Truth Magazine

By Vance E. Trefethen

Root of the Problem: Ephesians 4 says elders bring people to “the unity of the faith.” But many see elders as a board of directors whose job is balancing a check-book, buying supplies and managing property. Nothing to do with “faith” at all. If you had to work a full-time job and then run a business after-hours, you wouldn’t have time to teach, study, pray or visit much either. This is why you hear so many complaints about preachers doing the work of elders. What a sad waste of the talents of many good men, and what a loss to a congregation.

The work of elders is much more important. They can make the difference between saints falling away or getting to heaven. They are too busy teaching, studying, praying, visiting, rebuking, encouraging, and counseling to privately decide all matters of judgment. The spiritual leaders (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers) in Ephesians 4:11 lead in “the faith.” Do they “make decisions” as they lead? In some limited ways. Evangelists decide how to present a lesson to convert the sinner. Teachers decide what topics to present in class. Do evangelists and teachers privately decide matters of judgment for the church? No, leadership in the faith isn’t private decision-making in collective judgment. Why can’t we see the same for elders?

A Straw Man: Affirming that elders may “meet privately” is a straw man. Certainly elders can meet privately (Jas. 5; Acts 20; Acts 21). But which of these is a decision in a collective judgment? None. The only example of elders leading a collective judgment is Acts 15:22, where they called “the whole church.” The example of Acts 20:7 shows how to eat the Lord’s supper. Acts 15:22 shows how elders lead collective judgment. They stand or fall together.

Boys and Business Meetings: Tom loses all his objections about “women in leadership” by allowing the 13-year-old boy in a business meeting. A boy baptized yesterday is as disqualified from congregational leader-ship as any woman. A non-leader, under subjection to the head of the family, with no authority over the congregation, can scripturally attend and participate (submissively) in a business meeting to decide things. Think of the dangers! Boys still wet from baptism will try to be preachers and elders, they’ll take over the church, reject their fathers’ authority and lead all-out rebellion! No, I wouldn’t ascribe that to Tom. But if he lets boys participate, he must allow women. And remember, “men do not prohibitwomen from doing any authorized activity” (TR, 1st Debate, 2N, 6 12). If boys can participate, women can too. And if women can participate, men are not authorized to exclude them. And if men cannot exclude women, then Tom’s position is wrong.

Book, Chapter and Verse: Where was the Scripture showing any NT church having a men’s business meeting? I already knew he believes they’re authorized  that wasn’t my question. I wanted one Scripture showing all the males in a meeting deciding congregational judgments. But there is no men’s business meeting on any page of the New Testament!

Judgments Become Law: Tom’s most disturbing doctrine is that Hebrews 13:7,17 can be used by elders (and other leaders) to turn any matter of judgment into a matter of faith. In the OT, circumcision was a matter of faith (hence, “involuntary”). We agree it’s a personal judgment in the NT. But Tom affirms elders may decide someone needs circumcision today, even though the Bible doesn’t command it, and may bind it on him without his consent by Hebrews 13. God was (rightfully) exercising “lorship” in the most intimate aspects of life when he gave that command in the OT. No other word but “lordship” applies if elders give the same command today.

How Did We Get Here? From the mistaken idea that elders privately decide any personal judgment that might affect the congregation in any way. Tom authorizes forced circumcision, but people don’t worry much because circumcision isn’t affecting many congregations today. What about dating and marriage? That’s a personal judgment (1 Cor. 7:25) with many “congregational implications.” If a saint judges poorly, he will weaken himself and harm his congregation. I’ve seen it happen. Can elders make marriage decisions for singles in the flock? If Hebrews 13 lets them cut your body against your will (because of “congregational implication”), you cannot stop them from choosing your date or mate. And who decides whether something has “congregational implications”? You guessed it  the elders, before and without consulting anyone. They decide whether they can decide it, then they decide it, then they bind it on you, then you have to obey or you violate Hebrews 13. But that’s not “lordship”? Please, open your eyes. No one can bind on you any opinion or practice that isn’t in the Word (Mk. 7:7). Hebrews 13 is about obeying spiritual teachings of hegeomai (leading men). Tom never has shown anything but matters of faith under consideration in the context of Hebrews 13.

