By Lewis Sperry Chafer
II: God the Father
Introduction.
Proceeding to a more comprehensive investigation into that which Revelation discloses as to the individual characteristics and relationships of each of the Blessed Three, that which is peculiar to the First Person, known as The Father, is foremost in order. First, it is essential to observe the difference between that notion concerning God which is advanced by the monotheists of the Unitarian class and the Biblical representation of the Father. It has too often been assumed that all systems which recognize God at all, agree with the Christian system to the extent that the First Person is shared by all; that is, the Christian belief is satisfied if two other Persons are added to the One God whom all are supposed to acknowledge alike. The error of this assumption is made evident when it is seen that the Christian’s conception, based on the teaching of the Scriptures, is not that the One God of the Unitarian is the First Person plus two more who sustain doubtful titles to the honors of Deity; but that the One God is that whole Essence which subsists as Father, Son, and Spirit, and that if any one of these three Persons is to be designated as a representative of the Unitarian idea of God to whom the Christian would add two more, any one of the Three, they being absolutely equal in every particular, might be drafted with impartial propriety for such fancied discrimination. The monotheistic notion, as voiced by Jews, Mohammedans, and Unitarians, is of a God who is one Person; while the Christian’s idea is of One God who answers every claim of Biblical monotheism, yet subsists in three equal Persons. The Father is not the One God of the Bible any more than is the Son or the Spirit. The Three are One God. It is recognized that, for the purposes of manifestation and redemption, the Son has voluntarily elected to do the will of the Father and to do that will in dependence upon the Spirit. To the same end, the Holy Spirit has voluntarily chosen not to speak from Himself as the Author of what He says, but to speak whatsoever He hears. It is unscriptural, shallow, and a dishonor to both the Son and the Spirit to assume that these voluntary subjections are due to inherent inferiority. Such a claim robs these two Persons of one of their great glories—that of voluntary subjection to the end that worthy objectives may be realized. Unitarianism, so far as it concerns itself with the Scriptures at all, lays hold of those passages wherein this voluntary subjection is asserted and by these passages seeks to prove that the Scriptures declare an inherent inferiority of the Son and of the Spirit. To reach these conclusions, they must either discredit or wholly reject that larger body of Scripture (to be attended later) which declares the absolute Deity of the Son and Spirit. It may be concluded, then, that, outside of these more or less temporary relationships which the voluntary subjections engender, the Father is in no inherent respect superior to either the Son or the Spirit. The Fatherhood of God has several manifestations. In Ephesians 3:15 the phrase, “the whole family” over which God is said to be Father, is better rendered, every fatherhood, which discloses the truth that this Fatherhood includes various filiations, and is itself that norm after which all fatherhoods are patterned and from which they are named. The distinctive Fatherhoods of God are:
1. Fatherhood over Creation.
The Fatherhood of God over creation is one of measureless extent. In the Ephesian passage, referred to above, there is allusion to families in heaven and on earth. In Hebrews 12:9 God is mentioned as “The Father of spirits,” and in James 1:17, He is designated “the Father of lights.” Similarly, in Job 38:7 angels are called “sons of God” (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; Gen 6:4). As to the more restricted relationship of the divine Fatherhood over humanity, it is written of Adam—after having traced the genealogy of Christ backward to Adam-that he is a “son of God.” Thus, also, in Malachi 2:10 it is stated: “Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?” Yet, again, in Acts 17:29, it is recorded that the Apostle said in his sermon to the men of Athens on Mars’ hill: “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God.” These passages, with 1 Corinthians 8:6 where it is declared, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,” teach that it is within the latitude of the Biblical use of the word Father, as applied to God, to comprehend all created beings as belonging to that Fatherhood. Thus it is revealed that there is a form of universal Fatherhood and universal brotherhood which, within its proper bounds, should be recognized; but this, as important as it may be, is in no way to be confused with that Fatherhood and brotherhood which is secured by the regenerating work of the Spirit. It should be added as a qualifying fact that this general form of kinship between Deity and creation is not usually predicated of the Father, but is declared to be between God and His creation. His love for all humanity is expressed in the words, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.”
2. Fatherhood by Intimate Relationship.
The intimate relationship between Jehovah and Israel, which owed all its reality to the gracious working of God, is divinely expressed by the figure of father and son. In Exodus 4:22 record is given that Jehovah instructed Moses to say to Pharaoh: “Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” There is no record that they were children of God by regeneration. Nor were they at that time a redeemed people, as they were later when departing from Egypt. In anticipating God’s precious nearness to Solomon for his father’s sake, God said to David: “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” (2 Sam 7:14). In like manner, in an effort to bring God near to the hearts of His people, the Psalmist says: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him” (Ps 103:13).
