Series in Christology Part 4: The Preincarnate Son of God

By John F. Walvoord

II. The Work of the Preincarnate Son of God

(Continued)

The Old Testament Theophanies

The word theophany, coming from θεός (God) and φαίνω (to appear) has historically been taken to refer to appearances of Christ in the Old Testament. Another term often used is epiphany (appearance to someone). In the Bible, theophanies have reference specifically to Christ.[1] Usually they are limited to appearances of Christ in the form of man or angel, other forms of appearance, such as the Shekinah, not being considered as a formal theophany. The principal theophany of the Old Testament is the Angel of Jehovah, which has been shown in previous discussions to be the Son of God appearing in the form of an angel.[2]

The Angel of Jehovah. As the most frequent form of theophany in the Old Testament, the Angel of Jehovah affords a rich study in revelation of the Person and work of Christ in His preincarnate state. Reference to the Angel of Jehovah or the Angel of the presence is found throughout the entire Old Testament (Gen 16:7–13; 21:17; 22:11–18; 24:7, 40; 31:11; 32:24–32; cf. Hos 12:4; Gen 48:15, 16; Exod 3:2; cf. Acts 7:30–35; Exod 13:21; cf. 14:19; 23:20–23; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16; 22:22–35; Judg 2:1–4; 5:23; 6:11–24; 13:3–23; 2 Sam 14:17–20; 19:27 ; 24:14–17; 1 Kgs 19:5–7; 2 Kgs 1:3, 15; 19:35; 1 Chron 21:11–30; Ps 34:7; 35:5–6; Eccl 5:6; Isa 37:36; 63:9; Dan 3:28?; 6:22?; Zech 1:9–21; 2:3; 3:1–10; 4:1–7; 5:5–10; 6:4–5; 12:8). In some passages reference is merely to “the angel” or to “the angel of God.” In general, the context determines whether this is specifically a reference to the Angel of Jehovah. There are some passages in which it is not clear (Dan 3:28; 6:22). In other references, the context leaves little doubt as to the meaning of the term.

A study of the many passages dealing with the Angel of Jehovah will reveal a most remarkable breadth to the preincarnate work of Christ for His people. At the same time, His Person is revealed in all its grace and righteousness. In the first instance (Gen 16:7–13), Christ is seeking fleeing and disheartened Hagar. To her He gives comfort and assurance. Again in Genesis 21:17–19, Christ as the Angel comes to her aid. It is certainly a revelation of the gracious care of God that in the first two theophanies of Scripture in which the Angel appears, it is on behalf of a friendless and comfortless person who is not even included in major features of the Abrahamic covenant.

In Genesis 22:11–18, the Angel stays the hand of Abraham about to sacrifice Isaac and a substitute is provided—a beautiful type of the substitution of Christ on behalf of those under the curse of death. The Angel goes before the servant of Abraham seeking a wife for Isaac and prospers his way (Gen 24:7, 40). The Angel ministers to Jacob (Gen 31:11; 48:15, 16). He appears to Moses in the burning bush to call him to his work as leader (Exod 3:2). The Angel of God was in the pillar of a cloud and the pillar of fire and led Israel through the wilderness to the promised land (Exod 13:21; 14:19; 23:20–23; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16; Isa 63:9). He warns Balaam (Num 22:22–35). He warns and judges Israel (Judg 2:1–4). Gideon is called and commissioned as a leader and judge by the Angel (Judg 6:11–24). An entire chapter of Scripture is devoted to the Angel of Jehovah and His dealings with the parents of Samson (Judg 13:3–23). The common belief in the Angel of Jehovah as God Himself is shown in the conversation of various people in the Old Testament: the woman who appeared before David (2 Sam 14:4–20); Mephibosheth (2 Sam 19:27); and Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 3:28).

The Angel of Jehovah as the righteous judge is revealed also in His judgment upon sin, as in the case of David’s sin in numbering Israel (2 Sam 24:14–17; 1 Chron 21:11–30), and the slaying of 185,000 Assyrians (2 Kgs 19:35; Isa 37:36). The thoughtful care of the Angel of Jehovah is shown in His treatment of Elijah (1 Kgs 19:5–7). He instructs Elijah in his controversy with Ahaziah and the judgment on the messengers (2 Kgs 1:1–16). He is the protector of Daniel (Dan 3:28; 6:22), if these passages are correctly applied to the Angel of Jehovah. He is the revealer of secrets to Zechariah in his prophecy.

The combined testimony of these passages portrays the Son of God as exceedingly active in the Old Testament, dealing with sin, providing for those in need, guiding in the path of the will of God, protecting His people from their enemies, and in general executing the providence of God. The references make plain that this ministry is not occasional or exceptional but rather the common and continual ministry of God to His people. The revelation of the Person of the Son of God thus afforded is in complete harmony with the New Testament revelation. The testimony of Scripture has been so complete on this point that in general scholars who accept the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture have been almost of one voice that the Angel of Jehovah is the Christ of the Old Testament. Not only Christian theologians, but Jewish scholars as well have come to this conclusion.[3] It is at once a revelation of the Person and preincarnate work of Christ and an evidence for His pre-existence and deity.

Other theophanies. While fewer in number, other forms of theophany are afforded in the Old Testament. In Genesis 18:1–35, Jehovah appears in the form of a man, accompanied by two other men who were probably angels. In view of the revelation afforded in other theophanies, there can be little doubt that this theophany is also an appearance of Christ. Jacob’s experience of wrestling with God (Gen 32:24–32) is identified in Hosea 12:4 as the time when Jacob “had power over the angel, and prevailed.” The appearance of God to the elders of Israel is probably another theophany of Christ (Exod 24:9–11). The cloud of the Lord, the glory of the Lord (Exod 40:38) and the cloudy pillar (Exod 33:9–23) are all to be taken as appearances of Christ in the Old Testament, even though in somewhat different character than a formal theophany like the Angel of Jehovah. It is safe to assume that every visible manifestation of God in bodily form in the Old Testament is to be identified with the Lord Jesus Christ. The prince of the host of Jehovah (Josh 5:13–15), the appearance of the likeness of the glory of Jehovah of Ezekiel (Ezek 1:1–28), and other similar appearances are easiest explained as theophanies of Christ. Some passages must, however, remain in dispute, as the appearance of an angel to Daniel (Dan 10:1–21).[4] The number of theophanies which are without question furnish one of the major forms of Old Testament revelation of God. Their identification with the Son of God refutes at once the Arian heresy that Christ was a created being and the Socinian and Unitarian perversions of the Person of Christ. For anyone who will accept the Scriptures in their plain intent, there is a clear portrayal of Christ in these Old Testament theophanies.[5]

Salvation in the Old Testament

The revelation of the plan of God in salvation in the Old Testament has occasioned no little dispute as to its exact character. Modernists in theology have attempted to conform the revelation of the Old Testament to an evolutionary pattern which tends to eliminate any revelation of the love and mercy of God until late in the Old Testament. On the other hand conservative theologians have pointed out the evident mercies of God from Genesis to Malachi. Confusion has also arisen on a number of other important points. The problem of interpreting the Old Testament without undue influence from later revelation in the New Testament continues to plague the student of Old Testament theology. Others have been confused concerning the relation of the plan of salvation to the different Old Testament dispensations. Without attempting to discuss in full all these important aspects, certain facts stand out as constituting the elements of salvation in the Old Testament. Principal among them is that the preincarnate Son of God is without question or argument the only Savior the Old Testament saints knew.[6]

One of the major difficulties in the discussion of the Old Testament doctrine of salvation is that modernism and evolution have invaded Old Testament teachings relentlessly. If the primary religion of early man was polytheistic, animistic or reduced to a fetishism and totemism, obviously we shall look in vain for any true revelation of salvation. On the contrary, the Scriptures are explicit that from Adam and Eve down there was a definite primary revelation of true salvation of God. Only by denying the accuracy of Scripture can any other view be supported. It is rather curious that the modernist after declaring as spurious or interpolated the portions of early Scripture which oppose the evolutionary theory then turns to what is left of the Scripture for evidence of his own view. In the doctrine of Old Testament salvation, if the Scriptures are accepted as infallible, the revelation of salvation is not a late development of prophetic writers but instead a primary and basic revelation of God to the first man and succeeding generations.

The revelation of universal sin and condemnation. In the account in Genesis 3 of the fall, nothing is made clearer to man than the fact that through his sin he had come under condemnation. This was manifest in hiding from God and in confessions to God. The need for salvation was patent. In the Garden of Eden began the two contradictory systems—the serpent’s suggestion of the possibility of self-improvement and development of natural man, and the revelation of God of sin and depravity and the hopelessness of man’s estate apart from God’s salvation. Here is the fundamental conflict between Biblical Christianity and pagan humanism as reflected in human thought down to our day. As God plainly told Adam and Eve, the penalty of sin is death, both spiritual and physical. There was evident need of salvation, and Adam and Eve knew it.

The revelation of a coming Savior. It is a wonderful revelation of the mercy and love of God that in the Garden of Eden, before He pronounced judgment on Adam and Eve, God—it may have been the Son of God Himself—promised that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15). Here was the ray of hope in the darkness of human sin and failure. God had a way of salvation. There can be no question that the reference to the seed of the woman is a specific reference to the Son of God. This is the point of Luke’s genealogy. The coming Savior was to be the seed of the woman—human; and yet in the fact that He is not called the seed of man, we have the foreshadowing of the virgin birth. To Adam it was made very plain that his hope lay in this future child of the woman, that through this child salvation would come from God. God confirmed His mercy to Adam and Eve by driving them out of the Garden—a judgment for sin to be sure, but an act of mercy as well, lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever in bodies of sin.

