04. The Son

THE SON

What is meant by the word ofPhp 2:7, where it is stated that our Lord Jesus Christ “made himself of no reputation”?

Many books have been written in an attempt to answer just this question. The Greek phrase translated, “made himself of no reputation” in the Authorized Version is translated by the Revisers, “emptied himself.” Of course there in much mystery here. Let it suffice to say that the glorious Son of God took upon Himself such humiliation as to make Him an effectual High Priest who might be touched with the feeling of man’s infirmities (Hebrews 4:15). “Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:17-18).

InColossians 1:15, Christ is called “the firstborn of every creature;” and yet in the succeeding verse it is stated that “all things were created by Him.” How can that be? The words quoted from verse 15 should be translated “the Firstborn of all creation.” He was never born, except in his incarnation; the word “firstborn” is positional and indicates that He is the Head over all creation. Is the genealogy inLuke 3:23-38that of Mary the mother of our Lord through Nathan? Who was Nathan? Does the Bible give us the names of Mary’s parents? If Luke 3 gives Mary’s genealogy, why is her name not mentioned? Is the genealogy of Matthew 1 that of Joseph through Solomon?

Nathan was a son of David and Bathsheba, and thus a full brother of Solomon (1 Chronicles 3:5). Mary’s father’s name was Eli (or Heli; Luke 3:23). It is not mentioned elsewhere, but tradition also gives him this name, and gives Ann as Mary’s mother’s name. The father’s name is given in the genealogy of Luke 3, because no women’s names are mentioned in the table. The Matthew table gives Joseph’s descent from David through Solomon. According to Jeremiah 22:24-30 this would prevent Joseph or his seed from occupying David’s throne. Coniah (Jeremiah 22:24) is identical with Jechonias (Matthew 1:11-12). It is because Jesus was Mary’s seed, “the seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15), and not the seed of Joseph, that He is entitled to inherit the throne of David. Is the doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin mother really an important and vital part of the Christian faith?

Yes. His virgin birth is demanded by the Old Testament Scriptures and declared by the New Testament (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:18-25). And, besides, if He should prove to be the natural son of Joseph, He would be cut off from all right to the throne of David; for Joseph was of the seed of Coniah, and God declared in Jeremiah 22:24-30 that no descendant of Coniah could ever sit upon that throne. Joseph is shown in Matthew 1 to have descended from Jechonias, another form of Coniah’s name, while Luke 3 shows that through His mother Mary the Lord Jesus descended from David, not through Solomon and Coniah, but through another son of David named Nathan. No one is a Christian who denies our Lord’s virgin birth.

Please tell me whether Jesus was ever a Jew. My pastor recently stated from the pulpit that Jesus could never have been a Jew because His Father was divine. The Lord Jesus was from eternity divine, but almost twenty centuries ago the divine Son of God became incarnate in human flesh and was born of a Jewish mother, and therefore became a Jew. He is still, in His human capacity, a Jew, and when He comes again it will be to establish His crown rights to the throne of His Jewish ancestor David (Luke 1:31-33).

What doesHebrews 1:5mean? Was the Son of God with the Father always, or was He begotten of the Father after “the beginning”? The Son of God was not “begotten of the Father” in the sense that He ever began to be. He has “neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (Hebrews 7:3), “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2). The words of Hebrews 1:5, quoted from Psalms 2:7, ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee,” and the other words quoted from 2 Samuel 7:14, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son,” do not disprove our Lord’s eternity. The quotation from Psalms 2:7, ‘This day have I begotten thee,” points to the day of His resurrection when He was begotten again from the dead (compare Colossians 1:18; Acts 13:33). In Colossians 1:15, He is called, according to the King James Version, “the firstborn of every creature.” A better translation would be “the firstborn of all creation.” In Revelation 3:14 He is called, “the beginning of the creation of God.” The meaning of these Scriptures is that He occupies the place in creation which belongs to the firstborn, that is, the head of the house. He is the Beginning and the Ending, and His position is “as a Son over his own house” (Hebrews 3:6). Our Lord’s full deity is shown in many Scriptures (see for example, the various quotations from the Old Testament applied to Him in the first chapter of Hebrews, and compare John 1:1-5 and Colossians 1:16-17).

How do we know that the Lord Jesus is God? Our Lord’s deity is proven as follows:

1. All the Old Testament names of God are merged in the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. The Lord Jesus received human worship.

3. He forgave sins.

4. He displayed omnipotent power.

5. He displayed omniscience.

6. He asserted His omnipresence.

7. The New Testament Scriptures assert the deity of the Lord Jesus. My daughter is teaching school, and some of the pupils asked her if she believed that Jesus was God. She told them “Yes,” and she quoted such Scriptures asJohn 1:1-15. Then they asked her to explainJohn 14:28, “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” They said that this verse proved that God was greater than Jesus, and they said that when Jesus was on earth He prayed to God in Heaven. How shall she answer this question? The answer is in the incarnation of the Son of God, who thus became the Son of Man. The whole story is told in that wonderful paragraph beginning with the 5th verse of Philippians 2, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form (or position, or rank) of God, thought it not a thing to be retained by grasping to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a slave, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Jesus, the man, certainly says of God, “My Father is greater than I,” but Jesus, the Son of God, as such could never say such a thing. Was Jesus alive before He was born of Mary? Some tell us He was not, while Scripture tells us He was in the bosom of the Father from all eternity; and, in spite ofJohn 1:1-2, they ask the question, if Jesus was the Word—was it Jesus who came to Jeremiah when Scripture states that the Word of the Lord came to Jeremiah; forgetting, I suppose,Hebrews 1:1?

