings. This king was Jehoiachin (also known as Coniah), and his wicked reign is described in 2 Kings 24:8-17 and 2 Chronicles 36:9-10. He was so wicked that God pronounced a curse against him: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22:30). (iv) This presents a problem because, though Jesus’ lineage traces back to David and Solomon (Matthew 1:6-7), according to Matthew, Jesus’ lineage comes through the cursed "Jechonias’" (Matthew 1:11). (v) The virgin birth provides the wonderful solution to this dilemma. Matthew records Jesus’ legal genealogy through Joseph, His adopted father (Matthew 1:16), and so Matthew establishes Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, records Jesus’ biological genealogy through Mary. (vi) Mary too was a descendant of David, but not through Solomon and Jehoiachin. Instead, her line traces back to a son of David through a different son, Nathan (Luke 3:31). In the sovereign plan of God, the Messiah has the legal right to David’s throne without its accompanying curse.

(f)  The Salvation of Sinners (i) The doctrine doctrine of the virgin virgin birth is also closely tied with our own salvation. (ii) If Jesus had been tainted with sin, then He could not have been our sufficient Sacrifice.

 

Page 43 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 8 of 23f

(iii) On the other hand, if Jesus had not been born of Mary, and so had not been the Man, Christ Jesus, then He could not have died, nor could He have been a suitable sacrificial substitute as a Man for men. (iv) Christ became human in a miraculous way. The provision of salvation, therefore, is all of God and none of man.

(g)  Summation (i) It is clear, then, not only that the Bible does teach the doctrine of the virgin birth and that this doctrine differs from Catholic teachings, but it is also clear that the doctrine of the virgin birth is an integral element of orthodox theology. (ii) The virgin birth touches upon the doctrines of Scripture, Christ, and salvation. For this reason, we reaffirm our belief in this doctrine, we teach it, and we call on others to do the same. It is a doctrine that should be proclaimed— especially during the Christmas season. (iii) Ignatius wrote of "the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord" as "three mysteries to be cried aloud" (AF110, 141-142).

(3)  Evidence (a)  Prophesied. (i) Gen. 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (a) The seed is generally associated with the male, but here with the female. (b) It is also specified that the seed of woman would be a male. (c) Additional information is given. (i) All nations will be blessed by the seed of Abraham. (ii) God promised the the seed to b be e through Isaac; Gen. 21:12 "And

 

Page 44 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 9 of 23f

God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called."

(iii) God Isaac. told Abraham to sacrifice But the promise had not been fulfilled. (iv) Heb. 11:17-19 "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up 18  his only begotten son son,,  Of whom it was said, That in Isaac 19  shall thy seed be called:   was able Accounting that God was  able to him up, raise him  up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure."

(v) Abraham knew God would be faithful to that His promise. (vi) The Messiah would be of the tribe of Judah. Judah. The Savior would be from the house of David.

(ii) Isa. 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (a) Background. (i)

Rezin (king of Syria) and

Pekah (king of Israel) had formed a pack to destroy Judah (ii) In Ahaz's first year they had attacked and killed 100,000 men and taken 200,000 captives. (iii) In his second year they were again marching on Judah. God is warning Ahaz not to depend on Assyria for protection, instead rely on God. (iv) God urges Aha Ahaz z to ask for a sign as evidence of God's deliverance: Ahaz refuses.

 

Page 45 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 10 of 23f

(v) Jehovah gives a sign to the house of David, a virgin will conceive and bear a son who will be Immanuel. (vi) Before the child rreached eached the age of maturity (discernment) these nations would be without power. Thisthat wasJudah positive assurance would not be destroyed for the promise was yet to be fulfilled fulfill ed through Judah (cf. Abraham's faith concerning Isaac).

(b) Sign. (i)

Sign indicates a miracle.

(ii) Isa. 7:11 "Ask th thee ee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above." (iii) Depth would be an earthquake, flood from the ground, water from rock, etc. (iv) Height would be sudden storm, thunder and lightning, sun standing still or going backwards, etc. (v) Ahaz co could uld not have tempted the Lord by asking for a non-  miraculous sign. (vi) How could God give a non-  miraculous sign and anyone know that it is a sign. A woman giving birth to a son in a natural manner would not be a sign. If we remove the miraculous element the assurance that God is giving (the promise to be fulfilled through Judah) is eliminated.

(c) Virgin. (i) This is the Hebrew word almah and almah  and the etymological meaning is a sexually mature girl.

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 11 of 23f

Page 46 of 205

(ii) The definite article is used, thus "the almah almah," ," not just any almah but almah  but a specific almah almah.. (iii) Every Old Testament occasion of this word refers to a virgin, and never used for anything other than a virgin. (iv) Used 7 times in the feminine form. (v) Used 2 times in masculine form. (vi) Some state that if Isaiah wanted to show a virgin, he would have used the Hebrew bethulah.. bethulah (vii) If inherent in the word, why is there the need to add they had not known any man; Jud. 21:12 "And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins [ bethulah bethulah ], that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is is in  in the land of Canaan." (viii) It is used of a married woman; Joel 1:8 "Lament like a virgin [ bethulah bethulah ] girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." (ix) Matthew settles the question. Mat. 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by 23  the prophet, saying,  Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (x) Matthew used  o ( parthenos parthenos ) which can only mean a virgin. (xi) Matthew says this is what Isaiah said. It is sad that the RSV translators perverted this passage to be "young woman.

 

Page 47 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 12 of 23f (b)  The Savior Virgin Born.

(i) No involvement of a male in the birth birth of Christ; Mat. 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." (ii) Before Mary and Joseph came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit; Mat. 1:18 "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." (iii) Mary knew not man, but conceived when the Holy Spirit came upon her and she was overshadowed by the power of the Most High; Luke 1:34-35 "Then said Mary unto the angel, 35 How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?   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." (iv) Joseph was not willing to make her a public example instead was going to put her away privately; Mat. 1:19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man , and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." (v) An angel appeared to Joseph reassuring him that that which was conceived in Mary was of the Holy Spirit; Mat. 1:20 "But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." (vi) The angel announced that Mary would give birth to a son, His name would be Jesus because He would save His people from their sins; Mat. 1:21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (vii) It is stated that this was being done to fulfill what Isaiah prophesied; Mat. 1:22-23 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was 23

spoken of the Lord bybe thewith prophet, Behold, a virgin shall child, saying, and shall   bring forth a son, and they shall call his name

 

Page 48 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 13 of 23f

Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (viii) It is stated that Joseph did not know her till she had brought forth a son; Mat. 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (ix) Elisabeth was moved by the Holy Spirit to acknowledge the divine influence upon Mary; Luke 1:41-43 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled 42 with the Holy Ghost:  And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art  thou  thou among 43 women, and blessed is  the  the fruit of thy womb.   And whence is  this  this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (x) An angel announced the birth of Jesus as Savior; Luke 2:8-14 "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping 9

watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they 10 were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11  For unto you is born this day in the city of 12 David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.  And this shall be  a  a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a 13 manger.  And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising 14 God, and saying,  Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (xi) Luke connected Jesus with Joseph by saying "as was supposed" son of Joseph; Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son  of  of Heli," (xii) This makes it sufficiently clear that Jesus was virgin born.

(4)  Denial (a)  Modernist theologians theologians feel that the doctrine doctrine of the virgin birth is not important; they conclude that the doctrine of the virgin birth is a theologoumenon, i.e., a story reflecting the faith of the early church in its attempt to reinforce its Christological Christological myths.

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 14 of 23f

Page 49 of 205

(b)  Most treacherous are are those Modernists who claim claim to hold the doctrine of the virgin birth, though they actually deny it by redefining the term as a reference to the incarnation, with no affirmation of the biological virginity of Mary. (c)  Contrary to the liberals’ condescending dismissal dismissal of the doctrine, we reaffirm the importance of the doctrine and its integral position in a Biblically-based systematic theology (see EDT, 1143-45). (d)  "As the stories … of six day creation of the world and the fall of Adam and Eve after their temptation by the serpent in the Garden of Eden are not seen as  profound religious religious myths, illuminating illuminating our human situation, so the story of the Son of God coming down  from heaven and being born born as a human baby will be seen as a mythological expression of the immense significance our encounter with one in whose presence we have found ourselves to be at the same time in the  presence of God" (John Hick). (e)  John Spong (Episcopal (Episcopal Bishop) is convi convinced nced that "in time the virgin birth account will join Adam and Eve and story of the cosmic ascension as clearly recognized mythological elements in our faith tradition whose  purpose was not to describe describe a literal event but to capture capture the transcendent dimensions of God in the earthbound words and concepts of first-century human beings." (f)  Karl Barth has identified the infancy narratives of the Gospels as saga or legend. (g)  Wolfhart Pannenberg calls the virgin birth an "aetiological legend."

b) Immaculate Conception (1)  According to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Mary was "preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Ott, 199). (2)  Since she was subject to the necessity of original sin, she stood in need of redemption; but since she was redeemed from the moment of conception, she was thereby preserved from original sin. (3)  Her redemption, therefore, according to this dogma, was more perfect than that experienced by any other human.

