Truth Magazine

By Tom M. Roberts

Jesus said, “Except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). But who is the Jesus in whom we are to believe? Shall be believe in the Jesus of the Oneness Pentecostals who maintain that Jesus is not a separate personality in the Godhood? Shall we believe in the Jesus of the Mormons who teach that Jesus transmigrated into Godhood from manhood? Shall we believe that Jesus was just another prophet like Mohammed? Shall we believe that Jesus divested himself of Deity in the Incarnation so as to be just a man among men, giving up the divine at-tributes, powers, prerogatives and privileges? Just who is this Jesus in whom we must believe? To be sure, salvation is predicated on believing in Jesus, but as God revealed him, not as men might redefine him.

No other passage has presented brethren with more difficulty in the last few years than Philippians 2:7. As Paul revealed, Jesus “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (KJV); as rendered in the ASV, “But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.” The key phrase before us is “emptied himself’ (ASV). How are we to understand this passage? Did Jesus empty himself of (divest) Deity? The answer will be found in a careful analysis of text and context.

What Is Deity?

When Jehovah identified himself to Moses at the burning bush, he identified himself as “I AM THAT I AM” (Exod. 3:14). None can misunderstand this reference to God’s everlasting being: no beginning or ending, but rather the attribute of being: eternal existence. One cannot be deity temporarily; off again, on again. By nature, God is everlasting.

But Jesus claimed for himself this same equality. To the unbelieving Pharisees, he asserted, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58). Understanding that Jesus claimed equality with Jehovah, the Jews attempted to stone him. But the truth which they rejected, we most surely believe: Jesus is deity, identified with Jehovah, as much God as the Father or the Holy Spirit. Here is our bedrock truth which provides us with the context in which to understand our disputed passage. Whatever Philippians 2:7 means, it can-not mean that Jesus divested himself of deity. Why? Because one cannot be deity temporarily; off again, on again. By nature, God is everlasting. Jesus cannot lay aside his divinity and remain divine.

Scripture Explains Scripture

If Philippians 2:7 does not mean that Jesus gave up or “emptied himself ” of his deity, what does it mean? Here is where proper Bible study is always helpful. Let the pas-sage define its own terms. Not only does the text say that he “emptied himself,” but further explains this phrase to mean that emptying himself is to be parallel with “taking the form of a servant,” and “being made in likeness as a man.” We should not isolate one phrase in this verse from its companion (and clarifying) phrases. Thus, “emptying himself’ was not an “undressing” (a divestiture) at all, but rather a “clothing upon.” As the KJV renders it, he “made himself of no reputation.” How so? By robbing himself in the “body of humiliation” (Phil. 3:21), emptying himself by what he took on, not by what he divested. As John stated it, “The word became flesh” (1:14). Isaiah 53 (quoted by Luke in Acts 8:33) referred to Jesus’ fleshly life and death as his “humiliation.” This agrees with the fact that man is mortal and corruptible (1 Cor. 15:53), occupying a body in which we groan, longing to be unclothed, that we might be clothed upon by immortality (2 Cor. 5:4), a “little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7). Jesus “emptied himself’ in that he “made himself of no reputation” by taking on the fleshly form of manhood. But he did this while retaining Godhood, for he was Immanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

Jesus’ Flesh Was A Veil

An apt illustration of this can be seen in the action of Moses who veiled his face, having been in the presence of God’s glory on Mount Sinai (Exod. 34:30ff; 2 Cor. 3:7fO. Beneath the veil was Moses, but Israel saw only the veil because none could look upon his shining face. In like manner, Jesus as the pre-existent, glorious Word (John 1:1-2) has a radiance equal to that of God (Phil. 2:6), for he is God. Had Jesus come to earth in this wondrous form, none could resist him. We know this, for when we see him in his full glory, every knee shall bow and there will be no unbelievers (Phil. 2:9-10). But, in order to save us, Jesus came, not as angels before the throne would recognize him, but as the suffering servant (Isa. 42:1), in his “body of humiliation.” It was this body which was prepared for the sinless sacrifice (Heb. 10:5). Almighty God (a Spirit, John 4:24), took upon himself a body of flesh in order to suffer (Heb. 2:9-10). This body of humiliation veiled the Eternal Word so that men, when they looked on him, saw an actual man. As man is a spirit housed in a fleshly body, so Jesus is a spirit and, for a time, was housed in a fleshly body, made “like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:14). Accomplishing this required no divestiture of deity but rather a clothing of humanity.