There was never a time in the past eternity before His advent into the world that the Son of God was not alive. He is without beginning of days or end of life (Hebrews 7:3). He is also the eternal Word of God, and it was He who dealt with Jeremiah and with all the Old Testament prophets. He has always been the revealer of God to men. This is the true meaning of John 1:18 : “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared (or, revealed) Him.”

Why is the title, “the everlasting Father,” applied to the Lord Jesus Christ inIsaiah 9:6?

It should be translated “the Father of the Ages,” and refers to the fact that by Him the dispensations were programmed, or the ages planned (Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 11:3, Greek).

Please explainGenesis 49:10—”The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Is it not true that the throne of David has been empty since the overthrow of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar 2,500 years ago?

Yes, it is true that David’s throne is unoccupied temporarily. But that does not mean that the scepter has departed from Judah. In God’s reckoning the scepter is still in the hands of Judah, and in due time—when Shiloh comes—it will be revealed that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Shiloh, “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15-16). Our Lord is of the tribe of Judah, and He is the rightful Heir to David’s throne. The word “Shiloh” means the Peacemaker, and points to the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). The Ancient Versions, however, almost unanimously translate, “He to whom it belongs,” thus reminding us of Ezekiel 21:27, “He whose right it is” (Compare Luke 1:31-33).

What is the difference between Messiah and Christ?

There is no difference. Messiah and Christ are identical, Messiah being the Hebrew word and Christos the Greek word. To translate either of these words into English we must say, “the anointed one.” In Old Testament times prophets, priests, and kings, were inducted into office by having oil poured upon them. Thus they became the anointed of the Lord. This oil was a type of the Holy Spirit (Zechariah 6:1-6). The anointed one is the Christos, the anointing is the Chrisma. In this general sense there were many messiahs or anointed ones. But in the specific sense the Lord Jesus is the Messiah or Christ par excellence. He is distinctively the Christ of God (Luke 9:20). He is the Prophet and the Priest and King all in one. A prophet is one who speaks for God to men. A priest is one who appears before God for men. And a king is one who rules for God over men. In His first advent nearly two thousand years ago the Lord Jesus functioned as the Prophet of God, speaking for God to men; in His present work at the right hand of the Majesty on High He functions as Priest, appearing before God for men; and when He comes again it will be to function as King, reigning for God over men. Is Jesus King or Lord? I have recently heard a statement from a theological professor that Jesus is Lord but will never be a King. Please explain this. Our Savior is our Lord, and one day He will be manifested as “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 19:16). The promise of God is that His Son will ascend the throne of David, reigning over the house of Jacob and over a kingdom that shall have no end (Luke 1:31-33).

I have heard the Lord Jesus called “our elder Brother.” I have never seen the phrase in the New Testament. If it is there please give me the place where I can find it. If not in the New Testament please give me the author of the phrase. The phrase is not in the New Testament, and as to who originated it I cannot tell. I never use the expression myself, and am sorry to hear anybody use it, for to me it seems to lack in reverence toward our Lord. It is true that we are His brethren in the family of God if we are born again. And in Hebrews 2:12 it is declared that “He is not ashamed to call them brethren” who are the children of God by faith. It is good to have Him call us brethren, but let us leave that to Him, and let us remember that He is our Lord, and that we are to worship Him (Psalms 45:11). Is there any passage of Scripture in the Old Testament where the genealogy of Mary the mother of Jesus can be traced back to David? Of course Mary is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but it is without controversy that the genealogy in Luke 3 is hers. Notice in verse 23 of that chapter that Joseph is spoken of as “the son of Heli”; but the words, “the son,” are in italics, which means that they have been supplied by the translators and do not occur in the Greek text. This is the rule throughout Luke’s genealogical table. Dr. Scofield’s note on the passage in Luke is no doubt correct: “In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told (1:16) that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke ‘the son of Heli’? He could not be by natural generation the son of both Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called ‘son of Heli’ (‘son’ is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage (compare 1 Samuel 24:16). The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary’s genealogy; and Joseph was ‘son of Heli’ because espoused to Heli’s daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, whose father, Heli, was descended from David” (Scofield Reference Bible).

Why does the Bible say inMatthew 1:23, “They shall call his name Emmanuel,” and He was not called Emmanuel?

It is true that Jesus is not actually called Emmanuel in the Bible itself, but notice what Matthew says: ‘They shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” Now, He has often been called “Emmanuel” by His people, and also “God with us.” Therefore the prophecy is fulfilled.

I have recently heard it said that the wise men of the East were not in the same scene as the shepherds at the time of our Lord’s birth in Bethlehem. Can this be true?

