SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
THE LORD FROM HEAVEN
APPENDIX
NOTE TO CHAPTER 1V
"If the Father begat the Son, He who was begotten had a
beginning of existence. So there was a time when the Son did not exist." Thus
Arius argued; and when inexorable logic deduces error from premises that are
deemed true, it behoves us to test our premises again by an appeal to
Scripture. And it is not a matter of opinion, but of fact, that neither in
respect of His "eternal Sonship," nor even of His human birth, does Holy
Scripture ever speak of the Son as "begotten of the Father." And this is the
more significant because the word is used so emphatically with reference to His
resurrection from the dead. But, it will be asked, is He not called "the only
begotten Son of God"? This question has been already answered (see p. 30 ante),
and it only remains to notice a most deplorable and distressing inference that
is based upon the misreading of the term. (This Appendix was not ready when
the proofs were submitted to the Bishop of Durham. I have written on this
subject with hesitation, but under a pressing sense of the need of dealing with
it.) The time is near when "the Christian miracles" will be accepted as facts,
but explained on natural principles; for the crassly stupid infidelity of the
past is dying out. (Dr. Harnack's reference to miracles in "What is
Christianity?" points to this.) I heard of a private meeting of medical men in
London last winter at which it was gravely urged that a virgin birth was
possible as a natural phenomenon! The Rationalist could thus admit that the
Lord was born of a virgin, without admitting that He was "conceived of the Holy
Ghost." Matt. i. 20 does not conflict with this statement.
The language
of theology on this subject is popularly misconstrued to mean that at the
Incarnation the Deity took the place of a husband to the Virgin Mary. In regard
to such a mystery as the Incarnation our part is to keep to the very words of
Holy Scripture; and the language of Scripture is unequivocal and plain. As to
His human birth, the Lord was the Seed of the Woman. But it will be
asked, how is that possible? The answer is supplied by Matthew i. 20 and Luke
i. 35. The virgin birth was altogether miraculous; but if the popular belief
were well founded, His birth would have been miraculous only in the sense of
being unnatural.
Those who have learned to look for absolute accuracy in
the language of Scripture will not fail to mark the angels words:
Therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God. That birth did not constitute Him Son of God, yet had it not
been a virgin birth, Marys son could have had no possible claim to such a
title.
The Rationalist trades upon the fact that the virgin birth has no
place in the teaching of the Epistles. And Christians often fail to understand
the omission. But the reason of it is plain. While the rejection of the virgin
birth would undermine the faith, the acceptance of it (as Unitarianism
abundantly proves) is compatible with denying the Deity of Christ, and His
Deity is the foundation truth of Christianity. The truth of His Sonship as
implied in the virgin birth is merged in the truth that He was the Son of God
in a vastly higher sense; and, as we have seen, that great truth is in the warp
and woof of every part of the New Testament.
But this is not all. Unless
the Gospel narratives be altogether unreliable and worthless, it is certain
that Marys firstborn was not the son of Joseph. The alternative to the
virgin birth, therefore, would be that the Lord of Glory belonged to that
unfortunate class which the divine law excluded from the congregation of
the Lord (Deut. xxiii. 2); and this being so, it is amazing that any one
could expect to find an assertion of it in the doctrinal teaching of the
Epistles. The whole question of the virgin birth is settled and silenced by the
truth of the Lords Deity. The word firstborn claims notice
here. In its ordinary use prototokos means a womans first child,
being a male. But Heb. xii. 23 gives proof that it acquired a figurative or
spiritual significance, suggested by, but wholly apart from, its common
meaning. For every individual in the particular company of the redeemed there
designated is a firstborn; and it is clearly used as a title of
special dignity and privilege. This being so, it would be ignorant and wrong to
narrow its application to our Divine Lord by reference to the virgin birth, or
to construe it as implying in any way a limitation of His Deity. The
coincidence is striking that this word, like monogenes, occurs just nine
times in Scripture. In Matt. i. 25 and Luke ii. 7, it is used in its ordinary
acceptation, the inference being that Mary had other children. In Heb. xi. 28
it is used by way of historic reference; and Heb. xii. 23 I have already
noticed. The other passages where it occurs are Rom. viii. 29, Col. i. 15, 18,
Heb. i. 6, Rev. i. 5. In the sphere of creation the term firstborn
can be applied to the Lord only as a title of dignity and glory. And this is
presumably its significance in those passages also which relate to the
resurrection. If there be any reference to the ordinary meaning of the word, it
is noteworthy that the order indicated in 1 Cor. xv. 28 is priority
of rank.
NOTE TO CHAPTER X
WHAT does he mean? some may ask in laying down the tenth
chapter of this book. To explain my meaning, therefore, I take up at random
four documents now before me.
