Truth Magazine

By O.C. Birdwell

This study of The Rejected Christ shall be limited to the following: (1) The fact of the rejection of Christ by the Jews, (2) Reasons for such rejection, (3) Reasons for His rejection today by both Jew and Gentile, and (4) What it means to accept Jesus Christ. Either one of these sub-topics could be discussed at length and, on just one, more than our available space be used. Consequently, we shall deal with all just briefly, but as pointedly as possible.

Christ Rejected by the Jews

This rejection came as no surprise to those acquainted with prophecy. Isaiah had said, “He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not” (Isa. 53:3). The eunuch was reading from this chapter of Isaiah when Philip began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus (Acts 8:35). In view of this usage, one must conclude that the rejection statement in the same context refers also to Jesus. One might also go back to Isaiah 6:9-10 and find a prophecy that points to Christ’s rejection. The prophet speaks of some people who would have a “fat” heart, “heavy” ears, and “shut” eyes. If one were careless, it might be reasoned that such rejection was forced and impossible to avoid. Especially is this so in view of the statement of fulfilment of the prophecy in John 12:39. There we read, “He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their hearts; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and should turn, and I should heal them.” One must remember, however, that often a thing is spoken of as being done by the Lord when he permits it to be done. Matthew records Jesus saying, “Their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed . . .” (Matt. 13:15). Notice that Jesus said “they” closed their eyes. Here are people who received not the love of the truth and were sent a “working of error” (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

The reality of the clear-cut rejection by the Jews is set forth in John 1:11 where it is stated, “He came unto his own and they that were his own received him not.” The footnote in the ASV for the first “his own” in this passage says, “Gr. his own things.” The verse means that he came unto his own creation and even they of his own people rejected him. This brings us to an obvious question that demands an answer.

Why Did the Jews Reject Jesus?

Was there a good reason? Was he just another false Christ? Was he an imposter? If so, they were right. If not, they made the most serious and far reaching mistake that could ever be made. Let it here be clearly shown that when we discuss the rejection by the Jews we do not infer that all Jews rejected him. We are discussing the Jewish nation, the rulers, the people as a whole or body. Many individuals did accept him. The apostles were Jews. All the earliest disciples were Jews. About three thousand Jews were baptized in one day (Acts 2:41). The number multiplied among the Jews (Acts 6:1). But the masses did reject him, along with their rulers. Yet, this rejection could not have been because of a lack of evidence. Even from his birth there was evidence of prophetic fulfilment. At his baptism a voice out of the heavens said, “This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17). He, being manifest in the fulness of God’s power, performed mighty signs and miracles among the people. His miracles were not a farce. The blind were made to see, the lame were made to walk, and the dead were raised. In the presence of this and other evidence of deity, why the rejection?

(1) The rulers had a tradition of resisting the Holy Spirit. Stephen said “ye do always resist the Holy Spirit: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). He goes on to show that their fathers had killed the prophets who had showed the coming of the “Righteous One” and they were now His betrayers and murderers. They were following in the footsteps of their ungodly forefathers. (2) Jesus was rejected because of the Jew’s desire for an earthly king who would lead people in carnal battle as had David. Jesus did not qualify. He claimed no army. He used no force. He made no plans for a carnal kingdom. He wanted the gospel preached to all nations (Matt. 28:18-20). All people could be in his kingdom. This type kingdom the Jews did not want and would not accept. (3) His lowly birth and humble life caused proud Jews to reject him. He was born in Bethlehem, laid in a manger, and grew up in lowly Nazareth. To many, he was just “the carpenter’s son.” (4) His unorthodox ways caused consternation to the Jewish rulers. He associated with and ate with publicans and sinners (Luke 15). The self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees would have nothing to do with such action. Yet, Christ’s mission was to seek the lost and get the sinner to repent-an action which was the last interest of the Jewish leaders. (5) He was also rejected because of Jewish envy. They were angered at his teaching and jealous of his following. It is said of Pilate, “For he knew that for envy they had delivered him up (Matt. 27:18). (6) He was rejected because of his crucifixion. Paul said, “We preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23,24). The cross was too lowly a death for their king. They would not see him as the risen Lord and ascended king. They did not see him as the “lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

Of the rejection of Jesus by Jerusalem, one writer has said, “His humility was an offence to their worldliness and pride; His holy character was a rebuke to their sin; His spiritual teaching was a rebuke to their formality; and His life of benevolence was a rebuke to their selfishness and haughtiness” (The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 17, p. 56).

