Trinitarianism, Part 5

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: This the fifth Article on Trinitarianism attempts a consideration of The Incarnation. This was preceded by a discussion of Christ’s Pre-existence, His Names, and His Deity; and will be followed by articles on His Humanity, the Kenosis, and the Hypostatic Union. There yet remains in this series, and to complete the Trinitarian thesis, a consideration of the Person of the Holy Spirit.]

VI: His Incarnation

Introduction.

The Incarnation is rightfully included as one of the seven major events in the history of the universe from its recorded beginning to its recorded ending. These events in their chronological order are: (1) the creation of the angelic hosts (Col 1:16); (2) the creation of material things, including man (Gen 1:1–31); (3) the incarnation (John 1:14); (4) the death of Christ (John 19:30); (5) the resurrection of Christ (Matt 28:5, 6); (6) the second advent of Christ (Rev 19:11–16); and (7) the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Rev 21:1; Isa 65:17).

These stupendous events are not only the greatest divine undertakings, each and every one, but they, in turn, indicate the beginnings of a new and measureless advancement in the mighty program of divine achievement. The Incarnation is by no means least in this series, it being no less a far-reaching event than that the Second Person of the eternal Godhead entered into the human sphere, partaking of the human elements—body, soul, and spirit—with the distinct purpose of remaining a partaker of all that is human for all eternity to come. True, that in Him which was mortal has put on immortality (1 Tim 6:16), and He has been, and is now, glorified with the highest glory known to infinity (Eph 1:20, 21; Phil 2:9–11; Heb 1:3).

Certainly, from the divine viewpoint, such a descent from the ineffable heights of heaven in which the Second Person dwelt in the eternity past, to the sphere inhabited by the mere creatures of His hand, in order that He might lift them to the sphere of His eternal glory, constitutes an event of boundless importance. This unprecedented and never-to-be repeated crisis-experience in the eternal existence of the Second Person is, of itself, beyond the range of human understanding; while its effect on that company of redeemed ones from among His creatures who, through the inherent right established by His advent into their sphere, are finally presented in eternal glory conformed to His image, constitutes an achievement of surpassing importance, whether the achievement be valued by the dwellers on earth or by the highest of angels in heaven.

The transcendent importance of this doctrine is to be seen in the truth that what the unique God-man is and what He does is altogether grounded in the reality of His incarnation-His essential Deity, His humanity, His Personality, and His virgin birth being contributing factors to His Theanthropic Person. Though His Deity has been previously contemplated, it is germane to the right understanding of this theme to inquire, (a) Who became incarnate? (b) How did He become incarnate? and (c) For what purpose did He become incarnate?

1. Who Became Incarnate?

In arriving at even a semblance of an answer to this momentous question, it is requisite that a true apprehension of the Person of Christ shall be held with worthy convictions. The doctrine of the Person of Christ is not one of mere speculative interest; it undergirds the very structure of Christianity itself as well as all that enters into the Messianic hope for Israel and for the world. The founders of ancient religions served only to originate ideals and systems which could as well have been fostered by any other men. The men who initiated these systems did not remain as the fountain source of all that they proposed, or the living executors of the affairs of the universe in which men and angels reside. Even within Judaism and Christianity men like Moses and Paul might have been substituted by other equally good men; but it is not so with Christ. On this theme Charles Gore writes: “To recognize this truth is to be struck by the contrast which in this respect Christianity presents to other religions. For example, the place which Mohammed holds in Islam is not the place which Jesus Christ holds in Christianity, but that which Moses holds in Judaism. The Arabian prophet made for himself no claim other than that which Jewish prophets made, other than that which all prophets, true or false, or partly true and partly false, have always made,-to speak the word of the Lord. The substance of Mohammedanism, considered as a religion, lies simply in the message which the Koran contains. It is, as no other religion is, founded upon a book. The person of the Prophet has its significance only so far as he is supposed to have certificated the reality of the revelations which the book records.

“Gautama, again, the founder of Buddhism, one, I suppose, of the noblest and greatest of mankind, is only the discoverer or rediscoverer of a method or way, the way of salvation, by which is meant the way to win final emancipation from the weary chain of existence, and to attain Nirvana, or Parinirvana, the final blessed extinction. Having found this way, after many years of weary searching, he can teach it to others, but he is, all the time, only a preeminent example of the success of his own method, one of a series of Buddhas or enlightened ones, who shed on other men the light of their superior knowledge....

