Who is our God? Chapter 15

Very soon after our 10th chapter appeared (December, 1952; The Humanity of the Lord), it was my good fortune to peruse a very fine paper in the 1937 volume of the transactions of The Victoria Institute or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, entitled "The Person of Christ. Doctrine of the Two Natures," by Henry R. Kindersley, B.A.

As some of our readers have found the doctrine made known in Phil. 2:7 difficult to grasp, because it has so seldom been taught, it may be helpful to study the views of another.
Our author begins by shewing that the doctrine of the two natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ—Perfect God and Perfect Man—has occasioned a great deal of questioning and been responsible for much defection from the orthodox Faith.

"It is asked how it is possible that the Perfect Godhead, with all its inherent powers, could exist in full function in the nature of One who was Perfect Man, with all the limitations which humanity entails. How can anyone know all things, and at the same time not know them? So stated this amounts to a contradiction in terms.

"Many of those who were troubled by these difficulties hailed 'evolution' as a possible avenue of escape (even if only 'by way of avoidance' and not explanation), always in the belief that the persistent search of the Scientists might be trusted eventually to discover the missing evidence which up to date has restricted 'evolution' to the category of pure speculation. The logic of 'evolution' demands that in the interests of 'uniformity' belief in the Godhead of Jesus Christ—the keystone of the Christian religion—must be abandoned.

"The next step was inevitable, and the Modernists, denying His Godhead, and ignoring the power of God, have lowered the Jesus Christ of the Gospels to the level of the fallen offspring of Adam; and consequently His recorded utterances are declared to be frequently in error, though His general teaching is said to be true! This is the Modernist's reading of the doctrine known as Kenosis based on the words of St. Paul in Phil. 2:7. The modernist view is that 'the Christ Spirit' descended upon Jesus, the 'natural' son of Joseph and Mary. This novel doctrine of course plays havoc with the Gospel narratives.

"The Creationists, who stand for the Orthodox Faith, as enunicated in the Creeds, could not remain unaffected by the difficulty presented by the doctrine of the 'two natures' in the single Person of Jesus Christ; so, in order to admit His Humanity, they had to concede the 'veiling' of His Godhead. If disposed to advance cautiously in this direction, nevertheless they felt themselves supported by the words of Scripture—'the veil, that is to say, His flesh' (Heb. 10:20).
"Now if, on New Testament authority, it can be shown that in Jesus Christ the inherent powers of Godhead, in everything affecting His incarnate state, were wholly veiled, it is not difficult to believe that a great body of Christian opinion might be won back from the materialism which the logic of 'evolution,' accepted on trust as something more than a theory, would seem to induce; always provided that such veiling does not in the smallest degree invalidate the simple meaning of His words and actions, even as it surrenders nothing of unquestioned faith in His identity as 'the Only Begotten Son of God.'

"The 'veiling' which is now in mind, would seem to have been complete, amounting at His Incarnation to a temporary abeyance of His powers, wherever the retention of His own divine powers would militate against the full realisation of His adopted Humanity. At the same time, the retention by Jesus Christ of His Divine powers in the spiritual world (the power to forgive sin, etc.) would obviously not derogate in any measure from His voluntary abnegation. It is in this sense only that the expression 'wholly veiled' is intended to be used in this connection.
"In a whole-hearted belief that the Bible not merely 'contains' but is 'the word of God,' this line of thought is offered in humble reverence, which—new, perhaps, to some if not to all Bible Students—has helped to clear away doctrinal difficulties presented by the necessity of interpreting the Creeds which throughout the centuries have buttressed the Church of Christ. If it sacrifices one single fundamental point of the orthodox Faith, as enunciated by the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, then this thesis must be treated as illusory.

"Our Lord's repeated reference to Himself (eighty times in the Gospels) as 'The Son of Man,' justifies us in seeking the whole import of this title. What deep satisfaction it brings, and what glorious light it sheds on the great purpose of God, to realise that His Incarnation provides the manifest example of The Man who fulfills and restores in Himself the lost opportunities of the original innocent Adam, and of a sinless and triumphant Humanity!

