Chapter 6

"THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD" ⁽⁷¹⁾

The sacrificial work of Jesus

For all Christians the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross is the cornerstone of their faith; for forgiveness of sins, and the reconciliation between God and man achieved by this event is one of the basic themes of Scripture. But there the unanimity among Christians sometimes ends. The reason why that sacrifice was necessary, and how it actually produced the salvation of mankind, has long been the subject of debate. Those who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity see the incarnation, i.e. God becoming man, as the only possible way in which such redemption could be attained. Hammond states 'Scripture, in almost every case of reference to the incarnation, suggests redemption as its purpose'. ⁽⁷²⁾  George Carey, long before his elevation to head of the Anglican Church, wrote 'Christianity stands or falls with the belief that it was God himself in the form of a man who trod this earth, suffered with and for men, and who died for them on the cross'. ⁽⁷³⁾ Prime wrote "It was only by Christ being both God and man that salvation could be obtained for sinful men and women". ⁽⁷⁴⁾

On the other hand some find the incarnation an obstacle to understanding the redemptive scheme. Granted that the death of Jesus is essential to the redemptive process, they ask how could a divine being really die? - a point that has been debated since the very inception of the doctrine of the Trinity. This section will explore the Scriptural teaching on the atoning work of Christ in the conviction that its testimony will be conclusive.

It is evident that before any decision can be made about the necessity or otherwise of the Saviour being God, an under-standing of Bible teaching on how God and man became estranged is vital. Once we grasp the reasons for and the results of the breach we can comprehend the requirements and the process of reconciliation. Only then will we be able to decide if the incarnation fits all the requirements of the case, or whether other explanations must be sought.

In the New Testament the redemptive work of Jesus is inseparably linked to the first member of the human race:

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22).

In Romans the Apostle Paul goes further and states that Adam typified Jesus: "Adam ... was a type of the one who was to come" (Romans 5:14). The Genesis account of the creation of man is endorsed by Jesus as a factual record (Matthew 19:4-5, etc.), and it is from there that the New Testament writers start their exposition of the office and work of the Redeemer. This must be our starting point too.

Adam was created from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7), but although in the case of the animals both male and female had been created individually, in man's instance only the male was formed. Eve was not created directly from the dust, but by re-fashioning a part of Adam himself:

"So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man" (Genesis 2:21-22).

The formation of Eve from a part of Adam is the basis of the special sympathy that exists between husband and wife as distinct from the mere pairing of animals. As the record continues:

"Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man'. Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24).

This identity of nature between man and woman and the sympathy that derives from it is used in the New Testament to describe the relationship between Christ, the Second Adam, and his bride, the Redeemed. In his letters the Apostle Paul quotes the Genesis passage and applies it to Jesus and his church:

"For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one'. This is a great mystery, and I take it to mean Christ and the church" (Ephesians 5:29-32).

So right at the beginning God foresaw the perfect relationship that would one day exist between Christ and his figurative bride, the redeemed. But the important point to note for our present purpose is that in the same way as the original bride and bridegroom shared an identical physical make-up, so the Second Adam and his bride were to come from the same human stock. We will have to refer to this in much more detail later on, but for the moment we note the significant fact that the teaching was there from the commencement of human life on earth.

The Origin of Sin and Death

The newly created human pair were placed by God in an idyllic setting amidst the trees and rivers of Eden. There was nothing to mar their happiness. The beauty of their surroundings, the joy of being alive, and especially the intimacy they experienced with God and the angels must have been a cause of great satisfaction to the newly created pair. No doubt God told them of the sort of life that He expected of them, and they in their turn trusted and desired to please Him.

But such a situation had one drawback. In the very nature of things their service, whilst acceptable, was almost automatic in the sense that there was no incentive to do anything else. A modern robot slavishly following its pre-programmed instructions does not give spiritual satisfaction to its maker. So Adam and Eve needed a further dimension to their relationship with God if the original intention of bringing pleasure to God (Psalm 147:10-11) was to be achieved. This was provided by a simple test of their allegiance. God singled out a tree, beautiful and fruitful, and told them not to eat its fruit or even touch it, on pain of death:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for the day that you eat of it you shall die' (Genesis 2:16-17).

Eve, then Adam, failed this test of character. Prompted by the enticement of the serpent they both took and ate the fruit. Their disobedience had been induced by the serpent's reasoning, which implanted in their minds a distrust and unbelief in God:

"But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil'" (Genesis 3:4-5).

