|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Jesus, I love Thee,
—not because I hope for heaven thereby,
Nor yet because, if I love not,
I must forever die.
I love Thee, Savior dear, and still
I ever will love Thee,
Solely because my God Thou art,
Who first hast loved me.
For me to lowest depths of woe
Thou didst Thyself abuse;
For me didst bear the cross and shame
And manifold disgrace.
For me didst suffer pains unknown,
Blood-sweat and agony,
Yea, death itself—all, all for me,
Who was Thine enemy.
Then why, 0 blessed Savior mine!
Should I not love Thee well?
Nor for the sake of winning heaven,
Nor of escaping hell;
Not with the hope of gaining aught,
Nor seeking a reward,
But freely, fully as Thyself
Hast love me, 0 Lord!
Even so I love and will love,
And in Thy praise will sing;
Solely because Thou art my God,
And my eternal King.
St. Francis Xavier (1506-1552)
Jesus Christ has existed in three states: the pre-incarnate state, the state of humiliation and the state of exaltation. Within each of these categories are several doctrines fundamental to a full Christology.
I. His Pre-incarnate State
A. Established by His Relationship Within the Eternal Triune Godhead
All proofs for the triunity of God also prove the eternality of Christ (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14). If the triunity is eternal, Christ is eternal (see Chapter 13).
B. Established by His Deity
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), (see Chapter 13).
C. Established by His work as Creator
If he is creator he must have pre-dated the creation. (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2, 10).
Some groups (e.g., Gnostics; Jehovah's Witnesses) have tried to use Colossians 1:15 where Paul speaks of Christ as "the first- born of all creation, to teach that Christ was created. This, however, betrays a misunderstanding of the term prototokos which basically means "chief" and designates rank or honored place rather than a chronological relationship. 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' (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." [i]
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 kings of the earth." To be first-born is to be highest in a given order. He is superior to all kings ("King of Kings") as the divine sovereign and superior to the creation as the divine Creator.
D. Established by His Heavenly Origin
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); by the fact that he speaks of heaven as a matter of memory (John 17:5, 24); and by the statements of others (John 1:15, 18).
E. Established by the Theophanies
A Theophany is a manifestation of God in visible bodily form prior to the incarnation. The primary 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:
1. 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)
ii. He is distinct from Yahweh (Gen. 24:7; Zech. 1:12-13)
iii. He is the second person of the Godhead
iv. Identification with Yahweh is an affirmation of his divine essence. 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 incarnation). Lines of proof that the Angel of Yahweh is a Christophany are:
· The Second Person is the visible manifestation of God in the New Testament (John 1:18).
· The Angel of Yahweh no longer appears following the incarnation.
· Both Jesus Christ and the Angel are presented as being sent by the Father.
2. Other theophanies
i. In Genesis 18:1-33 the one who appeared to and talked with Abraham is referred to both as the LORD and man. The one with 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). The question is whether this is merely a sign of God's presence or an actual physical manifestation of God. [ii]
F. Established by Certain Titles
All of the following titles imply deity and were his prior to the incarnation.
1. Immanuel (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23)
2. Mighty God (Isa. 9:6).
3. Father of "Eternity (Isa. 9:6)
4. Son of God (Ps. 2:7; Luke 1:32, 35; John 1:49)
5. Logos (John 1:1, 14)
G. Established in Messianic Prophecy (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 Statement of Scripture
1. John 1:1-2, 14. "He was in the beginning with God."
2. John 8:58. "Before Abraham was born, I AM" (cf. Exod. 3:13-15)
3. John 17:5. He links the glory about which he prays with pre-incarnate glory.
II. His Humiliation
A. Messianic Prophecy
1. His lineage (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; 49:10; 2 Sam. 7:12-16; Luke 1:30-33)
2. His birth (Isa. 7:14; Mic. 5:2)
There is much dispute over whether Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of a virgin birth. 1t centers around the meaning of almah and its proper translation. Does it simply refer to a young woman of marriageable age or does it refer to a virgin in the pure sense of the term? Both liberal and conservative scholars support the first option while the second view is basically a conservative position. [iii] It is interesting to note that even the Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown in The Virginal Conception and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus rejects the historicity of the biblical records regarding the virgin birth of Christ. If one accepts the authenticity and authority of the biblical record, however, there is no question that the virgin birth is both prophesied and fulfilled.