3. The Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The phrase “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” is the full title of the First Person of the Blessed Trinity, and it incorporates, also, the full title of the Second Person. True, God the Father is also the Father of all who believe, but for all eternity to come He must first be recognized by that surpassing distinction which, in part, has been His throughout the eternity past, namely, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The relation of the Second Person to the First Person has from all eternity been that of a Son, and, like all else related to the Godhead, is not only eternal but is unchangeable. He did not become a Son of the Father, as some say that He did, by His incarnation, nor by His resurrection, nor is He a Son by mere title, nor is He temporarily assuming such a relationship that He may execute His part in the Covenant of Redemption. Of these claims, that of sonship by the incarnation has had many exponents and none more effective than Ralph Wardlaw, who made certain distinctions which others of that school of interpretation failed to note, namely, that the title Son of God is not, according to this specific belief, that He is a Son through the channel of His humanity alone—which idea borders on the Unitarian opinion—nor is it that His title belongs to His Deity alone. Dr. Wardlaw claims that it belongs to the Person of Christ including His Deity and His humanity as they both resided in Him following the incarnation. This incarnation theory of sonship does not question the pre-existence of the Second Person as the Logos of God, but it does assert that the specific title Son of God does not apply to the Logos until the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures is formed by the incarnation. It becomes, then, a question as to when the title began to have a proper use. Theologians generally have been emphatic in their insistence that the divine sonship is from all eternity. Their belief in this matter is based upon clear Scripture evidence. He was the Only Begotten of the Father from all eternity, having no other relation to time and creation than that He is the Creator of them. It is evident that the Father and Son relationship sets forth only the features of emanation and manifestation and does not include the usual conception of derivation, inferiority, or distinction as to the time of beginning. The Son, being very God, is eternally on an absolute equality with the Father. On the other hand, the First Person became the God of the Second Person by the incarnation. Only from His humanity could Christ address the First Person as “My God.” This He did in that moment of supreme manifestation of His humanity when on the cross He said, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And again, after His resurrection, He said, “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17). On this point, of His eternal Sonship, Dr. Van Oosterzee says: “This relation between Father and Son had not a beginning, but existed from all eternity. Clearly enough is this assured to us by the Lord Himself (John 8:58; 17:5, 24), and by His first witnesses (John 1:1; Rev 22:13; Col 1:17, and many other places). For there is as little ground here for accepting a purely ideal pre-existence, as for speaking of a period of time before the Creation, at which the Son—previously not existing—was called into existence by the Father. Arianism, which asserts this last, is properly regarded exegetically absolutely unsupported. A sound exposition of Colossians 1:15, 16 shows, not that the Son is here placed on a level with the creature as opposed to the Father, but on a level with the invisible God as opposed to the creature.... As a legitimate consequence of all that has been said, it may be deduced that the Father gives the most perfect revelation of Himself in and through the Son. If the Father dwells in a light unapproachable, in the Son the Unseen has become visible (John 1:18). In the Father we adore in like manner the Hidden One, in the Son we contemplate the God who reveals Himself (Heb 1:3). ‘As the human figure reflects itself in the mirror, and all that is in the seal is found also in the impression thereof, so in Him, as the outbeaming of His invisible being, the Unseen has become visible. God finds Himself again, and reflects Himself in the Logos, as in His other I’ (Tholuck). Thus is the Son one with the Father, in the communion of the Holy Ghost.”[1]
Dr. Van Oosterzee, in the course of his argument, confuses the issue by drafting passages which teach the eternity of the Logos or Second Person, but do not involve any reference to the Eternal Son. It will be found that but few passages give direct support to the eternity of the sonship relation; but enough of these are in evidence, it is believed, to sustain the doctrine. None of these is more conclusive than Colossians 1:15, 16, which Dr. Van Oosterzee employs in the above quotation. God is said to give His Son to be a Savior. This does not mean that God gave the Eternal Logos or Second Person who, in turn, became a Son by being given. Dr. Wardlaw, along with others, is in error, it seems, in attempting to prove the theory of sonship by incarnation from Hebrews 1:2–4. In this context the Son is said to be “appointed heir of all things.” As the appointment antedates the incarnation, so the appointment was to the Son before the incarnation. Dr. Wardlaw makes an important comment on the scope of the meaning to be assigned to the two titles-Son of God, and Son of Man. “If, therefore, it be alleged that the same thing which we have been saying of the title Son of God might equally well be affirmed of the title Son of Man, we at once grant it. The one and the other are alike titles of His Person. Neither does the one represent Him as only God, nor the other as only man; but both distinguishing Him as Emmanuel, ‘God manifest in the flesh.’ ‘The name “Son of God” imports that He is really God; and “Son of Man” that He is really man. But as “Son of Man” does not mean that He is only a man, so neither does Son of God imply that He is only God. Under the appellation Son of Man, He speaks of Himself as having come down from heaven, and being in heaven while on earth (John iii.13), as having power to forgive sons (Matt. ix.6), to raise the dead, and to judge the world (Matt. xxv.31, 32; John v.27).
Therefore this name must include more than His human nature. Speaking of Himself under the appellation Son of God, He declares He can do nothing of Himself (John v.19), and that the Father is greater than He (John xiv.28), therefore the name Son of God must include more than His divine nature. The truth is, these names are used indifferently to denote the one person of Emmanuel, and not to give us a separate or abstract view of His natures and their peculiar actings, this being easily known from the natures of the actions themselves. In His person we find God performing the actions of man, and a man performing the actions and exercising and displaying the perfections of God; for though He was possessed of two distinct natures, yet such is their union in Him that they make but one self; so that if we abstract or separate them, we lose the person of the Son; it is no more Himself (M’Lean’s Works, Vol. iii. pp. 308, 309).’[2]
Various passages imply the generation of the Son,-“The only begotten of the Father”; “The only begotten Son”; “The only begotten Son of God.” On the basis of these and other terms the theological distinction is set forth to the effect that the Son is eternally generated. As “the firstborn of every creature” Christ is wholly unrelated to created beings, being, as He is, begotten before all created things. This distinction between Christ and creation is profound, a mystery, since its realities are outside the range of human cognition. Christ is by generation and not by creation. He is the Creator of all things. Generation is not predicated of the Father or the Spirit. This feature is peculiar to the Son. It is not the result of any divine act, but has ever been from all eternity. The words of the Nicene Creed are: “The only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father”; of the Athanasian: “The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created; but begotten...of the substance of the Father; begotten before the worlds.”