The first is a syllabus of services in a
certain West End church which is noted for a true ministry. And among the
subjects of addresses announced, I here find The Parables of Jesus,
and Scenes in the Life of Jesus. Lectures were recently announced
under these same headings in a notorious Hall of Science in London.
The profane infidel and the devout Christian thus agree in naming the Lord
Jesus Christ in the same free and easy fashion.
The next is a theological
work by a Professor in one of the principal Theological Colleges in America.
The author is a devout and enlightened student of Scripture, and his book is of
great merit and real value. The present volume, indeed, has benefited by help
derived from it. But the manner in which it habitually uses the simple
name might suggest that some infidel had got hold of the MS. and had
struck out every title of reverence. It is Jesus everywhere. Only
twenty times is the Lord named as Jesus in all the Epistles of the
New Testament, and yet He is so named twenty-two times in the two concluding
paragraphs of the last chapter of this book. The third is a publishers
circular about a work entitled Jesus according to St. Mark, by a
clergyman who is a Fellow of an Oxford College, and Examining Chaplain to a
Bishop. It endeavours to answer the question, What kind of person did St.
Mark, or his, informant, St. Peter, think Jesus to be? Under the heads of
Jesus family and friends Jesus way of life,
Jesus mind, Jesus social outlook,
Jesus morality, and Jesus religion, it
approaches the final subject of Jesus Himself. Had the book been
written by Tom Paine or Voltaire, the title and headings would have been the
same, save that the Saint before the name of the Evangelist would
probably have been omitted. Jesus always; but Saint Mark! Is it not
plain that the Jesus of this deplorable book is the dead Buddha of
the Rationalist? Could any one to whom our Lord Jesus Christ is a living person
- our great God and Saviour, before whose judgment-seat we all
shall stand - write of Him, or even think of Him, after this fashion? The last
document in my list is a book of piety by an American writer who
seems to be a persona graia on advanced evangelical platforms on both
sides of the Atlantic. It is a deplorable book, the evil influence of which is
all the greater because it is so subtle. It is fitted to promote a Christ
after the flesh religion of a kind that charms the mere religionist, and
deceives and corrupts even spiritual Christians - a religion which puts
sentiment in place of faith, and the expression of that sentiment in the place
of the divine revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. (Footnote - I am happy in the conviction that if I were in my
grave, not even my own wife would write about me for publication after the
fashion of this writers Talks about Jesus.)
Though
a book of this kind enjoys a fleeting popularity because it panders to the
desire of the natural man to bring Jesus down to his own level, it
is happily short-lived. But it is otherwise with works such as find a place on
the shelves of every theological library. And most of our recent theological
literature is so definitely run in a rationalistic mould, that it
is unwholesome reading for Christians. And this is true even of books written
by men who pose as champions of orthodoxy. Here, e.g., is a typical sentence
from the pen of one such: "Jesus was a very complex character." Can a man who
writes thus have any real knowledge of the Lord before whom he has to stand in
judgment? The historian who has true historical genius studies the records of
the past in order to put himself back, as it were, into the life of the people
of whom he writes, that he may be able to think as they thought and feel as
they felt. And if we study the New Testament in this spirit, we shall realise
in some measure the amazement and distress which any one of the early disciples
would feel, if he returned to earth to-day, at finding that Christians
constantly name the Lord of Glory after the example of the vagabond Jewish
exorcists of the Acts. In his day, he would tell us, people declared themselves
at once as unbelievers or disciples by the way in which they spoke of Him.
As proof that there can be nothing unseemly in speaking of the Lord as "Jesus,"
or "Jesus Christ," I it is often urged that many reverent and spiritual men
habitually name Him thus. But were it not for this there would be no need to
write upon the subject at all. And surely the question for us is not as to the
habits and practices of Christian men, but as to the teaching of Scripture and
the expressed will of the Lord Himself.
If the question is to be settled
by the practice of Christians, it was settled in the days of the Fathers.
Though here we should distinguish between "the Apostolic Fathers" and their
successors. For writings such as Clements "Epistle to the Corinthians"
and Polycarps "Epistle to the Philippians" definitely follow the New
Testament tradition in the way they name the Lord; whereas later Patristic
writings give proof that, in this as in other respects, the leaven was already
working which (as Froude aptly expresses it somewhere) changed the religion of
Christ into the Christian religion. In the Gospels, as already noticed, the
Lord is named narratively as "Jesus" some 600 times, but never once in the
Epistles. Eight times in Hebrews, and in eight passages in the Epistles of
Paul, He is called by His personal name; and in every instance its occurrence
indicates some doctrinal significance or special emphasis The following is the
list of the passages in question. I will preface it merely by repeating that
His disciples never spoke of Him to one another save as Master or Lord : -
Rom 3:26 - This is dealt with on p. 111 ante.