Christ’s Rejection Today

The apostle John tells us that Jesus discussed the “bread of life,” and records that he said “he that eateth this bread shall live forever” (Jo. 6:58). The response by many was “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” (v. 60). They murmured, causing Jesus to ask, “Doth this cause you to stumble?” (v. 61). A few verses later, John says, “upon this many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him” (v. 66). These disciples rejected Jesus because of alleged hard sayings. Yet, actually, the sayings were not hard at all. They were viewed as difficult and caused stumbling because of a prejudiced hearing. That these people heard him with no intention of understanding and obeying is clearly shown (see v. 64).

This Biblical account, along with several others that might be cited, shows why some people have rejected Christ. It is quite obvious from these accounts that there are few completely new reasons for his rejection today. Most all may be heaped together under one heading called “unbelief.” While unbelief may come in different forms, any form of it will keep one out of heaven. Even Christians are warned, “lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Heb. 3:12). Disciples today can turn back and walk no more with him. Believers may become unbelievers. People may be hindered in developing faith. Consider a few of the many such hindrances. (1) Much current educational influence is atheistic and leads to a rejection of Christ. A constant flow of opposition to Christ and His New Testament standard comes through public educational institutions, television programs, social movements, and, yes, even many religious seminaries. The government occasionally gets into the act. (2) Unreasonable interest in material things causes a rejection of Christ. Someone once said that Henry Ford caused more atheists than Ingersoll, Paine, and all other such infidels together. The point was that Ford, by making the automobile available to the ordinary man, motivated practical atheism. Some sort of profession of faith in Christ might be made by such people but actually and practically Jesus is replaced with pleasure and material things. Many “Christians” will readily replace the Sunday evening assembly with a trip to the lake. (3) Christ is rejected because too many see, not the religion of Christ, but a substitute that in no sense resembles the true thing. The New Testament is rejected and the truth of the gospel is not preached by many. Preachers often preach church creeds, human judgment, and the social gospel in general. Such preachers have already rejected Christ and, therefore, cannot lead others to accept Him. (4) As was the case in Jesus’ day, some reject Him because of a determined will not to believe. They are carnally minded and will not change. No evidence is good enough.

What It Means To Accept Christ

When many went back and walked no more with Jesus, he turned to the twelve and asked, “Would ye also go away? (Jo. 6:67). Peter answered, “Lord to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68). The apostle answered well and his statement still stands true today. Some, however, turn from His words to their own feeling or unto a supposed outward manifestation, or some sort of alleged revelation apart from the New Testament. For years our religious friends have talked about accepting Christ as one’s personal savior. Some brethren now talk about having a personal relationship with the Lord. Such terminology may easily be interpreted to mean that one may have a direct relationship with Jesus apart from, or in addition to, hearing and obeying His teaching. If such a relationship can exist it is unknown to this writer. Accepting Christ does not involve this kind of relationship. It is personal only in that each person must believe and obey. John said, “And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him; . . . (1 Jo. 2:3,4). Evidence of knowing him and accepting him is not a unique feeling or a direct manifestation, but it is keeping his commandments. Fellowship with him comes by walking in the light (1 Jo. 1:7). What is involved in accepting Christ cannot be put in any plainer language than this.

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 11-13
May 20, 1976

By Daniel H. King

The doctrine regarding the atonement accomplished by Christ in His suffering and death has been the subject of fierce debate down through the centuries since the “deposit of the faith” came into its final form. During apostolic times the controversy was nonexistent. The various descriptive analogues and illustrative figures gave the first generation of Christians no difficulty whatever. They were at work evangelizing the world. There was little time for pondering the thousandfold implications of the multi-faceted doctrine. With the growth of the church in power and numbers, however, scholars appeared on the scene who thirsted for the knowledge of the infinite. They had time for theorizing and imaginative natures adept at speculatory thinking. Thus, history tells us that it has been the same with the atonement as with almost every other theological motif or concept, the less that was said about it in the Bible, the greater the tendency to speculate about what little was revealed. Often there was an unscrupulous “harping” upon a single area that had been obsessively focused upon-it was stressed while other important principles and passages were neglected or even denied. This has been the story of the atonement doctrine throughout the ages. At the outset, . genuine biblical principles have usually been taken and stressed (and quite often mutilated in the process) to the exclusion of others that are just as “genuine” and just as “biblical.” What usually has resulted is a completely unbiblical doctrine. The various histories of “Christian Doctrine” attest to this old pattern again and again. And, if histories are forthcoming in years ahead, then the story of the present-day folly will be told in objective terms that will betray both its unbiblical character and its subjective motivation. Our purpose in this study is to look at the doctrine of the atonement as it is presented in the Bible as well as pointing out historical and contemporary perversions of the concept.

At-One-Ment?