Despite the popular misconception it must be answered that the statement you heard is true. If you will read the account of Luke 2:1-40 and compare it with Leviticus 12:1-8 you will see that at the time of our Lord’s birth and the visit of the shepherds the holy family remained in or near Jerusalem for nearly six weeks, and then returned to Nazareth. Then if you will read the account of Matthew 1:18 to Matthew 2:23 you will find that the visit of the wise men was not to the stable where the Babe lay in a manger, but rather to a house where the young Child was. Then you will see that directly after the visit of the wise men, Joseph, being warned of God in a dream, was sent with Mary and her Child into Egypt where they remained until the death of Herod, following which they returned to Nazareth in Galilee. This must have been at least a year subsequent to the birth and the visit of the shepherds, and it might have been as much as two years, as may be suggested by the fact that Herod “sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” Did the adoration of the shepherds in the stable at Bethlehem take place at the same time with the visit of the wise men from the East? By no means. The adoration of the shepherds took place immediately after the birth of our Lord, but the visit of the wise men came certainly a year, and perhaps even two years later. In Luke 2, we learn that after the birth of the Child and the adoration of the shepherds, there came the circumcision when the Child was eight days old, and then came the days of the mother’s purification which, according to the law, occupied 33 days (Leviticus 12:1-8). It was at the end of the mother’s days of purification that the offering was presented of “a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons” (compare Luke 2:24 with Leviticus 12:8). Thus it appears that Joseph and Mary and the Child remained in Bethlehem after the birth for something like six weeks, after which they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth (Luke 2:39), where “the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40). In Luke 2:41 we read that “his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.” It was on one of these annual visits to Jerusalem, perhaps a year, or even two years, after the birth, that the visit of the wise men took place, the account of which we have in Matthew 2. The first verse of that chapter may be legitimately translated, “Now Jesus, having been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king,” etc. This visit of the wise men was followed immediately, not by Joseph and Mary and the Child returning to Nazareth, but rather by the flight of the holy family into Egypt, where they remained until the death of Herod, after which they returned again to Nazareth (Matthew 2:13-23). Did Jesus have any blood brothers and sisters? Were there other children in the home of Joseph and Mary?

Yes. Strictly speaking, they were half-brothers and half-sisters, since Joseph, their father, was not the father of Jesus. The half-brothers are named, and the half-sisters are mentioned without naming them, in Matthew 13:55-56. That these were really Mary’s children is proven by Psalms 69:8, which Psalm is certainly Messianic. Compare verse 4 with John 15:25; verse 9 with John 2:17 and Romans 15:3; and verse 21 with Matthew 27:34; Matthew 27:48 and John 19:29-30; and then compare verse 8 with John 7:3-5, and note the words, “my brethren” and “my mother’s children.” Will you please answer a question for me? I believe Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, but because of a question put to me I could not answer satisfactorily. In Isaiah 9 it is written that Jesus is “The mighty God” and it does not have the “Almighty” there. For that reason it was suggested that Jesus while here was not the “Almighty” but the “Mighty.” Please explain. This seems to be an attempt to make a distinction where there is no real difference. That Jesus is God, in the most absolute sense, there is no possible doubt to one who is subject to the Scriptures. Nor did He cease to be God during the days of His flesh. From everlasting to everlasting He is God. The opening verses of the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews are quite enough to settle this matter for any yielded heart. “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9).

How did Christ offer Himself in His prophetic character, in His priestly character, and in His kingly character? Our Lord exercised His prophetic office when He was here in the days of His flesh telling forth the message of God. This He did not only by His words, but also by His acts and in His own Person. The meaning of the word “prophet” is forthteller. He is now exercising His priestly office as He ministers at the right hand of the Majesty on high, making intercession for His people. He will show Himself in His kingly character at His Second Coming as “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of longs, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15).

Must we believe the virgin birth was necessary in order to separate Christ’s humanity from the sinfulness which is the inheritance of all the race from Adam? For, after all, this only halved the matter. The influence of the mother exceeds that of the father during the period of gestation. Did she contribute of her sinful nature, or did God bar the transmission of sin from her to her son? And if so, why could not He bar the transmission from two human parents as well as one? No doubt He could have done so, but the question is not what He could have done, but rather what He did. And according to the record, what He did was to create a body for His Son and place that body in the womb of a virgin, just as in the first creation He created a body for the first man and placed that body in the garden of Eden. “Why should it be thought. . . . incredible” that GOD should do these things? The real difficulty with those who reject the testimony of the Book as to the supernatural is that they have a wrong conception of who God is and what He can do. Was our Lord tempted because He was in the likeness of sinful flesh, in order that He could come to the aid of those that are tempted? The record is that He was “made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:17-18). But we must have a care lest we receive or convey a wrong definition of the word “tempted” as applied to Him. He was tested in all points like ourselves, sin excepted (Hebrews 4:15). That is to say, He had no testing, or temptation, from indwelling sin. And yet He knows us altogether and is the never-failing resource of His people. “Let us come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). Do you teach that the Lord Jesus could not have sinned? Where, then, was the temptation? Does not the Bible teach that He was tempted just as we are tempted? And does it not say that He was a man of like passions with us?

No, it does not say that You are confusing Him with Elijah, or Paul and Barnabas (James 5:17; Acts 14:15). Our Lord was indeed a Man, but unlike other men, He had no sin in Him. This explains the last clause of Hebrews 4:15, which really says, not “yet without sin,” but “a part from sin.” In our temptations there is enticement from indwelling sin; but He was never enticed that way, for there was in Him no indwelling sin. If it be objected that one who is unable to sin cannot really be tempted, it is sufficient to answer that temptation really means testing. And to say that our Lord could not be tempted would be like saving that pure gold could not be subjected to a test to determine its purity. Or that an impregnable fortress could not be attacked. Our Lord, despite this great difference between Himself and us, is nevertheless able to sympathize with us, for He knows what is in everyone of us, and on account of His love for us and our relation to Him as members of His body, He suffers with us when we suffer. If Jesus of Nazareth had failed under the test and yielded to the temptation of Satan, that would have proven, not that God in the flesh could sin, but rather that Jesus of Nazareth was not God in the flesh. Thank God for the wilderness test, and for the resultant demonstration that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed Immanuel, God with us! And again, if we say that the Lord Jesus could have sinned while upon earth, how can we deny that He might sin even now up in Heaven? May the thought be far from us! The Man at the Father’s right hand is one with the Father, and neither with Him nor with the Father is there any variableness, or even the shadow of turning.