In first accepting this reasoning, and then reaching out to grasp and eat the fruit, Adam and Eve were not succumbing to a momentary lapse. It was a deliberate challenge to God's word and character. There were several aspects to their disobedience:

1. They failed to believe God. They suggested He had lied when He said they would die. In other words they implied God was untrue, unreliable and unjust.

2. They wanted to be like God, and attempted what they thought would be a short cut to achieve this.

3. They challenged God's supremacy, setting up their own will in opposition to His.

4. They had demonstrated pride.

Because of His supreme position and His absolute righteousness, this challenge by man was something God could not merely overlook. He could not simply absolve man's guilt, and fail to carry out the promised death penalty. Yet at the same time one thing is clear: God wanted to forgive, but this could not be at the expense of His own preeminence. He could not permit to remain unpunished any who accused Him of being unrighteous, or who in pride set up their will against His. That would be to condone the existence of another will than His own, and would have compromised His claim to sovereignty. The only way to rectify the situation would be for mankind in some way to openly demonstrate that God had been right that despite what had happened in Eden His supreme position remained unchallenged.

This is the dilemma of redemption. Man, for his part, was powerless to act. Sin (failure to live to the glory of God Romans 3:23) was now ingrained into his very nature and by his way of life he and his progeny continually challenged God's will. If man could not help himself, could God save him? If without irreverence we can put it in human terms, was it possible for God to devise a scheme by which man could be forgiven, and yet at the same time the Almighty's own righteousness and justice be seen to be preserved? In other words, how could God, to use Isaiah's phrase, be at the same time a 'righteous God and a Saviour' (Isaiah 45:21)? That was the issue. It is a measure of the wisdom of God and His love for mankind that He achieved satisfaction of these two apparently irreconcilable objectives. He saved man without any detriment to His supremacy and righteousness.

The New Testament tells us that this demonstration of God's righteousness was accomplished on the cross. Paul wrote concerning the sacrifice of Jesus:

"This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous ... " (Romans 3:25-26).

The origin of Jesus and his physical nature have a vital bearing on his ability to demonstrate God's righteousness in the way described here. If Jesus was to vindicate God's position where Adam had failed, it was imperative that he was a man who truly and completely represented the human race in every aspect, and yet at the same time a man who was absolutely sinless and so did not deserve to die.

God, in his love for fallen man, predicted to the original pair the coming of the Saviour. First by a spoken promise and later by a very symbolic act God gave man hope that reconciliation would be made, with the eventual restoration of all that had been lost in Eden. The promise was contained in God's address to the three participants. Whilst He told Adam that after a life of toil and difficulty the death penalty would be certainly carried out, he gave a message of hope in His address to the serpent:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel" (Genesis 3:15).

The woman's seed is the Saviour

God was obviously using figurative language, so what do the various 'seeds' stand for? First, the serpent's seed. As the instigator of the transgression, the serpent stood for sin. So in figure all the descendants of Adam and Eve whose lives are ruled by sin are the seed of the serpent (cp Matthew 23:33, John 8:44). God said that this power of sin was to receive a head (i.e. fatal) wound. By predicting this deadly wound to the serpent's seed God was foretelling the eventual destruction of sin and death that had just entered the world. But who was to actually deliver this lethal blow to sin? Was it to be God? No. It was to be the woman's seed who would bring this victory: "He shall bruise your head". However, in fatally wounding the serpent's seed, the woman's seed would himself have to suffer. But it would only be a temporary wound: in the heel.

All this clearly pointed forward to the work of Jesus on the cross. By his death he triumphed over sin, killing it and nailing it to his cross. But in achieving this victory he experienced the temporary heel-wound of death, which was healed three days later at his resurrection. As a result of Christ's victory all who believe in him can have their sins forgiven and receive eternal life. In this way the woman's seed was to kill the serpent's seed: or, in plain language, Jesus was to destroy sin and its consequence, death. This victory over sin and man's reconciliation to God is one of the grand themes of the New Testament:

"Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:3).

"And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death ..." (Colossians 1:21-22).