"Assuming that the Great Plan of Renunciation was 'foreordained' before the Foundation of the World,' and assuming that we agree that some of the absolute attributes of the Godhead in Christ were 'veiled' in His Incarnation (e.g., His subjectiveness to physical hunger, thirst, etc.), then the degree of 'veiling' is the point at issue. Have we not strenuously held to the view of a very partial 'veiling' only because, to concede the total 'veiling' as previously defined (the 'emptied Himself'—heauton ekenOse—of Phil. 2:7) seemed to surrender the only ground on which His supernatural life could rest? How else were His miracles worked, and how else was His infallibility secured? To answer these questions is the purpose of this paper.

"Certain statements of Jesus Christ have always puzzled the Church, and not least among them His declaration—'If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamore tree, be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you' (Luke 17:6). And again, 'If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove' (Matt. 17:20). In other words, Jesus Christ assured His Disciples that the most prodigious powers were available to humanity through the agency of faith. The Creationists are bound to give full value to these words or else to abandon their position to those who regard them as expressions of mental rhapsody.

"Here again, as elsewhere, it is wonderful how the Bible can be relied upon to explain itself. On close study, we are impressed by the fact that for the second time in the Gospels (Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:6) the mustard seed should be chosen to illustrate Christ's meaning. Certainly most people have thought the meaning of His words to be—'If men had faith as little as a grain of mustard seed, they could move trees and mountains.' This interpretation, however, seems to contradict the experience of Christians, past and present, even as it misses the point of the words, 'O ye of little faith.' But another meaning may be found capable of explaining passages that are otherwise difficult. Both the Gospels named had previously recorded the parable of the Kingdom of Heaven, which in its wonderful growth was likened to the growth of the mustard seed, which, from a tiny seed, if sown in good ground, could become 'a great tree' (see Matt. 13:31; Luke 13:19).

"Was not the meaning of our Lord, when revealing to His disciples the powers of faith which were to be open to them and to His Church, just this? If they had faith like the mustard seed (of whose wonderful power of growth He had previously spoken), then when faith has reached a growth corresponding to the 'great tree'—the perfected growth of the mustard-seed they would be enabled to work miracles. It is worth noting that Jesus did not say 'faith as little as a grain of mustard seed.' In both illustrations the point was the marvellous growth of which the grain was capable.

"St. Paul, too, seems to take this view of Christ's words 'Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains' (1. Cor. 13:2). Among these wonderful powers were the following: Superhuman power over the forces of nature; power to predict future events; power to read men's minds; power to receive and reveal the great truths of time and eternity. Both before and after His Resurrection, Jesus declared that His faithful disciples should be the possessors of these powers; but their employment was to be preceded by prayer and fasting. Nowhere in the Gospels does our Lord suggest that these supernatural signs were other than the fruits in humanity of the well-grown tree of faith. 'Why could not we cast him out?' Jesus said unto them, 'Because of your unbelief' (Matt. 17:19, 20).

"In the Old Testament, where some of these powers were exhibited, we can mark the long preparation of Moses, Elijah, and others before they were called upon and enabled to use them. This brings us to the central point of our suggestion—With the 'omniscient' and 'omniPotent' powers inherent in His Perfect Godhead 'veiled' in His Perfect Humanity—all the powers specified were derived by Jesus Christ immediately from The Father, as One in closest communion with The Source of all power. Christ's repeated assertion of this fundamental truth is unmistakably clear: 'The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself, but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works' (John 14:10). 'When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself' (John 8:28). 'The Son can do nothing of Himself' (John 5:19). 'I can of Mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge' (John 5:30). 'Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me' (John 11:41). 'Many good works I have showed you from My Father' (John 10:32). Very striking too are the following: 'All things that I have heard of My Father I have made known unto you' (John 15:15). He certainly had not revealed all knowledge to His disciples; no human brain could sustain the knowledge of all the physical contents of the universe. 'Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels' (Matt. 26:53). 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me' (Matt. 26:39).