Our English word “atonement” is derived from the phrase “at one.” The significance is therefore quite clear. It obviously describes a process by which two alienated parties are brought together into an harmonious relationship (in this case God and man), or the resultant unitive state. Another term describing such a state or process is “reconciliation.” Moreover, in the modern usage of the word, “atonement” has taken on the more restricted meaning of the process by which the hindrances to reconciliation are removed, rather than the end achieved by their removal. Thus, when we talk about the biblical doctrine of the atonement, our intention is to make allusion to the process by which the obstacles to reconciliation between man and God were removed.

The Bible as a whole assumes the need for some “atoning action” on the part of man (but in every case devised by and thus acceptable to God), if he is to be right with God. It is accepted as a fact beyond dispute that man is estranged from God, and is himself entirely to blame for this estrangement (Isa. 59:1,2; Rom. 3:23; 5:10; 8:7; Eph. 2:12; 4:18; Col. 2:12). His disobedience to the will of God-i.e. his sin-has alienated him from God, and this alienation must first be remedied if right relationships are to be restored. The barrier raised by man’s past sins must be removed (Gal. 6:7; Rom. 1:18; 6:23; Eph. 2:1). One purpose of the elaborate sacrificial system of Old Testament religion was to provide such an “atonement” for human sin. In the ritual for the consecration of priests, it is required: “Every day you shall offer a bull as a sin offering for atonement” (Ex. 29:36). Similarly, the priests must make sacrifice for the sins of all the people that they may be forgiven (Lev. 4:20). In the ritual of the Day of Atonement the first of two goats is slain, but the second “shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement” (Lev. 16:9,10). This live goat is driven out into the wilderness, laden with the sins of the people. It is also possible to offer money for the temple “to make atonement for yourselves” (Ex. 30:16), as well as incense (Num. 16:47), or prayer (Ex. 32:30). In the New Testament, though, atonement is related to none of these things (except as they acted as shadows and types of the reality and anti-type). It is related entirely to Jesus Christ and His coming to earth, and especially with His death upon the cross. Much of the language of Old Testament immolationism and sacerdotalism were used to describe his death because He was both priest and sacrifice to end all Old Testament priests and sacrifices (Heb. 8:1,2; 9:11-28). In addition, the New Testament declares that in Christ and His death is all that man needs in order to find his sins forgiven (Eph. 1:7) and his life reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10); in Him is that which can cancel out the ill effects of sin (1 Jn. 2:2), release man from the burden of his guilt (Heb. 10:22), and grant him peace with God (Eph. 2:16-18). Man can rejoice in God because of the reconciliation (Rom. 5:11), having free access to God through Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:11,12). The “at-one-ment” has been accomplished.

Atonement Terminology

The word “atonement” itself appears many times in the Old Testament and translates the Hebrew word kopher (Dan. 9:24; Lev. 8:15; Ezek. 45:15). Kopher means “to cover, hide” (Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 497). On the other hand, the word appears only once in the King James Version of the New Testament (Rom. 5:11). In this case it is translating the Greek noun katallage, which is elsewhere translated “reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18,19). In the more modern translations the term “atonement” has been consistently replaced by “reconciliation” and does not appear at all. Be that as it may, the concept is present at many junctures in scripture and might even be called the central doctrine of the New Testament. As V.C. Grounds has said, “The atonement is the center of gravity in Christian life and thought because it is the center of gravity in the New Testament, as a mere census of references immediately demonstrates. According to apostolic preaching and doctrine, the significance of Jesus Christ does not lie supremely in his person or ministry or teaching: it lies supremely in his death upon the cross … it is the event of Christ’s death interpreted not as a martyrdom, brought to pass by a miscarriage of justice, but the offering of a redemptive sacrifice ephapax (Heb. 10:1-4) (V.C. Grounds, “Atonement,” in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, p. 71).

The terminology used by the apostles and prophets to describe what Jesus did upon the cross is essentially that of the Old Testament sacrificial system, but with a note of finality. Christ’s death is called by New Testament writers a “sacrifice to God” (Eph. 5:2) and a “sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:12). He is therefore personally described as the “Lamb of God” (Jn. 1:29,36), and the “Lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; 5:6,12), while his suitability to be offered as a sacrifice is referred to by Peter with the words “Lamb without blemish and without spot” (1 Pet. 1:19). Christ is said to have been offered on the cross as the “propitiation,” i.e. to conciliate and appease the just indignation of the righteous God at human sin (1 Jn. 2:2; 4:10; Rom. 3:25). The “New Theology” which tries to explain away these biblical ideas is operating from a priori premises and making undue concessions to modern conceptions of the character of deity. The god of modern theology may not demand a “propitiation” for human sin, but the God of the Bible did! And, not only did he demand it, but he offered it in Jesus Christ.