“It was plainly the method of Buddha, not the person, which was to save his brethren. As for the person, he passed away, as the writer of the Buddhist scripture repeatedly declares, ‘with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever is left behind,’ living on only metaphorically in the method and teaching which he bequeathed to his followers. We are touching on no disputed point when we assert that according to the Buddhist scriptures, the personal, conscious life of the founder of that religion was extinguished in death. But this single fact points the contrast with Christianity. The teaching of Jesus differs in fact from the teaching of the Buddha not more in the ideal of salvation which He propounded than in the place held by the person who propounded the ideal. For Jesus Christ taught no method by which men might attain the end of their being, whether He himself, personally, existed or was annihilated: but as He offered Himself to men on earth as the satisfaction of their being—their master, their example, their redeemer—so when He left the earth He promised to sustain them from the unseen world by His continued personal presence and to communicate to them His own life, and He assured them that at the last they would find themselves face to face with Him as their judge. The personal relation to Himself is from first to last the essence of the religion which He inaugurated.”[1]

Christ not only originates the universe as its Creator and formulates those ideals and principles which are the intrinsic glory of the Bible, but He continues to impart Himself to finite men and to execute and consummate the program which Infinity has devised. With these truths in mind, wonder need not be entertained that the Person of Christ has been, and is, the central point of all moral and religious controversy. The history of this contention will be pursued by the theological student in another division of his discipline. Without the reality of the God-man, there is no sufficient ground for the truths of salvation, or for sanctification. This Theanthropic Person is the hope of men of all the ages and of the universe itself.

With these considerations in view, recourse may be had to a previous discussion in this thesis wherein the preincarnate Christ has been investigated with specific attention. There it was demonstrated from many Scriptures, and seen to be the witness of all the Scriptures, that the One who came into this world is none other than the Second Person of the Godhead—equal in every respect to the Father, or the Spirit. The hypostatic union of natures which the incarnation accomplished, being as a theme assigned to a specific division of this treatise as are each of His natures separately, extended treatment of these aspects of truth is not now to be undertaken. Suffice it to point out that Christ is God in His divine nature and man in His human nature, but in His Personality as the God-man He is neither one nor the other apart from the unity which He is. Isolation of either nature from the other is not possible, though each may be separately considered. The divine nature is eternal, but the human nature originates in time. It therefore follows that the union of the two is itself an event in time, though it is destined to continue forever. This union is a far-reaching accomplishment which is the unique reality of the Theanthropic Person. The truth which this union embodies is well stated in the Athanasian Creed as follows: “Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting—Who although he be God and man, yet he is not two; but one Christ: one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by taking the manhood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person; for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ.” The same truth is also presented in the second article of the Creed of the Church of England: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed virgin of her substance, so that the two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.”

The Bible provides the best manner of speech in its declaration of the truth that it was one of the Godhead Three who by incarnation became the God-man.

Isaiah 7:14.

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” This twofold prediction is explicit in that it avers that One is to be born of a woman, which under no circumstance could imply, as to derivation, more than that which is human; yet this One thus born is Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is “God with us”—but with us in the deeper sense of these words, which is, that He has become one of us.

Isaiah 9:6,7.

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Again the complex, twofold Person is delineated. He is a Child born and a Son given. Reference is thus made both to the human and divine natures. The Child that is born will sit on David’s throne, but the Son that is given bears the titles of Deity and carries all the government and authority of the universe upon His shoulders.

Micah 5:2.

“But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” In like manner, One is seen to come to a geographical location on earth—Bethlehem—, which is a human identification, yet His goings forth are from everlasting.

Luke 1:30-35.

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” No more explicit assurance of a twofold reality could be formed within the bounds of human language than is presented in these verses. That which is so clearly human is predicated of the One who is the Son of the Highest and who was, as no human could be, “that holy thing.”

John 1:1,2,14.

“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.... 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.” In an earlier exposition of this passage it has been pointed out that here, more positively than elsewhere, it is declared that the eternal God, the Logos, became flesh that He might tabernacle among men. As the context discloses, He it was who created all things and from Him all life proceeds—especially that eternal life which those that believe on His name and receive Him (vs. 12) do possess.

Philippians 2:6-8.

