The Sonship of Christ
The first promise of
Jesus in the Scriptures is in Genesis 3:15--"And I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall
bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." From prophecies and
promises which came after this throughout the Old Testament, it is evident that
the words "seed of the woman" were intended to be emphasized as
meaning that the promised seed would not be begotten according to the ordinary
laws of nature, but that he would be the seed of the woman through supernatural
interposition; and therefore, in a special sense, the Son of God. His mother
being of the human race, he would be the "Son of Man" only in the
sense of being of human nature inherited from his mother. Hence, when it is
said of him that he was "made of the seed of David, according to
the flesh"--(Rom. 1: 3) and called the Son of David, it is evident
that this relationship was not by direct paternity, but only by maternity. It
is only by keeping this in view that we can understand the two classes of
scripture which speak of him--one in which he is called the Son of Man; the
other in which he is called the Son of God, the "only begotten Son."
The special and
emphatic manner in which he is frequently called the Son of God clearly shows
that he was of divine begettal; and when we keep in mind that he was "made
of a woman" and that he originated by the power of God through the Holy
Spirit, we shall be able to properly understand how he could be divine and yet
human; each aspect will be seen in its true light as combined in one who could
be a Saviour indeed and a mediator between God and
men--the direct offspring of God as a means of manifesting the divine
attributes; and "made like unto his brethren" in nature in order that
he might be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" and thus be
a "merciful high priest," as the result of experiencing the suffering
of mankind.
The following
testimonies show him to be the Son of God:
Jer. 23: 5--Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a king shall reign and
prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
Is. 7: 14--Therefore
the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and
bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Matt.
Mark. 1: 1--The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mark 9: 7--And there
was a cloud that overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud saying, This is my beloved Son, hear him.
Luke 1: 35--Therefore
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 5: 17-36--But
Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and
I work, etc.
Luke
Gal. 4: 4--But when the
fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law.
Eph.
Heb. 1: 2--Hath in
these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all
things, by whom he made the worlds.
Heb. 3: 5, 6--And Moses
verily was faithful in all his house as a servant; for
a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a son
over his own house.
Heb. 5: 5-8--Thou art
my Son, to-day have I begotten thee. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.
I. John 4:
15--Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him,
and he in God.
I. John 5: 5--Who is he
that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God?
Acts 3: 13--The God of
our fathers hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom ye delivered up.
Jesus refers to himself
in the two relationships when declaring himself the saviour
of mankind, in John 3: 14, 18--"And as Moses lifted up the serpent
in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent
not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through
him might be saved." The two relationships are here presented in a manner
to show how completely Jesus was qualified to meet the requirements of the
fallen race. A "son of man" merely had never been found, during four
thousand years, who could accomplish the work; and yet the redeemer must be son
of man in order to practically and representatively redeem fallen human nature
by overcoming its sin-produced proclivities. But a son of man merely was not
equal to the task; and had such an one done so there
would not thereby have been a manifestation of God’s love and the glory due to
Him as the Saviour. Therefore Jesus must be "the
only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John
Those who deny that
Jesus was the Son of God by miraculous begettal, endeavor to prove that those
passages which speak of his begettal by the Holy Spirit are spurious. But the
evidence when fairly viewed will not sustain their claims. We cannot here enter
into a critical examination of the authenticity of such passages. Even if they
could be fairly expunged from the New Testament the proof of the divine sonship of Jesus would still be clear throughout the
Scriptures. That he is called the Son of God in passages about whose
authenticity there is no question, even by those who believe him to be the son
of Joseph, all will admit. But it is claimed that it is sonship
in the same sense as God’s people all become His children, by "the spirit
of adoption." If this were the only sense in which Jesus was the Son of
God, there would be no force in Paul’s words in speaking of Moses as a servant
as compared with Jesus as a son; for in the sense of adoption
Moses was a son. Then, too, our Lord’s argument which silenced his
enemies, when he asked how could David call Jesus Lord, if the question had
involved the matter of spiritual sonship only, would
not have silenced the cavilers. They could have answered that Jesus was more
righteous than David and therefore exalted to become his Lord. But they knew he
did not mean a spiritual sonship; and so the
difficult question then was, as it is now, viz.: If Jesus was a mere son of man
by begettal, how could a father call him Lord? The answer is to be found only
in that which Jesus’ argument proved--that though he was the son of David by
descent according to the flesh, yet he was the Son of God by direct begettal
and therefore David could rightly call him Lord.
The spiritual
relationship of sonship to God throughout the
Scriptures as applied to men has always been dependent upon Christ, and
therefore secondary in relation to his sonship. Jesus
as the saviour was the prospective means by which all
became the children of God from Adam to Christ; and the retrospective means
from his death down to our day. Had he been a mere man this could not have been
the case; for there has never been a mere man who could redeem himself and give
to God a ransom.
The fallacy of limiting
the divine sonship of Jesus to that of the spiritual
relation which subsists between God and his people through Christ reduces the
Redeemer to equality with the redeemed, and thereby makes redemption
impossible. The Redeemer must be able to render what the redeemed cannot
render. That which was required was a perfect sinless character developed in
the fallen nature of the race; and no man of both human paternity and human
maternity could meet the demands; while one of divine paternity would be
possessed of power which, if faithfully exercised, would meet the requirements
of the law of the spirit of life. In this manner God would be the Saviour in "laying help upon one made mighty,"
and yet the most strenuous moral efforts would be necessary on the part of the
Son so begotten to utilize the imparted latent power in order to work out
redemption by a life of perfect holiness. This beautiful arrangement gives God
the glory for the manifestation of his love in begetting a Son capable of
accomplishing the required end; and it also allows for the merit due to Jesus
for the proper exercise of his mental and moral powers under the most severe
trials.