"Prayer, silent or uttered, is sometimes recorded as preceding Christ's working of miracles, e.g., the miracle of the loaves and fishes (Matt. 14:19), and that of the raising of Lazarus (John 11:41).
"Compare these inducted powers with the power of the risen Christ released from His human limitations. 'All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth' (Matt. 28:18). After His Resurrection there is no record of His praying to His Father for guidance and relief (Matt. 26:39) or 'giving thanks' (Luke 22:17). There was no need, since all power was given unto Him.

"In 'the Son of Man' faith unimpaired by sin had no room to grow. Graduated to suit His physical abilities, at each stage of His human existence faith in Him transcended the 'great tree'; for example, it amounted in manhood to certainty of knowledge of His Father: 'I know that Thou hearest Me always.' Perfect Faith reciprocates perfect communion, and through perfect communion with His Father, He was supplied where necessary with the supernatural powers which were 'veiled' at His Incarnation, enabling Him as 'Man' to say to the dead, 'Come forth,' and to the sick of the palsy, 'Take up thy bed and walk.' This view can account for the 'infallibility' claimed for Jesus Christ equally with the miracles which He wrought, while hampered by the conditions of His adopted humanity. Nowhere do the Gospels say that Jesus Christ during His existence on earth before His Resurrection was either 'omniscient' or 'omnipotent'. It is not less than horrifying to imagine that Jesus Christ could have acted the part of a helpless babe in His Mother's arms, or pretended to grow in knowledge.

"Corresponding powers, He promised, should be possessed by the disciples, when their faith had grown to something approaching the dimensions of 'the great tree' of the mustard seed. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also!' (John 14:12),—the increase of faith spells a closer communion with God. All of these powers were to be at the disposal of the Church, provided the necessary conditions were present:—(a) The seed of Faith grown to a 'great tree' in close communion with Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, approaching His own perfect communion with the Father.(b) The thing desired must be in accordance with the will of God: the life of Christ was One persistent desire to do the will of His Father.(c) Necessity for the miracle must exist; Jesus Christ never worked miracles to satisfy curiosity. On His own showing, His miracles were wrought to reveal Himself to those who might be looking for Him.Drawn directly from God Almighty, such miraculous powers would seemingly be commensurate with the magnitude and urgency of the crisis or necessity which called for them. Physical trees and mountains can never be moved capriciously merely to demonstrate the possession of such power by men. Yet in a portentous crisis 'Nature' responded to man's appeal when the sea divided to save Israel from the host of Pharaoh, and when the earth opened to swallow up Korah and his rebel company; and again when fire descended upon 'the altar to the Lord' built by Elijah On Mount Carmel. The water, too, became wine, and the five barley loaves and the few small fishes increased to an adequate supply to feed the hungry thousands&mdahs;physical proofs to His disciples, like those who were sent to John the Baptist, that there stood One among them, whom as yet they knew not, who was indeed 'He that should come.'

"St. Paul throws a flood of light on the problem of the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ by speaking of Him as 'The Last Adam' and 'the second Man' (1. Cor. 15:45, 47). The First Adam was moulded from the dust of the ground, and into the lifeless shape God breathed the breath of life; and 'Man' was made 'in the image' of God. The material and human part of the 'Last Adam' was graciously housed in the Virgin Mother, and this lifeless form received the Life of the 'Only-Begotten Son of God.' Jesus Christ was thus truly the 'second man' Adam, with functions like Adam's—wholly human; a perfect Man, endowed with free will; sinless like Adam at his creation, and tempted like unfallen Adam, from His birth to His grave. ('In all points tempted like as we are yet without sin'). His agony in the garden, and His cry on the Cross testify to His life-long endurance of temptation; but Jesus Christ 'the Son of Man' triumphed—where the Man Adam fell.

"His death on the Cross was to avail for the washing away of sins, and His life was to be the great example of the perfect 'Man' born in innocency, with free will to obey or disobey; fulfilling in every particular to its climax the will of The Father: while in Himself-His Person, His Individuality, His Identity—He was able to show men 'The Father,' since in His Incarnate Godhead He was as ever 'One with the Father' GOD ALMIGHTY.