How did the virgin birth free Christ from the guilt of Adam’s first sin? Does a child partake only of the nature of his father, and not at all of his mother, so that Christ, being conceived of the Holy Ghost, was born without the guilt of original sin, having no human father? Our Lord’s freedom from sin did not result from His virgin birth. Of course, it is true that a child partakes of its mother’s nature as well as that of its father. But in this case the whole work was miraculous, and by the power of the Holy Spirit the Son of God was preserved from the taint of human sin. The same God who created a body for Adam and placed it in the garden of Eden also created a body for His Son and placed it in the womb of the virgin. See Hebrews 10:5.

This, however, is not to say that the doctrine of the virgin birth is unimportant. Indeed, it is vital to our faith. If Jesus had been begotten by Joseph then He never could ascend the throne of His father David, for in that case He would be not only of the house of David (which, of course, He must be in order to inherit the throne), but He would also be a descendant of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim whose seed is forever prohibited from occupying that throne (compare Jeremiah 22:24-30 with Jeremiah 23:5-6).

What is the significance of our Lord’s frequent command to those whom He healed, not to make His acts known? SeeLuke 8:56;Matthew 9:30, and similar passages. On Matthew 16:20 Dr. Scofield has this enlightening note: “The disciples had been proclaiming Jesus as the Christ, that is, the covenanted King of a Kingdom promised to the Jews, and ‘at hand.’ The Church, on the contrary, must be built upon testimony to Him as crucified, risen from the dead, ascended, and made ‘Head over all things to the Church’ (Ephesians 1:20-23). The former testimony was ended, the new testimony was not yet ready, because the blood of the new covenant had not yet been shed, but our Lord begins to speak of His death and resurrection (verse 21). It is a turning-point of immense significance.”

Again, on Mark 8:22-26, he says: “Our Lord’s action here is most significant. Having abandoned Bethsaida to judgment (Matthew 11:21-24), He would neither heal in that village, nor permit further testimony to be borne there (verse 26). The probation of Bethsaida as a community was ended, but He would still show mercy to individuals. Compare Revelation 3:20. Christ is outside the door of that church, but ‘If any man hear my voice’, etc.” (Scofield Reference Bible). To what time did our Lord refer, as concerning Caiaphas, inMatthew 26:64? In reply to Caiaphas’ words, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God,” the Lord Jesus said unto him, ‘Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” The reply of our Lord was addressed to Caiaphas officially and not personally. He was a representative of the nation of Israel, and the message is intended for the nation rather dian the man himself. It will be fulfilled in due time at the Second Advent.

How many times, and by whom, was our Lord anointed? I refer to the anointing, or anointings, described inMatthew 26:7;Mark 14:3;Luke 7:37-38;John 11:2;John 12:1-8.

There were two anointings, and they were separated from each other by about two years in time, and by the distance between Judea and Galilee in miles. There is nothing in common between them except that they body took place in the houses of men called Simon.

Simon was a common enough name, and it is not to be wondered at that two such men should be connected with these records. Luke alone tells us of the first anointing, in chapter 7:36-50. This incident took place early in our Lord’s ministry while He was in Galilee. The woman who anointed His feet and wiped them with the hairs of her head is described as “a woman in the city, which was a sinner” (verse 37). This doubtless means that she was an impure woman. By some strange and inexplicable combination of circumstances there is a widespread notion that she was Mary Magdalene. Indeed, “Magdalene” has come to mean an unchaste woman. Of course it means nothing of the sort. Mary was called Magdalene because she came from Magdala, and there is no slightest intimation in the Scripture that she was a “sinner” in the sense of unchastity. Mary of Magdala had suffered from demon possession and had been wonderfully delivered by the Lord Jesus, but there is nothing in the Scripture records to indicate that she figures in the anointing described in Luke 7. The second anointing took place two years later, when our Lord was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners and crucified. This anointing is described in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8. It occurred “in the house of Simon the leper” (Matthew 26:6; Mark 14:3). This house was located in Bethany, according to all three of the writers. John tells us that this anointing took place at a supper which had been prepared for the Lord Jesus, and that at this supper “Martha served,” and her brother “Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with Him.” He does not, however, tell us that it was in the home of Martha and Lazarus. There has been much conjecture as to the identity of “Simon the leper,” but the record does not help us to identify him. It is not stated that “Simon the leper” was present at the supper, and we may safely assume that if this Simon were present, he was surely no longer a leper. No leprosy ever long remained in the presence of the Lord Jesus. The woman who did the anointing at this supper was Mary of Bethany, the sister of Martha and Lazarus.