Coats of Skins

The second hint of future redemption is contained in the symbolic act recorded in Genesis 3:21 where God clothes Adam and Eve with coats of skins. In Genesis 2:24 we are told that the newly created Adam and Eve were naked, yet not ashamed. In their innocence they saw nothing unseemly in the absence of clothing. But the record goes on to say that immediately they had sinned, the first pair became conscious of their nakedness, and attempted to conceal it by an improvised apron of fig leaves (Genesis 3:7). Why does God particularly record this? It was a way of giving further details about man's redemption. Clearly they equated their nakedness with their sin and felt an instinctive need to cover that sin from God's sight. They did this with something of their own providing. But by means of this acted parable God showed that they could not cover their own sins. Only He could do that. God substituted another sort of covering in place of the fig leaves:

"The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21).

The skins must have come from a slain creature, possibly a lamb, so here was the first animal sacrifice. God shed the blood of an animal in order to provide a covering for sin. But doing this did not actually achieve forgiveness. It was only a type or figure of the real means of forgiveness that would be made possible by the future death of the Lamb of God. So this act also pointed forward to the sacrifice of Jesus. By these means the record of man's creation and fall defines the principles for redemption. These are:

1. God's righteousness or justice must be demonstrated.

2. Man cannot cover his own sins.

3. Sin can only be covered by God.

4. Blood must be shed.

5. The agent of forgiveness would be a descendant of Eve.

6. That descendant must have the same physical nature as those he will redeem.

The New Testament writers take up these points and apply them to the redemptive work of the Son of God. John Baptist declared that Jesus was the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Peter, referring to the curse brought by sin upon man from the beginning, says that we were redeemed from the "futile ways inherited from our fathers, not with perishable things such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot" (1 Peter 1:18-19).

Jesus was like us in every way

But although Jesus was sinless and spotless, he still possessed the nature that in all others produced sin. This was an essential element in being able to inflict the fatal wound on the serpent's seed, or devil as it is sometimes called in the language of personification:

"Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil" ... "Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect" (Hebrews 2:14,17).

And because he shared human nature he was able effectively to sympathise with and save those 'children':

"Because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted".

"For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Hebrews 2:18, 4:15).

Note that the effectiveness of Christ's work depended on his being able to identify himself with us in every way.

Christ succeeded where Adam failed

Remembering, as we have already seen, that forgiveness of man must not in any way compromise God's justice and righteousness, we ask how the voluntary self-sacrifice of a sinless member of the human race achieved the remedy for the situation in Eden. It was by Jesus resisting and overcoming the errors introduced by Adam. This is the real teaching of passages such as the celebrated reference in Philippians 2:6, where the believers are exhorted to copy Christ's example of humility:

"Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped ..."

We have already considered this passage in detail (p. 203ff) and seen that it is not a definition of the incarnation. Rather is Paul contrasting the attitudes and achievements of Adam and Jesus. Once this is appreciated, his choice of words to make the contrast is striking. The first human pair in their pride and their desire to be equal to God reached out to grasp the forbidden fruit. By contrast Jesus, although a perfect exhibition of God's character, humbled himself, and counted equality with God not a thing to be grasped, and awaited God's reward in His own good time.

Added to these ideas are other New Testament hints of the contrast between Adam and Christ. Adam was self-willed, and as a result disobeyed God. Jesus in everything subjected his own will to that of his Father:

"Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God" (Hebrews 10:7).

"I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me" (John 5:30).

"For I have come ... not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me" (John 6:38).

"Not what I will, but what thou wilt" (Mark 14:36).

Further contrasts are that Adam was a sinner, whilst Jesus was sinless, and that whilst death was demanded of Adam because of his sin, the sinless Jesus voluntarily sacrificed his life.

Putting all these ideas side by side will emphasise the New Testament teaching that wherever Adam failed, Jesus succeeded.

Why was Christ's sacrifice effective?

It could well be asked how it was that the voluntary sacrifice of this perfect representative of the human race enabled God to deliver man from the thraldom of sin and the bondage of death without compromising His justice and righteousness. The answer seems to be found in those passages that state that the death of Jesus was a declaration of the righteousness of God, or, to use the equivalent term, the justice of God (the words being the same in the original). Paul told the Romans that the Gospel was:

"The power of God for salvation to every one who has faith ... for in it the righteousness of God is revealed" (Romans 1:16-17).