"Thus, without having recourse to metaphysics (e.g., distinctions sought to be drawn between His conscious and subconscious mind), we can say with clear understanding that Jesus Christ was 'truly Man,' as well as 'truly God,' with the superhuman powers of His Godhead over the natural universe 'veiled,' while His natural powers (as distinct from those unlimited miraculous powers drawn from the Father) were the normal, limited and hitherto unrealised powers of the unfallen Humanity.

"The 'veiling' was the first act in the great scheme of Christ's renunciation: yet 'in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). Yes, 'bodily' (Incarnate); for by His Incarnation 'the Son of Man' yielded nothing of His claim in the fullest sense to be 'the Only-Begotten Son of God' (John 3:16, 18). His Identity with the 'I AM' of eternity would not be lost or even affected by the 'veiling' of His Divine powers in His Incarnation. That this Identity. . . . was not impaired by His Incarnation is well attested in the Gospel narratives: from this we may believe that at an early age He realised, though, perhaps only dimly, who He was: 'Wist ye not that I must be about My Father's business?' Would not His Mother have prepared Him in some degree for this awe-inspiring knowledge? The full realisation at any rate must have come at His baptism, when the Voice proclaimed to Himself, 'Thou art My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased' (Luke 3:22; Mark 1:2; cf. Matt. 3:17).

"At His Transfiguration the manifestation of His Godhead was made also to His three disciples. 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye Him' (Matt. 17:5; also Luke 9:15). These words in singular and unique recognition of His Deity issued from God the Father. Then, in further proof, the following quotations confirm His own personal claim, 'I give unto them eternal life' (John 10:28); 'I and My Father are one' (John 10:30); 'He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father' (John 14:9); 'Before Abraham was I AM' (John 8:58); '. . . . and ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds' (Mark 14:62); 'I will raise him up at the last day' (John 6:44); 'The only-begotten Son' (John 3:16,18); 'Who can forgive sins but God only? . . . . but that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins. . . .' (Mark 2:7, 10).

"These last words are of special value in this connection, indicating that our Lord regarded the power to forgive sins as a Divine prerogative, and as exceptional to one living on the earth. It was a spiritual power, apparently retained from the 'veiling,' and exercisable in virtue of His Godhead. From His own words and actions we gather that it was a power distinguishable from the 'signs (which) shall follow them that believe' (Mark 16:17). The retention of this spiritual power by the 'Son of Man' was obviously not in frustration of the fulfilment of His perfect Humanity. Later on, after His resurrection, and after all power had been given to Him, in heaven and on earth, when He had breathed on His disciples, He bestowed this wonderful gift on them as delegates through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

"Lastly, and carrying the most convincing proof that 'Deity' was claimed by the Lord Himself, is the evidence that He accepted worship without questioning its propriety: 'There came a leper and worshipped Him' (Matt. 8:2); 'there came a certain ruler and worshipped Him' (Matt. 9:18); 'then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying of a truth Thou art the Son of God' (Matt. 14:33); 'Behold Jesus met them saying, All hail! And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him' (Matt. 28:9; also 15:25; 28:17; Mark 5:6). This attitude is in marked contrast to that of His Apostles, who, while exercising supernatural powers over the material world, together with that special power to forgive sins, bestowed on them as delegates by the risen Saviour, yet emphatically repudiated the worship of their fellow-creatures, which would imply their inherent possession of Divine status (St. Paul, Acts 14:15).

"To accept the view outlined in this essay, claiming for its sole authority the words of Holy Scripture, seems to find at once a comprehensive and illuminating explanation of the infallibility, and the supernatural power of the 'Son of Man' in His complete Humanity (making a reality of His Temptation in the wilderness; the congruous climax in reversal of the human tragedy in Eden and after), without sacrificing in any measure His Identity.

