Systematic Theology

Writing a Fundamental and Biblical Systematic Theology for the 21st Century REGISTER to comment at

Part 04 Christology

A Systematic Theology for the 21st Century

Part 04 Christology – The Doctrine of Christ

by Edward Rice

Download pdf at

Table of Contents

Part 04 Christology The Doctrine of Christ 3

Christology Introduction 3

The names and Titles of Christ 4


God uses 196 “I AM THE” references in the Holy Bible. 12

The Ecumenical Bible Correctors Attack This List 16

The Incarnation of Christ 19


Wolves Without Attack 27

Wolves Within Attack 28

The Two Natures of Christ 28

Are Christ’s Human Limitations Permanent? 29


The Death of Christ 39


The Resurrection of Christ 44


The Ascension and Enthronement of Jesus Christ 50


Critique of other Systematic Theology Christology Works 53

Critique of John Miley’s 1892 Methodist Christology 53

Critique of Charles Hodge’s 1878 Presbyterian Christology 54

Critique of Augustus Strong’s 1907 “Baptist” Christology 55

Critique of Thiessen’s 1949 “Baptist” Christology 60

Thiessen’s Christology 63

Thiessen’s Little Value Added 64

Critique of Chafer’s 1948 Christology 64

Dr Chafer’s Introduction to The Pre-incarnate Christ 68

Dr Chafer’s seven fold divisions of Christology 69

Typical Persons 75

Typical Events 81

Typical Things 83

Typical Institutions and Ceremonies 95

Dr. Chafer’s “The Second Advent of Christ Incarnate” 103

+Critique of Geisler’s 2002 Christology 106

Harmony of The Life of Christ 108

Christology Conclusion 114

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY for Christology 115

Part 04 Christology – The Doctrine of Christ

Christology Introduction

There is no better introduction to the doctrine of Christ than is found in the first sentence to the Hebrews.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Hebrews 1:1-4

The doctrine of Christ is foundational to everything one is to know in theology. It is “first principle” it is “milk” and it is what brings us to “strong meat.”

Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection…

Hebrews 5:11-14, 6:1a

The most central theme of a thorough Systematic Theology is the doctrine of Christ. In segregating systems of the key ‘ologies’1 of the whole revelation of God for a thorough analysis, it is Christology which interfaces with every other system. It is indeed central. It may rank in third place, behind Bibliology, and Theology Proper, in order of coverage but it is prima-facia the principle and central doctrine of God’s whole revelation. Bibliology sets the foundation for all Bible doctrine, and Theology Proper presides as a grand overview of all Bible theology, but Christology is the central key to all theology and all doctrine. Whatever is to be gleaned from a discourse on Pneumatology, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and certainly all Anthropology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, studying the doctrine of man, sin, and salvation, must find its root in a discourse on the redeemer of mankind, the Christ. Ecclesiology and Eschatology, the doctrine of His Church and the doctrine of last things, yea, even ones Angelology, the study of His angels, springs with rapture from the study of the person of the Christ. It is, therefore, needful to dwell here, on the person of the Christ.

A Systematic Theology must first have as its foundation a true Bible Doctrine. From that foundation a discourse must systematically analyze the doctrine keeping it pure from its detractors, and evaluating its fit into the larger arena of theology. Detractors from truth are myriad from outside but fall under three major considerations when guarding against internal sabotage. The Roman Catholic Religion has always directly opposed Bible truth; the Protestant Reformers are supposed to have come back to Bible truth, but, subtly, they carry all the Roman error as concealed weapons; and the ecumenical Bible correctors who make a pretense of using textual criticism and modern language to “fix” what God was unable to preserve. These three are enemies to Bible doctrine, Roman, directly, Reformed, more subliminally, and Ecumenical Bible correctors, very shrewdly. Exposing their pernicious ways is not generally the focus of a Bible Doctrines book, and in a world where Bible doctrine is under constant attack, this type of systematic theology needs be developed. Herein a solid Biblical Doctrine must form the basis and starting point for a systematic theology.

There is no truer, or more thorough, published, Baptist, and Biblical doctrine than that of Dr. Mark G. Cambron.2 His teachings on Christology at Tennessee Temple Bible School thoroughly lay the foundation for this systematic theology. His book, Bible Doctrines3 will, with the permission of the Cambron Institute4, be given in block quotes throughout this effort. The book is readily available through , and it forms the foundational basis for this Systematic Theology.5

The names and Titles of Christ

The Bible names and titles of Christ give tremendous insight into who the Christ is. Dr. Cambron considered these Bible names the most important introduction to his Christology studies. He gives considerable examination to these twenty one names6: Jesus., Christ, Messiah, Lord, Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, The Lord Jesus Christ, I AM, The Son of God, The Son of Man, The Son of Abraham, The Son of David, The son of the Highest, Second Man, Last Adam, The Word, Emmanuel, Saviour, Rabbi, Rabboni, and Master. Believing in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and believing that every single word is directly chosen by God, it is necessary to preserve and defend this list extracted from Scripture and presented by Dr. Cambron. Below, in a block quote of his book, is his extensive analysis of each of these names and titles of Christ :[block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 60-69}

Chapter II


Christology, fundamentally, is the doctrine of Christ. Blessed is he who knows Him as

Lord and Saviour.

Sometimes we are warned that we can preach too much of Christ, in that we may not

emphasize enough the doctrines of God and of the Holy Spirit. Let us say here, that one

cannot preach too much of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, there is no such thing as jealousy in

the Godhead. From Scripture we can see that God would have us emphasize Christ more

than we do: “And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the

firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18).


We believe in the verbal inspiration of the Holy Scripture. That is, we believe that every

single word in the originals is the direct word chosen by God with which to convey His

will to us. Believing thusly, we attach much importance to the titles and names of the

Lord Jesus Christ. The most well-known name of our Saviour is:

A. Jesus.

The name Jesus is found in the Four Gospels 612 times, and it is found in the balance of

the New Testament 71 times. The name Christ alone is found in the Four Gospels only 56

times, while in the remainder of the New Testament the name Christ is found 256 times.

Jesus is found before His death, burial and resurrection, while Christ is found after.

Jesus is the personal name of the Lord. It is His earthly name, the name under which He

was born, lived, and died. It is the name of His humiliation; of suffering; of sorrow. It is

the name of the One who humbled Himself. The name Jesus, at the time of our Lord, was

not uncommon, there were many who were named Jesus. Jesus is the Greek form for the

Hebrew word Joshua, and both mean “Jehovah our Saviour.” This name, Jesus, was the

one which was nailed over Him on the Cross.

Again we emphasize the fact that the name Jess is prominent in the Gospels, while the

name Christ is mentioned more in the Epistles. The name Jesus was more prominent

before salvation was made and completed, while the name Christ is prominent after the

work of salvation was finished. A Christian is not a person who believes in Jesus the

whole world believes there’s a Jesus but a Christian is one who believes in the LORD


Jesus Christ. He is Lord! With this knowledge, that a person is saved by declaring Jesus

as Lord (Rom. 10:9, R.V.7), and believing that God hath raised Him from the dead (and

we know by I Corinthians 15:1-3 that the Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of

the Lord Jesus Christ as the sinner’s Substitute), we state that there is very little “gospel”

in the Four Gospels. The Four Gospels give very little of the doctrine of salvation for

sinners; only in the last few chapters of each Gospel is the death, burial and resurrection

of Christ recorded. Hence, the name Jesus is predominant.

The Epistles are the writings which bring out so clearly the doctrine of salvation by grace

through faith in the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. The Epistles are full of the doctrine

of salvation; hence the emphasis upon the name Christ and Lord! Before Calvary it is

Jesus which is emphasized; after Calvary it is Christ which is emphasized: “Therefore let

all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye

have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36); “Being found in fashion as a man, he

humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every

name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in

earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is

Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:8-11).

This is interesting to point out: when He was upon this earth (before He was crucified),

He was never called Jesus to His face. It was always Lord, Master, or Rabbi by His

followers: “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am” (John 13:13);

Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).

The reason why the name Jesus is mentioned most in the Gospels (612 times) is that the

Gospels emphasize His humility; the reason why the name Christ is mentioned most in

the Acts and Epistles is that these writings emphasize His exaltation! There is a reason

why the name Jesus is mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews eight times: the Holy

Spirit would have us know that this Person was a man. The institution of the Lord’s

Supper is a perfect illustration of the emphasis on the name Jesus in the Gospels, and on

the title Christ in the Epistles: “As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and

brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body” (Matt. 26:26);

I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the

same night in which he was betrayed took bread” (I Cor. 11:23).

Men of the world, the demons of Satan, all addressed Him as Jesus, but never as Lord.

Christian Science, Universalism and Unitarianism believe in a Jesus, but they claim that

He cannot save, for they state that there is no sin to be saved from. Every false system of

religion has the Lord Jesus Christ as the Object of its attack. Every false system reasons

away sin; and in doing so, the need of a Saviour is ruled out. It says that Jesus died a

needless death; and in doing that, He did not know what He was doing; in doing that, He

must not have been the Son of God, for God knows all things. Do you not see that every

attack upon the Son of God, Jesus our Lord, whether it be in regard to His blood, His

resurrection, His substitutionary sacrifice or His second coming, is nothing but a subtle

assault upon the deity of Christ.


We do not get our name from Jesus, but from Christ: we are Christians. Yes, we know

that this name Christian was first given to the believers by those who hated God and His

Christ; nevertheless, we are proud to take His dear name and to bear His reproach.

Never, remember, did unbelievers call the Saviour Lord, they called Him Jesus; and

never did believers call Him Jesus, with one exception (and the exception makes the

rule): “He said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of

Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and

have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed

Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done” (Luke

24:19-21). These were the words of the disappointed disciples “we trusted that it had

been he” all their hopes were shattered when Jesus was crucified. They did not know

the Scriptures, nor had they remembered the Lord’s words that He would rise again from

the dead, and thus they spoke of Him as a Lost Cause; and they, here, called Him Jesus.

If Christ had not risen from the dead, their hopes, and not only theirs, but ours as well,

would have been destroyed; He would have been just plain Jesus. “But now is Christ

risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (I Cor. 15:20). He is

Christ and Lord! Not mere man, but the God-man.

To believers He is Lord. We should never use adjectives with Him. He is not the Blessed

Jesus, the Sweet Jesus, although He is all that; He is the Lord Jesus Christ! When we

pray, we should pray in Christ’s name, not in Jesus’ name.

B. Christ.

We have dealt at length with the name Christ as it is used, but let us add these details:

The name Christ means the Anointed One. This is the official title of the Son of God.

Whenever we hear the word “anointed,” remember how, and under what circumstances,

men were anointed. We know that men were anointed as kings, and prophets, and priests:

Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his

people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the

LORD” (I Sam. 15:1); “Jehu the Son of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel:

and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abelmeholah shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy

room” (I Kings 19:16); “The LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take Aaron and his sons

with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and

two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread. . . . And he poured of the anointing oil upon

Aaron’s head, and anointed him, to sanctify him” (Lev. 8:1, 2, 12).

1. Christ Has Been Anointed Prophet. “Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet

shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethen, like unto me; him shall ye

hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every

soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts

3:22, 23).


2. Christ Has Been Anointed Priest. “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that

is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For 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. 4:14, 15).

3. Christ Has Been Anointed King. “Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and

bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 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 for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no

end” (Luke 1:31-33).

In the Gospels Christ is pictured as King of Israel: in the Epistles Christ is pictured as

Head of the Church.

C. Messiah.

He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias

[Messiah], which is, being interpreted, the Christ” (John 1:41); “The woman saith unto

him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us

all things” (John 4:25).

Messiah is the Hebrew word with the same meaning as Christ, which is the “Anointed

One.” The Old Testament is full of the Messiah prediction, while the New Testament is

full of Christ fulfillment; the Old Testament is written in the Hebrew language, while the

New Testament is written in the Greek language.

D. Lord.

This is Christ’s title of deity, that of authority. All three names of God, as found in the

Old Testament, are compounded into that one name, Lord. In the study of the names of

God, we saw that the word “God” in the Authorized Version comes from the Hebrew

word Elohim, which is the office of God; and that the word “LORD” or “GOD,” comes

from the Hebrew word Jehovah, which is the personal name of God; and that the word

lord,” or “Lord” (small letters), comes from the Hebrew word Adonai, meaning Master.

In the New Testament the word “Lord” comes from the Greek word kurios, which is

translated in the Authorized Version as Lord, God, Master, and Sir. This rendering is

equivalent to the Old Testament Adonai Master. And Christ, the Lord, is our Master:

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that

your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him” (Eph. 6:9);

Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have

a Master in heaven” (Col. 4:1).

As stated above, the title “Lord” also includes another name for God, and that is LORD

or Jehovah, and we know this by the way it is used in the New Testament. The New

Testament quotes from the Old Testament Scriptures, using the word “Lord,” while the

Old Testament word is “LORD,” or “Jehovah”: “Jesus said unto him, It is written again,


Thou shalt not tempt the Lord [Old Testament: Jehovah] thy God” (Matt. 4:7). In this

verse it is also seen that Elohim (God) is ascribed to the Lord, who is the Lord Jesus


In salvation we must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, God, and Master: “If thou

shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord [Jehovah, God, Master all three], and shalt

believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10:9,


If we have declared Him as Lord (Jehovah, God, Master), then we recognize Him as the

One who owns us, the One who determines our walk and life, the One who only has the

right to us and everything we possess. We have a great responsibility to Him; His will is

to be the will of our lives: “Be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord

[Jesus Christ: Jehovah, God, Master] is” (Eph. 5:17). Even in marriage one should abide

by the will of the Lord Jesus Christ: “The wife is bound by the law as long as her

husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she

will; only in the Lord” (I Cor. 7:39). These words take on a deeper meaning as you

realize that a Christian should not only marry another Christian, but that he should do so

only if it is according to the will of the Lord. And after marriage the will of the Lord

should be desired: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the

Lord” (Col. 3:18).

No man can call Jesus Lord, except by the Holy Spirit, for the flesh (sin, carnal nature)

does not recognize Christ as Lord: “I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the

Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but

by the Holy Ghost” (I Cor. 12:3).

E. Jesus Christ.

This is another title of the Lord, which is the combination of His personal name (Jesus)

with His official title (Christ). The emphasis is on the first word Jesus, what He was to

what He is. That is, Jesus, who once humbled Himself, is now exalted.