The revelation of the way of salvation. It must remain for the most part a matter of speculation how much God revealed to Adam which is not recorded in the Scriptures. The extent of pre-Scripture revelation has been greatly underestimated. A study of Job, which was among the first books to be written and deals with a period long before Scripture, reveals a most advanced system of theology based on direct revelation of God. It is remarkable how extensive is the knowledge of theology proper, anthropology and hamartiology, soteriology, and even eschatology as contained in Job. We must believe that God did not leave the world in darkness on knowledge essential to the way of salvation.

In the immediate facts of the Genesis narrative of the lives of Adam and Eve and their children, there is a clear testimony to their knowledge of the way of salvation. Immediately after the account of the fall, the incident of the offerings of Cain and Abel serve to illustrate the extent of their knowledge. Cain’s offering of a bloodless sacrifice is refused by God, and Cain is told that a sin offering lay at the door (literal rendering of sin, Gen 4:7). Cain is plainly told that the way of forgiveness is through offering a bloody sacrifice. Abel’s offering of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof (Gen 4:4) was accepted. No doubt the offerings reflected the spiritual condition of the offerer, but the illuminating point is that God appeals to Cain on the basis of revelation previously given. Abel and Cain both knew that the sacrifice for sin should be a particular animal, a lamb; a particular lamb, the firstling; and a particular part of the lamb, the fat. Such knowledge could come only from revelation.

The question has often been discussed concerning the condition of salvation in the Old Testament. If the present offer of the grace of God is secured to those who believe in Christ, what was the specific condition of salvation in the Old Testament? The problem has assumed undue proportions as a result of the unwarranted zeal of scholars who emphasize the unity of God’s plan without regard for Biblical dispensational distinctions. It is clear that Old Testament saints did not believe in Christ in the same way and with the same comprehension that believers with the New Testament do. In the nature of the case the issue of faith is to believe in the revelation given. On the other hand there are not two ways of salvation. All salvation of God stems from the Savior, the Son of God, and His work on the cross. It is also clear that the salvation of individual souls requires faith. Even a merciful and gracious God cannot save a soul who passed into eternity in unbelief. The two great essentials of salvation remain the same from the salvation of Adam to the last soul which God takes to Himself in the future. Faith is the condition and the death of Christ is the basis.

The chief difficulty, however, rests in the precise definition of these two elements. Faith in what? The Gospel of grace was given to Paul as new revelation. God does not hold the Old Testament saints to account for revelation given in the New Testament. Faith as a condition of salvation is obviously faith in the promise of God insofar as it is revealed. For Adam and Eve this was faith in the promise that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent—would bring salvation to fallen man and defeat the tempter. As the exact character and work of the Deliverer is only gradually unfolded in the Old Testament, faith took the form of trust in Jehovah Himself without necessarily specific knowledge of the way by which Jehovah was to provide an adequate salvation.

The remaining principal element is the relation of faith to the system of sacrifices immediately instituted under the patriarchal system from Adam to Moses and of faith to the Mosaic system which followed. In what sense were the sacrifices a necessary condition of salvation? Does this constitute a salvation by works?

Even the New Testament emphasizes, “Faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (Jas 2:17, R.S.V.). In other words, mere belief which does not issue into works is not real faith at all. There is no fundamental antithesis between James two and Paul in Romans four. James is presenting the issue of whether a person has living faith. Paul is dealing with the issue of justification before God. The principle involved is that salvation is by faith, but that faith if real will have certain manifestations. This same principle can be carried into the Old Testament.

Under the system of sacrifices, God provided an outward means of manifesting inward faith. The sacrifices in themselves could not save. An unbeliever who offered sacrifices was still lost. A believer who really trusted in Jehovah would, on the other hand, be sure to offer his sacrifices. The sacrifices while not work which was acceptable as a ground of salvation before God were nevertheless a work which demonstrated faith. Faith in the Old Testament therefore took a definite outward form of manifestation. In offering the sacrifice, the offerer was assured that he was performing an act of recognition of God as His Savior and in particular a recognition of the promise of the coming seed of the woman, the Son of God Himself. The institution of the Mosaic covenant did not fundamentally alter the way of salvation. It specified more particularly the way of sacrifice. It provided moreover a detailed rule of life and the obligation to obey as a condition for blessing in this life. Salvation was still a work of God for man, not a work of man for God.

The work of the Son of God in salvation. The unfolding of the plan of God in salvation after Adam is the story of progressive revelation. The mass of humanity moved away from the revelation given and was plunged in darkness and sin. Through succeeding generations a remnant continued to believe in God, to receive further light. Noah and his family were delivered from destruction and after the flood he immediately offered his sacrifices. Abraham “believed in Jehovah and he reckoned it to him for righteousness” (Gen 15:6). While Abraham’s justification is somewhat different than the Christian’s justification in Christ by baptism of the Spirit, he nevertheless was counted righteous before God because of faith in Jehovah and His promises regarding Abraham’s seed. Sarah is declared in the New Testament to have “considered him faithful who had promised” (Heb 11:11, R.S.V.). Moses is declared to have had a personal faith in Christ on the basis of which he forsook Egypt: “He considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt” (Heb 11:26, R.S.V.). The Psalmists are replete with ascriptions of trust in Jehovah for their salvation. It is often presented as taking refuge in Jehovah: “How precious is thy loving kindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge under the shadow of thy wings” (Ps 36:7). “O taste and see that Jehovah is good: Blessed is the man that taketh refuge in him” (Ps 34:8). Of particular interest is the passage in Psalms 2:12, “Blessed are they that take refuge in him.” The context indicates that the him is a specific reference to the Son. To the Son of God is attributed that same confidence and trust that is given to Jehovah.

The work of the Son of God in salvation was not only a matter of salvation from the guilt and condemnation of sin. In many cases the salvation of Jehovah is described in its present application—deliverance from ungodly and wicked men. Again the Psalmists can be taken as illlustrative of this point: “The salvation of the righteous is of Jehovah; He is their stronghold in the time of trouble. And Jehovah helpeth them, and rescueth them: He rescueth them from the wicked, and saveth them, Because they have taken refuge in him” (Ps 37:39–40). The familiar twenty-third Psalm is an expression of this same reality in the experience of David. In declaring, “Jehovah is my shepherd” (Ps 23:1), David is declaring his confidence in the preincarnate Son of God, the Good Shepherd, to care for him as a shepherd cares for his sheep. David believes that the present mercies of God will be crowned by his dwelling “in the house of Jehovah for ever” (Ps 23:6).

The full story of salvation of the Son of God in the Old Testament is too large to be compressed into a limited discussion. Suffice it to say, the salvation provided through the Son of God was a complete salvation. It gave assurance and rest of heart to the believer. It transformed his life even though much of the enablement provided for the believer today was lacking. Salvation included forgiveness, justification as in the case of Abraham, deliverance from evil, and the full-orbed work of God in providence toward His own. The important fact which stands out above all others is that the Savior of the Old Testament is the Savior of the New. He was actively engaged in bringing salvation in its widest sense to those who trusted Him.

The full picture of the Son of God in His preincarnate state usually includes a discussion of Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament and the rich field of typology. Inasmuch as this properly presupposes the incarnation for its fulfillment, the plan of study is to include these two major features of Old Testament theology as an introduction to study of the incarnate Son of God which will immediately follow.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. The words are also used in Greek mythology of appearances of God.
2. Cf. Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1947, pp. 165-168.
3. A. C. Gaebelein in his The Angels of God, p. 20, makes the following statement: “it is noteworthy and of great interest that the ancient Jews in their traditions regarded the Angel of the Lord, in every instance, not as an ordinary angel, but as the only mediator between God and the world, the author of all revelations, to whom they gave the name Metatron.” Richard Watson in his Theological Institutes (New York: Nelson & Philipps, 1850, 29th edition), I, 501, also affirms the support of ancient Jews to this interpretation.
4. H. A. Ironside views this passage as a reference to an angel, based on the angel’s need of the help of Michael. William Kelly considers it a theophany. Cf. Lectures on Daniel, by H. A. Ironside, pp. 174-175.
5. The testimony of the early Fathers on the theophanies of Christ in the Old Testament is full and conclusive. Justin Martyr declared: “Our Christ conversed with Moses out of the bush, in the appearance of fire. And Moses received great strength from Christ, who spake to him in the appearance of fire.” Irenaeus wrote: “The Scripture is full of the Son of God’s appearing: sometimes to talk and eat with Abraham, at other times to instruct Noah about the measures of the ark; at another time to seek Adam; at another time to bring down judgment upon Sodom; then again, to direct Jacob in the way; and again, to converse with Moses out of the bush.” Tertullian stated, “It was the Son who judged men from the beginning, destroying that lofty tower, and confounding their languages, punishing the whole world with a flood of waters, and raining fire and brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord pouring it down from the Lord: for he always descended to hold converse with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and prophets, in visions, in dreams, in mirrors, in dark sentences, always preparing his way from the beginning: neither was it possible, that God who conversed with men upon earth, could be any other than that Word which was to be made flesh.” Quotations from Richard Watson, Theological Institutes, I, 501,502. Watson also cites Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, the synod of Antioch, Cyprian, Hilary, St. Basil, and others as holding the same viewpoint of theophanies of Christ in the Old Testament.
6. A study which, in the main, is helpful in this field is William D. Keswill’s work, The Old Testament Doctrine of Salvation (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications and Sabbath-School Work, 1904).

