JOHN 1
1 In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God [Theos], and the Word was God.
Logos represents the wisdom (the reasoning and intelligent logic) of Deity embodied in Messiah...He was the volume of the book...the embodiment of the scriptures, full of grace and truth.
In this text, then, there is ONE DEITY, and he is styled THE LOGOS. This word signifies, "the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed and made known; also, the inward thought or reason itself. So that the word comprehends both the ideas of reason and speech."
Hence, by John styling Him the Logos, it was equivalent to affirming that he was a reasoner and a revelator: or, as Daniel declared to Nebuchadnezzar, that "the Elahh in the heavens revealed secrets," even "the deep and secret things."
But was the Deity reason and speech only? In other words, an abstraction independent of substance; or, as some affirm, "without body or parts"? To preserve us from such a supposition, John informs us that "the Logos was with the Theos," Here was companionship and identity - "the Logos was with the Theos, and Theos was the Logos." Never was there a conceivable point of time, or eternity, when the one existed without the other.
"Yahweh possessed me," (Prov. 8:22) saith the Logos, "in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from olahm (the hidden period) from the beginning, or ever the earth was. were no depths I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: while as yet he had not made the earth, nor the open places, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the deep; when he established the clouds above; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep; when he gave to the sea his decree that the water should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him as one brought up with him (the Logos was with the Theos): and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth, and my delights with the sons of men"
Eureka
Between Christ and the Bible there is, whether designed or not, a remarkable and instructive similarity. It is to be traced in their origin, nature, name, moral character, claims, mission, teaching, characteristics, works, history, preservation, incorruptibility, and God's will respecting them.
The Word of God existed before it was sent forth, either in its written or personal form—
"In the beginning was the word, and the word was with-God, and the word was God."
This word embraces God's purpose concerning the earth and man upon it. He created them not in vain, but to manifest His glory (Is. xlv. 18; Numb. xiv. 21).
"This word, which by the gospel is preached, endureth for ever."
The Bible is an elaboration of this word in its multifarious bearings, but all converging upon its consummation. History confirms the verity of Deity's utterances, foreshadows heavenly things, and exhibits the working out of the purpose. Christ likewise exhibits these features.
He was the word made flesh (John i. 14) Deity's purpose in embryo—the life made manifest—the seed which will bud and blossom and fill the earth with fruit. God was in both Christ and the Bible—they are one.
"Search the Scriptures"—"They are they which testify of me," said Christ. In like manner Christ testifieth of the Bible. To believe one involves a belief in the other. "Everyone taught of God" cometh to the two. ATJ
The Christadelphian, Feb 1887. p66
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14) as Creator, is necessarily before all things, and is, therefore, the "Theos," and the "Logos" of John 1:3, where it is testified that
"all things were made on account of Him; and without Him was made not one thing which exists." -
Phanerosis - Yahweh manifested in the cherubim.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
LIGHT
àThe apostle John tells that "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (John 1:5). He sent light, first of all to dispel the darkness that was upon the face of the deep, in the beginning of the creation of the heavens and earth.
This also in a figure represents that light which is intellectual, moral, and spiritual, emanating from the Word of God: and dispelling the darkness of the natural mind. As saith the
Psalmist, "The entrance of thy words giveth light." And the prophet, "To the law, and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in
them" (Isa. 8:20).
The manifestations of the name of Yahweh recorded in the Scriptures are accompanied by Spirit-light, fire and glory. When the angel communicated the memorial to Moses, it was
out of the midst of a bush, all aglow with Spirit-flame. Spirit-fire and glory were with the angel, shrouded in the Pillar of cloud, which gave light to the children of Israel in their wanderings. The Spirit-light that shone out from the cloudy Pillar, shed light upon the pathway of the children of Israel, when passing through the darkness of night through
the wilderness. "In the day-time he led them with a cloud and all the night with a light of fire" (Ps. 78:14).
Hidden within the shadows of the Tabernacle service, Spirit-fire and light performed its appointed mission, in relation to the refining, preparatory work of priesthood. Spirit-fire consumed the sacrifices upon the brazen Altar: and the "Urim," (lights) were reflected from the precious stones of Aaron's breastplate. And at times, the light of the glory of Yahweh
illumined the cloud from between the Cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat. In the subdued, quiet light of the Sanctuary, the light and glory pertaining to the day of sufferings
were prefigured: which also contained shadows pertaining to the day of future glory: when the name of "Yahweh,Tz'vaoth." "He who shall be of hosts," shall be manifested as the substance in complete fulness of the glory-illuminated pillar of cloud.
When the time came for the giving of the law and commandments to Israel, it is testified that "Yahweh descended upon Mount Sinai in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly" (Exod. 19:18). Moses, alone, was permitted to draw "near unto the thick darkness where God was," called to go up into the mount, that he might receive light. Not the resplendency of outward and visible glory: but the light contained in the law of commandments.
From the light that shone there, the "shadows of good things to come" were cast into the Mosaic constitution. The body or substance, being of Christ, remained hidden and veiled from the outer sight. Another element of the name of Deity appears prefiguredthere: as expressed in the words of the apostle Paul, "Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:7.9). The Spirit-fire, which was so beneficent a medium of blessing to the faithful children of Israel, also became instrumental in the destruction of the ungodly.