F. Christ Jesus.

The emphasis is on the first word here also Christ, which means He who was exalted,

was once humbled; “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being

in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no

reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of

men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient

unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:5-8).

C. The Lord Jesus Christ.

This is the Lord’s fullest title: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,


who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

H. I Am.

This is an Old Testament title brought forth into the New Testament. Jehovah appeared

unto Moses in the burning bush and commanded that he should tell Pharaoh to let the

children of Israel go from the land of bondage. “Moses said unto God, Behold, when I

come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath

sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto

them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say

unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you” (Ex. 3:13, 14).

The Lord Jesus called Himself the great I AM when He was in Gethsemane. As the

crowd came with lanterns, torches and weapons, the Lord went forth to meet them,

asking, “Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I

am…” (John 18:4, 5). But, you may add, the Scriptures say, “I am he,” not merely, “I

am.” To this we reply, Look at the word “he”; it is in italics, and all italicized words have

been supplied by the translators and can therefore be left out9. The Lord Jesus actually

said, “I am.” When the Lord announced that He was the great I am, what did they do?

As soon then as he had said unto them, I am, they went backward, and fell to the

ground” (John 18:6). Still another portion of the Word bears out the fact that Christ Jesus

was the great I Am. “Jesus saith unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before

Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”

(Col. 2:9).

I. The Son of God.

This is the Lord’s title of personal glory and deity. “The angel answered and said unto

her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall

overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called

the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). “The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law

he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). See also John 5:18.

The Lord Jesus is the Son of God. A Christian is a Son of God. The Lord Jesus is the Son

of God by relation and nature; the Christian is a Son of God by regeneration and

adoption. The Lord Jesus has been the Son of God from all time and eternity; the

Christian becomes a child of God when he trusts in Christ, the Lord.

J. The Son of Man.

This seems to be the favorite title of the Lord, the one by which He called Himself time

and again: “Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the

Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Luke 9:58).

This is the Millennial title of Christ. Wherever it is recorded, it is used in connection with


the coming kingdom reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. Even in the Old Testament the same

thing holds true. Some may take issue with this, stating that Ezekiel takes upon himself

that same title, the son of man. However, we refer the reader to the passages where it is

used; there the coming Millennial Kingdom is in view. For example, in Ezekiel 37 is the

prophecy of the Valley of Dry Bones, the whole house of Israel, which shall come to life

again when the Lord prophecies unto them to return to the Land of Palestine; that will be

the Millennium.

This is the Lord’s title and not man’s. You are a son of man, but He is the Son of man.

The title, the Son of man, is found eighty-eight times in the New Testament: once in

Acts; once in Hebrews; twice in Revelation; and eighty-four times in the Gospels; not

once in the Epistles. The Epistles concern the Church, not the coming kingdom of the

Millennium. Christ is King of the Kingdom, but Head of the Church. And as the Church

is not the Kingdom, therefore, the Millennial Title (the Son of man) of Christ is not found

in the Epistles to the Churches.

K. The Son of Abraham.

The Gospel of Matthew is described as “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the

son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). “Now to Abraham and his seed were the

promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,

which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16).

The Messiah (Christ) was to be a Jew. Christ was a Jew, for He was a Son of Abraham,

and thus the Messiah!

L. The Son of David.

This is the royal title of the Lord Jesus: “When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he

began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me” (Mark 10:47).

M. The Son of the Highest.

The title of pre-eminence: “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” (Luke 1:32).

N. Second Man.

Second Man” indicates that there was one man before Him only one and that man

was Adam: “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from

heaven” (I Cor. 15:47).

O. Last Adam.

Last Adam” indicates that there is no man to follow Him. There are only two men in the


records of God: Adam and Christ. Thus, the world is divided under these two headships:

Adam and Christ. All are of Adam by the natural birth; only those are of Christ who have

experienced the new birth.

It is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a

quickening spirit” (I Cor. 15:45).

P. The Word.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1, 2).

As spoken words reveal the invisible thoughts of man, so the visible (living) Word

reveals to us the invisible God.

Q. Emmanuel.

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his

name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matt. 1:23). As the Scripture

tells us, it means “God with us.” Remember, the Lord Jesus is Emmanuel God with

us; He will never leave nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5, 6).

R. Saviour.

Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord” (Luke

2:11). Not a helper, but a Saviour!

S. Rabbi.

This comes from the Hebrew word meaning teacher. “Then Jesus turned, and saw them

following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi (which is to

say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?” (John 1:38).

T. Rabboni.

This is the same as the word “rabbi,” meaning Teacher, but comes from the Chaldean.

Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to

say, Master” (John 20:16).

U. Master.

When the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with

publicans and sinners?” (Matt. 9:11). The meaning here is “Instructor.” The idea of

Owner is not here implied, as in the word “Lord” (Adonai). The world today recognizes

that Jesus is a great Master (Instructor), but will not own Him as Lord. The Lord Jesus is

not merely our Instructor: He is our God, our Jehovah, our Lord!10


God uses 196 “I AM THE” references in the Holy Bible.

For Cambron’s explanation of Christ’s use of the name “I Am”, some additional insight is here added. God uses 196 “I AM THE” references in the Holy Bible. Twenty Four times “I AM THE” is in Genesis and Exodus, as follows:

Ge 15:7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Ge 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

Ge 26:24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.

Ge 28:13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;

Ge 31:13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

Ex 3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.

Ex 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Note the Hebrew in this instance: “I AM THAT I AM” = hyha rva hyha

Ex 6:2 And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD:

Again Note the Hebrew “I am the LORD:” = hwhy yNa

Ex 6:6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:

Ex 6:7 And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Ex 6:8 And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.

Ex 6:29 That the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, I am the LORD: speak thou unto Pharaoh king of Egypt all that I say unto thee.

Ex 7:5 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them.

Ex 7:17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

Ex 8:22 And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth.

Ex 10:2 And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD.

Ex 12:12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

Ex 14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.

Ex 14:18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.

Ex 15:26 And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Ex 16:12 I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto them, saying, At even ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God.

Ex 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

Ex 29:46 And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.

Ex 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.

Forty five (45) times “I AM THE” is used in Leviticus. Seven (7) times “I AM THE” is used in Numbers and Deuteronomy, that is 77 times “I AM THE” is used in The Pentateuch.

Eight (8) times it is used in the history books, only two (2) in poetry; Ps 81:10 “I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.” and So 2:1 “I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.” It is used fifteen (15) times in Isaiah, only three (3) times in Jeremiah and a whopping sixty seven (67) times in Ezekiel. Another five (5) times in Minor Prophets Hos, Joel, Joel, Zac, Mal. The New Testament usages demand a more complete examination.

Thrice Matthew records the “I Am the” title:

Mt 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Mt 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Mr 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Fourteen (14) times “I AM THE” is used in the Gospel According to John. These are deserving of careful examination, but first note that it is used once in Acts and twice in Revelation. The Revelation of Jesus Christ’s usage of the “I Am the” title is striking:

Re 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: (see SIDEBAR below)

Re 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The fourteen (14) times that the “I AM THE” title is used in the Gospel According to John are worthy of particular note:

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Joh 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

In the Gospel of John, the Son of God makes seven (7) “I AM” likenesses. In that 7 is the number of completeness, and these likenesses portray perspective on the Son of God they are listed below:

I am the bread of life: 6:35

I am the bread which came down from heaven 6:41

I am the living bread 6:51

I am the light of the world 8:12

I am the light of the world. As long as I am in the world 9:5

I am the door of the sheep.10:7

I am the door: by me if any man enter in 10:9

I am the good shepherd: 10:11

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep 10:14

I am the Son of God 10:36

I am the resurrection, and the life 11:25

I am the way, the truth, and the life: 14:6

I am the true vine 15:1

I am the vine, ye are the branches: 15:5

SIDEBAR: God is the first and the last, and Christ is the first and the last. That is significant. Note the verses:

Re 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Contrasted with: Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Re 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Re 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

Re 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Re 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Isa 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isa 48:12 Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.

The Ecumenical Bible Correctors Attack This List

Little more needs to be said to explain these names for Christ, however, it is important for a systematic theology to disclose some alterations to this list. The ecumenical Bible correctors brazenly attack this list of the names of Christ. Three hundred and fifty seven (357) gross errors that are incorporated into all modernist English Bibles, can be found in this authors book “The 357 Magnum Errors of the Modernist’s Critical Texts”11 These errors are finding root in all modern English Bible translations. They are also present in every language which these Bible correctors touch. They leave off 127 of these names of Christ! Completely omitting them from their modernist bibles.

The Westcott and Hort critical Greek text relies extensively on the Alexandrian manuscripts, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). All modernist, protestant, ecumenical bibles from all of the Bible societies, rely exclusively on the Westcott and Hort critical Greek text, which was incorporated in the Nestles Greek Text12. In concert, these modernist, calling themselves textual critics, and feigning to repair God’s botched up preservation of Scripture, have stripped the name “Jesus” out of the Holy Bible 47 times13. They have stripped the name “Christ” out of the Holy Bible 37 times14. They have stripped the name “Lord” out of the Holy Bible 40 times15. Twice they had the audacity to stripped out the whole compound name, “Lord Jesus Christ“! (Col 1:2 & 1Thes 1:1). Once they eliminated the name “Son of man” from their “corrected bibles” (Matt 25:13).

The attack on God’s Words by ecumenical textual critics is brought to a most striking focus in the examination of these 127 listed atrocities. If in examination of your Bible you find one of these gross departures from the received text, you can be certain that ecumenical textual critics, modernists for certain, have had their hand in its translation process. These lists may be edited into most Bible search engines and a comparison can me made between your Bible and the Greek Received Text or the King James Bible Text. Since it causes such an awakening to the ecumenical textual critics tactics, the verse lists of the errantly eliminated names are repeated below.

The name “Jesus” has been stripped from the Holy Bible in modernist versions in these 47 verses: Matt 4:12, 4:18, 4:23, 8:29, 12:25, 13:36, 13:51, 14:14, 14:22, 14:25, 14:27, 15:16, 16:20, 17:20, Mark 5:19, 6:34, 7:27, 8:1, 8:17, 11:14, 11:15, 12:41, 14:22a, Luke 7:22, 9:43, 9:60, 10:21, 10:41,42, 13:2, 24:36a, 24:36b, John 3:2, 5:17, 6:14, 13:3, Acts 3:26, 9:29, 19:10, Rom 15:8, 16:18, 1Cor 5:5, 16:22, 2Cor 5:18, Gal 6:15, Col 1:28, 2Tim 4:22, 1Pet 5:14.

The name “Christ” has been stripped from the Holy Bible in modernist versions in these 37 verses: Matt 23:8, Luke 4:41, John 4:42, 6:69, Acts 15:11, 16:31, 19:4, 20:21, Rom 1:16, 14:10, 16:20, 1Cor 5:4, 9:1, 9:18, 16:22, 16:23, 2Cor 11:31, Gal 3:17, 4:7, 6:15, Phil 4:13, 1Thes 2:19, 3:11, 3:13, 2Thes 1:8, 1:12, 1Tim 2:7, 2Tim 2:19, 4:22, Heb 3:1, 1John 1:7, 4:3, 2John 1:9b, Rev 1:9a, 1:9b, 12:17, 22:21

The name “Lord” has been stripped from the Holy Bible in modernist versions in these 40 verses: Matt 28:6, Mark 11:10, Luke 7:31, 9:57, 9:59, 13:25, 22:31, 23:42, Acts 7:37, 22:16, 1Cor 11:29, 15:47, 2Cor 4:10, Gal 6:17, 1Tim 1:1, 5:21, 2Tim 4:1, Titus 1:4, Heb 10:30, Rev 16:5a

Twice they had the audacity to stripped the whole compound name, “Lord Jesus Christ”, out of the Holy Bible: Col 1:2, 1Thes 1:1.

Once they eliminated the name “Son of man” from their “corrected bibles”: Matt 25:13.

An explanation of the reasoning of the ecumenical textual critic and a through documentation of all 357 gross errors is available in this authors 2006 book.16

The attacks against the names of Christ are subtle in the Roman Catholic religion and in the Reformers Protestant religion, but they are brazen in the Ecumenical Bible correctors efforts to deter from a sound Christology.

The Incarnation of Christ

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…. 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.” (John 1:1-3,14) The incarnation is herein stated by God, “The Word was God … and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” Few comprehend the power of such a truth. Every true believer needs it moved to the forefront of their studies if they will be “a workman that needeth not be ashamed.”

On the Incarnation of Christ, the basic doctrine is again best examined from Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book. It is given in the block quote below:[block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 69-81}


This is a cardinal truth of Christianity. It is the fundamental foundation upon which our

faith rests. Without the incarnation, Christianity could not stand. There is no way of

getting rid of the incarnation without getting rid of Christianity. Mere man did not reveal

this to us but God Himself did, through the revelation of His Word: “I would that ye

knew what great conflict [fear or care] I have for you, and for them at Laodicea . . . that

their hearts, might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full

assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the

Father, and of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col.


The word “incarnation” comes from the Latin word meaning enfleshment; thus, when we

speak of the incarnation of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, we mean the “enfleshment” of

God God manifest in the flesh.

A. The Fact of the Incarnation.

Two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, record the full account of it. Both accounts are

different, but both agree in the true facts. Matthew, which portrays Christ as the King

throughout the whole Book, describes His birth as: “He who is born King of the Jews,”

tracing His line through Solomon to David. Luke, which reveals Christ as the perfect

Man, emphasizes the humanity (human nature) of Jesus, showing that His lineage went

back through Mary, to Nathan (another son of David), then to David, and on to Abraham,

and finally to the first man, Adam.

1. As To the Virginity of Mary. Both Matthew and Luke state she was a virgin. “Now

the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to

Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt.

1:18). “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee,

named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of

David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. . . . Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall

this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:26, 27, 34).

2. As To Her Discovered Motherhood Before Her Marriage to Joseph. “Joseph also

went up from Galilee . . . to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with

child” (Luke 2:5). See also Matthew 1:18-20.

3. As To the Divine Paternity. If Joseph was not Jesus Christ’s father, then who was?

God, of course: “Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and

shalt call his name JESUS. 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 the angel

answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the

Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee

shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:31, 32, 34). See also Matthew 1:18-20.