“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” This great Christological portion of the Word of God places Christ in three positions, each of which is final as to the entire incarnation revelation: 

(a) He was in the form of God; (b) He is equal with God; and (c) He appeared on earth in the likeness of men. Beyond a few words of exposition, the more extended treatment of this passage must be reserved for the later consideration of the Kenosis. The determining word in this context is μορφῇ which indicates that the preincarnate Christ was in the form of God in the sense that He existed in and with the nature of God. He was God and therefore occupied the place of God and possessed all the divine perfections. Lightfoot, writing on this Scripture, in loc., and of μορφῇ in particular, states: “Though μορφὴ is not the same as φύσις or οὐσία, yet the possession of the μορφὴ involves participation in the οὐσία also; for μορφὴ implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes.” His preexistence in the form of God is complete evidence that He is God; but it is this same One who took upon Him the μορφὴ of a servant and ὁμοίωμα of men. In both the divine and human form there is complete actuality.

Colossians 1:13-17.

“Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” The order of notation is reversed in this sublime passage; but the direct declaration is undiminished. The One, being human and having provided a redemption through His blood, is, nevertheless, none other than the eternal Son who is Creator of all things visible and invisible.

1 Timothy 3:16.

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” At this point the reader is confronted with a direct assertion, namely, “God was manifest in the flesh”; and all else which is here predicated of Him serves only to strengthen this well-established truth.

The Book of Hebrews.

This epistle abounds with Christological revelation. Most conclusive, indeed, is the teaching that the eternal Son and Creator who is described in chapter one, is the One who, according to chapter two, is partaker, along with the “children,” of “flesh and blood.”

These passages conduct the mind that is amenable to the Word of God to one grand conclusion, namely, that the eternal Son of God has entered the human sphere. The method and purpose of this stupendous move on the part of God are yet to be considered.

2. How Did the Son Become Incarnate?

The Scriptures answer this question as explicitly as they testify to the incarnation. He was born into the human family and thus came to possess His own identified human body, soul, and spirit. In this may be seen the difference between a divine indwelling, which implies no more than that human beings may partake of the divine nature, and incarnation, which is no less than the assumption on the part of Deity of a complete humanity which is in no way the possession of another. That the Christ of God was born of a virgin is also expressly asserted and without the slightest contrary suggestion. The generating of that life in the virgin’s womb is a mystery; but it is in no way impossible to God who creates and forms all things. That Christ was virgin born asserts that He received no fallen nature from His Father, and, lest it should be thought that a fallen nature was permitted to reach Him through His human mother, it was declared to Mary by the angel who announced His birth that the “holy thing” to be born of her would be, because of that holiness, called the Son of God. Recognition of the Biblical emphasis upon the truth that Christ was not only free from sinning but also free from a sin-nature is most essential. And, again, there is no intimation to the contrary.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is in no way coextensive with the doctrine of the Incarnation. In the one case recognition is given only of an important step in the entire incarnation undertaking; whereas, in the doctrine of the Incarnation, consideration must be extended to the whole of the life of the Son of God from the virgin birth on to eternity to come. Every revelation of the incarnation bears some intimation of its abiding character. It is unto conformity to the glorified God-man that saints of the present age are to be brought and thus to be in fellowship with Him forever. Their bodies whether translated or resurrected are to be “like unto his glorious body” (Phil 3:21). Of Christ it is declared, “He only hath immortality, dwelling in light” (1 Tim 6:16). Resurrection is of the body and thus it was in the case of Christ. His human body was raised, seen of many witnesses, and ascended into heaven where it appeared as the first-fruits of all the saints who will appear like Christ in glory. Christ’s glorified human body has become a revelation to all angelic hosts of that reality which the saints will display in heaven when they, too, shall have received their resurrection bodies. Of Christ and in relation to His second advent it is said that “His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives, which is be e Jerusalem on the east” (Zech 14:4); He will be recognized by the physical wounds which He bears (Zech 13:6); and as David’s Son He will sit on David’s throne (Luke 1:32). Little specific reference is made to Christ’s human soul and spirit. The same is true of the saints in their future glory. This is doubtless due to the fact that the Bible employs the term body to include all that is human (cf. Rom 12:1; Heb 10:5; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 2:14).

