Does Mark 16:9-20 Belong In Our Bibles?

By Terry Partain

The mountain of manuscripts in existence (copies of the New Testament) which date from the earliest centuries up to the invention of the printing press, argues strongly against the possibility that any conspiracy could purposely alter them. The manuscripts (MSS) consist mainly of (1) “uncials,” capital letter Greek MSS 4th century to 10th century, (2) “minuscules,” lower case script Greek MSS 10th century to 17 century, (3) early translations into the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and others from the 2nd century to the 6th century, (4) quotations of early writers which can date as early as the 2nd century, and (5) “lectionaries” which are documents that were designed to be read in the churches that also date as early as the 5th century.

Our problem is that beginning with the American Standard Version some English Bibles place Mark 16:9-20 in the footnotes or in brackets suggesting that some of the best and oldest MSS do not contain these verses. Should we accept their conclusion and shy away from using this text which contains the very clear Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”? Is it possible that someone named Aristion (discovered by Conybeare in an old Armenian manuscript) took it on himself to add these verses to Mark in order to help the Holy Spirit along since if Mark ends with verse 8 the narrative does not end well? As we consider the arguments for and against, let me suggest that we be confident that God is competent not only to reveal but also to preserve all of his words, “for all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.”

What is the External Evidence?

The King James Version is translated from what is called “the Received Text” which was based on a text prepared in 1550 by the Estienne family of printers who used the 5th edition of Erasmus text of 1535 which compared the avail-able manuscripts of their time and place. The science of “textual criticism” was still in its infancy but the boastful claim of being “the text generally received” apparently slowed progress for two centuries. In the 1800s two 4th century manuscripts began to be published by the especially diligent efforts of Tischendorf: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These were kept for centuries out of view until someone understood their value. They are the oldest nearly complete MSS of the New Testament and they both leave out Mark 16:9-20. Their “discovery” coincided with the work of Westcott and Hort who prepared the Greek text used by the translators of the ASV.

The science of “textual criticism” became highly developed from their time until ours but like any other discipline or science often the scientists have to make very subjective judgments as well as assumptions in order to draw conclusions and assign values. In one very interesting work from the turn of the century, Gregory says, “It has often been said that the critic of the text would in certain cases have settled upon other readings than those chosen by them if they had been exegetes” (The Canon and Text of the New Testament, Caspar Rene Gregory, 464). That is to say that the scientist does not always use common sense when making his assumptions because of the narrowness of his study. His enthusiasm for a particular document that he person-ally has found can overshadow his judgment and his conclusions.

Let us consider the actual hard facts that support each side.

On the side of accepting Mark 16:9-20:

1. It is contained in all of the oldest and best MSS except two; as well as in all of the ancient translations or versions.

a. A  Alexandrinus (5th C.); C  Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th C.); D  Bezae Cantabrigiensis (6th C.); K (9th C.); X (10th C.)

b. Versions: Vulgate (4th C.); Syriac (2nd or 3rd C.);

Coptic (3rd C.); Aramaic (4th C.); and others.

2. Irenaus quoted v. 19 (170 or 202 A.D.), “Mark says, at the end of the Gospel.” The early writers freely cited these verses and treated them as Scripture. (Tertullian, 220; Aphraates, 367; Didymus, 398; and others.)

3. The lectionaries some of which dated back at least to the 4th century also quoted them (although they mostly date back to the 11th Century).

On the side of rejecting Mark 16:9-20:

1. B  Vaticanus (4th C.), which has an interesting blank space at the end of Mark,  and Aleph  Sinaiticus

(4th C.); 2386 from the 12th century.

2. Early writers: Clement (215); Origen (254); Jerome (420); Ammonius (3rd C.); Eusebius wrote that it was lacking in many MSS.

3. There are a few texts that have alternate endings both short and long. Some include verses 9-20 and others do not.

4. Alford, who was a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, argued that these verses contain many word and phrases that do not occur in the rest of Mark. (Often a change of subject matter can require a new set of words to express the new ideas as the resurrection of Christ might do.)