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 15 of 23f

Page 50 of 205

(4)  The dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854, and a Biblical basis for the belief is argued from texts such as Genesis 3:15 and Luke 1:28, 41. Reading these passages, one is left at a loss as to how such a doctrine could find Biblical support were it not for underlying Marian presuppositions. presuppositions.

c) The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity   (1)  The Catholic tenet of the perpetual virginity of Mary holds that she was "a Virgin before, during and after the Birth of Jesus Christ" (Ott, 203). (2)  Accordingly, Mary was not only a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus but remained so throughout her life. (3)  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church "the deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin" (CCC, 499). (4)  Catholics officially promulgate the idea that "Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity" (Ott, 205). (5)  A few, the Schoolmen Sc hoolmen in particular, theorized that Jesus’ birth did not pain Mary, nor did it nullify her "physical virginity." For the Schoolmen, then, Jesus was born miraculously in a way analogous to His emergence from the sealed tomb or to His going through the shut doors (i.e., Jesus was born directly through Mary’s abdominal wall).

(6) Scriptures, other describeabout Maryaas the one   The who "brought forth" on herthe Son; theyhand, say nothing miraculous birthing of Jesus. (7)  Magisterial Catholic theologians propound the concept that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. (8)  For Augustine and others, Biblical support for this comes from an inference based on Luke 1:34, where Mary’s question is taken as "a resolve of constant virginity on the ground of special Divine enlightenment" (Ott, 207). Others look to John 19:26 and infer that Mary had no other children but Jesus. (9)  However, the aggregate voice of Scripture contradicts the dogma of perpetual virginity with the repeated mention of Jesus’ J esus’ siblings: Matthew 12:46, 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12, 7:3-5; Acts

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 16 of 23f

Page 51 of 205

1:14; and Galatians 1:19. In addition, Matthew 1:25 could hardly be clearer on this point: Joseph "knew " knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." The words till (see also 1:18) and firstborn (see also Luke 2:7) provide a double proof against the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is of little wonder that one Catholic catechism reads, "The perpetual virginity of Mary is not revealed truth which can be clearly demonstrated from the New Testament without the light of tradition" (Lawler, 107).

d) His Sinlessness (1)  Testimony of Scripture (a)  Hebrews 4:15-- yet without sin (b)  Hebrews 7:26-- holy, blameless, blameless, unstained, separated from sin (c)  Hebrews 9:14-- without blemish blemish (d)  1 Peter 2:22-- committed no sin (e)  1 John 3:5-- in him there is no sin (f)  2 Cor. 5:21-- knew no sin (g)  John 8:46-- who can convict convict him of sin? (h)  John 8:29-- always does that that which is pleasing to God (i)  Others testify to his sinlessness (Matt. 27:19; Luke 23:41; Matt. 27:4).

(2)  Significance of Testimony (a)  A perfect sacrifice for us us (b)  A righteousness gained gained for us (c)  An effectual advocate for for us

(3)  Rejection of Sinlessness

(a) Whileby Christ's sinlessness is repeatedly affirmed scripture Barth, seemingly with

 

Page 52 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 17 of 23f

Bloesch's approval, rejects this witness. Bloesch tries to mitigate the unbiblical nature of Barth's assertion as he writes, "Barth contends with some biblical support that Christ assumed fallen human nature and not simply human nature (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14, 17, 18). (b)  The implication which he intends, however, is

not that Christ became a sinner but rather that he identified himself completely with fallen human kind in its frailty and dereliction" (op. cit., p. p. 130). An examination of these two passages, however, will show that Christ identified with our sin in his death not his incarnation. The references in Hebrews say nothing about him assuming sinful nature but only human nature.  (4)  Peccability (a)  Definition (i) Christ could sin (ii) Able not to sin (potuit non peccare )  )  

(b)  Argument (i) M.R. DeHaan (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 2) admits this truth, he goes on to argue that Jesus could have sinned because "the humanity of Jesus was no different from the humanity of Adam before He fell" (p. 3) and " ... when He met Satan in the wilderness, (He) met him as the Son of MAN, and not as the Son of God" (p. 4, emphasis are his). (ii) Real temptation admits the possibility of succumbing to the temptation. (a) "If Christ could not have sinned, His temptation was not real." M.R. DeHaan says, "There is but little glory in not sinning when it is IMPOSSIBLE to sin" (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 13). (b) Again DeHaan says (p. 19), "Therein lies the glory of His victory --not that He could not sin but that HE WOULD NOT SIN. Otherwise there could have been no temptation."

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 18 of 23f

Page 53 of 205

(c) The answer to this objection is that there can indeed be a genuine temptation without the possibility of Christ's yielding to it. This is because temptability does not imply that the one being tempted must be able to yield to the temptation Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 147) states, "While the temptation may be real, there may be infinite power to resist that temptation and if this power is infinite, the person is impeccable." (iii) True freedom involves the possibility of choosing to sin. (a) Yet we know that God has has free will (Ephesians 1:11) and it is impossible for Him to lie (Titus 1:2). (b) Francis Pieper (Christian Dogmatics, II, p. 76) remarks, "The assertion that 'freedom' must always involve the possibility of sinning operates with a false conception of freedom. The saints in heaven cannot sin, and still they are not unfree, but enjoy a state of perfect freedom. " (iv) "If Christ co could uld not have have sinned, then He cannot be our example as Hebrews 4:15 says He is." (a) This is DeHaan's argument (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 8).

(b) parallel The answer to this that the between ourobjection blessed is Lord and ourselves is not that because He conquered temptation we can also. How could such a parallel exist? He had no sin nature. We do. He never sinned. We do. Our sin nature offers the tempter an inward point of temptation. This was missing in Jesus. Hebrews 4:15 does not say that Jesus was tempted so that He could be our example, but so that He could sympathize with us. He was human. He got tired. He was hungry. In this sense His temptations were real and in this sense He can understand when we, too, become weary. But this is vastly different from saying Jesus Christ could have sinned. Berkhouwer (the

 

Page 54 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 19 of 23f

Person of Christ, p. 254-255) clearly presents this truth.

(5)  Impeccability (a)  Definition (i) Christ could not sinned (ii) Not able to sin (non potuit peccare)  peccare) 

(b)  Argument (i) Jesus Christ had had two natures but they were were united in one person. (a) It is clear from Scripture that Jesus Christ had a human nature as well as a divine nature (see Romans 1:3 & I Timothy 2:5). But it is also clear that Jesus was one person (see John 17:23, I John 4:2, Romans 1:3). (b) Strong (Systematic Theology, p. 673) says, "The orthodox doctrine holds that in the one person Jesus Christ there are two natures, a human nature and a divine nature, each in its completeness and integrity, and that these two natures are organically and indissolubly united, yet so that no third nature is formed thereby." (c) While M.R. DeHaan (The Temptation of Jesus, p. 2) admits this truth, goes on tobecause argue that Jesus could he have sinned "the humanity of Jesus was no different from the humanity of Adam before He fell" (p. 3) and " ... when He met Satan in the wilderness, (He) met him as the Son of MAN, and not as the Son of God" (p. 4, emphasis are his). (d) This is a contradiction! If Jesus Christ was one person, then it was impossible for Christ to be tempted only as a human being. (ii) Jesus Christ had two desires (human and divine) but the human desire always obeyed the divine desire.

 

Page 55 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 20 of 23f

(a) Our Lord Jesus was under terrific pressure in the Garden of Gethsemane and yet His will was submissive to the will of His Heavenly Father (see Matthew 26:39, 42, 44). (iii) Jesus Christ's divine nature, and not His human nature, is the base of His person. (a) This is crucial to our our understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Let me recommend Eternal Sonship of Christ by J.C. Philpot as good reading in this area.) (b) Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 269-270) states: "The eternal Son, or the Word, is personal per se. He is from everlasting to everlasting conscious of himself as distinct from the Father, and from the Holy Spirit. He did not acquire personality by union with a human nature ... On the contrary, the human nature which he assumed to himself acquired personality by its union with him ... That the personality of the God-  man depends primarily upon the divine nature, and not upon the human, is also evinced by the fact that this complex theanthropic (i.e., God-man) personality was not destroyed by the death of Christ" (see John 1:1, 14). (iv) Overall Testimony of the Bible (a) The overall testimony of the Bible does not present Jesus Christ as a man who won victory over sinful temptation, but rather it presents Him as a completely holy person (see Hebrews 7:26). (b) Berkhouwer (The Person of Christ, p. 256) comments, "The Bible certainly speaks, not of a final victory over sinful, rebellious desire, but of a holiness which pervades his entire existence, inside and outside." (v) The fact that Jesus Christ is unchangeable unchangeable guarantees His impeccability.