To see how utterly
impossible it is reasonably to apply the words of scripture which declare the sonship of Jesus to that spiritual sonship
which subsists in God’s people generally, it is only necessary to read some of
the passages given and suppose them applicable to mere men. The Apostle Paul
was a son of God by adoption; but where would be the force of the following
words if applied to him?--"Though he were a son, yet learned
he obedience by the things which he suffered." Sonship here must, to give
any force to the words, mean more than sonship in
relation to Paul or any other spiritual son. If the sonship
is of the same character, why not read, "Whosoever shall confess that Paul
is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God?" "Who is
he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth
that Paul is the Son of God." And yet Paul
was a son of God. Is it not evident that the sonship
of Jesus is of a different character, and that salvation is predicated upon
belief in such a sonship because it gives the glory
and honor to him to whom it belongs, in that he "so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life." Here is a sonship
which is the foundation of the spiritual sonship of
all God’s people, and one with which no other is comparable.
The words "only
begotten Son" cannot mean sonship in the
sense that all of God’s people are called "sons of God." There is an
attempt by some to confine these words to Christ after his resurrection, basing
the claim on Rom. 1: 4--emphasizing the words, "according to the spirit of
holiness, by the resurrection from the dead," as if these prove that he
was "the only begotten Son" from the dead to eternal life only. But
in John 3: 16-18 he is called the "only begotten Son" before his
resurrection. The passage in Romans does not say that he became the Son of God
by resurrection; but it is "concerning his Son Jesus Christ our
Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared
to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by
the resurrection from the dead." The Diaglott is more emphatic yet;
"concerning that son of his, who was born of the Posterity of David
as to the flesh; who was designated the Son of God in Power as to the spirit of
holiness, by his Resurrection from the Dead." It is not that he was
constituted Son of God by his resurrection; but his resurrection was a fact
which declared the truth of his previous claim to divine sonship;
for only a Son of God in the sense that Jesus was could triumph over death and
the grave, this depending upon a "holy one" which four thousand years
had failed to produce among mere men.
To teach that Jesus was
the son of Joseph by begettal is to put trust for salvation in an arm of flesh
instead of in the "arm of the Lord" (Is. 53: 1). In every case where
he is spoken of as the son of Joseph it is "as was supposed," or in
the legal sense of sonship. The genealogies in
Matthew and Luke show that Joseph was the natural son of Jacob, and the
son-in-law of Heli, Mary’s name being omitted
according to Jewish custom, and the link reaching from Joseph to her father;
which makes Joseph the putative father of Jesus. The two genealogies trace
Jesus back to David through two lines--one in the legal sense through Joseph,
and the other in the natural sense through Mary. By this, his right to David’s
throne was rendered indisputable and the mouths of his enemies were stopped;
for, taking them on their own claim, that Jesus was the son of Joseph, there
was the pedigree complete, though in fact it was a legal pedigree. On the other
hand, on his mother’s side the descent was without a broken link. Moreover,
since David’s throne was "the throne of the Lord," the divine
begettal of Jesus constituted him the "Son" of whom the parable
represents his enemies as saying, "This is the heir;" and by this
also he had the divine right to "the throne of the Lord over
In John 6: 32-58, Jesus
declares himself to be the antitypical manna; and says
that his flesh was the bread which came down from heaven. The bread which the
children of
Now apply these
illustrations of Scripture phraseology to the words of Jesus in John 6: 33, 38,
51 and his divine sonship is
clearly proved. Bread generated out of nature’s substances by the direct power
of God is, in scripture phraseology, bread or manna from heaven. A
mortal body changed into an immortal body by direct and supernatural power is a
"house from heaven" The company of the redeemed,
immortalized and energized by spirit power, are represented as a "city
coming down from God out of heaven," an occurrence which is otherwise
described as the result of the Saviour coming from
heaven to earth to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like
unto his glorious body, according to the working (energy) whereby he is able to
subdue all things unto himself" (Phil. 3: 20, 21). Upon the same principle
the "fruit of David’s loins" in the flesh of Mary, formed and
energized by the Holy Spirit, became "that holy thing" conceived in
her which was the Son of God; and the "word that was thus made flesh"
and "dwelt among men" as "the only begotten of the Father"
was the true manna that came down from heaven; because the doctrine of his
divine sonship and consequently his triumph in the
grand work of redemption, believed, or mentally eaten and digested, is the true
manna, the bread of life to all who "confess that Jesus is the Son of
God."
When Jesus asked his
disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?" and Peter answered, "Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16: 15,
16), who will presume to say that this sonship was
nothing more than that of Peter’s, who was one of those to whom he "gave
power to become the sons of God" (John 1: 12)? Was Peter confessing for
Jesus a sonship which he could as well confess for
himself and all other believers? To answer affirmatively would be to lose the
blessing pronounced upon Peter--"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father (your Father in the same sense?) which is in
heaven." Let us put our trust in the "arm of the Lord" stretched
out in Jesus to save mankind, giving God the glory, yet honoring Jesus for his
fidelity, faithfulness and love; believing with all our hearts that "God
so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
JESUS AS THE SON OF
MAN
Men are prone to go to
extremes. The popular doctrine of the Trinity, as one extreme, would seem to be
responsible for the other--that of Jesus being a mere man by natural begettal.
The truth lies between these extremes.
