January 24, 2017

Jesus Christ: God and Man

By Gene Frost

There are three major views currently being espoused con- cerning the incarnation of Jesus Christ. These are historical traditions, two of which have been introduced within the past few years among the churches of Christ. All three traditions affirm that Jesus was manifest in a body of flesh. Differences concern the nature of the divine Spirit in that body and his relationship to it.

1. The first and oldest tradition is that God in the person of Jesus was tabernacled in a body, just as the spir- its of all men are. The divine Spirit, being immutably God, retained the fullness of his deity or Godhood in the body that was prepared for him. He experienced all that relates to the body: hunger, thirst, weariness, suffering, pain, etc. He exercised his divine powers only as compatible with his role as servant and the life he lived as a man. He was God manifest in the flesh. He suffered death in the same way that all men die: his Spirit departed from the body. His death constituted a sacrificial offering of his body for our sins.1

2. The second tradition is that Jesus, as a man, in his humanity had a human spirit and, as God, he is Spirit. The two, the eternal Spirit and the human spirit, were united in the womb of Mary. Thus, as regards his Godhead he existed before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood he was begotten of Mary. Thus, “He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man,” having the same substance or essential nature “with the Father as touching his Godhead, and … with us as touching His manhood…”2

3. The third tradition is that the divine Spirit “abandoned his attributes of deity, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and cosmic sovereignty, in order to become a man.”3 Within this tradition there is a variance. (a) Some interpret Philippians 2:7 “in the sense that the Logos gave up all the divine attributes, laid aside his deity, and so was transmuted into a man.” They insist “that when the Son became a man, not only did he lay aside all the divine perfections, but, initially at least, he had no consciousness of his Logos-nature, no longer experienced the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Spirit, and ceased to govern the universe.”4 (b) Others distinguish “between God’s relative attributes (omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience) and his immanent attributes (holiness, power, truth, love). In an act of self-limitation, the eternal second person of the Trinity was said to have divested himself of the relative attributes when he assumed the limitations of space and time. Having given up the divine form of existence for a creaturely form of existence, Jesus acquired a genuinely human consciousness and passed through all the stages of normal human development.” Further, “if the Son of God had retained the so-called relative attributes, he could not have lived a truly human existence.”5

We readily accept and affirm the first tradition, one handed down from God. It is true, as God’s word is true (John 17:17). The second and third traditions are traditions of men,6 which we reject and hereafter refer to as (1) the two-spirit position and (2) the kenotic, or divested God, position. These latter two traditions (positions) have been introduced among God’s people in this present time, but in re- verse order, the third tradition (kenotic position) being first introduced and then the second (two-spirit position). I have debated both positions and have published much material in refutation of both.

The Kenotic Tradition

The kenotic position is bankrupt and needs no further response. Its principal advocate, John Welch, has admitted to having taught error in the theory’s basic premises: on the deity and the divinity of Christ. Deity and divinity are correlative terms, defining the state of being God and the qualities that constitute that state. One does not exist without the other. His original contention, which gave rise to our controversy with him, was that the Word in coming to earth divested himself of his deity or Godhood. He stated, “He divested himself of the glory, honor, divinity, godhood and became subject to the Father as a man. Whatever qualities and characteristics had been his as divine were foregone. Whatever privileges and powers there might have been were stripped from him. He was a man” (Faith and Facts, April 1987, 100).

“Godhood,” from the Greek theotes, is otherwise translated “deity,” meaning the state of being God. To state that Jesus divested, gave up, surrendered, abdicated, or was stripped of his Godhood or deity is to say that he was no longer God, but became in full point of fact just a man. This statement, quoted above, John Welch confessed in our debate in Louisville, in June 1995, to be false. “It was wrong.” “Wrong! One hundred per- cent wrong!” “It’s false!” “Error!”7

However, he continued to argue that Jesus was in full point of fact a man, and argued that the attributes of God were stripped from him. He argued that God can surrender the at- tributes that make him God and still be God, a God stripped of the attributes, powers and qualities of God. So Jesus was God stripped of the qualities, prerogatives, and powers that make him God, so that he became a man no different from other men. He taught:

Ladies and gentlemen, Jesus Christ did not give up his divinity for just 33 years. He gave it up for all time . . . for all time! (September 19, 1989, Ontario, Canada.)