According to the testimony concerning certain transgressors under the law: "there went out a fire from the Lord and devoured them" (Lev. 10:2). The prophet Isaiah, foretelling of the day of judgment yet to come, saith: "The Light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his holy One for a flame; and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briars in one day" (Isa. 10:17).
Yahweh Elohim Ch 1
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
THAT LIGHT
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
I delight to do thy will, O my Elohim: yea, thy law is within my heart. Psa 40:7,8
"The Spirit of Yahweh," said David, "spake by me, and his word was in my tongue
...Thus spake the Eternal Spirit of Wisdom, who was brought forth before the earth had being, and who was from the beginning by Yahweh, as one brought up with him. Did not Yahweh, then, sustain the relation of a Father to the Spirit; called "eternal," because, previous to the beginning, it was in him, concentrated and condensed in his Divine Substance, not having then as yet irradiated, or been brought forth therefrom?
Yea, the Spirit of Wisdom is the Son or Offspring of God,
"by whom all things were created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, May 1855.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
He says that because a few Jews rejected Christ, that is sufficient evidence to him that Jesus was not the Messiah. I should like him to define the principle upon which this argument is based. If he could say every Jew rejected Jesus, I could understand the argument. If every Jew contemporary with Jesus rejected him, there would certainly be strong ground for Jews of all subsequent ages to take the same attitude; but all Jews did not reject him. Thousands of Jews accepted him; and the subsequent belief in him by the Gentiles, was owing to the activity of Jewish preachers.
Will Mr. Stern deny this? He cannot. The Gentiles accepted Jesus because Jews came out from Jerusalem and declared he was the Messiah. Therefore when talking of the Jews who rejected Jesus, let him not forget the multitudes of Jews who accepted him. Let him try to explain to himself why the believers believed. If he takes the scepticism of a part of the Jewish nation as proof that the Messiah has not come, how does he ask me to deal with the belief of those who believed in him?
Let him remember that belief is of more weight than unbelief, for belief is the result of positive reasons: whereas unbelief may be the mere result of ignorance of evidence that exists. Those who were farthest from the evidence were those who rejected him; the Scribes and Pharisees, who stood apart in an attitude of hostility, stung to the quick by Christ's denunciation; for he told them to their faces that they merely appeared righteous, but they were like the beautiful graves that inwardly contained rottenness and dead men's bones.
It is no wonder that the Scribes and Pharisees rejected him and that the nation under their leadership rejected him. Their rejection is no evidence against him at all. A large section of the common people heard him gladly, and at one time they wanted to take him by force, and make him a king, but the time had not come, and he took occasion to withdraw from them. --
Bro Roberts - Was Jesus of Nazareth The Messiah?
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
You think water had nothing to do with the birth here referred to, but a moment's reflection will show that this conclusion is a short-sighted and a groundless one. The phrase "born of God," determines nothing. Of itself, it reveals nothing of the process by which the result is accomplished. This we have to learn from other testimony, and it may be learned. The inception of a man's divine sonship is caused by the truth presented to his mind. This is evident from the fact that the method adopted for the creation of sons is the preaching of the gospel which, Paul says, is the power employed of God in the salvation of man.—(Rom i, 16.)
When the truth of the gospel is received, the believer is begotten. His divine relationship has commenced; but it is evident that unless this begettal advance to the stage of birth, the result is abortive. Now, Jesus connects water with the birth, (John iii, 4), and baptism with the belief of the gospel. (Mark xvi, 16.) Hence, it is a divine arrangement for a believer to be immersed in water for the purpose of being fully born into the divine family. A man may scorn the idea of water having to do with such a result, but he cannot deny it, if he believe the New Testament.—(Acts x, 47; viii, 36; Hèb x, 22; 1 Peter iii, 20, 21.) This birth of water, however, may very naturally, as a matter of speech, be ascribed to the "word" leading to it, because water immersion would do nothing for an ignorant person. Baptism is "a washing of water by the word."—(Eph v, 26.)
The word is the inceptive and creative power; immersion but the external act, by which it has legal efficacy. Hence Peter speaks as follows of those who had believed and had been immersed:—"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever * * * * and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."—(1 Peter i, 23.)
Now, if believers can be said to be born by the word of God, surely with more appropriateness still, they can be said to be "born of God," for this covers the whole ground. But it would be quite a wresting of the word to our own destruction to say that because certain are said to be born of God, they were not baptised. Is one part of the word of God against another? Surely not. All must agree. To be "born of God," which is but a general form of speech requiring the light of specific information before it can be understood, is to believe the truth, and be immersed into Christ.
Those mentioned by John in the passage in question had been the subjects of this double process, for all that received Christ were baptised. Christ himself set the example by being baptised of John. All Christ's are born of God in this way. This is a birth, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man." Human appointment has nothing to do with it. It is entirely divine. From a natural point of view, it is foolishness. It is a part of the system of "base things and things which are not," which God has chosen to accomplish his ends in relation to the human family "that no flesh should glory in his sight.—(1 Cor i, 28, 29.) - ...
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of [the will of] God.
But it remains to be said that it is doubtful if John i, 13, refers to the class mentioned in the verse immediately preceding. On this point, we quote the following from the Diaglott:
"Griesbach notes a different reading of this verse. Instead of hoi egenetheesan, he has hos egenthee; the singular pronoun and verb for the plural, which would make the passage read 'who was not begotten of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,' thus referring it directly to the physical generation of the Messiah by the spirit of God, rather than to the moral regeneration of believers."