Later in the same letter he elaborates on the way in which Jesus demonstrated the righteousness of God. In chapter 3 the apostle gives three aspects of the sacrifice of the Son of God, each of which was concerned with exhibiting the righteousness of God. The passage is below split into its components, using Young's Literal translation. After saying that sinners will be "declared righteous freely ... through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus", he goes on, by the triple repetition of the word 'for', to emphasise three things that Christ's sacrifice achieved things past, present and future. By the blood of Christ God showed His righteousness (a) to forgive bygone sins, (b) for present acceptance of Jesus and (c) to in the future declare as righteous those who believe in Jesus. Tabulating the verses may make these three aspects more clear:

"whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through faith in his blood, for the showing forth of his righteousness because of the passing over of bygone sins in the forbearance of God

 

for the showing forth of his righteousness in the present time,

 

for his being righteous, and declaring him righteous who is of the faith of Jesus" (Romans 3:25-26).

This passage is most important to the understanding of the sacrifice of Christ. Here we have the essence of the matter for our reverential, thankful and joyful contemplation.

The word translated 'set forth' has the meaning of 'to display or put out publicly', and among its common uses was to describe the laying out of a dead body, especially the lying in state of an important person. It was therefore a very appropriate word for Paul to choose to describe the death of Jesus. It indicates that his sacrifice had to be public. A quiet secluded death with no spectators or publicity would not have served God's purpose.

Notice once more that it is all about righteousness. Paul says in this passage under consideration that the first two of the three reasons for this public act were to 'show forth' the righteousness of God, both in His past and present actions. Despite the similarity to the phrase 'set forth', 'showing forth' is a different original word, meaning to 'demonstrate' or 'prove'. In what way did the death of Jesus, witnessed by so many, 'demonstrate' the righteousness or justice of God? This, we suggest, is the key to the matter. It can be understood in the following way. The public death of Jesus, a fully representative man, vindicated ⁽⁷⁵⁾ the position that God took in Eden. How was this? In the Garden man was justly condemned to death for his sin of declaring God to be unrighteous. At Calvary Jesus showed God to be righteous. In what way? In the person of Jesus, the Seed of the Woman, we have one who shared in every respect the physical nature of all humanity, yet one who never once sinned. Few would disagree that the death of sinners is indeed 'just', but was it right that the only morally perfect man who ever lived should die? "Yes", said Jesus in effect. In voluntarily offering himself on the cross Jesus acknowledged that the original death penalty on Adam was also just. It was as if Jesus had said "God was righteous in punishing Adam. This death of mine shows how condemned human nature should indeed be treated". Thus as well as publicly demonstrating the original justice of God, the cross was also a token of God's supremacy, which Adam had sought to deny.

Once this righteousness of God had been publicly 'showed forth' the effect was to reverse the situation in n. There God's righteousness had been impugned, but at Calvary God's righteousness and sovereignty had been upheld. On this basis He could now forgive man without any compromise to His position. To refer again to the words of Isaiah, having been shown to be a 'righteous God' He could now be a 'Saviour' (Isaiah 45:21).

The believers in Jesus will also become righteous

With God's position of righteousness and justice now openly upheld, what was the effect for mankind? This is where Paul's third point in the Romans 3 passage comes into play. God set forth Jesus on the cross 'for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who is of the faith of Jesus'. Here is the grand result of Christ's sacrifice. Not only did it show God "being righteous" but all those who believe in Jesus (and by that is meant more than just a verbal expression of belief ⁽⁷⁶⁾) will themselves be accounted righteous by God even though they are sinners. As Paul triumphantly says in another letter:

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

This is the great achievement of the Cross. Men and women who believe in Jesus will be reckoned righteous by God even though they are sinners. All their personal sins will be willingly forgiven by a loving heavenly Father for Jesus' sake. And being righteous they are thenceforward related to life, as innumerable passages such as the following show:

"Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43).

The Resurrection of Jesus

But the process of making sinners righteous was not completed by the death of Jesus. A Saviour that remained in the grave would be ineffective. Later in his letter to the Romans Paul succinctly describes the whole process: Christ was

"put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification (literally 'our being made righteous', Romans 4:25).

Although in one sense God's justice demanded that Jesus should share the fate of all of mankind, whose death-prone nature he had inherited, in another sense it would be unjust for God to condemn a completely sinless man to remain in the grave. As Peter said on the day of Pentecost: "But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:24).

So Jesus became the 'firstfruits' from the dead the foretaste of a vastly greater harvest at the general resurrection of all those that had believed on him: "Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ" (1 Corinthians 15:23).

DOES THE INCARNATION FIT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REDEMPTION?

Having established these Scriptural principles concerning the way of atonement we can now turn to consider their implications for the person and nature of Christ, and so examine the feasibility of the incarnation.

