146 Sermon Illustrations on Incarnation

A missionary in India spoke near a fountain on the subject, "Jesus, the Water of Life." A Muslim interrupted, "Your religion is like this little stream of water, but Islam is like a great ocean!" "Yes," said the missionary, "but there is this difference: When men drink ocean water they die of thirst. When they drink the water of life which Christ gives, they live forever!" The stream is small, but it can satisfy your thirst. Jesus Christ came into the world as a little baby that He might show that no one is so little or so insignificant that the great God will not come to dwell within him.

A missionary visiting a poor hut in a refugee district was challenged by a suffering woman: "You tell us that you are interested in us and want to help us. But it's very easy for you to simply come to see us in our poverty-stricken home. The question is, are you ready to bring your family from the clean and comfortable home in which they live, in order to live in our district with all its poverty and suffering and sin? Would you do that in order to lift us up?" That is exactly what Christ did. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:16).

That he should be the seed of the woman was made known to Adam; but not of what nation, till Abraham; nor of what tribe, till Jacob; nor of what sex, till David; nor whether born of a virgin, till Isaiah. Thus, by degrees, was that great mystery of godliness revealed to mankind. "If any Jew object," saith Chrysostom, "how could a virgin bring forth? ('Die ei, quomodo peperit sterilis et vetula?') ask him, 'How could Sarah, when old and barren, bear a child?'" The bees have young, yet know not marriage. The phoenix, they say, hath no parents. This Head-stone of the corner was cut out of the mountain, without hands; this Flower of the field, this Rose of Sharon, hath heaven for his father, and earth for his mother. Was it not as easy to frame this second Adam in the womb, as that first Adam out of the mire? Herein see a miracle of mercy, — that the incomprehensible God, that circle whose centre is everywhere, whose circumference nowhere, should be circled and cooped up for nine months together in the narrow womb of a pure virgin. J. Trapp.

Sing, sing, O Universe! till thou hast exhausted thyself: thou canst not afford a song so sweet as the song of incarnation. Though creation may be a majestic organ of praise, it cannot reach the compass of the golden caulicle, incarnation. There is more in that than in creation, more melody in Jesus in the manger than there is in worlds on worlds, rolling in grandeur round the throne of the Most High. Spurgeon.

Important article on the Virgin Birth. Analyzes the Biblical accounts, assesses the importance of other Biblical data (especially the silence of other NT writers) and concludes, "The Virgin Birth is neither the basis for nor the evidence of the Incarnation. Nevertheless, Jesus' virginal conception is a further sign in the whole story of Christmas signaling that God's great gift to humanity is given entirely by grace."

Martin Luther once remarked that the Incarnation consists of three miracles: "The first, that God became man; the second, that a virgin was a mother; and the third, that the heart of man should believe this."

=========================

CT Classic: Whose Child Is This?

The early church's opponents claimed Jesus was illegitimate. Its heretical fringe said he wasn't human. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth set them both straight. By Richard Longenecker | posted 12/22/00

________

Even without taking high-school biology, Joseph knew where babies come from. Yet he believed Mary's story. Should we?

The answer is yes, for anyone who believes in the full authority of the Bible. But because many today don't take Mary's word for it, we asked Richard Longenecker to sketch the shape of the debate for CT's readers.

When they tell their stories of Jesus' birth, Matthew and Luke have little in common. Matthew dwells on the fulfillment of prophecy, the visit of foreign astrologers, and the slaughter of the innocents. Luke, by contrast, reports the poetic utterances of Zechariah, Mary, and Simeon, and focuses on Mary's relatives and the visit of the shepherds.

Matthew 1:18-2:23 and Luke 1:5-2:52 are quite different. Neither writer seems to have known the other's account. Yet Matthew and Luke make one major point in common — that Jesus was born of a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit. This agreement, amidst otherwise diverse presentations, suggests that a common tradition regarding the Virgin Birth existed before either writer recorded his story.

How did a divine mystery, agreed on by the Gospel writers, become the subject of debate?

THE CONTEMPORARY DEBATE

From at least Ignatius of Antioch (writing about A.D. 110) to the nineteenth century, almost all Christians accepted the Virgin Birth as both a fact of history and a datum of theology. Believers expected marvelous events to accompany God's actions, and so the miraculous served to support faith. In addition, the Virgin Birth fit nicely with church teaching about Jesus' being the Son of God and having a sinless nature.

After the eighteenth-century intellectual revolution we call the Enlightenment, however, the miraculous created suspicion rather than faith-even among Christians. This stemmed from more than mere rationalism or the association of miracles with credulity. It also arose from the conviction that God works in and through a history like our own-and a history studded with miracles is not the kind of history we know. So in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries many scholars refused to believe that Jesus was conceived any differently from anyone else. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth seemed impossible to reconcile with the true humanity of Jesus.

Today, scholars are sharply divided regarding the Virgin Birth. Is it a fact of history — that is, that Jesus was conceived in the womb of a virgin without the aid of a human father? Or should it be considered an attempt of the early church to translate the mystery of God becoming a human being into terms intelligible to unsophisticated people, and so to be taken as a SYMBOL of the truth that Jesus' birth was God's gift to humanity given entirely by grace, but without any necessary reference to the mechanics of procreation?

THE HOLE IN THE SERMON

If the Virgin Birth is so clearly taught by Matthew and Luke, why would some Christians question it? One answer is that the earliest Christian preachers fail to mention it, and the earliest confessions of faith omit it.

To judge by the book of Acts, the apostles' sermons did not refer to Jesus' virgin birth, but began with his adult ministry and focused on his death, resurrection, and ascension (see, for example, Peter's Pentecost sermon of 2:14-36). But that is to be expected. In choosing a replacement for Judas, the apostles stated his successor must be one who had “been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us” (1:21-22, NIV). And it is the redemptive events that transpired during the time the apostles were eyewitnesses that the early Christian preachers proclaimed.

Likewise, the early forms of confessions of faith, incorporated by New Testament writers into their letters, do not mention the Virgin Birth. However, two expressions in confessional portions have sometimes been claimed to allude to Jesus' virgin birth. First, some have taken BORN OF A WOMAN in Galatians 4:4 to imply a virgin birth, since it refers only to “a woman” without mentioning her husband. But BORN OF A WOMAN is simply a Jewish idiom for being human (as, for example, in Job 14:1 and Matt. 11:11/Luke 7:28. See also Josephus, Antiquities 7.21 and 16.382). The phrase itself gives no information about the biology of Jesus' birth. Rather, it tells us Jesus was truly one with us, and that he came as “the Man” to stand in our place.

Second, some take an expression found in Romans 1:3-4 to allude to Jesus' virgin birth. In speaking of our Lord's human credentials, Paul says he was “the seed [or, descendant] of David according to the flesh.” Some have claimed the word SEED (SPERMA) means male sperm from David's line, and that royal SPERMA, according to Luke's geneology (as it is argued), came through Mary's line, not Joseph's. But SEED here means no more than it does elsewhere in Scripture: simply a descendant (cf. 2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 89:3-4; John 7:42; Gal. 3:16, 29; 2 Tim. 2:8). What Romans 1:3-11 sets out is a two-stage Christology: that humanly, Jesus was a descendant of David; that because of the resurrection, he is legitimately declared God's Son and Lord of the human race.

Nothing is said here about a virginal conception.

Philippians 2:6-11 is a particularly significant case. Here is a Christological hymn or confession that seems to come from the heart of earliest Christian conviction and that runs the gamut from pre-existence to exaltation. Yet this “Christ-hymn” does not mention Jesus' virgin birth. Though fully human (“born of a woman”) and with Davidic blood in his veins (“seed of David”), Jesus the Christ was also pre-existent and divine (“the divine nature was his from the first,” NEB; “being in very nature God,” NIV) and has become the Lord over all (“every knee should bow ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” NIV). Yet there is no reference to Jesus' virginal conception. Early Christians, evidently, did not see the Virgin Birth as a necessary part of speaking about our Lord's taking “the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (v. 7, NIV).

THE SILENCE OF PAUL, MARK, AND JOHN

If the Virgin Birth is missing from the apostles' sermons and the earliest confessions of faith, we still might expect to find it elsewhere in the New Testament. But apart from Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives, the New Testament has no direct statement about Jesus' virginal conception.

Paul's letters, probably the first materials of the New Testament written, speak nowhere of the Virgin Birth. And he makes no attempt to improve on the confessional statements he incorporates by adding a virginal conception.

Mark's gospel, probably the earliest canonical Gospel, is likewise silent on Jesus' virgin birth. For Mark, “the beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1, NIV) has to do with John the Baptist's preparation for Jesus, Jesus' own baptism, his temptation, his announcement of the kingdom, and Jesus' call to four fishermen to follow him (1:2-20). Mark's gospel essentially agrees with the scope of the apostles' sermons in Acts, beginning with the baptism of John and concluding with the resurrection of Jesus.