Matthew and Mark tell us that Mary anointed our Lord’s head, and from John we get the additional information that she also anointed His feet and wiped them with her hair. No contradiction is implied. Both His head and His feet were anointed. ‘The ordinary anointing of hospitality and honor,” says Dr. Scofield, “was of the feet (Luke 7:38) and head (Luke 7:46). But Mary of Bethany, who alone of our Lord’s disciples had comprehended His thrice repeated announcement of His coming death and resurrection, invested the anointing with the deeper meaning of the preparation of His body for burying. Mary of Bethany was not among the women who went to the sepulcher with intent to embalm the body of Jesus.”

It is well to remember that our Lord was so pleased with Mary’s act of devotion, growing out of her simple faith in His testimony concerning His coming death and resurrection, that He commanded His disciples, saying, “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.”

I should like to know the meaning of the words ofMatthew 26:29, “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The meaning will be clear if you will notice our Lord’s words in verse 27, “Drink ye all of it,” and again in the parallel Scripture, Luke 22:17, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves.” He did not drink of the cup with His disciples, for His blood was not to be shed for Himself but for them. Compare the vow of the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3-4; Numbers 6:20).

What is the true meaning of our Lord’s words inJohn 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”? The next verse answers your question: “This he said, signifying what death he should the” (verse 33). He was to the by being lifted up on a cross from the earth. His death was to be by crucifixion (compare Psalms 22:16; Isaiah 53:7; John 3:14-16; John 8:28; John 18:31-32). Thus lifted up in death Christ drew all men unto Him and they for them all, bearing away their sins from before the face of God (1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 2:9). The sin question has therefore been disposed of, and disposed of righteously. Today the big question is not the sin question, but the Son question. What will you do with Jesus who is called Christ? Upon your answer to this question depends your fate for time and eternity. See 1 John 5:12.

Please explainJohn 12:32. Does the lifting up here indicate the exalting of the Lord Jesus in preaching?

No, it does not. “All men,” even in the smallest communities, are not drawn to Christ by the most faithful preachers. The meaning of the passage is far different. Study the context, from the twentieth verse. Philip and Andrew approached the Lord with a request from certain Gentiles desiring to see Him. Now, observe carefully the strange effect upon our Lord of this unusual request. He was rarely so stirred as now.

There was apparently some strange significance attaching to this visit of the Gentiles which does not appear upon the surface. In verse 24 our Lord pictures Himself as a grain of wheat. Gentiles are desiring to see Him. It was a crisis in His ministry.

Apparently He did not show Himself to these Gentiles, and the reason was that He had no ministry for Gentiles, except to the for them. Like the com of wheat which, unless it falls into the ground and dies, abides alone, but which if it dies, it brings forth fruit, so He must lay down His life. He must die for the world; men must be born again, and that could not be apart from His own death; the Son of Man must be lifted up (compare John 3:14). The Lord Jesus here reaffirms His determination to yield up His life for the salvation of men. Christ according to the flesh could be of no benefit to the Gentiles; it must be Christ crucified and risen again (compare 2 Corinthians 5:16 with 1 Corinthians 1:23-24). In verses 25 and 26 of John 12 our Lord calls His disciples to a life of self-abnegation, and points out that this is the true path to glory. Notice, in verse 27, how our Lord is stirred.

“Now,” says He, “is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?’ Our Lord is questioning Himself, so to speak. What shall He say? Shall He say, “Father, save me from this hour”? Not so, for “for this cause came I unto this hour.” This rather would He say, “Father, glorify thy name.” It was a solemn reiteration of His devotion to His Father’s will. He would drink of His Father’s cup to the dregs. He would go on to death, even the death of the cross. And thus, instead of saving Himself, He would save others. Thus He would lead “many sons unto glory.” Our Lord’s decision was greeted by the audible answer of the Father speaking out of Heaven, saying: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” It was the Father’s acceptance of His Son’s devotion. This was the third and last time, during our Lord’s earthly ministry, that the Heavens were thus opened for the Father to speak through them in approval of the Son (Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5). To get the true meaning of this passage, we must be brought by the Holy Spirit into the very atmosphere of it. Hear the thrill in our Lord’s voice as He says: “Now is the judgment (Gr. crisis) of this world: now shall the prince of this world (that is, Satan) be cast out” (verse 31). And how was Satan to be cast out? Read the answer in verse 32: “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” The thirty-third verse explains precisely the meaning of the thirty-second: ‘This He said, signifying what death He should die.” By His death on the cross, then, our Lord drew all men unto Himself. When His blood was poured out on Calvary He displaced the first Adam as the federal head of the race, drawing all men unto Himself. “One died for all, therefore all died” (2 Corinthians 5:14, R.V.).

It is thus that our Lord is “the Savior of the world”—”the Savior of all men” (John 4:42). He is the Savior “specially of those that believe,” but He is also, in a very true sense, the Savior of the whole race (1 Timothy 4:10). The race is not saved, but that is not because it has no Savior. “The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) tasted “death for every man” (Hebrews 2:9). The world is not saved, but He died in order “that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). Redemption was wrought for His enemies. “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). A statement that you made regarding the “cup” (Matthew 26:39-42;Mark 14:36;Luke 22:42) grieved me very much. I would not have written about it, but our pastor, too, used your definition, and caused disagreement in the class. It seems to me, in these days when Christ is humanized, the adversary is putting in his tactics. If Christ is God, which we all believe, how could Satan have taken His life? According toJohn 10:17-18, it is plain He laid His life down voluntarily, and took it up again. On the cross He cried with a LOUD voice, not like a weak man dying.