The following aspects will be addressed:

1. Was Jesus a completely representative man?

2. Could Jesus have been tempted yet sinless if he was a member of the trinity?

3. The reality of the death of Jesus.

4. His resurrection and glorification.

5. Did Jesus benefit from his own death?

1. Was Jesus a completely representative man?

We have seen that for God's righteousness to be declared the sacrifice had to be that of a fully representative member of the human race. Only one who fully shared the nature that had been justly condemned could achieve the victory. Otherwise no forgiveness would have been possible. It is for this reason that the animal sacrifices offered under the Law of Moses were unable to satisfactorily atone for sins. As the writer to Hebrews says:

"For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" (Hebrews 10:4).

We have already noted that Adam and his bride shared an identical nature, and that this was a figure of the exact match between the nature of Christ and the rest of humanity. As we read again in Hebrews:

"For it was fitting that he ... in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren" (Hebrews 2:10-11).

And because of this shared origin, the physical make-up of Jesus was identical with all mankind:

"Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death" (Hebrews 2:14).

We have previously examined this verse in some detail under the heading 'Son of Man' (p. 158ff) but the understanding of the principles of the Atonement now gives the reason for Jesus needing to share exactly the nature of those he redeemed. But this sameness, which is vital to the redemptive process, is not admitted by those who believe in the incarnation, as the following show:

"God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh the word "likeness" implies that Jesus was similar to sinful men in His earthly life, yet not absolutely like them, because He Himself was without sin". ⁽⁷⁷⁾

"The Virgin Birth is the guarantee that no entail of birth-sin was passed on to Him". ⁽⁷⁸⁾

Thus whilst professing to accept the Scriptural teaching on the identity of nature between Christ and mankind, Trinitarians cannot bring themselves to agree it in practice. The present writers believe that the Bible teaches that it was precisely because Jesus was 'absolutely like them' in his physical make-up that he was able to be the perfect representative of mankind, through whose death God was able to extend His righteousness to all who believe in Jesus.

2. Could Jesus have been tempted yet sinless if he was a member of the trinity?

This aspect has already been covered in detail in section 2  p. 160ff, to which the reader is referred.

3. The reality of the death of Jesus.

This is a problem that advocates of the trinity hardly ever address. There is scarcely a more fundamental doctrine than the necessity of the actual death of the Saviour in order to achieve the redemption of mankind. It would be superfluous to quote even a selection of the many Bible passages that demonstrate this basic Christian belief. And death, by definition, is a cessation of all life, including all mental activity" the dead know nothing". ⁽⁷⁹⁾ But an equally fundamental doctrine concerning God is that He is not vulnerable to death.

Here are the horns of a dilemma. If Jesus was a component of the Godhead how then could he die? It must not be argued that the human body died, but the divine mental activity lived on that is not death of the person. How then did a component of an indivisible trinity all members of which are alleged to be co-eternal and co-equal, three in one and one in three how could one member die? On the other hand if it is argued that Christ, as God, could not die, then the basic requirements for atonement could not be met. The Trinitarian has to choose which horn of the dilemma is most comfortable. Either Jesus was a member (albeit a very special member) of the human race who could die in the real sense of the word, or he was part of a single united Godhead for which death is impossible. The voluntary 'death' of someone who couldn't really die is hardly in keeping with Scriptural requirements.

We may further add that even the cursory reader of the records of the passion will gain the impression that Jesus feared his impending death. Why was this if in fact he himself (as distinct from his body) was not actually going to die? Why did Jesus in Gethsemane say "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death", and go on to plead with his Father, "if it be possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matthew 26:38-39)? Even more striking, why did he cry to God to "save him from death" (Hebrews 5:7) if for him death was an impossibility?

When faced with these arguments we are sometimes told that it is wrong to attempt to bring logical thought to bear on this matter. The doctrine of the Trinity is a great mystery which needs to be believed although it cannot be understood.

"Though a philosopher cannot explain the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, a child can believe it. This great truth is not one about which we are to trouble our minds. We are simply to believe it, because God has revealed it to the Church, and the Church teaches it. Reason becomes lost in wonder ...". ⁽⁸⁰⁾

Notice that no claim is here made for the trinity being a Bible doctrine, only one that has been revealed to the Church. But the Bible unquestionably claims to do what the Church alleges to be unnecessary to instruct its readers about God and to give them an understanding of the Creator, and the Son's relationship with Him:

"I strive ... that their hearts may be encouraged ... to have all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:1-3).