The only possible hint of a virgin birth in Mark is to be found in 6:3, where it is reported that people of Jesus' hometown called him “the carpenter, ... Mary's son.” In a patriarchal society, to identify someone by reference to his mother and not his father would have been unusual. But the statement is cryptic. It probably originated as a taunt by the local townsfolk suggesting that Jesus' birth was illegitimate, and so witnesses indirectly to rumors. The fact that Mark included their taunt probably signals his own consciousness of unusual circumstances associated with Jesus' birth. But it may be that the people's statement and Mark's inclusion of it are innocuous. At any rate, when both Matthew and Luke (who seem to depend here on Mark) rephrase the question, it seems that neither writer understood Mark as conveying a suggestion of illegitimacy. “Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary?” writes Matthew (13:55, NIV). “Isn't this Joseph's son?” writes Luke (4:22, NIV).

Apart from their infancy narratives, the virgin birth of Jesus receives no attention at all in either Matthew or Luke, the two Gospels that appear to be built on the structure of Mark. In fact, even though Matthew and Luke present Jesus' birth as coming about without a human father, they elsewhere recast Mark 6:3 so that the townsfolk of Nazareth call Jesus “the carpenter's son” or “Joseph's son” (Luke 4:22).

Likewise, there is no teaching about Jesus' virgin birth in John, which may have been the last canonical Gospel written, but which preserves material about Jesus that circulated among the earliest Christian believers. For John himself, Jesus is pre-existent, “the Word,” who was divine, the Creator, the source of life, but one who “became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (1:1-14). For others portrayed by the evangelist, Jesus was “the son of Joseph” (1:45; 6:42). From neither John nor those he presents, however, is there any direct statement regarding the Virgin Birth. The only possible allusion to such an occurrence is the retort of the people in 8:41, “We are not illegitimate children.” Like Mark 6:3, this retort may be a veiled insinuation that Jesus was illegitimate.

One minor variant of the text of John 1:13 is sometimes introduced into the discussion. All our Greek manuscripts, virtually all the early translations, and most of the Fathers read this verse as “[those] born not [HOI OUK ... EGENNETHESAN] of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God” (NIV). THOSE is understood to mean “those who believe” to whom God has given the right to become “children of God.”

One Old Latin manuscript of the third century, however, changes the plural THOSE to the singular HE. This reading was accepted by Tertullian and some of the Latin Fathers, who charged their opponents with altering the text in order to deny the Virgin Birth. But though a few modern critics and exegetes have argued for the originality of the singular, such a reading has little textual warrant and has been rightly rejected by almost all New Testament scholars.

“NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE”

Despite the lack of explicit references to the Virgin Birth elsewhere in the New Testament, Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives clearly present Jesus' virginal conception in the womb of Mary without the involvement of a man.

In Matthew, Mary is discovered to be already pregnant before having marital relations with her betrothed husband Joseph; Joseph contemplates divorcing her so as not to put her to “public disgrace”; but “an angel of the Lord” assures Joseph that Mary's pregnancy is the result of God's design through the action of the Holy Spirit; and so Joseph “took Mary home as his wife, but had no union with her until she gave birth to a son,” whom he named Jesus.

In Luke 1:26-38 the angel announces to Mary the conception of a son in her womb through the intervention of God's Holy Spirit; calms her fears regarding the unnaturalness of such a conception by assuring her of divine providence; and points to her aged relative Elizabeth's pregnancy as a sign that “nothing is impossible with God.”

Matthew's and Luke's infancy narratives have, of course, a number of features in common:

(1) the principal characters are Jesus, Mary, and Joseph;

(2) Jesus' birth occurred during the reign of Herod the Great;

(3) Mary was betrothed to Joseph;

(4) Joseph was of Davidic descent;

(5) Jesus was born in Bethlehem;

(6) Jesus was given his name by heavenly direction;

(7) Jesus as (reputedly) Joseph's son was also of Davidic descent; and

(8) the family finally settled in Nazareth.

In matters of perspective, organization, and almost every other detail, however, the two accounts are decidedly different. Neither writer, it seems, was dependent on the other's account; nor, in all probability, did either of the evangelists even know of the other's work.

Yet the one major item that both evangelists, despite their diverse presentations, include — an item which goes far beyond the expected matters in the story line — is Jesus' virginal conception by the action of the Holy Spirit. Despite the lack of reference to the Virgin Birth elsewhere, its appearance in these two independent accounts (as well as the prominence it holds in both) suggests that a common tradition regarding the virginal conception of Jesus circulated within the early church prior to the writing of both Matthew's gospel and Luke's.

A number of questions, of course, immediately arise: Historically, it must be asked, Where did this tradition of Jesus' virgin birth come from? Why is it absent from what we know of the earliest confessions and preaching of the early church, in the earliest letters we have from the early church, and in our earliest canonical Gospel? Why does it appear in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, with attention being focused on it in both?

Doctrinally it must be asked: Of what significance was the Virgin Birth for first-century Christians? And of what significance should it be for Christians today?

Some suggest that Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the Virgin Birth are seen as having been motivated by their desire to counter a rising heresy in the early church, the mistaken belief that Jesus was not really human, but only appeared to be flesh and blood. A later form of this heresy, called Docetism, prompted Christians to include phrases such as “born of the Virgin Mary” and “suffered under Pontius Pilate” in their creeds.

This suggestion would explain, to some extent, why there is no reference to the Virgin Birth in the earlier New Testament materials, and why the idea appeared only later when the docetic heresy arose. Yet while such an explanation is a possible rationale for the inclusion of infancy narratives in both Matthew and Luke, it does not adequately answer the question of why there is an emphasis on Jesus' virgin birth in these two narratives, for a virgin birth would seem to separate Jesus from the rest of humanity rather than simply identify him as being truly human.

A more likely explanation for the stress on the Virgin Birth in Matthew and Luke has to do with the need of first-century Christians to counter the suggestions of irregularity and the rumors of illegitimacy that were probably then circulating about Jesus' birth-hints of which may appear in the Gospels themselves. Reports that Jesus' birth was illegitimate were widespread among both pagans and Jews in the second and third centuries (see, for example, Origen, Contra Celsus 1.28, 32, 69; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30.3; Mish. Yebamoth 4.13; Tos. Hullin 2.22-23; JerT. Abodah Zarah 40d; JerT. Sabbath 14d; BabT. Sabbath 104b; BabT. Sanhedrin 67a). And it is highly probable that such rumors had their origins in Jesus' own day.

It seems that the early Christians had only two choices when opponents used such rumors to deny their proclamation: They could either accede to such a charge (which, of course, they couldn't) or they could affirm the supernatural character of Jesus' birth in a way that accounted for the unusual circumstances. And Christians today, when they stop to think about it, are faced with the same alternatives.

Yet though apologetic interests may have motivated Matthew and Luke to lay stress on the Virgin Birth, it is equally important to recognize distinctions between early Christian proclamation and early Christian teaching that was given in support of that proclamation. The earliest Christian confessions and preaching, so far as the New Testament itself tells us, did not include the Virgin Birth. Nor did Mark's gospel, which shares the flavor of the early proclamation; nor John's gospel, which is evangelistic; nor Paul's letters, which deal with specific pastoral problems.

Matthew's gospel and Luke's gospel, however, have more distinctly teaching functions and were written to serve in support of the basic Christian proclamation, with each writer suiting his portrayal of the life and ministry of Jesus to the particular mindset of his respective audience. Each in his own way has reorganized Mark's proclamation to serve his own instructional purposes, has added to Mark more narrative material, and has inserted many more sayings of Jesus than Mark has given. And so both Matthew and Luke have set out the basic Christian proclamation about Jesus (“beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us”) with introductory material that focuses on Jesus as having been born of a virgin — a focus understandable when seen as part of their teaching purpose, but especially understandable in light of probable rumors of illegitimacy that were then current.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH TODAY

Martin Luther once remarked, somewhat lightly, that the Incarnation consists of three miracles: “The first, that God became man; the second, that a virgin was a mother; and the third, that the heart of man should believe this.” The way people think about miracles, however, has always been plagued by predispositions, presuppositions, and prejudices. And thinking about the Virgin Birth has suffered the same fate — there are signs today of a changing attitude toward the miraculous among many New Testament scholars and theologians.