Series in Christology, Part 3: The Preincarnate Son of God

By John F. Walvoord

[Author’s note: The previous articles have presented the Person of the preincarnate Son of God. In this article we begin the study of the work of the Son of God before the incarnation.]

II. The Work of the Preincarnate Son of God

One of the most commonly neglected aspects of Christology is His work in the preincarnate state. It can be granted that this is not as important as His work after the incarnation, but it is important in establishing and presenting His full-orbed deity before He became incarnate. The study is vast in its larger dimensions as it involves the statement and proof of such important doctrines as the decree of God, creation, providence, preservation, salvation, and revelation in the Old Testament. Clearly, a comprehensive treatment is impossible in the scope of these studies. Taking as premises, however, the inspiration of Scripture and the Reformed position in regard to the decree of God and His sovereignty over events in creation, it will enhance the study of Christology to consider the bearing of the work of the preincarnate Son of God on the total doctrine of Christ.

The Son of God in the Eternal Decree

The Scriptural revelation of the work of the Son of God begins with His part in the eternal decree of God. As a working basis, we may accept the concise definition of the decree given by the Westminster Shorter Catechism: “The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”[1] It is clear, if the Reformed concept of the decree of God is correct, that Christ had an important part as the Second Person in this eternal decree, and that therefore He is involved in all aspects of the total work of God.

Theologians who have touched upon the relation of Christ to the eternal will of God have usually given most attention to the part of the Son of God in the work of God in salvation. This is done not to exclude the other but to give attention to the aspect of the decree which is of vital importance to man. The explicit statements of Scripture do not specify very much detail on this doctrine, and with a basis of general revelation on the eternity of the will of God and His promises a system of doctrine is developed mostly by inference.

As far as the decree of God is concerned, it is clear that Christ is related to all of it, not simply to its soteriological aspects. Christ is related to the decree in regard to creation itself in all its aspects, to providence and preservation, to the permission of sin, to the provision of salvation, to the judgment of all men, and to the wisdom of the sovereign will of God in relation to all events of time and eternity. From this point of view the work of Christ in the eternal decree is the most comprehensive of all the works of Christ, and His works in relation to men in the Old and New Testaments, and in particular His work in relation to salvation, are simply the fulfillment of eternal promises involved in the eternal will of God.

Great emphasis has been given by Reformed theologians to the covenant idea in the eternal decree. Various approaches to the doctrine distinguish a covenant of grace between God and the elect and a covenant of redemption between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in regard to the work of salvation. Over against these covenants in regard to salvation, which are usually considered eternal, is the so-called covenant of works embracing the principles of probation for Adam and Eve before the fall.[2]

It is clear that the plan of redemption is a part of the decree of God. To this the Scriptures give specific testimony (Rom 8:28–30; Eph 1:4–11; 3:11; 2 Thess 2:13; 2 Tim 1:9; Jas 2:5; 1 Pet 1:1, 2). The plan of salvation was not conceived after the fall of man as a plan of rescue, but it was instead the considered wisdom of God in its relation to the whole decree. It is a matter of great significance that from eternity past it was decreed that Christ should become incarnate, that He should suffer the death on the cross for the sin of the world, and that His triumph in resurrection, the salvation of all who believe, and the ultimate consummation were as clear to Him from eternity past as they will be from the viewpoint of eternity future.

Great as is the importance of the plan of salvation in the decree, it should not be made the sole principle of the works of God. As the Westminster Catechism quoted above brought out, the ultimate principle of the decree is the glory of God. Hence, in the eternal decree and purpose of God for Christ there is included not only His work in salvation, but also His work in creation, preservation, providence, and revelation, His part in the church of the New Testament and the program of Israel in the Old Testament as well as His future fulfillment of the promises given to David of a King who will sit forever on the throne of David. The participation of the eternal Son of God in all these aspects of the decree lend to the total picture the certainty of fulfillment, and the wisdom of God is seen in the complexity of the plan being unfolded in history. There is danger of oversimplification of the doctrine. The use of the eternal promises of God in regard to salvation to deny the revelation of Scripture concerning God’s plan in its separate aspects relating to Israel and the church are an illustration of the reductive fallacy—the attempt to make God’s plan of salvation a total explanation of all God’s purposes.

Thus, before any of the events conceived of as occurring in time is the decree of God with its important relation to the Son of God and His work. All the subsequent unfolding of the will of God and the work of Christ are the fulfillment of that which was in the mind of God from eternity past. We see Christ actively participating in the decree itself as well as promising His part in its fulfillment. In it all is the will and work of a sovereign, wise, and loving God who has designed all to manifest His own perfections and glory.

The Son of God in Creation

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo as the free act of God has been the generally accepted doctrine of the historic Christian church. It is opposed on the one hand to ancient theories of the eternity of matter and the theory that matter emanated from God and is of His substance. It is also opposed to modern theories of evolution as the means or process of creation. If philosophy cannot deal in the last analysis with ultimates, as is commonly admitted, then it cannot solve this problem of the truth or error of the doctrine of creation. It is a doctrine which can be made known only by a revelation of the Creator Himself. Concerning creation, the Scriptures give an adequate testimony for all who are prepared to receive it. From the first chapter of Genesis to the book of Revelation, the universe is presented in the Bible as that which God created.

Creation is commonly conceived as a work of the Father rather than of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures themselves, however, in the work of creation attribute it to all three Persons of the Trinity. The use of Elohim and Jehovah for the triune God gives clear intimation of this even in the Old Testament. It is the Elohim who creates in Genesis 1, and already in Genesis 1:2 the Spirit of God is acting creatively. The Holy Spirit is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament as the Creator (Job 26:13; 33:4; Ps 104:30; Isa 40:12, 13). The Father is also mentioned specifically in the New Testament (1 Cor 8:6). It is therefore to be expected that a similar revelation will be given concerning the Son of God.

The Son of God is revealed to be the eternal Word of God of whom it is said: “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:3, R.S.V.). In 1 Corinthians similar revelation is given: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Cor 8:6, R.S.V.). The doctrine is given its fullest statement in Colossians: “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:15–17 R.S.V.).

Many attempts have been made to explain these citations as teaching something less than that the Son of God is the Creator. All such attempts fail before the plain intent of these passages. It can be seen at once that the name of no man or angel could be inserted in these descriptions without blasphemy. The work revealed is the work of God. There is no excuse either for Unitarian interpretations which make Christ merely a manifestation of God. The passages at once distinguish the Son of God from the other Persons of the Trinity and at the same time link the work of creation to all of them. It may be that we can concede with Berkhof that there is a distinction in the form of their work: “All things are at once out of the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. In general it may be said that being is out of the Father, thought or idea out of the Son, and life out of the Holy Spirit.”[3] The Scripture does seem to make distinctions which are in keeping with the order of the Trinity, but even the distinctions do not carry through in all passages. Life is said to be in Christ (John 1:4), which seems to be the function of the Holy Spirit. Again it is said of Christ that all things are “in him” (Col 1:16), which is ordinarily said of the Spirit. Again, “In him all things hold together” (Col 1:17). These distinctions do not divide the work of creation or make Christ or the Spirit mere agents. In all the work of creation there is manifest the power and activity of the triune God.

The significance of the work of creation as ascribed to Christ is that it reveals His eternity, power, wisdom, and omnipresence. As the Creator He is specifically “before all things” (Col 1:17), and therefore eternal. The nature of creation reveals His power, wisdom and presence in creation. The telescopic wonder of the heavens as well as the microscopic wonders of the world too small for human eyes to see combine in their witness to His power. It is such a God who became such a Savior.

Preservation and Providence

The doctrine of providence has always formed an essential part of the Christian faith. The fact that God preserves His creation, guides it into intelligent and wise consummation of His purposes, and governs it as sovereign God is by its very character essential to a true theism. Even the liberal scholar Burrows states emphatically: “The basic issue for religious faith in this connection is whether the universe is governed by a personal God…. If it is not, biblical religion is basically false.”[4] Conservative theologians have agreed with one voice concerning the fact of providence though struggling somewhat in its definition. It is usually held that providence includes (1) preservation, (2) concurrence or cooperation with creatures, (3) government.[5] In regard to the study of the work of the preincarnate Son of God, the question may be raised concerning His part in this undertaking of God.

The Scriptural evidence for providence in its various phases, which involves hundreds of passages, usually uses the names of God which are not specifically related to one Person of the Trinity. Hence, frequently Jehovah or Elohim are used in the Old Testament (Cf. Gen 28:15; Exod 14:29–31; Deut 1:30–31; 2 Chron 20:17; Ps 31:3, 20; etc.). As a work of the triune God, then, providence is a work also of Christ, and all that is said of Jehovah or Elohim may be said of Christ.

There are reasons to believe, however, that the Son of God is specifically active in the work of God in providence. First, the work of the Angel of Jehovah, to be considered separately, presents monumental proof that the Son of God preserved and guided Israel. Second, the various references to Jehovah as the Shepherd of Israel may be taken as specific references to Christ (Cf. Gen 49:24; Ps 23:1; 80:1; Isa 40:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:11–12, 23; 37:24). Third, the language of Isaiah 63:9 (A.S.V.) specifically refers to the Son of God under the title, “the angel of his presence”: “The angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.” This is clearly the work of providence and preservation in the Old Testament period.