Similarly Paul wrote to others that the first century spirit gifts were

"For building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain to ... the knowledge of the Son of God ... so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:12-13).

This insight into God was given by the Holy Spirit power with which Paul and the other apostles were invested. To the Corinthians he wrote:

"God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God" (1 Corinthians 2:10).

With such a precise indication that the Bible contains all that it is necessary to know about God and Christ, the claim that the Trinity is a mystery only revealed to the Church can be seen to be unfounded. So we can be sure that if the Bible does not address the problem of how God in the person of Christ could die, it is because no such problem existed. Jesus was not God and therefore the dilemma posed by the death of a member of the Trinity did not arise.

4. The Resurrection and Glorification of Jesus

To the original Christians the one distinguishing feature of their religion was not (as is alleged today) that Jesus was a member of a divine trinity but that Jesus who was crucified and buried actually rose again from the dead. Thus when the eleven remaining apostles deliberated on appointing a successor to Judas it was the ability to be a witness to the resurrection of Jesus that was the essential qualification:

"Beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection" (Acts 1:22).

So when the first Christians commenced preaching, the resurrection was their theme. On his very first public address Peter made the confident claim that:

"This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses" (Acts 2:32).

And later this was still the burden of their message:

"And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 4:33).

"Others said 'He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities 'because he (Paul) preached Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17:18).

Undoubtedly, then, the fact of the resurrection formed the basis of the Christian message. And when we come to the means by which the resurrection of Jesus was effected, the overwhelming Biblical evidence is that it was an act of God. It was a superlative example of the stupendous might of Christ's Father in heaven. To demonstrate the strength and consistency of this claim that Christ was raised by the power of God the following references are compelling in their cumulative testimony:

"God raised him up" (Acts 2:24). 

"This Jesus God raised up" (Acts 2:32).

"Whom God raised from the dead" (Acts 3:15, 4:10).

"The God of our fathers raised Jesus" (Acts 5:30).

"God exalted him at his right hand" (Acts 5:31).

"God raised him on the third day" (Acts 10:40).

"God raised him from the dead" (Acts 13:30).

"He has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead" (Acts 17:31).

"(God) that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord" (Romans 4:24).

"Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Romans 6:4).

"And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up (1 Corinthians 6:14).

"He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also" (2 Corinthians 4:14).

"For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God" (2 Corinthians 13:4).

"God the Father who raised him from the dead" (Galatians 1:1).

"Which he (God) accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead" (Ephesians 1:20).

"To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead" (1 Thessalonians 1:10).

"The God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus" (Hebrews 13.20)

"God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory" (1 Peter 1:21).

It would be difficult to find a more basic aspect of original Christian teaching, or to escape the clear meaning of these words and their implications for the relationship between God and His Son. The Father raised the Son. The first century Christians obviously regarded the two as independent beings, with the Father having the power to raise to life one who otherwise would have remained in Joseph's tomb. Jesus came to life 'by the power of God' (2 Corinthians 13:4), and having been raised up he became glorious not by his own intrinsic strength, but with a glory received from the Father 'who raised him from the dead and gave him glory' (1 Peter 1:21). It is valid to ask the question that if the apostles believed and taught any form of Trinitarian relationship between Jesus and God would they have used this sort of language, and used it so consistently? By no stretch of imagination could one infer from their words that an all-powerful deity needed the aid of a similarly omnipotent co-equal deity to achieve his resurrection.

Subsequent to his resurrection, as some of the above passages have shown, Jesus was given glory by God, showing that such glory was not an inherent characteristic. Jesus had been given a brief foretaste of this glory on the Mount of Transfiguration, when "his face shone like the sun" (Matthew 17:2). Now the Father had bestowed it permanently on the Son. Peter emphasised this in his speeches and writings. He told the crowd in the Temple that 'the God of our fathers glorified his servant Jesus' (Acts 3:13). This receipt of glory by Christ Peter saw as a reason for our confidence in God:

"Through him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God" (1 Peter 1:21).

It is evident that Peter taught that the Father was the superior power, who both raised and glorified Jesus; which fact becomes a source of our own confidence in God. This view of Peter's understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son is confirmed in his second letter. Referring to the transfiguration, when Jesus appeared in glory, Peter is at pains to point out that Christ's glory was received from God, 'the Majestic Glory' (2 Peter 1:16-17).