The New Testament writers also allude to the atonement in Christ as a “ransom”: “The Son of man came not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45); “Christ Jesus . . . gave himself a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5,6). In the past some considered the death of Christ as a payment offered to Satan to secure for man freedom from bondage to him. But how could the death of Christ at the same time be a sacrifice offered to God (‘Eph. 5:2) and a ransom offered to the Devil? The Bible nowhere tells us that Satan was ever paid anything. In life Christ offered no conciliations to the Devil (Matt. 4:10), much less in his death. Instead, in death Christ gained victory over death and the Devil (Heb. 2:14,15). He owed the Devil nothing and paid him his due. All was owed to God. Hence, we are “redeemed” through Christ’s atonement (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14) and it can be truly said that we are “bought with a price” (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23). We were redeemed and purchased out of subservience to Moses’ Law (Gal. 3:13; 4:5), from a vain manner of life (1 Pet. 1:18), and from all iniquity (Tit. 2:14). And, even these kindred concepts of “ransom” and “redemption” are ideas whose roots lie deep in the Jewish sacrificial system (Ex. 30:12; Num. 3:44-51). We do not mean to intimate, however, that the sacrificial system is the complete background for the New Testament ideas. Other Old Testament events and actions are also germane and the terms applied by Jesus and his apostles are supercharged with these historical reflections as well. For instance, Israel was redeemed from Egyptian slavery (Ex. 6:6; 15:13) and later from Babylonian captivity (Is. 43:1; 44:22; 48:20; 52:9; 63:9). These ideas are almost certainly persistent in the thought of the early evangelists as well.

History of the Atonement Doctrine

Different theories of the atonement have held sway at various intervals in the history of “Christian thought.” Although not held by everyone during the period stated, the influence of each theory was certainly sufficient for us to label it “in vogue” for that era.

(1) The Ransom or Bargain Theory. The first recorded suggestion of this theory occurs in the writings of Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202). Simply stated, this is a theory which includes a transaction between God and the Devil. As we earlier suggested it is a take-off from Mk. 10:45. The Devil, under this scheme, is found in possession of man, and his rights as possessor cannot be ignored, however he came by them. Therefore God consents to pay a price, the death of His own $on, for the release of man. But in accepting this price the devil is deceived. He loses his power over man, and he is not competent to hold in his power the holy Son of God. Although certain details varied between the early theologians, this view stood for nearly nine hundred years as the ordinary exposition of the fact of the atonement. We have already demonstrated its unsoundness.

(2) The Satisfaction Theory of Anselm. This view was first successfully expostulated by Anselm of Canterbury (A.D. 1033-1109). In this view, man is seen owing God complete obedience; when he fails to render this, he sinfully robs the sovereign of the honor which he is due; because sin is an infinite affront to the divine glory which cannot be remitted simply by the exercise of mercy, God must vindicate himself in keeping with the demands of his own holy nature; hence an adequate satisfaction must be offered. But an infinite affront necessitates an infinite satisfaction, and the satisfaction must be offered by the disobedient race. So Christ is sent, thus satisfying the justice of God. As can be immediately seen, this view is essentially biblical and little can be found to discredit it. However, there are other ideas which must be represented in order to take into consideration all of the Bible picture of the atonement. Most of these have already been mentioned while others will be pointed out under other headings.

(3) The Penal Theory of the Reformation. In the thought of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and other Reformers it is from the point of view of legal justice that the atonement is stated. The death of Christ is the legal penalty for sin, and there is no trace of the alternative, “either punishment or satisfaction.” The law demands punishment and that punishment must be endured by someone. The Bible says of the atonement, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Luther, in. turn, reflected, “When the merciful Father saw that we were oppressed by the law, and were held under the curse, and that nothing could free us from it, He sent His son into the world, and cast upon Him all the sins of all men, and said to Him: `Be thou Peter that denier, that adulterer, that sinner who ate the apple in Paradise, that robber upon the cross; in a word be thou the person of all men,’ who hast wrought the sins of all men; consider Thou therefore how thou mayest pay and mayest make satisfaction for them’. Then cometh the law and saith: `I find that sinner taking upon Him the sin of all men and I see no sin beside, save in Him, therefore let Him die upon the cross.’ And so it attacks Him and slays Him. This being done the whole world is purged of all sin and expiation is made; therefore also it is free from death and from all ills” (Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, printed 1535). Again, we find Luther’s thoughts to be innately biblical, but not exclusively so.

(4) The Rectoral or Governmental Theory. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) is usually credited with the first clear expression of this theory. Grotius gave up completely both the conception of God as a judge ad ministering absolute, inviolable justice (which is the basis for the Penal theory), and the conception of God as creditor, the offended party claiming compensation for injury wrought (necessary to the Satisfaction view). He regarded punishment as the function of the state. Thus God, in his administration of punishment, is not regarded as absolute Lord, or as offended party, but rather as the Head of his government. Therefore, in the atonement God acted in such a way as to properly operate his government. He could have relaxed his law and simply remitted sin, but that would have caused no fear in wrong-doers. Punishment was therefore necessary, for a deterrent purpose, and it rested with God to impose it. The problem of government thus created was solved by the vicarious punishment of Christ. We see nothing very biblical about this view.