In the New Testament we have a fourth line of evidence which is also specific: “He is before all things and in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17, R.S.V.). Here again is a comprehensive statement—the universe “holds together” because of the immediate agency of Christ. In view of modern discoveries concerning the atomic structure of all matter—in which each atom is a miniature solar system—this work of Christ becomes especially significant. The principle of indeterminism in physics, now generally accepted in relation to motion within the atom, at least confirms that this work of Christ is immediate rather than a work of second causes. The immaterial bonds which hold together the atom as well as the starry heavens are traced in this passage to the power and activity of the Son of God.

The same doctrine as revealed in Colossians 1:17 is found again in Hebrews 1:3, “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power” (R.S.V.). In other words, without denying the validity and use of second causes, the universe is said to be upheld by the word of the power of the Son of God. While the context of Hebrews 1:3 bears on the incarnate Person of Christ, its reference is clearly to His deity and eternal power and authority.

Another important aspect of providence is the Scriptural revelation concerning divine government and the relation of Christ to this. Without attempting to solve here the problems of the relation of this aspect of divine sovereignty to human will and the permission of sin, it is important to note that God has not turned from His purpose to bring every creature under the immediate authority of Christ. This is true in regard to God’s purpose for the earth. The Son of God “shall have dominion also from sea to sea, And from the River unto the ends of the earth…. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him; All nations shall serve him” (Ps 72:8, 11, A.S.V.). It is also the will of God that creatures in heaven acknowledge the Son as supreme Lord: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:9–11, R.S.V.). To a large extent the fulfillment of these prophecies is yet future. Throughout the period before the incarnation, human will and sin were permitted to go on in accomplishing the ultimate purpose of God. The theocracy in the Old Testament is to be related to this place of Christ in the government of God. In the millennium Christ will reign as the Son of David in fulfillment of many prophecies. Taken as a whole, the work of Christ in the preincarnate state in providence includes all the major features of the doctrine, and the Son of God is seen preserving, guiding, delivering, and governing His creatures. The aspects of the work of Christ yet to be considered, the theophanies and their revelation of God, the work of Christ in salvation in the Old Testament, and the types of Christ, combine to confirm and enlarge the doctrine of providence.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. (Philadelphia: Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., 1946), p. 293.
2. A concise summary of the covenant idea in salvation is found in L. Berkhof’s Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1941), pp. 265-271.
3. Op. cit., p. 129.
4. Millar Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1946), p. 132.
5. Cf. John T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1934), pp. 189ff; Berkhof, op. cit., p. 165ff, etc.

Series in Christology, Part 2: The Preincarnate Son of God

By John F. Walvoord

[Author’s note: This second article in the series concludes the consideration of the preincarnate Person of the Son of God. Having previously treated the historical setting of the doctrine of Christ and His eternity and pre-existence, we present here His divine attributes, His titles, and the contribution of the doctrine of the Trinity to the subject.]

The Divine Attributes of the Son of God

The divine attributes of the Son of God present a clear revelation that in Him “dwells the whole fullness of deity bodily” (R.S.V., Col 2:9). Every attribute of importance which can be attributed to the Father or the Holy Spirit can be attributed to Christ. The testimony of the Scriptures on this point has been so clear that since the Council of Nicea in 325 when the deity of Christ was stated as the doctrine of the church and of the Scriptures there has been no denial of the deity of Christ which did not also deny the infallibility of the Scriptures. In other words, it has been generally conceded that the literal interpretation of Scripture gives a firm basis for the deity of Christ.

It is the purpose of this discussion to present briefly the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the divine attributes of Christ. It will be assumed that the deity of Christ in His preincarnate state was the same as in His incarnate state. Hence, for the revelation of His divine attributes we may appeal to any Scripture in the Old or New Testament which may apply. The arguments of the kenotic theologians to the point that Christ surrendered some of His divine attributes in the incarnation will be discussed and refuted in its proper place. It is held here that His deity is constant from eternity to eternity, with the same divine attributes.

There is unusual significance to most of the divine attributes. Their individual character is such that if it be proved that Christ possessed certain divine attributes it necessarily follows that He possessed all devine attributes. Hence if Christ is omniscient He must be also omnipotent. If He is infinite, He must be also omnipresent. If He is eternal, He must be self-existent. The evidence is, however, complete and does not need to rest on this rational argument.

Eternity and pre-existence. As previously shown, Christ is declared by the Scriptures to be eternal (Mic 5:2; John 8:58; Col 1:16–17; Rev 1:8). All the passages on His pre-existence are sustaining evidence for His eternity. If Christ is eternal, it almost necessarily follows that He is God.

Self-existence. From the fact of the eternity of Christ, it follows that He is the uncaused cause, the self-existent one. Inasmuch as He is the Creator of all things, it is necessarily true that He Himself is uncreated (John 1:1–3; Col 1:16–17).

Omnipresence. That God is omnipresent is the clear teaching of Scripture (Deut 4:39; Ps 139:7–10; Prov 15:3; Isa 66:1; Jer 23:24; Acts 17:27). It is evident that Christ possessed the same attribute. His promises of abiding with His disciples forever (Matt 28:20), and His promise to indwell the believer (John 14:18, 20, 23) are impossible of any literal fullfillment unless Christ is also omnipresent. The experience of Nathaniel (John 1:48) would imply that Christ was spiritually omnipresent even during His life on earth. If the disputed passage of John 3:13, “which is in heaven,” be admitted as genuine, it would be explicit statement of this doctrine. Inasmuch as the deity of Christ can be sustained on other grounds, it would follow that Christ as God has the same omnipresence which is described so clearly in Psalm 139:7–10. Whether in heaven or hell or in the uttermost parts of the sea, Christ is there.

Oniniscience. Repeatedly in Scripture Christ is said to possess knowledge which by its nature declares that He is omniscient. Christ is said to “know all” (literal translation of John 2:24), and again, “He knew what was in man” (John 2:25). The disciples bear witness: “Now we know that you know all things” (John 16:30, R.S.V.). Peter declared,

“Lord, you know everything” (John 21:17, R.S.V.). If Acts 1:24 be a reference to Christ, it is another testimony: “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men…” The Scriptures also speak of Christ in His foreknowledge. In John 6:64, it is stated, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.” Other references substantiate the doctrine that Christ had complete foreknowledge (John 13:1, 11; 18:4; 19:28). Included in the concept of omniscience is the idea that in Christ is also the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:30).

Omnipotence. The evidence for the omnipotence of Christ is as decisive as for other attributes. Sometimes it takes the form of physical power, but more often it refers to authority over creation. Christ had the power to forgive sins (Matt 9:6), all power in heaven and in earth (Matt 28:18), power over nature (Luke 8:25), power over His own life (John 10:18), power to give eternal life to others (John 17:2), power to heal physically as witnessed by His many miracles, and power to cast out demons (Mark 1:29–34, etc.), and power to transform the body (Phil 3:21). By virtue of His resurrection “he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him…” (Heb 7:25). He is “able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” (2 Tim 1:12). He is “able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy” (Jude 24). It will be observed that the incarnation and the death and resurrection of Christ permitted Christ to act in regard to sin and salvation. His omnipotence in any case is restricted to that which is holy, wise, and good.

Immutability. The attribute of immutability may seem to have been contradicted by the incarnation. It is the doctrine of the Scripture that, while the Person of the Incarnate Christ differs from the Person of the preincarnate Christ by the addition of the complete human nature, the divine nature of Christ remains unchanged and is essentially immutable. In the quotation of Psalm 102:25–27 in Hebrews 1:10–12, it is affirmed of Christ, “Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” The classic passage on immutability states the same doctrine—”Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb 13:8). By this doctrine it is established that the divine Son of God of eternity past, the divine Son of God incarnate, and the glorified Son of God in heaven is, as to His deity, one and the same Person with unchanging attributes.

The Fullness of the Godhead in Him. As a confirmation of specific attributes it is also revealed in Scripture that in Christ is all the fullness of the Godhead: “For in him dwells the whole fullness of deity bodily” (Col 2:9, R.S.V.). The passage is very emphatic in the original. The expression in him (ἐν αὐτῷ) stands first and is thereby emphasized. The word dwells (κατοικεῖ) means “permanently dwells.”[1] The phrase the whole fullness of deity bodily is obviously intended to convey the thought that in Christ is all that is in deity. As Peake puts it, “It is vain to seek it [the Godhead] wholly or partially outside of him.”[2] The statement constitutes a blanket endorsement of all that is taught, in particular concerning the divine attributes of Christ.

Sovereignty. Proceeding from His omnipotence, the Scriptures assign divine sovereignty to Christ. According to Matthew 28:18 (R.S.V.), Christ declared, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Again in 1 Peter 3:22, Christ in heaven is declared to be at the right hand of God, “with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him” (R.S.V.). Other passages bear out the same concept of absolute sovereignty (John 5:27; Acts 2:36; 1 Cor 12:3; Col 1:18; Phil 2:9). He is indeed King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16).

Other qualities of deity. Christ is constantly represented in Scripture as having qualities which could be possessed only by God. His divine glory is mentioned in John 17:5, described in Revelation 1:12–18. Christ refers to Himself as “the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), qualities which inhere only in God. He is the “righteous branch…Jehovah our righteousness” (Jer 23:5–6). He is the holy Son of God of Luke 1:35. Above all, Christ is the manifestation of grace—divine love and righteousness combined (John 1:17). There is not an attribute of deity which is not directly or indirectly ascribed to Christ.