In becoming an identified individual member of the human race, it was both natural and reasonable that Christ should enter that estate by the way of birth and pursue the normal process of development through childhood to manhood. Any other approach to this estate would not only be unnatural, but would have left Him open to grave suspicion that His manner of existence was foreign to the human family. Further consideration of the more intricate problems as to the union of two natures in one Person will appear under the treatment of the Hypostatic Union.

3. For What Purpose Did He Become Incarnate?

The doctrine of the Incarnation is a revelation of the purest character, and in no aspect of it is the student more dependent upon the Word of God than when seeking an answer to the present question. At least seven major reasons are disclosed, namely, (a) That He might manifest God to man; (b) That He might manifest man to God; (c) That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest; (d) That He might destroy the works of the devil; (e) That He might be Head over a new creation; (f) That He might sit on David’s throne; and (g) That He might be the Kinsman-Redeemer. Considering these more at length, it may be observed:

a. That He might manifest God to man.

The Incarnate Christ is the divine answer to the question as to what God is like. That God-man expresses as much of the Infinite One as can be translated into human ideas and realities. Christ is God; therefore no fiction was enacted when that which is so unlike the fallen man is reduced to the comprehension of those who so greatly need to be informed and whose minds are supernaturally darkened. It is true that when here on earth the Lord displayed the power of God. Nicodemus testified: “Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him” (John 3:2); but Christ did not come primarily to display the power of God. In like manner, He displayed the wisdom of God. They said of Him, “Never man spake like this man” (John 7:46); yet He did not come primarily to display the wisdom of God. Thus, also, He manifested the glory of God. This He did on the Mount of Transfiguration, and according to 2 Corinthians 4:6, “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God is in the face of Jesus Christ”; but He did not come primarily to exhibit the glory of God. However, He did come to unveil the love of God. He who is ever in the bosom of the Father is a declaration of that bosom. It is written, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18). God in these last days is speaking through His Son (Heb 1:2); not of power, nor of wisdom, nor of glory, but of love. It is also to be noted that Christ manifested the love of God in all His earth ministry; but the supreme disclosure of that love came with His death upon the cross. To this the Scriptures bear witness: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16); “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8); “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16); “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). The death of Christ for “sinners” and “enemies” is the paramount expression of divine love. The death of Christ for a lost race is not the outshining of a crisis experience on the part of God. Could the divine attitude be seen as it is now, it would disclose the same sublime love and willingness, were it called for, to make the same sacrifice for those in need that was made at Calvary. The love of God knows no spasmodic experience. It is now and ever will be what in a moment of time it was exhibited to be. This revelation of God to men is made possible and tangible by the Incarnation.

The Incarnation is related to the prophetic office of Christ, since the prophet is the messenger from God to man. In anticipation of Christ’s prophetic ministry Moses wrote: “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.... I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut 18:15, 18, 19). The surpassing importance of this prediction is seen in the fact that it is referred to four times in the New Testament (cf. John 7:16; 8:28; 12:49, 50; 14:10, 24; 17:8). It is stated that this predicted Prophet was to be “of thy brethren” who is divinely “raised up” from “the midst of thee.” This is a clear anticipation of the humanity of the incarnate Christ.

b. That He might manifest man to God.

Whatever the estimation may be that a fallen race is inclined to place on the qualities and dignity of the first Adam, it is true that, in His humanity, the Last Adam is the all-satisfying ideal of the Creator, the One in whom the Father takes perfect delight. Of Him the Father said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This voice from heaven was heard at the baptism—His induction into the priestly office (Matt 3:17)—; at the transfiguration—when His prophetic ministry was recognized (Matt 17:5)-; and will yet be heard when, according to Psalm 2:7, He ascends the Davidic throne to fulfill the office of King. Whatever might have been in store for the first Adam and his race had there been no fall, is not revealed. However, a divine ideal for the Last Adam and His redeemed one which reaches on into heavenly glory—fills the divine expectation to infinite perfection. It being the essential requisite of man as a creature to do the will of the Creator, the Last Adam—the Perfect Man—did always those things which His Father willed. In this He is the example to all those who are in Him. There is a reasonable ground for the call extended to all the redeemed to be like Christ: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil 2:5); “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (1 Pet 2:21). Thus that ethic which is the normal result of sound doctrine has not only an emphasis in the written Word, but is embodied and enacted in the Living Word.

c. That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest.