We continued to expose this error, as we did in the debate, showing that deity and divinity are correlative terms; that one cannot be withoutthe other. Where there is deity, there are the attributes of deity (divinity); where all the divine attributes (divinity) reside, there is deity. You cannot have one without the other.

Finally, in 1996, he acknowledged that saying Jesus divested his divinity is also wrong. “I made the statement quoted above. It was wrong.” Further, “it is not the truth.” “I am sorry for having made the statement. I have changed my mind about the truth concerning it.”8

For the most part, the proponents of the kenotic position are quiet as far as any serious discussion of the basic is- sue is concerned. Rather, there seems to be an effort to minimize the controversy, even to suggesting that there is no real or serious problem, no serious differences between brethren.

The Two-Spirit Tradition

The two-spirit tradition was introduced among us in 1995 by Jack L. Holt, and we debated it in Temple Terrace, Florida, August 11-14, 1997. The material used in this discussion is published in a booklet, The Humanity of Jesus. The tradition continues to be advocated and taught, though not as diligently.

Instead of a serious discussion of this issue, the proponents of this position appear to be aligning with the kenotic theorists in trying to convince brethren that there are no real differences between the three traditions.

Is There A Real Problem?

The reason I am writing further on the subject at this time is because of an effort to obscure and minimize the seriousness of these controversies concerning the deity of Christ on earth. After having discussed these issues for years, the tack now seems to be to avoid further discussion by pretending that there is no real differences between us. In fact, some have expressed the idea that there is no issue because they have been led to believe that everyone basically believes the same thing. This has been accomplished, in part, by a cleverly written slogan, which is ambiguous enough that everyone can subscribe to it when he puts his own definition to the terms.

The Statement

Jesus was God as God is and man as man ought to be.

Those of a biblical persuasion could accept this statement if the terms are legitimately defined. Jesus on earth was God as God is — possessing and in full command of his divine attributes, characteristics and power. He was no stripped-down God. And he was man as he ought to be — a spirit (in the likeness of God; in this case the spirit is God, in whose likeness we are) tabernacled in a body of flesh. And since no man has two spirits residing in his body, the one spirit in Jesus was the Word (John 1:1-3). Do the “stripped-down God” advocates and the “two-spirit” advocates agree with this statement properly defined?

Those who promote a stripped down version of God in the person of Jesus can likewise accept the statement if they define the terms. Jesus on earth was God — a mutable God9 whose “attributes all were changed”10 so that “Jesus developed in his spirit just like John the Baptist did,”11  and as all men do. And he was a man as he ought to be — a man as all other men are, a man no different than other men. If this is what the statement conveys, then the statement is false. This statement that “Jesus was God as God is and man as man ought to be” was first introduced, according to my knowledge, by the kenotic theorists in an effort to make it appear that there is no real difference, that the whole controversy was much ado about nothing.

And now the two-spirit advocates use the statement to suggest that we all believe the same thing. However, they define the terms to mean that Jesus was God as God is — in Him indeed dwelled the fullness of the Godhead, which includes all of the attributes, characteristics, prerogatives, and power of God. No problem here. But He was a man as man ought to be — a finite spirit in a body shared with God (the Word). Of course, this is not “man as he ought to be” — I know of no man with two or more spirits residing in his body. I know of no one who thinks every man ought to have two spirits! To pretend that when they say that “Jesus was God as God is and man as man ought to be,” they are saying what everyone else is saying is not true and it is deceptive!

Any statement that can be used to set forth different and conflicting beliefs is useless at best and harmful at its worst. With its ambiguity it says nothing. In that it is used to support traditions of error as being harmonious with truth, it is pernicious in effect. It is used by those who seek to effect a compromise of the truth.