Analysis

Now let’s try to think this through. Why is the manuscript evidence such as it is? Westcott and Hort concluded that the absence of this passage is evidence that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older and better and that someone very early tried to improve on Mark by adding these verses. I find it very hard to believe that one copy thus altered could be so successful in entering the Bibles of so many different locations and languages. Although nothing in this passage is new, unique, or different from what is contained in the other gospels, it is still hard to imagine the Holy Spirit al-lowing such a corruption of the basic text of the Bible.

What are the other possibilities?

1. Is it not reasonable to assume that the manuscripts of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and perhaps even to the 10th centuries might have been copied from much older manuscripts which we in the 20th century no longer have access to? The fact that a manuscript of the 5th century is not as old as one of the 4th century may indicate less value to a textual scientist but does not prove that it was copied from an inferior MSS. A 4th century manuscript may have been copied from a flawed very old manuscript.

2. Tischendorf and others were of the opinion that their two favorite 4th century MSS were both copied at the same time and place because of similarities between them and because of the historical mention of a group of copies ordered by Constantine of that era. If both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were copies of the same MSS, it might explain why they agree on omitting Mark 16:9-20 as well as lessen perhaps the antiquity of the source.

3. When we try to explain variant readings we often must allow for the quirks or mistakes or even the opinions of certain scribes. It might not be necessary in this case to blame a scribe if in a very early copy of Mark the last columns were torn off inadvertently or worn off with age. A later scribe seeking the oldest copy available for his source might use the deficient copy but there would be numerous others in other parts of the world that would contain the complete version.

4. The Bible student who reads Mark 16 will find it difficult to believe that contextually the narrative could end at verse 8. No one has seen the risen Christ! Three women have seen an empty tomb and an angel who announces the resurrection but no one is an actual witness of the resurrection of Jesus. How can the gospel which is based on this fact end without a clear declaration concerning the eye-witnesses of the resurrection?

Conclusion

All considered, it is my confident belief that Mark 16:9-20 belongs to the text and was never added but rather was lost from a few very old MSS.

Bibliography

1. The Greek New Testament, Ed. by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Wikgren.

2. Canon and Text of the New Testament, Caspar Rene Gregory.

3. Word Pictures in the New Testament, A.T.Robertson.

4. The Greek Testament, Henry Alford.

5. The Gospel of Mark, B.W Johnson and Don Dewelt.

6. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Ed. By W. Robertson Nicoll, I. The Synoptic Gospels, Alexander Balmain Bruce.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 12-13
February1, 1996

A Son’s Tribute To Jady and Dorothy Copeland

By J. Wilson Copeland

What a special blessing to be born the child of a gospel preacher. People often joke about P.K.s (preacher’s kids) in such a way as to imply that growing up in a preacher’s home is about the worst fate an individual could suffer. Such could not be further from the truth, especially if one were fortunate enough to be born to Jady and Dorothy Copeland.

This article was supposed to be a short tribute to my father, Jady Copeland, who died suddenly of a massive heart attack on December 11, 1995. But I cannot possibly talk of his work without also speaking of my mother. They were a team. Mother has always been an integral part of Dad’s work as a gospel preacher. Together they devoted their entire adult lives to the service of the God they love and the kingdom of his beloved Son. Their example of love and sacrifice is one that we would all do well to imitate.

My parents are known from coast to coast for their love, kindness, thoughtfulness, faithfulness, and hospitality. From my earliest days I can remember asking, “Dad and Mom, where are you going?” “We’re going visiting,” would often be the answer. My older sister Neva would be left to baby-sit Mary and me while Mom and Dad visited the sick, shut-ins, or widows. At the family visitation the evening before my father’s funeral, a man introduced himself to me and spoke with pride and amazement that during a recent sickness Dad had visited him everyday he had been in the hospital. Not impressed? He was impressed because he was not even a member at Lakeland Hills where Dad was an elder, but worshipped with a congregation across town!