(5) The Moral Theory. The first proponent of a Moral theory (of which there have been many) appears to have been Peter Abelard (1079-1142). Abelard reduced the cross to a tragic martyrdom. He pictured it as a heartrending spectacle which exhibited the great love of God for man and draws man to obedience as the result of this wonderful act of selfless love. Certainly there is a sense in which the death of Christ should arouse in us a desire to love the God who loved us so, and in this sense it is biblical (Jn. 12:32). On the other hand, there is not much to commend any of the theories that fall into the “moral” category. The death of Christ was far more than merely a martyrdom-as we have shown.

In many modern circles this theory has been revived by neo-orthodox theologians. Each seems to be a “new” view, but in reality is only a return to the basic idea that Christ dies as an example instead of as a sacrifice, ransom, or satisfaction. For instance, Friedrich Schleirmacher (1768-1834) suggested that Christ “redeemed” his people by arousing within them a God-consciousness which is a counterpart of his own. More recently, however, the atonement has moved into the subjective realm and back out again, having no objective significance at all for a time. The return to objectivity has been related to the decline and fall of existentialism. We can view this as one of the few healthy trends in modern theology.

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 8-11
May 20, 1976

By Mike Willis

Other articles in this series will be concerned with evidences which confirm the claims of Jesus. In order to understand Jesus’ assertions, I would like to consider the doctrine of the deity of Christ as was revealed in the New Testament rather than to deal with the evidences of His deity in His miracles. Quite early, the Christians celebrated the gospel in song in these words:

“He who was revealed in the flesh,

Was vindicated in the Spirit,

Beheld by angels,

Proclaimed among the nations,

Believed on in the world,

Taken up in glory” (1 Tim. 3:16).,

Thus, we would like to consider the Biblical doctrine revealed about the deity of Jesus.

Pre-existence

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as having existed before He came to the earth. Referring to Him as the Logos, the Word, John said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. . . . He was in the beginning with God” (Jn. 1:1-2). John the Baptist testified, “This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me” (Jn. 1:15, cf. v. 30). Jesus’ own assertions claimed even more for Himself; He prayed to God as follows, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was” (Jn. 17:5). Again, He said, ” `Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad.’ The Jews therefore said to Him, `You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, `Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM’ ” (Jn. 8:56-58).

The belief in Jesus’ pre-existence is the only explanation of His claim to have come out of heaven (Jn. 3:13; 6:62) and to have been sent into this world (Jn. 3:17). For any other person to assert that he was come in the flesh would be nonsensical; yet, some early apostates so denied the humanity of Jesus that John had to assert, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 Jn. 4:2). The only explanation of these phrases is the doctrine of the pre-existence of Jesus. Yet, the pre-existence of Jesus does not prove His deity; the angels seen by different people spasmodically throughout the ages existed both before and after they were seen by men, yet they were not considered to be the incarnation of deity.

Titles of Jesus

Whereas the pre-existence of Jesus does not prove that He claimed to be deity, the titles which are given to Him in the New Testament are an assertion of His deity. Notice a few of these titles:

(1) Lord. Giving this title to Jesus is especially significant since kurios (lord) is the term used consistently in the LXX to translate both adonai (Hebrew word for Lord) and JHVH (the proper name of God-Jeh’dvah). Sometimes, the application of this term to Jesus is done by a quotation from the Old Testament which, in the Hebrew, used the word JHVH (cf. Rom. 10:9; Acts 2:21 and Joel 2:32; Isa: 6:1-13 and Jn. 7:3941). The giving of the title “Lord” to Jesus was an assertion of His deity. He is “Lord of all” (Acts 10:36) because He is “Lord of lords and King of kings” (Rev. 17:14).

(2) God. In case kurios seems inconclusive as an affirmation of Jesus’ deity, consider also that He was also called God (Jn. 1:1). When He was born, He was understood to be Immanuel which means “God with us” (Mt. 1:23). The prophet, foreseeing this, prophesied that the Son on whose shoulders the government would be placed was “Mighty God” (Isa. 9:6-7). When Thomas saw the resurrected body of Jesus, He said, “My Lord and my God” (Jn. 20:28). Consequently, the apostle John wrote, “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life” (1 Jn. 5:20). The author of Hebrews said, “But of the Son He says, `Thy throne O God, is forever and ever’ ” (Heb. 1:8). Paul spoke of the appearing (epiphaneia – a reference to Jesus’ second coming) “of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Tit. 2:13). These passages boldly assert the deity of Jesus.