It is probable that the terms Father and Son, as applied to the First and Second Persons in the Godhead, are somewhat anthropomorphic in character. That sublime and eternal relationship which existed between these two Persons is best expressed to human understanding in the terms of father and son, but wholly without implication that the two Persons, on the divine side, are not equal in every particular. On the doctrine of the Subordination of the Son, Dr. John Miley has well said: “In the divine economies of religion, particularly in the work of redemption, there is a subordination of the Son to the Father. There is, indeed, this same idea of subordination in the creative and providential works of the Son. However, the fullness of this idea is in the work of redemption. The Father gives the Son, sends the Son, delivers up the Son, prepares a body for his incarnation, and in filial obedience the Son fulfills the pleasure of the Father, even unto his crucifixion (John iii,16, 17; Rom. viii,32; Psa. xl,6–8; Heb. x,5–7; Phil. ii,8). The ground of this subordination is purely in his filiation, not in any distinction of essential divinity.”[3]
4. Fatherhood over All Who Believe.
Under this the fourth aspect of the divine Fatherhood, a most intimate relationship and abiding reality is in view. Generation and regeneration are closely akin. The former is the begetting of life which is the starting point of physical existence; while the latter is the begetting of life which is the starting point of spiritual existence. With the authority of God the Scriptures testify that men in their natural estate of generation are spiritually dead until born anew, or from above. This birth, with its impartation of the Divine Nature, is a great mystery. It, like the blowing of the wind, is discernible as to its effects, but not disclosed to man as to its operation. As to their relation to God, men are either perfectly lost, being unregenerate, or perfectly saved, being regenerate. This discriminating transformation is wholly wrought of God—He alone is able—, and, like all divine undertakings, can be aided in no way by human cooperation or virtue. The one and only relation man can sustain to this work of God is that of faith, belief, or confidence in God to do what He alone is able to do. Having promised this blessing in answer to faith, He never fails to do even as He has promised. The faith attitude is itself of necessity wrought of God since the unregenerate have no such capacity of themselves. Those who believe and are saved are the elect of God. Among many features of divine undertaking in salvation, regeneration is one. This new birth is wrought by God the Holy Spirit and results in legitimate Fatherhood on the part of God, and legitimate sonship on the part of the one who believes. Regeneration is God’s own plan by which the lost may enter into that relation to Himself which is infinitely near and real, and it is no small commendation of the plan that it is wholly satisfying to infinite love. The extended soteriological aspects of regeneration need not be introduced here. Enough is said at this point if it is made clear that each individual who is born of God has thus become a son of God in the most vital and immutable meaning of sonship and has been received into the household and family of God. The regenerate one may say, and he does say, Abba, Father—a term of filial relation. This sonship, though it brings the believer into the position of an heir of God and a joint-heir with Christ, is not on the same plane with the Sonship of Christ which is from all eternity. Christ never used the phrase Our Father. The so-called “Lord’s prayer” is no exception to this since that is a prayer He taught His disciples to pray but did not and could not pray Himself. He spoke of “My Father, and your Father, my God, and your God.” Nevertheless the Fatherhood and sonship relations between God and believers are wonderful and glorious beyond expression.
III. The Son
Introduction.
The Unity of God, as has been indicated, is an essential fundamental of revelation. It is presented in the Scriptures with great solemnity and is there guarded with the utmost care. Direct precepts, promises, threatenings, and examples of punishment for idolatry all tend to emphasize this basic truth. Yet added to this so vital truth and without qualification or diminution of it, the further revelation is presented, namely, that this One God subsists in three Persons. This plurality is so clearly proclaimed even in the Old Testament that the devout Jew could not have failed to have observed it; nor had he any reason for rejecting it until his prejudices were aroused against the claims of One who appeared with all the credentials of his long-expected Messiah. In the exercise of that blind detriment, he departed from whatever truth he had held respecting the Deity of his Messiah and of the Spirit. He became the defender of a form of Monotheism which his cherished Scriptures do not sustain. As before asserted, it is not now a matter of adding two Persons to the One whom the Jew is pleased to acknowledge as his God or of designating that One to be One of Three; it is rather a recognition of the added revelation that the One God, whom all acknowledge alike, subsists in a threefold plurality. Advantaged by that disclosure, the illuminated mind becomes aware of the great truth that the Three Persons are equal in every respect and that the same honor and adoration are alike due to each. To that spiritual mind which is guided by the Scriptures, each Person of the Godhead, because of specific and individual functions, occupies a distinct place. Reference has been made already to these features which are peculiar to the Father, and reference will yet be made to those features which are peculiar to the Spirit. The present objective is the examination of those features which are peculiar to the Son, and by so much, is introduced the greatest theme of Systematic Theology. Because of its surpassing, determining import, the doctrinal conflicts—and there have been many—of the Christian era have been waged over this subject. In some instances strife has been between those who believed and those who did not; but more often it has been between men of equal sincerity who sought to determine what is true respecting the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. His complete humanity is clearly set forth, yet of Him it is as clearly disclosed that He is equal with the Father and the Spirit. To Him are given the titles of Jehovah, Redeemer, and Savior, and He is invested with every attribute belonging to Deity. He is the greatest theme of prophecy, about Him things are written which could not be true of any angel or man. Because of His claim to be what He is, He died under the charge of blasphemy. He bore the sins of the world in a sacrificial death, and, because of that accomplishment, He forgave sin and for His sake alone sin is forgiven to the end of the world. He arose from the dead thus sealing His every claim to Deity. He is now seated on the Father’s throne and all power is given unto Him both in heaven and on earth. He is declared to be the Creator of all things visible and invisible, the source of eternal life, the object of worship both by angels and men. He will yet raise the dead and, as Judge, determine the future estate of all created beings. On the Godward side, He is the manifestation of God to men and the Bestower of every element in human life which is acceptable to God. Such contrasts as are set up between His humanity and His Deity could not but draw out the fire of fierce and prolonged controversy—a controversy too often waged in the interests of mere metaphysical and ontological considerations without due respect to the simplicity of that reality concerning Him which the Word of God asserts. The church has learned much from these dissensions, and no truth more empirical than that the “things of Christ” are disclosed only to spiritual minds and only by revelation.