Charles Hodge has the following summary of the Scriptural evidence for the divine attributes of Christ:

All divine names and titles are applied to Him. He is called God, the mighty God, the great God, God over all; Jehovah, Lord; the Lord of lords and King of kings. All divine attributes are ascribed to Him. He is declared to be omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, and immutable, the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is set forth as the creator and upholder and ruler of the universe. All things were created by Him and for Him; and by Him all things consist. He is the object of worship to all intelligent creatures, even the highest; all the angels (i.e., all creatures between man and God) are commanded to prostrate themselves before Him. He is the object of all the religious sentiments: of reverence, love, faith, and devotion. To Him men and angels are responsible for their character and conduct. He required that man should honour Him as they honoured the Father, that they should exercise the same faith in Him that they do in God. He declares that He and the Father are one, that those who had seen Him had seen the Father also. He calls all men unto Himself, promises to forgive their sins, to send them the Holy Spirit, to give them rest and peace, to raise them up at the last day, and {sic} to give them eternal life. God is not more, and cannot promise more, or do more than Christ is said to be, to promise, and to do. He has, therefore, been the Christian’s God from the beginning, in all ages and in all places.

The Titles of the Preincarnate Son of God

The titles given to Christ in both the Old and New Testaments constitute an important aspect of the total revelation of His Person. A distinction should be observed between those titles which apply to His preincarnate Person and those which refer to His incarnate Person. Such designations as Jesus Christ, Son of man, prophet, priest, king, etc. have primary reference to Christ in the incarnate state, even though they are found in the Old as well as the New Testaments. Their meaning and contribution falls properly under the discussion of Christ incarnate. To be considered here are the titles which belong properly to Christ in His preincarnate state, titles which are references to His deity and preincarnate Person.

Jehovah. A comparison of the Old Testament and New Testament passages proves beyond doubt that the Christ of the New Testament bears the title Jehovah in the Old Testament. This fact has long been recognized by conservative theologians. This is not denying that the Father and the Spirit also bear the title Jehovah, but affirms that it also belongs to Christ. The name is used both of the Persons of the Trinity severally and of the Trinity as a whole.

Many passages link Christ with the name Jehovah. In Zechariah 12:10, where Jehovah is speaking, the description is to be applied clearly to Christ: “They shall look unto me whom they have pierced” (R.V.). Revelation 1:7 describes Christ in the same language. Again in Jeremiah 23:5–6, Christ is declared to be “Jehovah our righteousness” (cf. 1 Cor 1:30). Similar comparisons are found in other passages (Ps 68:18, cf. Eph 4:8–10; Ps 102:12, 25–27, cf. Heb 1:10–12; Isa 6:5, cf. John 12:41). Christ is the Jehovah of the temple (Mal 3:1; Matt 12:6; 21:12, 13) and the Jehovah of the Sabbath (Matt 12:8).[3]

Elohim. It is easily demonstrated that Christ is identified also with the Elohim of the Old Testament. In Isaiah 40:3, Christ is spoken of as both Jehovah and Elohim (cf. Luke 3:4). In Isaiah 9:6–7, Christ is called “the mighty Elohim.” It is apparent that Elohim in the Old Testament has as its equivalent in the New Testament θεός. Hence all passages in the New Testament referring to Christ by this title link Him with the Elohim of the Old Testament (cf. Rom 15:6; Eph 1:3; 5:5, 20; 2 Pet 1:1).[4]

Logos. In the opening of the Gospel of John, Christ is introduced by the title Logos (Λόγος), translated Word. The Word is declared to have been in the beginning with God, and the Word was God. The title in itself seems to imply at least four ideas: (1) the concept of revelation—making known the truth which could not be learned otherwise. Christ was preeminently a revelation of God. (2) The concept of intelligence, or having the power of mind and will. This is shown in the context, in that He is the Creator and the true light which came into the world to manifest God. (3) The concept of order. There is the implication of being the designer and agent of purposeful works. (4) The idea of incarnation. The Word is the embodiment in a tangible and significant form of that which is the eternal God. As an ordinary word embodies and represents a thought, so Christ is the embodiment of what God is. It is not thought that Christ is more than God because He is the Word, but rather that He is the expression of what God is.

The doctrine of the Logos has had considerable treatment in historic theology and in particular connects with the rational and philosophic implications of the revelation in Christ. Much of this speculation has been useless as far as contributing to the doctrine of Christ. The central idea remains of an intelligent, ordered revelation of God in tangible expression.[5] The theophanies in the Old Testament are partial representations of Christ but not in the same sense or as accurate a revelation as Christ the Logos.

Son of God. This title is used of both angels and men, but when a title of Christ it is used to express an eternal relationship to the Father. The meaning of the term has aroused considerable theological discussion which has not abated through the centuries. In the main, however, the doctrine of the church has been, since the Council of Nicea in 325, that the title refers to the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father.

A number of other views are presented at length in theological works. Of these, six false theories of the sonship of Christ can be mentioned.(1) False theory of sonship by means of incarnation. This view has been expounded at length by Wardlaw and others and holds that Christ was not properly a Son before His birth. As Wardlaw defines it, sonship is inseparably linked with the incarnation, and, while Christ existed from eternity past, He was not a Son until the incarnation.[6] This view has the advantage of being simple in statement and in concept. The question remains whether it is adequate. If Christ became a Son by means of the incarnation and was not a Son before that event, then the Father was not a Father of the Lord Jesus before the incarnation. It leaves unexplained the mystery of the relation of the First Person to the Second Person—indeed, why the titles and order are justified. While it is clear that the First Person became the Father of the humanity of Christ in time, the relation of the Persons of the Trinity as such must be from eternity and require some definition. While many problems remain, and it is not possible here to discuss them all, the consensus of the great theologians of the church and the great church councils is to the effect that Christ has been a Son from eternity; and the theory that He became a Son by incarnation is inadequate to account for the usage of the term, as will be shown later.

(2) False theory of sonship by means of baptism. This view has been held on the basis of the Scriptural accounts of the baptism of Christ. On that occasion Christ was declared the Son of God: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt 3:17, R.S.V.). This cannot be taken as evidence that He was not the Son of God before this event. In fact, the baptism of Christ is totally inadequate to account for the Father and Son relationship. This theory must be excluded as trivial.

(3) False theory of sonship by means of resurrection. Here again is a viewpoint based upon misapplication of Scripture. According to Romans 1:4, it is revealed of Christ that He is “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (R.S.V.). It is clear to all that the resurrection is an outstanding proof of the deity and of the divine sonship of Christ, but this is not to say that He was not the Son of God before this event. Such interpretation is definitely ruled out by the fact that He is called the Son of God repeatedly before His death and resurrection, and used the term Father in relation to the First Person.

Another passage which bears on the issue is Acts 13:32–33: “And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus: as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee’“ (R.S.V.). Here the reference is to Psalm 2:7, in which the decree of God is revealed concerning the generation of the Son. At first glance, the application in Acts seems to be to the resurrection. The expression “raising Jesus” as here used does not refer to the resurrection at all, but to the simple fact that God gave His Son to the world in the incarnation. The word raise (ἀναστήσας) is used in the same sense as arise (cf. Matt 22:24; Acts 7:18; 20:30), i.e., to come on the scene of life. The common expression that “a prophet arose” is the same idea. The passage in Acts which immediately follows introduces the resurrection as a new idea to the context in Acts 13:34: “And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, ‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David’“ (R.S.V.). In other words, the thought of resurrection is not introduced until verse thirty-four. It is true, of course, that the resurrection brought the humanity of Christ into a new victory of resurrection in which the deity of His Person and His victory over sin, death, and the grave are demonstrated. It is not true that His divine sonship begins with the resurrection.

(4) False theory of sonship by means of exaltation to the right hand of God. Based on Hebrews 1:3, it is held that Christ was made a Son when He was exalted at the ascension. It can be objected to this view as to others that He is clearly a Son from eternity and is declared to be a Son before His exaltation. This exaltation is a declaration of His divine Sonship and of His victory over sin and death.

(5) False theory of sonship by means of title or office. This theory, based on Philippians 2:9, holds that Christ was a Son in the sense only of bearing this title and that He was not actually a generated Son. Against this it may be objected that such a concept of sonship destroys most of its meaning. Unless there is corresponding reality which justifies the term, sonship becomes merely a compliment. The Scriptures speak of Christ as a begotten and generated Son, and, while His generation is not the same in kind as human generation, being different and unique, it is nevertheless a constitutional aspect of the Second Person rather than an acquired title.

(6) False theory of sonship by means of covenant relation. This view which is based on the concept of the eternal covenant between members of the Godhead holds that the sonship of Christ is an assumed office, beginning with the covenant in eternity past and ending when the covenant relationship and work is completed. Again this view is inadequate to explain the Scriptural terminology. It would give to the term son merely the significance of a title or office which has not real connection with the ordinary human connotations of the word.