The Transfiguration: The Veil is

Parted For A Moment

This analogy of the veiling of the Word in a fleshly body does not depend on speculation; it is what the Bible asserts. Furthermore, when we visit Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration, we are further assured of the truth of this when we see the veil of flesh drawn back briefly, and the radiant glory of Jesus shine forth. “And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: and he was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his garments became white as the light” (Matt. 17:1-2). The three disciples saw Jesus in one form, his manhood, then he was “transfigured” (Greek metamorphoo, “to change into another form,” Thayer 405). Of this, Peter later says, “We were eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Pet. 1:16). The veil was parted for a moment and Christ’s divine majesty was partly revealed. We should not believe for a moment that Jesus’ manhood robbed him of his deity for the voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (v. 5). Jesus was as much God while in the flesh as he was in heaven before being born of Mary. This truth must not be lost in our discussions about the person of Jesus while on earth.

Difficult passages of Scripture can be understood if we use the ancient wisdom of God: “For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little” (Isa. 28:10). While the “secret things belong to God” (Deut. 29:29), the “revealed things” help us in our understanding. What is revealed about Jesus allows none to believe that he was less God on earth than he was before and after the Incarnation.

Who is this Jesus in which we believe? There can be no doubt: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Guardian of Truth XL: 4 p. 6-7
February 15, 1996

By Robert F. Turner

We do not expect this article to appeal to every one  just those parents who have “married off’ a daughter or who face that dreadful day in the future. Vivian and I joined the clan several years ago  and lived to marvel that “that man” who was so unworthy of our girl could father such wonderful grandchildren, and become such a grand son-in-law. We appreciate this story, heard in California, right down to the last line.

A preacher had given his darling daughter in holy wedlock and joined the two “’till death do you part”; and then witnessed the loading of the honeymoon car  including the teddy bear she had kept on her dresser. Mother kissed the young couple and collapsed in the living room to cry it out; but father bravely carried the last item to the car and then slowly walked the bride to the side of her waiting husband. Now was the time for those memorable parting words  the warm fatherly advice that would sustain her in trying times words to live by! And what did he say? He told me all about it.

“Darling, your mother and I have watched you grow from our precious baby to beautiful womanhood. You have brightened our every day and spread light into the darkest moments of our lives. We have never had reason to doubt you, and although you may not always have understood our efforts to direct your paths, we want you to know that only love and a sincere desire to make you happy have been our motives.

“But now the time has come to open the cage and let our darling fly away. You have married the man of your choice, and a new family is being formed. As much as we love you and hate to see you go, your tie with this home is broken.

“You must now depend upon your husband for those things we once gave you. Go to him for your daily needs. Go to him for counsel, for comfort, for support. You must not complicate your own family relationship by turning to mother and me. Settle your own problems, and learn to live your own life apart from us.”

Then, as the car began to move from the curb, the father ran along-side and called once more to his daughter: “And if you ever need anything  anything at all  just call us collect!” (Reprint from Robert F. Turner, Stuff About Things, 77, by permission)

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 1
March 7, 1996

By Mike Willis

One of the charges frequently made against Jesus was that he received and ate with sinners. The charge was made when he attended a feast at the house of the publican Matthew (Matt. 9:9-12; Mark 2:16-17). Some charged that he was a “friend of publicans and sinners” at the same time they said he was a winebibber and glutton (Matt. 11:19). When he went into the home of Zacchaeus, his enemies charged, “That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner” (Luke 19:7).

The occasion for the three parables in Luke 15 was this: “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them” (Luke 15:1-2). In response to this charge, Jesus gave the three parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost son (the prodigal son) to show how the loving God searches for and seeks the ones who are lost.

The Conduct of the Pharisees

Why were the Pharisees upset by Jesus’ association with sinners? What were they charging him with when they criticized him? To answer this, one must know how the Pharisees treated sinners. The Pharisees were the “separated ones” because they refused to associate with sinners.

We get a glimpse of how they treated sinners from several allusions in the Gospels. When Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, she was astounded and said, “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9).

When Jesus went into the house of Simon the Pharisee, an immoral woman washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and put ointment on them. Simon thought, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). Again, we see how the Jews treated sinners.