As the true starting point for all worthy thinking regarding the Christ, the theologue will do well to fix in mind the essential fact that the Second Person is intrinsically equal in every respect to the other Persons in the Godhead and that He remains what He ever has been regardless of misconceptions arising either from His eternal generation, or His Sonship, or from any natural deductions arising from the fact of His incarnation or His humiliation. No approach to a Biblical Christology is possible which does not ground itself on, and proceed from, the all-determining truth that the incarnate Second Person, though He be a “man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief,” is the eternal God. The Socinian distinction between the words Deity and Divinity and their claim that Christ was not Deity but was Divinity in the sense only that He partook of divine elements, must be rejected. He is divine in the sense that He is absolute Deity—else the language of the Bible wholly misleads. A candid mind must acknowledge the array of evidence as to Christ’s Deity, or else show equally valid reason for not doing so. The trifling attempt of Unitarians to dispose of the vast body of truth which asserts the Deity of Christ is unworthy of consideration. No more vital question has ever been propounded than this: “What think ye of Christ?” and, similarly, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” Outwardly religious men have ever said in reply: “John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.” Others who stood nearer to Him have even said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:13–16). No ground is left for argument with the Jew, the Mohammedan, or the atheist who repudiates the whole doctrine of Christ’s supernatural being. The Arians professed great adoration for Christ, even acknowledging His pre-existence; but they, believing Him to be a creation of God, rejected the truth of His eternal pre-existence. In more recent times, the controversy has been with the Socinians and their successors, the Unitarians, all of whom with patent inconsistency have sought to retain the worthy name Christian while they dishonor the One whose name they espouse. This immeasurable insult to Christ would be serious enough were it confined to those who bear the Unitarian name, but these heretical teachings are again, as they have done before, penetrating the whole Christian profession under the gloss of scholarship which, being motivated by unbelief and being as dark as the natural heart of man, tends ever to promote its cherished liberalism. So-called modernism is not to be accounted for on the basis of a supposed weakness in the Biblical testimony. The greatest scholars of the Christian era have bowed with full submission to the authority of the Scriptures and have hailed its message as perfect and final. Unitarianism, and its other self-modernism, reflect the downward pull of that unbelief which characterizes the unregenerate. The same truth abides which has sustained saints in life and filled the martyr with glory in death. The Unitarian has seldom been a martyr. Dr. Priestley was highly indignant when told by the Jew, David Levi, that when looking into the New Testament he (Levi) saw that Jesus of Nazareth was there represented as God, and for that reason he did not consider Dr. Priestley, with all his claims to the contrary, to be a Christian. The identical proofs which demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Unitarian (of whatever name) that God the Father is Deity go on to a demonstration of equal extent and force that the Lord Jesus Christ is Deity. Basing all upon the Word of God which alone bears dependable witness, some aspects of the vast field of Christology will now be attended.
The importance of this theme may be gathered from the fact that, directly or indirectly, about all that enters into Systematic Theology might be incorporated into Christology. Only such phases of this discipline will be taken up under Trinitarianism as may be required as a preparation for the study of Anthropology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology. Likewise, since it is in the scope of Theology Proper to restrict the contemplation of the Christ to His Person apart from His works, this present treatment will conform to that dictum. The larger disquisition on Christology is subject to these seven major divisions: (a) His pre-existence, (b) His incarnation, (c) His death, (d) His resurrection, (e) His ascension and session, (f) His return and reign, and (g) His eternal authority and relationships. The present more restricted discussion is divided thus: (a) His pre-existence, (b) His names, (c) His Deity, (d) His incarnation, (e) His humanity, (f) The kenosis, (g) The hypostatic union.
May the Spirit, whose work it is to take of the things of Christ and show them unto His own, illuminate the mind of the one who writes and the mind of all those who in patience pursue these pages!