This bestowal of glory by God is mentioned frequently in the New Testament. Jesus himself said that at his return to the earth he will come "in the glory of his Father" (Matthew 16:27, Mark 8:38). The writer of the letter to the Hebrews defines more closely the stages of this glorification process. Applying the words of Psalm 8 to the Messiah he gives three steps by which Jesus has assumed his current position of dominion, second only to that of God Himself:

"Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels,

thou hast crowned him with glory and honour,

putting everything in subjection under his feet" (Hebrews 2:7-8).

The fact that Jesus at times received glory from God and throughout his subsequent existence displays God's glory gives an unmistakable indication of first century understanding of the relationship between the Father and Son. Jesus was not seen as having his glory of his own right, but received it from God. There was thus no idea of equality between the two in the minds of the original Christians.

5. Did Jesus benefit from His own death?

One of the consequences of Jesus completely sharing the physical nature of mankind with an identical bodily make-up, is that he possessed a body that was sentenced to death.

Jesus, whilst free from committed sins, still shared the dying nature of the rest of mankind. This has been amply demonstrated above (p. 158) and Paul further develops this point in Romans, saying that God sent "his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh .. and condemned sin in the flesh" (Romans 8:3). To Corinth he wrote in similar vein: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21).

The point we are making is that because Jesus was "made like his brethren in every respect" (Hebrews 2:17), he also had this in-built death sentence. His freedom from actual sins did not alter this. This means that Jesus himself needed redemption. He too needed the change from mortality to immortality. To most of those who subscribe to the conventional view of the deity of Jesus this would appear an extreme, even heretical, statement. But there are references in the New Testament that strongly suggest that the first century Christians endorsed this view.

One example is found in the letter to the Romans, in which Paul implies that death once had dominion over Jesus:

"For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him" (Romans 6:9).

Why would Paul have written "no longer has dominion" if death did not have dominion over Jesus at some previous time? Does not this suggest that Jesus himself needed saving from the power that death had over him?

The theme of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the contrast between the Law of Moses which symbolised the process of redemption, and the actual achieving of redemption by the work of Jesus. One of the examples cited is how the ritual of the Day of Atonement foreshadowed the complete forgiveness of sins made possible by Christ's death and resurrection. The Day of Atonement was the most sacred day of the Jewish calendar, on which atonement was made for the sins of the whole nation. In the innermost section of the holy tent called the Tabernacle was the Most Holy Place. Here stood the Ark of the Covenant which symbolised the place where God and man might meet. By a complex ceremony which culminated in the High Priest sprinkling the blood of an animal sacrifice on the golden lid of the Ark the nation's sins were forgiven. Full details of the events of this day are given in Leviticus chapter 16.

The key figure in all the ceremonial was the High Priest, who was the only one allowed into the figurative presence of God in the Most Holy. A notable detail of the ritual was that the High Priest actually went twice into the Most Holy, each time with the blood of a sacrifice. The first occasion was with the blood of a "sin offering for himself" (Leviticus 16:11), and the second with the blood representing the people (v15). Why did the High Priest need to make a separate atonement for his own sinful condition? There must have been some underlying meaning to the ceremony, a meaning that was part of the way in which Israel could be instructed about their coming Redeemer.

This figurative meaning is expounded in the epistle to the Hebrews, where the High Priest is clearly identified with Jesus, whose dual atoning function is retained. In contrasting his work with that of the Mosaic priests we read:

"He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did this once for all when he offered up himself" (Hebrews 7:27).

Speaking particularly of the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement the writer says:

"But into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people" (Hebrews 9:7)

What was the reason for this repeated reference to the fact that the High Priest had to make atonement first for himself and then for the people? Why is this aspect of the Day of Atonement ritual stressed when many others are ignored? Is there a reference here to the fact that, although free from committed sins, Jesus himself needed redemption?

This suggestion is confirmed when the climax of the contrast between the typical and the real High Priest is reached: "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:11-12).

