01 - The Subject Stated
In the following pages A and B discuss the subject of the Deity of Christ. The standpoint of B represents the standpoint of The Berean Expositor; the arguments of A are an attempt to present justly the views which The Berean Expositor here entirely repudiates. The Subject Stated A - The Scriptures teach that there is ‘one God’, and one mediator, ‘the man’ Christ Jesus. The ‘one God’ is the Father, the man is ‘the Son’, and therefore I cannot believe what is commonly called the Deity of Christ.
B - Before we enter into any argument over this subject I trust we are both conscious of the solemnity of the question. A - Truth is one, and I do not believe we are right in speaking of one part as of more importance than another.
B - Truth is one indeed, and every part fundamental, yet Scripture makes a distinction which I am bound to follow. John in his second epistle says:
‘Whosoever transgresseth ("is advanced" Moffatt), and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God’
(2 John 1:9). A Dividing Doctrine In some cases divergent views can be tolerated and those holding them are to consider that both may hold them
‘unto the Lord’, but John in speaking of this doctrine takes a different attitude, saying that such a one ‘hath not
God’, and further, ‘receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed’. You will understand therefore that it is impossible for those responsible for The Berean Expositor to have fellowship with those who deny the Deity of Christ. This may sound narrow and bigoted, but it is the Scriptural attitude, and we have no alternative. A - I cannot understand how you can believe the Son of God to be God without at the same time believing that there are two Gods.
B - I am sure that by speaking of the Son of God in this way you are approaching the subject from the wrong end. May I suggest that we seek to understand this deep doctrine by studying the teaching of Scripture along the following lines:
(1) God Absolutely.
(2) God Relatively.
(3) God Manifest.
(4) God Manifest in the flesh. No Philosophy of God in Scripture As to ‘God absolutely’ we know nothing. Throughout the whole range of Scripture there is not to be found one statement that speaks of God Himself alone without relation to His creatures. The attitude of Scripture is expressed in the words, ‘He that cometh to God must believe that He is’. Philosophy would discuss the being of God; Genesis assumes His being, and proceeds to His works and ways. A - Do you not think this passage speaks of God absolutely?
‘Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy’ (Isaiah 57:15).
B - If you had continued your quotation you would see that this revelation of the Godhead is relative, for the passage immediately adds:
‘I dwell in the high and holy place, WITH HIM ALSO that is of a contrite and humble spirit’ (Isaiah 57:15).
You will see that the reference to the nature of God is not given for its own sake, but in order to emphasize the condescension of Him who dwells with the humble and the contrite. A - John says, ‘God is Spirit’.
B - Yes, but only because he would emphasize that ‘They that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth’ (John 4:24).
Perhaps if I read you a short extract from ‘The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry’, by Isaac Taylor, it may make my meaning clear:
‘If for a moment they (the Hebrew writers) utter what might have the aspect of an abstract proposition, they bring it into contact, at the nearest possible point, with the spiritual wants of men, or with their actual moral condition; as thus - "Great is the Lord, and of great power, and His understanding is infinite. He telleth the number of the stars: He calleth them all by their names", but this infinite and almighty Being is He that "healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds". It is the human spirit that is the central or cohesive principle of Hebrew Theology. The Theistic affirmations that are scattered throughout the books of the Old Testament are not susceptible of a synthetic adjustment by any rule of logical distribution ... the several elements of this Theism are complementary one of another only in relation to the needs, and to the discipline of the human mind; not so in relation to its modes of speculative thought, or to its own reasons. If we were to bring together the entire compass of the figurative Theology of Scripture (and this must be the Theology of the Old Testament) it would be easy to arrange the whole in periphery around the human spirit, as related to its manifold experiences; but a hopeless task it would be to attempt to arrange the same passages as if in a circle around the hypothetic attributes of the Absolute Being. The human reason falters at every step in attempting so to interpret the Divine Nature’.
Put into language more readily acceptable, these pregnant words tell us that we are not to look for a philosophy of the Godhead in the Scriptures, but that the whole revelation is limited to that which is circumscribed by the purpose of the ages. A - I think I perceive your meaning, but can you give some more concrete examples?
JEHOVAH, The Age-Title B - The title Jehovah will provide a good example. In Genesis 21:33 we read (A.V.):
‘And Abraham planted a grove in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting God’. The meaning of the original is just the reverse of this. The words, ‘The Lord, the everlasting God’ are in the original Jehovah El olam, ‘Jehovah, God of the age’. In Exodus 3:14 we have the title ‘I Am’, which is expanded as follows:
‘The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ... This is My name for ever (the age), and this is My memorial unto all generations’ (Exodus 3:15). In Revelation 1:4 we have a New Testament unfolding of the title Jehovah, which supplements the ‘I am’ of
‘Him which is (I am), and which was, and which is to come’. This expanded title occurs in varied orders according to the requirement of the context, but in Revelation 11:17 we read (R.V. and critical texts):
‘O Lord God, the Almighty, which ART and which WAST’; the future is omitted, the reason being:
‘because Thou hast taken to Thee Thy great power, and reignest’ (not hast reigned or will reign).
It is the glory of this great title that it does not last for ever, but that the Lord fulfils it. The eternity of the invisible God is nowhere in view. We shall have taken a step towards clearer understanding when we realise that the revelation of God is relative, and must always be considered as related to the purpose of the ages.
GOD - Relatively A - As there seems nothing revealed concerning God, except as related to the purpose of the ages, are we to expect a fuller revelation in the life to come?
B - In John 17:3 we read:
‘And this is aionian life, with the object that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Him Whom Thou didst send, Jesus Christ’ (author’s translation).