A. His Pre-existence.
The first step in the proof that the Lord Jesus Christ has His equal and rightful place in the Godhead is taken when the truth is substantiated that He existed before He came into the world in human form. Of necessity, evidence bearing on such a stupendous theme as the pre-existence of Christ will be drawn only from the Bible. No other source of information exists. The demonstration that Christ pre-existed is not, however, a complete proof that He is very God. Such proof does refute the Socinian contention, namely, that He is only a man, for no man has ever existed before his birth; but it does not refute the Arian hypothesis which is that Christ is a created being who existed as such before entering this human sphere. Decisive evidence as to the Deity of Christ will appear under another division of this general theme. Space may not be claimed here for investigation of secondary passages which only imply that Christ pre-existed. There are various phrases in which this implication resides. He said of Himself that He was sent into the world (John 17:18); likewise it is written that He came in the flesh (John 1:14); He took part of flesh and blood (Heb 2:14); He was found in fashion as a man (Phil 2:8). He said, “I am from above” (John 8:23); and “I am not of the world” (John 17:14); He spoke also of descending out of heaven (John 3:13). Here it is indicated that He pre-existed and no utterances such as these could have any place in the experience of human beings. Attention is rather to be directed (a) to major passages of indisputable import, and (b) to the Person of the Angel of Jehovah.
1. Major Passages.
John 1:15,30.
Twice in these passages John the Baptist asserts of Christ that “he was before me.” A time relationship is indicated, and, though John was older in years than Christ, he declares that Christ was before him. The Unitarian notion that John was stating that by divine appointment Christ is higher in rank and dignity than John is impossible and cannot be sustained by unprejudiced exegesis. Had John made reference only to matters of appointment and dignity he would have said, He is before me, and not, He was before me. The text declares that, in point of time, Christ preceded John.
John 6:38,38,41,50,51,58,62.
In this context is written a sevenfold declaration made by Christ that He “came down from heaven.” To this may be added Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13). Similarly, the assurance is made emphatic by repetition as presented in John 3:31, “He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.” As a disposition of this body of truth, and as a pure invention which has not a vestige of support either Biblical or traditional, the Socinians offered the hypothesis that sometime after His birth Christ was transported to heaven that He might receive the Word of Truth which was committed to Him and from thence He came down from heaven. Later promoters of this form of doctrine have assumed that these passages assert that Christ had been “admitted to an intimate knowledge of heavenly things.” Were this the case, Christ would be in no way superior to Moses or any of the prophets. In John 3:13 it is pointed out that no man hath ascended into heaven and that Christ is the only One who has been in heaven, as one translation gives it, “No man, excepting myself, ever was in heaven.” To the same end, John 6:62 not only anticipates the literal ascension recorded in Acts 1:10, but states that, when He ascended, He returned “where he was before.” On this controversy an early writer, Dr. Nares, may be quoted with profit: “We have nothing but the positive contradictions of the Unitarian party, to prove to us that Christ did not come from heaven, though he says of himself, he did come from heaven; that though he declares he had seen the Father, he had not seen the Father; that though he assures us that he, in a most peculiar and singular manner came forth from God, he came from him no otherwise than like the prophets of old, and his own immediate forerunner”[4]
John 8:58.
Most emphatic, indeed, is this claim on the part of the Savior to pre-existence. He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” That the phrase ”I am” sets forth the meaning of the ineffable name, Jehovah, and that it asserts no less than eternal existence, has been demonstrated under the general theme of Biblical Theism. It is evident, too, that the Jews recognized that by this statement Christ declared Himself to be Jehovah. This is seen in their bitter resentment. How could He, being not yet fifty years old, have existed before Abraham? In answer to this query Christ replied, that He not only existed before Abraham, but that He had always existed prior to the time when He was speaking. Such is the claim embodied in the application of the eternal I am to Himself. For the last degree of blasphemy, which the Jews believed this to be, they were by their law obligated to stone Him to death. This they proceeded to do, but Christ displayed the very supernatural power which He had professed by disappearing from their midst. The Unitarian theories that Christ was asserting that His existence at that time was prior to the time when Abraham would become the father of many nations through the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles, or that Christ merely pre-existed in the foreknowledge of God, are not worthy of consideration. Faustus Socinus interpreted this passage thus: “Before Abraham becomes Abraham, i.e. the father of many nations, I am it, namely, the Messiah, the Light of the world.” This statement was later included in the Socinian confession of faith. This momentous event is better described by Whitaker after this manner: ”‘Your Father Abraham,’ says our Saviour to the Jews, ‘rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.’ Our Saviour thus proposes himself to his countrymen, as their Messiah; that grand object of hope and desire to their fathers, and particularly to this first father of the faithful, Abraham. But his countrymen, not acknowledging his claim to the character of Messiah, and therefore not allowing his supernatural priority of existence to Abraham, chose to consider his words in a signification merely human. ‘Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?’ But what does our Saviour reply to this low and gross comment upon his intimation? Does he retract it, by warping his language to their poor perverseness, and so waiving his pretentions to the assumed dignity? No! to have so acted, would have been derogatory to his dignity, and injurious to their interests. He actually repeats his claim to the character. He actually enforces his pretensions to a supernatural priority of existence. He even heightens both. He mounts up far beyond Abraham. He ascends beyond all the orders of creation. And he places himself with God at the head of the universe. He thus arrogates to himself all that high pitch of dignity, which the Jews expected their Messiah to assume. This he does too in the most energetic manner, that his simplicity of language, so natural to inherent greatness, would possibly admit. He also introduces what he says, with much solemnity in the form, and with more in the repetition. ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you,’ he cries, ‘BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM.’ He says not of himself, as he says of Abraham, ‘Before he was, I was.’ This indeed would have been sufficient, to affirm his existence previous to Abraham. But it would not have been sufficient, to declare what he now meant to assert, his full claim to the majesty of the Messiah. He therefore drops all forms of language, that could be accommodated to the mere creatures of God. He arrests one, that was appropriate to the Godhead itself. ‘Before Abraham was,’ or still more properly, ‘Before Abraham was MADE,’ he says, ‘I AM.’ He thus gives himself the signature of uncreated and continual existence, in direct opposition to contingent and created.... He attaches to himself that very stamp of eternity, which God appropriates to his Godhead in the Old Testament; and from which an apostle afterward describes ‘Jesus Christ’ expressly to be ‘the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.’ Nor did the Jews pretend to misunderstand him now. They could not. They heard him directly and decisively vindicating the noblest rights of their Messiah, and the highest honours of their God, to himself. They considered him as a mere pretender to those. They therefore looked upon him, as a blasphemous arrogator of these. ‘Then took they up stones, to cast at him’ as a blasphemer; as what indeed he was in his pretensions to be God, if he had not been in reality their Messiah and their God in one. But he instantly proved himself to their very senses, to be both; by exerting the energetic powers of his Godhead, upon them. For he ‘hid himself; and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them; and so passed by.’”