This would get rid of your difficulty very summarily. There is no difficulty either way, but there would be less appearance of difficulty if the improved reading be adopted, and it certainly harmonises better with the context than the usual reading.
The Christadelphian
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
We are sorry to hear of the division. Jesus had but one physical nature in the days of his flesh—the seed of Abraham; but that nature was generated by "the Word," and became an instrument in the hands of the Father.
The correspondence represents two extremes, which are equally to be regretted. We stand between them. Jesus was the Word made flesh, which flesh was the medium of the Father's further manifestation after the anointing of it by the Spirit.
The Christadelphian, April 1873
Not Only Incorrect But Dangerous
Is it not more correct to say that Jesus was a manifestation of God, than it is to say that he was God manifest in the flesh?"
Answer.—Provided they are both used to mean the same thing, it matters little which form of expression is used; but as a matter of words, the one is apostolic and the other is not. The apostolic one is the latter. Paul's words are θεος εφανερωθη εν σαρκι, God was manifested in the flesh. This expression agrees with the other testimonies: "The Word (which was God) was made flesh."—(Jno. 1: 14.) Emmanuel—God was; Yahoshua—Jesus—God shall save;
"the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image or His person."—(Heb. 1:2.)
Any form of words intended to disconnect the man Christ Jesus from the Father who was in him, is not only incorrect, but dangerous.
The Christadelphian, Aug 1874
... this union was effected between the Eternal Spirit and the nature of Abraham
Of his future body before its diversification (Psa 139: 15), the Spirit of Wisdom saith,
"There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; nor rest in my bones because of my sins. For mine iniquities are gone over my head; as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink, and are corrupt because of my sin. I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease, and there is no soundness in my flesh."
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
"Deliver me from my persecutors; for they are stronger than I. Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name."
The reason why the Spirit speaks thus of its body, is, because it was to be a Sin-Body before it should be diversified, or made different. Being fashioned out of Abraham's nature, it could be no other; for that nature being human nature, "in iniquity," "sin," "without soundness," "corrupt because of sin," "loins filled with a loathsome disease," are expressions which define its quality.
Hence, in the New Testament, it is styled, "sinful flesh," or flesh full of sin; and sometimes simply "sin." If it be asked, why the body was to be of this quality first? The answer is, Because sin was to be condemned in the flesh of a sinless character; which would have been impossible, if there had been, in the physical sense, no sin there.
Thus, by preparing a sin-body, or a body made of sinful flesh, for the Spirit of Wisdom, He laid upon that Spirit "the iniquity of us all;" and when the time came to make it "an offering for sin," it was "offered through the Eternal Spirit;" and thus, in the Spirit's own body our sins were borne upon the tree.
But of all bodies woman-born, which was the body fashioned for the Spirit? This question could be answered only by Him "who engraved the graving thereof" in secret. All who profess to believe the New Testament confess that the body born of Mary was the Sin Covering, or Vail, for the Spirit, to be rent in due time.
"And the Word," says John, "became flesh;" not, however, in utero, but some thirty years afterwards, when the Spirit of Wisdom descended from the Father in the form of a Dove, and filled the son of Mary with understanding, counsel, and might, knowledge and the fear of Yahweh: and then, when the Eternal Spirit united himself to the body prepared of the Father, a voice from the excellent glory said,
"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased!"
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, May 1855
Thus, "the Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us," says John, "and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth;" for "the law was given through Moses; the grace and the truth came through Jesus Anointed" (John 1:14, 17). Now, "Theos was the Logos," says John; that is, Deity was the Word; and this Word became flesh in the manner testified. Was the product, therefore, not Deity? Did the unions of spirit with flesh annihilate that spirit, and leave only flesh? Was the holy thing born a mere son of Adam? or "the fellow" and "equal" of the Deity? (Zech. 13:7; John 5:18 Phil. 2:6). The latter unquestionably.
After this manner, then, THE ETERNAL POWER, or Yahweh, became flesh; and commenced the initiation of His promise, that He would be to Israel for Elohim. The chief Eloah was now born; and, as the STAR OF JACOB cradled in a manger, received the homage of the wise, and the acclamation of the heavenly host. This babe was the "body made in secret" through which "THE ETERNAL SPIRIT," when it should attain to "the fulness of the times," designed to manifest himself. That time had arrived when "Jesus began to be about thirty years of age."
He was now to be "sent forth;" "being made under the law, that them under law he might purchase from it, that we might obtain THE SONSHIP" (Gal. 4:5). His sending forth was subsequently to his immersion, and preceded by his anointing with holy spirit. Though born of "YAHWEH's Handmaid" six months after John the Immerser, John said of him, "after me cometh a man who hath been preferred to me; for he was before me." Isaiah styles him YAHWEH and Elohim, in his prophecy concerning John as "The Voice" that was to herald his manifestation; saying, "Prepare ye the way of YAHWEH, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim" (40:3).
The Father was one Eloah, and Jesus was another; so that in this unity were developed two, who, in the Hebrew plural, are termed Elohim.
Here, then, was a practical illustration of the phrase, so often occurring in the scriptures of the prophets, "YAHWEH Elohim," most incorrectly rendered in the English Version, "LORD God." Based upon this combination of holy spirit and flesh, Jesus said to Nicodemus,
"I say unto thee, WE speak what WE do know, and testify what WE have seen; and ye receive not OUR Witness".