Indeed, Christians must always affirm that “born of the virgin Mary” is a theological statement signaling that Jesus is, in a unique sense, God's Son. Yet we may also affirm that the God of the miraculous has accomplished his purpose in the Incarnation in the manner stated by both Matthew and Luke. The Incarnation itself, of course, is the greater miracle and the primary focus of Christian proclamation. The Virgin Birth, while an important facet of Christian teaching, has to do only with the means God used in the Incarnation. No doubt God could have brought about a true union of divinity with humanity in a number of ways, some quite natural and others extraordinary. In a theology that is biblically based, the Virgin Birth is neither the basis for nor the evidence of the Incarnation. Nevertheless, Jesus' virginal conception is a further sign in the whole story of Christmas signaling that God's great gift to humanity is given entirely by grace. That sign seems to have been brought to the fore only to counter specific attacks on the Christian proclamation, but it continues today, apart from that apologetic interest, as a sign of divine grace.

At Christmas, it is the Incarnation we celebrate. In our proclamation and pastoral care, it is that Incarnation we proclaim and build upon. In our fuller understanding of the message of the gospel, however, the Virgin Birth has its place. It may be an offense to those who consider themselves “too modern to believe such nonsense.” But it is hardly as offensive to the modern world as the Incarnation itself, “the preaching of the Cross,” belief in the resurrection of Jesus, or trust in Christ's promised return — matters that form the basis of Christian belief. So at Christmas we celebrate what God has done to incarnate his Son, understanding something of how the proclamation of the Incarnation was clarified by the early Christians and accepting the Virgin Birth as one gleaming facet of that shining story.

________

“Whose Child Is This?” originally appeared in Christianity Today on December 17, 1990. At the time, Richard N. Longenecker was a senior editor of Christianity Today. He is now distinguished professor of New Testament at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.

Copyright © 2000 Christianity Today.

*

According to the Pittsburgh Press, shortly after former announcer and catcher for the St. Louis Cardinals Joe Torre was named manager of the Cardinals, New York Yankees' announcer Phil Rizzuto suggested that managing could be done better from high above the baseball field - from the level of the broadcasting booth.

Thoughtfully, Torre replied, "Upstairs, you can't look in their eyes."

In Jesus Christ, God also chose to come down on the field and look into our eyes.

A review of Hans Kung's one, true (but less than Christian) religion.

In this work, which the author presents as the culmination of a lifetime of study and reflection, noted Catholic theologian Hans Kung undertakes a comprehensive theological history of Christianity, showing its biblical roots and global implications. Kung differentiates the ceremonial and doctrinal embellishments of the Christian faith from its essence -- the historical person of Jesus Christ. Kung seeks to get beyond a "Eurocentric" understanding of the Christian religion to a "universal historical view" that nevertheless maintains continuity with the original New Testament message. He sees Christianity not as an outmoded traditionalism but as a "radical humanism" -- "being human to the full."

He calls for a Christology from below -- beginning with the historical life and teachings of Jesus rather than the creedal interpretation of the early church, where he discerns a shift from the New Testament paradigm to the Hellenistic paradigm in which the faith was articulated and in some instances drastically altered by Greek ontological categories. He believes that a Christology from below also has ecumenical promise, for it would facilitate dialogue with Judaism and Islam, both of which could never accept Hellenistic Christianity and the Trinity.

According to Kung, the process of Hellenization created a church burdened by hierarchy, ritualism, and creedalism. The call to discipleship, which characterized the ministry of Jesus, was overshadowed in the patristic church by a mounting concern for right doctrine. He expresses unhappiness with the medieval paradigm of the church, which tightened the grip of hierarchy with its emphasis on papal supremacy. He is grateful to the Protestant Reformation for rediscovering the gospel of justification by faith and recovering prophetic spirituality as opposed to mysticism and ritualism. He believes, however, that the present age necessitates a global spirituality and a global ethic that will still focus on Jesus but now in relationship to other world teachers and prophets.

While appreciating the comprehensiveness of Kung's vision and the lucidity of his proposals, I have real difficulties with his analysis and interpretation. First, Kung shows himself at odds with the apostolic church by making the Jesus of history the final criterion for faith. Whereas the apostles and theologians of the early church proclaimed the preexistent Christ incarnate in human flesh, Kung's emphasis is on the life, death, and teachings of Jesus as determined by historical research. He disputes both the preexistence of Jesus Christ and the dogma of the Trinity on the grounds that they represent deformations of New Testament faith. While it is certainly true that the fathers of the church resorted to philosophical terminology in elucidating the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity, a powerful case can be made that both Nicaea and Chalcedon resisted and countered the Hellenization of the faith. Kung sees Jesus as "God's eschatological prophet and emissary" rather than God himself in the garb of humanity.

Kung proposes that we move from the Enlightenment paradigm focused on the historical-critical study of Scripture and the moral teachings of Jesus to a postmodern paradigm focused on universal religious experience and global values. He believes a binding ethical consensus can be reached through interreligious dialogue. While maintaining that Christianity is the "one true religion," he also is ready to acknowledge that there are "many true religions" in the sense that salvific truth can be found in all the world religions, though it is supremely embodied in Jesus Christ -- at least for Christians. Kung calls for a postconfessional, ecumenical paradigm in which Christianity breaks out of its cultural insularity and enters into fruitful conversation with the other great world religions. Our goal should be a "pluralistic holistic synthesis." Kung can be faulted for subverting the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in the interest of cultivating interreligious peace and saving the planet from ecological destruction.

I can appreciate Kung for his appeal to the New Testament over church tradition, his penetrating critique of papalism and Marianism, and his warnings against sacramentalism and ritualism. I must take exception, however, to his reduction of the faith to the original teachings of Jesus and the facts of his life and death (though these certainly belong to the fuller perspective of faith).

The author's Christology from below fails to do justice to the church's teachings of the Incarnation and the Trinity, both of which are solidly anchored, though not precisely elucidated, in the New Testament. Kung urges sensitive Christians to create an ecumenical global paradigm if the church is to maintain its relevance and avoid the risk of becoming insular and sectarian. But is not our task as biblical Christians to develop the ecumenical implications of the Reformation or evangelical paradigm, which Kung acknowledges to be basically faithful to the New Testament? Christians need to enter into dialogue with fellow Christians in order to advance the truth of the gospel and the cause of church unity, and here we would do well to listen to Kung. Yet we must insist that unity will come only when we identify with the apostolic interpretation of the gospel already given in the New Testament and amplified and clarified in the confessions of the early church and the Protestant Reformation.

========================

"Christianity: Essence, History, and Future," by Hans Kung (Continuum, 936 pp.; $39.50, hardcover). Reviewed by Donald G. Bloesch, emeritus professor of theology, University of Dubuque (Iowa) Theological Seminary.

Copyright (c) 1995 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine

ctcurrmrw5TB0405919

John Howard Griffin was a white man who believed he could never understand the plight of African-Americans unless he became like one. In 1959, he darkened his skin with medication, sun lamps, and stains, then traveled throughout the South. His book, "Black Like Me," helped whites better understand the humiliation and discrimination faced daily by people of color.

Jesus Christ became like us; the Incarnation is evidence that God understands our plight. "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering" (Isa. 53:3).

[see also #1663]

#3932

*

Sermon in Fresh Look at Jesus series. Jesus and relationships. John 15:15

[full text at end]

==============================

WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN JESUS

==============================

I. What would it be like to run into Jesus?

A. He gets a lot of attention this month.

B. Learning about Jesus teaches us about ourselves.

C. Jesus was fully human, just as much as us.

II. Everybody needs somebody.

A. Loneliness is not God's will for us. Gen 2:18

1) He put their needs ahead of his own. Mark 6:45-50

2) He always had time for them.

3) Jesus even had a favorite friend.

III. Jesus revealed God's secrets to his friends.

A. Parables of Kingdom of God.

B. Prophecies about the future.

C. Jesus knew what made his friends tick.

IV. Jesus never gave up on them.

A. Even when they abandoned him at the cross.

B. "Greater love has no one than this..." John 15:13

C. He wants to be our friend forever.

#4424

[seemed too flat, with not enough application]

==============================================================================

Full text:

Rev. David Holwick ZO "A FRESH LOOK AT JESUS" sermon series

First Baptist Church

Ledgewood, New Jersey

December 6, 1998

John 15:12-17

==============================

WHAT A FRIEND WE HAVE IN JESUS

==============================

SERMON SUMMARY: Jesus was a friend to his disciples but he also needed

friends himself. Christians can learn from Jesus on how to nurture

relationships.

I. What would it be like to run into Jesus?

A. He gets a lot of attention this month.

1) Everybody must adore him.

a) In reality, he is more of an excuse than a reason.

b) Most people like to party and get gifts.

2) The real neat thing about Christmas.

a) Bible says God became a man.

1> Fully divine, fully human.

2> Hard for us to grasp.

3> Even most Christians relegate him to lofty heaven.

b) How do you view Jesus?

B. Learning about Jesus teaches us about ourselves.

1) Since the Bible says he was the only perfect human, we

can find out much about ourselves by looking at him.

2) This series will try to take a new look at him and how

we can know him.