“Look out, Tom!” “Where is the verse that says to the congregation: Exercise the oversight?” (TR, 3A, 66). It’s Acts 6:3. “Look ye out (episkeptomai) among you seven men. . .” This is the root from which comes episkope, or overseer (Strong, p. 31), and was spoken to the congregation. The “looking out” done by elders is in matters of faith (Eph. 4:11-12). The “looking out” done by the Apostles (episkopen, Acts 1:20) was to “visit (episkepsometha) our brethren in every city. . .” (Acts 15:36). Apostles led in prayer and the Word (Acts 6:4)  matters of faith, as taught in Ephesians 4, just like elders. For collective judgments, they called the multitude (Acts 6:2).

A Moving Target: In 1 A. Tom quotes Thayer to prove elders are head of any Christian church. In 2A, he likens elders’ authority to fathers, the head of the family. But in 3A, Tom retracts Thayer on headship. It isn’t what Tom’s position “might lead to” that worries me. What he explicitly says (and then is forced to retract) betrays where he really intends to go with it.

In the first debate, Tom cited Vine to show the word for “vote” means “general approbation.” In 2N, I agreed cheirotoneo (“to create or appoint by vote,” Thayer) means “general approbation” in 2 Corinthians 8:19. But in 3A, Tom says it idoesn’t mean general approbation. I believe churches make collective judgments by general approbation. Where does Tom stand?

We won’t flood any orphans, but even if we did, Tom and I surely agree on how to help them. Tom can see the fallacy of arguing from emergencies when it’s on another issue. Establishing authority by emergencies is evidence of the difficulty of sustaining his proposition from the Bible.

Deacons and Details. Yes, deacons handle details like how many loaves to buy  but only after being authorized by the multitude to buy bread. Deacons don’t just start spending funds “before and without” the congregation’s knowledge and consent! Tom never quoted a passage to show they could. And weren’t we supposed to be debating elders, not deacons?

Authority of Elders. Jesus expressly prohibited using government as a model for elders (Lk. 22:25-26). Kings decide everything for the people (Eccl. 8:4). Jesus said spiritual leaders can’t act like kings. Worse, we’re told elders get equal “application of authority” with other authoritative leaders (3A, 66). Equal to slave-owners and military officers too? Elders have authority to rebuke sinners. Governments have authority to execute them. Is their authority “equal”? The authority of governments, fathers, slave-owners, and centurions proves nothing about elders. But it does show the dangerous arguments needed to support this proposition.

Who’s Running the Show? First debate, we agreed asmall group of non-elders deciding things is an unauthorized “rump meeting.” But now Tom says “Yes,” a few non-elders may decide things without the elders. But then he said “No” about a few elders deciding anything without the other elders. A few non-elders can decide, but a few elders can’t. Confused yet? What if separate small groups make conflicting “decisions”? Who wins? God’s way is better: Take action that “pleases the whole multitude” (Acts 6:5) after a congregational assembly.

GOT Shoots Tom in the Foot. Unfortunately, GOT printed an extra article with the first debate, voiding our written agreement about publication “without additional material.” Did you notice the indictment of Tom’s position in the article? A church got into Feminism when “the elders presented a statement” declaring women would have leading roles (GOT 8/18/94, p. 2). Elders privately decided to have women leaders (which Tom said was a judgment for men to make, 1st debate, 1N, 65). See the danger of elders privately deciding everything? Abuses don’t prove anyone right or wrong. But radical feminism is a serious danger of Tom’s position.

By What Authority? Has Tom shown positive Bible authority for his practice?

Command: The closest he came was the command to “oversee.” But no lexicon defines episkopeo as “decide judgments for the church,” nor could he explain Hebrews 12:15 with that meaning. He said the “oversight” of elders was just like the oversight of Jesus, but he couldn’t explain what matters of judgment Jesus is deciding. There’s no command for his practice.

Example: An example must show: (1) elders; (2) meeting privately; (3) making and binding a decision; (4) in collective judgments; (5) without a congregational meeting. Acts 4 doesn’t mention elders, and he never responded to the prior agreement of the congregation before collective action (4:32). Acts 6 doesn’t mention elders and has a congregational meeting. Acts 9 doesn’t mention elders, and the pronouns and antecedents (“disciples,” “apostles,” “them”) refer to action among the apostles, not collective action of the church (his use of pronouns gets 120 baptized in the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:1). In any case, Barnabas showed that Paul should be accepted on the basis of direct revelation (9:27), not human judgment. Acts 13 mentions no elders, and the men were sent by the Holy Spirit (13:4), not collective judgment. Acts 15:6-18 discusses the plan of salvation (not judgment) with the “multitude” (15:12). 15:19-29 contain matters of judgment and included “the whole church” (15:22). Galatians 2 has Peter, James and John meeting with Paul to discuss “the gospel,” not matters of judgment (Gal. 2:2). Even if they had discussed collective judgments, they met without the other (11 or more) apostles and elders, and Tom said 3 out of 14 cannot decide anything. Acts 20 shows elders meeting privately, but no decisions were made. Acts 21 shows elders meeting privately, but no collective action was decided. None of Tom’s examples has the elements of his proposition.