To many brethren, the names “Jady and Dorothy” are synonymous with “hospitality.” They loved to have people in their home and saw the positive impact that it could have on their local work. While growing up, we had company constantly. Dad and Mom didn’t believe in playing favorites  they invited everyone into their home. If you worshipped in a congregation where Jady and Dorothy worked, and if you hadn’t seen the inside of their home it was your own fault. You had been invited and more than once. Mother’s desserts are legendary, and Dad had the ability to make anyone and everyone feel comfortable in our home. Throughout their lives, my parents have been completely selfless in every way. With regard to the material possessions of this life, they have given generously; almost to a fault. They cared little for the material things of this world. Dad never demanded a certain salary to preach the gospel or threatened to leave a place unless he got a raise. He was always thankful for the things the brethren provided, even when he knew it wasn’t really enough. He humbly said on a number of occasions, “I am glad that the brethren are willing to pay me enough to live, because if they paid me what I am worth, I couldn’t live on that!”

Mother always made do on what Dad received. She never complained or nagged him to ask for a raise. She scrimped and saved and made every dollar stretch as far as it possibly could. When they first got married, Dad bought Mother a sewing machine and through the years she undoubtedly saved them hundreds and hundreds of dollars by making so many of our clothes. As the news of Dad’s death spread across the country, tributes began to come to us via E-mail on “Marks list.” Thanks to all for your kind words. I end with a part of the note that was sent by Ben Shropshire who lived in Lakeland and worked with Dad on a radio program for a number of years. “Jady was a faithful preacher whose life and work were always worthy of the gospel he preached. He was not an eloquent, powerful preacher, but he preached the `power’ with conviction and courage. His lessons were the simple, old Jerusalem gospel that we love to hear. He never compromised the truth, to my knowledge, either in his teaching or in his life. I respected him for the good life he lived, and the attitudes he reflected in his words and actions. His life was a noble example that many of us preachers, both old and young, would do well to emulate. His deeds and words will go on bearing fruit for many years, and my memory of him will always be one of goodness and joy.”

Guardian of Truth XL: 2 p. 18
January 18, 1996

 

Difficult Bible Passages

By Tom M. Roberts

“…as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16).

Both February issues of The Guardian of Truth will focus on a few of the many passages of Scripture which historically have presented us some uncertainty and variability. It does not shame us to admit that some passages of Scripture are “hard to be understood,” difficult of perception. If Peter, an apostle of Christ, can admit so readily, we must also be willing to face the fact that some passages from the word of God are both profound and complex.

Actually, can we expect anything less? The divine wisdom that framed the universe with all its intricate laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. is capable of thoughts beyond our finite comprehension. As the Lord himself said: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways.” “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts” (Isa. 55:8). Yet God speaks to man, accommodating his wisdom to our level of perception (Heb. 1:1-2). Is it not marvelous to communicate with Deity? Should we assume it to be simple? Yet, God reveals so as to be understood, not to conceal; to enlighten, not to confuse. Difficult Bible passages do not presuppose the impossibility of knowing the mind of God (John 6:44-45; 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:16).

Paul, whom Peter admitted to teach things “hard to be understood” spoke of the gospel as a “mystery.” To the Corinthians, Paul said, “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God had ordained before the ages for our glory” (1 Cor. 2:7). To the Ephesians, he admitted that Christ and the church were “a great mystery” (Eph. 5:32). However, it is inexcusable today that some philosophies speak of the Bible as “mysterious,” even mystical, placing it in the realm of that which is beyond definition. Recognizing that the plan of redemption was once beyond our reach, secure in the mind of God (thus, a mystery), we quickly note that God chose to reveal the meaning through his apostles (1 Cor. 2:4-13), forever clarifying what had been “hidden through the ages” (Col. 1:26). Paul concluded that God had “made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself’ (Eph. 1:9). We have access to Paul’s explanation so that “when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (3:4). It was the intent of gospel preaching “to make all people see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ” (Eph 3:9). God intends that men everywhere receive and understand the message of the gospel. To that end, the Great Commission was given (Matt. 28:18-20).

Understanding Difficult Passages

“Difficult Bible Passages” do not suggest the impossibility of understanding. Some truths may be deeper, more complex than others, but God intends that we know his will (John 8:32). Though it suits the purpose of some to deny truth as knowable, we all shall be held accountable to the standard of truth (Jn. 12:48).