In the Authorised Version the words for us are inserted after the word "redemption", but this is without any textual authority. The insertion maybe identifies a dilemma of the translators, for the original suggests that Jesus achieved redemption for Himself something that is suggested by the Day of Atonement symbology but something their theology could not accept. Roberts comments on this verse as follows:

"You will observe that the two italicised words, for us, are not in the original. In the Authorised Version of 1611 they are added to the translation, and they are added in defiance of grammatical propriety. In the Revised Version of 1881 they are omitted. The verb is in the middle voice, and the meaning of that is remarkable in this connection. We have no middle voice in English: we have passive or active voice: you either do or are done to in English; but in Greek, there is another voice, a middle voice, a state of the verb in which you do a thing to yourself. "Having obtained in himself eternal redemption". ⁽⁸¹⁾

Knowing the meticulous use of the Greek language by the writer of this epistle to the Hebrews it is inconceivable that he would have deliberately chosen to use the verb in this form if he was not conveying the idea that Jesus himself benefited from his own death. His "own blood" achieved his own salvation as well as the salvation of those who believe on him.

Apart from the typology of the Law of Moses, there is at least one other reference in the Old Testament that suggests Jesus achieved his own salvation by his sacrifice. In AV of Zechariah 9:9, a prophecy of Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, the marginal alternative rendering reads:

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and saving himself: lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass".

This will be recognised as very similar language to that of Hebrews 9:12, and supports the reasoning that Christ's sacrifice accomplished his own salvation.

This view that Christ needed to obtain salvation is confirmed by another passage in Hebrews. In two places we read of Jesus being made perfect after his death and resurrection with the obvious inference that he was not perfect before.

"For it was fitting that he ... in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering" (Hebrews 2:10).

"The word of the oath ... appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever" (Hebrews 7:28).

This is hardly the language of one who believed that Jesus was an immaculate pre-existent member of a trinity of Gods appearing in human form.

A further pointer to early Christian belief on this is found in the closing benediction of the letter to the Hebrews:

"Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will" (Hebrews 13:20-21). The eternal covenant is an Old Testament phrase used of the divine scheme of redemption embodied in the Promise to Abraham. ⁽⁸²⁾

The mission of Christ was to "confirm the promises given to the patriarchs" (Romans 15:8), which Jesus did by his death and resurrection. Thus the blood of the eternal covenant was Christ's own blood shed at Calvary, and the passage tells us this blood was the means of his resurrection.

We submit that there is unequivocal evidence that the early Christians saw Jesus as a man of their own race, specially raised up by God it is true, and far superior to every other man, but at the same time a man who because of his Adamic stock (though not for his personal sins) needed redemption as much as any other, and who achieved it for himself as well as for others by his death on the cross. If this is accepted then the case for Jesus being God incarnate simply cannot be sustained.

THE GRACE OF GOD AND THE LOVE OF JESUS

Because the nature of this study has necessitated a detailed examination of the principles of the Atonement through the work of Jesus, it is possible to have given the impression that this is a theoretical, almost technical subject. But Scripture does not treat redemption in this way. Nothing that has been said by the present writers is intended to obscure the most amazing fact, joyfully proclaimed from the lips of the Redeemer and the pens of the Apostles, that forgiveness of sins and consequent salvation is first and foremost a demonstration of love and grace towards man. The gift of the Saviour was because God loved the world. It was Christ's love that made him lay down his life for his sheep. It is by the grace of God, not because of any achievement on their part, that all the sins of those who believe in Jesus will be forgiven. It is by the goodness and loving mercy of God that those thus made righteous will be given immortality. And it is for the believer to receive this wondrous offer with joy and thankfulness, and to try to respond with a love that will give us "confidence for the day of judgment" (1 John 4.17).

Section 6: Jesus the "Beginning of God's Creation"

REFERENCES

71. Matthew 16:16

72. Hammond, T.C, In Understanding Be Men, p97, Pub. IVP

73. God Incarnate, p.51, Pub. IVP

74. Questions on Christian Faith answered from the Bible. p.46

75.  We use the term only by way of accommodation to our finite understanding. God needs no vindication for any of His actions.

76. Belief must be followed by baptism "into his death" (Rom. 6:2) and an acceptable way of life thereafter.

77. Prime, Op. cit. p45

78. The Catholic Religion, Op. cit. p167

79. Ecclesiastes 9:5. See also Psa. 6:5; 146:4; etc.

80. The Catholic Religion, Op. cit. p.153

81. The Blood of Christ p.8

82. Genesis 17:7, Genesis 22:16-18, Acts 3:25-26, Galatians 3:8,16,27-29) and in the Promise to David (2 Samuel 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Isaiah 55:3, Luke 1:32-33, Romans 1:3 etc.