The final significance and meaning of Isaiah 7:14 is settled by Matthew 1:22-25 rather than by disputes over the meaning of almah. Matthew leaves no question that Mary was a virgin (parthenos, which is not a disputed term). This is corroborated by Luke as he gives Mary's own testimony that she was indeed a virgin (Luke 1:34-35).
3. His earthly life (Deut. 18:15-18; Ps. 110; Isa. 9:6-7; Zech. 6:13; 9:9)
4. His death (Ps. 22:1-21; Isa. 53)
B. The Incarnation of the Savior (see Chapter 30)
1. What is the incarnation?
The pre-existent Son of God assumed human nature, taking to himself flesh and blood.
2. Who was incarnated?
The second person of the triune Godhead, and no other (although all were active in some way: Holy Spirit—Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35; Father—Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4; Son—John 1:14; Philippians 2:7).
3. What happened in the incarnation?
This is not something that merely "happened" to him; he was actively involved. The Logos became flesh, he took the form (exact nature) of a servant and was made in the likeness of men (plural - mankind), (i.e., although he was a perfect man, he was not a mere man). John Calvin writes, "It follows that when he became man Christ did not cease to be what he was before and that nothing was changed in the eternal essence of God which assumed flesh. In short, the Son of God became man in such a way that he is still that eternal Word, who had no temporal beginning." [iv]
4. How long does the incarnation last?
One part of our definition of the hypostatic union is that it is "forever." Donald Baillie rightly states, "If we believe in the incarnation, we cannot possibly say that Jesus ceased to be human when he departed from this world." [v] The bodily resurrection, bodily ascension and bodily return of our Lord as well as the presence of a glorified God-man at the Father's right hand as our high priest all testify to this truth. As Bloesch affirms, “… it is incumbent upon us to affirm the eternal incarnation of Jesus Christ" if we are to be orthodox in our Christian faith.[vi]
5. What are the effects of the incarnation?
Some of the effects of the coming of Jesus Christ in human flesh are:
i. The Father was interpreted and revealed to mankind (John 1:18; 14:6-9);
ii. Satan is rendered powerless and his works are destroyed (Heb. 2:14-15; 1 John 3:8);
iii. A ransom was provided to put away sin (Mark 10:45; Heb. 9:26);
iv. He became our faithful high priest (Heb. 2:10, 17-18); and
v. He provided an example of a godly life (1 Pet. 2:21-23).
C. The Birth of the Savior
1. Genealogies
Both Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38) give genealogical records tracing Jesus' lineage. It may be that these two accounts give Joseph's line (the legal relationship to David and Abraham) and Mary's line (the physical relationship to Adam), respectively. John (1:1-18), on the other hand, gives the eternal relationship with the Father.
2. The annunciations
Angelic announcements were made to both Mary (Luke 1:26-38) and Joseph (Matt. 1:18-25) at separate times.
3. The birth and infancy
a) The historical records (Matt. 1:18-2:23; Luke 2:1-40)
1) Supernatural conception (Matt. 1:18-20; Luke 1:34-35; Heb. 10:5).
2) Virgin birth (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:21-25; Luke 1:34-35).
While Matthew very specifically teaches that Jesus was virgin born it is also interesting to notice how carefully he records Jesus' genealogy so as to protect this truth. In the genealogy he notes five women who were in Jesus' line. Regarding Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba he states that the children were born to the respective husbands by the wife. In verse 16, however, he departs from this pattern by first identifying Joseph as Mary's husband and then stating that it was of her (ex hēs, of whom, is a feminine relative pronoun with Mary as antecedent) not Joseph that Jesus was born.