 

Page 56 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 21 of 23f

(a) Hebrews 13:8 states that. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (b) This does not refer to any specific act (e.g. it would be improper to use this verse to teach that because Christ once created the world, that He must continue to do so). (c) Instead, this passage teaches that Jesus Christ is unchangeable in His person. He has and always will be God and as God, (though not the Father but the Son) He shares the divine attributes. (d) One of those attributes is holiness. Best puts it well when he says, "Holiness is far more than the absence of sin; it is positive virtue ... 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" (cf. Best, The Impeccable Christ, p. 8). (vi) The fact that Jesus Christ is omnipotent (all powerful) guarantees His impeccability. (a) Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 151-152) carefully distinguishes between having ALL power and sufficient power. Sufficient power would enable Christ not to sin. (b) But our Lord Jesus Christ had more than sufficient power. He had ALL power and therefore was not able to sin. (vii) The fact that Jesus Christ is omniscient (all knowing) guarantees His impeccability. (a) Christ knew all things. (b) Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord, p. 152) states, "Sin frequently appeals to the ignorance of the one tempted. Thus Eve was deceived and sinned, though Adam was not deceived as to the nature

 

Page 57 of 205

Christology: Humanity of Christ 22 of 23f

of the transgression. In the case of Christ, the effects of sin were perfectly known, with all the contributing factors. It was impossible for Christ having omniscience to commit that which He knew could only bring eternal woe to Himself and to the race."

7. Errors relating to His humanity. a) The Docetic error (2nd century). (1) Docetism, a form of Gnosticism, affirmed the deity of Christ but claimed that he only "seemed" "seemed" to have a body. Another form of Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, claimed that the "Christ-spirit" descended on Jesus at his baptism and departed at the crucifixion. Gnosticism saw anything relating relating to matter, including the human body, as evil and in this way tried to guard deity from any contamination. 

(2) Proponents: Basilides, Valentinus, Patripassians, Sabellians. (3) Denied genuine humanity (4) While he appeared human, human, he would would really divine. (5) It was never officially condemned (6) Late in the first century Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, already echos the warnings of the New Testament against those who would deny our Lord's true humanity (Ignatius to the Trallians, IX/1, The Apostolic Fathers, translated by Kirsopp Lake, p. 211). (7)  It must be kept in mind that a denial of Christ's humanity is tantamount to a denial of of his historicity. He was, however, no mere phantom on the one hand nor Greek "hero" on the other but one who can identify with us in temptation, suffering and death-see Heb. 2:14; 1 John 4:1-3 (8)  This error is mirrored, although not exactly reproduced, in some contemporary neo-orthodox thinking which tends to separate the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history in its distinction between geschite and historie.

b) Appollinarians (4th Century) (1)  Appolinarius, bishop of Laodicea

 

Christology: Humanity of Christ 23 of 23f

Page 58 of 205

(2)  Justin Martyr also seemed to follow this teaching (3)  Denied that Christ was completely human, saying that the divine logos took the place of the human mind. (4)  They built on a trichotomic model wherein the humanity of Christ consisted in a body and an animal soul while the mind (spirit) was provided by the Logos. (5)  This heresy was denounced in the council of Antioch A. D. 378/379 and council in Constantinople A. D. 381. And opposed by Basil, Theodosius, Damascus (Called a Pope), Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa. (6)  If Christ did not have a mind, he would not be truly human (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 4:1-3). 

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 1 of 17

II.

Page 59 of 205

The Person of Christ A. The Deity of Christ B. The Humanity Humanity of Christ C. The Unipersonality of Christ

1. The Terms of the Unipersonality of Christ a) Hypostatic: (1)  Taken from the Greek noun , hypostasis which refers to the union of the two natures  (ousiai, nature) of Christ, the divine and the human. (2)  This refers to the union of the two natures in one person. "In the incarnation of the Son of God, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man" (EDT, s.v.)

b) Incarnation: (1)  Refers to the act whereby the eternal Son of God "became flesh". (2)  It also refers to the whole experience of His human life. (3)  It also embraces the fact that Christ bears His humanity forever. (4)  The term can be traced to the Latin version of Jn.1:14. The closest Greek equivalent is  ,, en sarki: in the flesh, 1Jn.4:2.

c) Kenosis (1)  Comes from the Greek verb , kenoo: to empty, Phil.2:7, (2)  Refers to the manner in which Christ chose to restrict the use of His divine attributes during His humiliation.

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 2 of 17

Page 60 of 205

d) Essence (1)  Substantia (Latin) (a)  Underlying Stuff of something

(b)  Emphasis upon concrete concrete reality

(2)  Ousia (Greek) (a)  Essence (b)  Subtance (c)  "Ousia refers to nature, essence or substance. In regards to the Trinity, orthodox theologians say that Ousia 'denotes that which is common to the Father, Son, and Spirit" (Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, 1:364). (d)  In regards to the person of of Christ, orthodox theologians use the term Ousia to describe each of the 'natures' of Christ, so that he is consubstantial with the Father and Spirit as to His deity and consubstantial consubstantial with us as to his humanity. (e)  Thus, in the Trinity the focus is on shared nature, common substance (f)   In the Person of Christ, Christ, focus is on integrity o off each nature.

e) Person and Nature (1)  Introduction (a)  "The precise distinction between nature and person.  Nature or substance is the the totality of powers and qualities which constitute a being; person is the Ego, the self-conscious, self-asserting, self-asserting, and acting subject. There is no person without nature, but there may be nature without person (as in irrational beings). The Church doctrine distinguishes in the Holy Trinity three persons (though not in the ordinary human sense of the word) in one divine nature of substance which they have in common; in its Christology it teaches, conversely, two nature in one person (in the usual sense of person) which pervades both. Therefore it cannot be said: The

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 3 of 17

Page 61 of 205

 Logos assumed a human person, person, or united hims himself elf with a definite human individual: for then the God-Man would consist of two persons; but he took upon himself the human nature, which is common to all men; and therefore he redeemed not a particular man, but all men, as partakers of the same nature of substance. The  personal Logos did not not become an individual individual anthropos, but sarx, flesh, which includes the whole of human nature, body, soul and spirit" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church , 3:751

(2)  Hypostasis (a)  This term is used to denote "not that which is common to the Three in one, but that which is distinctive of and peculiar to them, the personal characteristic of the Hypothesis, or 'subsistence' in the Essence, was denoted by the Greek word   , and if we use our  English word 'individual' 'individual' somewhat loosely, iitt will convey the idea sought to be attached to the person in distinction from the Essence" (Shedd, HCD, 1:364). (b)  It refers to the person or subsistence.

(3)  Nature and Person distinguished (a)  "The term 'nature' denotes the sum-total of all the essential qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities of such a substance. The term 'person' denotes a complete substance endowed with reasons, and, consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions. Personality is not an essential and integral  part of a nature, but is, is, as it were, the terminus to whi which ch it tends. A person is a nature with something added, namely, independent subsistence, individuality" (Louis  Berkhof, Systematic Theology , 321-330).

(4)  Persona does not point to three wills, three emotional beings, and/or three center of self-consciousness; therefore, the term person is used differently in theology than in current usage.

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 4 of 17

Page 62 of 205

f) Theanthropic: Refers to the person of Christ; the person was theanthropic (God/Man), not his natures. g) Enhypostasis: This refers to the impersona impersonality lity of Christ's human nature. In other words, the human nature of Christ was impersonal. impersonal. (Muller, Dict Dictionary ionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms, s.v. 540). 2. The Statements of the Unipersonality of Christ a) Chalcedonian Definition: "Following then the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same S ame perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same (consisting) of a rational soul and a body: homoousios   with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios  with  with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only accepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to his Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our Salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos  as  as to his manhood; One and tthe he Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known in two natures (which exist) without confusion, without change, without division, without separati separation; on; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by the reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved preserved,, and (both) concurring into one person (prosopon ) and one hypostasis - not parted or divided into two persons (prosopa ), ), but one and the same Son and Onlybegotten, the divine Christ; even as the prophets fromLogos, ofmos the old Lord (haveJesus spoken) concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us" (Translation from Sellers The Council of Chalcedon  (SPCK,  (SPCK, London, 1953) p 210-11). b) When we speak of the hy hypostatic postatic union we af affirm firm that the eternal Son of God took on himself humanity. It was not the man Jesus acquir acquiring ing divinity divinity.. "The Son of God did not unite himself with a human person but a human nature" (Charles Hodge, Systemati Systematic c Theology, II, p. 391).

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 5 of 17

Page 63 of 205

c) "We affirm not tthe he transmuta transmutation tion of God into tthe he man Jesus but the coinherence [mutual indwelling or mutual interpenetration] interpenetrat ion] of God and man in Jesus Christ (John 14:11). This must be ttaken aken to mean not that Jesus Christ is a third being between God and man but that he is the one who is fully God and truly man. He is not God alongside of man but God in man" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 129). d) As Athanasius de declared, clared, "He became man and did not just come into man" (Contra Arianos, III, 30). 3. The Ev Evidence idence of the Unipersonality of Christ a) The biblical doctr doctrine ine of the k kenosis enosis (Phil. 2:5-11). (1)  His pre-existence (v. 6). (a)  The first statement of verse 6 relates to the  pre-existent divine nature nature that was his from eternity. eternity. (b)  The participle translated "existing" (huparchon) means "being by nature" while en morphe theou, "in the  form of God," linked with this this verb form denotes equality equality of being. (c)   As C. J. Ellicott notes, in this context context it is in contrast with morphen doulou, "the form of a bond-servant," which is intended to refer to human nature. Therefore, he concludes, concludes, it must rrefer efer to divine divine nature (A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, Colossians, and to Philemon with a Revised Translation, p. 41).