The Present Effort

The two-spirit advocates are deceptive in using the statement; without explanation it does not express what they believe. An occasion of this is the purpose of this article, as I now turn to the latest (to my knowledge) effort to promote the theory in an inoffensive way, while planting the seeds of heresy.

In the January (1999) issue of Truth Magazine, our esteemed brother Elmer Moore published an article entitled, “The Humanity of Christ.” If one is familiar with the concept and terminology of the two-spirit position, he can clearly see that our brother is promoting the idea that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she gave birth to a man (spirit and body) in whom the Word, as a second spirit, resided.

Elmer Moore’s article is in two parts: the first part deals with the humanity of Jesus, and the second part with his temptations. He is not forthright in affirming that God (the Word), in becoming a man, shared a body with a created spirit. His argumentation necessarily leads to that conclusion, which he leaves to the reader to draw. Those who are not familiar with the two-spirit concept will conclude that surely he is describing Jesus as a divine Spirit tabernacled in a body, while those who accept the concept of two spirits in the body will find comfort in what he says. Let him tell us plainly, without equivocation, that two spirits were in the body of Jesus. That he does, we will demonstrate.

Ambiguity and equivocation allow the true and full concept of the two-spirit concept to go undetected . . . for a time, until it is exposed or until those drawn into it are made to understand it clearly. Those who closely followed the presentation of the two-spirit tradition, as espoused by Jack Holt, understand clearly what I am saying. For a time, our brother ridiculed the charge that he believed in two spirits. He accused those who opposed him of charging him with believing that “Jesus had two spirits.” This misled many until we detected that by “Jesus” he meant “God,” and so he ridiculed the idea that God had two spirits, which would equal three spirits! Of course, no one charged him with believing that there were three spirits in the body, but by misrepresenting us he was able to make some think that he did not believe in the two-spirit tradition. However, when stated clearly that his concept is: there were two spirits in the body of Jesus, the obfuscation ceased.

Understand the issue: we oppose the concept that in the body of Jesus, along with (what they refer to as) a “human spirit” there was the divine Spirit (the Word), who was in control. The concept has many ramifications.12

We look now at the present argumentation, as presented in the article, “The Humanity of Christ,” by Elmer Moore.

In the first paragraph, he argues that Jesus, being in the likeness of man, means he was not in similarity, but sameness with mankind in general. He states, “When men argue that Jesus being in the likeness of men does not mean anything more than similarity; that likeness does not mean sameness, we need to take a look at what the New Testament actually states about Jesus.” If he were considering only one spirit in Jesus, and contends that it was not just like, similar, to the spirits of other men, but is the same, then he would be affirming that the spirit of Jesus was stripped of divine qualities. This is the kenotic concept. But he does not believe this. The other alternative to his argument is that the spirit in the body of Jesus was indeed the same as other men — Jesus had a created spirit. But then the divine Spirit (the Word) was not the same – “He had all the attributes of God.” Hence, two spirits! Of course, to necessarily conclude the two spirit concept, he has to argue that “likeness” means “sameness” because one divine Spirit in the body of Jesus would make him “like” (similar to) other men, but not the same (conforming in every detail). So his argument centers around the word “likeness.”

Jesus “was made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). “Likeness” is a translation of the Greek term, homoioma, which is defined as: “Likeness, shape, similitude, re- semblance.”13  The word is used five times: Philippians 2:7; Romans 1:23; 5:14; 6:5 and 8:3. Note the word in context:

1. Romans 1:23 — “And changed the glory of the un- corruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” Were these icons or statues the same as actual men, birds, and beasts, or were they similar to or resembling them? Likeness is not sameness.

2. Romans 5:14 — “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” Does death reign only over those who committed the same transgression as Adam? Or, do men sin in a similar way to Adam?

3. Romans 6:5 — “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection . . .” Are we planted in the same death of Jesus, and then raised in the same resurrection as his, when we are baptized? Or is this death and resurrection similar to that of Jesus, not actual but figurative?