Rom. viii. 11. - Hers the
emphatic reference to the humiliation appears plainly from the words which
immediately follow.
2 Cor. iv. 5. - " Your servants for Jesus sake."
This is perhaps the only passage in the Epistles that presents a difficulty.
And such being the case, surely it ought to be explained on the same principle.
It is certainly not for the sake of euphony or rhythm that in the same sentence
the Apostle calls Him "Jesus" and "Christ Jesus the Lord."
2 Cor. iv. 10 -
14. - Here the emphatic contrast between "Jesus" and "the Lord Jesus" is
evident. "The life of Jesus" is the life He lived on earth; the life of Christ
would be the vital principle which He shares with His redeemed people.
EPH. iv. 21. - This is dealt with on p. 103 ante.
Phil.. ii. 10. - This is
dealt with on p. 104 ante.
1 Thess. 1. 10. - He is named three times in the
preceding verses as the Lord Jesus Christ; here, as Jesus, Gods Son, from
heaven. It is not really a case in point. (Cf 1 John i. 7).
1 Thess. iv.
14. - The emphasis on the personal name is clear, and an intelligent exegesis
of the passage will bring out its doctrinal significance. An excursus upon the
subject here would be an undue digression, and the writer must take the liberty
of referring to his book "The Way," p. 118 and App. II. Our versions here give
exposition, not translation. The Greek reads, "If we believe that Jesus died
and rose again, even so them also who were put to sleep through Jesus will God
bring with Him." Which means that the Lord was the cause of their death; i.e.
they were martyred because they were Christians. The words are not a doctrinal
statement about the holy dead - that is the scope of verse 10 - but a message
of comfort expressly from the Lord Himself (verse 15) about those for
whom the Thessalonians were mourning. The popular phrase, "sleeping in Jesus"
is not scriptural.
The words "another Jesus" in 2 Cor. xi. 4 have
obviously no bearing on the present question. Neither have the words of 1 Cor.
xii. 3 as they appear in the original. "Anathema Jesus" was presumably used by
profane Jews; and the Apostle contrasts it with "Lord Jesus" - the mode in
which the disciples addressed Him and spoke of Him.
The Revisers
reading of Gal. vi. 17 exemplifies the importance of accuracy in the use of the
Lords names. Their devotion to the three oldest MSS. - the laymans
usual blunder in giving undue weight to "direct" evidence - has here led to a
deplorable perversion of the Apostles words.
"The stigmata of Jesus"
must be explained (according to the well-known incident in the life of St.
Francis of Assisi) as the wound-prints which "the Man of Sorrows" bore in His
body. But however they may be interpreted, it seems incredible that such words
could have been penned by the Apostle Paul. The meaning of his actual words - "
the stigmata of the Lord Jesus " - is not doubtful. It was a practice with
slave-owners to brand their slaves, and the scars of his sufferings for
Christs sake were to him the brand-marks by which his Divine Master
claimed him to be His devoted slave.
The passages in Hebrews are ii. 9, iv.
14, vi. 20, vii. 22, x. 19, xii. 2 and xiii. 12. (The R.V. adds iii. 1.)
Chapter iv 14 may be eliminated, for, as we have seen, "Jesus, the Son of God,"
was to the Israelite a title of the highest solemnity, connoting absolute
Deity. And in ii. 9, vi. 20, xii. 2, and xiii. 12, the reference to the
Lords humiliation and "witness unto death" is unmistakable. Chap. vi. 20
(" the forerunner ") may be bracketed with xii. 2; and vii. 22 with iv. 14.
These are the only passages in the Epistles of the New Testament in which
the Lord is mentioned by His personal name. To use them as an excuse for the
prevailing practice of naming Him with unholy familiarity is to bring Scripture
into contempt, for a gulf separates even our most solemn utterances from the
inspired language of Holy Scripture.
It is noteworthy that while "the
simple name" is never used narratively in the Epistles, it is so used in the
first chapter of Acts (verses 1, 14, and 16), which is in a sense the
conclusion of the Third Gospel. And two or three other passages may seem to be
in the same category, though perhaps they ought to be otherwise explained. It
is also remarkable that in Acts i. 11, as in Rev. xiv. 12 and xix. 10, the Lord
is thus designated by angels. And the Lord Himself used the name of His
humiliation in arresting Saul of Tarsus (Acts ix. 5), as He does again in Rev.
xxii. 16. What has been said of the use of the name "Jesus" in the Epistles
applies with special force to the Apostolic preaching recorded in Acts; as,
e.g., in ii. 82 and 36. And still greater emphasis attaches to "Jesus of
Nazareth," as a name not only of humiliation, but of reproach (see p. 101
ante).