I am especially sorry to have you think that I am “humanizing” our Lord Jesus Christ, anymore than He is “humanized” by the New Testament itself. Is it not true that He was really human as well as really divine? And if that be true, and if He could be weary and hungry and thirsty, is it impossible for Him also to have known the sensation of fear?

It is easy to ask hard questions, and it is hard to answer them. None of us knows exactly what it means when we read in the Word of God that the eternal Son of God “emptied himself in order to be our Savior. Evidently there were self-imposed limitations—self-imposed voluntarily—which our Lord assumed in His incarnation; but what those limitations were we do not fully know.

According to Hebrews 5:7, we read of our Lord, “who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared.” The 1911 Bible reads that He “was heard as to that which He feared.” And in the margin it reads that He “was heard in respect to that which He feared.” This passage could mean nothing if it does not mean that our Lord feared, and that because of His fear He called upon His Father to save him from death, and that His prayer was answered or granted. That is the meaning of He “was heard.” If the “cup” from which He prayed to be delivered was the death of Calvary, then His prayer was not granted; but if the “cup” from which He prayed to be delivered was His threatened death in the Garden, then His prayer was granted, for He did not die in the Garden. That He was threatened with death in the Garden might be indicated by the words, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death” (Matthew 26:38). In all this I know there are difficulties presented, but I have done the best I could with the difficulties. If my solution does not appeal to you, why then, of course, you are in no way bound to accept it. I think, however, that you might find it difficult to find a better solution that would meet all the points involved. Will you please explain why the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ do not come in the same month and on the same day of the month each year? The crucifixion of our Lord took place on the fourteenth day of the month Abib or Nisan, which corresponds almost exactly to our April. And therefore the fourteenth day of that month is the exact anniversary of the crucifixion. The resurrection took place on the first Sunday after the crucifixion. The general observance of “Easter” in our day is not according to the Word of God. The word “Easter” is found only once in the Bible (Acts 12:4), and even there it is a mistranslation of the Greek word, pascha, and the Revised Version has properly changed it to “passover.” The name was originally applied to a spring festival in honor of the heathen Eastra or Ostara, the teutonic goddess of light and spring. About the eighth century the name was transferred by the Anglo Saxons to the Christian festival designed to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, and it comes “on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox.” Of course this is ridiculous, but it is true nevertheless.

What language do the words, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” inMark 15:34come from? They were uttered by the Lord Jesus on the cross. Some have said that it was an unknown language, but that it was interpreted by the aid of the Holy Spirit. The words are an English transliteration (not translation) of the Greek, which is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic. This was the common vernacular at the time of our Lord’s First Advent.

InJohn 17:4the Lord Jesus said that He had finished the work His Father had given Him to do. On the cross He said, “It is finished.” Was the work He did afterJohn 17:4included in His work of redemption? The work of redemption in the sense of atonement for our sins was completed on the cross of Calvary. But He did not stop working after He arose from the dead, and He is at work now. In His earth life He only “began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). All His work then and now may he thought of as included in the great work of redemption. As a matter of fact, ever since God’s rest was interrupted by man’s sin He has been at work to redeem man from sin. In John 5:17 our Lord said: “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” And in this connection let us remember that the ministry of suffering appointed to many of the children of God is in order to “fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24).

There is, then, such a thing as the finished work of Christ and such another thing as the unfinished work of Christ. We rejoice in the completeness of His atoning work on the cross of Calvary. Let us also rejoice that one day there will be left nothing “behind of the afflictions of Christ,” because His body then will have been completed, and the ministry of suffering will be over. Then “From sorrow, toil, and pain, And sin, we shall be free; And perfect love and friendship reign Through all eternity.”

Please tell me who are meant in the fifth verse of the seventh chapter of St. John: “For neither did his brethren believe in him.” The reference is to our Lord’s brethren according to the flesh, that is, the other children of His mother Mary. There are those who deny that Mary had other children, but the Scripture is against them. In Matthew 12:46 reference is made to “his mother and his brethren”; in Matthew 13:55 four of His brethren are named, they were James and Joses and Simon and Judas, and in the 56th verse, His sisters are also mentioned.

Mark 6:3 is a parallel passage. There His brothers are again named and His sisters referred to. In John 2:12 we read that “he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples.” It is good to notice that in Acts 1:14 these brethren of our Lord appear as believers. Here it says that the apostles “all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul mentions the brethren of the Lord in connection with Cephas and himself. And in Galatians 1:18-19 Paul speaks of his first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion when he went “to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

It is true that the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) is the word for “kinsman” or “relative” whether near or remote. On this account those who object to the teaching that Mary had other children than Jesus insist that wherever His brethren according to the flesh are mentioned, they are His cousins or relatives in some other sense than as the children of Mary.

All of this might be true were it not for a single verse in Psalms 69 where the Holy Spirit of truth has settled the matter. This is one of the confessedly Messianic Psalms, and the Lord Jesus is its constant theme. It is in this Psalm that we hear Him saying, ‘They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (verse 21; compare Matthew 27:34 and John 19:28-30). Even in the confessions of sin found in the Psalm it is our Lord who speaks, confessing our sins as His own, thus showing His full identification with us as He hung on the cross in our place. Now look at verses 7-9:

“Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face.

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

“For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up (see John 2:17) and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” To those whose hearts are subject to the authority of the Word of God this is convincing. Mary had other children after the birth of the Lord Jesus, and the “brethren” of our Lord alluded to in the New Testament Scriptures we have been considering were His mother’s children.