B. The Manner of the Incarnation.

The reason why so many do not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is that they

think His birth was the birth of a mere baby, and not the birth of God, the Son.

Remember, this is the incarnation the enfleshment of God, God manifest in the flesh!

1. As Testified By Matthew.

a. In the Genealogy of Christ. Tracing the Lord’s descent from Abraham in chapter

one, verses one through seventeen, we notice that the word “begat” is mentioned thirty nine

times, but is omitted after the name Joseph, the husband of the Virgin, Mary. Joseph

did not beget Jesus Christ: “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born

Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matt. 1:16).

Then, one may ask, why is this genealogy mentioned in the first place? The reason is this:

the future King of Israel had to come through this line (David, Solomon, etc.); and, in

order to prove that Jesus was the rightful heir to the throne of David, it had to be shown

that He came from this line. When Joseph married the Virgin Mary, her virgin-born Son

became the legal heir of Joseph and first in line for the throne.

Was Christ an actual son of David? Certainly He was, but not through Joseph to Solomon

and David. He was a son of David by His mother; she, herself, was a princess in Israel,

tracing her lineage through Nathan (another son of David) on to David. By blood Christ

Jesus was a son of David through Mary; legally He was a son of David through Joseph.

b. In the Attitude of Joseph. For this let us turn to Matthew 1:18-25: “Now the birth

of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,

before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her

husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to

put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord

appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto

thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall

bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from

their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord

by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,

and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then

Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took

unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he

called his name JESUS.”

Now if this does not speak of the virgin birth, how would you state it? In his own mind,

Joseph was convinced of the impurity of Mary, his espoused wife. He reasoned that if he

had not known her some other man must have. Living under the law, a just man, he

thought of two things to do: divorce her; or have her exposed and stoned to death. He

never once conceived of the idea of taking her and making her his wife; indeed, not until

the angel appeared unto him and commanded him to do so; and this he did.

Men today, even some preachers, think it is smart to deny that Jesus was of a virgin birth.


They say that Joseph was the father, but Joseph said he was not.

c. In the Worship of the Wise Men. “There came wise men… saying, Where is he that

is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship

him. . . . And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary

his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him” (Matt. 2: 2, 11).

These wise men were indeed wise men. They worshiped the Baby, and not the mother

Mary. These men were men of God, taught and led by God; they would not have

worshiped the Baby if Joseph had been the father.

d. In the Expressions of “the Young Child and His Mother.” Four times is this

statement made (Matt. 2:11, 13, 14, 20); never does it say, “your wife and your child.” In

connection with this we note another statement: “When they were departed, behold, the

angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child

and his mother, and flee into Egypt; and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod

will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his

mother by night, and departed into Egypt: and was there until the death of Herod: that it

might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt

have I called my son.” (Matt. 2:13-15). My Son. Not Joseph’s, but God’s!

2. As Testified by Luke.

a. In the Enunciation to Zacharias. “The angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for

thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his

name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For

he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink;

and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. And many of

the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in

the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the

disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord”

(Luke 1:13-17).

Herein Zacharias was told that he was to have a son who would be the forerunner of the

Christ, the Son of God.

b. In the Enunciation to Mary. “The angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou

hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring

forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:30, 31).

Mary became a woman with child out of wedlock, which was evil unto God; but Mary

found favor in God’s sight. Thus, if Mary had become with child by man, and God still

blessed her while in that condition, then God would be a God of evil. But we know He

found favor with her, and she with Him, for she was with child, but by the Holy Ghost.

c. In the Praise of Elizabeth. “She [Elizabeth] spake out with a loud voice, and said,

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this

to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy

salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she

that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from

the Lord” (Luke 1:42-45).


Was this the praise to Mary? No!

d. In the Song of Mary. “Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit

hath rejoiced in God my Saviour…” (Luke 1:46-55). This was not a song of a woman that

had conceived and was to bear in shame; it was a song filled with joy and praise to God,

who had selected her to bring forth the Messiah.

e. In the Prophecy of Zacharias. “Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the

Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways” (Luke 1:76).

This is only a portion of the prophecy of the father of John the Baptist concerning the

work of John, then just born. He declares that the One whom John shall go before is the

Son of God, and not the son of a man.

f. In the Experience of Shepherds. “There were in the same country shepherds

abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the

Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were

sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not:

for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto

you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this

shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a

manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising

God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”

(Luke 2:8-14).

When Christ was born, Heaven shouted a message of praise. Would all this have

happened over a bastard child? Of course not! But Jesus was what the Word says He is

Christ the Lord!the virgin son of Mary.

C. The Objections to the Incarnation.

Many of the enemies of God are within the body of professed believers those who

claim to be Christians, but deny the virgin birth of Christ. Someone may ask: “When a

person is to be saved, does he have to believe in the virgin birth of Christ to be saved? Is

this one doctrine which one must believe and understand to be saved?” Let us answer by

asking this: “Do you believe that it is possible for a saved person not to believe in the

virgin birth of Christ?” Of course not! All saved, born-again saints of God will believe

that our Saviour was virgin born. The only thing that a lost person has to do to be saved is

to repent of his sins and trust Christ as his Saviour, believing that He died for his sins and

that He rose again from the dead. Saved people will believe in the virgin birth of our


Those who say they are Christians, and deny the virgin birth, are mere “professors” and

not “possessors.” These enemies within, and those without the professing Church, object

to the virgin birth by the following arguments:

1. The Scholarship of the Day is Against It. This statement is not true, but it would not

matter much if it were, for we know that “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is

not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). The unconverted heart


knows not God nor of the things of God; and, of course, it would not believe in the virgin

birth of Jesus Christ. Unregenerated scholars may not accept this divine truth, but there

are great minds of this world sitting upon the chairs of learning in our leading colleges

and universities saved men – who believe and testify to the virgin birth of Jesus.

Really, a person is not indeed educated until he believes God and His Word: “The fear of

the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Pro. 1:7).

2. The New Testament is Silent Concerning It. Certainly Matthew is not silent

concerning it; surely Luke is not silent concerning it. God has provided two witnesses, for

in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (II Cor. 13:1).

God fulfills the Law, thus establishing the truth concerning the virgin birth of our

Redeemer. What if there were only one witness? It still would be true, for it is God who


a. But There is the Testimony of Mark. By this we present indirect evidence which

proves the virgin birth of Christ. There is nothing said against the virgin birth. Mark does

not record the birth of the Lord; does he mean to state that Christ never existed? Of

course not. The Gospel of Mark presents Jesus as the Perfect Servant; and when

considering a servant, no one cares to know his genealogy; thus the birth of Christ is

omitted. The first verse of Mark’s Gospel states: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus

Christ, the Son of God.” Any Hebrew knows that this means that Jesus Christ was on an

equal with God, and we know that the record tells us of things Jesus Christ did which no

other man could ever do.

b. But There is the Testimony of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word

was with God, and the Word was God. . . . 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” (John 1:1, 14). Indeed this is not the record of a mere man, but the

Son of Man, the Son of God, God Himself!

c. But There is the Testimony of Paul. While stating that these arguments are of

Mark, John, Paul, and others, let us bear in mind that, while these men penned these

words, the words are the words of God, and they express His mind upon the virgin birth

of His Son.

Paul was separated “unto the gospel of God . . . concerning his Son Jesus Christ our

Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the

Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the

dead. . . . what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending

his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom.

1:3, 4; 8:3). “Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet

for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich” (II Cor. 8:9).

See also Philippians 2:5-7; Galatians 4:4; I John 4:2; Colossians 2:8.

3. The Early Church Didn’t Believe It. This is another false argument against the

virgin birth which can be refuted easily. The early creeds of the Church plainly declared

the virgin birth.

a. The Apostles’ Creed. This dates back to the second century. The word “creed”

comes from the Latin, credo, which means, “I believe.” These creeds came first orally,


then written.

b. The Nicene Creed. This goes back to the fourth century. When Arius stated that

Jesus was a created being, and not the Son from all eternity, a council was called to settle

the fact that Christ, though born of the virgin, has existed co-eternally with the Father.

The Council at Constantinople (381) was called. This council also refers to the fact of the

virgin birth of Christ.

c. The Te Deum Laudamus. This was an ancient hymn preserved by the Church,

which proved that the Early Church believed in the virgin birth of Christ.

4. It Is Against the Laws of Nature. To this argument against the virgin birth, we reply,

It most certainly is against the laws of nature.” For this was not the birth of a mere baby,

but the birth of the Son of God in the flesh. Did you ever take time to consider that this

might have been the only way by which God could have come in the flesh by the

virgin birth?

There are three ways by which God made human beings not according to the laws of

nature: (1) When He made Adam without the aid of a man and woman; (2) when He

made Eve without the aid of a woman; (3) when He made Christ without the aid of a


5. It Is Too Much Like Mythology. It is true that many idolatrous religions have taught

that their gods were the offsprings of women, but not wholly of virginity; rather, that

these women had carnal relations with other gods which produced the people’s gods. Can

there be any comparison between the birth of Jesus Christ and the reported stories of

those myths? Of course not! The virgin births of the men of mythology are not virgin, but

the result of carnal intercourse.

6. In Calling Himself the Son of Man Christ Denied the Virgin Birth. Remember, the

Lord Jesus Christ never said, “I am a Son of a man”; but, “I am the Son of Man.”

7. The Need of a Purification Proved That This Was a Natural Birth. Under the law of

Israel all women were unclean. The purpose of this law was hygienic, to save the

woman’s health, protecting her from the pleasure of her husband while she was still in a

weakened condition, caused by childbirth.

D. The Objects of the Incarnation.

What were the purposes of the virgin birth?

1. To Reveal the Invisible God. “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten

Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18). Jesus Christ

is the Exposition of God, the Revealer of God. If you want to know what God is like,

look upon Jesus.

2. To Fulfill Prophecy.

a. The Seed as an Example. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and

between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel”

(Gen. 3:15). A woman does not have seed; seed belongs to the man. But this Scripture

mentions the “seed of the woman.” This is contrary to nature and refers, of course, to the


virgin birth fulfilled when Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ.

b. The Virgin as an Example. “The Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a

virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Is. 7:14). This

Scripture means exactly what we mean.

3. To Fulfill the Davidic Covenant. “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of

Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. . . . And in that day there shall be a root

of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and

his rest shall be glorious” (Is. 11:1, 10). “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I

will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall

execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel

shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR

RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jer. 23:5, 6). “Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of

the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this

day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,

that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his

throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left

in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption” (Acts 2:29-31). See also I Samuel 7:4-17;

Luke 1:32, 33.

4. To Sacrifice For Our Sins. “Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins;

and in him is no sin” (I John 3:5). “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats

should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and

offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. . . . Above when he said,

Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither

hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy

will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will

we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb.

10:4, 5, 8-10). “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto

you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye

keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I

delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins

according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day

according to the scriptures” (I Cor. 15:1-4).

a. A Sacrifice of Beast Never Took Away Sin. It is God who instituted animal

sacrifice. Yet all the blood for centuries shed upon Jewish altars never took one sin away.

Why, then, was it commanded? It was commanded in order to provide a “covering” for

sins until the blood of Christ would come and “wash” them away. No, animal sacrifices

could never take away sin, for the sacrifice must come up to the level of man, for whom it

is sacrificed.

b. The Sacrifice Must Be Sinless. We agree that a “man must be sacrificed for a

man”; animals do not come up to the level of man. Yet one sinful man cannot be offered

up as a sacrifice for another sinful man, for if the first sinful man must die, he must die

for his own sin.

c. The Sacrifice Must Be an Infinite Sacrifice. Not only must the sacrifice come up to

the level of man, for whom it is offered, but it must come up to the level of God, whom it


must satisfy! Jesus, our Lord, fulfilled all! “His own self bare our sins in his own body on

the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye

were healed” (I Peter 2:24).

5. To Provide the Redeemed With a High Priest. “In all things it behooved him to be

made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things

pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. . . . Wherefore, holy

brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our

profession, Christ Jesus” (Heb. 2:17; 3:1).

Today we have One, even Jesus Christ, who stands for us before God. We have an

accuser (Rev. 12:10), who accuses us daily before God, but we also have an advocate

with the Father, who maketh intercession for us.

6. To Show Believers How To Live. “He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also

so to walk, even as he walked” (I John 2:6). “For even hereunto were ye called: because

Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps” (I

Peter 2:21).

7. To Become the Head of a New Creation. “He that sat upon the throne said, Behold,

I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful”

(Rev. 21:5). See also II Corinthians 5:17; I Corinthians 15: 4, 47.

E. The Perpetuity of the Incarnation.

By this we mean the “everlasting of the incarnation.” God will always be manifested in

the flesh in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.

1. Is Essential To the Integrity of Our Lord’s Manhood. Our Lord, now in glory, has

His manhood. He is man today.

2. Is Essential To Our Lord’s High Priesthood. “Forasmuch then as the children are

partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through

death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver

them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he

took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore

in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful

and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of

the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them

that are tempted” (Heb. 2: 14-18). “And they truly were many priests, because they were

not suffered to continue by reason of death: 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. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the

word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for

evermore” (Heb. 7:23-28). “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with

hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the

presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). “Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our

faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and

is set down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2).

3. Is Essential To Our Lord’s Return and Millennium Reign. “While they looked

stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same

Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have

seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:10, 11). “I have said, Mercy shall be built up for ever;

thy faithfulness shalt thou establish in the very heavens. I have made a covenant with my

chosen. I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build

up thy throne to all generations” (Ps. 89:2-4). “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of

David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I

will build it as in the days of old” (Amos 9:11). See also Isaiah 9:6, 7; 55:3, 4.

F. The Proofs of the Incarnation.

The proofs of the incarnation are centered in Christ Himself!

1. Such As His Sinless Life. “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). “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be

made the righteousness of God in him” (II Cor. 5:21). Only God, in human flesh, could

live the sinless life.