During the ‘age to come’, when aionian life will be enjoyed, those thus privileged will get to know God, in order to equip them for their share in bringing about the happy condition when:
‘The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea’ (Isaiah 11:9).
We know God now only through Christ and in no other way. The relationship which Christ bears to the ages may be seen by comparing the following Scriptures:
‘Christ is all and in all’ (Ta panta kai en pasi Christos, Colossians 3:11) During the ages.
‘That God may be all in all’ (Hina e ho Theos panta en pasin, 1 Corinthians 15:28) When the ages finish.
You will see that when we deal with the Scriptures that speak of God relatively, we are comp elled to consider those Scriptures which are ranged under our third heading:
GOD - Manifest It is in connection with this aspect of the subject that most of our difficulties occur. Let us examine the teaching of four passages of Scripture, viz., John 1:1; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:1-3; and Php 2:6-11. Let us commence with John 1:1 :
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’. A - There are some important alterations necessary to this translation before we can arrive at the truth. First there is no word for ‘the’ in the phrase ‘in the beginning’.
B - That is true, and but confirms our suggestion that the Bible is not occupied with the beginning, which must of necessity be beyond the grasp of human understanding. It refers to that period when creation was contemplated. IN that beginning WAS the Word.
SINCE that beginning the Devil sinneth, and is a murderer. A - There is a far more important alteration necessary. Instead of reading ‘the Word was God’, we must read
‘the Word was A God’, for the article is omitted. If we give full value to the article we shall read ‘the Word was with THE God, and the Word was A God’, THE God referring to the one true God, and A God to God in a subordinate and lower sense.
B - You therefore believe in two Gods, a greater and a lesser. A - No, I do not accept the idea of a number of persons in the Godhead.
B - Then He who is A God is really no god at all? A - I hardly know how to answer you, but I have the warrant of great Bible Students for my translation.
B - Do you ever use a concordance? A - Why, man, am I not continually urging the ‘concordant method’? And is not this new translation vouched for by those who advocate the concordant method? The Concordant Method
B - I am afraid I am not greatly moved for all the ‘urging’ and ‘advocating’ of the concordant method. What I ask you is, Have you tested this matter out for yourself? A - Well, I must confess that I have not.
B - Let us do so, and we will start with John 1:1-51. Here is a Greek concordance; find the word Theos, and tell me whether it occurs in John 1:1-51 without the article, and where the article is absent repeat the translation you have already suggested.
‘The Word was A God’ (John 1:1).
‘There was a man sent from A God’ (John 1:6).
‘Power to become children of A God’ (John 1:12).
‘Which were born of A God’ (John 1:13).
‘No one hath seen A God at any time’ (John 1:18).
B - Thank you, that will suffice. Is it necessary to emphasize how utterly false and untenable your interpretation becomes when tested? Did God in a subordinate sense send John the Baptist? Is the Father God in a subordinate sense? Then look at John 1:18. The invisible God must be THE God. A - Yes, I agree.
B - Yet, with the first verse hardly dry, the inspired penman (according to your teaching) makes the most atrocious blunder. Do you not agree that he forgot to write the article here in John 1:18 ? A - I can hardly do that, for I believe that all Scripture is inspired.
B - Then I see no alternative for you but to agree that the concordance disproves the theory of your teachers? A - I am afraid it is so, yet how is it that men who evidently have a knowledge of the original can have missed so obvious a refutation?
B - My dear friend, believe me, it is not the office of you or me to sit in judgment upon the motives of others.
We are simply dealing with facts. Their teaching when weighed in the balances is found wanting. We therefore, as simple followers of Christ, unhesitatingly reject it; we do no more, but we can do no less. A Parallel Usage A - I should like to know what I am to believe regarding this Greek article; I understood that its presence or absence is of great importance.
B - You are quite right; It is the false deductions that you have to guard against. A - Could you give me some usage parallel with John 1:1 ?
B - We find one in this very chapter, viz. John 1:14, ‘the Word was made flesh’. It is manifestly absurd to translate, ‘the Word was made A flesh’, yet the case is parallel. ‘The Word was Theos’; ‘the Word became sarx’. There is something more than the question of the article in John 1:1; there is also the order of the words. In the original the sentence reads, ‘and God was the Word’. This alteration of the order draws attention to the statement concerning the Deity of the Logos. As our subject is ‘God - manifest’, we must not leave John 1:1-51 without a further glance at verse John 1:18 :
‘No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath made him known’ (Diaglott). This passage really comes under the fourth heading, ‘God - manifest in the flesh’, and we may have to return to it. Here however it is closely connected with the verse which teaches that God is manifested in the Word, and so claims our attention. There is a reading favoured by Lm., Tr., WH., Rm., endorsed by the Numeric Version, Rotherham, and above all by the Syriac Version, which gives ‘God only begotten’ instead of ‘The only begotten Son’. I would not build a doctrine upon this reading, but it cannot be ignored. The prologue of John’s Gospel occupies John 1:1-18. The whole passage is an introversion, verse 1 balancing John 1:18. The three clauses of verse 1 find an echo in verse 18, thus: a In the beginning the Word. b The Word was with God. God manifest. c The Word was God.
* * * * * c Son (or God) only begotten. God manifest b In the bosom of the Father. in the flesh. a He hath declared Him.
Before the birth of Christ at Bethlehem He is called the Word, and revealed God. After His birth at Bethlehem He is called the Son, and revealed the Father. We must take this further when we come to the question of the Sonship of Christ.
Let us pass to our next passage viz. Colossians 1:15-16.