As in the theme just concluded Christ is seen before God as the representation of all that is perfect in the human sphere, so as Priest He may be seen as man’s representative to God in sacrifice and in behalf of imperfection in the human sphere. No law within the Kingdom of God is more arbitrary in its unyielding necessity than that a blood-sacrifice is required for human sin. Whatever may have been accepted in the realm of things typical, the final efficacious blood could be only of one of the Godhead and without the least complicity with the human sin which it was designed to remedy. Only God can perform a sacrifice that will meet the demands of infinite holiness. There is deep significance in the word of the eternal Son addressed to His Father and at the time of His coming into the world: “A body hast thou prepared me” (Heb 10:5), and that in contrast to “the blood of bulls and of goats” in its incapacity to “take away sins.” This Scripture implies that the sacrifice as agreed upon in the divine counsels was to be made by the Son, the Second Person in the Godhead, and that the necessary bloodshedding body had been prepared by the Father. It is, therefore, not the blood of a human victim; but the blood of Christ who is God (cf. Acts 20:28 where the blood is said to be the blood of God). It is the function of the priest to make an offering for sin. Christ, as Priest, offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14; cf. 1 Pet 1:19). He served both as the Sacrifice and the Sacrificer. That “precious blood” thus shed becomes the ground upon which God may ever deal with human sin. It avails for those who are lost if they choose to be sheltered under its saving power. It is ever the cleansing of those who are saved (1 John 1:7). As a merciful and faithful Priest, the Lord of Glory “ever liveth to make intercession for them” who “come unto God by him” (Heb 7:25). Underlying all this is the necessity that the Second Person, who undertakes the stupendous task of representing lost men to God, shall have somewhat to offer in sacrifice-an acceptable sacrifice of purer blood than that of any man or beast. To this end the Incarnation became a divine necessity.

d. That He might destroy the works of the devil.

As is to be contemplated later under Satanology, the relation that existed between Christ and Satan extends out into spheres wholly beyond the range of human comprehension. Some things are revealed. The attentive mind may trace much in the field of comparison between the failure of the first Adam under satanic temptation and the victory of the Last Adam under similar circumstances. But all temptation or testing is within human spheres (James 1:13) and therefore, in the case of Christ, presupposes the Incarnation. Again, the death of Christ is said to be the judgment of the “prince of this world” and the spoiling of principalities and powers (John 12:31; 16:11; Col 2:15); but death is purely a human reality and if the Christ of God must die to bring the works of Satan into judgment, it follows that He must become incarnate.

e. That He might be Head over the New Creation.

The New Creation is a company of human beings united to Christ, and these, through redeeming grace, are individually saved and destined to appear in glory conformed to their Risen Head (Rom 8:29; 1 John 3:2). They are in Him by a relationship which, in the New Testament, is likened to that of members of a human body united to, and dependent on, its head. They will have resurrection bodies conformed to His glorified body (Phil 3:20, 21); but the humanity of Christ requires His incarnation.

The two remaining divisions of this general theme,—namely, The Davidic throne, and The Kinsman-Redeemer, represent the twofold divine purpose—excluding the self-revelation of God in Christ. The Davidic throne is the consummation and realization of the earthly purpose (cf. Ps 2:6); while the Kinsman-Redeemer is the means unto the sublime end that many sons may be received into glory (Heb 2:10). Due recognition of these so widely different and yet unchanging divine undertakings is fundamental to the right knowledge of the Bible. This twofold distinction reaches to every portion of the text of the Scriptures and characterizes it throughout all things eschatological as well as historical. This twofold division of truth is especially to be observed in the outworking of the Incarnation. Since these themes occupy so large a place in the truth yet to be considered, the briefest possible treatment will be accorded them here.

f. That He might sit on David’s throne.

Noticeable, indeed, is the fact that the two greatest passages bearing on the virgin birth of Christ assign but one purpose for that birth—that He might sit on David’s throne. These passages read: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this” (Isaiah 9:6, 7); “And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:30–33). This same earthly purpose is in view in the resurrection of Christ. Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, with reference to the message of Psalm 16:8–11, states that Christ was raised up to sit on David’s throne: “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption” (Acts 2:30, 31). Similarly that great earthly purpose is in view in the second advent of Christ: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory” (Matt 25:31; cf. 19:28; Acts 15:16).