Necessary Inference: In Acts 11:30, the elders must have privately received the money, must have privately decided its use, must have excluded all the members, must have ignored the apostles’ example of Acts 6. Is this absolutely the only possible inference? No, it’s speculation. If it isn’t the only possible conclusion, it isn’t a necessary inference and can’t authorize anything.

Summary. Without command, example, or inference, the proposition fails. And consider: The Bible: “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided…” (Acts 15:22).

Tom: “Before and without calling together the whole congregation.”

Vance: “`Head’ and `lord’ … are granted to fathers and forbidden to elders.”

Tom: “Vance `forbids to elders’ what God authorizes.”

Choose which you will believe, and may God help you make the right choice.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 21-23
November 17, 1994

By Hoyt Houchen

Jesus inquired of his disciples: “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” (Matt. 16:13) The disciples responded with some existing views: “Some say John the Baptist; some Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets” (v. 14). Different views of Jesus are also prevalent now.

The nature of Christ (his person and work) has been the subject of controversy for centuries, and is continually debated. Webster defines “nature” as “the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing: Essence.”‘

Some Past and Present Views

The Ebionites (a sect of Jews who lived in the early centuries A.D.) denied the divine nature of Christ. They accepted Jesus as a prophet and the supreme lawgiver, but they denied his deity. They regarded him as being merely a man.

Arius (256-336 A.D.) denied the deity of Christ. In fact, he and his followers, like modern day “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” believed that Jesus was created by God the Father, thus making him inferior to the Father.

Through the centuries, modernists have denied that Jesus was supernatural. They have denied his deity, his miracles and his vicarious suffering. Some contend that he was the greatest man who ever lived; but that he was only a man, and no more than a man. But Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. If he were not what he claimed to be, how could he be classified as a good man? A good man would not deceive.

Presently, some assert that when Jesus came to earth he gave up all supernatural power  that Jesus performed miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. If this be true, Jesus was not above his apostles, for the power they had was also given to them by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8).

Some admit that while on earth Jesus was God in the flesh, but that he voluntarily gave up his divine powers. Imagine, if you can, deity without divinity!

The battle lines are drawn as to the nature of our Lord while he sojourned upon the earth. As one writer expressed it: “The greatest battle of our age is the one now being fought by two invisible armies, as they struggle to dominate the minds of men. The one army we may rightly call supernaturalism; the other, with equal accuracy, we shall designate naturalism.’* Thus, the nature of Christ is not to be regarded as an irrelevant issue, but rather one that is to be encountered face to face. Was Jesus only a man upon earth, or was he more than a man? How we regard Jesus could well determine the destiny of our souls. It is therefore a most important issue. This article focuses upon Jesus the Son of God.

The Title: Son of God

It was foretold that Jesus was to be called the Son of God. The angel Gabriel was sent by God to Nazareth where he said to the virgin Mary: “And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shalt be called the Son of the Most High” (Lk. 1:31,32). God referred to him as his “beloved Son” at his baptism and the transfiguration (Matt. 3:17; 17:5). Jesus is also referred to as the “only begotten” Son of God (Jn. 1:14; 3:16,18; etc.). The Greek word for “begotten is monogenes, a word of much dispute. This word, like logos, has special meaning in John’s gospel. It is “only begotten” and is so defined by the translators of the King James and American Standard versions and numerous exegetes. Liddell and Scott give as their first definition: “only begotten.”3 Jesus was more than a son, or “only son,” he was “the only begotten Son of God,” distinguished from an ordinary son.

Jesus claimed to be the “Son of God.” The expression “Son of Man” is only used by Jesus of himself. He refers to himself by this expression more than any other. How-ever, he also applied the title “Son of God” to himself (Mk. 14:61,62; Jn. 9:35; 10:36).