(7) The Biblical and true view of the sonship of Christ. The Scriptures represent Christ as eternally the Son of God by eternal generation. While it must be admitted that the nature of the sonship and the nature of the generation are unique, being eternal, it has been used in the Bible to represent the relationship between the First Person and the Second Person. In Psalm 2:7, Jehovah speaks, “I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee” (R.V.). According to this passage, Christ is declared to be the Son of God and begotten in the day of the eternal decree. This is, in effect, a statement that Christ is eternally the Son of God as the decree itself is eternal. He is not only declared a Son from eternity but begotten from eternity. Some have interpreted this passage prophetically on the ground that the context is prophetic. It is rather that the prophesied victory is on the ground of His sonship. The passage in Psalms 2:7 is quoted three times in the New Testament (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5). The Acts passage deals with the fact of Christ being raised up to be the incarnate Savior. In Hebrews 1:5, the appeal is made to the majesty of Christ as that above the angels because He is the Son of God. The appointment of Christ to the priesthood by the Father is said to be added to His songhip in Hebrews 5:5. All three of the citations in the New Testament draw on Psalm 2:7 for proof of the unique status of Christ and confirm rather than deny His eternal sonship. Further evidence for eternal sonship is found in the fact that Christ is represented as already the Son of God when given to the world (John 3:16, 17; Gal 4:4).

The Scriptural view of the sonship of Christ, as recognized in many of the great creeds of the church, is that Christ was always the Son of God by eternal generation, and that He took upon Himself humanity through generation of the Holy Spirit. The human birth was not in order to become a Son of God, but because He is the Son of God. Principal Scriptures bearing on the doctrine in addition to those discussed are numerous (Matt 16:13–16; 26:63–64; Luke 2:11, 26, 38; John 1:49; 3:16, 18, 35, 36; 11:27; Acts 9:20; Heb 1:2, 8; 1 John 2:23; 5:9–12). As God, Christ addresses the First Person as His Father, while as man, Christ addresses Him as His God (John 20:17).

The first begotten (πρωτότοκος). Seven times in the New Testament this term is used of Christ (Matt 1:25; Luke 2:7; Rom 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Heb 1:6; Rev 1:5). It occurs twice in reference to others (Heb 11:28; 12:23). As a descriptive name of Christ, it appears with three distinct meanings. (1) As the “first-born among many brethren,” and as “the first-born of all creation” (Rom 8:29; Col 1:15), it is used clearly in reference to the eternal existence of the divine Son of God and helps to confirm the doctrine of eternal generation. (2) As the first-born of Mary (Matt 1:25; Luke 2:7; Heb 1:6), the title is given to Christ as Mary’s firstborn son. It is used clearly in reference to His incarnate Person. (3) A third usage is found in the description of Christ as “first-born from the dead” (Col 1:18, R.S.V.), and “the first-born of the dead” (Rev 1:5, R.S.V.). Here the meaning is that Christ is the first to be raised from the dead in resurrection. There had been a number of restorations as in the case of Lazarus, but no one before had received resurrection life and an immortal, resurrection body. Christ is the first of this order.

The only begotten (μονογενής). This title is used for Christ five times in the New Testament (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), all in the writings of John. The Revised Version translates the expression by “only Son,” which seems to be an over-simplification of the real meaning. The Authorized Version as used here is more literal. The thought is clearly that Christ is the begotten of God in the sense that no other is. This is illustrated in the use of the same word in regard to Isaac (Heb 11:17), who was not literally the only begotten of Abraham, but he was the only begotten of Abraham in the sense that he was the promised seed. It is used in the ordinary sense also in Scripture (Luke 7:12; 8:42, the only other references in the New Testament). The term is again a confirmation of the idea of eternal generation, though Christ was also the only begotten in reference to His humanity. The thought of John 3:16 seems to be that the Son which was the only begotten from eternity past was given by the Father.

The Angel of Jehovah. One of the significant and important titles is that given Him in the Old Testament when He appeared as the Angel of Jehovah. As one of the principal theophanies, it is important for many reasons, confirming the pre-existence of Christ, and revealing the ministry of God to men in the Old Testament period. It is the teaching of Scripture that the Angel of Jehovah is specifically the Second Person of the Trinity. At least three lines of evidence substantiate this claim.

(1) Christ as the Angel of Jehovah is identified as Jehovah in numerous Old Testament passages. When the Angel of Jehovah spoke to Hagar (Gen 16:7–13), He is identified as Jehovah (vs. 13). The account of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:11–18) affords the same identification and is confirmed by other passages (Gen 31:11–13; 48:15, 16, cf. 45:5; Exod 3:1ff, cf. Acts 7:30–35; Exod 13:21; 14:19; Judg 6:11–23; 13:9–20 ).

(2) The Angel of Jehovah is also revealed to be a distinct person from Jehovah, i.e., a Person of the Trinity. In Genesis 24:7, for instance, Jehovah is described as sending “his angel.” The servant of Abraham testifies to the reality of this in Genesis 24:40. Moses speaks of Jehovah sending an angel to lead Israel (Num 20:16). An instance which is very clear is that found in Zechariah 1:12–13, where the Angel of Jehovah addressed Jehovah: “Then the angel of Jehovah answered and said, O Jehovah of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years? And Jehovah answered the angel that talked with me with good words, even comfortable words” (R.V.). Many other similar passages occur (Exod 23:20; 32:34; 1 Chron 21:15–18; Isa 63:9; Dan 3:25–28). Still other passages affirm the deity of the Angel of Jehovah without trinitarian personal distinctions (Judg 2:1–5; 2 Kgs 19:35).

(3) The Angel of Jehovah is the Second Person of the Trinity. Having determined the deity of the Angel of Jehovah and that He is a Person of the Trinity, it remains to demonstrate that He is the Second Person. This is, in fact, the only solution of an otherwise confused picture. How can a Person be God and at the same time address God? The answer lies in the personal distinctions of the Trinity. There are at least four lines of evidence which identify the Angel of Jehovah as the Second Person.

(a) The Second Person is the visible God of the New Testament. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is characteristically revealed in bodily and visible form. While the Father’s voice is heard from heaven, and the Holy Spirit is seen descending in the form of a dove, Christ, the Second Person, is the full manifestation of God in visible form. It is logical that the same Person of the Trinity should appear in bodily form in both Testaments.

(b) Confirming this induction is the fact that the Angel of Jehovah of the Old Testament no longer appears after the incarnation. References to angels in the New Testament seem to refer to either angelic or human messengers. It is a natural inference that the Angel of Jehovah is now the incarnate Christ.

(c) The similarity of function between the Angel of Jehovah and Christ can be observed in the fact that both are sent by the Father. In the Old Testament, the Angel of Jehovah is sent by Jehovah to reveal truth, to lead Israel, and to defend and judge them. In the New Testament, Christ is sent by God the Father to reveal God in the flesh, to reveal truth, and to become the Savior. It is characteristic for the Father to send and the Son to be the sent one. These facts again point to the identification of the Angel of Jehovah with Christ.

(d) By the process of elimination, it can be demonstrated that the Angel of Jehovah could not be either the First Person or the Third Person. According to John 1:18, “No one has seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (R.S.V.). This passage seems to imply that only Christ could be visible to man and that the First Person and the Third Person did not reveal themselves in visible fashion. As the Angel of Jehovah is the sent one, He could not be the Father for the Father is the sender. As the Angel of Jehovah characteristically appears in bodily, usually human form, He could not be the Holy Spirit who does not appear bodily, except in the rare instance of appearing in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ. It may, therefore, be concluded that the Angel of Jehovah is the Second Person of the Trinity.

The other theophanies of the Old Testament tend to confirm this judgment, revealing in particular the work of Christ in that period. Discussion on this aspect of Christology will be included in the treatment of His work in the Old Testament period.

The Son of God in the Trinity

In previous discussion, the deity and eternity of the Son of God has been considered, with the contribution of the many titles which refer to His preincarnate state. It remains to examine briefly the relation of the Son of God to the Trinity. It is not the purpose of this discussion to attempt to establish the doctrine of the Trinity as such or to support the trinitarian doctrine as stated in the great creeds of the church. The bearing of the material already treated will be related to the doctrine of the Trinity, with certain important conclusions being drawn.

In establishing the deity and eternity of Christ, an important step was taken in relation to trinitarian doctrine. The added proofs of there being divine attributes in Christ and the many titles speaking of His deity combine to confirm the doctrine. Historically as well as logically, the doctrine of the Trinity turns on the question of the deity and personality of the Son of God. Christ has been seen to be, in His divine nature, all that God is. He has been related to the Father as His eternally begotten Son. His divine attributes confirm the fact that the essence of God is in Christ. His distinction in Person is confirmed by the subject and object relationship between the Father and the Son established not only in the incarnate state but also in the preincarnate as the Angel of Jehovah. The accepted order of the Trinity in which Christ is the Second Person has been found to be in keeping with the fact that the Father sends the Son, and the Son in turns sends the Spirit (John 16:7).

The evidence already considered in every way, then, confirms the ordinary doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, the existence of this evidence historically forced the church to study and state the doctrine of the Trinity. It is also true, however, that the doctrine of the Trinity once established in turn enforces and contributes to the doctrine of Christ. It is safe to say that no attack on the doctrine of the Trinity can be made without attacking the Person of Christ. It is also true that no attack on the Person of Christ can be made without attacking the doctrine of the Trinity. They stand and fall together. It is for this reason that current liberalism is usually at heart unitarian or modalistic in its attitude toward the Trinity. The Person of Christ remains the great doctrine upon which Christianity as a whole rests.