The highway of prophecy regarding the Davidic throne begins properly with God’s covenant with David as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:16. After having told David that he would not be permitted to build the temple but that Solomon would build it and that David’s kingdom would be established forever in spite of the evil which his sons might commit, Jehovah said to David, “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.” David’s understanding of this covenant is revealed in the verses which follow (18–29) and his interpretation of it is in Psalm 89:20–37. David accepts this sovereign covenant, recognizing its endless duration. From the Scriptures bearing on the divine covenant concerning David’s throne, little ground may be discovered for the prevalent theological notion that Jehovah is anticipating in this covenant a spiritual kingdom with the Davidic throne located in heaven. Jehovah having directly decreed that the Davidic throne would pass to Solomon and his successors, a serious problem arises for the spiritualizer of this covenant to assign the time when, and the circumstances under which, the throne passes into heaven and when the authority of that throne changes from that which is earthly to that which is heavenly.

Jeremiah announces the same continuity in succession as that revealed to David: “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness. For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel....Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have-not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them” (Jer 33:14–26). This prediction was fulfilled to the time of Christ both by the succession of kings so long as the Davidic throne continued, and then by those named in Matthew 1:12–16 who were, in their respective generations, entitled to sit on David’s throne. With the birth of Christ into this kingly line—both through His mother and through His foster father—He who ever lives and ever will live, completes the eternal promise to David which Jeremiah declares. Had the anticipated Davidic kingdom been that supposed spiritual reign from heaven, there would be no occasion for the throne rights to pass to any earthly son of David, nor would there be any occasion for an incarnation into the Davidic line. Authority over the earth had been freely exercised from heaven in previous ages and could have continued so. Apart from the earthly, Davidic throne and kingdom, there is no meaning to the title ascribed to Christ, “The son of David.” Great significance is to be seen in Christ’s answer to Pilate’s question, “Art thou a king then?” “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37).

It may be concluded, then, that the Second Person became incarnate that the promise to David might be fulfilled. To that end, the throne and kingdom of the Incarnate One is said to abide forever, being occupied by the eternal Messiah of Israel. Such is the direct and uncomplicated witness of the Word of God. Thus the Incarnation is required that the King may sit on David’s throne forever.

g. That He might be a Kinsman-Redeemer.

When the major division of Systematic Theology, Soteriology, is under consideration, it will be demonstrated that at least fourteen reasons are assigned in the Bible for the death of Christ, and, since He was born to die, it follows that He was born, or became incarnate, for each and all of these reasons. However, the major portion of these reasons are but varying aspects of the general theme of the cure of sin, which, so far as the incarnation is concerned, may be attended under the one aspect of soteriological truth-The Kinsman-Redeemer. As in so many instances, a doctrine is now confronted which transcends all human understanding; for none could ever fully know in this life the occasion for redemption which is sin, the price of redemption paid which is the precious blood of Christ, or the end of redemption which is the estate of those who are saved. The truths involved in this theme are foreshadowed in the Old Testament under what is properly designated The Kinsman-Redeemer Type. Two general lines of teaching inhere in the Old Testament type: (a) The law governing the one who would redeem (Lev 25:25–55), and (b) the example of the redeemer (The Book of Ruth). The type of redemption is most simple but the antitype as wrought out by Christ on the cross is complex indeed, though it follows implicitly the same lines found in the type. The lines of the type are (a) The redeemer must be a kinsman (Lev 25:48, 49; Ruth 3:12, 13); (b) The redeemer must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4–6; cf. Jer 50:34); and (c) The redemption is accomplished by the redeemer, or goel, by paying the righteous demands (Lev 25:27). Redemption was of persons and of estates, and in the typical redemption provision was made whereby the individual might redeem himself, which amounted to no more than that a position or inheritance could not be withheld from the former and rightful owner should he become able to reclaim it. Back of this, is the divine bestowal of the land to the tribes and the families which, as was intended, should remain as a permanent inheritance arrangement through succeeding generations. The feature of self-redemption has no place in the antitypical redemption; for there is no occasion for Christ to redeem Himself, nor is there any ground upon which a sinner may redeem himself from sin. The great redemptive act of the Old Testament is that wrought by Jehovah when He redeemed Israel from Egypt. In that act, which is true to the plan of redemptive truth and in which there are many types to be seen, redemption is wholly wrought by Jehovah (Exod 3:7, 8); it is wrought through a person—Moses; it is by blood (Exod 12:13, 23, 27); and it is by power—Israel was removed from Egypt by supernatural power. The New Testament redemption follows the same steps. It is wrought of God, through Christ, by His blood, and deliverance from the bondage of sin is by the power of the Holy Spirit. Israel’s redemption was of the nation for that and all future generations. They stand before Jehovah as a redeemed-nation forever. Their redemption on typical ground was verified and established in the death of Christ.