Others declared Jesus to be the Son of God. Peter affirmed to Jesus: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus commended Peter for that great confession. It was upon this eternal truth that Jesus promised to build his church (v. 18).

As John was approaching the end of his gospel, he wrote: “Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book but these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:30,31).

What Is Involved In Sonship

The deeds performed by the Son attest to his relationship with his Father. Please note some of the power and work of Jesus our Lord: (1) He can give life (Jn. 5:21). (2) Judgment is committed to the Son (v. 22). (3) The Son is to be honored as is his Father (v. 23). (4) The Father and the Son are one (Jn. 10:30). (5) The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son (Jn. 10:38). The title “the Son of God” reflects the relationship of Jesus to his Father by fulfilling his work as the divine Messiah, who had been foretold in the Old Testament.

Christ referred to God as his Father over one hundred times in the gospels. Jesus sustained a close, personal relationship with his Father. The use of the Aramaic word abba (Mk. 14:36) is a very personal, intimate word for God.4 A significant statement regarding the relationship of Jesus with his Father is found in Matthew 11:27: “All things have been delivered to me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son “willeth to reveal him” (see also Lk. 10:22). This is exclusive Sonship. No one else could claim this distinct relationship save Jesus himself.

He Was Deity

Two Greek words deserve our attention: theotes (Col. 2:9), translated “Godhead” and theiotes (Rom. 1:20), translated “divinity” (ASV). Some make a distinction between the two words while others do not. Arndt and Gingrich, for instance, define theotes: “deity, divinity.”5 But the fact remains: Jesus was both deity and divinity.

John declared: “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God” (Jn. 1:1). This word (Gr. logos) is said by Vine to be: “the personal manifestation, not a part of the divine nature, but of the whole Deity.”6 “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. . .” (v. 14). Thus Jesus became incarnate, and becoming such, he was not less God than he had been before. He remained God. The word dwelt among us. Literally, he “tabernacled” among us (Gr. skeenoo). How did he become incarnate? He was born of a virgin. Jesus said: “But a body didst thou prepare for me. . .” (Heb. 10:5). Mary did not give birth to the me, or God, who is eternal. She was the mother of the human body of Jesus, but not the mother of God, as the Catholics claim.

Jesus had the power to forgive sins (Mk. 2:5,7). Since no one but God could forgive sins; and Christ did forgive sins; therefore, he was God.

The infant Jesus was worshipped by the wise men (Matt. 2:1,2,11). The word “worship” (Gr. proskuneo) is applied to Jesus “who is to be revered and worshipped as Messianic King and Divine helper…”‘

When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and worshipped him, Peter raised him up saying: “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (my emphasis). But at no time did Jesus ever refuse to be worshipped. Why? Because he was more than a man.

He Was Divine

When Jesus “emptied” himself (Phil. 2:7). He was not divested of, nor did he voluntarily give up, his divine power. The key word in the passage (Phil. 2:1-8) is humility. Nothing of his nature changed when he came to earth. “He divested himself, not of his divine nature, for this is impossible, but of the glories, the prerogatives of Deity. This he did by taking upon him the form of a servant.”8 His role changed, but not his nature. A parallel is found in 2 Corinthians 8:9.

Our finite minds cannot comprehend all that is involved in the nature of Christ, but we can honor and praise him as the Son of God. The Eunuch confessed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God before he was baptized (Acts 8:37). Jesus Christ is the Son of God! May we always treasure this great truth in our hearts, and may we never be guilty of trodding the precious Son of God under our feet (Heb. 10:29). Let us confess him with our lips and by our lives.

References

1. Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary, p. 789.

2. Wilbur M. Smith, The Supernaturalness of Christ, p. vii.

3. Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 945.

4. Arlie J. Hoover, Dear Agnos, p. 171

5. Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 359.

6. W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 230.

7. Arndt and Gingrich, Op. cit., 724.

8. J.B. Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, p. 112. G1

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, p. 3-5
December 1, 1994

By Steve Wallace

The Word of God tells of the matchless love of Christ which we celebrate in song. Indeed the Bible’s portrayal of the love of Christ is one which shows it to be unlike any love known to man. We could examine Christ’s love from the standpoint of the effects it has had on mankind where it has provoked change of life, devotion, praise, sacrifice, and wonderful works. However, such effects, no matter how marvelous, are only reactions to this unique love. Therefore, let us look at some things that the Bible says about it and, though dealing with a broad subject within a limited space, seek to know more about the matchless love of Jesus.