4. Romans 8:3 — “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh . . .”

“Sinful flesh” is a translation of two nouns in the genitive case, used as an adjective to modify “likeness,” i.e., sinful flesh’s likeness.14  The flesh is sinful, i.e., guilty of sin or marked by sin. Jesus came to save men defiled by sin. They were not born that way. Babies and children do not have sinful flesh. Jesus did not have sinful flesh. “Likeness” is very significant. If Paul had wanted to say that Jesus was born in the flesh the same as other men, he could have said Jesus “came in flesh,” as it is in 1 John 4:2 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Jesus experienced in his body what other men do, except he knew no sin. He came in the likeness of men guilty of sin, but he did not have the sin. If Jesus came in the same sinful flesh, he would be a sinner as others (and born a sinner at that!) . . . and that is not true (1 Pet. 2:22)!

To raise the questions is to answer them. Likeness does not mean sameness.

To beg the question, if our brother were correct in his assertion that likeness means sameness, then consider the consequences of his argument. Man is made in the likeness of God (Gen. 1:26). Is man the same as God, or similar to God? If the same, this would mean that we are God. Really?

Our brother states more clearly his two-spirit concept when he says: “The Bible description of man, who was created in the image of God, is a proper description of the humanity of Jesus.”

It was the spirit of man that was created in God’s image. Yet, man is not God, does not possess “all of the attributes of God,” which describes deity. This created, finite spirit accounts for his humanity, we are told. At the same time, in the body of Jesus was God — “he had all the attributes of God.” This Spirit is not created, but is eternal and infinite. Therefore, in the body of Jesus there was the divine Spirit, and a created spirit — two spirits! The two are not to be confused; they are separate and distinct. The conclusion is drawn from inference, an inference based upon assumption.

Man is a being consisting of body and spirit (Gen. 1:26; 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; Jas. 2:26). When the Spirit, which is God, determined to come in the likeness of man, He did not need a spirit . . . He is a spirit (John 4:24). Man’s spirit is in the likeness of God — not the same in that all of the attributes of God are infinite; man is finite. All that the Word (God) needed to be a man is a body . . . and it was this that God prepared (Heb. 10:5). The Father did not prepare for the Word both a body and a spirit. If so, where is the passage? I know a body was prepared; God says so. That a finite spirit was also prepared is a matter of theological speculation.

Where does the Bible say that in the body of Jesus there were two spirits? Every reference to the spirit of Jesus is singular, not plural. The idea of plurality is derived, not from Scripture, but from the historic theology of those who speculated about it and developed the two-spirit doc- trine in the fifth century. Without Scripture the theology is bankrupt.

It is strange that our brother says that he does “not know how he (Jesus) was both God and man,” after telling us that he was God because the spirit in his body was God, and he was man because in his body was a spirit created in God’s image. Yet he has “no desire to try to explain how that happened” and avers that the “Bible declares it.” We request not that he tell us “how,” just show us where God says “that happened.” Where does the Bible declare that in the body of Jesus, along with God (the Word) there was a “created spirit.” Our brother says, “I accept it by faith.” If he speaks of the faith that comes from hearing God’s word, we ask for the reference. If there is no Scripture, then it is a matter of opinion. If there is any faith in such a doctrine, it is a faith in the theologians that devised it.

Without any clear statement that in the body of Jesus there were two spirits, my friend Elmer again tries to find it in an inference. To him, “flesh” is used figuratively for “a human being.” God made (for) him a human being, is his argument. It is not enough that God prepared for him a body, for he says, “The language of John 1:14 does not state (that) he was clothed with flesh; it declares that he was made flesh (KJV), or became flesh (ASV).”

This is the traditional argument: “But we must note at the same time that this is a figure of speech, for in the word flesh the whole man is included. Apollo was therefore foolish to imagine that Christ was clothed with a human body without a soul.”15 The tradition is Catholic and Calvinistic.