The phrase "the
divinity of Jesus" means, popularly, that he was "God very
God"--the second person of the Trinity; and to dispute the Trinity is
regarded as a denial of the divinity of Christ. The Scriptures teach the
divinity of Christ as well as his humanity; but not such a divinity as is meant
by the Trinity. The Trinity is virtually a denial of the true God and Jesus
Christ, and it inculcates a theory of a fictitious Christ; one who, if co-equal
and co-eternal with God the Father, could not be a Saviour,
because he could not die. God cannot die. If Jesus was as eternal and immortal
as God he could not have died. It does not help the matter to say that his body
died; for if he was one of the Gods of the Trinity, he existed as a living
being before his bodily existence in the flesh; and for him to forsake his body
and continue living as really as he had lived from all eternity could not in
any sense be termed death. The real Christ would escape death, and a helpless
body of flesh, which had no consciousness apart from its supposed temporary
occupant, could not be the Christ; and therefore Christ would not die and we
should have no Saviour at all. Let the word of
inspiration be true regardless of consequences to creeds, and let us, upon such
a basis, accept the right conclusions. The positive declaration of scripture is
that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and
that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures"--
To see the fallacy of
the Trinitarian theory it is only necessary to reason carefully on the
conclusions to which that theory leads. Let no one cry out that it is wrong to
reason upon such a solemn subject; for God says, "Come, let us reason
together." There is no subject too solemn to reason upon; and the use of
our faculties in an honest endeavor to understand what God has been pleased to
reveal to us is well pleasing in his sight. Hence we are commanded to
"prove all things;" and to "earnestly contend for the
faith." If a theory is false, there is no solemnity attached to it; and it
is right to expose and condemn it, though it be a theory concerning God or
Christ; and on the nature of Christ we have a distinct and special command in
the words of John--"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the
world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that
it should come; and even now already is it in the world"--I. John 4: 1-3.
From this it is clear
that, not only have we the right to reason upon this question, but it is our
duty; and intelligent men will not be frightened away from the subject by a cry
of "Mystery" by those who ask us to believe in a theory which needs
such a policy as will repudiate the injunction to "Try the spirits."
To accept the theory
that Jesus was the second person of a Trinity, and that he existed as "God
very God" from all eternity, we must believe that his power and knowledge
were equal to those of the Father. From eternity up to his conception and birth
his knowledge of the past, present and future would be absolute. There would be
nothing he would not know, as much so as the Father, and therefore there would
be nothing upon which he could be instructed. Now it is evident that when Jesus
was born in
Is.
Is. 11: 2--And the
Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the
spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge
and of the fear of the Lord; and shall make him of quick
understanding.
Luke
Verse 52--And Jesus
increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God
and man.
John
John 13: 3--Jesus
knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he
was come from God, and went to God, etc.
John
Luke 10: 22--All things
are delivered to me of my Father.
John
John
John 7: 16--Jesus
answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but
his that sent me.
John 5: 19--Then
answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son
can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the
Father do.
Verse 30--I can of mine
own self do nothing: as I hear I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek
not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Acts
Heb. 5: 7--Who in the
days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong
crying and tears unto him who was able to save him from death,
and was heard in that he feared.
Mark
We might add largely to
these testimonies, but these will be sufficient to show beyond a doubt that all
the knowledge and power which Jesus possessed he derived from the Father; and
that even when nearing the end of his probation, the time of his second advent
was hid from him. When the time came to reveal the future as outlined in the
Book of Revelation, it is recorded that "God gave it unto Jesus Christ to
show unto his servants," etc. (Rev. 1: 1).
Now in view of the fact
that Jesus entered upon life as a babe, without knowledge till he grew in
stature and wisdom, what conclusion does the Trinitarian theory drive us to? If
previous to his birth Christ was "co-equal and co-eternal with God,"
then we must believe that all his knowledge forsook him; and that as a God--a
person--the "second person of the Trinity," he was born devoid of
knowledge and power, these having to be acquired by natural and supernatural
means! Such a thing cannot be believed. God has not endowed man with faculties
capable of believing such an absurdity. There is no "mystery" in it,
no profundity--it is palpably foolish, and would never have been thought of had
not heathen theories of "Theosophy," "transmigration" and
"incarnation" poisoned the minds of the men who combined pagan
fiction with so-called christianity, and thus
developed the anti-christian delusions foretold by
Christ and his apostles.
The testimonies given
show that God begat Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit; and therefore
he had no existence as a person till he was begotten. The very word son implies
this; and to speak of "eternal sonship" is
to use words which are mutually contradictory; and why confuse the mind with
such things when, by accepting the matter as it is revealed, we are enabled to
recognize the love, power and glory of God; and the real merit of His only
begotten Son? If the only begotten Son was "made of a woman, made under
the law" (Gal. 4: 4), and passed through a life of real trial and
temptation and became victorious, then we have a reality; but if he was
co-equal and co-eternal with God, he could not be tempted, he could not
experience our sufferings--his life in the flesh was a sham; an appearance of
being tempted, suffering and doing what was not real. When he seemed to be
tempted, he was not tempted; when he seemed to suffer, he did not suffer; when
he seemed to die, he did not die; when he seemed to be buried and to be raised
from the dead, he was not. Did Christ die or did he not? Yes, will be the
answer of all--even the Trinitarian. But did he die? Did he who was from
eternity, and who was as deathless as God--did he die? Do not answer by
saying that his body died; for that is no answer at all; it is only playing
with words. If he existed as an immortal person, an immortal God from
all eternity, then he was not his body, neither was his body he; and for his
body to die and be buried was not for him to die and be buried; and to pretend
that he died when he did not, only his body, is to offer us a
sham instead of a reality. The testimony is that Christ died, and was
buried, and rose again; and this cannot be true of a deathless, co-equal,
co-eternal God; while it can be true of the Christ of the Scriptures, who,
begotten specially by the power of God, was "made in all points like unto
his brethren" (Heb. 2: 17), of the same flesh and blood. So he did die;
and when he was dead he was not alive, but "God raised Jesus of Nazareth
from the dead," and then, as a reward for his victory over the flesh and
all the evils of the world, gave him immortality, the power of an endless life,
in order that he might live eternally.