C. Jesus was fully human, just as much as us.

1) It wasn't a thin veneer like in Sci-Fi "alien movies."

2) If he needed something, we need it as well.

3) One thing Jesus needed was relationships.

II. Everybody needs somebody.

A. Loneliness is not God's will for us.

1) From beginning, we were created to need others. Gen 2:18

2) We can live without others, but at a terrible price.

Charles Swindoll gives a vivid description of one poor

rich man:

Howard Hughes was one of the richest men in the world, with

the destinies of thousands of people -- perhaps even of

governments -- at his disposal.

Yet he lived a sunless, joyless, half-lunatic life.

In his later years he fled from one resort hotel to another

-- Las Vegas, Nicaragua, Acapulco.

His physical appearance become odder and odder.

His straggly beard hung to his waist and his hair reached

to the middle of his back.

His fingernails were two inches long, and his toenails hadn't

been trimmed for so long they resembled corkscrews.

"As far as I know," a Hughes confidant once said, "he's

never loved any woman.

It's sex, or a good secretary, or good box office--that is

all a woman means to him."

Hughes often said, "Every man has his price or a guy like me

couldn't exist."

Yet no amount of money bought the affection of his

associates.

Most of his employees who have broken the silence report

their disgust for him.

Why was Hughes so isolated and so lonely?

Why with almost unlimited money, hundreds of aides, and

countless beautiful women available to him, was he so

unloved?

Simply because he chose to be.

It is an old truth that God gave us things to use and

people to enjoy.

Hughes never learned to enjoy people.

He was too busy manipulating them.

#1575

B. By contrast, Jesus DID learn to enjoy people.

1) Jesus desired intimate closeness and he achieved it.

2) His ministry on earth was basically spent pouring himself

into twelve ordinary men.

III. Jesus cared about his friends.

A. He put their needs ahead of his own.

1) Evidence in feeding 5,000 and walking on water. Mark 6:45-50

a) Fed people because he had compassion on them.

b) He sent disciples ahead to rest.

2) He must have been dead tired himself.

B. He always had time for them.

1) His words of assurance as he walked on the water didn't

just prove he was Son of God, but that he wanted to

help them out.

2) When his ministry got most intense, he took them to a

beautiful secluded area to "de-compress."

3) He wanted to be with them.

a) Temptation of modern world - passive, isolated

entertainment.

b) Most recent example is the Internet, where even those

who communicate daily feel no intimacy.

C. Jesus even had a favorite friend.

1) The apostle John is described as "the one whom Jesus loved."

2) Pretty remarkable - to be Jesus' best friend.

3) What would it be like if such a thing were done today...

What would happen if in 1998 someone were identified

from all of Christendom as Jesus' best friend?

Barbara Walters would do the interview.

Time and Newsweek would have them on the cover.

What do you think it would do to that person's life?

Do you think that person would write a book or cut a CD

or go on the road on a Best-Friend-of-Jesus seminar?

Wouldn't it have the high potential of ruining that

person's entire life?

It also could have done more - he could have ruined

Jesus's life.

Jesus needed friends he could trust.

#3091

IV. Jesus revealed God's secrets to his friends.

A. Parables of Kingdom of God.

1) He used easy terms when he preached, unlike the rabbis.

2) Sign of his friendship is he revealed everything to them.

John 15:15

B. Prophecies about the future.

1) Olivet Discourse on future of world. (Matthew 24)

2) He even let them know their own destinies.

a) Peter heard that he would be sifted like wheat.

b) Then he heard that he would betray Jesus.

c) Finally, Peter heard how he would die.

1> Each time, Jesus was trying to strengthen him

and prepare him.

V. Jesus knew what made his friends tick.

A. Gave nicknames like "Sons of Thunder." Mark 3:17

1) He enjoyed them.

2) They tried to impress him, but he knew them right down to

their very thoughts.

3) He treated them as equals, as disciples, as friends.

B. They could ask him any question they wanted.

1) His answers could be soft - with an edge. Mark 9:33-37

2) Little child as an example of greatness in God's eyes.

C. He took initiative with people.

1) He healed people even if they didn't ask him to.

2) As soon as he met them, he called them "friend." Luke 5:20

VI. Jesus never gave up on them.

A. Even when they abandoned him at the cross.

1) John abandoned Jesus with the rest, but at the cross Jesus

entrusted his mother Mary to him. John 19:25-27

2) He had compassion in his voice when he spoke to them.

3) He reached out to them in their greatest failure.

Jackie Robinson was the first black to play major league

baseball.

While breaking baseball's "color barrier," he faced

jeering crowds in every stadium.

While playing one day in his home stadium in Brooklyn, he

committed an error.

His fans began to ridicule him.

He stood at second base, humiliated, while the fans jeered.

Then shortstop "Pee Wee" Reese came over and stood next

to him.

He put his arm around Jackie Robinson and faced the crowd.

The fans grew quiet.

Robinson later said that arm around his shoulder saved

his career.

#1751

B. "Greater love has no one than this..." John 15:13

... that he lay down his life for his friends.

1) Jesus gave his friends the greatest gift of all,

salvation.

2) He had qualms but never wavered from God's will.

C. He wants to be our friend forever.

1) Revelation gives image of Jesus standing at door, knocking.

2) He wants us to be friends with each other.

a) 65% of new people come to church because of friends.

b) New members should have 7 friends in six months.

=======================================================================

SOURCES FOR ILLUSTRATIONS USED IN THIS SERMON:

This series was inspired by Issue 56 of Discipleship Journal, March 1990,

and this sermon is modelled on the article "The Friend," by

Mark R. Littleton, page 20.

#1575, "Dropping Your Guard," by Charles R. Swindoll, page 56.

#1751, "To Illustrate: Brotherhood," by Larry Wise, Leadership Magazine, Spring 1990,

page 48.

#3091, "The Art Of Positive And Negative Preaching," by Craig Brian Larson,

Leadership Magazine, Winter 1995, page 79.

These and 4,300 others are part of a database that can be downloaded,

absolutely free, at http://users.nac.net/wdh2000/illust.html

*

The Grabouw Journal, a South African news journal, reports the story of Roger Russell, an activist crime-fighter. In August, Russell began a 2,800-mile walk around South Africa to focus attention on the nation's infamous crime rate; his second day out he was mugged. He wasn’t out to judge the guilty, just bring an end to crime.

The Journal said, "It was either an awful start or the best one he could have hoped for." You see Russell is down but not out; he’s coming back to finish what he started.

Comments: God announced in various ways, over hundreds of years, He wanted to relieve man of his sin-burden; He told us in advance He would send a Savior, a Deliverer, a Redeemer, a Shepherd, a Messiah. When He did, He sent His Son [John 3:16], who came in the flesh and dwelt among us [John 1:14], to focus attention on the world’ s infamous sin rate. He didn’t come to judge the world but to save the world [John 3:17].

At the Lord’s first attempt to reach sinful man, man attacked Him rather than receive Him … oh, He was down but not out; He ’s coming again to finish what he started, only this time it’ll be to judge the world [John 5:29; Hebrews 9:27; Revelation 14:6,7].

_________________

Source/Attribution: In "Reality Check for Anti-crime Trekker" by Ian Fisher; via NY Times on the Web, September 11, 1999.

On March 5, 1994, Deputy Sheriff Lloyd Prescott was teaching a class for police officers in the Salt Lake City Library. As he stepped into the hallway he noticed a gunman herding 18 hostages into the next room. With a flash of insight, Prescott (dressed in street clothes) joined the group as the nineteenth hostage, followed them into the room, and shut the door. But when the gunman announced the order in which hostages would be executed, Prescott identified himself as a cop. In the scuffle that followed, Prescott, in self-defense, fatally shot the armed man. The hostages were released unharmed.

God dressed himself in street clothes and entered our world, joining us who are held hostage to sin. On the cross Jesus defeated Satan and set us free from the power of sin. - Greg Asimakoupoulos; Concord, California

The young woman was married and had two beautiful children, but one day as she was standing over the sink, washing dishes, she thought, “There must be more to life than this.” When her husband came home, he found a note she'd written and began to weep. She would call him once every week to check on the children, and he would always tell her of his great love for her and beg her to come home. She would always say no and hang up.

Finally, he hired a private investigator to find her and he went to the apartment where she was staying, nervously holding flowers in his hand as he stood at the door. He had rehearsed over and over what he would say and he finally got up the nerve to knock on the door. She opened the door and he started to speak, but she suddenly began to weep and fell into his arms. Through her tears she said, “Let's go home.”

Months after, when things were starting to heal, he finally asked her something that had been bothering him: “All those times I talked to you on the phone; I asked you to come back and you refused. Why did you come back now?”

“Before,” she said, “you were just telling me that you loved me. When you came, you showed me.”