Here was plural manifestation IN UNITY. This is abundantly evinced in all the New Testament. Hence, on another occasion, Jesus said to the Jews, "I and the Father are one" one what? We are, in the words of Moses, "ONE YAHWEH."
Eureka 3.2.7.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
"Is preferred before me," means that Jesus was higher and greater than John. "For he was before me," points to the fact that this greater rank always pertained to Jesus. The two "befores" mean the same thing. No Trinitarian, therefore, can deny that the statement affirms the pre-eminence of Christ. Christ was fore-ordained from the foundation of the world-(1 Peter i. 20, ) as the Christ, the anointed of God, and as such anointed one, he was always (even before his existence), in the mind or purpose of God, the highest of created beings.
Ambassador of the Coming Age, Aug 1868.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Interview with an Israelite
Israel believed in one God, not in three Gods as taught by christians. We replied he was mistaken in supposing that Jesus or the New Testament inculcated any such thing. We admitted that the Gentiles taught three Gods in one, and one in three, the same in substance, duration, equality, and power; multitudes of them also worshipped angels, the ghosts of dead men, and the virgin Mary as queen of heaven. But this was all Gentilism, and not christianity, and ought not to be confounded with it.
The Jews made a great mistake in judging of the character, claims, and doctrine of Jesus from the caricatures of them in the Gentile theologies and pulpit declamations. Jesus was to be tried by the Jews as Moses was by intelligent Gentiles—by testimony and reason, and not by common report and prejudice.
The candid and intelligent of Israel admitted that Jesus once lived, and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote what may be fairly regarded as his history or biography. In fact there is no room to doubt in this matter; for Jesus left his mark so indelibly upon his generation that to question the apostolic account of him would be to manifest symptoms of incipient insanity.
Now justice and impartiality require that Jesus should be considered according to the testimony of his personal acquaintances and biographers in relation to what he said and what he did; and not according to the interpretations of men living hundreds of years remote.
He did not teach that he was the Father, nor that he was the Holy Spirit. He expressly declares that no man had seen the Father, though a multitude had seen him. It is true indeed, that he says, in another place,
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also."
But then he explains in what sense the Father was seen; in seeing him the Father was reflected from him to the beholder as the image of man is reflected from a mirror. Jesus was
"the image of the invisible God;"
for he was "in the Father," living, moving, and existing in him; and the Father was in him, dwelling in him by his spirit, suggesting the words of his discourses, and doing the miracles he performed. The doctrine of the apostles harmonizes with this, for John says,
"No man hath seen God at any time"
—he is not visible, but is declared to all his creatures, angels as well as men. Again Paul says,
"God only hath deathlessness, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto to; whom no man hath seen, nor can see."
It is true that Jesus "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" in the sense of claiming to be his Son; but he never set himself forth as the deathless self-existent First Cause of all things, but his obedient Son and servant to do his will, and to establish it, and to cause it to be respected in all the earth as it is in heaven.
Thus we see the doctrine of the New Testament harmonises with the principle of Israel's faith that "the Lord is one."
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Apr 1851
25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
Why baptizest thou
He did it because he was sent to do it, and commanded to do it.
He was commanded to do it because the word of God came to him, conveying the command as distinctly and directly as that same word came to Moses and all the prophets,
"not by the will of man," as Peter informs us, but "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
The very date of the coming of this word is exactly supplied: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cesar ... the Word of God came unto John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness" (Luke iii. 1).
His baptism, his burning words, and commanding manner are all explained by this. He was the Lord's messenger, specially raised up and equipped,
"filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb,"
and sent forth at the ripe moment,
"in the spirit and power of Elias,"
to do the work of
"preparing the way of the Lord."
Nazareth Revisited Ch 4
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
The Kingdom of Heaven
"Kingdom of heaven" is a phrase of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament. It is one of those particular names or phrases which distinguish the things pertaining to the economy of which Yahweh is the builder and maker.
...God's reign over Israel commenced when he made a covenant with them at Sinai, saying,
"If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. And all the people answered together, and said. All that the Lord hath spoken we will do."
From this time God reigned over them, and after some hundreds of years had elapsed,
"gave unto them Saul the son of Kish; and when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king;"
of whose seed he raised unto Israel, Jesus:
"when John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel."
And although in John's day they were without a king of the house of David, God reigned over them through the institutions of the covenant he bestowed upon them and which they accepted at Sinai. He reigned over Israel then in the land both spiritually and politically—spiritually, because "all the people were baptized," "that heard John," except "the Pharisees and Lawyers, who rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of John." This being the state of affairs, repentance could not be proclaimed on the ground of "the reign of God approaching," seeing that it already existed.
But in the above passage from Acts, Paul teaches that the advent of the King of Israel was preceded by John's proclamation; or in other words, that the manifestation of Jesus and his acknowledgment by the Father as Son of God was his coming, and not his birth of Mary: for he says, "John first preached before his coming," or, "pro prosopou tes eisodou autou, before the manifestation of his approach." John was six months older than Jesus, yet he said, "he that cometh after me is mightier than I," though he was then standing in their midst unknown to John and the people as King of Israel, or Messiah.