(d) Kennedy states that morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it." Thus it refers to ". . . the same kin kind d of existence God possesses" ("The Epistle to the Philippians," Expositor's Greek Testament, W.  Robertson Nicoll, editor, editor, III, 436).

(e) Robert Mounce observes that morphe "denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes" while schemati, "appearance" (v. 8) "refers to outward appearance that is subject to change" ("Philippians," Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1324).

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 6 of 17

Page 64 of 205

(f) In the following statement to einai isa theo, "equality with God" means "to exist in a manner equal with God" rather than "to be equal to God" (Jacobus J. Muller, The Epistles of Paul to the Philippians and to Philemon, p. 79). (g) Thus, it is not quite the same assertion as the first statement. Harpagmos should be understood passively and translated "a thing thing to be grasped." Existing in the same way God does is not something to be grasped because" . . . it was not something which the Logos, Christ, still had to acquire acquire but which was his already. already. It was a dignity which belonged to the pre-existent Christ, to which He was entitled, and a right which He actually  possessed" (ibid.). 

(2) His kenosis (v. 7). (a) The kenosis itself, the self-emptying, self-emptyi ng, is best understood in light of the following two participial phrases. (b) He emptied himself by "taking the form of a bond- servant" and by "being made in the likeness of men." (c) Thus the kenosis involves addition (joining) of something to the divine nature not subtraction. (d)  It is best translated "took "took no account of himself" himself" or "made himself nothing" (NIV) and involves the scandal of God appearing in flesh as a servant and a man. This is the truth of John 1:14, "and the Word became flesh," viewed from its flip side.

(e) There John emphasizes the glory beheld from the human standpoint when the eternal, divine Word added to himself humanity; here Paul emphasizes the humiliation and ignominy of the incarnation from the divine standpoint. 

(3) His humiliation (v. 8; cf. John 17:5; 2 Cor. 8:9). 8:9). (a)  The extent of his humiliation is not fully recognized until we see that it involved obedience that led to death on a cross, a criminal's death.

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 7 of 17

Page 65 of 205

(b)  It involved becoming poverty-stricken poverty-stricken even though though he was rich; it meant some veiling of glory even though it was rightly his (2 Cor. 8:9; John 17:5). (c)   But all the while he was God. The wonder is not that he surrendered any of his divine perfection's, for this he did not do, but that as God he was thus humbled.

(d)  As Muller says: "By taking taking the form of a servant h hee emptied himself. Nothing is mentioned mentioned of any any abandonment of any divine attributes, the divine nature or the form of God, but only a divine paradox is stated here: He emptied Himself by taking something to  Himself, namely the manner manner of being, the nature or form of a servant or slave. At His incarnatio incarnation n He remained 'in the form of God' and as such He is Lord and Ruler over all, but He also accepted the nature of a servant as  part of His humanity" humanity" (op. cit., p. 82). 

(4) His exaltation (vv. 9-11). As a consequence of this humiliation he has been given a superior name with a view to universal worship and universal confession. 

b) The doctrine of the incarnation (John (John 1:1-14 1:1-14). ). (1)  "While the Incarnate Person is the God-man, or manifestation of God in the flesh, the divine personality is only that of the Son, the second Person in the Trinity. As a distinct Person in the Godhead He brings the entire divine nature into humanity, and continues His eternal personality through all the processes of His development and mediatorial work forever" (Pope, Chr. Th., II, p. 113).

(2) truthofofthe thedivine Incarnation not contained thethe   "The notion of full a union nature,issimply as such, in with human nature. The subject of the Incarnation was not a mere nature, but a person — the personal Son. The divine nature is common to the persons of the Trinity: therefore any limitation of the Incarnation to the divine nature would deny to the Son any distinct or peculiar part therein. This would contradict the most open and uniform sense of Scripture. The T he Father and the Holy Spirit had no such part in the Incarnation as the Son. Nor could any union of the divine nature, simply as such, with the human nature give the profound truth and reality of the incarnation. It could mean nothing for the unique personality of Christ; nothing for the reality and sufficiency of the atonement" ( Miley, Syst. Th., II, p. 17).

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 8 of 17

Page 66 of 205

c) Other-passages (1) Many other New Testament passages likewise set forth the hypostatic union. (2) In Romans 1:1-5 Paul speaks of both the humanity (v. 4) and deity (v. 5) of Jesus Christ; (3) In Romans 9:5 he refers to "Christ according to the flesh" who is "God blessed forever." (4) As he writes to the Galatian believers he refers to God's Son who is "born of a woman" (4:4-5). (5) To the church in Colossae he says that the very godness of God, that which makes God to be God, in all its completeness, has its permanent home in bodily fashion in Christ (Col. 2:9). (6)  Paul reminds Timothy that the one mediator between God and man is both God and man (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

(7) The writer to the Hebrew Christians states that Jesus partook of flesh and blood so as to be able to identify with human kind in temptation, suffering and death (Heb. 2:14). There is little point in saying a mere man partook of flesh and blood. (8)  The apostle John claims to be an eyewitness of the hypostatic union in 1 John 1:1-3. He affirms Jesus' deity as he speaks of him as being "from the beginning," "the eternal life," and "with the Father" while he testifies to his humanity by saying that he was "manifested," "seen," "heard" and "handled."

4. The Communication of Attributes in the Unipersonality of Christ a) No direct rreal eal communic communication ation of at attributes tributes (1)  One of the points of divergence between Lutheran and Reformed theology is in the area of the relation between the two natures in Christ. (2)  Lutheran theology (a)  Lutheranism has held to the communication o off attributes (communicatio idiomatum) "the mutual  participation and and exchange of the properties properties of the individual natures" (Bloesch, op. cit., p. 134).

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 9 of 17

Page 67 of 205

(b)  This is set out in the Formula of Concord (ch. 8, sec. 4). (c)   It seems to grow out of the Lutheran Lutheran view of the "real" presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (taking the words "this is my body" in a literal rather than  figurative sense) and leads to the concept of the the ubiquity (to be ubiquitous the body must partake of the divine attribute of omnipresence) of the body of Christ both in heaven and on earth in the elements.

(3)  Reformed theology (a)  Reformed theology, on the the other hand, has rejected this idea (see the (Second_Helvetic Confession, Confession, ch. XI, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. 8) holding that "the finite is not capable of receiving the infinite" (Bloesch, ibid.).

(b) This Lutheran concept is unacceptable because it in effect divinizes the humanity of Christ which humanity must be kept essentially intact if he is to be one who dies  for us (Heb. 2:14) and one who is a "merciful and  faithful high priest" priest" (Heb. 2:17). (c)  As A. A. Hodge says, "It virtually virtually destroys the incarnation by assimilating the human nature to the divine in the co-partnership of properties, whereby it is virtually abrogated, and in effect only the divine remains" (Outlines of Theology, p. 385).

b) Communication of all attributes to the person iin n different ways. (1) Some are true of the whole person (i.e., both natures)  (a) For example, those evidenced in his offices (prophet, priest, king). redeemer these attributes a are re (b)  As he functions as redeemer manifest by the whole person since both natures are essential to his redemptive work.

(2) Some are true of the humanity, but the whole person is in view.

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 10 of 17

Page 68 of 205

(a) In John 19:28 Jesus declares, "I am thirsty." This is a distinctively human limitation but it was true of the whole person. (b) Luke speaks of him as "increasing in wisdom and stature" (2:52) which likewise are especially human qualities yet they are predicated of the entire person. (c)  The learning of obedience of Hebrews 5:8 may be understood in this way, as well (d)  In Matthew 24:36 (cf. Mark 13:32) there is noted a limitation to Jesus' knowledge regarding the time of his second coming.

(e) Some have seized on this to teach a view of the kenosis that calls for him to surrender his omniscience during his earthly ministry and thus account for Jesus' supposedly mistaken views about the Old Testament (e.g., Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch) as, for example, Bishop Gore of England (see J. I. Packer (Knowing God, p. 52).