“Difficult Bible Passages” do not suggest that “one interpretation is as good as another.” Words are vehicles of thought and God’s thoughts have been put into words (1 Cor. 2:6ff). It is our obligation to exegete a passage so as to receive from it only what God put into it. Beware what Peter said about those who “wrest the scriptures to their own destruction.”

“Difficult Bible Passages” does not permit a multitude of various views of a single passage to deny the truth of that passage. Though some delight in attempting to defuse what a passage actually teaches by pointing to various interpretations, confusion among men should not be attributed to confusion on God’s part. “Let God be true and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4).

“Difficult Bible Passages” simply admits that some pas-sages are “milk” and that some are “meat” (1 Pet. 2:2; 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:12-14). Meat takes more chewing and digestion than milk, but each is capable of nourishment to its own level of advancement. As one matures in the faith, God expects each to progress from milk to meat, from simple to complex truth, from babes to full grown men who “have our senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:13).

What remains is for us to accept the revelation of God as it is, to study it, to accept it into our hearts (Col. 3:16-17). Every single passage is knowable, no truth that God has revealed is beyond our ability to comprehend (Deut. 29:29). As we love and respect God’s word, as we let scripture interpret scripture (Isa 28:10; Matt. 22:23-33), as we “meditate both day and night” (Ps. 1:2), what God intended to tell us will become clear.

Appreciation of Those Who Write

Those who have contributed articles to these special issues, both young and old, bring a respect of God’s will, as well as a studious attitude, to some of the difficult Bible passages so often questioned. Each writer has been challenged to give a careful exegesis of the text and context before making any kind of application. Among this group of writers, you will find no “new hermeneutic” disciples, none who doubt inspiration, none who seek to escape the force of truth on any subject. You are familiar with most of the names as seasoned writers; some will be newer to you. Each will bring to the difficult passage he attempts to unlock a belief in the inerrancy of the scriptures of God, as well as a belief that God wants us to understand his will. If they do their work well, as it is fully anticipated that they will, this issue (and the next) may serve as a valuable reference volume in coming years to your study of some of the “Difficult Bible Passages” that are deserving of special attention.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 1
February 1, 1996

Matthew 1:23 Immanuel God with Us

By Wayne Partain

While Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found with child. Joseph considered putting her away privately, but an angel of the Lord told him that “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.” Then Matthew explains that “all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.”

Much has been written to show that the virgin of Isaiah 7:14 was not necessarily a virgin, much less the virgin Mary, but Matthew brushes away all these theories. The Holy Spirit, through Isaiah said “the virgin shall conceive,” and the Holy Spirit, through Matthew, said that this prophecy was fulfilled when the virgin Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit.

When David wanted to build a house for the Lord, God told the prophet Nathan to tell him, “When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with they fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (2 Sam. 7:12, 13). But while king Ahaz was king of Judah, Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, threatened the house of David with extinction, planning to set up over Judah a king of their own choice (“son of Tabeel,” Isa. 7:6). However, God’s promises are sure. The Lord spoke to Ahaz but addressed his remarks to the house of David: “Hear ye now, 0 house of David . . . the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:13, 14). In doing this he confirmed the promise to David which did not deal with an earthly kingdom but rather with the universal kingdom of the Son of David and, consequently, with our salvation through him.

This prophecy does not stand alone. The land of Judah that was threatened by Assyria was “thy land, 0 Immanuel” (Isa. 8:8, 10), for out of it (from Bethlehem Ephrathah) “shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:6). “In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali; but in the latter time hath he made it glorious” (Isa. 9:1, 2; Matt. 4:15, 16). Isaiah refers to this marvelous child again in 9:6, “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, Counsellor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The next verse identifies him with “the throne of David.” Again he refers to him in 11:1-5 (the whole chapter describes his rule), and so throughout the book (see especially chapters 35, 53, 61). Some try to apply Isaiah 7:15 to Immanuel: “Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.” This is quoted in order to prove that as a child Christ only had human knowledge and, that therefore he was not omniscient, but if he was not omniscient, then he was not God. We have to decide whether or not we believe that Christ on earth was God. If we do believe that he was God, this means that we believe that he was omniscient.