The preincarnate Person of Christ stands as a foundational truth of theology and the Scriptures. Its complementary doctrine, the Person of the incarnate Christ, will add further light and amplify the present findings. Before considering this important and complex theme, it is necessary first to consider the revelation of the preincarnate work of Christ which in itself is a complete revelation of the Person of Christ.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, III, 523.
2. Loc. cit.
3. Cf. L. S. Chafer, Bibliotheca Sacra, October-December, 1940, pp. 391-92.
4. Ibid., p. 392.
5. Cf. Archibald Alexander, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, “Logos,” III, 1911–17.
6. Ralph Wardlaw, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1857), II, 32–60.

Series in Christology, Part 1: The Preincarnate Son of God

By John F. Walvoord

[Author’s note: The series of studies in Christology beginning in this issue is planned to present the whole doctrine of Christ including His Person and His work from eternity past to eternity future. Without undue development of any one theme, the series is intended to include every important aspect of the subject, thereby providing for the student of Christology a comprehensive treatment of the whole doctrine. The articles will present for the first time in print the material which for some years has been mimeographed for the use of seminary classes in Christology. The form of the material is new, however, and the entire treatment has been recast to include new material and to make plain the thought to the reader who may not have had previous instruction in this doctrine. It is intended that the more technical material not absolutely essential to the thought will be included in footnotes for those interested.

The first major division of Christology dealing with the preincarnate Son of God will occupy the articles to be printed in 1947. Instead of following the customary division of the subject into that which is found in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, it will be the plan to include all material in both Testaments having bearing on the preincarnate Christ. Two major divisions will be observed: (1) the preincarnate Person of Christ; (2) the preincarnate work of Christ. In the first division particular attention will be given to the testimony concerning the deity of Christ. In the second division the works of Christ in eternity past, in creation, providence, preservation, revelation, and salvation in the Old Testament will have principal treatment. No attempt will be made to follow the traditional limitation of Christology to the Person of Christ only. The importance of His work in the total revelation of Christ justifies the extended discussion. Messianic prophecies will be included in the later discussion of Christ incarnate.]

Introduction

Christianity by its very name has always had Christ as its historical and logical center. The doctrine of Christ is vitally related to every important doctrine of theology. The important matter of bibliology—the place of the Bible and divine revelation in theology—is logically inseparable from the doctrine of Christ. It is a matter of history that those who have interpreted literally the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the infallible and inspired Word of God have almost always accepted the deity of Christ. It is normal also for those who accept the unique deity of Christ to also accept the Scriptures.

In the field of theology proper, dealing with the nature of God, the doctrine of Christ again has been determinative in the theology of the Trinity. Just as the early church faced the question of bibliology in the controversy with Montanus and his followers (151–171) and ruled that the New Testament as we now have it is complete and final, so the early church stated the doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene Creed (325) which asserted the full deity of Christ. In declaring the true humanity of Christ, the church helped to settle the issues of anthropology. In fact, historically, the anthropological controversies are next in order chronologically after the Christological. Again, in the doctrine of salvation, the Person and work of Christ are the basis for judgment. In the Reformation the true substitutionary character of the death of Christ was reaffirmed, and salvation was proclaimed as by faith and not by ordinances, penances, or other works. In ecclesiology, the nature of the present work of Christ determines the character of the present age, and in eschatology both the teachings of Christ and the prophecies of His future work give in their main elements the whole purpose of God for the ages to come.

It takes no great theological discernment to determine that the doctrine of Christ in our twentieth century has fallen on evil days. In the early church, soundness in doctrine was achieved by first laying the foundation of a bibliology which affirmed the verbal inspiration of Scripture and then proceeding to the formulation of belief in the Person of Christ. In modern days the history of the early church has repeated itself but with different conclusions. The inroads of higher criticism which assailed not only the traditional views of human authorship of Scripture, such as Moses as the author of the Pentateuch, but robbed the Scriptures of any divine inspiration, have had their ultimate effect upon theology as a whole. If, after all, the Scriptures are only a human record of spiritual experience, corrected, amended, revised, and otherwise altered, then the foundation upon which the Fathers built the theology of the church is gone. The Scriptures become a source book of both truth and error, the judgment of the individual alone determining what is truth. This subjective approach finally had its reductio ad absurdum in the liberalism of a decade ago which was unblushing humanism.

The ultimate in the destruction of the Biblical doctrine of Christ was reached early in the twentieth century when the charge of certain liberal theologians that Jesus was only a myth began to be taken seriously in the theological world. Liberal theology in some quarters had accepted as already proved that Jesus was not essential to Christianity, but it remained for Arthur Drews in his The Christian Myth (1909) to state it blatantly and win a group of followers.[1] It is safe to say that the pendulum has swung somewhat back at present and the general opinion of modern liberal theologians is that Jesus was an historical character, though misunderstood by ancients and moderns, and the proper subject of scientific restudy to determine the true Jesus of history. It is taken for granted that the destruction of grounds for implicit faith in the infallibility of Scripture has been achieved and that the Jesus of history was after all only a man with at best a deeper God-consciousness than others. Douglas Clyde Macintosh, Professor of Theology and Philosophy of Religion in Yale University, has perhaps stated what may be accepted as the norm of present liberal attitude toward Jesus in the following statement:

In our sketch of the life and thought of the Reverend John Cotton we noted the theory advanced by Sir Henry Vane the younger, Governor of the Colony in 1636, that the Holy Spirit is united to the believer in the same manner as the divine nature was united with the human Jesus. This rather startling Christological suggestion, which seems to have been rejected as heretical by the theological builders of that day, bids fair to be made, after some slight reshaping, the headstone of the corner in the reconstructed temple of Christian evangelicalism. The modification of Sir Harry Vane’s formula which we would suggest is that it is increasingly possible for the Christian to be united to God the Holy Spirit in essentially the same way in which the human nature of Jesus was united with his divine nature, or indeed with God himself. Conversely, Jesus was united with the Holy Spirit in the same way in which every Christian ought to be united with that Spirit. “Christianity is the religion of incarnation, and its central affirmation is that God can come into human life” (Harry Emerson Fosdick, The Modern Use of the Bible, Macmillan, 1924, p. 263).[2]

In other words, the incarnation is in no sense unique but rather the example of what all Christians are called to be and do. Christ was merely the one who showed the way by divine appointment. While this view of modern theology is somewhat removed from the blatant humanism which it replaces, it is just as unsatisfactory to the evangelical Christian. After all, there are many who reject the findings of higher criticism as faulty in fact, theory, and conclusion, and who still accept the Scriptures as the infallible Word of God. It is only this premise which will give a true Christology, and it is the basis which is assumed in this study, and without apology. At no point is the alleged objective and historical treatment of facts of which modern liberals boast more mutilated than in the work of higher criticism. The mass of argument to support the inspiration of Scripture and the authority and reliability of its revelation is usually dismissed with a wave of the hand as no longer possible to an honest mind.[3]

One of the curious aspects of the current swing away from extreme liberalism has been the movement inaugurated by Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. Both of these writers accept the most extreme views of higher criticism which are destructive of the doctrine of inspiration in the ordinary sense of the word. Both of these writers also face frankly the utter bankruptcy of modern liberalism in its almost complete subjectivism and denial of divine revelation. The result has been a new theology which emphasizes a form of the transcendence of God and the doctrine of revelation in dialectical terminology which has succeeded so well in affirming and denying the same propositions that one can by careful quotations prove almost anything. Of particular point is their emphasis on Christology. While following the German school of thought that the question of whether Jesus Christ was an historical character cannot be finally settled, they nevertheless affirm a new emphasis on Christ—an emphasis not on his historical life and teachings but on the thought that God can give contemporary revelation through Christ as a medium. In other words, God can speak to us today through Christ.

The new emphasis on Christology by Barth has been seized as a resting place for some who on the one hand denied the old doctrine of verbal inspiration and accepted higher criticism, but on the other hand did not want extreme liberalism. Of interest is the new quarterly publication, Crisis Christology, representing Barthianism as the authentic Reformed theology of today. While few publications or educational institutions in America are confessedly Barthian, it has implemented the departure from the old concept of historic revelation once for all delivered to the saints and has strengthened the emphasis on progressive revelations substitution of present religious experience as a norm of doctrine for the infallible Scriptures. We are told today, then, that the real question is not whether the Scriptures are infallible, whether Christ was uniquely divine, but rather what Christ speaks to our hearts today through our religious experiences. Barthianism, like other forms of modernism, is utterly bankrupt as far as providing a basis for Christology. It is, in fact, a revival in new terminology of ancient Gnostic ideas which were utterly destructive to Christian faith. The charge that Barthianism is a new form of liberalism rather than a new form of Reformed theology can be sustained on both theological and philosophical grounds.[4]

While, therefore, the history of Christology in the past and present will serve as a guide in the present study, the time-honored path of dependence upon the Scriptures will be followed instead of the present modern spirit. Christology has a more extensive field of literature than any other aspect of theology. It is not intended that this study should be a resumé, but rather that the great central truths which many others have stated at length should here be reduced to a simple and comprehensive statement based upon the Scriptures themselves for argument and proof. It is an impossibility for any one man to embrace the entire field of Christology in an ordinary lifetime, but it is necessary to define the Scriptural doctrine in reasonable limits without cumbrance of historical data. The objective of life and eternity is defined simply by Paul in the words, “That I may know him” (Phil 3:10). If this study is used to this end, the purpose of the author will be achieved.