(f) We have addressed the fallacy of kenotic ke notic theology  previously but this particular particular issue needs attention attention here.  As Packer points out, there there are a number of occasions occasions when Jesus' knowledge of both human and divine things is limited (e.g., Mark Mark 5:30; 6:38). On other occasions, occasions, however, he clearly displays supernatural knowledge (e.g., John 1:47-51; 4:17-18; 11:11-13; Matt. 17:27). "The impression of Jesus which the gospels give is not that he was wholly bereft of divine knowledge and  power, but that he drew on both both intermittently, whil whilee being content for much of of the time not to do so. The impression, in other words, is not so much one of deity reduced as divine capacities restrained" (Packer, op. cit., p. 54). Packer then continues continues by accounting accounting for this this restraint in light of "the entire submission of the Son to the Father's will" will" (ibid.,). See such passag passages es as John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 8:28-29. 8:28-29. His conclusion is worthy of note.  (g)  As in heaven, so on earth, the the Son was utterly dependent upon the Father's wil will. l. . . . the God-man di did d not know independently, any more than He acted independently. Just as He did not do al alll that He could have(see done, because things not His Father's will Matt. 26:53certain f.), so He did were not consciously know all that He might have known, but only what the Father

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 11 of 17

Page 69 of 205

willed Him to know. know. His knowing, lik likee the rest of His His activity, was bounded bounded by His Father's Father's will. Therefore the reason why He was ignorant of (for instance) the date of His return was not because bec ause He had given up the  power to know all things at at the incarnation, but because the Father had not willed that He should have this  particular piece of knowledge knowledge while on earth, prior prior to  His passion. Calvin was surely right to comment on  Mark 13:32 as follows, 'until 'until he had fully disch discharged arged his (mediatorial) office, that information was not, given to him which he received received after his resurrection.' So Jesus's limitation of knowledge is to be explained, not in terms te rms of the mode of the incarnation, but with reference to the will of the Father for the Son while on earth (op. cit., p. 55).

(3)  Some are true of deity, but the whole person is in view (a)  "The person of Christ, constituted of two natures, is one person. He may, therefore, therefore, indifferently be designated divine or human titles, and both of divine and human by attributes may be truly predicated him.  He is still God when he dies, dies, and still man when he raises his people from their graves. (b)  "Mediatorial actions actions pertain pertain to both natures. natures. It must be remembered, however, that while the person is one, the natures are distinct, distinct, as such. What belongs to either nature is attributed to the one person to which both belong, but what is peculiar to one nature is never attributed to the other. other. God, i.e., the divine person who who is at once God and man, gave his blood for his church, i.e., died as to his human nature nature (Acts xx. 28). 28). But human attributes or actions are never asserted of Christ's divine nature, nor are divine attributes or actions ever asserted of his human nature" (A. A. Hodge, op. cit., p. 381).

5. The Errors of the Unipersonality of Christ a) Issues (1)  One personality two persons (2)  Human nature without personality (3)  Relation of Logos to the humanity of Christ in earthly life of Christ

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 12 of 17

Page 70 of 205

(4)  Relation of the humanity to the Logos during heavenly life of Christ

b) The Eutychia Eutychian n error (5 (5th th century century). ). (1)  Explanation (a)  Also known as Monophysitism Monophysitism (mono = one; phys physis is = nature), this teaching was espoused by Eutyches, a monk who lived in Constantino Constantinople. ple. (b)  Eutyches taught that the Logos had two natu natures res before the incarnation, but after the incarnation Jesus only had one nature which was clothed in human flesh.  He maintained the full full deity and humanity of of Christ, but in explaining the unity of the two natures he denied that  Jesus’ humanity was essentially essentially the same as all others’ others’ humanity because in the incarnation the Logos absorbed the human nature. (c)  The result was that neither nature retained its respective properties, i.e. that which makes each nature (divine and human) what it truly is metaphysically. (d)  Rather a tertium quid (third substance) resulted, which was neither purely Logos nor human, but something wholly other. (e)   In the incarnation then, both the divine natur naturee and human nature fused into one new nature. This new nature was not "not God" because the deity of the Logos subsumed the humanity in the union of the two. (f)   Even his body was divine. This is a form of monophysite doctrine, virtually reducing the two natures to one, and was condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

(g)  Another form of this this error taught that that Christ had only one will. Monothelitism was condemned at at the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D.

(h) In contemporary theology there are Monophysite tendencies in both Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism. The Lutheran the the communication of (i) attributes tends thisdoctrine directionofand Romanist doctrine of Mary does the same. As Bloesch suggests, "The

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 13 of 17

Page 71 of 205

notions of Mary as co-mediatrix and co-redemptrix also tend to betray a Monophysite Monophysite point of view. The logic of this position is that Mary provides the human side of salvation while Christ Christ provides the divine side. side. Both Schillebeeckx and Rahner see Monophysite tendencies in the co-redemptrix idea" (op. cit., p. 133). 

(2) Evaluation (a)  Eutychianism came close close to being the orthodox orthodox teaching of the early church. It was so close to the  Biblical teaching because because it affirmed two complete, complete, authentic natures in Christ, and even confessed that there was a metaphysical union between the two, thus avoiding the soteriological problem that Nestorianism  faced. (b)  Where this teaching falls into error is in claiming that the two natures blended together to form a third substance, which is neither of the original two. Such a mixture would necessarily produce a confusion of the natures, and thus the individuality of each nature is destroyed. (c)   In the end Jesus is no longer longer God and man, but other than God and other than man. If this were true,  Jesus could not identify identify with the sons of Adam, nor could  He identify with Deity. He would be be in a class of His own, thus not fit to be a mediator between God and men (I Timothy 2:15).

(d) This teaching also ignores the many Biblical statements that portray Christ as having ministered as a man anointed by the Holy Ghost. The divine nature of Christ did not subsume or overwhelm His human nature.  Jesus was metaphysically, metaphysically, and functionally a ma man. n. A  Eutychian understanding understanding of Christ iignores gnores the Biblical  portrayal of Christ as as a genuine human being being with genuine human emotions and characteristics. 

c) The Nestoria Nestorian n error (5th century). (1)  Explained

(a) Nestorius denied any real (organic) union of of the two natures. He held to two natures and two persons. This error was condemned at the Synod of Ephesus in 431 A. D.

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 14 of 17

Page 72 of 205

(b)  The main proponents of this view were Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodore confessed the  full humanity and deity deity of Christ, but sugg suggested ested that the union of the divine logos and the humanity of Jesus was not an essential unity, but a moral unity. The union was  functional, not ontological. ontological. The full humanity humanity of Christ obeyed the full deity of the logos, thus resulting in a behavioral unity.

(c)  Nestorius also confessed confessed the full humanity humanity and deity of Christ. He identified each nature of Christ with the Greek prosopon (person), thus splitting Christ into two  persons.. He refused to attribute attribute to the divine divine nature the human acts and sufferings of the man Jesus. He did not see any communicatio idiomatum idiomatum (a Latin term meaning "communication of attributes) between Christ’s two natures. The two natures of Christ were only joined by will.  (d)  The error of gradual incarnation (19th century).  Dorner held that the incarnation incarnation an act consummated at Jesus' conceptionwas butnot rather  progressively realized. realized. The Logos gradually gradually joined himself to Jesus until there was full union at the resurrection.

(2) Evaluation (a)  Nestorianism is deficient deficient because it makes Jesu Jesuss into two persons. (b)  Nestorius did maintain maintain Christ’s full humanity. humanity. He was correct in confessing Christ’s complete dual nature, but was in error when trying to explain how His two natures functioned together. (c)  Instead of teaching a moral moral (behavioral) un union ion between Jesus’ divine and human nature, the Scripture teaches that the Logos became flesh (John 1:14). The Greek word ginomai means "to become." (d)  The Logos did not merely assume a human body, but became a human being. The union is metaphysical, not moral. In such a union, whatever can be said of Christ's divine nature, or of His human nature, can c an be attributed to Christ's whole person.

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 15 of 17

Page 73 of 205

(e)  This is known as the communicatio idiomatum. Christ's person is one unified whole, not two fragmented  parts. (f)   If Jesus' two natures are only only joined by the will-the human nature in Christ always submitting to the divine nature in Christ-then theoretically, the man, Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of God could have existed apart  from one another. But in the incarnation, God became became a man. When God assumed a human existence, the deity and humanity of Christ became forever inseparable,  joined in a metaphysical metaphysical union in every respect. If tthis his were not so, then Jesus did not truly become a man, but only indwelt a particular man. When one becomes something they cannot be separate from that something.  If God truly became a man it would would be impossible for for divine nature to be separate from His humanity. (g)  If God only indwelt a particular particular man, then at best, best,  Jesus' sacrifice could only only have accomplished a  particular salvat i.e. HisItown. death cou ld not have savedsalvation, all ofion, humanity. is byHis virtue thatcould God became a man, identifying with the human race as a whole, that Jesus can be a mediator between God and men. What makes Jesus' death of infinite value is not merely His sinlessness, but the fact that He was God manifest in the flesh. If Jesus was not metaphysically God Himself, then His death could not save us. The infinite God became a man to die for us. This is the reason for the efficacy of Calvary. If the humanity of Christ was separate from His deity, however, this could not be true. insistence on the separate separate natures in (h)  Nestorianism's insistence Christ fails to provide a satisfactory explanation as to the sense in which Jesus can be spoken of in the Scripture as one person, rather than two. Jesus always speaks of Himself, and is spoken of by others in the singular, not the plural as we would expect if there are two separate persons in one body.