It was well understood by the Jews that the promised king and saviour of the nation was to be the Son of God. For in the prophets which were read in their synagogues every sabbath day, they were taught that
"a child should be born, and a son given to them;"
that he should be at once Son of David and Son of God; that he should sit on David's throne as the throne of his kingdom; and that Yahweh would establish him upon it for ever. So that Son of God and King of Israel were inseparable ideas, which appears from the case of Nathanael, who exclaimed with admiration,
"Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel."
John the Baptizer, Jesus, and the apostles, then, in their proclamation before the crucifixion, announced neither the reign nor the kingdom in regard to time or place, when they preached that
"the basileia of God or of heaven was at hand."
Their proclamation had regard to the person or king of heaven. His actual presence among them, and approaching manifestation, were made the ground of repentance. While John preached, the manifestation was approaching; but when Jesus began his announcement, the manifestation had become a fact, and he declared himself to be the King and Heir of David's throne.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Oct 1851
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
The Man Christ Jesus
Christ being perfect in both kind and degree, surpassed all other, both in the character and extent of his excellence ; and not less so in the immeasurable fulness of the Spirit which he possessed, and the divine Fatherhood to which he stood related.
As tilting into these altogether unique conditions, he had a mission and a work placed in his hands, to which none other might compare; for said his forerunner,
"behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world."
Such an exceptional work required equally exceptional circumstances, as the channel of its accomplishment. These were all divinely created and supervised, with the most delicately adjusted bearing upon the result proposed that it is possible to conceive of.
The impress of the Father's mind and image, upon the mentality of the Son of his love, laid the foundation of a child, the like of which had never yet appeared in the annals of human history, and never would again, as the sequel has shown.
Nature left to itself never produces such, as the history of all nations and all ages as abundantly testify. Circumstances that might be bearable to a clodhopper, or a mentally inebriate Protestant martyr, were filled in his case, with a thousand causes of anguish that never entered into the heart of the martyrs of the inquisition to conceive of.
His was sorrow in its acutest form; and dishonour and poverty of surroundings in senses that can only be appreciated by those who are intelligently in sympathy with the object for which he appeared. The only man that ever had the world on his shoulders in any real sense, was the man who is destined in the full evolution of the divine purpose to have it at last under his feet.
The Christadelphian, 1888 PAGE 171
In Defence of the Faith
As children of Adam, we inherit his condemnation, but we did not forfeit our lives in him. We have forfeited our lives since by transgression. In addition to inheriting Adam's condemnation, we are personally transgressors, and therefore cannot of ourselves escape from the law that appoints death as the penalty of transgression.
But Jesus was not personally a transgressor. Hence, though he inherited the condemned nature of Adam, God could "justly" deliver him from death after he had died. His death met the requirements of the Adamic and Mosaic curses which were both on him: his personal sinlessness ensured his resurrection.
And thus is apparent the answer to the question: "Has the fact (that God was the Father of Jesus) no value?" Great value indeed. We could not have been saved but for this. God thus saves us. God is the Saviour by Christ. If Jesus had not been the Son of God, Jesus would have been a sinner, as shewn by the fact that all men born of the flesh are sinners without exception.
The value of Christ's divine extraction lies in its result—the sinlessness of the Lamb of God. Was any other man ever sinless? How came this man to be without sin? "By sheer determination," says the new theory; but (supposing the gracelessness of such an answer is passed over,) how came he to be possessed of a "sheer determination" that no other man ever possessed? Christ supplies the answer:
"Ye (the Jews) are from beneath: I am from above. Ye are of this world; I am not of this world. . . . I do nothing of myself, but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things, and He that sent me is with me . . . I speak that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. . . . If God were your Father ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but He sent me."—(John 8:23, 28, 42.)
"The Son can do nothing of himself but what he seeth the Father do; for whatsoever things He doeth, these things also doeth the Son likewise."—(John 5:19.)
The secret of Christ's power lay in his connection with the Father, both by begettal and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit, which established unity between them. This it is that makes Christ's work the Father's work—God in him and by him, "through the eternal Spirit" (Heb. 9:14), accomplishing the work of reconciliation.
And here it is that the glory is to God manifest in the flesh and not to man. God produced a sinless man. Granted the sinlessness was due to the volition of the man Jesus, but this volition was the result of what God did in the womb of Mary and afterwards on Jordan's banks. And this sinless man so produced was in condemned human nature, as even the new theory now concedes.
The Christadelphian, Sept 1873
Taketh away the sin of the world
Religion being the divine remedy for sin, it is evident that when the sin of the world is taken away, religion will be abolished. So long as sin exists in the earth, so long will there be separation between God and men; for it is sin, and that only, which interrupts man's fellowship with God and His angels, as it obtained before the fall.
When sin is eradicated from the world there will be no more death, for death and sin are boon-companions, as it is written, "the wages of sin is death." The abolition of death presupposes the extinction of sin in the flesh, and consequently that the animal nature of man has been transformed (not evaporated, but changed) into the spiritual nature of the Elohim.
Man will then be no longer subject to evil. His race will have passed through its 7000 years of probation, and all of its individuals, who have been the faithful subjects of God's religion will become the incorruptible and perpetual inhabitants of the earth, emancipated from every curse; God will then dwell in men by His spirit as He now fills the Lord Jesus Christ.
Elpis Israel 1.4.
31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
John knew Jesus enough to know that he was a righteous person: but he did not know him enough to know that he was
"the one standing in their midst whose shoe-latchet he was not worthy to stoop down and unloose."