John 1:1-4,14.
This familiar portion reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” No Scripture is more conclusive as to the pre-existence of Christ than this. Like the preceding passage (John 8:58), the attempt is made to express the thought of eternal existence by the use of the present tense with the thought implied that it is an eternal present. He is, not was, in existence at a time of beginning which was before He had created all things by the word of His power (cf. vs. 3). He was not only with God, but He was God. He Who ever is, never began to be. With fullest assurance the inspired text goes on to recount that this Eternal One “was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” To the order of these events, the truth they disclose, and the majesty here described, Dr. B. B. Warfield has made an illuminating comment: “John here calls the person who became incarnate by a name peculiar to himself in the New Testament—the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word.’ According to the predicates which he here applies to Him, he can mean by the ‘Word’ nothing else but God Himself, ‘considered in His creative, operative, self-revealing, and communicating character,’ the sum total of what is Divine (C. F. Schmid). In three crisp sentences he declares at the outset His eternal subsistence, His eternal intercommunion with God, His eternal identity with God: ‘In the beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God’ (John 1:1). ‘In the beginning,’ at that point of time when things first began to be (Gen 1:1), the Word already ‘was.’ He antedates the beginning of all things. And He not merely antedates them, but it is immediately added that He is Himself the creator of all that is: ‘All things were made by him, and apart from him was not made one thing that hath been made’ (1:3). Thus He is taken out of the category of creatures altogether. Accordingly, what is said of Him is not that He was the first of existences to come into being-that ‘in the beginning He already had come into being’—but that ‘in the beginning, when things began to come into being, He already was.’ It is express eternity of being that is asserted: ‘the imperfect tense of the original suggests in this relation, as far as human language can do so, the notion of absolute, supra-temporal existence’ (Westcott). This, His eternal subsistence, was not, however, in isolation: ‘And the Word was with God.’ The language is pregnant. It is not merely coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side, united in a local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as a fellow: He who in the very beginning already ‘was,’ ‘was’ also in communion with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was nevertheless not a separate being from God: ‘And the Word was’-still the eternal ‘was’—’God.’ In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God whom He is ‘with.’ He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this God. The predicate ‘God’ occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast with the phrase ‘with God,’ as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God’s coeternal fellow, but the eternal God’s self.”[5]
John 17:5.
In His prayer to His Father the Savior said: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” This unqualified declaration that He had shared personally and rightfully in the glory which belonged only to Deity before the world was, is another proclamation of the truth that Christ existed before His incarnation and, being, as it is, a part of His prayer to the Father, is not subject to those restrictions which are required when men are addressed. He is speaking to the Father concerning things which belong to the eternal relationship within the Godhead. The Unitarian gloss proposes that Christ shared in the glory only in the sense that He was anticipated in the eternal counsels of God. If that were true, consistency would require that His petition to be restored to that glory was no more than a request to be returned to that nonexistent anticipation, with no expectation that He would ever attain to an actual glory.
Philippians 2:6.