2. Such As His Resurrection. “Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the

firstfruits of them that slept” (I Cor. 15:20). Would He have been raised from the dead

had He not been the incarnate Son of God? Of course not.17

Wolves Without Attack

Those that would deny the incarnation are wolves, but they have set aside their sheep’s clothing. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (1John 2:22-23) Such deniers are often labeled as a “cult” , “a religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.18 Such a title is aptly applied to both Joseph Smith (1805 – 1844), the founder of the Mormon religion, and Charles Taze Russell (1852 – 1916), the founder of the JW religion. Each had a beginning in “Christianity” and came to a place where they set aside their sheep’s clothing and denied the incarnation. The Apostle John says of these “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” (2:19) Ellen G. White (1827 – 1915), the founder of the Seventh Day Adventist, is characterized a cult because of her false teachings about the means of salvation and the advents of Christ, but she, in doctrine, never denied the incarnation. She, and the SDA, do, however, deny the power and efficacy of the incarnation of Christ. The are aptly called a cult.

Other religions which deny the incarnation are not categorized as cults because they never donned the sheep’s clothing. False religions, which make no pretense of believing the Holy Bible, are labeled as false religions, not as Christian cults. Indian Hinduism and its three reformations , Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism; Oriental Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Persiona Zoroastrianism, and Islam19, all these deny the incarnation of Christ, but they deny the label “Christian” as well. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship, a relationship based on the incarnation of Christ. The real attack on that doctrine comes from within.

Wolves Within Attack

The far more subtle and dangerous wolf is the one still wearing the sheep’s clothing. The American Baptist Churches (USA) and its larger enterprise the Baptist World Alliance (BWA), an ecumenical alliance founded in 1905, does not deny the Virgin Birth of Christ, nor the incarnation, they just refuse to acknowledge that it is a doctrine. Their intent is to “Let the Spirit unite us, and not let doctrine divide us.” For the American Baptist Association, inclusiveness is more important than doctrine. Ergo they have said “The virgin birth is only recorded in two of the four gospels, so it is only 50-50 whether one believes it or not.”20 These are false teachers that remain among us, and although they do not deny the incarnation of Christ, they will not preach the incarnation of Christ. Christ warns us “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” The incarnation of Christ is a cardinal Christian doctrine.

The Two Natures of Christ

Christ incarnate was as much human as if he were not God, and as much God, as if he were not human. That common statement about the two natures if Christ solicit considerable discussion. It is often considered that one or the other nature can be somehow, and somewhat, veiled by the other. This consideration is explored well by Steven J. Wellum21, author of “God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ.” In it he asks:

Are Christ’s Human Limitations Permanent?


In considering this question Wellum begins with some clarificaitons: “It is best to think of Christ’s humiliation as krypsis, i.e., hiddenness or veiledness. In taking on a human nature, the Son not only accommodated himself to human weakness, he also veiled his glory, which is seen only by divine revelation.”22 Wellum is in general outside of this works systematic approach because he does not hold the inerrant Word as the final authority; he includes phrases such as “Scripture and church tradition teach that the incarnation is not a temporary act but a permanent one,” and again “to reconcile with Scripture and the historical confessions,” and just as troubling he makes statements such as “Christianity would never have been born.” These shortcomings aside, Wellum continues in this description of Christ veilings:

As Jesus lived a fully human life, he had the ability to exercise his divine power and authority, but he chose to obey his Father’s will for us and for our salvation. As the Son, he continued to live and act in Trinitarian relation to his Father and the Spirit as he had always done from eternity, but now as the incarnate Son he is able to live a fully human life in order to redeem us.

During his life, acting as the last Adam, in filial obedience to his Father, sometimes Jesus denied himself the exercise of his divine might and energies for the sake of the mission. At other times, as the Father allowed and in relation to the Spirit, he exercised those energies, and in the case of his cosmic functions, he continually exercised his divine power in Trinitarian relation. Never once, though, did our Lord act in his own interest, because he always acted in light of who he is as the eternal Son.

Even as he faced the cross, he willingly and gladly bore our sin and deployed no resources beyond those which his Father allowed and in relation to the Spirit. After his resurrection and ascension, the incarnate Son returned to his previous glory with the veil now removed, and presently the Lord Jesus rules at the right hand of the Father, interceding for his people, and from this posture of rule, he will come again in glory to consummate what he inaugurated in his first advent.23

Does Christ then retain some of the finiteness that he was robed in when he became flesh? Wellum gives this question due benevolence in the following four paragraphs:

An affirmation of the permanent limitations of the incarnate Son seems consistent with the kenotic viewpoint (derived from Philippians 2:7, the theological concept that, through His incarnation, Christ humbled or emptied Himself and became a servant for man’s sake), even though some advocates try to avoid this conclusion. It is consistent because of how the kenotic view defines “person.” From their equation of person with soul and their placing of will and mind in person, it seems to follow that unless Christ’s humanity is shed in his glorification, there are now permanent limitations on the Son in his expression and use of his divine attributes.

Unlike the classical view, kenotic views do not affirm two wills and two minds in Christ, thus making it difficult to conceive how, in glorification, the Son can return to a full exercise of his divine attributes. Think for example of the Son’s omniscience tied to his divine mind.

If the adding of a human nature requires the necessary contraction of knowledge, or the divine consciousness becoming subliminal, then how does the Son return to a full, conscious, omniscient knowledge, given that he has only one mind and that it was the addition of his human body that brought about this contraction? In exaltation, if the glorified Christ returns to his previous state and can exercise all of his divine attributes, then how is he still truly human? On the other hand, if the glorified Christ can exercise all of his divine attributes and retain his humanity, then why cannot he do it in the state of humiliation as well, which, if admitted, seems to undercut the rationale for the kenotic view?

It seems that a consistent kenoticism requires that either the Son must remove his humanity in order to return to the full exercise of his divine attributes, or there are permanent limitations entailed by the incarnation. If those alternatives are not acceptable, then the other alternative would be to return to a classical Christology with its corresponding metaphysical commitments.24

And so the consideration of how much humanity is retained in the resurrected Christ clarified by this consideration. And we can conclude with Wellum, “The best response that fits with the Scriptural presentation of the glorified Christ is that the incarnate Son’s limitations are temporary for the state of humiliation and not in the state of exaltation, even though Christ is permanently the incarnate Son.” This consideration has a depth which could be explored further but first the general doctrine of the two natures should be outlined more fully.

On the two natures of Christ, the basic doctrine is again best examined from Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book. It is given in the block quote below:[block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 81-93}


There can be no Christianity without Christ. Orthodoxy of any person, or any church, can

be settled upon this question: What think ye of Christ?

We wonder why the modernists of today try to lay Christ low. There are those who try to

prove that He never existed. In one great university, a certain professor went to lengths to

prove that Christ was only a figment of the mind. After many lectures, he completed his

tirade, and then asked for comments. One student humbly asked, “If Christ never existed,

why are you attacking Him?”


Why do not the enemies leave Him alone if He never existed? Why have anything to do

with Him if He never rose from the dead? But He does exist; He has been resurrected; He

ever lives!

Who is He? has been the question for two thousand years. We have the testimonies and

confessions of men who saw Him: John the Baptist “Behold the Lamb of God, which

taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); “I saw, and bare record that this is the Son

of God” (John 1:34); Andrew —“We have found the Messias, which is, being

interpreted, the Christ” (John 1:41); Philip “We have found him, of whom Moses in

the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45);

Peter “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16).

Among the people there was division caused by this question, Who is He? “Many of the

people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth, this is the Prophet. Others

said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the

scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of

Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him”

(John 7:40-43). See also John 9:17, 18; 10: 9-20; Luke 5: 21.

Men questioned the deity of Christ, but the demons never did. They acknowledged Him

as being their Creator and coming Judge: “Behold, they cried out, saying, What have we

to do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the

time?” (Matt. 8:29).

At the trial of the Lord Jesus, this same question predominated: “Jesus stood before the

governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus

said unto him, Thou sayest” (Matt. 27:11). See also Matthew 26:63; Luke 22: 67, 70.

And as He hung upon the Cross, the question still agitated the minds of his enemies:

They that passed by reviled him…saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it

in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross” (Matt.


As we have the testimonies and confessions of those who saw Him, we ourselves who

trust Him, and love Him, have the Witness (Holy Spirit) within that He is the Christ, the

Son of the living God: “For he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you” (John 14:17a);

No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (I Cor. 12:3b).

A. The Humanity of Christ.

In other days it was the humanity of Christ which was under attack, and not His deity. No

matter what age we may live in, Satan is the common enemy, and it is he who keeps

going the continued attack upon our Lord.

1. He was Perfectly Human. By this we mean that our Lord, though He has been from

all time and eternity, yet when He became flesh, He possessed a perfect human body,


soul and spirit. Man, we know, has a body, soul and spirit: “The very God of peace

sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved

blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Thess. 5:23).

a. His Human Physical Body. Yes, the Lord Jesus, in His humanity, possessed a

body: “For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial”

(Matt. 26:12; see also Hebrews 10:5); a soul: “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I

say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour” (John

12:27; see also Matthew 26:38); and a spirit; “Immediately when Jesus perceived in his

spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these

things in your hearts” (Mark 2:8; see also Luke 23:46; Luke 10:21).

b. His Human Appearance. The woman at the well recognized Jesus as a human

being: “How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of

Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans” (John 4:9). And after

Christ’s resurrection He still maintained His human appearance; for Mary, supposing

Jesus to be the gardener, recognized Him as a human being: “She, supposing him to be

the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast

laid him, and I will take him away” (John 20:15b).

c. His Human Parent. Though God was His Father, yet the Lord Jesus did have a

human mother, thus proving that He was human: “When the fulness of the time was

come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law” (Gal. 4:4); Paul

was separated unto the gospel “concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was

made of the seed of David, according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3); “The third day there was a

marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there” (John 2:1). See also

Matthew 2:11; 13:55; John 1:14.

d. His Human Development. Being perfectly human, the Lord was born, and He grew

as other boys and girls: “The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom:

and the grace of God was upon him. . . . And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and

in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:40, 52).

e. His Human Limitation. Being God, the Son of God became man, and when He did,

He limited Himself to the realm of the human. Thus, He possessed human limitations,

which were sinless infirmities. As we thus speak, let us not confuse infirmity with sin.

He had human infirmities, but no sin. He hungered (“When he had fasted forty days and

forty nights, he was afterward an hungred” Matt. 4:2); He thirsted (“After this, Jesus

knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled,

saith, I thirst” John 19:28); He became weary (“Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus

therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth

hour” John 4:6); He slept (“Behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch

that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep”Matt. 8:24). See Matthew

26:36-40, for these verses describe in full the testing of Christ in the garden such as only

a human being can endure.

f. His Human Name. His human name was a name common to all of that time: “And

she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his

people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). See also Luke 2:21.

g. His Human Suffering and Death. His suffering and death was common to that

which is experienced by man. The Scriptures abound in the fact that He possessed a

human body and suffered as a human (Matt. 26:26-35; John 19:20; Luke 22:44).


If Jesus was not man, He could not have died, for God, in His true essence, cannot die!

And He did die “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he

entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb.

9:12). He rose from the dead! And He is still man!

2. He is the Perfect Human.

a. As He Transcends All Limitation of Character. Everything is combined in Him.

Look at all the attributes of man, and you will find that some men possess one kind while

other men possess other attributes; but in Him we find completeness all the attributes

of men.

We believe that the character of Jesus is free from forgery. It takes a Plato to forge a

Plato, and it would have taken a Jesus to have forged a Jesus.

Think of His power compared with His humility: He drives the money-changers out of

the temple at one moment, and then washes the disciples’ feet at another.

(1) He Has All Perfection. He never ran for fear. No one ever frightened Him. He

was never elated with success; we are. The Devil never baffled Him. He is the Man above

all men. You cannot put anyone on the same level with the Lord Jesus. Take the leaders

of the world Caesar, Alexander the Great, yea, even godly men, such as Moody and

Billy Sunday they can never come up to Him. You cannot put the gods of men upon

the same platform with the Lord Jesus. There is only one place for our Saviour, and that

is the throne!

(2) He Is Without Sin. He is a perfect human being, the only One the world has

ever seen. Turn to II Corinthians 5:21 and read the description of Him: “He hath made

him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in

him.” This verse of Scripture does not mean that Christ never sinned, although He never

did, but rather that He was without a sinful nature.

If a man lived all his life without sin, he still would not be perfect. By living without sin,

he would only be triumphing over a sinful nature. Christ never had a sinful nature. “that

holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1: 35c).

There has been only one Holy Baby ever to be born into this world, and they called Him

Jesus! No drunkard can help a drunkard. A man does not have to become a thief to help a

thief. The Lord Jesus did not take upon Himself a sinful nature in order to help us who do

have a sinful nature.

When the Lord Jesus was in the wilderness for forty days, He knew what hunger was. He

knows how it is with us when we go hungry. No man ever died at the stake, or went

through a time of testing, as He did upon the Cross. He knows what it is to suffer. We

have something in us that wants us to sin, but He never wanted to sin that is what He

suffered: the Devil trying to make Him want to sin.

That age-old question may now be raised: “Could the Lord Jesus have sinned had He

wanted to?” The question is thrown aside by stating, “He could not have wanted to, being


the Son of God.” But, someone may add, if He could not have sinned, then why the

temptation? If He could not have sinned, then the temptation was a mockery! That is

exactly the answer! For He was not tested to see if He would sin, but He was tested to

show (to prove) that He would not sin.

This is something to consider also: if the Lord Jesus could have sinned here upon earth,

then it is still possible for Him to sin in Heaven as He maketh intercession for us. But He

could not have sinned upon earth, and He cannot sin in heaven. He is our perfect High


b. As He Transcends All Limitations of Time. He is for all time. His teachings are not

out-of-date. They are up-to-date! The books of our colleges and universities are not over

ten years old; they are ever changing. But His words stand sure.

He is the One who has said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never

pass away.” But there is no record of Him writing a book of His life yet His words are

true, for they have not passed away!

c. As He Transcends All Limitations of All Nationalities. The Jew was exclusive of

all people, and the Lord Jesus came from the most exclusive race of people, yet He

belongs to all kindreds and tribes! He belongs to all. The China-man thinks of Him as

being Chinese; the Englishman thinks of Him as being English. When we are saved, we

claim Him as our own, no matter to what race we belong.

Christ was liar, lunatic, or Lord! No modernist ever says He was a liar He only

thought He was God. Then He must have been a lunatic. Of course He was not a liar nor

a lunatic; He was the Son of God! The God man!

B. The Deity of Christ.

1. Divine Predictions. “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I

make thine enemies thy foot-stool” (Ps. 110:1); “Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou

be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is

to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Mic.