(i)  Neither can Nestorianism provide provide an adequate explanation as to how it can be said that the logos became flesh if Christ's divine nature is separate from  His human nature. (j)  Finally, Nestorianism's portrait of separate natures connected only by will displaces the idea of a true incarnation of God, denegrating it to a mere possession of Jesus' human body. If there is no essential,

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 16 of 17

Page 74 of 205

metaphysical unity between Christ's deity and humanity then Christ cannot be considered God anymore than Spirit-filled believers can be considered God. The difference between the Nestorian Jesus and all other believers is limited only by the fact that Jesus is filled with the Spirit in a special way, and was conceived miraculously.

6. The Relationship o off the Believer to the Unipersonality of Christ a) Regarding our salvat salvation ion (1)  It provides a sinless sinbearer (see 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22-24; 1 John 3:5). 3:5). To bear our sin he must be able to d die ie and thus be human. If the sacrifice is to be acceptable it must be sinless and thus divine. divine. As the Heidelberg Heidelberg Catechism puts it--Q it--Q:: "Why must He be a true and sinless sinless being?" A. "Because the  justice of God requires that that the same human nature which had sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but no man, being himself a sinner, could satisfy for others." high priest (Heb. 2:17; 4:15). To be our (2) It provides a faithful high high priest he must be one with us-- human. To be faithful he must be immutable-- divine. 

b) Regarding our worship (1)  It reveals God as Father Fa ther (John 1:18; Gal. 4:4-6). (2)  It places a glorified glorified man in heaven heaven (Heb. 4:14-16). 4:14-16). This is not to be confused with the Gnostic idea of a "heavenly man descended." (3)  That calls for Christ to be man from all eternity that is contrary to the whole concept of kenosis and incarnation. (4)  What we are affirming here is that from the incarnation on Jesus Christ is man to all eternity.

(5) It assures us of a glorious future (Col. 1:27).

7. Conclusion a) Summation: The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology   sums this up saying, "In the incarnation … a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged,

 

Christology: Unipersonality of Christ 17 of 17

Page 75 of 205

without mixture or confusion so that the one person, Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man." b) The Mys Mystery tery of the doctrine (1)  The relationship relationshi p is ultimately inscrutable. inscrutable . We may,

perhaps, illustrate this truth by the relationship between the material and immaterial parts of man. Even though each part has its own properties, all that relates to each part is ascribed to the person. (2)  As Thiessen observes, ". . . Christ had an infinite

intelligence and will and a finite intelligence and will; he had a divine consciousness and a human consciousness. His divine intelligence was infinite; his human intelligence increased. His divine will was omnipotent; his human will had only the power of unfallen humanity" (op. cit., p. 224).  

c) If then we would hold to the orthodox or catholic faith, (1)  We must believe that the union of the two natures in Christ does not confuse or mix them in a manner to destroy their distinctive properties. The deity of Christ is as pure deity after the Incarnation as before it; and the human nature of Christ is as pure and simple human nature as that of His mother or of any other human individual — sin excluded. (2)  We must reject as unorthodox any theory that would convert one nature into the other, either an absorption of the human nature by the divine as in Eutychianism; or the reduction of the divine nature to the human, as in some of the kenotic theories. (3)  We must hold the two natures in such a union that it does not divide the person of Christ into two selves, as in Nestorianism, or such a blending of the two natures into a composite that is neither God nor man as in Apollinarianism. The resultant of the union is not two persons, but one person who unites in Himself the conditions of both the divine and human existence. (4)  We must hold to a union of the two natures that is inseparable. The union of humanity with Deity in Christ is indissoluble and eternal. It is a permanent assumption of human nature by the second Person of the Trinity.

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 1 of 58

III.

Page 76 of 205

The Estates of Christ A. Introduction (Berkhof, ST, 331) 331)

1. Definition of (E)states a) A state is one's position or status in life b) A condition is tthe he mode of one's exist existence ence in life c) The states of the Mediator are generally considered as including the resulting conditions d) Normally, the condit conditions ions stand out more than the states 2. Number of (E)states 3. A difference between many theologians 4. Strict logic requires us to speak of three: Preexistence, Humiliation and Exaltation 5. Two or Three states are assumed in John 17:5; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Gal. 4:4, 5; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 2:9. B. His Pre-incarnate State

1. Introduction to the Preexistence of Christ [Douglas Mccready, "He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Chrsit Revisted," Journal of the Evangelical Society 40:3 (Sept. 1993), pp. 419-432.]   a) "The preexistence of Christ is not a do doctrine ctrine most people give much thought to. From the early ecumenical councils until recently, its truth has been assumed. Few books or articles concentrate on the subject. Theologians who discuss the doctrine usually treat it as an appendage to some other aspect of Christology. Christ’s preexistence is not part pa rt of the readily visible superstructure of Christianity in the way his incarnation, resurrection and atoning work are. And this is not inappropriate." 

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 2 of 58

Page 77 of 205

b) "The preexistence of Chr Christ ist is part of the foundation of Christian faith on which these other doctrines depend. It is a necessary premise for belief in Christ’s deity, but by itself it is not sufficient. Because Christ’s preexistence is foundational, how one understands it or rejects it affects the remainder of Christology and one’s one ’s overall understanding of Christianity. This has been nowhere more evident than in the modern attempts to explain (or explain away) the doctrine. Those modern theologians who ignore or deny Christ’s preexistence do so because it is incompatible with their understanding either of his humanity or of the nature of religion." 2. Objections to the Preexistence of Christ a) Liberal Approach: (1)  Friedrich Schleiermacher offered an adoptionist understanding of Jesus that rejected preexistence. Jesus was not the eternal Son of God become human, the Logos incarnate. For Schleiermacher, what distinguished Jesus from other humans was “the constant potency of his God-consciousness, which was a veritable existence of God in him.” (Schleirermacher, The Christian Faith, Section 97). (2)  Hick’s Jesus was “a human being extraordinarily open to God’s influence and thus living to an extraordinary extent as God’s agent on earth, ‘incarnating’ the divine purpose for human life" (John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, 12). (3)  Hick states the premise that controls his Christology at the outset: “If [Jesus] was indeed God incarnate, Christianity is the only religion founded by God in person, and must as such be uniquely superior to to all other religions.” He disbelieves this and sees Jesus as simply one teacher among many. He wants to reconceive Christianity as a religion that is “centered upon the universally relevant religious experience and ethical e thical insights of Jesus when these are freed from the mass of ecclesiastical dogmas and practices that have developed over the centuries.” This requires, says Hick, breaking free of the network of theories about incarnation, the Trinity, and atonement that he says once helped focus Christian thought.

b) Historical Approach: (1)  God cannot take on the finite

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 3 of 58

Page 78 of 205

(2)  "There is no way of distinguishing Jesus’ humanity

from ours which does not deny the reality of his manhood in every sense which makes the affirmation of it significant. But the idea that Jesus’ existence as a man was in some self-conscious way continuous with his earlier existence as a heavenly being—and this is surely what has usually been meant by the “pre-existence”—this idea does distinguish his humanity from ours; and there is no way, however circuitous or ingenious, of escaping that fact or its consequences… We can have the humanity without the preexistence or  we can have the pre-existence without the humanity. There is absolutely no  way of having both" (Knox, Humanity, 106).

c) Ideal Approach (1)  Only in a idea (2)  "Jesus Christ pre-existed in the mind and purpose of

God, and I doubt if one should look for any other kind of pre-existence” (John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought, 57). 

d) Kasper writes: “The message of the exaltation and pre-existence of the crucified Jesus was an intolerable scandal to both Jews and Greeks" (The God of Jesus Christ, 174). And as Mccready points out, " Absolute claims are anathema to postmoderns because they have rejected the very possibility of absolutes. Sincerity S incerity has replaced truth as the measure of religious legitimacy. 3. Establishment of the Preexistence of Christ a) Established by His Relationship Within the Eternal Triune Godhead. (1)  All proofs for the triunity of God also prove the eternality of Christ (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). (2)  If the trinity is eternal, Christ is eternal (see section on Deity of Christ).

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 4 of 58

Page 79 of 205

b) Established by His Deity (1)  In like manner, all proofs for the deity of Christ are proofs of his pre-existence or pre-incarnate state (Isa. 9:6; John 1:1- 2; 10:30; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13)

(2)  See previous notes on Deity of Christ

c) Established by His Work as Creator (1)  If he is creator he he must have pre-dated pre-dated the creation. (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2, 10). (2)  Some groups (e.g., Gnostics; Jehovah's Witnesses) have tried to use Colossians 1:15 where Paul speaks of Christ as "the firstborn of all creation," to teach that Christ was created. (3)  This, however, betrays a misunderstanding of the term prototokos which basically means "chief" and designates rank or honored place rather than a chronological relationship. (4)  As E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce note, the title means "that Christ, existing as He did before all creation, exercises the privilege of primogeniture as Lord of all creation, the divinely appointed 'heir of all things' things' (Heb. 1:2). He was there when creation began, and it was for Him as well as through Him that the whole work was done" (Commentary of the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, p. 194). (5)  This truth is further illustrated in a messianic passage in Psalm 89:27 where it is declared, "I also shall make Him My firstborn, the highest of the the kings of the earth." To be first-born is to be highest in a given given order. He is superior to all kings kings ("King of Kings") as the divine sovereign and superior to the creation as the divine Creator.

d) Established by His Heavenly Origin (1)  The heavenly origin of the Savior is established by his own statement (John 3:13, 17; 31; 6:33; 38, 42, 50, 51, 58, 62); (2)  By the fact that he speaks of heaven as a matter of memory (John 17:5, 24); (3)  By the statements of others (John 1:15, 18).