Popular tradition
represents God as enraged with mankind and about to vent His wrath upon them,
when "God the Son" interposed to appease His wrath. Here are two
co-equal Gods, or two "persons of the Trinity," opposed to each
other, one in wrath and the other in love; so that if they were "one in essence
and substance," they were not one in mind and object toward fallen man. It
must have become the desire of one to redeem before it was the desire of the
other; and the one must have changed the mind of the other. What a fearful
misrepresentation of God this is! How different from Him who "So loved
the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life." It was God, in His
love, who was our Saviour. He and He only, without
consulting one, or two, or a thousand others, devised the great plan of
salvation and carried it out by sending His only begotten Son to practically
and experimentally effect it, and to become in reality
the way out of the fallen state of humanity into the redeemed and heavenly
state.
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED
There are several
passages of scripture which, superficially viewed, seem to sustain the popular
theory of the co-equality and pre-existence of Christ; and the subject would
not be fairly treated without an explanation of these, to show that they do not
sustain the popular theory, but that they are, when carefully examined, in
harmony with what we have set forth and with the Scriptures we have given.
The first passage we
will consider will be I. John 5: 7, 8--"For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are
one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the water, and
the blood; and these three agree in one."
It would not be
necessary to deal with this passage if people generally kept themselves
informed in Bible matters; for those who do so know that the part of this
passage which seems to teach the Trinity is an interpolation. It had been known
to be such long before the Revised Version was published; and that Version,
following the example of other translators who had long revealed the spurious
character of it, omitted it. Had not the imposition been discovered, this text
would, in opposition to all the rest of the Scriptures, have set forth the
Trinity, and we would have been left to wonder how one text could so nullify
the general tenor of the Bible on the subject.
The Revised Version
reads as follows:
"For there are
three who bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three
agree in one."
The Emphatic Diaglott,
which was published in 1864, reads:
"For there are
THREE which TESTIFY; the SPIRIT, and the WATER, and the BLOOD; and these THREE
are for ONE."
In a footnote the
following explanation is given:
This text concerning
the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was
written earlier than the fifth century. It is not cited by any of the Greek
ecclesiastical writers; nor by any of the early Latin fathers,
even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led
them to appeal to this authority. It is therefore evidently spurious; and was
first cited (though not as it now reads) by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end
of the fifth century; but by whom forged, is of no great moment, as the design
must be obvious to all.--Improved Version.
A passage quoted to
prove that Christ was equal with God is Phil. 2: 5-8--"Let this mind be in
you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being
found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross."
Now before we examine
the improved translations of this verse, let us consider what the apostle’s
exhortation is. He is exhorting the Philippians to be of humble mind, and he
gives the Saviour as an example; but if he said what
the translation of the Authorized Version represents him as saying, how would
the alleged assumption of equality with God be an example of humility? Then,
too, if it was an understood thing that Christ was, and always had been,
co-equal with God, why speak of his not "thinking it robbery to be equal
with Him?" Would any one ever think of saying that God thought it not
robbery to be equal with Christ, or with the Holy Spirit? Yet, if they are
three co-equals, why may not the same be said of any one
as of either of the other two? It is supposed that the words "form of
God" mean identity of nature; but if so then the language could be used
for either of the supposed three persons of the
Trinity, which would prove too much for trinitarianism.
The translation in the Authorized Version turns what the apostle really did say
into confusion; for it represents him as exhorting men to take an instance
wherein there was a claim of equality with God as an example of humility; and
thereby he is made to stultify his own words. Had we no help from other
translations, any reasonable mind would be compelled to conclude that the
apostle had been misrepresented in the Common Version.
The Revised Version
reads as follows:
"Having this mind
in you, which was also in Christ; who being in a form of God, counted it not a
prize (margin, ‘not a thing to be grasped’) to be on an equality with God, but
emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of
men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient
unto death, yea, the death of the cross."
The Emphatic Diaglott
rendering is still better:
"Let this
disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in
God’s form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God, but divested
himself, taking a bondman’s form, having been made in the likeness of men; and
being in condition as a Man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross."
In a footnote the
following is given:
Harpagmon, being a word of very
rare occurrence, a great variety of translations have been given. The following
may serve as examples: "Who--did not think it a matter to be
desired"--Clarke. "Did not earnestly
affect"--Cyprian. "Did not think of eagerly retaining"--Wakefield.
"Did not regard--as an object of solicitous desire"--Stuart.
"Thought not--a thing to be seized"--Sharpe. "Did
not eagerly grasp"--Kneeland. "Did not violently strive"--
To see the force of the
apostle’s words we must recognize Christ as the Son of God, and as a
manifestation in character and, to a limited extent, in power. A realization by
Jesus of this honor and power was capable of being used or abused. Had he
yielded to the promptings of the flesh when he was "tempted in all points
like unto his brethren," he would have become vain and ambitious in his
claims instead of humble, meek and submissive as he was; and in that case he
would have manifested the vanity of the flesh as the popes of Rome have done in
pretending to be the viceregent of Christ; and they
have claimed equality with God. What Christ "thought not a thing to be
grasped," or claimed, the popes have claimed; and in this we have an
illustration of truth and humility in the true Christ; and of falsehood and
self-exaltation in the antichrist. Honored with divine Sonship, possessed of
miraculous power, which might be used to gratify the flesh, yet did our Saviour refuse the brief gratification the misuse of his
honor and power would have yielded, and meek, humble and submissive, he lived
the life of a servant. "For the joy that was set before him, he endured
the cross and despised the shame," knowing that the honor and popularity
which a misuse of his relationship and power would have brought him would be
but short, while an obedient life would bring him endless joy and power and
honor. Hence the apostle follows on from the words we have been considering by
saying, "Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name
which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should
bow." In concluding the examination of this passage, we would again ask,
Could one co-equal "highly exalt" and give a name above every other
name to another co-equal?