5:2). See also Isaiah 7:14; 9:8; Jeremiah 23:6; and Genesis 3:15.

2. Divine Names.

a. He Is Called God. “Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God”

(John 20:28); “Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom. 9:5);

We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may

know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is

the true God, and eternal life” (I John 5:20). See also Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; compare

Psalm 45:6, 7 with Hebrews 1:8.

b. He is Called the Son of God. This implies sameness with God. “Devils also came

out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking

them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ” (Luke 4:41); “Verily,

verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice

of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live” (John 5:25); “For what the law could not


do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of

sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Look up these other

Scriptures: Mark 1:1; Matthew 27:40, 43; John 19:7; 10:36; 11:4.

c. He Is Called Lord. “The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day” (Matt. 12:8);

Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am” (John 13:13); “And they said,

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31);

He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD

OF LORDS” (Rev. 19:16).

d. He Is Called Other Divine Names. “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And

he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last” (Rev.

1:17). See also Revelation 22:13.

3. Divine Equality. “Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory

which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5); “He that seeth me seeth him

that sent me” (John 12:45); “Being in the form of God, [Christ Jesus] thought it not

robbery to be equal with God” (Phil. 2: 6a); “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the

Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9).

4. Divine Relationship. His name is coupled with the Father’s. “I and my Father are

one” (John 10:30). “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the

communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen” (II Cor. 13:14); “Now our Lord

Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us

everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts, and stablish

you in every good word and work” (II Thess.

2:16, 17).

5. Divine Worship. Worship belongs only to God. Christ received true worship.

Therefore, Christ is God! “There came wise men . . . saying, Where is he that is born

King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. . . .

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his

mother, and fell down and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures,

they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh” (Matt. 2:2, 11). The

wise men did not come to worship Mary, but Christ Jesus. In later years he accepted

worship: “They that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou

art the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33). See also Matthew 9:18; Luke 24:52. If Christ had not

been God, then this worship would have been idolatry. It is God’s command that the Son

should be worshiped. “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he

saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Heb. 1:6). “That all men should

honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth

not the Father which hath sent him” (John 5:23). This is true of all ages, that Christians

have worshiped Christ as God. Born-again men would not have been satisfied with the

worshiping of the mere man.


6. Divine Attributes.

a. Omnipotence. “Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto

me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). He has power over death: “Jesus said unto her,

I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall

he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

(John 11:25, 26). He has power over nature: “By him were all things created, that are in

heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be 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” (Col. 1:16, 17). He has power over demons:

They were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for

with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out” (Luke


b. Omniscience. “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that

any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God” (John

16:30). “He [Peter] said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love

thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep” (John 21:17c). See also Matthew 9:4; 12:25;

Luke 6:8; 9:47; 10:22; John 1:48, 49; John 4:16-19; Mark 2:8.

This one question of the doctors of Jerusalem proves the omniscience of the Lord Jesus:

How knoweth this man letters, never having learned?” (John 7:15). This leads us to

know that Christ was never taught by man. He needed no schooling, nor tutors. His

disciples sat at His feet at whose feet did He sit? At no one’s! Paul was a student of

Gamaliel who taught Jesus? No one! Christ said, “Learn of me” when did He ever

say, “Teach me”? Never! We are sometimes advised to go to a higher authority, but to

what authority did He go? To none other, for He had all authority. When did Jesus ever

say, “I don’t remember, I will have to look it up?” Never! He was never caught off guard.

In Mark 12:13 we have these words: “And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees

and of the Herodians to catch him in his words.” They tried to trap Him in His words, but

He was all wise and put His persecutors into confusion.

(1) How He Taught.

(a) With Simplicity. His illustrations were made on the spot. He drew them from

life itself. He had no need of a filing system.

(b) With Authority. You never heard the Lord say, We may as well suppose”

(See Matthew 7:29; Mark 1:22).

(2) What He Taught.

(a) Doctrine. What He taught is not popular today. The modernists substitute

ethics for doctrine; they believe in salvation by ethical living.

(b) Ethics. Christ certainly did teach ethics, but doctrine was first. Ethics must

have doctrine for its foundation.

c. Omni-sapience. “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

(Col. 2:3).

d. Omnipresence. “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt.

28:20). “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even

the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13).

e. Immutability. “They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as

doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but


thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail” (Heb. 1:11, 12). “This man, because he

continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood” (Heb. 7:24). “Jesus Christ the same

yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Heb. 13:8). Jesus may change His position, but His

Person never changes.

f. Everlastingness. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and

the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:1, 2). “Thou,

Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee

shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been

from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2). “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto

you, Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). “Fear not; I am the first and the last” (Rev.


g. holiness. “Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth” (I Peter 2:22).

Ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin” (I John

3:5). See also Hebrews 7:26.

h. Love. Paul prays that the Ephesians may be able “to know the love of Christ,

which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph. 3:19).

(1) It is Spontaneous.

(2) It is Eternal.

(3) It is Infinite.

(4) It is Inexhaustible.

(5) It is Invincible. See Ephesians 5:25; Revelation 1:5.

i. Righteousness and Justice. “Ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a

murderer, to be granted unto you” (Acts 3:14).

7. Divine Offices.

a. Creation. All creation is by the act of God; Christ created: therefore, Christ is God.

Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are

the works of thy hands” (Heb. 1:10). See John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; John


b. Preservation. “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his

person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself

purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. 1:3). “He is

before all things, and by him all things consist” all things hang together (Col. 1: 17).

c. Pardon. “He said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven” (Luke 7:48). See also Mark 2:5-


d. Resurrection. “This is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he

hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this

is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him,

may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:39, 40).

e. Transformation. “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear

what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we

shall see him as he is” (I John 3:2). See also Philippians 3:21 (R.V.).

f. Judgment. “The Father judgest no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the

Son” (John 5:22). See also Acts 17:31; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; Romans 2:16;

14:10; II Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 22:12.

g. Salvation. “I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall


any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28). See also John 5:25; 6:47; 10:10; 17:2.

C. The Blending of the Two Natures in One Person.

Man cannot understand it. This is one proof that the Bible is the Word of God, for if man

had written the Bible he would have left the two natures of Christ out of it. These are

infinite facts, and God does not seek to explain, but makes a simple declaration of fact;

Christ possessed a human nature and a divine nature both are complete. It is not

Scriptural to say Christ is God and man; rather, He is the God-Man. A type of His dual

nature can be found in the boards of the tabernacle. The boards were of wood and gold

one board, with two materials; not two boards. The wood never became gold, and the

gold never became wood. Christ had but one personality, not two. Two natures, with one


We try to make John 1:14 read, “The Word became a man”; but it says, “The Word was

made flesh.”

If we make Christ have two personalities, then we make the Godhead a Foursome

instead of a Trinity.

D. Errors Concerning the Two Natures of Christ.

1. Ebionitism. This error was prevalent during the first century of the Christian

Church. It denied the deity of Christ. It stated that Christ had a relationship with God

after His baptism.

2. Corinthianism. This was most popular during the days of the Apostle John.

According to this error, Christ possessed no deity until He was baptized.

3. Docetism. This error found its way into the Church during the latter part of the

second century. It maintained that Christ did not possess a human body. He had a body,

He had a celestial body. Thus Docetism denied Christ’s humanity. Such error is the

spirit of anti-Christ” (I John 4:1-3).

4. Arianism. This error denied the divine nature of Christ. Arianism maintained that

there was a time when the Son never existed, that God lived and then begat His Son after

Him. Thus it denied Christ’s pre-existence.

5. Apollinarianisin. This error maintained that Christ possessed an incomplete human

body. The Apollinarians reasoned: sin is sown in the soul of all men; God had no sin;

therefore Christ had no soul; therefore He had an incomplete body.

6. Nestorianism. Nestorians took the two natures of Christ and made two persons out

of them. That is, God came and dwelt in a perfect man; therefore God was in Christ,

instead of Christ being God.


7. Eutychianism. The Eutychians took the two natures of Christ and ran them together

and made one new nature.

8. Monothelitism. This error consisted of the belief that Christ had two natures, but

only one will.

9. Unitarianism. The Unitarians deny the Trinity. Thus they deny the deity of Christ


10. Christian Science. This belief is a denial of the humanity of Christ.

11. Millennial Dawnism. This belief denies the personal existence of our Lord Jesus


Broadening a solid Bible Doctrines work into a systematic theology involves stepping back and taking in the larger picture and examining more fully the interfaces between each individual doctrine, expose the areas where the doctrine has met its fiercest opposition, and analyzing what other works of systematic theology have done with the Bible doctrine. In Dr. Cambron’s coverage of the two natures of Christ, little more need be said. The interfaces of Christology with the other doctrines, and the comparison of other systematic theology works will be advanced at the close of this section. The errors concerning the two natures of Christ are herein well documented by Dr. Cambron.

The Death of Christ

On the death of Christ , the basic doctrine is again best examined from Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book. It is given in the block quote below:[block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 93-101}


The Cross is the fundamental truth of the revealed Word of God. By the Cross we do not

mean the tree, but the Sacrifice upon that tree.

We see the emblems of Christ and Him crucified in Genesis, and so on through the Old

Testament. The only reason for Bethlehem is Calvary. Our salvation depends upon Christ

dying upon the Cross.

A. The Fact of the Death.

1. Old Testament Anticipation.

a. In Type.

(1) Coats of Skin (Gen. 3:21).

(2) Abel’s Lamb (Gen. 4:4).

(3) Offering of Isaac (Gen. 22).

(4) Passover Lamb (Ex. 12).

(5) The Levitical Sacrificial System (Lev. 1:1 7:16).

(6) The Brazen Serpent (Num. 21; John 3:14, 15).

(7) The Slain Lamb (Is. 53:6, 7; John 1:29).

b. In Prediction.

(1) Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3:15).

(2) The Sin Offering of Psalm 22.

(3) The Vicarious Sufferings of Isaiah 53.

(4) The Cut-off Messiah of Daniel 9:26.

(5) The Smitten Shepherd of Zachariah 13:6, 7.

2. New Testament Revelation.

a. In General. One third of the Book of Matthew, more than one third of Mark, one

fourth of Luke, and one half of John deals with the last week of Christ before His



b. In Particular.

(1) The Heart of Christ Must Be Noted.

(a) His Death. “If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the

death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life” (Rom.

5:10). See also Philippians 2:8; Hebrews 2:9, 14; Revelation 5:6-12.

(b) His Cross. “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block,

and unto the Greeks foolishness” (I Cor. 1:23). See also Galatians 3:1; 6:14; Ephesians

2:16; Colossians 1:20.

(c) His Blood. “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many

for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28). See also Mark 14:24; Ephesians 1:7; Cobssians

1:14; I John 1:7; Hebrews 9:12, 25; Revelation 1:5; 5:9.

(2) The Three Statements Concerning His Death Must Be Studied.

(a) Made Sin for Us. “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that

we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (II Cor. 5:21).

(b) Died the Just for the Unjust. “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just

for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but

quickened by the Spirit” (I Peter 3:18).

(c) Made a Curse For Us. “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,

being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree”

(Gal. 3:13).

B. The Form of the Death.

1. A Natural Death. His death was a death such as experienced by man. It had to be a

natural death, for He was The Man dying for all men.

2. An Abnormal Death. God cannot die, but God had to die if He was to become

man’s substitute. Therefore He became a creature who could die. However, He

contracted no sin while He lived.

Man dies today because of sin; but He had no sin. Apart from our sins, He would never

have tasted death.

3. A Preternatural Death. Christ’s death was marked out and determined beforehand.

Before the fall of Adam, God anticipated it. Before man sinned, God made provision for

Calvary, for Christ is the Lamb slain “before the foundation of the world” (I Peter 1:20).

Were the sins that man committed before Calvary taken away by the blood of bulls and

goats? No! For all sins, whether committed before or after the Cross, were put on Him at

Calvary (Rom. 3:25).

4. A Supernatural Death. While we have stated that His death was a natural death, yet

it was different from the death of other men. “Therefore doth my Father love me, because

I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down

of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This

commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10:17, 18).


His death was of His own volition. He lay down His life Himself; no one took it from

Him. Usually it took two days for a man to die by crucifixion, but He died in six hours.

Matthew 27: 46 and 50 state that He cried out with a loud voice. His strength had not left

Him. He died in His strength. He gave His life; no one took it from Him. He bowed His

head in death; He was majestic, even upon the cross.

Thus we see Christ suffering two deaths for us: the first death, the separation of the soul

and spirit from the body; the second death, the separation of the individual from God.

Christ suffered the second death first, and the first death last. He suffered the second

death when He was separated from the Father, for He cried, “My God, my God, why hast

thou forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). Christ, the very son of God, was able to suffer in six

hours what the sinner will endure throughout eternity.

C. Unscriptural Theories Concerning the Death.

Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures” (I Cor. 15:3b). Anything that is not

of the Scripture is false.

1. The Death of Christ Was a Martyr’s Death. “In this He died to show us that truth is

worth dying for.” How does the child of God meet this argument? Simply by the

following: Why didn’t Christ say so? Why didn’t Paul say so? Why didn’t Peter say so?

And why didn’t John and Luke say so? If Christ had died a martyr’s death, why didn’t the

apostles say, “Believe on Stephen’s death and be saved, for Stephen was a martyr?” If

Christ died as a martyr, why didn’t the Father comfort Him at His death as He has done

others down through the centuries? But He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou

forsaken me?”

2. The Death of Christ Was Accidental. By the above statement critics mean that He

was the victim of a mob. This we know is not true, for He was conscious of His future

death. Seven times in the Gospel of John He speaks of “mine hour,” which was in the

future, and which was Calvary. He need not have died. Nails did not hold Christ upon the

cross, but His will. “Come down from the cross, if thou be the Son of God,” cried the

mob; but Christ did not come from heaven to come down from the cross.

3. The Death of Christ Was a Moral Example. This theory holds that a drunkard has

only to think on Christ and he will improve. To refute this we ask, “Why didn’t it

improve the ones who crucified Him?” If Christ’s example is for the improvement of the

world, then Christianity is a failure. Why not look upon the cross of Peter, as he was

crucified downward? Man needs more than improvement.

4. The Death of Christ Was an Exhibit of God’s Displeasure with Sin. In other words

some people think that God’s displeasure with sin is pictured on the cross rather than in

hell. If the preceding statement is true, why the incarnation? Why not crucify a plain

sinner, instead of the best Man who ever lived?