(3) Son of God. Repeatedly, this title is conferred on Jesus (Mt. 16:16; 3:17; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 1:3-4). That this title was understood to be an assertion of deity is apparent from the reaction of the Jews when they heard Jesus apply it to Himself. In Jn. 5:17, Jesus said, “My Father is working until now. . . .” The Jews who heard this did not understand Jesus to be the son of God in the sense that all men are sons of God; instead, they understood this to be a claim of deity. “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (Jn. 5:18). Thus, the title “Son of God” must be understood to be an assertion of His deity.

(4) The Almighty. In the revelation of Jesus in chapter one of the book of Revelation, John records, ” `I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty'” Rev. 1:8). Inasmuch as these expressions are used repeatedly in the apocalypse to refer to Christ, without a doubt they are an expression of the belief in the deity of Jesus. Anyone who doubts that the Bible claims Jesus to be God doubts the express words of the Bible.

Divine Attributes

The divine attributes of Jesus reveal His deity as much as do His titles. By analyzing His attributes, we can learn the nature of His being.

(1) He is everlasting. The Messiah to come was described as He whose “goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity” (Mic. 5:2); He was the “Everlasting Father” (Isa. 9:6). A number of the titles applied to Jesus in Revelation assert His eternity; He is called the “Alpha and Omega” (Rev. 22:13), the “First and the Last” (Rev. 1:17-18), and the “One Who is and Who was and Who is to come” (Rev. 1:8). He is the “same yesterday and today, yea’ and forever” (Heb, 13:8). From one of the psalms quoted and applied to Jesus, we read, “. . . the heavens are the works of Thy hands; they will perish, but Thou remainest; and they all will become old as a garment; and as a mantle Thou wilt roll them up; as a garment they will also be changed. But Thou art the same, and Thy years will not come to an end” (Heb. 1:10-12). No being, other than God, possesses this attribute.

(2) He is omnipresent. To His disciples, Jesus promised, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20). Again, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Mt. 28:19-20). Jesus claimed that He would be with His disciples wherever and whenever they gathered together in His name in any nation throughout the world. Thus, He must possess the divine attribute of being able to be everywhere at once.

(3) He is omniscient. Jesus knew the hearts of men (Jn. 2:24-25; Mt. 9:4; Heb. 4:12-13) even though the thoughts of a man no one knows except the spirit of the man which is within him (1 Cor. 2:11). He also knew the end from the beginning (Jn. 6:64; 13:11)-a mark of deity (Isa. 41:22-23).

(4) He is omnipotent. Having already shown that He wore the title “The Almighty,” this attribute seems selfevident. Whatever the Father did, the Son could do (Jn. 5:19); He had life in Himself even as the Father did (Jn. 5:26).

His Words

Even as Jesus’ divine attributes attest His deity, so also do His works attest His deity. He was the Creator (Jn. 1:1-2; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; Col. 1:16) and Sustainer (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3,12) of this world. He was able to send the Holy Spirit (Jn. 15:26); He could forgive sins (Mt. 9:2-5). In addition to His manifold miracles, these words set Jesus apart as deity.

He Accepted Worship

That Jesus accepted worship cannot be denied (Rev. 5:12-13; Mt. 8:2-3; Jn. 9:38; Mt. 14:33). The Christians were a group of people who worshiped Christ (1 Cor. 1:2; epikaleo is a term designating worship). If any group of people understood that idolatry was wrong, the Jews did; they had eradicated idolatry from their midst. No one of Jesus’ disciples would allow any person to worship another man (Acts 10:25-26; 14:15); not even an angel could be worshiped (Rev. 22:9). To worship any creature rather than the Creator is sinful (Rom. 1:25). Yet, Jesus was worshiped! Therefore, He was not a creature, He was the Creator!

Jesus was none other than God in the flesh! The God who created the heavens and the earth in Gen. 1, who sent the flood, who parted the waters of the Red Sea, who caused the walls of Jericho to collapse, who caused the sun to stand still for Joshua, and who spoke through the prophets is the One Who took upon Himself the form of humanity to die for our sins. Describing Christ Jesus, Paul said, “although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:6-8). The doctrine of the deity of Jesus is one of the most important doctrines in all of the Bible. If anyone who denied the humanity of Jesus was considered an anti-Christ (cf. 2 Jn. 7-the Gnostic heresy), certainly anyone who denies the deity of Christ must also be considered a heretic. The modernists’ concept of Jesus too closely resembles that of the first century Jews to commend itself to us.

Truth Magazine, XX:21; pp. 6-8
May 20, 1976

By John A. Welch

Praise Him! praise Him! Jesus our blessed Redeemer!

Heav’nly portals loud with Hosannas ring!

Jesus, Saviour reigneth forever and ever;

Crown Him! crown Him! Prophet, and Priest, and King!