"BEFORE ABRAHAM
WAS I AM"--JOHN
is a statement often quoted to prove the pre-existence of
Christ; but it must be borne in mind that Christ is the principal subject
matter of the Bible, and the Alpha and Omega of God’s plan in relation to this
planet. He is present every where in all parts of the Bible. In this plan he
was "a lamb slain from the foundation of the world"--Rev. 13: 8. He
was from the beginning as the Logos, in God, out of whom he came by
begettal, and all that God has done for man has been by, in the sense of
because of, Christ. When we say, "he is present
every where in the Bible," no one will take us to mean personal presence;
but present as the subject of what is revealed, present as a purpose in the
divine plan. In this sense he could say to the caviling Jews, "Before
Abraham was I am." The Diaglott renders these words, "Before Abraham
was born, I am he." Suppose we ask, Who? The answer would be, "I am he that was promised as
the seed of the woman; as the lamb which Abel by faith offered; as the ark which
saved; as the real Melchizedec," etc.--He was
there in all the promises, types and symbols, and without him these were as
nothing. With this in view the words in question are seen not to mean that as a
person he existed before Abraham was born; but that they had a meaning which
gave them great force as against the Jews who were looking for the coming of
their Messiah, the "he who was for to come," but who failed to
recognize him in Christ when he did come. If it be said that the words are ambiguous,
let it be remembered that Jesus, knowing the evil motives of the persecuting
Jews, frequently resorted to ambiguity, in the form of parables and otherwise,
as he expressly says, "that seeing they may see and not perceive; and
hearing they may hear and not understand." This because
they "drew nigh to him with their lips, while their hearts were far from
him."
In the same connection,
because the Jews boasted of being children of Abraham, yet rejected Jesus, he
said, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad"
(verse 56). Only a superficial mind would quote these words to prove the
pre-existence of Christ. All that is required to see the meaning is to notice
the words "my day"--a special day, a promised day of blessing for
Abraham and all of Abraham’s faith. That day is "the day of the
Lord," when "the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that
day shall there be one Lord, and his name one"--Zec.
14: 9. This day Abraham "saw afar off" (Heb.
"THE GLORY WHICH
I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS"
--JOHN 17: 5
These words of the Saviour are supposed to teach the preexistence of Christ.
The passage is as follows: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine
own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." To
make this passage serve the purpose of Trinitarianism,
we should have to believe that "before the world was" Christ was the
second person of the Trinity, co-equal with God the Father and "God the
Holy Ghost," and having the same glory which these other two persons of
the Trinity had. Now the question would be, what power
would any one of these three co-equals have to take the glory from any one of
the others? If "God the Son" was actually in possession of equal
glory with the other two "before the world was," how came that glory
to be taken from him for a time; and who made its return to him dependent upon
his probation? and how came any one co-equal to have
the power and the right to put another co-equal on probation at all? Nothing but
confusion arises from any attempt to explain the passage upon Trinitarian
grounds. But upon Scripture grounds it is simple enough. "Before the world
was" God had purposed to beget Jesus and empower him, under severe trial,
to overcome the world and all its evils and temptations; and as a reward for
his becoming the "Captain of our salvation through suffering" he
purposed to glorify his Son with himself--with His own glorious nature. Jesus
as "God manifested in the flesh" had manifested the attributes of his
Father in a life of perfect holiness; and he had given all the glory to God, in
that he had made it clear that "of his own self he could do nothing."
This was foreordained of God and the plan of redemption had been arranged
accordingly. In the days of David, God had said of Jesus, "In suffering
for iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of
the children of men; but my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it
from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall
be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for
ever"--II. Sam. 7: 14-16. Jesus now having "suffered for
iniquity," and been "chastened with the rod of men," the time of
his reward had come. Therefore he says, "I have glorified thee on the
earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me
to do." And now had come the time when he was to receive in fact that
glory which he had in promise and in the purpose of the Father before the world
was.
If Christ could, in the
purpose of God, be "A lamb slain from the foundation of the world,"
and yet not actually be slain for, say, four thousand years, why may he not in
the purpose of the Father have glory before the world was, and yet not come
actually into the possession of that glory till four thousand years had passed,
and he had fulfilled the requirements upon which the bestowal of the glory had
depended? First appearing as "a man of sorrow and acquainted with
grief;" "made in all points like unto his brethren," of the same
flesh and blood, mortal nature, he worked out the "way" and became
"the way, the truth and the life;" and for this the
"Giver of good" glorified him with himself by giving him the divine
nature and exalting him to His own right hand.
Some quote the words,
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" to prove that
Jesus was Almighty God. That he was Almighty God by being constituted a
manifestation of God, in the sense of the "arm of the Lord" stretched
out, is gloriously true. That he was a manifestation of God in a sense that no
other being ever was is true; but whatever he was was
due to God as the source of all power and authority. Hence the words now in
question are, "All power is given unto me." The giver was God;
the recipient was Jesus, the Christ of God.
IN THE BEGINNING WAS
THE WORD
The words of John 1: 1
are supposed to teach the pre-existence of Christ. The passage reads as
follows: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made
by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life;
and the life was the light of men." Verse 14--"And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth."
The Diaglott renders
the passage as follows: "In a beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was
with God, and the Logos was God. This was in the beginning with God. Through it
everything was done; and without it not even one thing was done. In it was
life; and the LIFE was the LIGHT OF MEN." Verse 14--"And the LOGOS
became flesh, and dwelt among us,--and we beheld his GLORY, the Glory as of an
Only-begotten from a Father,--full of Favor and Truth." A footnote on
verse 13 reads, "Griesbach notes a different
reading of this verse. Instead of hoi. .
. egenneetheesan he has hos . . . egeneethee;
the singular pronoun and verb for the plural, which would make the passage
read: ‘Who was not begotten of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God;’ thus referring it directly to the physical generation
of Messiah, by the spirit of God, rather than to the moral regeneration of
believers."