5. The Death of Christ Was to Show Man That God Loves Him. God does love man, and

the Cross does show that God loves him, but the death of Christ was not only to show

God’s love.

6. The Death of Christ Was the Death of a Criminal. Can it be possible that one could

hold to this theory? The answer is “yes.” And we refute this theory by stating that Pilate

found no fault in Him. A study of the trial, as found in the Gospels, will disprove this


D. Scriptural Names of Christ’s Death.

1. Atonement. This is an Old Testament idea which means “to cover.” The only place

that the word “atonement” can be found in the New Testament is in Romans 5:11, but

this is a mistranslation; it should be translated “reconciliation.” However, the word

atonement” is a New Testament idea meaning “at-one-ment” at one with God

through the sacrifice of His Son.

2. Sacrifice. “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are

unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us” (I Cor. 5:7). See also

Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 9:26; 10:12.

3. Offering. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of

Jesus Christ once for all. . . . for by one offering He hath perfected forever them that are

sanctified” (Heb. 10:10, 14).

4. Ransom. “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to

give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Also I Peter 1:18, 19; I Timothy 2:5, 6.

We have been redeemed (bought back) by the Price, which is the blood of Jesus Christ.

5. Propitiation. “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for

the sins of the whole world” (I John 2:2). See also I John 4:10; Romans 3:25. In Hebrews

9:5 the word “propitiation” is translated “mercy seat,” which is correct, for in the above

Scriptures also the word “propitiation” means “mercy seat.” The law demanded death for

sin; therefore, the blood of the sacrifice was placed on the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22; Lev.

16:13, 14), showing that death had taken place. God looked upon the mercy seat and saw

blood life and was satisfied. Since Calvary, God looks upon our Mercy Seat, which

is Christ, and is satisfied. Therefore, the underlying thought of propitiation is


6. Reconciliation. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,

not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of

reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:19). See also Colossians 1:20. The word “reconciliation” means

to cause, or affect a thorough change. Never in Scripture does it say that God is

reconciled. It is man who has to be reconciled; it is man who needs a thorough change.


7. Substitution. Substitution is not a Scriptural word, but it surely is a Scriptural idea.

He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the

chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like

sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath

laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Is. 53:5, 6). See also I Peter 3:18; II Corinthians 5:1.

8. Testator. A testament is a will that goes into effect at the death of the testator. Thus,

our inheritance is that which we shall receive, which is made possible by the death of the

Lord Jesus. “He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the

redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called

might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is there must also

of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead:

otherwise, it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb. 9:15-17). See also

Colossians 1:12-14; Ephesians 1:1-7.

E. The Objectives of the Death.

1. The Manifestation of Divine Character. “Now the righteousness of God without the

law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. . . . To declare, I say, at

this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth

in Jesus” (Rom. 3:21, 26).

2. The Vindication of Divine Law. The law is unto death. There is no mercy in law,

only justice. The law condemns the sinner to death; Christ took the sinner’s place;

therefore, Christ paid the law’s demand.

3. The Foundation of Divine Pardon. This statement will go unchallenged in the New

Testament. There is one essential feature of forgiveness, and that is: the one who forgives

must take upon himself all wrong (or loss) that has been committed. For example, if a

person is robbed of ten dollars, and the culprit is found, but is forgiven, who then stands

the loss? It is he who forgave.

F. The Extent of the Death.

1. General Statements.

a. Its Universality. His death was for all men for those who believe, and those

who believe not. “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the

suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should

taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). See also I Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; I John

2:2; II Peter 3:9.

b. Its Limitation. Christ’s work upon the cross was conditional, as the efficiency of it

depended upon the repentance and acceptation of Christ by the sinner. “We labor and

suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men,

especially of those that believe” (I Tim. 4:10).


2. Particular Statements.

a. Christ Died for the Believer. “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us

from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works”

(Titus 2:14). See also Ephesians 5:2; Galatians 2:20; I Timothy 4:10.

b. Christ Died for the Church. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the

church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of

water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot,

or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-


c. Christ Died for Sinners. “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the

unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but: quickened by

the Spirit” (I Peter 3:18). See also I Timothy 1:15; Romans 5:10.

d. Christ Died for the World. “They sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take

the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God

with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Rev. 5:9, R.V.).

See also John 3:16; 1:9; I John 2:2.

C. The Results of the Death.

1. In Relation to the Sinner.

a. Provides a Substitute. “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels

for the suffering of death that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man”

(Heb. 2:9).

b. Provides a Ransom. “Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due

time” (I Tim. 2:6).

c. Provides a Propitiation. Because of the death of Christ, God is “mercy seated”

satisfied. “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of

the whole world” (I John 2:2).

d. Provides for Non-imputation of Sin. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world

unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them: and hath committed unto us the

word of reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:19).

e. Provides an Attraction. “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto

me” (John 12:32).

f. Provides a Salvation. “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to

all men” (Titus 2: 11).

g. Provides a Gracious Invitation. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only

begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting

life” (John 3:16).

2. In Relation to the Believer.

a. Reconciliation. “All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus

Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation” (II Cor. 5:18).

b. Redemption. “We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,

according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). See also Galatians 3:13.

c. Justification. “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord

Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1).


d. Exoneration. “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in

Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1, R.V.).

e. Possession. “What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost

which is in you, which ye have received of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are

bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are

God’s” (I Cor. 6:19, 20).

f. Sanctification. “We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ

once for all” (Heb. 10:10).

g. Perfection. “By one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified”

(Heb. 10:14).

h. Admission. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the

blood of Jesus, by a new and a living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the

veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a high priest over the house of God; let us draw

near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil

conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:19-22).

i. Identification. “The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one

died for all, therefore all died” (II Cor. 5:14, R.V.).

j. Liberation. “Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself

in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that

had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them who through fear of

death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” (Heb. 2:14, 15, R.V.).

k. Donation. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how

shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. 8:32).

3. In Relation to Satan.

a. Dethronement. “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this

world be cast out” (John 12:31).

b. Nullification. “Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also

himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought

him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14, R.V.).

c. Defeat. “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us

into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13). See also Ephesians 6:12.

4. In Relation to the Material Universe. “It pleased the Father that in him should all

fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile

all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in

heaven” (Col. 1:19, 20).

Some teach that Philippians 2:9-11 reveals the fact of universal salvation, but this is not

so. This passage declares the truth of universal adoration.26


The Resurrection of Christ

On the resurrection of Christ , the basic doctrine is again best examined from Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book. It is given in the block quote below: [block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 101-109}


A. The Importance of the Resurrection.

In the Bible there are several accounts of people having been brought back to life. These

people, however, were not resurrected, but restored, for they died again. But our Lord

was resurrected, having died once and for all and having been raised from the dead. He

now liveth and abideth forever.

His death was necessary, because He was made sin for us.

1. Its Place in Scripture. There are thirteen or fourteen references in the New

Testament concerning the ordinance of baptism, and even fewer Scriptures referring to

the Lord’s Supper. However, the fact of His resurrection is mentioned over one hundred


2. Its Part in Apostolic Testimony. “With great power gave the apostles witness of the

resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (Acts 4:33). See also

Acts 2:32; 17:18; 23:6.

3. Its Prominence in the Gospel. If Christ be not risen there is no Gospel. “Moreover,

brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I have preached unto you, which also ye

have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory

what I preached unto you, unless ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all

that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (I

Cor. 15:1-4).

4. Its Preeminence in Salvation (I Cor. 15:12-20).

a. First Proposition. “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say

some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (verse 12).

b. Second Proposition. “But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not

risen” (verse 13). If we are not to be raised from the dead, then Christ is not risen.

c. Third Proposition. “And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your

faith is also vain” (verse 14). If Christ is not risen, Christianity is a sham.

d. Fourth Proposition. “Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we

have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the

dead rise not” (verse 15). If Christ be not raised, every evangelical preacher is a fraud.

e. Fifth Proposition. “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ

be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (verses 16 and 17). If He be not

risen, He is still dead, and therefore cannot redeem us. The penalty paid for any crime is

not fully paid until the one for whom it was paid is free. As long as Christ was in the

tomb, the penalty for our sins was not paid; but His resurrection shows that the penalty

has been paid. And, remember, this Scripture was written to those who were not in their


f. Sixth Proposition. “Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished”


(verse 18). In other words, they have all gone like the beasts of the field, if Christ did not

rise from the dead.

g. Seventh Proposition. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men

most miserable” (verse 19). If all of our hope is staked upon the resurrection of Christ,

and if He has not risen, then we are of all men most to be pitied. We have done nothing

else to secure salvation, and if our Saviour be not risen, we have no Saviour. We had

better look into some other religion.

h. Eighth Proposition. “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the

firstfruits of them that slept” (verse 20). Praise the Lord, He is risen! He is alive! We are

saved by a living Redeemer. We, of all men, are the only sinners who are saved.

B. The Meaning of the Resurrection.

By the resurrection we mean the bodily resurrection, not the spiritual resurrection.

1. Provision of the Tomb. Guards were placed there to guarantee against the removal

of His body, not His Spirit. “So they went, and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the

stone, and setting a watch” (Matt. 27:66).

2. Recognition of the Disciples. “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,

and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not

faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God”

(John 20:27, 28).

3. Testimony of the Apostles. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all

witnesses” (Acts 2:32).

4. A Testimony of the Lord Himself. “He began to teach them, that the Son of man

must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and

scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again” (Mark 8:31).

5. The Announcement of Our Transformation. “Our conversation is in heaven; from

whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile

body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working

whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself” (Phil. 3:20,21).

C. The Unscriptural Theories Concerning the Resurrection.

1. The Unburied Body Theory. By this statement unbelievers maintain that the tomb

was never filled, that the two thieves, and Christ, were thrust out upon the trash heap.

However, this is refuted by the Jew’s own law: “If a man have committed a sin worthy of

death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree; his body shall not remain all

night upon the tree, but thou shalt surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is

accursed of God; that thou defile not thy land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an

inheritance” (Deut. 21:22, 23).


2. The Unemptied Grave Theory. Those that hold to this say that He is still there.

Surely common sense would refute this argument, for if Christ had not arisen, the Devil

would have caused His body to have been found sometime during the last two thousand


3. The Removal Theory. This is that theory which proposes that Joseph moved the

body out of the tomb. Of this argument we ask, “If he removed the body, why didn’t he

also remove the clothing?” All will have to admit that if Joseph did remove the body, it

would have had to be done in secret. If done in secret, why wasn’t the stone rolled back

against the door?

4. The Mistaken Woman Theory. This theory contends that the woman misunderstood

what the man in the sepulcher had said. We refute this contention by saying that the

Word does not so declare it, and the Word is the only authority and witness we have.

5. The Deliberate Deception Theory. This supposition clings to the idea that Christ

did not die at all, but rather that He fainted on the cross and was revived by the cool air of

the tomb. If this be the case, where did He go? Surely, as He was an object of interest to

the entire populace, He would have been recognized and openly accepted or rejected.

6. The Fraud Theory. This states that the apostles plainly lied and deceived those that

heard them. However, all of the apostles, except John, met a martyr’s death. Why?

Because of their devotion to Christ and His resurrection. Would they have sacrificed their

lives for a lie? Of course not!

7. The Self-Deception Theory. In other words, this speculation declares that the

apostles had an illusion; that is, they thought that He arose from the dead, and kept on

thinking it, until after a while they believed it. We know, from human experience, that

delusions soon fade away, and we awaken to reality. The apostles could not have

deceived themselves very long.

8. The Hallucination Theory. This idea supposes that they thought they had actually

seen the resurrected Saviour, when it was merely a hallucination caused by nerves and

excitement. Can you imagine Peter becoming delirious, and Thomas hysterical?

9. The Recollection Theory. This view sees the hysterical apostles fleeing to Samaria,

and while alone in this place, they began to think that Jesus is still with them. That is

where we get the idea that He arose from the dead. The Scriptures, nevertheless, declare

that they remained in Jerusalem behind closed doors until He revealed Himself to them.

10. The Misunderstood Theory. This reasoning admits that the Saviour died, but states

that the apostles preached the resurrection of His Spirit, and not His body. However,

people took it wrong. The word “resurrection” is never connected with the spirit, but

rather with the body, for the spirit never dies.


11. The Spiritual Vision Theory. This supposition maintains that the apostles actually

saw something. What they saw was a lying vision, not the Lord. The Devil had fooled

them. But, if there was anything the Devil did not want them to believe, it was the

resurrection of Christ, whether, a lying vision or the actual thing. Christ Himself dispels

this argument by declaring, after His resurrection, that “a spirit does not have flesh and


12. The Twins Theory. Those who offer this suggestion say that Christ had a twin, and

that three days after He had been crucified and buried, His twin showed himself,

declaring that he was Christ risen from the dead. We ask, “Where was this twin hidden

for thirty-three years?”

D. The Proofs of the Resurrection.

1. The Empty Tomb. The Gospels declare that the people held two views concerning

his resurrection. One group, consisting of unbelievers, said that someone stole His body;

the other group contended that He was raised by Divine Power. The empty tomb proves

the latter. A Roman watch, composed of sixty men with four groups of fifteen each, were

stationed to watch the tomb. Each group guarded the tomb for a six-hour period. The

watch was ordered to guard the tomb against the theft of the body of Christ. Now the

enemy did not wish to steal the body; they wanted it buried. We know that the apostles

did not steal it, as they were afraid. Even at His crucifixion they fled. The soldiers were

paid by the unbelievers to bear false testimony. Is it not peculiar that the Jewish priests

did not prosecute the soldiers, if the body had actually been stolen? Had the disciples

stolen the body, would not the priests have hounded them until they admitted such a

deed? Why did they not do something? Simply because they did not believe the story.

A new tomb: there was but one body in it, and there is no question as to who rose from

the dead when the tomb became empty. It was carved out of the rock solid rock

behind, above, below, and on the side. There were no other entrances.

2. The Undisturbed Grave Clothes. In the Orient the bodies of the dead are wound

with grave clothes, from the neck down to the feet, in a manner similar to that used on

Egyptian mummies. The head is wrapped with a napkin. When this wrapping was duly

done, the body was stretched out on a ledge. When Peter came in to examine the grave

clothes, he saw that they were undisturbed the body of Christ had shot through the

grave clothes without bursting a single thread. Peter discovered that the grave clothes

were unmolested; the clothes appeared as though they were still wrapped around the body

but there was no body.