Our difficulty in understanding John's deficient knowledge of him in this latter capacity arises mainly from the completeness of our own knowledge of what came after. We are liable, unconsciously, to take all this knowledge back with us to the privacy of John's secluded life, and to wonder at a want of apprehension which was natural to his circumstances.
It was probably a divinely-contrived thing that John should be ignorant of the Messiah-ship of Jesus. Had he known it, he would have been certain to have proclaimed his knowledge; and thus the testimony to Christ would not have rested on that wholly divine foundation that was essential. It would have appeared to rest on a human foundation. John, as a relative, might have been suspected of the partiality of kinship; and thus, confidence in the testimony to Christ would have been imperfect at the start, where it was necessary there should be no flaw.
When we realise how unspeakably important it was that the claims of Jesus, as the long-promised Messiah, should not rest on either his own testimony or on that of any man, we get a glimpse of the purpose served by John's ignorance of him. John was as helpless as any in the crowd on the subject of who and where the Expected One was.
... indentification of Jesus was disconnected from all human bias or human sanction.
Nazareth Revisited Ch 5
Why was Christ Baptised?
On this subject, brother Harvey, of London, says: "The reason given by John the Baptist is all-sufficient. His words are,
'That he might be made manifest to Israel, therefore I am come baptising with water.'
If Christ had come out of obscurity and simply have proclaimed himself the Son of God and the Messiah of Israel, no one would have believed in him. It was necessary, if his mission was not to be a failure, that he be publicly owned of God his Father, and accredited to the nation of Israel, as he was, and through Israel to the whole world of mankind.
With this agrees what Dr. Thomas has written on the subject in Eureka (Vol. I., page 404): 'Jesus admitted that if he bore witness of himself, his witness was not true.' This was incontrovertible.
The Mosaic law, under which Jesus lived, required two or three witnesses for the establishment of truth, so that if Jesus could have adduced no other evidence than his own, the people of Judah would have been guiltless in rejecting his claim to the Messiahship, and in repudiating the Gospel of the Kingdom to be manifested through him.
No man can demonstrate his own parentage. Jesus claimed to be the Son of the Deity, a claim which could only be established, in view of the natural untruthfulness of humanity, and the frailty of woman, by the Deity Himself.
This was publicly and notably done before the multitude on Jordan's banks, when the Spirit of the Deity descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and the voice from the excellent glory in the heaven, saying:
'This is my son, the beloved, with whom I am well pleased.'
Thus the Father attested him, and afterwards John, the immerser, who heard and saw the wonder; and all the apostles who were present, and especially Peter, James, and John, who afterwards, in the presence of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, heard the same declaration on the Mount, with the addition of the words, 'Hear ye him.'
The Christadelphian, May 1898
32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
'...the Spirit descending in the form of a Dove was Yahweh, or the Logos; and Jesus, the Eloah of Israel, who, when anointed, became, as the voice of John proclaimed, "our Elohim," or the Logos, the Eloah from heaven, become flesh in Jesus, the other Eloah of the house of David. These two Elohim dwelt among the Jews, as "the Only Begotten of the Father" -- Son of Power and Son of Man -- who hath declared the Invisible Deity to men'.
Eureka 3.2.7.
Note he was Eloah before his baptism
34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
The next point on which we conversed was the paternity of Jesus. We undertook to show him from the prophets that be he whom he might, the Messiah promised to Israel must be both Son of David and Son of God; and that consequently the same circumstances of birth would attach to him as are testified of Jesus.
In the everlasting covenant made with David concerning his family being the royal family or house of God's kingdom of Israel, he promised him he should have a son, the throne of whose kingdom he would establish for ever. Now of this son he said,
"I will be his father, and he shall be my son;"
so that this son of David was to be both son of David and son of God. He was to be son in a sense in which no other descendant of David could be said to be son of God; and this Son, when he sits upon David's throne, is to maintain peace as long as the Moon endureth; consequently he must be immortal. And that he was intended to be David's superior, although David's son, is proved by David's calling him his Lord; saying,
"Yahweh said unto my Lord (Adoni,) Sit thou on my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool."
Now David did not style Solomon his Lord, nor would he have called any of the kings descended from him his Lord if he had been contemporary with them; but now was a son promised whom he recognized as his Lord as well as Yahweh, which could only be on the principle of his being Yahweh's son as well as his own descendant, and therefore entitled to preeminence over himself in his, David's, kingdom and throne.
Now granting that the Messiah promised to Israel was to be son of David and son of God, it is evident that his generation must be divided between flesh and spirit; in other words, his mother must be a descendant of David, and his father, or begetter, the spirit or power of God.
After a similar type, Luke styles Adam, Son of God. Adam's mother was the ground out of which he was taken; but his Father was the Lord God. The primary difference between Adam and Jesus in formation was their maternity, not in their paternity—Jesus was born of flesh, Adam of the ground; but both of God. Hence they are styled the first and second Adams, and Sons of God.
God therefore having to produce a son from a daughter of Abraham and David which should be his, must have selected a virgin or a married woman. Now in the fitness of things viewed in relation to God, which was the most appropriate? Unquestionably the former.
If a married woman had been chosen there might have been ground for suspecting that the child was her husband's and not the Son of God; but by selecting a virtuous maiden suspicion was precluded.