The Bible tells us of God's love, but Jesus came and showed God's love.

________

Chad West, at http://SermonCentral.com; secondary source: Preaching Now, http://www.preaching.com

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6718]

"The Word did not become a philosophy, a theory, or a concept to be discussed, debated, or pondered. But, the Word became a Person to be followed, enjoyed, and loved!"

-- From a Christmas Card by DaySpring Cards

A few years ago at this time I was preparing to leave after Christmas for a preaching mission to the Fiji Islands. In preparation, I read some accounts of missionaries who had invested their lives in the South Pacific.

One powerful story comes from a missionary to the head-hunting Sawis of Indonesia. He sat in a “manhouse” and told them how God showed Himself to all peoples in Jesus. They yawned and grew restless. However, when he told them about the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, they leaned forward and became interested. As they heard that a kiss, a sign of affection, was the means of betrayal, their eyes sparkled with amazement and respect. But their admiration was for JUDAS, not Jesus, for to these primitive cannibals, DECEIT and BETRAYAL were the highest virtues.

The missionary saw it as his mission to try to overcome generations of cultural conditioning so that these people's thinking might be reversed. He persuaded three tribes that were natural enemies to move fairly close together so that he might have access to them. While they were reluctant, they did so because the missionary provided them with tools and medicine. As tension mounted among the tribes, the hostility became so great that he called the “headmen” together and told the tribes to disperse. He announced that he would have to go downstream and work among other people who could get along better.

One morning the tribes gathered in an open place. The air was electric with tension. After a period of waiting, a warrior grabbed his nursing child from his anxious wife, ran to a former enemy and handed him the baby. The distraught mother pleaded with him not to do this. Then, abruptly, a warrior from the other side did the same thing.

Aghast, the missionary asked what was happening. He was told that the tribes were exchanging a “peace child.” As long as the children were unhurt, the tribes would live in peace. Shouts of joy broke out. People began to dance. The peace child made it possible for the tribes to live together without fear. A new era had been born.

The missionary finally had an analogy for God's love. He now told the warriors that Jesus was God's “Peace Child!” God did not want to give up His Son to hostile people, but because of His love, He sent a peace child to live among them. The Sawis now heard the story of Jesus with new interest. If Jesus was a Peace Child, it was wrong to betray Him. Judas was no longer a hero.

It was a new day for the Sawis. It was a new day for our world when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. He brought a whole new set of values. He became God's Peace Child in a darkened world. He still seeks to bring peace to our world. World peace begins in our own heart! Let us point others to the Peace Child of Bethlehem!

________

Ernie Nivens, Tranquil United Methodist

It is said that one-fifth of the world's population watched the television broadcast of the first man setting foot on the moon. This was an incredible achievement which is still difficult to believe. Something even more astonishing happened, however, when God set foot on earth. When Jesus

brought God's secret to this earth it was a divine visitation.

He is certainly on our side of it, for he is a real Man, a Figure in history at a particular time and place. He stands beside us, facing God across the gulf. Yes, but it is also true to say that he stands facing us from the other side of the gulf, the divine side, and we can hear him say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” It might almost be said that the gulf disappears because God has bridged it by becoming incarnate.

-- Donald M. Baillie

________

Charles Wallis, ed. The Minister’s Manual for 1974 (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1973) 89

The idea of a “god” involving himself in the affairs of men by coming to the earth is not a novel one. In the Greek culture of New Testament times there were numerous instances in which the “gods” were said to have manifested themselves in human flesh.1 In our own times there are numerous examples of “super-beings” who have intervened in human history. In the movie “E.T.” this being was far from human. Characters like the “Bionic Man” and the “Bionic Woman” are more human than divine. “Superman” and “Wonder Woman” are more “other worldly” and more closely approximate the Greek heroes.

All of our present day “super-beings” provide little help when it comes to the doctrine of the incarnation, however. In the first place, these are fictional characters -- nobody really believes in them. This predisposes us to doubt the description of our Lord in the New Testament. In addition, these “super-heroes” of our time are vastly different from the person of Christ, who is God incarnate. There is nothing in fact or in fiction in the history of man which matches the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Humanly speaking, no one anticipated God’s intervention into human history by the birth of a child, born in a manger. Not even Judaism was looking for Messiah to come in this way.2 Furthermore, we have become so accustomed to the biblical narratives of the birth of our Lord and the credal formulations of the doctrines involved that we have often ceased to appreciate the mystery of the incarnation.

If we are to properly appreciate the mystery of the incarnation, we must first come to recognize the importance of the coming of our Lord as God incarnate. For this reason I have chosen to devote this first message on the incarnation to the subject of the importance of the incarnation. Let us consider the reasons why it the doctrine of the incarnation is vital to every one of us.

(1) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF A CHRISTIAN CELEBRATION OF CHRISTMAS.

We are rapidly approaching Christmas. Strangely enough, this is a time of depression, not just for men and women in general, but particularly for Christians. The “let down” is noticeable, I think, for all of us. Some of this is probably the fact that we have spent considerable money and effort to make the celebration of Christmas enjoyable, and yet the returns have been minimal. A great deal of our depression is related to the fact that much of our concentration is turned away from the message of Christ’s incarnation. The great joy of Christmas is inseparably bound with the fact of His incarnation.

It is probably not necessary to remind you that December 25th is hardly to be considered the time when our Lord was actually born. No one really knows the exact date of our Lord’s birth.3 We do know that by the end of the fourth century Christ’s birth was celebrated on January 6th, and then later on, celebration was divided between January 6th and December 25th. In early Rome the Feast of Saturnalia was celebrated for seven days from the 17th of December to the 24th. This festive week was “marked by a spirit of merriment, gift giving to children and other forms of entertainment.”4

Throughout the centuries various elements of pagan celebrations have been included in the observance of Christmas. It is due to these “other-than-Christian” elements that the central focus of Christmas on the incarnation has been obscured. If we are to truly enter into the spirit and celebration of Christmas in Christian worship than we must focus our attention on the event of the incarnation, which is the heart of the Christmas message.

(2) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION IS NOT ONLY NEGLECTED BY CHRISTIANS TODAY, IT IS UNDER ATTACK BY THOSE WHO WOULD CALL THEMSELVES “CHRISTIANS.”

While our culture is very open to “super-beings” who are fictional, there has been increased hostility and opposition to the biblical doctrine of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. In history there have been those who have sought to handle the difficulties of the incarnation by sacrificing either the deity of Christ (e.g. the Ebionites) or his humanity (e.g. the Docetists). Quite recently there has been a bold attack on the doctrine of the incarnation made by a group of theologians, whose essays have been published under the title, THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE (S.C.M., 1977).5 In no uncertain terms the incarnation is dismissed as a myth, along with other fundamental doctrines of the faith:

Michael Goulder astonishingly attributes belief in the deity of

Christ to the supposed influence of Simon Magus on the Church,

and also to the psychological impact of Peter’s experience of the

(mythical!) resurrection, and the subsequent “power of hysteria

within a small community.”6

But what in fact they seem to be doing, at least in the recent symposium, is to evacuate the divine element from Jesus just as surely as they have done it with Scripture. They are denying not merely Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions of Christ but the basic truth which these definitions sought, in the cultural heritage of their own day to express, that Jesus shared to nature of God as well as our nature. They are not reinterpreting traditional Christology but abandoning it.7

“Christianity is always adapting into something which can be believed” is a presupposition of the essayists in this symposium; so much so that it is quoted in the first paragraph of the book. And miracles cannot be believed. The miracles of Jesus must be repudiated, because miracles do not happen: so ran the message of the film WHO WAS JESUS?, directed by one of the contributors to THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE.8

A study of the incarnation of our Lord is therefore not only necessary in order to properly observe Christmas, but also to preserve the purity of sound doctrine, which has come under attack at this very point.

The doctrine of the incarnation provides the Christian with a doctrinal touchstone to determine a departure from orthodoxy:9

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see

whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone

out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every

spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is

from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not

from God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you

have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world

(I John 4:1-3).

