Truth Magazine

By Earl Kimbrough

For to this you were called, be-cause Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should walk in his steps: Who committed no sin, Nor was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:21,22).

The word here used for “ex-ample” comes from Greek elementary education. It describes the way Greek boys learned to write. The exercise tablet was usually a shallow box filled with soft wax. A student wrote with a sharp stylus that was flat on the opposite end for erasing so the wax could be repeatedly used. The writing master prepared the student’s tablet by writing a line at the top to be reproduced by the student and by drawing parallel lines to keep the student’s work straight. The master’s line at the top was the “pattern” the boy must copy in his own hand in learning to write. Mature skill in handwriting required practice. Peter’s words show that Jesus’ suffering is not only redemptive. It is also an example that even slaves could imitate in suffering unjust treatment. Jesus as our example suggests four simple facts.

1. Jesus left us the perfect example. He is the perfect “writing copy” we must strive to reproduce in our own life. His sinless perfection is apparent from the couplet quoted from Isaiah 53:9  “Who committed no sin, Nor was guile found in his mouth.” While Peter refers especially to Jesus’ perfect example of patience in suffering, Isaiah spoke prophetically of the Lord’s absolute freedom from sin, as other writers and the history of Jesus’ life show. No other human ever lived without sin. Even the most righteous men are examples to others only as they follow Jesus (1 Cor. 11:1). Jesus lived above sin be-cause he had perfect self-control and because he had a perfect consciousness of God, being fully committed to him in all things.

The figure changes in the second clause (“that you should follow his steps”) to that of a guide. Jesus leads by his footprints. He is the perfectexample in all that he did and for all we must do in the service of God. He is perfect because “in him there is no sin” (1 Jn. 3:5) and he is our example because he commands us to follow him (Matt. 16:24).

2. Jesus is our example of right conduct. Walking in his steps does not mean that we do so perfectly. We achieve perfection only by the grace and mercy of God through submission to his will (Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 3:21-26). Nor does it mean that we imitate Jesus in the things he did by virtue of his divine nature, as in receiving the homage of men. Moreover, following him does not require us to do all he did in the service of God. He lived as a Jew under the law of Moses, but we are free from the law (Rom. 7:4). Therefore, we cannot follow him in observing the precepts of Moses. “Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing . . . (and) you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:1-4). How, then, do we follow the example of Jesus?

(a) We imitate his manner of life. This is seen in the specific example Peter gives. We do not suffer on the cross and we cannot die for the sins of others. But following his manner of suffering unjustly for doing right, we catch his spirit and return love for hate. In his relation to God, Jesus put him first and served him faithfully. In his relation to men, he fulfilled every moral precept of the law perfectly. He was loving, compassionate, and merciful. He was gentle, patient, and kind. He was humble, forgiving, and submissive to his Father’s will. “Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus Christ” (Phil. 2:5). “Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matt. 11:29).

(b) We follow Jesus in living by his word. Peter connects the example of Jesus to his role as “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). The figurative use of “Shepherd” includes the idea of a teacher. “He will feed his flock like a shepherd” (Isa. 40:11). Jesus is not only our perfect example, he is also our perfect instructor. His teaching can no more be separated from his life than his example. We follow him in both. The latter refers to the teaching he left us in the New Testament (Matt. 19:28; Heb. 2:1-4).

3. Jesus intended for us to walk by his example. “For to this were you called . . . that you should walk in his steps.” Christians are called to God’s service through the gospel for the purpose of imitating Jesus in their lives. Those who think Christianity consists of anything less than imitating his teaching and example have missed the point. Sinners must understand this when they become Christians. “There-fore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). And Christians must never forget this commitment: “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Rev. 2:10).

4. Jesus’ example is more than a perfect pattern. Following him brings the blessings that make us perfect in him. It is in following him that we receive the benefits of his death. “… who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes we were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). We are saved from the power and punishment of sin when we obey the gospel (Mk. 16:15,16). Our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ when we are baptized into spiritual union with him (Acts 22:16; Rom. 5:9; 6:3,4). It is at this point that we are freed from the dominion of sin. And the hope of being free from the eternal punishment that awaits the unrighteous is a great motivation for us to live “soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Tit. 3:11,14). Jesus not only died to free us from the dominion of sin, but that we might “live for righteousness.”

There is another blessing provided by the perfect ex-ample of Christ. “For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Pet. 2:25). The title “Shepherd” seems to identify Jesus with Ezekiel’s prophecy: “I will establish one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them  my servant David. He shall feed them and be their shepherd” (Ezek. 34:23). Jesus remains the perfect teacher and example for his people, providing them all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet. 2:1-4). “Overseer” is apparently used here in reference to Jesus’ protective oversight of those who walk in his steps. Following the perfect example of Jesus gives us assurance of eternal life. “Footprints of Jesus, That make the pathway glow; We will follow the steps of Jesus, Where’er they go.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII, No. 22, p. 1
December 1, 1994

By Irvin Himmel

“Friend” is a term of endearment. It denotes that one is loved, dear, or trusted. It applies to one who associates familiarly as a companion.

Friendship Demonstrated

Jesus’ ministry on earth was a mission of friendship toward sinful humanity. His conduct as a friend was in striking contrast to the behavior of the religious leaders among the Jews.