1. The background of his coming. God had loved Israel “with an everlasting love” (Jer. 31:3) and could say in the book at the end of the Old Testament canon, “I have loved you” (Mal. 1:2). However, his love was generally not requited. On the contrary, his people had largely rejected him in various ways throughout their history (Hos. 3:1f; Heb. 3:7-11; Matt. 21:33-44). Rightly does Isaiah write that “all we like sheep have gone astray” (Isa. 53:6). Through all this “God, willing to show his wrath (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, the Babylonian captivity), and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering (i.e., he showed his love, Eph. 4:2) the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom. 9:22). Having shown love for mankind through all its tragic history, God made the greatest demonstration of his love: he “so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). Where on earth can one go to find such an example of love? The matchless love of Christ had its roots in a similarly matchless love.

2. His life. Love gives (Jn. 3:16) and Jesus’ life was a life of giving, a life of love. Though he existed in the “form of God,” Jesus “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:6-7, ASV). “He came to his own, and his own received him not” (Jn. 1:11). Undaunted by the enemies he made, he “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). Summing up his work, “The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them” (Matt. 11:5). He taught that man’s primary obligation is to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself ” (Matt. 22:37-39) and exemplified such love for all to see by his good works and by his keeping God’s commandments (Jn. 14:15). Though tempted, he “did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 1:22). The life that he lived is without parallel; the love he exemplified is matchless!

3. His last day. We see our Savior’s matchless love from another perspective when we study some of the last deedsof his life. “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end” (Jn. 13:1). With the humiliation and pain of the cross looming up before him, he humbled himself, washing his disciples’ feet as an ex-ample to them (Jn. 13:15-16). As he was being led to Calvary, bloodied by the beating he had just received, he refused the sympathy of women who followed him choosing rather to sympathize with them (Lk. 23:27-31). In spite of the intense pain he must have felt as he hung on the cross, his thoughts were of others: he prayed for his executioners, spoke salvation to one of the thieves, and saw to the care of his mother (Lk. 23:34,39-43; Jn. 19:25-27). “When he was reviled, (he) reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not” (1 Pet. 2:23). Through it all, he was the picture of perfect love. We search in vain for such an example in all the pages of all the books that have ever been written, save one: The Bible. “Oh what love, matchless love.”

4. His death. This sacrifice would be incomplete if we failed to note what the Bible says about our Lord’s death. He said, “No man taketh (my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (Jn. 10:18). Jesus chose to lay down his life. “Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life for us” (1 Jn. 3:16, ASV). “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:5-6). “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in what while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us . . . when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom., 5:6-10). Satan once said, “Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life” (Job 2:4). It was love that caused Christ to overcome man’s natural aversion to dying, a love not quenched by the long history of man’s rebellion against God nor by the treachery which surrounded his death. “Oh what wondrous love I see freely shown for you and me!”

5. How should we then live? Love begets love (Jn. 15:9; 1 Jn. 3:16). Therefore, we should strive at “having the same love” Christ has shown us (Phil. 2:1-2). I suggest the following applications of his love to our lives:

1. We should love Christ’s body, the church (Eph. 5:25). He gave himself for it and we should do our part to keep it as he would have it, without “spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing” (Eph. 5:27).

2. We should love the truth which Jesus died to give man (Heb. 9:14-23; Jn. 8:32; 14:23; Gal. 5:6).

3. We should love our brethren (Phil. 2:1-2; 1 Jn. 3:16; 4:7).

4. We should love the lost On. 3:16; Rom. 5:8).

5. Husbands should love their wives as “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25).

6. We should cultivate love’s wonderful character so that it becomes a part of our personality (1 Cor. 13:4-8).

7. We should love our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48; Lk. 23:34).

Conclusion

Christ’s love is without comparison. Nothing which we might allow to influence us in this world can approach matching the one-of-a-kind love we find in Jesus, and our greatest endeavors are worthless without love (1 Cor. 13:1-3). May we all give ourselves to him because of the “love that will not let me go” and be “constrained” by it to walk closer to him each day (2 Cor. 5:14). Brethren, “keep yourselves in the love of God” (Jude 21).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, p. 13-14
December 1, 1994