(3) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION IS FREQUENTLY THE POINT OF DEPARTURE FOR THOSE WHO REJECT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

We have already stated that the doctrine of the incarnation is central to a biblical Christian celebration of Christmas and that it is a truth currently under attack. But the doctrine of the incarnation is also one which is vital to the Christian faith because other biblical doctrines will stand or fall with it. Where men stand on the doctrine of the incarnation often defines the dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy, between true Christianity and the cults:

This is the real stumbling-block in Christianity. It is here

that Jews, Moslems, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many of

those who feel the difficulties above mentioned (about the virgin

birth, the miracles, the atonement, and the resurrection), have

come to grief.10

The uniqueness of the Christian faith is directly related to the biblical teaching of the incarnation of Christ:

The Christian doctrine of the incarnation is one of the two

central doctrines which set out the UNIQUE features of Christian

faith in God. Christianity shares with some other religions

belief in an infinite and transcendent God, the source of the

world’s being and of all its values. It recognizes that in every

part of the world, traditions of religious belief and religious

experience have made it possible for men and women to enjoy the

blessedness of spiritual life and of the knowledge and love of

God. But the Christian doctrine of the incarnation expresses the

conviction of Christians that this God has made himself known

full, specifically and personally, by taking our human nature

into himself, by coming amongst us as a particular man, without

in any way ceasing to be the eternal and infinite God.11

THE PURPOSES OF THE INCARNATION

Perhaps the best way to underscore the importance of the doctrine of the incarnation is to consider the price for putting it aside. The Bible reveals a number of purposes for the incarnation of our Lord. When we do away with the incarnation, these purposes will not be realized. Consider with me the consequences of doing away with the truth of God incarnate.

(1) TO REVEAL GOD TO MEN

In the past, God had revealed Himself through His works (as recorded in the Scriptures), His world (Psalm 19:1-6), and His word (Ps. 19:7-14). In the coming of Christ, God was revealed in the person of Jesus Christ:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in

many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to

us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom

also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and

the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by

the word of His power (Heb. 1:1-3a).

For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him (John 1:17-18).

Our Lord can therefore say without any hesitation, “HE WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE FATHER” (John 14:9). And not only does the Lord Jesus reveal the Father to men, He also reveals men for what they are in God’s sight:

In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the

light shines in the darkness; and the darkness did not comprehend

it .... There was a true light which, coming into the world,

enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was

made through Him, and the world did not know Him

(John 1:4-5, 9-10).

Before, God had revealed His standard of righteousness in precept and in principle, but in Christ that standard was revealed in person. The “measure of a man” is the measure of this Man (cf. Eph. 4:13).

The Lord clearly claimed to be the very One whom the apostles represented as the incarnate Son of God (John 1:1; 6:38; II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6,7; Gal. 4:4-5). To refuse to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as God incarnate is therefore to reject all of God’s divine revelation, be that the Old or the New Testament Scriptures (cf. John 5:39-40; 6:45, 68; 8:26, 31-32, 42-47; Matt. 22:29).

It is little wonder, then, that those who reject the biblical teaching of the incarnation also reject the authority of the Scriptures which so emphatically teach this doctrine. James Barr’s words are the logical outworking of his rejection of the doctrine of the incarnation:

My account of the formation of the biblical tradition is an

account of a human work. It is man’s statement of his beliefs,

the events he has experienced, the stories he has been told, and

so on. It has long been customary to align the Bible with

concepts like Word of God, or revelation, and on effect has been

to align the Bible with a movement from God to man.

It is man who developed the biblical tradition and man who

decided when it might be suitably fixed and made canonical. If

one wants to use the Word of God type of language, the proper

term for the Bible would be Word of Israel, Word of some leading

Christians.12

(2) TO REDEEM FALLEN MAN

Nothing could be more clearly documented in the Scriptures than the fact that the principle purpose of the incarnation was to save men from their sins:

“For the son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was

lost” (Luke 19:10; cf. Matt. 9:13; Mark 10:45).

But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (Gal. 4:4-5).

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all (I Tim. 1:15; cf. I Jn. 4:10).

Rightly, then, Dr. B. B. Warfield concludes:

Eliminate sin as the proximate occasion and redemption as the

prime end of the Incarnation, and none of the other relations in

which it stands, and none of the other effects which flow from

it, will be fulfilled, at least in the measure of their rights.13

The inseparable relationship of the incarnation of Christ and the atonement can be seen at the communion table. In our church we observe the Lord’s ordinance of communion weekly. Here, we are reminded that our salvation has been obtained through the shed blood of Christ on the cross of Calvary. What two elements are used to represent the work of Christ on man’s behalf? They are the bread and the wine. Both these elements are evidence of the necessity of the incarnation. The bread is a symbol of the body -- the human body of our Lord which was given for man’s salvation. The unleavened bread reminds us that His body was without sin, which was also a result of the incarnation of our Lord. And the cup symbolizes the blood of our Lord which was shed for the forgiveness of our sins. Blood could not have been shed apart from a human body. Thus, the atonement which our Lord accomplished for us was dependent upon the incarnation. To put in more directly, “apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins” (Heb. 9:22), and apart from a human body, there could be no shedding of blood (cf. Heb. 10:5-10).

We should hardly be surprised that Satan would choose to give his best efforts at undermining the doctrine of the incarnation, for it is foundational to man’s redemption. Dr. Hick, one of the authors OF THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE, is quick to draw the conclusion that once the incarnation is set aside, Christianity has no special or exclusive claim to redemption:

The problem which has come to the surface in the encounter of

Christianity with the other world religions is this: If Jesus was

literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men

can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can

appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life

is the Christian faith. It would follow from this that the large

majority of the human race so far have not been saved. But is it

credible that the loving God and Father of all men has decreed

that only those born within one particular thread of human

history shall be saved? (p. 180).14

The entire matter of man’s eternal salvation hinges upon the argument which is found in Romans chapter 5. The question underlying this chapter has to do with how the righteousness of one man, Jesus Christ, is able to save many. The answer is that it was through the sin of one man, Adam (5:12, 14-15) constituted the entire human race to be sinful before God and thus worthy only of His eternal wrath. The solution which God has provided is Christ, the ‘SECOND ADAM’ (5:14, I Cor. 15:45), whose righteousness will save all who are “in Him” by faith:

For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the

one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of

the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One,

Jesus Christ. so then as through one transgression there resulted

condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness

there resulted justification of life to all men (Romans 5:17-18).

Satan seeks to undermine man’s salvation by attacking the truths of Romans chapter 5 from both sides. On the one hand he seeks to deceive men so that they will not believe there was any Adam (evolution can be used very effectively here), thus there is no one sinful act which condemns the entire race. The result is that man is no longer a sinner by nature. If man is not a sinner, under divine wrath, then he surely needs no such thing as salvation.

Secondly, Satan seeks to deceive us as the “last Adam,” Jesus Christ. By corrupting the biblical doctrine of the incarnation Satan can bring us to the “logical” conclusion that since Jesus Christ was not God manifested in the flesh, He was not the one and only means of procuring man’s salvation. One man’s way of getting to heaven is as good as another’s.

Once the doctrine of the incarnation is set aside, the whole matter of redemption through the person and work of Christ is scuttled. And thus we find a great deal of controversy surrounding this vital doctrine.

(3) GOD’S INITIAL PURPOSE FOR MAN, AS WELL AS HIS ULTIMATE PURPOSE, IS THAT MAN WILL REIGN OVER HIS CREATION.

When man was created and placed in the Garden of Eden, he was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). While there is a great deal of discussion about all that is meant by the phrase “in Our image” one aspect of this is that man will, like God, rule:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

likeness; and LET THEM RULE OVER the fish of the sea and over the

birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and

over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen. 1:26,

emphasis mine).

When Adam fell, all mankind, indeed all creation (cf. Rom. 8:20-22), fell, and chaos resulted. Man’s rule is at best, distorted. God’s promise, both to Israel and to the church, is that His people will be a “kingdom of priests” who will reign with Him (Exod. 19:6; I Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10). This reign will be established when the Messiah comes to the earth to subdue it and to rule over it. The Messiah was to be of the offspring of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3), of the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8-12), and of the seed of David (II Sam. 7:12-16).

In the gospels we find the genealogy of our Lord establishing Him as one of the descendants of Abraham, Judah, and David, as a legal (but not biological) son of Joseph (cf. Matt. 1:1-16; Luke 3:23-38). In the accounts of the birth of our Lord there is a decided emphasis upon the promises which God had made to the Israelites of old, and especially those which pertained to the righteous reign of Messiah:

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have

found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your

womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be

great, and will be called the “Son of the Most High; and the Lord

God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will

reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have

no end” (Luke 1:30-33; cf. Matt. 2:2, 6; Luke 1:49-54; 68-75).

Strange as it may seem, it was not enough that the second person of the Godhead was truly God -- He must also be man in order to fulfill God’s purposes and His promises to man. The reason is that God’s purposes and God’s promises were made to man, as man. It was man who was made in God’s image, and who was destined to rule over His creation. It was a man who must fulfill God’s purposes and promises. Fallen man neither could nor would fulfill God’s purposes, due to his sin. Thus, a new man, a “second Adam” must intervene in human history. This man must also be free from all sin. To fulfill the scriptures He must also be divine (we shall study this more in our next lesson). In order for God’s purposes and promises to be fulfilled, the incarnation must occur. When the incarnation did take place, those who witnessed the event were assured that God’s reign (and thus the reign of the faithful) would now be established on the earth.