As for the tomb, the door was not opened to let Christ out He was already out! He

came out of the tomb just as He had come out of the grave clothes. Yes, He was out of

the tomb long before the stone was rolled away. The soldiers had been guarding a sealed,

empty tomb for nearly twelve hours.


3. The Appearances of Christ. In I Corinthians 15:1-11 we have recorded the number

of witnesses who actually saw the Lord, the risen Saviour. This number does not include

the women. The highest number of witnesses required to establish the truth in America is

seven: one for murder; two for treason; three for a will; and seven for an oral will. The

number of witnesses recorded in the Word is over five hundred. Certainly, according to

the accepted jurisprudence, there is sufficient evidence that He arose from the dead.

4. The Character of Christ. No greater proof is needed in contending for His

resurrection than His character. To think that such a shameful end would come to Him

who was the Perfect One! Surely, God in His justice would not have allowed the only

man without sin to remain in the tomb.

5. The New Testament. The twenty-seven books composing the New Testament are

the effect; the cause is a risen Christ. Without Christ’s resurrection, there would not have

been any New Testament. The death of Christ had sorely depressed the disciples. Their

faith was shattered. If Christ had not appeared unto them, they would never have written

about Him. The story of His life grew out of His resurrection.

6. The Apostles’ Church. The apostles began preaching at Jerusalem only seven weeks

after the crucifixion. Right there in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried,

the apostles declared Christ to have risen from the dead. If Christ had not risen, the

enemies could have produced the body, for they had crucified Him. The silence of the

Jews was as much proof of His resurrection as the writings of the disciples.

7. The Transformed Disciples. The resurrection brought about a transformation of the

disciples. Before, they had seen Christ die, and thus their faith was shattered. Two of

them said, “We hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21, R.V.) Sad

words no hope. All faith was now dead. They were meeting together behind closed

doors, frightened, afraid for their lives, when the Lord appeared. It was hard to convince

them of His resurrection, even though He actually appeared before them. But when they

were convinced, nothing could ever change them.

How about doubting Thomas? He was not present at Christ’s first appearance before the

disciples, and, therefore, he doubted. I am glad that Thomas doubted, for now I am

relieved of doubt. His unbelief was removed at the second appearance of the Saviour;

consequently, all of our doubts concerning the resurrection should be removed.

8. The Conversion of Saul. The Church never had a greater enemy than Saul of Tarsus.

He was a well-known individual in Judaism, belonging to the sect known as the

Pharisees, who believed in the future resurrection of the dead, but certainly not in the

resurrection of Jesus. What changed this terrible persecutor of the Church into the mighty

preacher of Christ? The resurrection of Christ! From the day on the road to Damascus, he

never doubted the resurrection. He suffered at the hands of his own countrymen and in

the courts of the foreigner because of his belief in Christ’s resurrection.


9. Christian Experience. Since we have been born again hope has been placed in our

hearts: that our sins have been taken away and that our own resurrection is assured. This

hope could only be guaranteed by a risen Saviour. We are not saved from our sins by a

living mother, nor by a dead Jew, but by a Living Lord.

10. The Gospel Record. The Gospels were written or dictated by witnesses, “chosen

before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead”

(Acts 10:41b). In reading the Gospels, we notice the little details, words and phrases,

which prove to us how natural and how true to life the accounts are.

E. The Result of the Resurrection.

1. In Relation to Christ Himself.

a. It Was the Seal of His Father’s Acceptance. In other words, Christ’s sacrifice was

sufficient and accepted by God. “It is God’s ‘amen’ to His Son’s ‘it is finished.’”

b. It Was the Mark of His Divine Sonship. Christ was “declared to be the Son of God

with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” (Rom.

1:4). On being nailed to the cross, He was accursed of God. God would not let His Son

remain accursed; therefore God raised him from the dead.

c. It Was the Demonstration of His Victory.

(1) Over the Devil. If only the Devil could have kept Him in the grave, complete

victory would have been Satan’s. However, Christ arose from the dead, guaranteeing

salvation for every believing soul. The believer is commanded to put on the whole

armour of God in order to withstand the wiles of the Devil. One piece of that armour is

the helmet of Salvation.

(2) Over Death. “Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me:

because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye

in me, and I in you” (John 14:19, 20). See also II Timothy 1:10.

d. It Was the Illustration of Incorruptibility. God’s purpose and grace “is now made

manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and

hath brought life and immortality [incorruptibility] to light through the gospel” (II Tim.


2. In Relation to the Believer.

a. Proves His Justification. “Jesus our Lord . . . was delivered for our offences, and

was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:24, 25).

b. Illustrates His Power. Paul prayed that God might give the Ephesians “the spirit of

wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him . . . that ye may know . . . what is the

exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his

mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set

him at his own right hand in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:17, 18,19, 20).

c. Provides a High Priest. “He is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto

God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). See also

Romans 8:34; Hebrews 3:1; 7:22.

d. Begets a Living Hope. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the


resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled,

and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (I Peter 1:3,4).

e. Guarantees Our Resurrection. “He which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up

us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you” (II Cor. 4:14). See also I Corinthians

15:22; I Thessalonians 4:14.

3. In Relation to the World.

a. Gives Evidence of His Truth. All that he spake is substantiated by His resurrection,

for God would not have raised a liar from the dead and declare Him to be His Son. His

act proved His favor.

b. Gives Evidence of Universal Resurrection. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ

shall all be made alive” (I Cor. 15:22).

c. Gives Evidence of World Judgment. “He hath appointed a day, in the which he will

judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath

given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:31).27

The Ascension and Enthronement of Jesus Christ

On the ascension and enthronement of Jesus Christ , the basic doctrine is again best examined from Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book. It is given in the block quote below: [block quote of Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines page 109-113}


His ascension is a historical fact. If His resurrection is denied, then His ascension must

also be denied. It is hard for some people to grasp the thought that a glorified, living

Body is in glory; but He is up there, nevertheless.

A. The Meaning of the Ascension and Enthronement.

1. Of the Ascension. It is that event, after His resurrection, in which He departed

visibly from the earth to heaven. “When he had spoken these things, while they beheld,

he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked

stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus,

which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen

him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11).

2. Of the Enthronement (Exaltation). This is that act of God by which he gave to the

risen and ascended Lord full power and glory, allowing Him to sit down on the right hand

of God’s throne. “This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore,

being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of

the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2:32, 33). “To

him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame,

and am set down with my Father in His throne” (Rev. 3:21). Christ is not now sitting on

His own throne, but upon His Father’s throne.


B. The Message of the Ascension and Enthronement.

1. In Prophecy.

a. Testimony of a Psalmist. “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou

suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence

is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16:10, 11). See

also Psalm 68:18; 110:4, 5.

b. Testimony of the Saviour. “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up

where he was before?” (John 6:62). See also John 16:28.

c. Testimony of Luke. “It came to pass, when the time was come that he should he

received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51).

2. In History.

a. Testimony of Mark. “So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received

up into heaven, and set on the right hand of God” (Mark 16:19).

b. Testimony of Luke. “It came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from

them, and carried up into heaven” (Luke 24:51). See also Acts 1:9-11.

c. Testimony of Stephen. “He, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked stedfastly into

heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said,

Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God”

(Acts 7:55, 56).

d. Testimony of Peter. “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God;

angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him” (I Peter 3:22). See also

Acts 3:15, 20, 21; 5:30, 31.

e. Testimony of Paul. “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather,

that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for

us” (Rom. 8:34). See also Ephesians 1:20, 21; 4:8-10; Colossians 3:1; I Timothy 3:16.

f. Testimony of John. The entire first chapter of the Book of Revelation declares

John’s testimony of the ascended and enthroned Christ.

C. The Nature of the Ascension and Enthronement.

1. He Bodily and Visibly Ascended. Luke wrote “of all that Jesus began both to do and

teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had

given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen” (Acts 1:1, 2). See also

Acts 1:9-11.

2. He Passed Through the Heavens. “Having then a great high priest, who hath passed

through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession” (Heb. 4:14).

3. He Was Made Higher Than the Heavens. This means that He was made higher than

all the created beings in heaven. “Such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless,

undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens” (Heb. 7:26).


4. He Sat Down on the Right Hand of God. “Now in the things which we are saying

the chief point is this: We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the

throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (Heb. 8:1, R. V.). See also Ephesians 1:20;

Colossians 3:1.

D. The Necessity of the Ascension and Enthronement.

1. For the Demonstration of His Complete Achievement. “Him hath God exalted with

his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and

forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31). He said, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. . . . By the

which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”

(Heb. 10: 9, 10). In the tabernacle here upon earth there were no chairs, and this fact

signified that the showing work was never complete. He entered heaven and sat down on

the throne, and thus declared that the work of our redemption was a finished act.

2. For the Facilitation of Human Worship. “The hour cometh and now is. when the

true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh

such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in

spirit and in truth” (John 4:23, 24).

3. For the Bestowment of the Holy Ghost. “I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you

that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart,

I will send him unto you” (John 16:7).

4. For the Constitution of His Headship Over the Church. “[God] hath put all things

under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his

body, the fulness of him that filleth all and in all” (Eph. 1:22, 23).

E. The Purpose of the Ascension and Enthronement.

1. He Entered Heaven as a Forerunner. “The forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,

made a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec” (Heb. 6:20). Another word for

forerunner” is “captain,” “prince leader,” one who has others to follow him.” The Lord

Jesus precedes us; if death comes while He tarries, we will go on to be with Him.

2. He Entered Heaven as a Gift-Bestower. “He saith, When he ascended up on high,

he led captivity captive. and gave gifts unto men. . . and he gave some, apostles; and

some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:8, 11).

3. He Entered Heaven as a Place-Preparer. “I go to prepare a place for you. And if I

go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that

where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:2, 3).


F. The Results of the Ascension and Enthronement.

1. Gives Us an Intercessor with God. “Christ is not entered into the holy places made

with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the

presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). See also Hebrews 7:25.

2. Gives Us Access to God. “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is

passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we

have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but

was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly

unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of

need” (Heb. 4:14-16).

3. Gives Us Ableness for Service. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on

me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because

I go unto my Father” (John 14:12). “Greater works” does not mean healing or speaking in

tongues, but the spreading of the Gospel of salvation. For example, Peter spoke, and three

thousand believed; he spoke again, and five thousand others believed.

4. Gives Us Confidence in God’s Providences. “We know that all things work together

for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”

(Rom. 8:28).

5. Gives Us Our Heavenly Position. “[God] hath raised us up together, and made us sit

together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6).28

Critique of other Systematic Theology Christology Works

There is a notable difference between a Bible doctrine book and a theology book. The “ology” in theology emphasizes a discourse which meanders down every conceivable avenue of consideration for a topic. While a Bible doctrine must detail every straight and narrow consideration of what God has revealed, a thorough “ology” must do that, plus expand and expound on every thread. It must further introduce and explore some of the major broad paths and wide gates of mans creation. It should thereby open some vistas which may not have been considered by the student of doctrine, being ever vigil to show how the wide paths do lead to destruction. Review of other works of systematic theology pursues this mind broadening purpose.

Critique of John Miley’s 1892 Methodist Christology

John Miley wrote an extensive Christology section in his Systematic Theology.29 A brief introduction of John Miley, taken from wikipedia is included below:

John Miley (1813–1895) was an American Christian theologian in the Methodist tradition who was one of the major Methodist theological voices of the 19th century. “Miley had graduated from Augusta College and, as a Methodist pastor, had held nineteen different pastoral appointments. He served as chair of systematic theology at Drew University in Madison, NJ beginning in 1873, after his brother-in-law, Randolph Sinks Foster, left the seat to become a Bishop. He was the author of Systematic Theology30 (1892, ISBN 0-943575-09-5), a two-volume work which served as a key text for Methodist seminarians for decades. He also authored The Atonement in Christ (1879), in which he demonstrated what he believed were severe Biblical and theological problems with commonly held theories on the doctrine of the atonement such as the punishment view of Calvinism and the moral example view of Pierre Abélard, developing a strong moral government theology which was thoroughly Wesleyan and Arminian, heavily reliant on the work of Hugo Grotius.”31

John Miley’s systematic theology was reviewed in this effort to keep Hodge and Strong’s excessive Presbyterian leanings in check, however, he does have an extensive Christology section. In his development of systematization Miley states that the logical order of doctrines, meaning the intelligent order in which they arise for thought, Anthropology must precede Christology, and Christology must precede Soteriology. He then gives extensive coverage of “Leading Errors In Christology32” before he deals with Christology proper33. After which he further develops another section on the errors in Christology.34 Miley follows the same development of Christology as Cambron does in his doctrine development. Other than the coverage of the leading errors of his day there is thus little value is added by his consideration.

Critique of Charles Hodge’s 1878 Presbyterian Christology

Charles Hodge wrote no Christology section in his Systematic Theology.35 A brief introduction of Charles Hodge, taken from Christian Classics Ethereal Library, where his public domain works are available, is included below:

“Charles Hodge (December 27, 1797, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – June 19, 1878, Princeton, New Jersey) was the principal of Princeton Theological Seminary between 1851 and 1878. A Presbyterian theologian, he was a leading exponent of historical Calvinism in America during the 19th century. He was deeply rooted in the Scottish philosophy of Common Sense Realism. He argued strongly that the authority of the Bible as the Word of God had to be understood literally.”36

Hodge only addresses a Christology as it is presented in its essential features under other topics of his systematic theology. Even then he presents his Christology as the predicates which the Church gives to Christ, rather than the predicates which the Holy Bible gives to Christ. Further, when he does address what the Bible says about Christ he speaks of what the Old Testament states, what the Gospels state, or what the Doctrine of Paul states in the Pastoral Epistles. Although Hodge is a learned Princeton graduate with a very scholarly manner, and a very gifted communicator, his systematic theology is first and foremost laden with Presbyterian doctrine. He presents reformed theology well. Ergo there is little value added in the review of Hodge’s Christology.