In Roman Catholic theology Mary has been given a great place of honor even to the point of adoration (Mariolatry). While this is an unfortunate excess, the Protestant tendency to diminish her significance in reaction to Roman Catholic views is likewise unfortunate. The scripture gives her significant place (Luke 1:28, 30, 42, 45, 48) which should not be ignored. Some, in an attempt to give due honor to Mary, have ascribed the term theotokos (mother of God) to her.
Bloesch chides evangelicals for not affirming this as a legitimate epithet for her and suggests that failure to accept this designation betrays "a possible Nestorian bent, since the two natures are presumably not seen as inseparably related." [vii] This concern on his part while well meant is ill-conceived, however, since Mary is not the mother of God but the mother of the God-man (theanthropotokos). To use theotokos to describe her is as much Nestorian as is refusal to use it or perhaps more so. (For further discussion of the virgin birth see Chapter 13).
b) The doctrinal significance
1) He was born of David's line to bring salvation to Israel (Acts 13:23) and to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:3).
2) He was born of woman and under the law to redeem those under the law (Gal. 4:4-5).
3) His birth enabled him to assume servanthood and humanity so as to die on the cross (Phil. 2:6-8).
4) Through his birth he entered the world to save sinners (1 Tim. 1:15).
D. The Sufferings of the Savior
1. His sufferings in life
a) The reasons for his sufferings in life
Jesus suffered during his earthly life because of
1) His righteous character (John 15:18-25)
2) His sympathy for others (Matt. 8:16-17; Luke 19:41-44; Heb. 4:15-16)
3) His anticipation of the cross (Luke 22: 39-44; Heb. 5:7-10)
b) The climax of his sufferings in life
His sufferings reached a climax
1) In Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-46) and
2) On Golgotha (Matt. 27:33 ff.; Mark 15:22 ff.; Luke 23:33 ff; John 19:16 ff.; Ps. 22:1-21)
c) The purpose of his sufferings in life
1) How they relate to the atonement
i. Were His life sufferings expiatory? According to Hebrews 9:22 there is no forgiveness without shedding, that is, without the giving up of life.
ii. Is there bodily healing in the atonement? There is a segment of Christendom, usually associated with certain forms of Pentecostalism, which holds that one intended result of the death of Christ was that Christians should not experience physical sickness. McClain describes this view as follows:
When Christ died on the cross… He made atonement for our diseases as well as for our sins. Therefore, they conclude, no true Christian need be sick or diseased at any time. If a Christian suffers from physical disease (as all of us do sooner or later) these theorists explain the situation by the following alternatives: The sick Christian has either failed to "appropriate" fully the benefits of the atonement, or else he is guilty of some personal sin for which the sickness is sent as a divine judgment. In either case, they say, the whole responsibility rests upon the person. It is always the will of God to heal, according to their theory, if we truly repent of our sins and believe in the fullness of our Lord's work on the Cross. If we are sick, we are either lost or backslidden. No true Christian, they argue, can be sick if he is in complete fellowship with God. [viii]
This kind of thinking suffers from several problems (see Alva J. McClain's article for a fuller discussion) but two will be noted.
First of all, it is very clear when Isaiah 53:4, the passage on which this view is based, is compared with Matthew 8:16-17, wherein it is quoted by the divinely directed writer, that physical healing is related to our Lord’s earthly ministry not to his death. In this connection, comparison should also be made between Isaiah 53:5 and 1 Peter 2:24, which quotes it, where we see that spiritual healing is in view. This is related to his death.