The importance of the humanity of Christ (thus, the incarnation) is underscored by the writer to the Hebrews in the second chapter of his epistle. He is writing of the superiority of Christ to the angels. In verses 6-8, he turns to Psalm 8, applying the verses which speak of the dignity and glory of man, in that he has been appointed to “rule over the works of Thy hands” (v. 7b). Not only is the writer using this psalm to speak of Christ, but to speak of Him who will reign AS MAN. In verses 24 and 25 the author goes on to show that it was necessary for the Lord Jesus Christ to take on human flesh in order to minister to His brethren. The Messiah who was to reign, would do so as man.

In the 10th chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews the point is clearly made that the Lord Jesus, of necessity, had to add humanity to His deity:

Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, “Sacrifice and

offering Thou hast not desired, But a body Thou hast prepared for

Me” (Heb. 10:5).

Do you see the importance of the incarnation to the future hopes of both Israelites and the church? The return of the Lord and the establishment of His kingdom will only occur for men when God does so as man. When our Lord added humanity to His deity, He did so for all eternity. It is as the God-Man that He will return and He will reign, and we with Him. Do away with the incarnation and both the purposes and the promises of God are worthless.

(4) THE PRESENT MINISTRY OF CHRIST IS ALSO ONE WHICH HAS GREATER MEANING BECAUSE OF HIS INCARNATION.

Our salvation, accomplished in the past by the death of Christ on the cross and fully realized in His second coming and reign is contingent upon His humanity. In between the past and the future there is yet another ministry which our Lord carries on AS MAN:

For there is one god, and one mediator also between God and men,

the MAN Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the

testimony borne at the proper time (I Tim. 2:5-6, emphasis mine).

At the present time, while the Son waits for the Father’s word to return to the earth and subdue His enemies (cf. I Cor. 15:20-28; Rev. 5). In this present time the Lord Jesus is our advocate with the Father (I John 2:1). His present high priestly role has special relevance to us because He has come to the earth as man, making Him a compassionate and understanding advocate and source of strength and encouragement:

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things,

that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in

things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of

the people. For since He has suffered, He is able to come to the

aid of those who are tempted (Heb. 2:17-18).

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:14-16).

The consequences of denying or rejecting the incarnation of our Lord are substantial, as we have seen. This is due, in part, because our Lord’s incarnation is eternal. What He became in the manger centuries ago, is what He shall forever be -- the God-Man. To deny the incarnation is to deny the virgin birth, the miracles of our Lord, His substitutionary atonement, and His bodily resurrection. In effect, to deny the incarnation is to deny all. To accept the incarnation is to believe in all:

It is from misbelief, or at least inadequate belief, about the

incarnation that difficulties at other points in the gospel story

usually spring. But once the incarnation is grasped as a

reality, these other difficulties dissolve.... Once we grant

that Jesus was divine, it becomes unreasonable to find difficulty

in any of this; it is all of a piece, and hangs together

completely. The incarnation is in itself an unfathomable

mystery, but it makes sense of everything else that the New

Testament contains.15

If, indeed, the Bible is correct in teaching us that our destiny is inseparably linked to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ (which Romans 5 and many other texts emphatically demonstrate), then to deny the incarnation is to undermine the very core of our faith.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF INCARNATION

Incarnation is not just a debate about something which took place 2,000 years ago in history. The issues at hand in the incarnation of our Lord are matters of principle which have very practical ramifications. The broader issue of the incarnation is the relationship between the divine and the human, between the sovereign working of God and the human responsibility of man.

Let me attempt to illustrate what I mean by referring to the issue of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. The real question lying behind the issue of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures is whether anything which is dependent upon human participation can be said to be divine and without error. To deny the incarnation is to deny the deity or the humanity (or both) of our Lord. Such a denial is to conclude that it is impossible for our Lord to be both undiminished deity and sinless humanity at the same time. To conclude this about the living Word is to necessitate doing so with the written word.

The underlying principle here is the relationship between the divine and the human. One of the most pressing problems for the Christian is how can God (the divine) indwell and manifest Himself in the human (me). To deny that the divine and human can be joined together in any practical or personal way is to deny the essence of our salvation and sanctification, for when we are born again we become one with God and He with us. To live the spiritual life is to be joined with Him in whatever we do. The Christian is urged to exert himself because of the divine enablement which God has provided, thus merging divinity and humanity, divine power manifested in human weakness (cf. Rom. 12:1-2; II Pet. 1:3-11).

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE INCARNATION

The doctrine of the incarnation implies several truths which the Bible elsewhere verifies. Let us conclude by considering what the incarnation of our Lord implies to us, which we dare not ignore.

(1) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION INFORMS US OF THE DEPRAVITY OF MAN AND OF HIS DESPERATE CONDITION APART FROM DIVINE INTERVENTION.

Hopefully it has become clear that the incarnation involved a great condescension on the part of the second person of the Godhead. While there was much humiliation in His death, there was also humiliation in His incarnation (cf. II Cor. 8:9). The fact that God was willing to “stoop” to identifying with man in the incarnation of our Lord is evidence to the utter fallenness of mankind. Surely God would never have considered the incarnation unless there was no possible means by which man could save himself. The incarnation implies what the first three chapters of the Book of Romans boldly asserts -- that man was totally, irreversibly, lost, if left to himself. Man neither could, nor would, choose to save himself.

The point is simply to be stated in this way: if the cure requires drastic measures, the ailment is severe. No one would conceive of allowing the doctor to remove a limb to cure an infection which could be treated by antibiotics. But if the ailment were a cancer that would kill the patient, then a limb is gladly sacrificed to preserve the life. No cure is more drastic than that of the incarnation and the cross. Man’s problem of sin is indeed fatal.

(2) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION INFORMS US OF GOD’S DESIRE AND HIS ABILITY TO SAVE FALLEN MAN.

If we would wish to attempt to fathom the love of God for fallen man, let us ponder the wonder of the incarnation. While it is usually to the cross that we turn our attention to ponder the love of God, we must recognize that, as someone has said, “the wood of the cradle and the wood of the cross are the same.” The cradle was but the first step to the cross. And it is by that cradle that we should seek to ponder the willingness and the ability of God to save men from their sins.

(3) THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION WARNS US OF THE FOLLY OF REJECTING SALVATION IN CHRIST AND SUBSTITUTING OUR OWN EFFORTS.

I have suggested (and I acknowledge this logical argument may have its flaws) that if man were not hopelessly lost, God would hardly have sent his Son to the cradle or the cross. If the salvation of man takes such drastic measures as a cradle and a cross, surely God is rightly angered by man’s efforts to save himself and thereby rejecting the person and the work of God’s Son. Because God has chosen to save sinners by sending His only begotten Son, surely God is righteous to demand that men find salvation only in His Son. How foolish it is to seek to stand before God in any righteousness which rejects Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

We shall shortly return to our study of the Book of Revelation. When we study chapters 6 and following we must agree with the writer to the Hebrews who has said (in a different context),

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge

of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a

certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the furry of fire

which will consume the adversaries.... It is a terrifying thing

to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:26-27, 31).

What a wonderful, and reassuring view of God we have in the cradle, and on the cross. But for those who refuse the Christ of the gospels, they must face the Christ of the Book of Revelation, Who will subdue His enemies.

________

1. 1Cf. THE TRUTH OF GOD INCARNATE (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977), Michael Green, ed., pp. 36-39.

2. Ibid, pp. 39-41.

3. Clement of Alexandria, toward the close of the 2nd cent. A.D., cites diverse views concerning the date of Christ’s birth among early churchmen (Stromata, Bk. 1, Ch. 21).

“Augustine points to the prevailing tradition in the 5th cent.

among western churches concerning the birth of Christ and the

observance of Christmas. ‘For He is believed to have been

conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also He suffered;

... But He was born according to tradition upon December the

25th” (De Trinitate, Bk. IV, Ch. 5).” G. Lambert, “Christmas,”

THE ZONDERVAN PICTORIAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1975, 1976), I, p. 804.

4. Ibid.

5. The major arguments of this book are summarized: (1) The idea of ‘incarnation’, that God became man in Jesus of Nazareth, is a construction built upon the New Testament and not found in it. (2) We must recognize that the idea of ‘incarnation’ is a myth. (3) Jesus was a real man born in normal fashion, a child of Mary and Joseph. He did not exist before his conception and birth. (4) The significance of Jesus lies in his ‘faith-response’ to God. (5) Christ’s Sonship can be seen as a development from the idea of God’s ‘man’ to that of God’s son, by analogy. The later full-blooded conception of God’s only Son was a mistaken development. (6) Jesus is not different in kind from other men. (7) His death was martyrdom which crowned his life and activated his mission. Taken from: George Carey, GOD INCARNATE: MEETING THE CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES TO A CLASSIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1978), pp. 7-8.