Now the alternative here supposed was the one predetermined of God in the sign given to the House of David. Hah-almah the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Before any dispute arose between Jews and Gentiles about the meaning of almah, the Seventy, upwards of 200 years before Jesus, rendered it into Greek by hee parthenos, one who is chaste, pure, and uncontaminated.
She is styled in the psalms Yahweh's handmaid; and her son, "the son of his handmaid." Psa 86: 16, 116: 16.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Apr 1851
The "Christadelphian" and the Nature of Christ
The following was written by the Editor, in answer to a letter seeming to imply that his attitude on the nature of Christ had changed since the death of Dr. Thomas...
... My 'course' is now, in all respects and particulars, precisely what it was 'while in America, and during the life of Dr. Thomas.' I cannot unite with those who see only flesh in the man Christ Jesus, and who attribute his mind, wisdom, and intelligence to the evolutions of a superior organization of flesh; but neither can I endorse definitions which mean (whether intended to mean so or not) that we are to see no flesh at all in the man Christ Jesus, but a new and mongrel nature, made up of a mixture of flesh and spirit.
I stand out for Jesus being the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16), the seed of David (2 Tim. 2:8), the flesh and blood of the children (Heb. 2:14), the likeness or form of the flesh of sin.—(Rom. 8:3.)
But I recognise that, in his case, it was the Spirit converted into this nature (like unto his brethren), and that with this nature, so produced, the spirit (afterwards superaded) dwelt not as a physical element of the flesh of sin, but as an abiding or overshadowing presence of wisdom and power resting on or in the "body prepared."
...I object to interpret the miraculous conception by the laws of physiology. A male of one nature and a female of another results in offspring, partaking of the nature of each; but this is the result of organic law, to which male and female are helplessly subject. You cannot put God into this position...
When God does anything, the result is according to His will, and not governed by a physiological or any other sort of necessity. Hence the question concerning the birth of Christ is not what must have been the physiological results of such and such a process: but what did God design?
The answer to this will show us a perfect man, made in all things like his brethren, of the physical nature of Abraham, for the condemnation of sin in its own flesh; and the same answer will justify the use of the word 'instrument' ... This is but another way of saying what Peter said on the day of Pentecost, that 'Jesus of Nazareth (was) a man approved of God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him.' He was an instrument, yet the operator in manifestation.
The Christadelphian, Jan 1874
36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
Lamb
A lamb in the Apocalypse does not represent a lamb, but a man whose name comprehends the attributes of innocence and sacrifice for sin.
"A lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth,"
represents that same Man as once dead, but alive again; and henceforth the depository of the unmeasured Spirit of God, by which (in the time of the vision) he is almighty and seeing over all.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Oct 1852
An offering for sin
There was a purpose in it, which is variously stated. These various statements conjointly admit us to what may be called God's objects in the case--apart from which, there can be no understanding of the matter. With those objects in view, it is not only intelligible but admirable. But those objects cannot be discerned or appreciated apart from God Himself. The subject begins there. That is why the subject remains dim, so long after other parts of the truth are understood.
We cannot understand God, yet we can have some idea of the relation between Creator and created. We may know that the rights are all on the side of the Creator, and that the reasonable attitude of the created is that of absolute submission, and that any departure from this attitude is treason, and that death is just in the case of treason.
We may also find it easy to recognize that though He is kind, and ready to forgive, He cannot grant forgiveness apart from such an amende honourable as will preserve intact the mutual relations of Creator and created. This, in simple language, is the explanation of the entrance of death by sin, and the granting of life by forgiveness for Christ's sake, after
"setting him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Rom. 3:25).
We are "justified by his blood" if we believe--(see Rom 5:9; Acts 13:38-39). There is no difference between the shedding of the blood of Christ, and the condemnation of sin in the flesh. For this blood-shedding is what is otherwise expressed as "the pouring out of his soul unto death", And what is death but the condemnation of sin?
Christ did not sin, but he inherited the condemnation of sin in deriving his nature from a daughter of Adam, the condemned: and he was considered as having the sins of his people laid upon him, in so far as the sins of his people were to be forgiven for the sake of what should be done in him.
"He shall bear the sin of many." "God hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all." "He was wounded for our transgressions." "He was made sin for us, who knew no sin." "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world."
For this view of blood-shedding we are indebted to the explanation vouchsafed in the law, as to the requirement of blood in sacrifice. This explanation is as follows:
"The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul"
(Lev. 17:11).
The pouring out of the blood was therefore the pouring out of the life--therefore the infliction of death: and therefore an illustration of what was due to sin, and an acknowledgment on the part of the offerer that it was so.
But being the blood of an animal which had nothing to do with sin, it was only a typical illustration or declaration of God's righteousness in the case. It was not a condemnation of sin in its own flesh, but a mere shadow which God was pleased to establish in Israel's midst, in educational preparation for the actual condemnation which was to be carried out in His own Son, in whom,
"sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh" for (as an offering for) sin, He "condemned sin in the flesh".
Law of Moses Ch 18.
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
Jesus beheld him and addressed him
This suggests a fastening of Christ's eyes on Peter in a penetrative contemplative manner. Jesus had before him the disciple to whom he was to entrust the keys of the kingdom, and who was to be a foremost figure in the work of planting the name of Christ in the earth, and who was to glorify God in a specially agonising death -- like his master.
Jesus knew all this...
'he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man'.