1. He was a friend of social outcasts. The publicans collected taxes for the Roman government. Anyone who represented the Romans was despised and hated by most of the Jewish nation. On top of that, many of the publicans had the reputation of being extortionists. “The tax-gather, if a Jew, was a renegade in the eyes of his patriotic fellows. He paid a fixed sum for the taxes, and received for himself what he could over and above that amount. The ancient and widespread custom of arbitrariness was in the system” (International Bible Encyclopedia). The publicans were regarded as outcasts.

Jesus saw Matthew, a publican, seated at the receipt of custom, and said to him, “Follow me.” Later in Matthew’s house, Jesus and his disciples ate with many publicans and sinners. “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” asked the arrogant Pharisees. Jesus explained his association with these social outcasts by comparing his work to that of a doctor. “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick . . . I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Matt. 9:9-13).

At Jericho, Jesus visited the house of the chief of the publicans, a little man named Zaccheus. That visit brought a blessing to Zaccheus. The friendship of Jesus was explained by the Master in these words: “For the Son of man is come to seek and save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:1-10).

2. He was a friend to the bereaved. Lazarus had been dead four days when Jesus and the disciples approached Bethany. Martha went out to meet the Lord. She remarked, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.” Jesus assured her that Lazarus would rise again. She acknowledged that he would rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus explained, “I am the resurrection and the life.” Martha went her way and called her sister Mary secretly. Mary quickly went out to meet the Master. Many of the mourners followed her.

Jesus had deep feeling for Mary and Martha in their loss. The sadness of these two sisters and the weeping of others who had come to share their grief touched the heart of the Son of man. He groaned in the spirit and was troubled. He asked, “Where have ye laid him?” They said, “Come and see.” John reports tersely, “Jesus wept.” Then said the Jews, “Behold how he loved him!” (Jn. 11:17-36)

3. He was a friend of sinners. At the house of Simon a Pharisee, Jesus was approached by a sinful woman. She brought an alabaster box of ointment, stood at his feet behind him weeping, washing his feet with tears, wiping them with the hairs of her head, and kissing his feet, and anointing them with the ointment. Simon witnessed this and said in his heart, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for he is a sinner.” Jesus spoke to Simon and illustrated the sinful woman’s situation. He rebuked Simon for his own lack of hospitality and common courtesy. He demonstrated that he was a friend of sinners by saying to the woman, “Thy sins be forgiven thee” (Lk. 7:36-50).

On another occasion, the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman which they said they had caught in the act of adultery. The law said that such a person should be stoned. They desired to tempt and accuse Jesus by asking, “What sayest thou?” He replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” One by one they left the scene. When Jesus and the woman were left alone, he asked her, “Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She replied, “No man, Lord.” He said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more” On. 8:1-11).

Some of the Master’s critics distorted his friendship toward publicans and sinners. They had found fault with John the Baptist because he came neither eating nor drinking, insisting that he had a demon, and when Jesus came both eating and drinking, they said, “Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners” (Matt. 11:18,19). Jesus was not a friend of sinners in the sense of being a chum, buddy, pall, crony, or participant in their wickedness. In a much higher sense he was a real friend of sinners. Had he been a partaker in their sins, that higher friendship would not have been possible.

4. He was a friend of the disciples. When they needed rebuke, Jesus rebuked them. When certain Samaritans acted in a hostile manner, James and John wanted to command fire to come down and consume them. Jesus rebuked those two disciples for the spirit which they displayed, reminding them, “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Lk. 9:51-56).

When the disciples were frightened, Jesus calmed them. A violent storm on the Sea of Galilee covered with water the boat in which Jesus and the disciples were passengers. In excitement they awakened him, crying, “Lord, save us: we perish.” He replied, “Why are ye fearful, 0 ye of little faith?” He rebuked the winds and the sea; a hush settled on the sea. They marvelled! (Matt. 8:23-27)

When they were troubled and confused, Jesus said to the disciples, “Let not your heart be troubled…” (Jn. 14:1). Jesus loved his disciples in spite of their slowness to learn, their failings, and their lack of faith.

Our Friend Today

The friendship of Jesus is just as real and meaningful today as it was during his earthly ministry. His is an abiding friendship. Unlike a friend who abandons us when we need him most, we can count on our Lord to stand by us.

1. He is a friend who sympathizes. He understands our problems, our pressures, our predicaments, and our plight. Remember that in all points he was tempted like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). His life in the flesh, his sufferings, his hunger and thirst, and his painful death qualify him to be our most sympathetic friend.

2. He is a friend who helps. He is our high priest. “Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn. 2:1,2).

3. He is a friend who restrains. Much of the teaching of Jesus is designed to control, check, bridle, and regulate. If his words seem too sharp and piercing, his commands too hard, remember the proverb which says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Prov. 27:6).

Friendship Is Reciprocal

Jesus is our friend, the dearest friend we shall ever have. He wants us to be his friends. He put it like this in John 15:14, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” Because he is our self-sacrificing and loving friend, we show our friendship toward him by faithfully obeying his commands. We are not his friends if we rebel against him, go beyond his word, live in a worldly manner, or disregard his authority as the Christ, the Son of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, p. 6-7
December 1, 1994

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