There are questions about the application of Isaiah 7:14-16 to the time of Ahaz that are not answered to everyone’s satisfaction, but those who apply verses 15 and 16 to Christ run into serious problems: (1) Matthew does quote verse 14 and applies it to Christ, but he does not quote these verses at all; (2) Where does the New Testament say that Jesus ate “butter and honey”? What could this have had to do with Jesus? (3) If verses 15 and 16 prove that Jesus was not omniscient, they contradict verse 14 that affirms that he is God; (4) Verse 16 says that before the child shall “know how to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.” This concluding statement very obviously refers not to the time of Jesus, but to the removal of Israel and Syria from their land by Assyria in the time of Ahaz. Therefore, those who are compelled to use these verses to deny the omniscience of Christ are as hard up for proof as the Watchtower is for calling him “a god” (John 1:1).

God and Man

The expression “God with us” indicates that Jesus Christ was God and man, that the invisible God was made visible in Christ (John 1:18). “If you knew me, you would know my Father also” (John 8:19); “he that beholds me beholds him that sent me” (John 12:45); “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). When the Samaritan woman saw Jesus, she saw a Jew (“thou … a Jew,” John 4:9), but that Jew was Immanuel, God with us. The Jews saw a carpenter (“Is not this the carpenter?” Mark 6:3), but that particular carpenter was Immanuel, God with us. Being God, Christ repeatedly demonstrated the attributes of Deity  omnipotence, omniscience, perfect holiness, righteousness, love, and mercy. It was necessary that he do so, because otherwise it would have been impossible to reveal the Father. There is, therefore, no excuse for anyone not to understand that God has revealed himself to man in Jesus Christ.

Being God he was omnipotent. Therefore, he could not receive more power or authority. All is all. Nothing can be added to all. To interpret Acts 10:38 (“God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power”) or any other Scripture to mean that while on earth Christ did not inherently have all power and authority makes these texts deny the Deity of Christ, because Deity without omnipotence is a figment of the imagination of man. The question ever was and is: Was Christ God or not? If he was God, he was omnipotent. There are “gods many” that are not omnipotent, but Christ was not one of them. If it’s affirmed that Christ was not omnipotent because he was sent by the Father, then the Holy Spirit was not omnipotent because he was sent by Christ (John 16:7). Being sent, receiving power, etc. are statements to emphasize the oneness of the Godhead, and especially to identify the Galilean carpenter as God.

One Person, God and Man

Every day, wherever he was, whatever he was doing, Christ was one Person, both God and man. When he ate and drank, slept, and rested he was both God and man; God does not eat, drink, etc., but Jesus was not just God. When he forgave sins and was worshipped he was both God and man; man cannot forgive sins, but Jesus was not just a man. He was not mostly human and sort of God at the first and more God and less man later on. He was not God one day and man the next, or God one hour and man the next. He was not God in this place and man in that. He didn’t speak as God one day and as man the next. He was not two people, nor was he half God and half man. He was Immanuel: God with us, one person, God and man, every day, everywhere. He repeatedly demonstrated human characteristics and he repeatedly demonstrated divine attributes. He was tempted in all points as men are tempted (Heb. 4:15), but he was not tempted as a mere man, for he was never a mere man, much less a sinful man (not even in thought). He could never be in any experience of life other than who he was: Immanuel, both God and man. Jesus Christ was never just a man.

God with us means God in the flesh. When Christ came into the world, a body was prepared for him: “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for me” (Heb. 10:5). “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). “It behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17). Describing this great event Paul said Christ “emptied himself,” and in the same sentence explained how he did it: “taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). The word flesh in this text means humanity, as in Matthew 24:22 (“should no flesh be saved”) and Romans 3:20 (“shall no flesh be justified”). Christ was God and flesh (man).

Immanuel was he, not they. The pronoun for Christ is never they, but he, because he was not two persons but one. The Scriptures are clear on this: he was one unique personality. While the incarnation was miraculous and far beyond our comprehension, some relevant facts are revealed.