The second problem with this line of thought is a tendency to confuse sickness and sin. "Sickness is not sin; it is rather the result of sin. We punish men for sinning but not for getting sick.” [ix] Carl Henry addresses the same issue as he states:
In the New Testament, as Albrecht Oepke comments, diseases and afflictions are regarded ''as evils which contradict God's plan for creation” (“Iaomai,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 3:204). Yet the Bible avoids the superficial view—shared already by some of Job's friends—that sickness and suffering are in all or most cases the direct result of individual sin. While Jesus recognizes link between sin and sickness (cf. Mark 2:5; John 5:14), he rejects any rigid explanation of sickness in terms only of individual retribution (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3; 11:4). The Apostle Paul reflects the same view (2 Cor. 12:7-10). [x]
In conclusion, then, we may note that there is a connection between sin and sickness but the two must be distinguished. Christ can and does on occasion heal but only as he wills and for his own glory. While the cross may provide the “moral foundation” [xi] for the future and final dealing with sickness and disease, there is no guarantee of bodily healing in the atonement. This kind of healing will only come with the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23).
2) How they relate to the Christian life.
i. He was thus equipped as our high priest (Heb. 5:8-10).
ii. He thus became an example to follow (1 Pet. 2:21-23).
iii. He thus became a source of encouragement in our suffering (1 Pet. 4:12-14, cf. Col. 1:24).
2. His sufferings in temptation
One of the most difficult areas of consideration in Christology relates to the temptations of Jesus Christ. Were his temptations real? Was he peccable or impeccable, and if impeccable could he then have been genuinely tempted? If he was peccable was he nonetheless sinless or did he have at least a taint of sin? Does the presence of the human nature in Christ obviate impeccability?
The answers to these questions must relate to the clear assertions of scripture where they are available (e.g., regarding his temptations they are declared to be real, Heb. 4:15; regarding his character he is declared to be sinless, 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3: 5) and to theological deductions about the character of temptation and the relation of the two natures of Christ to temptation when specific biblical statement is not available (e.g., on the issue of impeccability).
a) The record of the temptations (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; John 12:27)
b) The impeccability of Christ
Liberal theologians and some neo-orthodox theologians have held that Christ was not only peccable but that he was not necessarily sinless. Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, “… will not affirm the sinlessness of Jesus, since Jesus was tempted.” [xii] As Bloesch goes on to note, however, “Here it is necessary to distinguish between two kinds of temptation—external and internal; only the second presupposes sin, since it indicates that the temptation has roots within man himself.” [xiii] Regarding Christ John declares, “In him was no sin” (1 John 3:8).
Orthodox theologians, on the other hand, have agreed that Christ was sinless but have differed as to whether or not he was impeccable. Examples of those who have held to peccability would be Everett F. Harrison and Charles Hodge [xiv] while impeccability has been affirmed by William G. T. Shedd and John F. Walvoord. [xv]
1) Definition
Those who have held to peccability state that Christ was posse non peccare, that is, able not to sin. This position is stated by Charles Hodge as follows:
This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocation; that when He was reviled He blessed, when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of His person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot sympathize with His people. [xvi]
The view that I am taking is expressed by the words non posse peccare, he was not able to sin. We believe that in his human nature he was temptable (and thus the person of Jesus Christ was temptable) but in his divine nature he was neither temptable nor peccable (and thus the person was not peccable). This is not merely an affirmation of holiness and sinlessness but that he could not sin.
2) Problems
i. Can an impeccable person be tempted?
To begin with we must remind ourselves as to just what temptation is and is not. Temptation involves a moral being other than God (James 1:13) who has an understanding of the issue before them; who has freedom to act (this is not the same as freedom to sin); with a knowledge of the consequences; and who is solicited to evil. Temptation itself is not to be equated with sin.