"Christ's infallibility, like His supernatural power as 'The Son of Man,' flowed, spontaneously to His requirements, from His unbroken communion with God the Father—a communion to which fallen 'Man' through his developed seed of faith in Jesus Christ might aspire to approach.
"It should be clearly understood that this belief is far removed from the views of 'modernism,' and its interpretation of the doctrine of Kenosis. The doctrine so interpreted, while it denies the claim of Jesus Christ to be 'the Only-Begotten Son of God,' presents Him as the 'natural' Son of Joseph and Mary—a richly gifted Man, 'evolved' like the rest of mankind, from the atom through the beast, and from His lack of knowledge often in serious error in His teaching. Denying, too, the Christian belief in His Virgin Birth, 'modernism' refuses to credit His exhibition of supernatural powers, and the Modernist is only logical when he also rejects the Gospel accounts of His Resurrection. Prof. T. H. Huxley was right when he said: 'Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to accept the Bible'—and the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, is centred in Jesus Christ. The views of the extreme Modernists are the only logical outcome of belief in the theory of 'evolution,' which Dr. Inge in his 'vale' addresses 1934 said, 'now dominates all our thought. Theology, like everything else, must grow and change' (Church of England Newspaper, September 21, 1934). That this view is shared in general by the leaders of 'modernism' is confirmed by Bishop Barnes in his sermon at Westminster Abbey in May, 1927, and by Prof. Bethune Baker in the November number of the Outline, 1929. Evolution is indeed the 'dynamic' of the whole Modernist outlook, in which the Christ of the Gospels is a fabulous figure, and His Cross a needless tragedy. 'In the light of modern knowledge,' which is an expression constantly in use by Modernists, may generally be taken to mean, 'from the standpoint of "organic evolution."' For the Modernist, 'sin,' in its Biblical sense attributable to Adam's fatal fall, does not exist; it is in all its aspects merely evidence of a lack of knowledge due to Man's present imperfect stage in his imaginary progressive rise from the beast to the throne of the Universe.

"Judged by the Creeds, the grievous error in the Modernist's view of 'Kenosis' does not seem to lie in the assertion that Jesus of His own initiative 'did not know' and 'could not act' outside the inherent capabilities of His adopted Manhood, but, basing its logic on 'evolution,' a theory which denies to God the power to intervene in the affairs of men and nature, 'Kenosis' inevitably led to the modern apostacy, that the recorded utterances of Jesus Christ are unreliable. 'Glaze the facts as you will, Jesus remains deluded' (Modern Churchman, October, 1928).

"Criticisms of the view here propounded, which are based on the wording of the Athanasian Creed, fail to realise that those portions of the Creeds which deal with the mystery of the dual natures in Jesus Christ, were addressed entirely to answer the question—'What think ye of Christ? Whose Son is He?' In short, the Creeds are concerned with Jesus Christ's Identity, and do not touch the central theme of this essay, viz., the degree of 'veiling' of His Divine powers which His Incarnation—a true Humanity—demanded. The theory here presented, on Scriptural authority, removes any ground for an interpretation of Phil. 2:7 which could justify the Modernist's theory of Kenosis and its destructive inference that 'Jesus Christ remains deluded,' and renders the text clear and intelligible in the face of the Creeds of Christianity.

"If Jesus Christ was not the 'Only Begotten of the Father'—the 'I AM' of Eternity, as He claimed to be, then by Jewish law He was justly condemned for blasphemy (Lev. 24:16), and His Cross, the central point of the Christian religion, carries no more merit than the crosses of the two thieves; and Christianity, robbed of its power, ceases to live.

"In the fashionable corner of the field of philosophy, comprehended in the expression 'the dominance of mind over matter,' or 'the subordination of the material to the spiritual,' we may discern the feeble and fruitless efforts, from the purely rationalistic human standpoint, to penetrate the 'terrain' of those supernatural 'powers' which by His perfect communion with. the Father were available in an unlimited degree to 'the Son of Man,' and given the fully developed Faith (a seemingly impossible achievement to a 'Christian' world, living so short of 'the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ') might be powers at the disposal of His Church today."
* * * * * * *
It will be seen that our author comes very close to the views which we have expressed in The Differentiator on Phil. 2:7. While we cannot, of course, accept the Creeds as inspired, let us say this much: that if they were rendered into English concordantly and consistently, they would not differ very much from the Scriptures. The men who translated the Creeds into Latin and other languages, by using inexact terms which suited their own ideas, and by giving the original terms a verbal twist, are far more guilty than the original makers of the Creeds. Let us never forget, that although we may reject every Creed, each one of us has his own Creed.

End Chapter 15 (Alexander Thomson)