Christ is coming! over the world victorious,

Pow’r and glory unto the Lord belong:

(“Praise Him! Praise Him!,” Abiding Hymns: 280, verse 3).

The offices of Christ have usually been divided into three major categories. They are prophet, priest and king. As prophet he reveals God’s will to man. As priest he compassionately transmits man’s needs to God. As king, he is our ruler and authority.

Jesus, The Prophet

There was confusion among the Jews about the Messiah. Many anticipated a prophet separate from the Messiah. This anticipation was so acute that some expected a physical reappearance of Elijah (to fulfill Mal. 4:5-6) or Jeremiah. This confusion may have been drawn from the inability of the Jews to reconcile the prophecies of the conquering Messiah with those of the suffering servant (Isa. 53). How could a descendant of the persecuted prophets be the same person as the King of Zion?

Their ill-formed conclusions appear in several passages. “Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ” (John 7:40-41; see also John 6:14; Matt. 16:13-14). John the Baptist faced this confusion (John 1:20-21). The apostles made this same mistake at the transfiguration, when Elijah actually appeared. Jesus corrected them: “I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. . . . Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist” (Matt. 17:12-13; see also 11:14).

The Jews were willing to acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, as are many today. “There came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen among us; and, That God hath visited his people” (Lk. 7:16). “The multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee” (Matt. 21:11).

Jesus claimed to be a prophet. In Luke 13:31-35, Jesus exhibited no fear of Herod’s threats to kill him “for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee . . .” Jesus seemed to place himself in the line of the prophets in recounting the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matt. 21:33. 45).

Peter indicated that Moses’ statement concerning a coming prophet in Deut. 18:15 was fulfilled in Jesus. He began by explaining a solution to the Jewish inability to reconcile the King and the Sufferer. “Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled” (Acts 3:18). He then continued, “For Moses truly said unto the Fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you” (Acts 3:22).

I do not believe that it is necessary to note the methods of Jesus’ preaching and prophecy in this short study, but we will note the superiority of his revelation above all other prophets. His prophecy was constant, not intermittent. Old Testament prophets could speak only when inspired, yet every word and action of Jesus was teaching or prophecy (John 3:34). His prophecy was complete, not partial. Old Testament prophets did not know all the truth, nor even the end of the things of which they spoke (1 Pet. 1:10-11). Any reserve shown by Jesus was not his inability to declare, but the inability of his disciples to listen (John 16:12). His prophecy was infallible. Old Testament prophets made mistakes because their prophecy was subject to their own faulty prejudice. Thus, Samuel mistook the elder brothers of David for the anointed (1 Sam. 16:6ff), and Nathan told David that he could build the temple (2 Sam. 7:lff). We need not fear for each mistake is noted and corrected by God. Jesus’ prophecy needed no such correction. The prophecy of Jesus was final. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth” (Rom. 10:4; see also Heb. 1:1-3).

Jesus the Priest

There can be no notion of religion without a priest, a mediator: one who will approach God in our behalf. The Hebrew Christians knew Jesus as their Saviour and certain elementary facts of the gospel, but they did not know him as their priest (Heb. 5:10-6:3). In the Old Testament, there was no godly priesthood in Egypt, only redemption. Similar to the Priesthood given at Sinai, Jesus serves as our priest, to reveal man’s true relation to God, to provide access to God, and to prevent fear of approaching him.

The character of the priest determines the nature of the religion. If the priest or his sacrifice is imperfect, then the religion is imperfect. If both are perfect, the conscience will effectively be purged and sin, as a barrier between God and man, will be removed. Paul proved that under the Old Testament imperfection reigned, while in Christ a perfect priest is found. The Old Testament priests were imperfect because they were only allowed to enter the holiest once a year, then not without offering blood for their own sins (Heb. 9:6-9). The sacrifices offered were imperfect because they had to be continually offered. They never effectively did the job of removing sin (Heb. 10:1-4).

In Jesus we have a perfect priest.

“But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:24-27).

The various aspects of his priesthood are set forth in Hebrews. His commission is given in Heb. 5:4-6. He was called of God. not taking this honor to himself. His preparation for this service is cited in several passages. The priest had to be one “who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way . . .” (Heb. 5:2). Thus, in Jesus’ case, “We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15; see also 2:14-18; 5:8). The priest must have a suitable offering (Heb. 8:3; 5:1). Christ’s sacrifice was “his own blood;” Himself “once offered” (Heb. 9:12; 27-28). The scene of His ministry is the sanctuary. The Old Testament priests served a “worldly sanctuary” (Heb. 9:1); Christ serves in “. . . the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man” (Heb. 8:1-2). Christ’s intercession is our behalf is so capable of abolishing our fear of approaching God that we may “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace . . .” (Heb. 4:16). The result of this new priesthood is that we have a “new testament” which enables us to approach God by a “new and living way” (Heb. 9:15; 10:20). “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” (Heb. 7:12).