It is agreed, by those who believe Christ did not sin, that he did not have a sin nature. It is also agreed that the person of Christ was tempted. This means that the temptations that came to him were from without and since God cannot be tempted the temptations had to be related to his human nature (James 1:13). Is it true, as Hodge charges, that impeccability would make temptability impossible? Would he then not be able to be our sympathetic high priest? If we rephrase the question perhaps we can better grapple with it. Is it possible to attempt the impossible, in this case to try to solicit to evil one who cannot sin? The implication of Hodge's position is that temptability requires susceptibility, which cannot be demonstrated. If we could abstract the human nature from the divine we might say it was susceptible, but susceptibility does not relate to the theanthropic person. This is Shedd's position as he states:
It is objected to the doctrine of Christ's impeccability that it is inconsistent with his temptabi1ity. A person who cannot sin, it is said, cannot be tempted to sin. This is not correct; any more than it would be correct to say that because an army cannot be conquered it cannot be attacked. Temptability depends upon constitutional susceptibility while impeccability depends upon the will. So far as his natural susceptibility, both physical and mental, was concerned, Jesus Christ was open to all forms of human temptation excepting those that spring out of lust, or corruption of nature. But his peccability, or the possibility of being overcome by those temptations, would depend upon the amount of voluntary resistance which he was able to bring to bear against them. Those temptations were very strong, but if the self-determination of his holy will was stronger than they, then they could not induce him to sin, and he would be impeccable. Yet plainly he would be temptable. [xvii]
It is overlooked that "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." [xviii] Impeccability is a matter of omnipotent will.
ii. Were his temptations real? Yes (Heb. 2:18; 4:15).
In the wilderness he had temptations no other would have since he could do the things proposed. Further, the degree of his temptations was far greater than ours. In Hebrews 4:15 it is stated that he was tempted kata panta, "in every way" (NIV) or "in all points" (AV), that is up to the highest degree of intensity and in every part of his being. This is not a declaration that he experienced every single temptation we do, as the next statement suggests, since some temptations arise out of a corrupt nature. Thus the declaration is a qualitative rather than quantitative one. The statement that the temptations were "apart from sin" (chōris hamartias) tells us that while they related to his humanity they did not relate to a sin nature for he had none. In the wilderness, in Gethsemane and at Calvary he faced temptation of the most intense kind.
3) Proof
i. Impeccability is proven by his immutability (Heb. 13:8).
If Christ was impeccable in eternity past he must be so during the incarnation. [xix] The idea of mutable holiness is ridiculous.
ii. Impeccability is proven by omnipotence.
Peccability always implies weakness on the part of the one tempted; he is weak to the extent that he can sin. On" the part of Christ this is clearly out of the question. [xx] We are not to consider him simply as a human nature but as a divine-human person. "A careful distinction should be made between omnipotence, which has a quality of infinity and therefore would sustain impeccability, and the concept of sufficient power or grace. Impeccability is defined as being not able to sin, where-as a concept of sufficient power would be merely able not to sin." [xxi] Human nature by itself would be both temptable and peccable but when joined to omnipotent divine nature the person is impeccable.
When this concept of omnipotence is related to the divine will and when we remember the relationship between the human and the divine wills there is further proof of impeccability. As Shedd notes,
Each nature, in order to be complete, entire, and wanting nothing, has its own will; but the finite will never antagonize the infinite will, but obeys it invariably and perfectly. If this should for an instant cease to be the case, there would be a conflict in the self-consciousness of Jesus Christ similar to that in the self-consciousness of his apostle Paul. He too would say, “The good that I would, I don not; but the evil which I would not, that I do. It is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me. 0 wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me?" Rom. 7:19, 20, 24. But there is no such utterance as this from the lips of the God-man…. [xxii]
In commenting on these words of Shedd, Walvoord adds,
Shedd like many of the early church Fathers does not clarify the distinction between desire and will. That the human and divine natures of Christ could have different desires is obvious, but in the nature of personality there cannot be two determinative wills. Decision may be a product of deciding between desires, but there cannot be two wills in the sense of sovereign wills in one person, even a unique Person like Christ. All orthodox theologians agree that the ultimate decision reached by Christ in all cases was an act of will of the person in which the divine nature dominated. The human will could never go beyond