 

Page 80 of 205

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 5 of 58

e) Established by the Theophanies (1)  Theophany is a manifestation of God in visible bodily form prior to the incarnation. incarnation. The primary theophanic theophanic form is the Angel of Yahweh which in all likelihood was a Christophany or pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. The basis for this identification is as follows:

(a) The Angel of Yahweh (Gen. 16:7, 11, 13, cf. 21:17, 19; 22:11- 12, 15-16, cf. 24:7, 21, 40; 31:11, 13; 48:15-16; Zech. 1:12-13).  (i) He is identified with Yahweh (Gen. 16:13). (a) "Among the narratives relating to the angel one particular group stands out because it describes an emissary of Yahweh who is no longer clearly distinguishable from his master, but it is his appearing and speaking clothes himself with Yahweh's own appearance and speech" (Eichrodt, TOT, 2:24). (b) Hagar addresses the Angel as Yahweh (Gen. 16:11, 13) (c) Abraham speaks with angel (Gen. 22:11-15) who swears by Himself as Yahweh (v. 16). (d) In Gen. 31:11, the Angel speaks in Jacob's dream; in Gen. 31:13 it is Elohim who spoke. (e) In Gen. 48:15, 16, as Jacob blessed the twins he referred to the Angel "in parallel terms with God…who gave him protection" (Heinisch, TOT, 107). (f) In Ex. 3:2 the Angel appeared to Moses, but in verse 4 and 6 the Angel is identified as the God of the Fathers. (g) In Exodus 23:21 "My Name" Name" is in the Angel; this is equivalent to the identification as Yahweh (Vos, BT, 108). (h) In Judges 6:11 Gideon's visitor is the Angel; in 6:14, Yahweh.

 

Page 81 of 205

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 6 of 58

(ii) He is distinct from Yahweh Yahweh (Gen. 24:7; Zech. 1:12-13) (a) He speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Gen. 16:11) (b) They are both present in in the burning bush (Ex. 3:1-4) (c) Yahweh promises to send His Angel (Ex. 23:20) (d) Yahweh shows His Angel to Balaam (Num. 23:31) (e) He intercedes before Yahweh and speaks of Yahweh in the third person (Zech. 1:12; 3:6; Oehler, TOT, 131). (iii) He is the second person of the Godhead. (a) Identification with Yahweh is an affirmation of his divine essence. (b) The distinction from Yahweh indicates the fact that he is a separate person. Apparently, the form in which he appeared was created but the person was uncreated (as also in the incarna-  tion). Lines of proof that the Angel of Yahweh is a Christophany are: (i) The Second Person is the visible manifestation of God in the New Testament (John 1:18). (ii) The Angel of Yahw Yahweh eh no longer appears following the incarnation. (iii) Both Jesus Christ and the Angel are presented as being sent by the Father.

(c) The Angel was a "prefiguration of the incarnate Christ" (Vos, BT, 75; ISBE, 1:134).

(b)  Other theophanies. (i) In Genesis 18:1-33 the one who ap appeared peared to and talked with Abraham is referred to both as

 

Page 82 of 205

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 7 of 58

the LORD and man. The one with whom whom Jacob wrestled in Genesis 32:24-32 is called both man and God. (ii) Other possible but less certain theophanies are found in Exodus 24:9-11; Joshua 5:13-15; Ezekiel 1:1-28 and Daniel 10:1- 21. (iii) Although they are impersonal manifestations some would consider the pillar of fire and cloud as theophanies, that is the shekinah glory (Exod. 33:9-23; 40:34-38). (iv) The question is whether this is merely a sign of God's presence or an actual physical manifestation of God. See H. C. Thiessen, Lectures In Systematic Theology, revised, pp. 209-10 for extended discussion.

f) Established by Certain Titles (1)  All of the following titles imply deity and were his prior to the incarnation.

(a)  Immanuel (Isa. 7:14; Matt. Matt. 1:23).  (b)  Mighty God (Isa. 9:6). (c)  Father of Eternity (Isa. 9:6).

(d) Son of God (Ps. 2:7; Luke 1:32, 35; John 1:49).  (e)  Logos (John 1:1, 14)

(2)  The Assumption here is that God is eternal; thus, Christ being God must have existed eternally.

g) Established in Messi Messianic anic Prophecy ((Micah Micah 5:2; cf. Matt. 2:6): Micah states of this one who would be born in Bethlehem that "his goings forth" were "from the days of eternity." h) Established by the Direct St Statement atement of Scripture (1)  John 1:1-2, 14. "He was in the beginning with with God."

(2)   John 3:1315).8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I AM" (cf. Exod.

 

Page 83 of 205

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 8 of 58

(3)  John 17:5. He links the glory about which he prays with with preincarnate glory.

4. Excursus: Christ in Old Testament Prophecy (See Hand Out) 5. Excursus: Christ in Old Testament Types a) Various Types: See Walvoord, pp. 62-78; and his articles in Bibliotheca Sacra 105:419 (Jul 48), pp. 286296 & 106:421 (Oct/Dec 49), pp. 27-33.

(1) Introduction (a)  "Latent in the Scriptures of the Old Testament is a rich treasury of Christological truth in the form of  Biblical types. Typology has has always suffered certa certain in disabilities and unbelief which other branches of theological instruction have been spared. For this reason and others it has been largely neglected, and that unjustly, in theological discussion." (b)   As Patrick Fairbairn Fairbairn states in opening his his classic work on the subject, “The Typology of Scripture has been one of the most neglected departments of theological science. It has never altogether escaped from the region of doubt and uncertainty; and some still regard it as a field incapable, from its very nature, of being satisfactorily explored, or cultivated so as to yield any sure and appreciable results.” (c)  Webster puts it, a type is “a figure or representation of something to come.” It is therefore prophetic by its character, and we it may expect a considerable contribution from to the doctrine of Christ. A study of Christological typology includes about fifty important types of Christ—about one half of the recognized total in the entire field of typology. (d)  In the New Testament two Greek words words are used to express the thought of a type: tuvpo" and uJpovdeigma.  As Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has has stated: “Tuvpo" means an imprint which may serve as a mold or pattern, and that which is typical in the Old Testament is a mold or  pattern of that which which is antitypical in the New New Testament. The root tuvpo" is translated by five English words (‘ensample,’ 1 Cor 10:11; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:7; 2 Thess 3:9; 1 Pet 5:3; ‘example,’ 1 Tim 4:12; Heb 8:5; ‘figure,’ Acts 7:43; Rom 5:14; ‘pattern,’ Titus 2:7; ‘print of the nails,’ John 20:25). Dei'gma means a

 

Page 84 of 205

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 9 of 58

‘specimen’ or ‘example,’ and when combined c ombined with uJpov indicates that which is shown plainly under the eyes of men. JUpovdeigma is translated translated by two English English words (‘example,’ John 13:15; Heb 4:11; 8:5 ; James 5:10; and ‘pattern,’ Heb 9:23).” Typology as a branch of  Biblical revelation is well established in the Scriptures themselves as evidenced by the frequent use made of it in the New Testament. The problem to be considered here is not the larger discussion of typology as a whole, but its contribution to Christology. (e)  "As many writers have pointed out, typology is concerned with (1) typical persons; (2) typical events; (3) typical things; (4) typical institutions; and (5) typical ceremonies. It is manifestly impossible to gather into a brief discussion the wealth of revelation afforded in the types which concern Christ in the Old Testament, but rather than omit this important contribution, contribution, an attempt will be made to summarize the important types and their  prophetic light.