Here it is written: “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This decisive passage—yet to be examined under the Kenotic implications, is adduced here but for the one purpose that its clear affirmation that Christ, before the incarnation, existed in the form of God. The Kenotic question is of His human form—the preincarnate, divine form being hardly subject to question, except by those who must subvert or invalidate every Scripture which opposes their preconceived ideas born of unbelief. Of the important foundation on which this passage is based, namely, the essential Deity and pre-existence of Christ, Dr. B. B. Warfield has written at length, a part of which is here quoted: “The statement is thrown into historical form; it tells the story of Christ’s life on earth. But it presents His life on earth as a life in all its elements alien to His intrinsic nature, and purpose. On earth He lived as a man, and subjected Himself to the common lot of men. But He was not by nature a man, nor was He in His own nature subject to the fortunes of human life. By nature He was God; and He would have naturally lived as became God—’on an equality with God.’ He became man by a voluntary act, ‘taking no account of Himself,’ and, having become man, He voluntarily lived out His human life under the conditions which the fulfilment of His unselfish purpose imposed on Him. The terms in which these great affirmations are made deserve the most careful attention. The language in which Our Lord’s intrinsic Deity is expressed, for example, is probably as strong as any that could be devised. Paul does not say simply, ‘He was God.’ He says, ‘He was in the form of God,’ employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of God. ‘Form’ is a term which expresses the sum of those characterizing qualities which make a thing the precise thing that it is. Thus, the ‘form’ of a sword (in this case mostly matters of external configuration) is all that makes a given piece of metal specifically a sword, rather than, say, a spade. And ‘the form of God’ is the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call ‘God,’ specifically God, rather than some other being—an angel, say, or a man. When Our Lord is said to be in ‘the form of God,’ therefore, He is declared, in the most express manner possible, to be all that God is, to possess the whole fulness of attributes which make God God. Paul chooses this manner of expressing himself here instinctively, because, in adducing Our Lord as our example of self-abnegation, his mind is naturally resting, not on the bare fact that He is God, but on the richness and fulness of His being as God. He was all this, yet He did not look on His own things but on those of others. It should be carefully observed also that in making this great affirmation concerning Our Lord, Paul does not throw it distinctively into the past, as if he were describing a mode of being formerly Our Lord’s, indeed, but no longer His because of the action by which He became our example of unselfishness. Our Lord, he says, ‘being,’ ‘existing,’ ‘subsisting’ ‘in the form of God’—as it is variously rendered.... Paul is not telling us here, then, what Our Lord was once, but rather what He already was, or, better, what in His intrinsic nature He is; he is not describing a past mode of existence of Our Lord, before the action he is adducing as an example took place—although the mode of existence of Our Lord before this action—so much as painting in the background upon which the action adduced may be thrown up into prominence. He is telling us who and what He is who did these things for us, that we may appreciate how great the things He did for us are.”[6]
2. The Angel of Jehovah.
The unanimity of belief on the part of all devout scholars that the Angel of Jehovah is the preincarnate Second Person of the Trinity is most significant. The entire scope of this theme cannot be introduced here. Two lines of evidence should be pursued: (a) That this Angel is a divine Person and not merely one of the created heavenly hosts. And (b) that this Angel is none other than the Christ of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Three.
a. The fact of appearances of a divine Person will not be questioned by any who accept the testimony of the Bible. It is recorded that He appeared once in the consummation of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb 9:26); that He now “appears in the presence of God for us” (Heb 9:24); and that He will yet “appear the second time without [apart from] sin unto salvation” (Heb 9:28). But as Angel of Jehovah He appeared over and over again in the outworking of Jehovah’s purposes and dealings with the Old Testament saints. This Mighty One is sometimes designated The Angel of Jehovah, and sometimes The Angel of the countenance—meaning that He was ever before the face of God. Far removed, indeed, is this Being from those angels who are created. He is an angel only by office. This means that He is one of the Godhead who serves as messenger or revealer. He is ever the manifestation of God (John 1:18). The first proof to be advanced is that this Angel is Deity, regardless of appearances or service rendered.
The primary evidence that this Angel is of the Godhead is in the fact that, among various appellations, He bears the titles belonging to Deity alone—Jehovah and Elohim. As such He dwelt among Israel as the supreme and final object of their worship. To the people it was said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Thus, whom they worshipped under divine favor was, of necessity, Deity. Concern at this point has only to do with the one designation, Jehovah. This title above all others is peculiar to Deity, since it is at no time applied to any other. Emphasizing this truth the Scriptures declare: ”seek him that maketh the Pleiades and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night; that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth (Jehovah is his name)” (Amos 5:8, A.S.V.); “That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth” (Ps 83:18, A.S.V.); “I am Jehovah, that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images” (Isa 42:8, A.S.V.). When this ineffable name is thus freely ascribed to the Second Person, the Lord Jesus Christ, the evidence is complete that the Savior is not only Deity, but that He existed as such from all eternity. When this highest of all titles in heaven or on earth is given to One who bears the name Angel, as the cognomen Angel of Jehovah specifies, it is not that the name has been employed contrary to the Scriptures, but it indicates a Person of Deity, who, because of His peculiar service and relationships, though uncreated, is termed Angel. Certain passages (cf. Exod 17:15; Num 10:35, 36; Ezek 48:35) wherein Jehovah is associated with material objects, provide no exception nor should confusion arise because of the fact that this Angel is sometimes called Jehovah, and at other times Jehovah’s Messenger. It is recorded that Jehovah said, “I will send my angel”; but that Angel is as clearly said to be Jehovah Himself. The same Person is evidently in view whether Jehovah says, “I will send mine angel,” or “I will go.” If an insoluble mystery arises at this point, it is none other than that which permeates the entire doctrine of the Trinity with its one essence. All passages bearing on the Angel of Jehovah are in evidence and should be considered (Gen 16:7; 18:1; 22:11, 12; 31:11–13; 32:24–32; 48:15, 16; Exod 3:2, 14; Josh 5:13, 14; Judg 13:19–22; 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chron 21:15, 16; Ps 34:7; Zech 14:1–4). From these Scriptures the demonstration is conclusive that the Angel of Jehovah is of the eternal Godhead.
b. In like manner, the Scriptures are equally clear in presenting the truth that the Angel of Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Christ of the New Testament. To a considerable degree, the understanding of all that is set forth must depend upon the recognition of the fact that the words messenger, and servant, as of Jehovah, are equivalent to the name Angel of Jehovah. The appearances of Deity as recorded in the Old Testament are very rarely of the First Person as such. It is rather the Manifestor, the Messenger, of Jehovah-His Angel, or the Angel of Jehovah who appears and who undertakes. It is none other than the One by whom all things were created Who is designated in the New Testament as the Christ of God (Col 1:16; Heb 1:3). As the Messenger of the Covenant He appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and Hagar. He led Israel out of Egypt. He administered the law at Sinai, and He will be the Executor as well as the Sustainer of the Covenant yet to be made with Israel (Jer 31:31–33). And there could be no doubt that the tabernacle, and later the temple, were to be the place where Jehovah was pleased to dwell and to meet His people.