Jesus, the King

The kingship of Jesus was the most disputed of His claims to be the Messiah. The Jews were willing to acknowledge him as the Prophet. Paul explained by the precedent of Melchizedek how Jesus of the tribe of Judah could be a priest (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:1-17). The Jews would not accept him as a king. Some have asserted that Jesus never intended to be a king. Some claim that he is not a king yet, but will be in a future millennium.

Christ claimed to be a king. He spoke of the time when “the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory” (Matt. 19:28). In two parables He applied this claim to Himself. He obviously applied the Parable of the Pounds to Himself as the nobleman who went into a far country to receive a kingdom (Luke 19:11-27). In explaining the Parable of the Tares, He said, “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of the kingdom all things that do offend . . .” (Matt. 13:41).

Jesus was willing to accept the title of king from others. This is a bigoted assumption if the title was not really His to accept. The plea of James and John’s mother was that her sons would receive an exalted place in his kingdom (Matt. 20:20-22). In preparing to enter Jerusalem, Jesus went to some effort to fulfill a prophecy which stated, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass” (Matt. 21:5; Zech. 9:9). Upon approaching the city, he was hailed by that title most appropriate, “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Luke 19:38).

He was charged and condemned as a king, thus indicating that the people had common knowledge of His claim to be a king. “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King” (Luke 23:2). In replying to the question “Art thou a king then?” Jesus stated, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world . . .” (John 18:37). Aghast at the inscription of the cross, the Jews pled, “Write not, the King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews” (John 19:19-22).

In Acts 2, Peter introduced Jesus as having been by the resurrection raised to sit on the throne of David (Acts 2:30-36). Some argue that His authority is now incomplete. They insist that there is a future and finer manifestation of Christ’s kingdom here on the earth. Yet, now he is “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Eph. 2:21-22). What is lacking? His authority is absolute. To insist that Christ is not a king now is to ignore some of the most assertive passages of the New Testament.

We might conclude by considering the nature of his kingdom. His kingdom is spiritual. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight…. but now is my kingdom not from hence” (John 18:36). Paul later emphasized this by saying, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4; see also Eph. 6:10-18). It is important to note that this not only excluded all those weapons of steel, brass and wood, but others as well. Second Corinthians is rebuking in context that sort of carnality which Paul condemned in the first letter to these Corinthians. “Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1 Cor. 3:3). I often hear brethren bemoan the politics in churches. Some erring brethren seem to feel that if the simple force of their argument will not convince men, then they must campaign and inveigh privately and behind the scenes! This is the sort of smoky room politics that afflicts our governmental affairs. This is just as much a carnal weapon as bashing another in the head with a club. It is just as condemned. Christ never stooped below the spiritual kingdom, nor should its citizens. Christ’s kingdom is a universal kingdom. It is not bound by geography, time, race, or space. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. 28:19). Christ’s kingdom is an eternal kingdom. It will never change or be replaced. It will never be conquered. Its citizens will never have to adapt to new rule. “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33; see also Rev. 11:15; 22:5).

Yet, someone will ask about 1 Cor. 15:24-28. It says there will come a time when he will give up His reign as king to God. Certainly, no one denies that there will be no end to his kingdom, but 1 Cor. 15 unmistakably does say that Christ will give up His reign when the last enemy, death, is destroyed.

The answer can be found in the Greek word “ever” in the three passages initially cited. It is the Greek word aion. It variously means age lasting, through the age, or through the ages, depending on whether it is singular or plural. Various phrases where it is used are the “end of the age” (Matt. 24:3 NASV, and many others), “the sons of the age” (Luke 16:8 NASV), “before the ages” (1 Cor. 2:7 NASV), “the ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11, NASV), etc. In the Septuagint version of Ex. 31:17 the Sabbath was a “sign . . . forever.” The preceding verse defines “forever” as lasting “throughout their generations.” Ex. 30:8 reminds the Sabbatarians that the Sabbath would last only on the same basis as would the candlestick and the incense. Thus, the statement of Luke 1:33 is saying that Christ will rule over the house of Judah throughout their generations, not just for a few years as their former kings reigned. This harmonizes with the great commission where Christ comforts us with the statement, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world (aion)” (Matt. 28:19). He will be with us with all authority and power as long as the gospel is being preached or throughout the age. These agree perfectly with the intention of 1 Cor. 15, where Christ will reign as long as the world lasts, throughout our generations, while the gospel is being proclaimed, till the last enemy is destroyed. Then the eternal kingdom will return to the Father.

Truth Magazine, XX:21, pp. 3-6
May 20, 1976