I believe that Christ was crucified on Wednesday, but will you please tell me why the women did not anoint the body on Friday, as I have never seen any explanation of why they waited until Sunday? The obvious answer is that the women would not have been allowed access to the body of the Lord until after the three-day period, for which the Roman guard had been set. In other words, there were sixteen Roman soldiers set to guard the body from its incarceration in the tomb on Wednesday evening until the end of the third day following, which would be Saturday evening. Those soldiers would have seen to it that the body was not disturbed on Friday.

What is the meaning of the words, “he made his grave with the wicked” (Isaiah 53:9)? Did the tomb of Joseph of Arimathaea lie in the section of the Jewish cemetery assigned to criminals?

Evidently not. The tomb was Joseph’s “own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock” (Matthew 27:60). And John tells us that “in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulcher, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus” (John 19:41-42).

Isaiah 53:9 is translated by A. C. Gaebelein as follows: “Men appointed his grave with the wicked, but he was with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was there guile in his mouth.” Did Christ go to hell when He died?

No. The so-called Apostles’ Creed, which of course the apostles never saw, is wrong in the statement that “He descended into hell.” He descended into hades, which is often confused with hell in the current version of the Scriptures. “Sheol” is the Old Testament word and “hades” the New Testament word for the place of departed spirits. The lost are still there, and are suffering there, as is shown by the sixteenth chapter of Luke. Their final abode will be in the lake of fire, which is hell. Their awful fate is shown in Revelation 20:14-15, which says: “And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

What is meant by the words ofIsaiah 53:5, “with his stripes we are healed”? The meaning is the same throughout the verse, and it is that Christ died for our sins and that by faith the believer is saved through His blood. In 1 Peter 2:4 there is a divine unfolding of the meaning: “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.” He is the only one in Heaven with wound stripes, and these wound stripes, unlike those of the returned soldiers, speak not of escape from death, but rather of His obedience “unto death, even the death of the cross.”

How can we go on, insisting that the first day of the week is “the Lord’s day” in view of the plain statement of Matthew 28 that it was on the Sabbath and before the first day of the week had begun, first the women came to the tomb and found it already empty, and were told by the angel, “He is not here: for he is risen, as he said”? This surely was on Saturday before sunset, and the weekly sabbath had not yet come to its end.

Presumably, were there no account given of the resurrection other than that provided by the inspired pen of Matthew, the idea of devoting the first day of the week to the commemoration of our Lord’s victory over the grave would not have occurred to anyone. On the basis of his record of the event, there is, as I see it, not the slightest warrant for designating Sunday as the Lord’s day.

I know, of course, that the descriptions of the resurrection presented by the other evangelists, and the accounts to be found in their writings regarding the various visits to the tomb which were made by different groups and by individuals at various times, seem to contradict Matthew’s story. However, after having given much study to the whole matter, I am unable to discover any lack of harmony when Matthew’s narration is used—as, it seems to me, it should be used—as the “norm” scripture. To my mind, there is no other way to avoid confusion regarding this important phase of truth, nor any other way of silencing those who so absurdly contend that Matthew’s version, in its apparent conflict with those of the other inspired writers, shows the whole affair to have been a hoax and a delusion. In considering the problem here presented, let us begin with a word touching the principle of the “norm,” as mentioned by the questioner. In selecting a passage as the norm for any certain doctrine, a passage should be chosen which gives clear, full and unmistakable teaching concerning that doctrine, rather than an isolated verse which might be construed in more than one way if considered apart from its context and without regard to the teaching of Scripture elsewhere. Now, the time of the arrival of the women at the tomb, and other facts related to our Lord’s resurrection, are clearly set forth in the other Gospels. Therefore we should use the other Gospels as the norm passages, rather than Matthew 28:1 whose exact meaning does not appear on the surface. The solution of the problem we are discussing lies in a correct understanding of the Greek adverb apse, occurring in the Authorized Version and “late on” in the Authorized Revision. Opse is an adverb of Matthew 28:1 and translated “in the end of in the Authorized time, which has two meanings, both of which are found in the Greek classics. One meaning is “late,” and the other is “after a long time,” or “long after.” Godet cites classic passages in which opse means “after,” as, for example, “after the Trojan war,” “the mysteries being over,” eta

Whenever we come upon a word having two meanings, the context must determine which meaning is the correct one. In this instance, the verb translated “began to dawn” decides the question for us. The verb comes from a root meaning “light.” It is in the form of a present participle in the locative case, and the locative case speaks of “time within which.” Thus the women arrived at the sepulcher during the time when it was growing light. This decides which of the two meanings belonging to opse should be chosen. In this passage it means “after.” Thayer’s lexicon translates “the sabbath having just passed, after the sabbath,” that is, “at the early dawn of the first day of the week,” and adds, “an interpretation absolutely demanded by the added specialization of” the participle mentioned above.

Strong’s Concordance defines opse as meaning “late in the day, or, by extension, after the close of the day.” The phrase, “began to dawn,” etc., may be translated in numerous ways; “as it began to lighten toward the first day of the week,” “as it grew toward daylight,” “at the dawning toward the first day of the week,” etc. The verb means “to grow toward dawn,” “to begin to shine” or “to grow light.” The root of the word is the Greek word meaning “light,” and hence the primary, ordinary, usual meaning of the phrase signifies at the dawning toward the day-part of the first day of the week. This, then, is the preferred rendering, and it should be used unless the facts of the case determine otherwise. The old Wycliffe translation reads: “Forsothe in the euenyng of the saboth, that scheyneth in the firste daye of the woke.”