(2) Typical Persons (a)  Aaron. The Scriptures, particularly particularly Hebrews, give give a  firm basis for believing believing that Aaron is a true true type of Christ. As a priest, Aaron was appointed to his sacred office (Heb 5:4) as was Christ to His priesthood (Heb 5:5–6). Aaron was appointed to minister in the earthly sphere as Christ was appointed to the heavenly (Heb 8:1–5). Aaron administered the old Mosaic covenant while Christ ministered the new covenant (Heb 8:6).  Aaron was appointed appointed to offer sacrifices daily daily while Christ offered Himself once for all (Heb 7:27). The  Aaronic type reveals Christ Christ in His true humani humanity ty and in  His priestly work. As Aaron Aaron remained a part of Israel even as he served as mediator, so Christ remains genuinely human, on earth knowing weakness, certain limitations, suffering, and struggle, as did Aaron, and even in heaven continues in His true humanity. While  Hebrews brings out the the contrasts between Aar Aaron on and Christ, there is obviously a typical foreshadowing of Christ in the Aaronic priesthood in the person of Aaron. The intercession of Aaron is a picture of the intercession of Christ. (b)  Abel. In this type we have Christ Christ presented as the true Shepherd who made an acceptable bloody sacrifice to God in obedience to the command of God. Abelwas was slain by Cain, representing the world, so As Christ slain. As Abel’s offering was accepted by God, so Christ

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 10 of 58

Page 85 of 205

in His offering is accepted. The fact that Abel’s offering was accepted because offered by faith (Heb 11:4) does not take away its essential character. It was because  Abel believed that revelation revelation concerning sacrifices sacrifices that he offered his lamb in contrast to Cain’s bloodless offering. He is therefore a type of Christ in life as Shepherd, in his offering, and in his death. (c)  Adam. One of the important important types recognized b byy Scripture is that of Adam. Adam is the head of the old creation as Christ is the head of the new creation. This is  plainly inferred in Romans Romans 5:14, “Yet death reigned reigned  from Adam to Moses, even over over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (R.S.V.). Both Adam and Christ entered the world through a special act of God. Both entered the world sinless; both acted on behalf of those whom God considered in them representatively. The sin of Adam is contrasted to the act of obedience of Christ. The Scripture discussion of the subject leaves no room  for on the maifirst main n elements of this (Rom (Rom 21).doubt The very terms Adam and lasttype Adam and5:12–  similar expressions are applied respectively to Adam and Christ (1 Cor 15:45–47). Adam as the husband of  Eve is also a type as the bridegroom bridegroom in relation relation to the church as the bride. (d)  Benjamin. In the contrast contrast of the two names of  Benjamin there was foreshadowed foreshadowed the two aspects aspects of the Person of Christ—His sufferings and the glory to follow. With her dying breath, Rachel named her new-born son,  Ben-oni, meaning, son of of sorrow. Jacob called him, however, Benjamin, meaning, son of my right hand. As  Ben-oni, Christ was the son son of sorrow to his mother mother (Luke 2:35) and the one who knew suffering as the man of sorrows and death. As Benjamin, Christ is “the son of my right hand” to God the Father, victorious in the battle with sin as Benjamin was victorious as the warrior tribe. While the type is without express New Testament authority, it seems a clear prophetic picture of Christ. (e)  David. The historic and prophetic prophetic connection between David and Christ is commonly recognized, but the typical significance of David is often overlooked.  David is a type of Christ as as the one who is first shepherd, then king. David experienced the call of God, rejection by his brethren, was in constant danger of his life because he was anointed king, and during the years of his rejection took a Gentile wife, typical of the church.

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 11 of 58

Page 86 of 205

 Later he ruled over Israel in complete complete power and sovereignty. It is not difficult to see the typical significance of these events, as well as many minor incidents in his life as foreshadowings of Christ. (f)   Isaac. In the New Testament Isaac is used used as a type of the church, which is composed of the spiritual children of Abraham (Gal 4:28) and as a type of the new nature which is born of the Spirit in contrast to the old nature typified by Ishmael (Gal 4:29). It is interesting to note that Isaac is taken to be a type of two distinct things in two successive verses of the New Testament. Testament. More  prominent in the person person of Isaac are typical tru truths ths relating to Christ which are not mentioned in theNew Testament. Isaac was a type of Christ in many  particulars. The births births of Isaac and of Christ Christ were genuinely miraculous. Both are involved in the promised deliverance first announced to Eve. Their births were anticipated and involved in the promises of God long before fulfillment. Both are the beloved of their fathers and both arealthough declaredIshmael to be only-begotten (John 3:16;  Heb 11:17) was born before Isa Isaac ac and all believers in Christ call God their Father. In Genesis twenty-two in the sacrifice sacrifice of Isaac on on Moriah we have have a foreshadowing of the death of Christ which is too clear a picture to gainsay. In the type, Isaac is saved at the last moment and a substitute is provided. In the antitype,  just as truly offered by the Father, there could be n no o substitute. Truly, Isaac lived because Christ died. In the beautiful story of of Genesis twenty-four the securing of the bride for Isaac is again a prophetic picture, in type, of the Holy Spirit securing a bride for Christ, and complete in all its details. The entire life of Isaac affords a more complete typical picture of the Person and work of Christ than any previous character in Scripture. (g)  Joseph. While the New Testament nowhere nowhere authorizes the interpretation interpretation that Joseph is a type of Christ, the numerous factors of his life which point to this conclusion indicate in fact that Joseph is the most complete type of Christ in the Old Testament. Both  Joseph and Christ were born born by special interventio intervention n of God (Gen 30:22–24; Luke 1:35). Both were objects of special love by their fathers (Gen 37:3; Matt 3:17; John 3:35); both were hated by brethren (Gen 37:4; John 15:24–25); both were rejected as rulers over their brethren (Gen 37:8; Matt 21:37–39; John 15:24–25); both were robbed of their robes (Gen 37:23; Matt 27:35); both were conspired against and placed in the  pit of death (Gen 37:18, 37:18, 24; Matt 26:3–4; 27:35–37 27:35–37 );

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 12 of 58

Page 87 of 205

both were sold for silver (Gen 37:28; Matt 26:14–15); both became servants (Gen 39:4; Phil 2:7); both were condemned though innocent (Gen 39:11–20; Isa 53:9;  Matt 27:19, 24). As Joseph is a type of Christ in humiliation, so is he also in exaltation. Both were raised  from humiliation to glory by the power of God. God. Even Pharoah saw in Joseph one in whom was the Spirit of God (Gen 41:38), and Christ is manifested in resurrection power as the very Son of God. Both during the time of exaltation but continued rejection by brethren take a Gentile bride and were a blessing to Gentiles (Gen 41:1–45; Acts 15:14; Rom 11:11–12; Eph 5:25–  32). After the time of Gentile blessing begins to wane, both were received finally by their brethren and recognized as a savior and deliverer (Gen 45:1–15; Rom 11:1–26). Both exalt their brethren to places of honor and safety (Gen 45:16–18; Isa 65:17–25). It is an unmistakable evidence of the providence of God that  Joseph should have been guided guided through such un unusual usual experiences which were not only tokens of God’s care over him but profound truths typical of the Person and work of Christ. (h)  Joshua. Attention is directed to Joshua first first on account of his name, which means, Jehovah saves. It is the Old Testament equivalent of the Greek name Jesus.  As a type of Christ, Joshua is significant first first because he is the successor of Moses just as Christ succeeded Moses and the law (John 1:17; Rom 8:2–4; Heb 7:18–19; Gal 3:23–25). Joshua like Christ won a victory where Moses had failed (Rom 8:3–4). In the time of conflict and defeat both Joshua and Christ interceded for their own (Josh 7:5–9; Luke 22:32; 1 John 2:1). The portions of Israel were allotted by Joshua even as Christ gives gifts and rewards to His own (Josh 13ff). While not a prominent type of Christ, it adds its own truth to the whole. (i)  Kinsman-Redeemer. Throughout the Old Testament there is constant reference to the lag or kinsmanredeemer. It is evident that these instances are typical  foreshadowings of Christ Christ as our Redeemer. The general general law of redemption in the Old Testament is clear. The redeemer had to be a kinsman, one related to the person or inheritance to be redeemed (Lev 25:48–49; Ruth 3:12–13; Heb 2:14–15). Christ fulfilled this by becoming man and by having the sins of the worlid imputed to  Him. The Old Testament redeemer had had to be able to redeem even as Christ in the New Testament (Ruth 4:4–  6; John 10:11, 18; 1 Pet 1:18). The redemption is accomplished by the payment of the price (Lev 25:27;

 

Christology: Christolog y: Estates Estates of Christ 13 of 58

Page 88 of 205

 Rom 3:24–26; 1 Pet 1:18–19; 1:18–19; Gal 3:13). Latent in the entire Old Testament order of redemption is the  prophetic picture of Christ Christ who would come to red redeem eem through the sacrifice of Himself. The consummation of  His redemption yet awaits awaits the saints both in earth and in heaven. (j)   Melchizedek. The brief account given given of the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis fourteen  provides the background background for this type of Christ. Christ. In the account Melchizedek as king of Salem brings forth bread and wine as the priest of the most high God and blesses  Abram after his return return from the conquest of tthe he kings. The Scriptures record that Abram gave to Melchizedek tithes of all. Later in Psalm 110:4, it is predicted that Christ should be a priest forever after the order of  Melchizedek. These two passages passages are the occasion fo forr the discussion in Hebrews 5–7 in which Christ Christ is declared a priest according to the prophecy of the Psalm. Combining the various elements presented in these passages, it becomesisclear upon Scriptural warrant that Melchizedek a type of Christ. His name is significant. As Dr. Isaac Brubacher has written: “The name Melchisedek is a composite word derived from two  Hebrew words, ilm meaning, meaning, king; and qydx meaning, righteous. The two words combined with dwy of  possession form qdx-yklm qdx-yklm which means, my king is righteous. The narrative further tells us that he was king of Salem. The word Salem is derived from the Hebrew word