Malachi declares that the Messenger of the Covenant will suddenly come to His temple. That it is styled His temple implies that the Messenger is Jehovah who abode in the temple and for whom it existed. The passage, which evidently refers to the second advent of Christ, reads: “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts” (Mal 3:1). However, He had come as suddenly to the tabernacle which Moses built in the wilderness, and as suddenly to the temple which Solomon built and dedicated to Jehovah. Thus He will come, as Malachi predicts, to the temple which will be in Jerusalem and from thence enter into those long-anticipated judgments which are yet to fall upon Israel. But, when Christ was here on earth and when in Jerusalem, He was ever in the temple. It was to Him as the house of His abode. The crucial event which had the greatest significance concerning His relation to the temple in the time of His first advent was His formal entrance into the temple as the consummation of His so-called “triumphal” entry into Jerusalem—which event all evangelists are careful to report. This occurrence, it will be seen, is a conspicuous advent of Jehovah to His temple. When approaching Jerusalem from Galilee, Christ stopped at the foot of the Mount of Olives and sent two disciples on to a village to procure the colt of an ass which He might ride into the city. The remaining distance was less than a mile. The securing of this conveyance was not for personal distinction of a self-centered kind, nor was it due to weariness. It had been predicted that He would so enter the city in the days of His lowly guise. The act was specified in the program for the Messiah as definitely as was His birth of a virgin in Bethlehem. Every instructed Jew was aware of this. The prophecy reads: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass” (Zech 9:9; cf. Matt 21:1–10; Mark 11:1–10; Luke 19:29–40; John 12:12–15). Thus Christ fulfilled the expectation concerning the Messiah and was none other than Jehovah’s Messenger of the Old Testament. The reaction of the people can be explained in no other way than that they unwittingly, or otherwise, cooperated in the fulfillment of this so-important prediction. They said, “Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord [Jehovah]; Hosanna in the highest” (Matt 21:9). It was Passover and the city was filled with Jews from many foreign places. Up to this time Christ had avoided display lest His enemies should precipitate His death before His ministry was completed. It was at its end and now, by this act, He asserts His Messianic claim. Were the hosannas of the multitude to be suppressed, the stones would cry out-so great, indeed, was the imperative demand that prophecy be fulfilled. Speaking with the authority of Jehovah, He said as He entered the temple: “My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
Regarding the ministry of John the Baptist, it is said that he fulfilled the prophecy by Isaiah, “the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD [Jehovah], make straight in the desert a highway for our God” (Isa 40:3). Thus Christ, whom John announced, was and is Jehovah and, if He is Jehovah, He pre-existed from all eternity. After the same manner, the Angel who appeared to Abraham, to Jacob, to Moses at the bush, and as the voice which shook the earth, is as clearly identified as the Christ of the New Testament. He is the Angel of Jehovah. On this conclusion which is sustained by the Scriptures, upheld by the early fathers, and by all interpreters who seek the honor of Christ, Dr. Richard Watson writes: “It has now therefore been established that the Angel Jehovah, and Jesus Christ our Lord, are the same person; and this is the first great argument by which his Divinity is established.... We trace the manifestations of the same person from Adam to Abraham; from Abraham to Moses; from Moses to the prophets; from the prophets to Jesus. Under every manifestation he has appeared in the form of God, never thinking it robbery to be equal with God. Dressed in the appropriate robes of God’s state, wearing God’s crown, and wielding God’s sceptre, he has ever received Divine homage and honour. No name is given to the Angel Jehovah, which is not given to Jehovah Jesus; no attribute is ascribed to the one, which is not ascribed to the other; the worship which was paid to the one by patriarchs and prophets, was paid to the other by evangelists and apostles; and the Scriptures declare them to be the same august person,—the image of the Invisible, whom no man can see and live;—the Redeeming Angel, the Redeeming Kinsman, and the Redeeming God.”[7]
In view of the testimony of so extended a body of Old Testament Scripture, none can reasonably doubt then that Jehovah is coming to establish a reign of righteousness in all the earth. Thus it is written in Psalm 96:11–13 (A.S.V.) and repeated in substance in Psalm 98:7–9, which emphasis should not be unnoticed: “Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof; let the field exult, and all that is therein; then shall the trees of the wood sing for joy before Jehovah; for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with his truth.” This is a description of the second advent of Messiah and the response of the enlightened heart is prepared in the closing phrase of the Bible—“Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
Dallas, Texas
Notes
- Christian Dogmatics, Vol. I, pp. 278, 279.
- Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 52, 53.
- Systematic Theology, Vol. I, p. 239.
- Remarks on the Imp. Version.
- The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. IV, pp. 2342, 2343.
- Ibid., pp. 2338, 2339.
- Theological Institutes, Vol. I, p. 504.
No comments:
Post a Comment