6. THE TRUTH OF GOD INCARNATE, p. 17.

7. Ibid., p. 109.

8. Ibid., p. 111.

9. It should be noted, therefore, that one of the authors of The Myth of God Incarnate, Maurice Wiles, is chairman of the Church of England’s Doctrine Commission.

10. J. I. Packer, Knowing God, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973), p. 46. In this 5th chapter, entitled “God Incarnate,” Packer does an excellent job of underscoring the importance of the doctrine of the incarnation.

11. THE TRUTH OF GOD INCARNATE, p. 101.

12. As quoted in THE TRUTH OF GOD INCARNATE, pp. 108-109. To deny the incarnation of our Lord necessitates the rejection of divine revelation (the Bible) which clearly teaches it. The normal sequence of events is that the denial of the incarnation is the final step of rejecting divine revelation, not the first step. Usually man begins by denying the authority and the message of the Bible and the final departure is to deny the incarnation. In the preface to the book, THE TRUTH OF GOD INCARNATE, Michael Green summarizes the sequence of events which led to the publication of the book, THE MYTH OF GOD INCARNATE.

13. SELECTED SHORTER WRITINGS OF BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1970), ed. by John E. Meeter, I, p. 143.

14. Quoted in THE TRUTH OF GOD INCARNATE, p. 116.

15. Packer, KNOWING GOD, pp. 46-47.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1964]

In December 1903, after many attempts, the Wright brothers were successful in getting their "flying machine" off the ground. Thrilled, they telegraphed this message to their sister Katherine: "We have actually flown 120 feet. Will be home for Christmas."

Katherine hurried to the editor of the local newspaper and showed him the message. He glanced at it and said, "How nice. The boys will be home for Christmas." He totally missed the big news -- man had flown!

Many people today make a similar mistake when they hear the word Christmas. They don't think of Jesus and His miraculous birth. Instead, they think of family gatherings, festive meals, decorations, and gifts. To them, Christmas brings nostalgia and memories of childhood. Now, all this celebration isn't wrong. But if that's all that Christmas means to us, we are missing its true significance. --Decision Magazine

Dr. Joseph Parker, on one occasion, referred to the Unitarian concept of Jesus Christ as a great example only, and then went on to say: “We have been to hear Paderewski play. It was wonderful, superb, magnificent. Then we went home and looked at the piano. We would have sold it to the first man who would have been fool enough to buy it. That is the effect of your great examples upon us. I want not only a great example, but a great Saviour, one who can deliver me from my weakness and my sins.”

To follow a good example in the future will not blot out the black record of the past; we need the blood of Christ's atoning sacrifice to accomplish that. To hear a Paderewski play will not make us like a Paderewski. Could a Paderewski incarnate himself within one, he could play like himself. So the Christian life is not Christ and I, but Christ in me. We need the Christ from within to live the Christ without.

__________

Moody Monthly

*

How stupendous that God would come to earth as a baby!

God lay a baby on the door step of the world. He was born, not in a palace, but in a cattle barn; not on a famed Appian Way, but in an obscure hamlet. A feeding trough was His cradle and beast of the field and lowly shepherds were His attendants. He was born, not of royalty, but of humble and poor parents.

Yet an angelic chorus heralded His birth. A star led wise men on a long pilgrimage to the very place where He was. . . . For the birth of that Baby was the colossal event of the ages. No army that ever marched, no battle ever fought, no other event of history begins to match that moment for its impact on the world and its importance for eternity.

-- Henry Garieply, {100 Portraits of Christ}

Not long after a little boy fell asleep one night, a nightmare woke him up screaming. His father hurried up to comfort him, but the shadows on the wall plus the darkness of the room, kept him shuddering. Finally, his father said, "I must leave you now. But God will watch over you. God's right here."

As the father left, the little boy whispered, "I want a God what's got skin on."

Norman Rockwell has given us unforgettable paintings that grab our hearts and draw us into the picture. Rockwell's teacher, Thomas Fogarty, taught him the secret of doing that. Forgarty would say, "Step over the frame, Norman, over the frame and live in the picture."(1)

Jesus Christ did just that. He stepped upon the stage of life and devoted Himself to teaching us what the Father was like. He then died for our sins.

________

1. Lloyd John Ogilvie, Discovering God's Will in Your Life (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1982) 44

In "The Last Battle" of C.S. Lewis' Narnian tales, a monkey named Shift persuades a donkey named Puzzle into wearing a lion skin they happen across. Now, this was against Puzzle's better judgment — a lion is the king of beasts after all, and the great lion, Aslan, would probably not approve. Still, Puzzle reluctantly agrees because, says he, everyone knows that monkeys are clever and donkeys are not. And Shift's cleverness is certain for he knows that all Narnians revere Aslan and he can make good use of a makeshift lion.

And so, with Puzzle's help, in the Name of Aslan, Shift turns Narnia upside down. This mayhem eventually becomes the Last battle where all appears lost, until the real Aslan appears. In that splendid scene, the very first person Aslan calls to himself is Puzzle the donkey. The narrator reports that you never saw a donkey look sillier or feebler than Puzzle as he walked up to the great lion Aslan.

I employ this child's tale to rouse your mind's eye toward something that is hard to see in present times, for adult and child alike. You see, in this Narnian scene, Truth is a Person. Lewis paints the scene well, because the reader really feels the disparity of that moment. The Aslan you love is finally there, the battle has ended, and yet you find yourself somehow walking remorsefully with that donkey. Standing in front of Aslan, Puzzle stands in front of Truth himself. As shame weighs those ears down, truth is not a metaphor he got wrong, or a word he stretched a little too far — Puzzle is ashamed because he misrepresented Truth himself.

This is where I ask your adult mind to linger. Jesus claimed to be the Truth. It is easy, even in Christian circles, to regard this statement metaphorically. Truth today has become a vacuous thing we mold into what we need it to be. But when Truth is a Person, it is He that seeks to mold you.

Now imagine that: Truth, a Person, as real as you and me. What you once saw as distinctions in matters of opinion, now become distinctions in your attitude toward a Person. When truth is a person, you no longer face an argument demanding your approval, but a Person demanding your confidence.

Jesus says repeatedly throughout all four gospels, “I tell you the truth...” and you can know it is truth because he also says, “I am the Truth.” (John 14:6) His words require more and probe deeper than the metaphor. Ask yourself again, employ your imagination, when Truth is a Person — the Person of Jesus Christ — how would my world be different?

____________

Copyright © 2002 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #14095]

[Some suggest this story is a legend]

A candymaker in Indiana wanted to make a candy that would be a witness, so he made the Christmas Candy Cane. He incorporated several symbols for the birth, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ.

He began with a stick of pure white, hard candy. White to symbolize the Virgin Birth and the sinless nature of Jesus and hard to symbolize the Solid Rock, the foundation of the Church, and firmness of the promises of God.

The candymaker made the candy in the form of a "J" to represent the precious name of Jesus, who came to the earth as our Saviour. It could also represent the staff of the "Good Shepherd" with which He reaches down into the ditches of the world to lift out the fallen lambs who, like all sheep, have gone astray.

Thinking that the candy was somewhat plain, the candymaker stained it with red stripes. He used three small stripes to show the stripes of the scourging Jesus received by which we are hadled. The large red stripe was for the blood shed by Christ on the cross so we could have the promise of eternal life.

Unfortunately, the candy became known a a candy cane - a meaningless decoration seen at Christmas time. But the meaning is still there for those who "have eyes to see and ears to hear." I pray that this symbol will again be used to witness TO THE WONDER OF JESUS AND HIS GREAT LOVE that came down at Christmas and remains the ultimate and dominate force in the universe today.

"U.S. News and World Report" once had an article on pigs. A man named Dale Riffle received a Vietnamese potbellied pig as a gift. At that time they were popular as exotic pets.

Unfortunately, pigs aren’t necessarily ideal pets. Dale’s pig, named Rufus, wouldn’t use its litter box, and apparently began to eat Dale’s carpet, wallpaper, and drywall. But the man loved his pig so much, he sold his suburban home and bought a five-acre farm in West Virginia and began to take in other “exotic pet pigs” whose owners found them less than perfect companions.

In Dale Riffle’s 180-pig “hog heaven,” the pigs snooze on beds of pine shavings, soak in plastic swimming pools, and listen to piped-in classical music and they socialize in age-graded affinity groups. They never need fear that they will one day become bacon or pork chops.

Riffle told U.S. News and World Report, “I think we’re all put on earth for some reason, and I guess pigs are my lot in life.”

It’s incredible that someone could love pigs so much that he’d leave his nice, suburban home to live in “hog heaven” but think what the Son of God did: he loved us so much that he left his throne in heaven to be born as a helpless baby in a cave. That’s humility!

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5736]