Lenski explains that the Pharisees’ practice of washing one’s hands before they eat was “for fear that the hands had brushed against a Gen-tile or against something belonging to a Gentile” (Matthew 582).

A Sinful Separation From Sinners

There is a sinful kind of separation from sinners of which the Pharisees were guilty and which saints must avoid. There is a separation from sinners born of self-righteousness, contempt for others, and condescension. This is what the Pharisees had. We must guard our hearts from feeling a similar superiority to the lost. Sometimes, a person feels morally superior to others as if he is what he is through human achievement  through works. The temptation to be self-righteous and show con-tempt for others may occur when one sees a homosexual suffering from AIDS, an alcoholic, a homeless person, or other socially contemptible sinners. We should have the same mind as Paul when he said, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

Several years ago, I drove my a homeless person in Nashville, Tennessee. The woman did not look like she had taken a bath in months. Her hair was matted worse than any dog’s hair that I have seen. Suddenly, the thought flashed through my mind, “Some mother gave birth to this person. She was her precious little baby. I must remember that her soul is just as precious as mine.” Let us guard ourselves from viewing sinners like the Pharisees did.

A Sinful Association With Sinners

There is a sinful kind of association with sinners. The Scriptures command a certain kind of separation in such passages as the following:

Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners (1 Cor. 15:33).

My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.

If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:

Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:

We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil:

Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse:

My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path (Prov. 1:10-15).

Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men.

Avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away (Prov. 4:14-15).

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you (2 Cor. 6:14-17).

Whenever a man associates with sinners in such a way as to (a) participate with them in that which is sinful or (b) condone their sinful activity, he has been guilty of sin! Jesus never was guilty of doing either of these.

The Charge Against Jesus

When the Pharisees charged Jesus with associating with publicans and sinners, they were charging him with having fellowship with sin and sinners. We have an adage that says, “Birds of a feather flock together.” This is basically the Pharisees’ charge against Jesus. The Pharisees charged that Jesus associated with publicans and sinners because he was a sinner.

Why Jesus Associated With Sinners

Jesus associated with sinners for the express purpose of saving their souls. He compared his association with sinners to that of a physician associating with the sick saying, “They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:17). Again he said, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10).

What Jesus Did

Jesus ate with sinners. When he was invited into their homes as a guest, he went for the express purpose of trying to save their souls. I wonder how we would view Jesus’ actions today.

If one of our faithful members went to a restaurant with one who had a vile reputation, would we think of him like the Pharisees thought of Jesus? If one invited one with a vile reputation into his home or went to their home would someone criticize him or worry that he may be “slipping” because some of his best friends were non-Christians?

Conclusion

We must have enough association with sinners to reach them with the gospel. If we withdraw ourselves from all contact with sinners, we can never save their souls. The monks and nuns have withdrawn their association from sinners to such an extent that they dwell in a convent. We may have acted in a similar way by our lack of association with lost. How can we ever convert someone with whom we do not associate?

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 2
March 7, 1996

By Johnny Stringer

Introduction

There has been some discussion of the question of whether Romans 14 applies to congregational activities or is limited to individual, non-congregational practices. I am convinced that the principles of Romans 14 apply only to individual, private practices and are not applicable to congregational activities.

When I speak of an individual, private practice, I do not mean that the practice cannot be done with other people; most anything that can be done, can be done with other people. I mean that it is not a congregational practice  that is, it is not a practice that the congregation engages in together so that all who are in the congregation participate. In a private, individual practice, no one else in the congregation is forced to participate.

Neither Issue Paul Discussed Involved Congregational Activity

Paul discussed two matters about which brethren differed: (1) eating meats and (2) observing days. Whether one eats meats or abstains is a decision he makes and observes as an individual. Eating meats was not a collective activity of the congregation in which all active members of the congregation would necessarily be involved. Rather, those who could eat in good conscience were able to do so without involving those who could not eat in good conscience. Similarly, the observance of days was some-thing that one could do without involving the one whose conscience would be violated by the practice.

It has been argued that the chapter has little application if it is limited to individual activities. Yet, Paul expected the Romans to apply the teachings to practices that were individual in nature. In fact, the only things Paul mentions in his discussion were things individual in nature  that is, things not involving the collective activities of the congregation.