Tyndale has it this way: ‘The saboth daye at even, which dauneth the morowe after the saboth.”

Anthony Purver’s translation (London, 1764), renders it “But in the night after the sabbath, at the dawning of the first day after it.” In the Book of the New Covenant (translator not named; London, 1838) it says: “And after the sabbath, when it began to dawn on the first day of the week.” The Syriac Peschito version makes it: “For the evening (end) of the sabbath, when the first (day) in the week was lightening.”

Emphatic Diaglott: “Now after the sabbath, as it was dawning to the first day of the week.”

F. W. Grant: “Now after the sabbath, as it began to dawn the first day of the week.”

Overbury: “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn.”

Weymouth: “After the sabbath, in the early dawn of the first day of the week.”

Fenton: “After the sabbaths, towards the dawn of the day following the sabbaths.”

Woodruff: “After the sabbath, when the day began to dawn; on the first day of the week.”

Campbell: “Sabbath being over, and the first day of the week beginning to dawn.”

Noyes: “And the sabbath being over, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.”

Newcome: “But after the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.”

Wakefield: “Now, after the end of the week, as the first day of the (next) week began to dawn.”

Thomson: “Now the sabbath being over, at the dawn of the first day of the week.”

Weekes: “Then after the sabbath, at the dawning toward the first day of the week.”

Scarlett: “After the sabbath, in the dawn, toward the first day of the week.”

Taylor: “And after the sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn.”

Worsley: “Now after the sabbath, in the dawning towards the first day of the week.”

Norton: “And the sabbath being over, in the dawn of the first day of the week.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: “After the sabbath, as it grew toward daylight.”

These translations fit all the requirements, are literal according to Greek usage, fit the context, and harmonize with the other records.

Another strong argument for the first-day-of-the-week resurrection of our Lord is the typical one. In Leviticus 23 the calendar of the Feasts of Jehovah, the wavesheaf of the firstfruits, was to be waved before Jehovah “on the morrow after the sabbath” (v. 11). In 1 Corinthians 15:23 Paul interprets the type for us, identifying Christ as the firstfruits of the resurrection. It was “on the morrow after the sabbath” that Christ came from the tomb and showed Himself first to Mary of Magdala. He forbade her to touch Him until He had ascended to the Father, to be presented unto Him as the wave-sheaf of the firstfruits. And so, the first day of the week is “the Lord’s day.” The Old Testament sabbath is gone, and we now assemble ourselves together to worship Him, rejoicing that, having been delivered up for our offenses, He rose again for our justification.

Why did Jesus say, “Touch me not” to Mary (John 20:17;John 20:27) while He invited Thomas to handle Him? The answer is that as the wave sheaf of the firstfruits, He must, “on the morrow after the sabbath,” be presented to God as a token and portion of the first resurrection, before anyone else should be permitted to touch Him. See Leviticus 23:9-14; 1 Corinthians 15:20-24. Between His appearing to Mary and His appearing later in the day to His other disciples, our Lord ascended into Heaven, fulfilling the type of the wave sheaf of Leviticus 23:9-14. As the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:23), He must be presented before Jehovah to be accepted for us (Leviticus 23:11). This must take place before His presentation to any other. Another type fulfilled was that of the Day of Atonement. Our Lord had accomplished His sacrifice and when He was seen by Mary, He was, as it were, on His way to enter into the presence of God to present there His own blood on our behalf (Hebrews 9:11-12). All this, of course, must take place immethately upon His resurrection in order to perfectly fulfill the requirements of the typical Scriptures. Will you please explainIsaiah 22:25? To understand this verse the passage should be read beginning with verse 15 where God’s judgment is pronounced against Shebna, who was to be displaced as treasurer by Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, of whom God says in verse 21: “I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand.” The language of verses 22 to 24 has a double application, for it clearly looks forward to Christ (compare Revelation 3:7). But when you come to the 25th verse Shebna again comes into view as the one who supposes himself to be firmly fixed in his post as a “nail that is fastened in the sure place.” In spite of his fancied security he is nevertheless to “be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for Jehovah hath spoken it.” Will you please state how the following passages are harmonized?

1 John 4:12 and 1 John 4:18, “No man hath seen God at any time”; and Exodus 24:10, “And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.” Exodus 24:11, “Also they saw God, and did eat and drink.” The words you quote are not found in 1 John 4:18, but they occur in 1 John 4:12, and again in John 1:18, where the answer to your question is furnished by the remaining words of the verse: “The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,” or “made him known”; literally, “led him forth,” as in an introduction. The theophanies, or appearings of God in the Old Testament were preincarnate manifestations of our Lord Jesus Christ. Compare, for example, Isaiah 6:1-10 with John 12:37-41.

What is it to know Christ “after the flesh” (2 Corinthians 5:16)?

It is to know Him as the man “in the flesh,” or the unregenerate man, knows Him. Such knowledge of Christ is described by Dr. Scofield as “an intellectual belief in the historical Christ, which is distinct from ‘believing on Him.’ The latter implies trust, dependence. Intellectual belief does not bring salvation, as belief with trust does to those who truly, with the heart as well as the mind, believe.”