This reminds us of that
part of the subject we have already treated of in which Jesus is seen to be
undoubtedly the Son of God by miraculous begettal. Indeed, apart from this
critical note by a very learned man, the words of John in the first part of his
Gospel cannot be applied to the production of a mere man; nor
to the spiritual sonship of such a man. Verses 12 and
13 would read as follows, according to Griesbach’s
note, and the Diaglott rendering: "But to ‘as many as received him, he
gave authority to become children of God, to those believing into his name’
[the name of him] who was begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God."
In this passage again,
it is necessary to avoid the two extremes, and allow for the divine and human sonship of Jesus without falling into the absurdity of the
Trinity or into the Josephite theory. It must be
admitted that the words are not easily understood. They require a greater
effort of mind than do the literal and simple words throughout the Scriptures
generally. No interpretation of them should be accepted for a moment that does
not harmonize with the teachings of the more simple parts of scripture.
Parables and difficult statements must be governed by the clearly revealed
truths, and not the reverse. It is difficult to see why Trinitarians seek
refuge in this scripture; and as for Josephites, it
is utterly opposed to their theory. That divinity is the very essence of the
words is clear; but divinity in what sense is the question to be decided. If
the inspired apostle had the Trinity in mind, we must conclude that he failed
to give an intelligent expression of it. Something like the following would
have been more in harmony with that theory: In the beginning was the second
person of the Godhead, and the second person of the Godhead was with the other
two persons of the Godhead, and the second person of the Godhead was part of
God. Verse 14--And the second person of the Godhead entered into a body and
flesh and dwelt among men.
This is very different
to the words employed by the apostles, and to any reasonable meaning to be
derived from them. One must imagine that "the Word" was a second
person of the Trinity, for it does not so state; and as for the statement that
"the Word was made flesh" it would have to be denied, and changed to
say that the Word came personally down from heaven in immortal nature; and,
instead of "becoming flesh," continued to be spirit as much as it
ever had been from all eternity; and, as a spirit, a person, a God--the second
co-equal God--inhabited a flesh body until that body was nailed to the tree,
when that same spirit, immortal being--that co-equal God, very God--forsook the
body and continued in an immortal living, personal existence until that same
second person of the Trinity re-entered the body, changed it into a like
immortal nature with itself, and ascended in that body to heaven; where, since
then, there are two co-equal Gods without bodies, and one co-equal God with a
body. This is the theory in plain words; and from this reason turns away, and
asks for a solution that is reasonable, and prays not to be tormented with
absurd, unthinkable theories which dishonor God, nullify His word, and bewilder
and bewitch mankind. The first question to be considered is the "beginning"
mentioned in verse 1. All things have a beginning except God, out of whom all
things have been evolved by his will and power; but all things have not the
same beginning. The Authorized Version conveys the idea that the
"beginning" was when this terrestrial world was made, and that this
is the "world" referred to in the tenth verse, and that since the
words are, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him," it
is claimed that Christ existed as God before the creation and that he made this
terrestrial world. Now it is evident that if there are three persons in the
Godhead, the work of creation was not the work of one of them as distinct from
the other two. There is only one Creator, and to make verse 10 mean that
"God the Son" made the world would be to teach that he alone created
it. In all difficult passages of scripture there are clues to help the
understanding, if we but search diligently for them. In this case we are helped
to decide what "world" is meant by the latter clause of verse 10--"And
the world knew him not;" followed immediately by the statement,
"He came to his own, and his own received him not ("knew him
not"). But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God." This shows that the "world" that "knew him
not" and which he was in when they knew him not was the Mosaic world to
which he appeared as the "King of the Jews." The Greek word for world
here is not aeon (age), but kosmos,
which means order of, or constitution of, things. The Mosaic
"world," which was composed of rulers, ruled and laws, etc., was a
part of another "world" or order of things, having been
"added" to it "because of transgression till the seed should
come to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3: 19). This "world"
was arranged in the purpose of God long before the Mosaic law
was added to it. It exists now as the plan of the ages, with some of the
material prepared, and as a reality fully completed it is the "world to
come, whereof we (the apostles) speak"--Heb. 2: 5. This is the age (world)
to come, and the kosmos (world) to come, when the
habitable or earth (world) will be filled with the glory of the Lord.
Now Christ is the Alpha
and Omega of this world. He is "in this world" in all its
parts, and without him it cannot be considered; he, in the Father’s plan and
beautiful arrangement, is the reason of all things pertaining to it, since he
was predetermined to be the medium of the manifestation of God’s power and
glory. In this work Christ is first the reason of what the Father through
various instrumentalities has done; and after he came into personal existence
he was active in effecting the great work of framing this world, or kosmos. So that in these two aspects he is
spoken of in verse 10 thus, in the Diaglott rendering: "He was in the
world, and the world was (enlightened) through him; and yet the world knew him
not," that is, that part of it which was a "schoolmaster to bring us
to Christ," consisting of the Jews who "knew not the day of their
visitation," and who were "his own" who "received him not."
Every man who "cometh into the world" which Christ is the subject of,
the means of, the all of, he lighteth; but he is not
a light to every one who cometh into this Adamic world, of which the Authorized
Version makes him appear the creator, in rendering verse 3 as follows:
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that
was made." The Diaglott rendering puts this in quite a different light:
"Through it [the Logos] every thing was done; and without it not
even one thing was done, which was done." The Doer was God,
"through" or because of, and afterwards by means of, Christ. A
footnote on the Greek word rendered in the A. V. "made" and in the
Diaglott "done," says:
Ginomai occurs upwards of
seven hundred times in the New Testament, but never in the sense of create, yet
in most versions it is translated as though the word was ktizo.
The word occurs fifty-three times in this Gospel, and signifies to be, to
come, to become, to come to pass; also, to be done or transacted. All things in
the Christian dispensation were done by Christ, i.
e., by his authority, and according to his direction; and in the
ministry committed to his apostles, nothing has been
done without his warrant.