Impossible to Apply Romans 14 to Congregational Activity

According to Romans 14, brethren who differed were to accept each other while each one practiced his own belief (v. 3). In the matters discussed in this chapter, each one could act in accordance with his own conscience without involving the other

In matters of congregational activity, however, this is impossible. Suppose, for example, someone in the congregation believes it is wrong to use multiple cups in the Lord’s supper. Is it possible to apply Romans 14  that is, for the brethren to accept one another while practicing their different beliefs? No! Brethren in a congregation cannot differ in their practice on this matter. Either all have to use one cup or all have to participate in using multiple cups. It is impossible for each one to practice what he believes without involving anyone else. Romans 14 deals with matters in which brethren may differ in what they practice; hence, it does not deal with congregational activity.

Verse 22 teaches that if a person chooses to eat meat, he should quietly practice it without trying to induce others in the congregation to do so. This concept does not apply to congregational activity; in congregational activity, all in the congregation are required to do the same thing.

Instructions to the Strong Should Not Be

Applied to Congregational Activity

The “strong” are those who are able in good conscience to engage in a practice. The “weak” are those who cannot in good conscience engage in a practice. Paul instructed the strong not to put a stumbling block in the way of the weak brother (v. 13). You would be doing this if you encouraged the weak brother to engage in a practice that violated his conscience. As one exercises his right to eat meat, he must not do so in a way that would encourage another to do so in violation of his conscience. The teaching in Romans 14 implies that it may be possible to exercise one’s liberty to eat meat, yet not to encourage the vegetarian to violate his conscience (vv. 3, 22). This is true because eating meat is not a congregational activity.

But what about congregational activities? Let us return to the case of person who does not believe in using multiple cups. Is it possible for a congregation to use multiple cups without encouraging the weak brother to violate his con-science? No! If a congregation used multiple cups, the weak brother would be forced to participate if he continued to worship with the congregation. Suppose the brother is the kind who would not press his views on others but would be disposed to go along with the use of multiple cups even though it violated his conscience. In that case, if the congregation used multiple cups, they would be encouraging him to violate his conscience, hence, they would be a stumbling block to him.

Consequently, in order to obey Romans 14:13, they would have to quit using multiple cups if this passage applied to congregational activity.

The one who can eat meat is to forego that practice when it would encourage a weak brother to violate his conscience, thus causing him to stumble (Rom. 14:21; 15:1; 1 Cor. 8:13). If the same principle applied to congregational activity, a congregation would have to forego using multiple cups if it would encourage a weak brother to use them in violation of his conscience.

It may be replied that the one who is opposed to the use of multiple cups does not have the right to bind his opinions on others. But remember, we are not talking about one who is trying to bind his opinions on others; we are talking about one who is likely to go along with the practice of others even though it violates his conscience.

Do you not see that if we apply the instructions to the strong to congregational activity, then a congregation will be obligated to abstain from any practice that would violate the conscience of anyone in the congregation? Someone, for example, may think it is wrong to use Bible class literature. If the church’s funds (to which he contributed) were used to purchase literature, his conscience would be violated because he would be participating in something he believed to be wrong. To avoid being a stumbling block to him, the church would have to abstain from purchasing Bible class literature  just as Paul said he would abstain from eating meat if his eating were a stumbling block to a brother.

I see no way around it. Paul taught that if the exercise of one’s liberty would be a stumbling block to the weak brother, he should forego the exercise of that liberty. If Paul’s teaching applies to congregational activity, then the congregation must forego the exercise of any liberty that would be a stumbling block to those who cannot in good conscience engage in the practice.

Romans 14, however, does not deal with congregational activity; hence, it is a mistake to apply this teaching to congregational activity. Teachings that are designed for application in matters of private practice are not necessarily suited for application in congregational matters.

To abstain from using literature or multiple cups, for example, could be a hindrance to the congregation’s influence and function. A congregation could be seriously handicapped if it yielded on every matter about which some member had scruples. Congregations, however, are not required to do that because Romans 14 does not apply to congregational activities. (Do not misunderstand. I do not mean that a congregation should never yield to a brother’s scruples even when to do so would be harmless; I only mean that Romans 14 does not require it. Good judgment is required in this matter.)

Next Article

In my next article I plan to present an overview of what I believe to be the Scripture’s teaching concerning differences among brethren. I will show where I believe Romans 14 fits into that teaching.

Guardian of Truth XL: 5 p. 3-4
March 7, 1996