I. The Preincarnate Person of the Son of God

The definition of the preincarnate Person of the Son of God is to all practical purposes the statement and proof of the eternal deity of the Second Person of the Trinity. In view of the ancient and modern attempts to reduce in one way or another the deity of Christ to a level below that of the First Person, the Father, it is necessary to emphasize certain aspects of the preincarnate Person of Christ. Crucial in this argument is the proof that Christ is eternal. Supporting this evidence is the full-orbed revelation that Christ possessed all the attributes of God, and that His works, titles, majesty, and promises are all those of God Himself. The theophanies of the Old Testament provide historical evidence of His pre-existence.

In denouncing the Arian heresy that Christ was the first of created spirits and therefore not eternal, the church has, since 325, maintained the eternity and deity of the Son of God in its historic creeds. The purpose of this discussion is to restate in brief form the Scriptural evidence in support of this doctrine. For the sake of brevity in statement, the expression preincarnate Christ will be used as equivalent to the term preincarnate Person of the Son of God, which is more accurate.

The Eternity of the Son of God

The doctrine of the eternity of the Son of God is most important to the doctrine of Christology as a whole. If Christ is not eternal, then He came into existence in time and is a created being and vastly different in being and attributes from God Himself. If Christ is eternal, it is affirming that He has no dependence upon another for His existence, that He is in fact self-existent. It is saying more than that He was pre-existent. This would affirm only that He existed before the incarnation. Arius, for instance, believed in the pre-existence of Christ but not in His eternity. To affirm that Christ existed from all eternity past is to attribute to Him all that self-sufficiency and independence which is true of God.

The Scriptures bear a clear witness to the fact of the eternity of Christ, sometimes directly, often indirectly. The Old Testament foreview of Christ spoke of Him as the child to be born in Bethlehem “whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting” (Mic 5:2). As Fausset has said, “The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (cf. Ps 90:2; Prov 8:22, 23; John 1:1).”[5] All of the Old Testament anticipations of the coming of Christ which assert His deity are further evidence to establish His eternity. In Isaiah 9:6, Christ is declared to be not only “Mighty God,” but also “Everlasting Father,” or “Father of Eternity.” The very name Jehovah which it will be shown is given to Christ as well as to the Father and the Spirit is assertion of eternity. He is the eternal I AM (cf. Exod 3:14).

The New Testament is, if anything, more explicit than the Old Testament. The incarnate Christ is an unexplainable character apart from His eternal deity. The introduction to the Gospel of John has no other justifiable explanation than a statement of His eternity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The phrase “in the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) probably in itself is a reference to the point in time in eternity past beyond which it is impossible to go, as Dorner interprets it.[6] In any case the verb was (ἦν) is explicit. As Marcus Dods expresses it: “The Logos did not then begin to be, but at that point at which all else began to be He already was.”[7] The contrast between the timeless existence of the Word which became flesh and any creature is brought out in Johin 8:58, where Christ said, literally translated, “Before Abraham came (γενέσθαι), I am (εἰμί).” Christ claimed not only to have pre-existed before Abraham, but He was claiming continuous existence. It was so patent to His listeners that He was claiming the eternity of God that some took up stones to stone Him. In 1 John 1:1, Christ is again described by John as “That which was from the beginning.”

The Apostle Paul in his epistles states the same doctrine in unmistakable terms. In Colossians 1:16–17 in one statement both the eternity and the creatorship of Christ is declared. In verse seventeen we find, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” In verse sixteen, it is revealed, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth.” The two statements together assert that Christ is before all creation and therefore self-existent and uncreated. The eternity of Christ is further asserted in the eternal covenant (Eph 1:4), and in the declaration by Christ Himself, “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Rev 1:8). The contributing arguments to these explicit Scriptures are too numerous to mention here. His titles, works, immutability and other divine attributes, His eternal promises, all imply and require eternity. It is a matter of history that no denial of the eternity of Christ has endured which has not also denied the Scriptures as the very Word of God.

The Pre-Existence of the Son of God

Many Scriptures which strictly speaking do not assert the eternity of Christ speak of His existence before the incarnation. For all practical purposes these are corroborating testimony to His eternity and have been taken as such in church history. Theologians who have accepted the pre-existence of Christ have in almost all cases accepted His eternity.

An important line of evidence are the many statements of the heavenly origin of Christ. John 3:17 speaks of the fact that “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.” John 3:31 is more specific, “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.” Christ states Himself, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me” (John 6:38). Christ further speaks of the glory of heaven as a matter of memory and experience (John 17:5, 24). Other Scriptures too numerous to quote speak of His heavenly origin (John 1:15, 18, 30; 3:13, 16; 6:33, 42, 50, 51, 58, 62; 7:29; 8:23, 42; 9:39; Eph 1:3–5; 1 Pet 1:18–20). It is significant that while John, Paul, and Peter all speak of His pre-existence, most of the references are in John in connection with the proof of His deity.

The doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ is substantiated by many other lines of evidence, such as His preincarnate works of creation, providence, preservation, His promises made in eternity past, the theophanies, and other intimations of pre-existence. These are considered more properly under the second major division of the preincarnate Son of God, namely, His preincarnate works. Their added testimony leaves no shadow of doubt as to the pre-existence of Christ for anyone accepting the accuracy of the Scriptures. Remaining to be considered under the present division is the important and conclusive testimony to the Person of Christ contained in His divine attributes, His titles, and the argument from the doctrine of the Trinity.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. For a more extended discussion of this see The Harvard Theological Review, V (1912), 423–473, or B. B. Warfield, Christology and Criticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1929), pp. 313-367.
2. D. C. Macintosh, Personal Religion (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1942), pp. 114-115.
3. A typical and representative view of the impossibility of verbal inspiration as stated by Julius A. Bewer, professor at Union Theological Seminary, New York, is as follows: “But it is most unfortunate that the harmful doctrine of verbal inspiration which asserted that every word of the Old Testament had been divinely inspired and that every bit of it was infallible should have been appropriated by the Christians. To us that is simply an impossible doctrine. When we read the stories and histories of the Old Testament and find again and again contradictions, errors, impossible or distasteful statements; when we read the law sections, not merely the ceremonial and sacrificial law, but the moral law, and compare the moral practice, ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,’ the cruelties and barbarities advocated and practiced; when we read the prophecies and find many of them unfulfilled and mistaken, though given in the name of God, some cruel, narrow, and egotistic; when we study the Psalms and find so much hatred and vengefulness in many of them; when we read the Wisdom literature and find an ethic not always on a high level—we cannot believe that God has inspired all this, that all this is the word of God. For we see that it is not infallible, not always truly spiritual, not everywhere highly moral, not always edifying. The Old Testament sanctions polygamy and easy divorce; hatred, revenge, and ruthless extermination of enemies; non-intercourse and non-marriage with foreigners; exclusion of certain foreigners from ever gaining citizenship, extreme nationalism in politics and religion.” (From The Journal of Religion, January, 1936, reprinted, in Thomas S. Kepler, Contemporary Religious Thought (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1941), pp. 125-126.) Suffice it to say that such a concept of the Word of God makes Christology an impossibility and leaves only an essentially agnostic position. Such was not the faith of the apostles nor of the founders of Union Theological Seminary.
4. Cf. Cornelius Van Til, The New Modernism (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1946), 384 pp. Van Til shows by massive arguments that Barthianism is a new and dangerous form of modernism. Cf. also William H. Chisholm, “A New Heresy in the Christian Church,” The Sunday School Times, December 14, 1946, pp. 1155ff.
5. A. R. Fausset, A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments by Rev. Robert Jamieson, Rev. A. R. Fausset, and Rev. David Brown (Glasgow: William Collins, Sons, and Company, 1868) IV, 600.
6. Cf. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), pp. 309-310.
7. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, n.d.), p. 683.

Antichrist Meeting? King Charles and Pope Leo at Vatican - Tim Cohen - AU

Who is the AntiChrist? King Charles or Jimmy Savile? Tim Cohen Part 2 - ...

Who is the AntiChrist? King Charles or Pope Leo? Tim Cohen - Royal Famil...

Once Saved, Always Saved? | RT Kendall

Guarding Against False Teachings | RT Kendall - Doctrines of Demons

Freemasonry, Satan's Secret Society - Billy Crone

S and J Chat: Hypocrisy of Israeli Rabbis and Politicians

Four Doctrines That Are Quietly Poisoning the Church—and How to Spot Them

The Theology That Denies God’s Omniscience | R.T. Kendall Exposes Open T...

What Will You Do Now That You Know The Truth

The Unspoken Dangers of Christian Zionism | Truth No One Says Out Loud |...

Is book of Enoch LEGIT?! | Sam Shamoun

Jew Challenges Sam Shamoun on Messianic Prophecies—Ends in Total Scriptu...

Why did God Wipe out the Amalekites ? (1 Samuel 15:3) | Sam Shamoun

Did God COMMIT GENOCIDE in the Old Testament? | The COMPLETE Answer for ...

Why did God make the Old Testament Law Harsh? | Sam Shamoun

Bondage of the Will (part 3)

Bondage of the Will (part 2)

Bondage of the Will (part 1)

Struggle of a Saved Soul - J Vernon McGee - FULL Sunday Sermons

The Time of the Beast Has Arrived 10-30-25@4:41 PM

CCCHHHHAAAARRRRGGGGEEEE!!!!: WORD FROM KING YESHUA (31st Oct)

BEFORE HIS DEATH, TOM HORN PREDICTED THE EXACT DAY THE TRIBULATION BEGINS!!

TRUMP ABOUT TO SIGN "COVENANT WITH MANY" DANIEL 9:27?