When a plan is made of
any thing to be done, the completion of the plan is the end in view; which
becomes the cause of all that is done in reaching the end. In this sense
everything from the beginning to the end is done through, or by, in the sense
of because of, the end in view, the end to be
accomplished. If a father should plan to effect some great enterprise in behalf
of his son; and if he should fail and become a bankrupt, suffering many serious
results, one might say to the son, "It was all through you." Even
before the son were able to actually do any thing in helping to effect the
plan, it could be said of what was being done that "all things were done
by (in the sense of because of) him." This evidently is the sense in which
all things were done by Christ before his personal existence; for no one can actually
do any thing before he has an existence. Now as to the
"beginning," it was the beginning of the "world" which God
purposed to develop through Christ, a "world" expressed by various
terms in scripture, such as "a city which hath foundations,"
"the world to come," "new heavens and new earth," "all
things new," "new creation," "eternal plan," etc.
Christ was in this in its divine conception--in its beginning and will
be to its completion; but he was not in it in its beginning in the same sense
that he is now and will be in its completion. In one sense he was in this
world in the beginning as a "lamb slain;" but not actually slain
till he became a personality; for in the very nature of things there could be
no personality to be slain till he was begotten and born. Therefore the passage
under consideration does not say, "In the beginning was Jesus;" nor,
"In the beginning was Christ;" nor does it say, "In the
beginning was God the Son." But it says, "In the beginning was the Word,"
or Logos; and now we must seek for the meaning of this word
Logos. In the Diaglott the Greek word is transferred, not translated; and a
footnote gives the following reason for this:
In this (verse 1) and
the fourteenth verse logos has been transferred, rather than translated.
Dr. A. Clarke remarks, "This term should be left untranslated, for the
very same reasons why the names Jesus and Christ are left
untranslated. As every appellative of the Saviour of
the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature, or work,
so the epithet Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech,
eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly
applied to him."
By some the Logos has
been regarded as meaning Wisdom, the word being personified as in Prov. 8: 22, without entertaining the idea of it meaning a
person--the second person of the Trinity; and perhaps "wisdom" is a
word which the most nearly expresses the thought, though it is questionable if
any one word will fully express the meaning. Perhaps a few questions and
answers will help in the case:
What does Logos mean
as a mere word?--A word spoken, speech, doctrine, reason, thought expressed,
and wisdom.
What does it seem to
refer to in John 1: 1?--It seems to refer to a plan or purpose which the Theos, or Deity, arranged, and partly
revealed as "doctrine," by which to enlighten mankind upon the
purposed salvation of the world through or by means of a manifestation of
Himself in a Son begotten by Him and born of the flesh and blood common to
mankind, who would be the Logos, or "Word made flesh."
What shall we
understand by the statement: "And the Word (Logos) was with God"?--We
shall be helped to understand how the Logos was with God, without
regarding it as a person, by the manner in which wisdom is spoken of in the
Scriptures, for example, Prov. 8. In verse 22 we
read: "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works
of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was." Also in verse 30--"Then I was by him as one brought
up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before
him." Wisdom here, though personified, is not supposed to be a person, but
is an attribute of Deity--the Wise One who is the Creator of all things. The
language of the entire chapter is very forcible in
declaring that all things have been created by the wisdom of the one, and only
one Great Creator, and not by three, nor by any one of three.
Is the Wisdom of
this scripture the same as the Logos of John?--In the sense that the
wonders of both originate in Deity they are the same; Wisdom in the first
instance seems to relate to creation in a general sense, while the Logos seems
to have a special application to the plan of salvation and the
"restitution of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets
since the world began."
It not only says that
the Logos was with God; but that "the Logos was God."
What does this mean?--Both Wisdom and the Logos were with God;
but if God had never expressed, or revealed, His wisdom and the doctrine
embodied in the Logos, we should never have known any thing about
either. It is through His Spirit that God expresses His plans, purposes
and doctrines; and to have these in our minds is to have the Word "dwell
in us richly." "My words are spirit," says
Jesus. If the words are spirit, and spirit is God and God is
spirit, then it could be said that the Logos was God as well as that the
spirit was or is God; for the Spirit of God is that which flows out from
Himself as the rays of the sun is the sun in extension and in diffusion.
Now let us try to
paraphrase the matter: In the beginning, when God had determined upon that part
of His vast and mighty work--the evolution of the Adamic world, or order of
things, and the ultimate blessing of its righteous survivors, was the Logos--a
plan conceived and partly revealed, spoken or expressed by means of Deity’s
Spirit, He being a spirit, and spirit therefore being an emanation from Him.
And the Logos, as wisdom, in relation to his great plan, was with God in
the same sense that Wisdom is said to have been by and with Him before creation
(Prov. 8:), and the Logos, being divine
wisdom, and that wisdom expressed or revealed, concerning the great plan, by
means of spirit, which is God, the Logos was the Theos,
or God. It being the essence, the Alpha and Omega, of the great plan, that
the divine purpose should be made dependent upon the moral achievements of a
divine Son begotten in the flesh and blood nature of the fallen race of Adam, a
time, a "due time," was arranged for when the purpose would, by
divine power, assume a personal and tangible form, the plan become materialized,
as it were; and therefore "the Word (Logos) was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth." Therefore "that
which was (as the Logos) from the beginning, which (as the Logos made flesh) we
have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and
our hands have handled, of the Word of life" (I. John 1: 1). This was
Jesus, "God with us;" and He having achieved the great end in view in
the Father’s purpose, experienced the immortalization of that flesh which the
Logos became, and is therefore now the "Word of God" (Rev. 19: 13) or
the Spirit of God in personal, corporeal, glorious form; having been "God
manifest in the flesh," or a manifestation of God, mentally and morally in
the flesh, he is now, and will shortly so appear on the earth, and will be
eternally, a glorious manifestation of God in the spirit nature--the final end
that was in view from "the beginning," by which, through which,
because of which, or account of which every thing was done that was done
concerning the world, or kosmos, that
will eternally glorify God, honor His Son and bless the righteous survivors of
all mankind.