Returning to the major features of the Old Testament kinsman-redeemer type, it may be seen (a) that the redeemer must be a kinsman. This, indeed, is the reason within the heavenly purpose for the incarnation of the eternal Son into the human family. That bond-servants to sin might be redeemed whose estate before God is lost, it was necessary that the One who would redeem should be a kinsman to them. However, what is seen to be essential in the type does not create the necessity in the antitype. It is the opposite of this. The necessity which is seen in the antitype creates the necessity in the type. The type can do no more than reflect what is true in the antitype. (b) That the redeemer must be able to redeem is a truth which, when contemplated in the antitype, involves facts and forces within God which man cannot fathom. The fact that, when acting under the guidance of infinite wisdom and when possessed of infinite resources, the blood of God2 (Acts 20:28) was shed in redemption indicates to the fullest degree that no other redemption would avail. Christ’s death being alone the answer to man’s lost estate, the Kinsman Redeemer, or goel, was able to pay the price; He being the God-man could shed the “precious blood,” which, because of the unity of His being, was in a very actual sense the blood of God. (c) One of the most vital revelations concerning Christ was that He was Himself willing to redeem. The rationalistic supposition that the Father’s provision of a sacrifice in the Person of His Son was an atrocious and immoral imposition—an act which even a human father would not commit—, breaks down when it is recognized that the Son was wholly agreeable and cooperating in that sacrifice. In truth, the unity within the Godhead creates an identity of action which is well expressed in the words: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor 5:19).

The entire theme of the subjection of the Son to the Father is as extensive as the earth-life of the Son. Speaking of the Father, the Son said, “I do always those things that please him” (John 8:29). However, the subjection of the Son to the Father is wholly within the relationship of the humanity of the Incarnate Person to His Father, and is not primarily a subjection of the Deity, or Second Person, to the First Person. Between the two divine Persons there is eternal cooperation, but not subjection. It is further to be seen that subjection to the Creator on the part of man is that which is inherent in the very order of things created, and the God-man cannot be the perfect man which the incarnation secures should He not, as man, be wholly subject to the Father. Thus the goel, the Kinsman Redeemer, Christ, fulfills the type by being willing to redeem.

As John 18:37, with its declaration that Christ is a King, bears upon the earthly purpose of God, so John 12:27, with its reference to Christ’s death, bears on the heavenly purpose of God. In both passages there is this note of finality—“For this cause came I.”

Conclusion.

It is thus demonstrated that the Incarnation is of surpassing importance. Whatever momentousness belongs to the doctrine of Christ’s Deity or to the doctrine of His humanity, the doctrine of the Incarnation includes both; even later studies of the hypostatic union and the Kenosis will serve only to elucidate the fuller meaning of the Incarnation.

Dallas, Texas

* * * * *

We say not only that the church has needed learning in her ministers at some times, she needs it at all times. Her ministers are, properly, the representatives of theological science.... The church needs men who shall be the depositaries of science, devoting themselves to study, so that they may supply the necessities of their congregations. It is natural to demand, that these depositories of learning should be the practical working clergymen. One such educated man should be stationed over every church. The pastor will not be able to discharge his official duties thoroughly, unless he have a high degree of theological science. This, it is true, will not be sufficient without personal piety and a love to his parishioners, which will induce him to sacrifice his own for their good. But this piety and this love are so much the more efficient and useful, when they are conjoined with a fundamental knowledge of the various theological departments.—Bibliotheca Sacra, February, 1844.

Notes

1. The Incarnation of the Son of God, pp. 7-10.
2. This phrase is startling and to it objection is made by many. The acceptance of it depends upon the extent to which the union of two natures in the Person of Christ is received. It is evident that God cannot die, nor has He, apart from this union, blood to shed. It is equally sure that the perfect humanity which Christ secured by incarnation was capable of shedding blood unto death. If the blood of Christ which was shed unto death was only human, then any suitable human sacrifice might have been employed. The union of Christ’s two natures is so complete that His blood becomes the blood of God. To that fact alone is its efficacy to be traced.