Christ, who is Spirit, became man, who is not only a body but also a spirit, a spirit created by Christ:”And God created man in his own image” (Gen. 1:27); God is “the Father of our spirits” (Heb. 12:9); “we are also his off-spring” (Acts 17:28); and “the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). There is identity and a strong affinity between man’s spirit and Christ the Creator (John 1:3). The terms image and likeness are not to be minimized. For obvious reasons God has placed limitations on man  he is not omnipotent nor omniscient, not to be worshipped, can-not forgive sins, etc., but at the same time God has clearly indicated man’s potential power and greatness, enabling him to perform miracles (works of God), even raising the dead. Then Hebrews 12:23 speaks of “the spirits of just men made perfect”; just try to imagine what they are like! And Jesus says (Luke 20:35, 36) that “they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead … are equal unto the angels,” who are very powerful beings. The point is that even though we cannot comprehend how God could become man, in view of all the Bible says about man’s spirit, we should not exaggerate the distance between Christ and man.

Christ received a human body and became in every sense a man, but to do so he did not need to become two people. He, being Spirit, did not need another spirit. Why should he, since man was made in the image of God, is his off-spring and is, therefore, basically an undying spirit that returns to God who gave it? Man has a body, but only for a very short time, so we should not think of man as a body with a spirit, but rather as a spirit that for a short time has a body. So what was there about being a man that Christ, the creator of man (body and spirit), could not readily be-come and fully identify with or what role of man  of body, soul or spirit  could he not easily perform? What-ever man is Christ himself became, without becoming two persons (undeniably two spirits would be two persons). However a human being functions Christ functioned. Nothing is difficult for God, and it certainly wasn’t difficult for Christ to become a man and carry out the role of man. Humbling, yes, but difficult, no. Would it have been difficult for Christ to become  and carry out the role of  an angel? He made them also. Can the greater carry out the role of the lesser? Man cannot become God, but God could certainly become man.

Immanuel was worshipped. The wise men “came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him” (Matt. 2:11). As a baby Jesus Christ was God. Define God, and you will have defined the Godhood of Christ when he was only a baby. He wasn’t potential God; he didn’t have to grow into Godhood. To deny his omnipotence, omniscience, etc. when he was a baby is to deny his Godhood (Deity). God is God! To say that the baby Jesus was called Immanuel, God with us, and then say that as a baby he was something less than God is to redefine God and make the wise men idolaters. As Immanuel was worshipped by the wise men, he was worshipped many times during his ministry (8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25, etc.), and he himself said, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10).

Immanuel at Twelve

“They found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers (doctors), both hearing them, and asking them questions; and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers” (Luke 2:46, 47). From parents, synagogue, and personal study a twelve year old boy could learn a great deal about the Scriptures, but by no stretch of the imagination could he discuss Scripture with men like Gamaliel and leave them amazed (driven out of their senses  Vincent) at his understanding and answers. He didn’t just ask, he answered! This is recorded, not to impress us with how bright Jesus was, but to demonstrate his omniscience and that, therefore, this boy was Immanuel, God with us (Luke 2:52). “Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” sums up the experience of Jesus’ life prior to age thirty. His advancing in wisdom during those years does not deny his omniscience, but refers to the manifestation of his wisdom as exemplified in the previous verses. There was an orderly development of the divine plan: Jesus did not give mind-boggling answers to the doctors at the age of twelve months.

Immanuel forgave sins. Jesus said “unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven.” The Jews rightly reasoned, “Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even God?” (Mark 2:5-7). They were exactly right. If Christ were other than God, his words would have been blasphemy. No man in his right mind  certainly not a true prophet or apostle  ever did or ever would have dreamed of uttering these words. To quote John 20:22, 23 to prove that the apostles forgave sins just as Christ did either exalts men to the level of God or debases God to the level of men  and either one is blasphemy.

In every possible way, then, Jesus Christ demonstrated that he was truly Immanuel, both God and man.

Guardian of Truth XL: 3 p. 2
February1, 1996