"I AND MY
FATHER ARE ONE"
These words, in John
10: 30, are supposed to support the theory of Christ’s
eternal co-equality with God as assumed by Trinitarians. But if there are three
co-equals the expression of Jesus is a strange one, in that it ignores the
supposed third person of the Trinity--"God the Holy Ghost." Had Jesus
believed that there was a "third person of the Godhead," he would
have said, "I and my Father and the Holy Spirit are one"--"three
in one and one in three." Now that Jesus in the days of his flesh was not one
in substance with the Father is evident from the fact that he "was
made lower than the angels" (Heb. 2: 9), and angels are of divine
nature. It was not until he was glorified and immortalized that he became one
in substance with the Father; and even this fact does not prove his
co-equality and co-eternity, because all his redeemed ones are to be "made
like him" in substance by a "change of the vile body," and yet
no one claims their consubstantiality means any thing approaching the
Trinitarian theory of co-equality.
There is no excuse for
the false interpretation of the words in question; they are not difficult of
understanding. The previous verse is clearly opposed to the popular claims. How
could one co-equal say of another, "My Father, which gave them me, IS
GREATER THAN ALL?" Here is an acknowledgment of the Father’s supremacy and
of the Son’s obligation to the Father. The oneness consisted in the fact
that the Father manifested himself in the Son, and thereby identified himself
with him in such a way that what the Son spake and
did, was the Father speaking and doing through the Son, because Jesus did
always the things which pleased the Father. In this sense he was the Father
brought down within reach of human capacity, so that the Infinite could be seen
in righteous action upon the human plane, and thus show
mankind "the way, the truth and the life," practically and
experimentally.
Naturally there was in
Jesus the human will; but supernaturally he was also embued
with the divine will. The end to be achieved was the actual, practical
supremacy of the divine over the human by a mental and moral struggle that was
realistic, involving merit on the one hand, and the bestowing of reward on the
other. The climax of the struggle seems to have been reached when Jesus
exclaimed, "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me;
nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done"
(Luke
Now this same oneness
must obtain between God’s people, Jesus, and God; first, to the degree possible
for mere men, in the mental and moral sense. Then the oneness of nature will
follow as the reward, when we shall be "made like unto the angels to die
no more;" and, as the Apostle John says, "we
shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" at his coming again to
earth. Therefore Jesus prays for his disciples, "Keep through thine own
name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are"--John
17: 11. In verses 21-23 he further prays, "That they may be one; as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me." "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one even
as we are one."
"BY HIM WERE
ALL THINGS CREATED"
We come now to consider
Col. 1: 15-19. This passage is supposed to teach that Jesus was God from all
eternity because it is assumed that it declares him to be the Creator of the
universe. Let the eye glance over the four verses and it will immediately see
phrases that will set aside the Trinitarian theory--"the firstborn of
every creature;" "For it pleased the Father that in him should
all fulness dwell." He was not the
"firstborn" in the flesh; therefore his birth of Mary is not what is
referred to. On the Trinitarian hypothesis it would be quite as appropriate to
speak of the Father, or the Holy Spirit, as the "firstborn" as it is
to so speak of the Son; for the three are said to be "co-eternal."
Can one who never had a beginning be a "firstborn?"
"It pleased the
Father that in him should all fulness dwell."
Why this, if the Father was not supreme and the Son subordinate?
There are two
creations, first the natural, afterwards the spiritual. God is the One and Only
Creator of the natural world--the universe; and He through Christ is the Creator
of the spiritual world--the "world to come." As regards the
inhabitants of this planet, during the Adamic age, they are "natural
bodies;" and in "the world to come," they are to be
"spiritual bodies" (
It is evident that Paul
in the passage under consideration is not referring to the creation of the
terrestrial world, but to the celestial, which will be composed of "new
heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness"--II. Pet. 3: 13. It
was by, in the sense of, because of, Christ that the new creation was planned,
revealed and commenced in the beginning, and when he was begotten, born and
grew in wisdom and stature, he became personally and actively, in God’s hands,
the creator of the new creation. Since the new creation consists of a spiritual
state, "spiritual bodies," etc., Jesus, as the result of the faithful
work performed, became the firstborn of the new creation of God by resurrection
to the spiritual nature. We may therefore read the passage thus: "Who is
the moral image of the invisible God, the firstborn to immortality of every
creature of the new creation; for on account of him were all things pertaining
to the new creation created that are in the political heavens and earth,
whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities or powers; all such
things were created on account of him and for him; and he is, in eminence and
in the divine purpose, before all such things, and because of him all such
things consist. And he is the head of the body, the Church; who is the
beginning of the immortal state in respect to all of Adam’s
race, the first-born from the dead; that in all things pertaining to both
creations, in their mutual relations, he might have the pre-eminence. For on account of his faithfulness and victory under severe trial,
it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness
dwell."
We call special
attention to the fact that the apostle does not leave the least excuse for
imagining that he is referring to the creation of the natural universe; for he
is careful to define the nature of the "all things created" by
throwing in the explanatory clause--"whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers"--all these things were
created with a view to him and for him. Therefore, since his triumph,
the kingdoms of the world are under his control, and he is guiding them all to
that final end, when the seventh angel shall sound the seventh or "last
trump," and it shall be proclaimed that "the kingdoms of this world
are become the kingdom of our Lord and his Christ; and he shall reign for ever
and ever"--Rev. 11: 15. When he shall have "reigned till he hath put
down all enemies under his feet," the new creation, of which he is the
"firstborn," the "firstfruits," the "beginning,"
the "Alpha and the Omega," will be complete to the glory of the
Creator and the well being of His creatures. Meanwhile, the gradation of rank
is, "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the
man; and the head of Christ is God"--