In response, we note first that it is assumed that to be made flesh does not allow being “clothed with flesh.” However, that his Spirit was clothed (“to cover as with clothing”) with flesh is clearly set forth in Scripture. In his incarnation, we have noted that the Father prepared for him a body (Heb. 10:5), and it was in this body that he offered himself as a sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 10:10). As human beings, our spirits are covered in a body of flesh. To put it another way, our bodies are tabernacles in which we live (2 Cor. 5:1-8; 2 Pet. 1:13-15; 2 Cor. 12:3). The body is referred to as a temple (1 Cor. 6:19). The spirit is within (Dan. 7:15; Isa. 26:9; Pss. 142:3; 143:4). Even so, Jesus’ body was a temple in which his spirit dwelled. He told the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body” (John 2:19-21).

Now to John 1:14 — “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us . . .” It is noted that “flesh” here is a synecdoche, which means it is put for “man, a human being.”16 He was “made,” i.e., he “came to be” a man. The verb (ginomai) here is used: “As implying a change of state, condition, or passing from one state to another, to become, to enter upon any state, condition.” It is “spoken of persons or things which receive any new character or form.”17  Notice that the Word himself became a man, entered this new state or form. The text does not say that flesh, or a man, was made for the Word, to indicate that the Word indwelled a human being, but the Word was made flesh, i.e., he received a new form, that of a man.

The same argument is made concerning “flesh and blood”: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same . . .” (Heb. 2:14). The phrase is a periphrasis for the whole animal nature of man, the material nature as distinguished from the spiritual and intangible. To say that the expression simply refers to a “human being” is to confuse the definition. “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50). This does not mean that human beings cannot go to heaven; rather the material nature, the materiality that corrupts, is not fitted for the spiritual realm of heaven. God (the Word) was housed in a physical, material body, and thereby shared (koinoneo) in the material nature of mankind. This a far cry from saying that the Word moved into a human being, a person of body and spirit, so as to conclude that two spirits were in the body. No, there is just one spirit in the body. God (pure spirit, invisible to man) was the one manifested (made visible, clear, or known) in flesh (1 Tim. 3:16).

Why The Two-Spirit Position?

The Kenotic position and the Two-spirit position have one thing in common, which explains an apparent affinity they hold for each other, even though there are serious doctrinal differences. Both demand that Jesus be finite in spirit, whether stripped of all divine attributes or whether a finite spirit coexisted with the Word. Jesus had to be a man with a finite spirit in order “to satisfy justice that demands,” they claim, “(spiritual) death as the penalty of sin.” The wages of sin is spiritual death, i.e., separation from God18 (Rom. 6:23). Jesus had “to die as a man” to become a redeemer. And Jesus had to be man, in body and spirit, in order to prove that a man does not have to sin. They denigrate my Lord in order to prove what the Scriptures can easily prove.

In an effort to shift the issue from the nature of Jesus, both positions pretend that the “real issue is ‘Does man have to sin?’” It is not so, and we have exposed the effort over and over again.

John Welch made the charge when we first challenged his teaching: “Much of this controversy has been a smoke- screen to disguise the incursion of a false doctrine by creating a false issue” (Faith and Facts, October 1990, 347). Once Welch set afoot the false charge, it has continued to circulate. And now brother Moore repeats it: “I firmly believe that all the furor that has arisen about the deity and humanity of Christ is a diversion from the real problem. The real issue is ‘Does man have to sin?’” Of course, the charge is false. I have written in opposition to the contention, have preached against it, and actively opposed an attempt to introduce neo-Calvinism in Louisville. I have written evidence of my position, dating back to 1962. To say that I oppose the denigration of my Lord as an effort to create a false issue or to avoid confrontation with neo- Calvinism is ridiculous. We can shake hands in agreeing that man does not have to sin, but I cannot accept either a stripped-down God or double-spirited Jesus.

Rather than being diverted from the issue at hand, as much as I am tempted to proceed, we defer any comments about the second part of his article until another study. We have addressed the basic concept upon which other ramifications are built. Of course, with the base refuted the superstructure collapses. Our purpose in this review is to expose the effort to introduce the two-spirit concept and then to refute its error.


In the body of Jesus there was one spirit, and every reference uses the singular to describe it. Every reference is to “spirit” (singular) and never “spirits” (plural). Observe references to Jesus (emphasis added):

Mark 2:8 — “And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned . . .”