With reference to the few occurrences of "Jesus Christ" in Acts,
the remarks offered on p. 105 ante apply with full force. The Lord is never
thus named to Gentiles (for the R.V. omits viii. 37). I would here repeat the
words quoted on a preceding page, that "the modern familiarity of use of the
simple name Jesus has little authority in Apostolic usage." But in view of the
foregoing analysis of Scripture, I would go further, and maintain that, to
familiarity of use, the New Testament lends no sanction whatever. It is
generally due to ignorance, indifference, or sheer carelessness. To call Him
"Jesus" saves time and breath. Moreover, it is popular with hearers and readers
- a Christ-after-the-flesh cult is always popular - and if we like it, what
does it matter? HE is of no account whatever! To call a fellow-man by his
personal name betokens great familiarity; and if there be Christians who have
gained such a position with their Lord and Saviour, it is not for us to judge
them. But we who claim no such place must not allow ourselves to be betrayed by
their example into thoughts or modes of speech which His presence would rebuke
and silence. If we really desire "to sanctify Christ in our hearts as Lord," we
shall be careful and eager to own Him as Lord with our lips. And all influences
that hinder the realisation of that desire are unwholesome, and we do well to
shun them.
"Ye do show the Lords death till He come"(l Cor. xi.
£6). In these words we have the faith and hope of Christianity; and no
one who lets go any part of the truth they express has any right to the name of
Christian. For to reject the hope of the Coming is as really a mark of apostasy
as to deny the Atonement. And no spiritual Christian will need to be reminded
of the significance of the word, the Lords death. "The death of Jesus"
might mean merely the end of His earthly life in Judea long ago. This indeed is
the ruling thought in the religion of Christendom, the crucifix being the
symbol of it. But it is not through the slough of nineteen centuries of
apostasy that we reach the Cross. Faith brings us into the presence of the Lord
in His glory, and we rest upon His words - " I am He that liveth and was dead;
and behold, I am alive for evermore" (Rev. i. 18). "We know that the Son of God
is come" - that is the Christians past. "He is now at the right hand of
God . . - for us " - that is his present. And as for the future, "We are
looking for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 John v. 20; Rom. viii. 84;
Phil. iii. 20).
Our hymn-books contain many a hymn which Christians would
discard or alter if they knew what it meant "to sanctify Christ in their hearts
as Lord." I take, for instance, the hymn beginning -
"Sweet Saviour, bless us era we go,"
with the refrain
at the end of every verse -
"0 gentle Jesu, be our light."
Who is the Being whom people are taught to address in such
terms and in such a manner? One moments intelligent thought will satisfy
any one that he is not our risen and glorified Lord and Saviour. His personal
name occurs many hundreds of times in the New Testament, but never once with an
adjective. Not even in the days of, His humiliation did His chosen disciples
ever address Him thus. The plain truth is that this "sweet, gentle Jesu" is a
mere idol. The same tendency in human nature which leads some to worship a
mythical Virgin Mary, declares itself in impersonating this mythical Jesus, who
is an object of sentiment, and not of faith. And this tendency is so deep and
general that in scores of hymns we find this utterly unchristian, "0 Jesus,"
when the rhythm of the verse is marred by it, and would be saved by the use of
the Christian mode of address, "Lord Jesus." "Ye call Me Master and Lord, and
YE SAY WELL."
These are His own words; and surely this is enough for the
true disciple! A friend of mine tells of the death-bed words of a revered
Christian minister by whom he himself was brought to the Lord. In response to
the inquiry, "Safe in the arms of Jesus?" the old saint opened his eyes, and
replied with a smile, "No, no; at His feet." It was the attitude of the beloved
disciple in the Patmos vision. We should never allow a hymn-book to betray us
into using words which we would not use if the Lord were present, or if we
really believed that He was listening.
Safe in Jehovah's keeping,
Led by His glorious
arm,
God is Himself my refuge,
- A present help from harm.
Fears
may at times distress me,
Griefs may my soul annoy;
God is my strength
and portion,
God my exceeding joy.
Safe in Jehovahs keeping,
Safe in temptations hour,
Safe in the midst of perils,
Kept
by Almighty power.
Safe when the tempest rages,
Safe though the night
be long;
Een when my sky is darkest
God is my strength and
song.
Sure is Jehovahs promise,
Nought can my hope assail;
Here is my souls sure anchor,
Entered within the veil.
Blest in
His love eternal,
What can I want beside!
Safe through the blood that
cleauseth,
Safe in the Christ that died.
THE END
Literature | Photos | Links | Home