He knew that this ardent impetuous Simon, faithful but infirm, was first of the twelve foundations upon which the holy city was to be built. That he should fasten his eyes on him, when first introduced to him, was natural, and also that he should address him in words few, but full of meaning, with regard to Peter's future.
'Thou art Simon, the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas' (a stone or rock).
Christ's words were always few, but pregnant. He could deliver a long discourse, but in colloquy, his words were brief and terse. Solomon says,
'A fool is known by the multitude of his words'.
The reverse was illustrated in Christ. He did not apostrophise Peter in long-winded obscurities, after the manner of pretenders in all ages: but fixed his place in one word. This was the third day after his return from the temptation.
Nazareth Revisited Ch 12
43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
Follow me
The words would be said in a way to mean much. By look and tone they would be made to say, I am he to whom John bare testimony, as ye know: I am he whom ye seek: I am he whom God hath sent. I am the Messiah. The Messiah has need of you.
Philip had evidently been in such a prepared state of mind that it needed not another word. Philip was a fellow-townsman of Andrew and Peter, who both belonged to Bethsaida, a fishing town on the north-eastern shore of the Lake of Gennesaret. With them he would be acquainted. With them he had evidently kept company in submission to John's baptism. He would all the more readily respond to the command of Christ, that Peter and Andrew were before him with their allegiance. His obedience was prompt and his conviction ripe.
The first thing he did was to communicate his discovery of Christ to Nathanael of Cana, who was also in the throng of attendants upon John the Baptist. Cana of Galilee was not far from Bethsaida; and the probability is that Philip and Nathanael were acquainted.
That he should go straight to Nathanael would prove this. The communication he made was indicative of the acquaintance they all had with the Scriptures of Moses and the prophets, and of the expectation of the Messiah's appearance, which they entertained in common as the result of their readings of them.
'We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write' [v45]
that is, the promised seed of Abraham, the prophet like unto Moses, the son covenanted to David, the Messiah foreshown by all the prophets.
Nazareth Revisited Ch 12
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph [this was his social status...the reputed eldest son of Joseph]
He knew Nazareth (it was not many miles from Cana), and he knew it was a poor place every way -- secluded among the hills and having very little of that intercourse with the outer world which is necessary to sharpen village people..
Nazareth Revisited Ch 12
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
Whatever might be the case with regard to Nazareth and Nazarenes in general, Philip was quite sure that, in Jesus, the best thing that had ever come out of anywhere for man had come out of Nazareth.
...Any man who will to the extent of his opportunity, do what Philip told Nathanael to do, must, if he have an open eye and a loving heart, come to the conclusion that Philip announced.
Nazareth Revisited Ch 12
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
This power of the Spirit of God to extend natural faculty is illustrated more than once in the history of God's work upon earth. The King of Syria, perplexed by the baffling of his plans against Israel through the oozing out of secret information, was informed by his servants to whom he at least appealed for the discovery of the traitors,
'Elisha the prophet that is in Israel telleth the King of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber' (2 Kings vi. 12).
On Jesus, the Spirit of God, after his baptism, rested without measure. He was therefore able to see as God sees, who says
'Can any hide himself in secret places that I should not see him?' (Jer. xxiii. 24.)
Nazareth Revisited Ch 12
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
In view of all that had gone before -- the arrival of the time for the Messiah to appear -- of John the Baptist's declaration that the Messiah was in their midst, -- of the divine identification of Jesus in the act of baptism six weeks previously, of which Nathanael would hear if he did not witness it, -- and of Philip's information, this incident was irresistible.
Nathanael could not avoid the conviction which he immediately expressed
Nazareth Revisited Ch 12
51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
Ye shall see heaven open
If Nicodemus and his class were incredulous of divine things in their first stage [Flesh and blood on earth], how would they be able to believe in those things testified of in their second stage [the Son of man in heaven] in the day of "heaven open" spoken of to Nathanael?
He anticipates the question how any man on earth could know of things in heaven. He adds, no man had been to heaven to learn. At the same time he foreshadowed his own coming ascent thither. He did so in language a little obscure. It reads in the C. V. thus:
"No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven" (Jno. iii. 13).
The obscurity is increased by the present participle (being) having been turned in translation into the present indicative -- is. "The Son of Man being in the heaven" gives us the point of view of the "coming down." He is not in heaven till he ascends: and he cannot descend till he ascends. The idea is more easy to catch when freely paraphrased thus:
"It will not be affirmable that any man has ascended up to heaven until the Son of Man having ascended thither, and being there for a while, descends to the earth again."
He will then be able to say,
"I have been to heaven, and the only man who has ever been there: for though Enoch and Elijah have been away from the earth, they have not been to the presence of the Father, and cannot testify of the things that are there."
Jesus, when on earth, said to his disciples, "I go to him that sent me." When he returns, he will be able to say, "I have been to him that sent me." We who now live in the interval of his absence, can see the bearing of this. He is
"gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and principalities and powers being made subject unto him" (I Pet. iii. 22).
At his return, he will be able to tell us unutterable things. The wide universe and its movements are a great mystery to created intelligence: still more, the residence and surroundings of the Personal Father-Deity, the fountain and source of all power and being.
What may we not expect in the way of enlightenment on these stupendous themes from him who not only has power to bestow such capacity of understanding in the change from the mortal to the immortal, but who has been basking for 18 centuries in the inner sunshine of the Father's glory, and who intimately knows the highest things?
Nazareth Revisited Ch 14