Mark 8:12 — “And he sighed deeply in his spirit . . .”

Luke 10:21 — “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit . . .”

Luke 23:46 — “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit . . .”

John 11:33 — “When Jesus therefore saw her weeping . . . he groaned in the spirit . . .”

John 13:21 — “When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit . . .”

The Jesus, whom I worship and serve, is God (John 1:1- 2), for whom a body was prepared and in which he lived as a man while on the earth. As God, in him dwelled the fullness of deity, with all the powers and attributes, though not fully displayed, but veiled and exercised in his role of a servant. Without violating this purpose, he remembered who he is and heaven from which he came; he knew the thoughts of men; he controlled his life and no man could take his life until he laid it down; he forgave sins. He was God manifest in the flesh. In the flesh, he hungered, was thirsty, needed rest, experienced sorrow and joy; he lived as a man and experienced the human condition. Though a man, he was more than just an ordinary man. And unless we believe that he is the I AM, we will die in our sins (John 8:24, 58). (For a fuller study of the two-spirit tradition, read my booklet, The Humanity of Jesus, available at your religious bookstore.)

NOTE: I submitted this article to Elmer Moore for review, if he so desired. His written response follows and is inserted by mutual agreement.

Gene, I do not believe that my brief article necessarily implies what you have indicated. I am sure that you do think so. So be it. I carefully read your response four times.

I do not have the desire, intent, or time to reply to your

Obviously, from what brother Moore has written, the necessary conclusion is that in the body of Jesus there were two spirits, one “human” and the other Divine. He earlier wrote “that Jesus being fully man had to have a human spirit,” and “as God He was a Spirit.”19 Surely, the one is not the other. I can draw no other conclusion, from what he writes, than in the body of Jesus there were two spirits. If our brother does not mean to convey this concept, and, if by saying he doesn’t “necessarily imply” it, he means he doesn’t believe it, then we ask him to plainly and unequivocally so state and repudiate it. A discussion of what he did or did not imply serves no useful purpose.

The issue is, when God prepared a body for the Word, did he also prepare a finite “human spirit” to share that body with his Son? If not, then let our brother clearly state that in the body of Jesus there was the divine Spirit alone. Let him declare that to teach that the Word was degraded to become a finite spirit or that he shared the body with a finite spirit is to teach error. We welcome his clarification. Until he repudiates these errors now dividing brethren, we can only respond as we have. This subject is too serious to leave any doubt as to what one believes and where he stands.

1 2 Thess. 2:15; John 1:1-3, 14; 2 Cor. 5:1-4; 2 Pet. 1:13-14; John 2:21; Mal. 3:6; Col. 2:9; Heb. 10:5; Matt. 26:41; Phil. 2:7- 8; 1 Tim. 3:16; James 2:26; Luke 23:46; Heb. 10:12; Rom. 7:4; 1 Pet. 2:24.

2 H. Orten Wiley, Christian Theology, Vol. 2, 162.

3 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, “Kenotic Theories,” 777.

4 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, Vol. 2, 253.

5 Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A, Demarest, Integrative Theology, Vol. 2, 252.

6 The tradition of a union of two spirits (the Word and a created spirit) in the body of Jesus is identified with the Chalcedon Christology of the 5th century. The tradition of God divesting Himself of His divine attributes to become a human being is identified as the Kenotic Theory, promoted in the 19th century in Germany and England.

7 John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Second Negative, 22.

8 John Welch, published on the Internet, Markslist, November 8, 1996.

9 John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Third Negative, 39: “And he (Jesus) was not immutable.”

10  John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Second Negative, 23.

11  John Welch, Frost-Welch Debate, Second Negative, 25.

12  These are discussed in my booklet, The Humanity of Jesus.

13 Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary (N.T.), page 1042; I recommend that the reader read the entire discussion of this word in this lexicon.

14  E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 505-506.

15  John Calvin, John, 25.

16  E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 643.

17  Spiros Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary, 369.

18  Cf. The Humanity of Jesus (Gene Frost), 33-34.

19  Elmer Moore, October 17, 1996, response to questions.