By Bob Owen

By the standards of the world, my college professor was an unusually “nice guy.” Holding a Ph.D. in Theology from a major European university and being a licensed, ordained minister in a major denomination, and heading the Religion Department in a major state university, surely he is representative of mainstream attitudes for religious leaders. We had become mutually respectful friends from our many hours of after-class discussions. I was pleased when he asked me to accompany him to a nearby town and show his slides as he spoke to a civic club about the Dead Sea scrolls. Not surprisingly, he worked into the talk his view that “Jesus was not really born of a virgin. When they said he’s the Son of God, it was just the ancients’ way of saying, `He’s such a great man his father must have been a God! ‘

Nothing could be more critical to our personal salvation than his divinity. Satan recognized this when he asked, “If thou be the Son of God. . . ” (Matt. 4:1-11). The demons knew him and “cried out saying, what have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matt. 8:29) Was he just a man? A good man? Or uniquely the Son of God?

The angel told Mary, “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Lk. 1:35). Almost a hundred names and titles are given to Jesus in Scripture and none with more significance than Son. Reflecting not only an intimate relationship, Sonship denotes identity in nature or character. This is explicitly claimed for him in Hebrews 1:3 as “the very image of his [God’s] substance.” Used here only in Scripture, this term presents Jesus as the exact representation of God’s nature (Arndt and Gingrich) and according to Vine, the phrase shows Jesus to be distinct from yet “literally equal to” the Father.

Word Became Flesh

The well known history in John 1 describes divinity becoming flesh. Devastating the Gnostics of the day and giving an anchor of faith for all times, John begins his gospel with three powerful and interrelated clauses:

In the beginning was the Word

And the Word was with God

And the Word was God!

The focus in this verse is obvious: the Word. The Word, without beginning was “in the beginning.” “The Word was God” emphasizes not the time element but the character or nature of God. Whatever God is, the Word is. Some religions today profess a “faith” in Jesus but teach he is a created being: “a god” but not “the God.”

John further relates “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us….” (1:14) The One who existed “in the form of God … emptied himself … being made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, [obeyed] even unto death” (Phil. 2:6-8) Was he God or was he man? Clearly the Scripture claims both. He was God “manifested in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16).

This dual nature of the Christ has been questioned by men for ages. In 1950, discussing the Christology of the New Testament writings, Benjamin Warfield noted,

One of the most portentous symptoms of the decay of vital sympathy with historical Christianity which is observable in present-day academic circles is the wide-spread tendency in recent Christological discussion to revolt from the doctrine of the Two Natures in the Person of Christ . . . voices are raised all about us declaring the conception of two natures in Christ no longer admissible” (Person and Work of Christ, 211).

Some among us in an apparent attempt to answer a false position on the necessity of man sinning have denied the divinity of Jesus affirming him to be a man only like other men while on earth. He was “fully man” but not “just a man.” When some ask, “How could he be 100% divine and 100% man? That’s 200%!” they are limiting God to our standards. We cannot understand eternity, the resurrected body, or a host of other things but we accept them by faith.

“My Lord and My God”

How can we know he was God’s Son? First, of course, by what God says of him. At the baptism and at the transfiguration God proclaimed, “This is my beloved Son.” Repeatedly, Jesus claimed to be the Son and affirmed that he and the Father functioned as one. When Philip asked him to show them the Father, Jesus said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (Jn. 14:9).

The testimony of the disciples also confirms Sonship. Peter’s confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16) was not of human wisdom. Jesus said, “My father” is the one who revealed it (Matt. 16:17).

The ultimate evidence for his divinity is the resurrection. Paul ties together his dual nature when he says of the Son, “. . .who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:3-4). God has left abundant evidence for the resurrection: the prophets, the empty tomb, the scores of eye witnesses, the remarkable change in the lives of the apostles. Yes, “.. . declared to be the Son of God with power.”

A conservative Presbyterian preacher in that civic club took exception publicly to my professor’s statement about the virgin birth. (I heard most of the members apologize for his actions after the meeting was over.) As we drove home, I asked the professor if he believed there would be a resurrection. After evading several times he finally said, “I just don’t know, but I don’t think it makes any difference.” No difference? God says it makes all the difference.

The book of Mark opens with the simple but powerful statement, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mk. 1:1). After recounting (by inspiration) his life, Mark describes the death of our Lord and records the words of the centurion, “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mk. 15:39). Do we dare say less?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 23, p. 2
December 1, 1994