Critique of Augustus Strong’s 1907 “Baptist” Christology

Much needs to be said about Christ. Saying much, in Greek, is pronounced “ology.” Augustus H. Strong, 1836-1921, was a Yale graduate who taught theology at Rochester Theological Seminary for forty years and became the first president of the Northern Baptist Convention. His systematic theology has a tremendous depth and scope but his motivation and purpose must cause grave concern. Strong sets out to mold a traditional reformed emphasis and an atheistic evolutionary critical scholarship into the distinctive Baptist conviction. In his Christology, this dangerous blend caused A. H. Strong to follow Charles Hodge’s lead and submerge his Christology as a by line of his Soteriology.

Even there, Strong begins his discourse on Christ with an emphasis making our Lord and Saviour little more than yet another decree of God. His opening paragraph states:

Since God did from eternity determine to redeem mankind, the history of the race from the time of the Fall to the coming of Christ was providentially arranged to prepare the way for his redemption. The preparation was two fold: I. Negative Preparation, in the history of the heathen world, and II. Positive Preparation, in the history of Israel.37

Strong’s dogmatic belief in reformed theology and their decrees of God, not only robs him of a passion in Christology, it prevents him from seeing God in all his glory. It overshadows the fact that God is capable of being a friend of man. Reformed, Presbyterian, and Calvinistic theology has God’s sovereignty, God’s decrees, and God’s unfolding of events exactly as he knew from eternity past, held in such an overbearing consideration, that they cannot see the whole truth of Scriptures. Baptists are first and foremost people of the Book. It is distressing that A. H. Strong sacrifices solid Baptist distinctives, on the altar of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Once indoctrinated with reformed theology’s notion that the catholic church is the new chosen people of God, elect in the foreknowledge of God, elect before the foundation of the world, little else can penetrate that dogma. It feeds their Replacement Theology and nurtures their Covenant Theology, and here, not even the centerpiece of all Scripture, Christ in Christology, can bump their dogma. Their decrees must remains in its preeminent position, even above Christ himself.

Augustus H. Strong is a worthy student of theology but when reading his extensive systematic theology one must always keep in mind his objective. Strong’s overriding purpose is to blend together reformed theology, Baptist distinctives, and the atheistic evolutionary process of creation. Abram was a friend of God forever.38 The second lesson that Abram learned about God, was God does not need blenders he desires separators. Strong is genius, but he is a blender.

Strong’s Christology is developed extensively.39 It is embedded in his Soteriology in Part IV of his second volume. It is unfortunate that early systematic theology works kept theology divorce from Bible doctrine. That divorce procedure is evident in Strong’s presentation of Christology. He begins by wedging it between the decrees of God, as if Christology were only another thing that God had decreed from eternity past. Concerning the person of Christ, Strong opens with the paragraph:

The redemption of mankind from sin was to be effected through a Mediator who should unite in himself to both the human nature and the divine, in order that he might reconcile God to man and man to God. To facilitate an understanding of the Scriptural Doctrine under consideration, it will be desirable at the outset to present a brief historical survey of views respecting the Person of Christ.40

The study of theology should be systematic. The sole source of theology should be the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God. So any systematic method should start with that source as its foundation. Augustus H. Strong does not. His opening paragraph on the person of Christ gives a very practical function of the Christ and then delves into a historical survey of the doctrine. His Bible is not open. The seventh and last of his referenced historical doctrines is, “The Orthodox doctrine promulgated at Chalcedon, 451.” With no other development from Scripture, and his Bible still closed, A. H. Strong uses this “Orthodox” position as the doctrine of the Person of Christ and goes on to expand that Roman Catholic Orthodox position, which expounds the two natures of Christ. In a development of theology, that is systematic error. A. H. Strong’s primary source of truth is not the Holy Bible, it is a Roman Catholic Synod!

The Council of Chacedon in 451 A.D., which A. H. Strong cites as his source of orthodox truth, convened 600 bishops under the auspicious of Pope Leo I41. It passed the “Definition of Faith” at the council’s fifth session. In the sixth session the Pope and Emperor concurred, and the formula that Christ is one in two natures was “promulgated” solemnly. (Notice here that the pope and Augustus Strong, use the exact same word!) This counsel was transferred from Nicaea to Chalcedon so as to be close to Constantinople, and the Emperor Marcian. This “Definition of Faith” has a revealing first paragraph as follows:

The sacred and great universal synod by God’s grace and by decree of your most religious and Christ-loving Emperors Valentinian Augustus and Marcian Augustus, assembled in Chalcedon, metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the shrines of the saintly and triumphant martyr Euphemia, issues the following decrees.42

The Roman Catholic Religion’s orthodoxy continues with more audacious claims of authority, and none of them are Scripture. It also continues with a detailed definition of their faith which is not referenced to any Scripture. They then “promulgate” the Roman Catholic Religion with twenty seven additional audacious disciplinary cannons. The first of which states “We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.”43

It is no small thing that A. H. Strong begins his Christology using Roman Catholic Cannons as his defining authority. He does add foot notes that point to some shortfalls of these Roman Catholic doctrines, and he does develop their good points with the Holy Bible. But systematic development of theology needs a solid starting point in the Bible doctrine not in Roman Catholic doctrine.

A. H. Strong writes a scholarly Christology which may be effectively used to augment this work with an in-depth perspective. His two systematic flaws are: 1) his motive to blend reformed theology and atheistic evolution into Baptist distinctives, and 2) his failure to use the inerrant, infallible Word of God as a sole source theology, or even as his primary source of theology. These two systematic flaws are so flagrant that Strong’s Systematic Theology can not be recommended as a complete work. However, his extensive and scholarly coverage of Christology provides a depth to ones studies that can be of great benefit.

Strong’s Christology does contain a thorough analysis of the two natures of Christ, their reality and integrity. After analyzing the humanity of Christ, and the deity of Christ, he carefully expounds on the union of the two natures in one person. (pg 673, 681, 683) He explores the Scriptures that give the proof of this union. He discusses the modern misrepresentations of this union, giving; A) the theory of incomplete humanity, to which he urges several objections, and B) the theory of gradual incarnation, found objectionable for his documented reasons.

A depth in Strong’s coverage is next found in his treatment of the real nature of this union (pg 691-700) With extensive foot notes he examines: (a) the great importance of this union, (b) the chief problems of this union (being only one personality with pre-incarnate, incarnate and post?incarnate considerations), (c) the reason for mystery in this inscrutable union, (d) the grounding of the possibility of the union in the original creation of man, (e) the possession of the two natures does not involve a double personality, (f) the effect upon the human nature, wherein the divine nature, with its power to be, to know, and to do as God, is imparted to the human nature without passing over into its essence, (g) the effect upon the divine nature wherein the human nature, with its ignorance, weakness, temptation, suffering, and death, is imparted on the divine nature without passing over into its essence, (h) the necessity of the union in order to constitute Jesus-Christ a proper mediator between God and man., (i) the union of humanity with deity in the person of Christ is indissoluble and eternal, and, (j) the infinite and the finite are no longer mutually exclusive.

Considering this kind of depth in the miracle of the incarnation is what extends a Bile doctrine of Christology into a systematic theology of Christology. A. H. Strong is a master at corralling all the considerations for an ‘ology’, on a subject. When guarding against his two systematic errors, it is always a joy to explore the great depth in his discourse.

Critique of Thiessen’s 1949 “Baptist” Christology

Henry Clarence Thiessen (19__-1947) taught his “Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology” which were published in 1949. Little is written about Thiessen’s background. John MacArthur’s Master’s College history annals records him as the fourth president of the Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary. It was after Thiessen’s death in 1947 that that seminary matriculated into the neo-evangelical Master’s College under John MacArthur, but the seeds of that matriculation are evident in Thiessen’s lectures.

Three systematic errors of Thiessen must be held in background while critiquing his Christology. First, he did not use the Holy Bible as his sole or even primary source of theology. In fact Thiessen even denies the existence of an inspired, inerrant, infallible Holy Bible. He solidifies his errant doctrine thus: “Inspiration is affirmed only of the autographs of the Scriptures, not of any of the versions, whether ancient or modern, nor any of the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts in existence, nor of any critical texts known. All these are either known to be faulty in some particulars, or are not certainly known to be free from all error.”44

Thiessen continues in this misguided ruse to express his faith in ecumenical critics of the bible who may eventually restore some approximate similitude of the very words which God failed to preserve for our present generation. Like all neo-evangelicals Thiessen makes a pretense that although God failed to accurately preserve his very words “textual critics tell us that the number of words that are still in doubt, whether in the Old Testament or in the New, is very small, and that not doctrine is affected by this situation.”45

Every lecture of Henry Clarence Thiessen is effected by his steadfast belief in this “situation.” He does not use the Holy Scriptures as his sole source or even his primary source of theology. By his own testimony the Bible he holds in his hands ins not the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. Everything in his 574 pages of published Systematic Theology must be weighed because of this systematic shortfall of Dr. Thiessen.

A reformed theologian is always a reformed Augustinian theologian. Augustinian’s philosophy, which constructed the Roman Catholic Church, is what the reformers were reforming, and Thiessen was more reformer than Baptist. Roman Catholic Saint Augustine framed the doctrine that God has decreed and knows for certain everything that ever is to happen in the universe. That is Augustinian doctrine, not Bible doctrine. Any theologian who makes the concerted effort of rationalizing Roman Catholic Saint Augustine’s doctrine of decrees into some rendition of a Bible doctrine is a reformer of theology and thus properly labeled a defender of reformed theology.

In force fitting Augustinian doctrine into his theology Thiessen makes this audacious declaration:

“Some hold that prayer can have no real effect upon God, since he has already decreed just what He will do in every instance. But that is an extreme position. ‘Ye have not, because ye ask not’ (Jas. 4:2) must not be left out of account. The facts seem to be this, that God does some things only in answer to prayer; He does some other things without one’s praying; and He does some things contrary to the prayers made. In His foreknowledge, again, He has taken all these things into account, and in His providence He works them out in accordance with His own purpose and plan. If we do not pray for the things that we might get by prayer, we do not get them. If He wants some things done for which no one prays, He will do them without anyone’s praying. If we pray for things contrary to His will, He refuses to grant them. Thus there is perfect harmony between the foreknowledge, decrees, and providence of God.”46

There is no harmony between the Augustinian doctrine of decrees and the revelation of God in his Holy Word. No matter how much verbiage a theologian uses to rationalize the two revelations, Augustine’s doctrines do not fit into God’s doctrines. Those who repeatedly try to reconcile Augustinian doctrines into God’s Word are reformed theologians attempting to reform what should have been discarded long ago.

Thiessen’s third systematic flaw is directly connected to the first two, but is it so illuminating that is included here as a separate entity. The inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God is clear and emphatic that man is made in the image and likeness of God, that God is a triune being, and that man is a trichotomy, consisting of body, soul, and spirit. Henry Clarence Thiessen declares that man is only material and immaterial, a dichotomy, just like the ancient Greek philosophers said. The Roman Catholic Church adopted this dichotomy of man as their doctrine. In order to hold on to this Roman Catholic dogma, Dr. Thiessen not only rejects the Scriptures that reference body, soul, and spirit as separate entities47, he attributes 1Thes 5:2348 as nothing more than what Paul “seems to think.”49 Dr. Thiessen has already denied the inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the bible he holds in his hands, he defends Roman Catholic and Reformed Roman Catholic doctrines of decrees, and now, in defense of a Roman Catholic dogma he calls Holy Scripture just a matter of Paul’s opinion. These three systematic flaws in Dr. Thiessen’s lectures make the work, on a whole, very suspect and not reliable for use as a systematic theology. His Christology suffers with these flaws.

Thiessen’s Christology

Like Baptist theologian, A. H. Strong before him, Baptist theologian Thiessen starts his Christology with a historical survey of the many views about the person of Christ. Likewise, the orthodox view he settles on hangs on the Roman Catholic Chalcedon Cannon of 451, and not on Holy Scripture.

Thiessen speaks of the Pre-Incarnate Christ but only to bolster his support of the Reformed position on election. Dr. Chafer, in contrast, presents a whole informative section on the pre-incarnate Christ. Thiessen, lamely concludes his section: “We know very little of Christ’s work during this period, only that the Father through Him framed the ages (Heb 1:2, A.S.V.50 marg.) and that He chose the believers in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).51

When a theologian is entangled in the error of reformed theology wherein God decrees who gets saved and who burns in hell, that error permeates every area of his theology. Here it even mars Thiessen’s discourse on Christology.

Thiessen’s Little Value Added

Thiessen’s Lectures in Systematic Theology adds nothing to a discourse on Christology. His commentary rehearses A. H. Strong’s discourse but does not attain the depth of Strong. His rejection and denial of God’s preservation of inerrancy, infallibility, and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures make his writings a liability more than an asset. One need not read more of Thiessen’s lectures on Christology.

Critique of Chafer’s 1948 Christology

Lewis Sperry Chafer, who waxed so incomprehensible in volume four and could not communicate the truth of “So Great Salvation” in volume three, waxes more eloquent than all predecessors of systematic theologies when expressing his Christology. It is an astounding transformation, likely lectured and written prior to his venture into a systematic theology effort. This volume is worth its price despite all the other volumes of his incorrigible effort.

Make no mistake, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer started as a fundamentalist. The song leader under C.I. Scofield became a gifted teacher for the newly formed World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (WCFA) and in 1924 his Evangelical Theological College became Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, a fundamental seminary.52 Evangelicals became Neoevangelicals when they scoffed at the Fundamental Separatist position and refused the Fundamentalist’s militant attitude. Dr. Chafer never scoffed, but he never separated either. Dr. Chafer never mocked militantism, but he never became one, and he never camped with any.

Dr. Chafer’s Ecclesiology and his pandering to 70+ denominations, endangers his Christology. His Catholic Church with Denominational Divides is a poisonous root which renders his whole whole Systematic Theology dangerously suspect. The rationalizations that he imagines in his work, illustrate the ever present danger of mixing with apostasy, rather than separating from it. Such is the plight of the neoevangelical who purposefully rejected the staunch separatist position of the early Fundamentalist. When trying to appease 70+ denominations, Chafer is “conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.” (Isa 59:13b-14)

Some would contend that Lewis Sperry Chafer was not neoevangelical leaning, and Dallas Theological Seminary was indeed Fundamental. One can let George W. Dollar, Professor of Church History at Bob Jones University answer for that. In his 1973 book “A History of Fundamentalism in America”, he states, “Alumni of Dallas Seminary would raise the old claim that all is sound and Fundamental there, although such known sympathizers with New Evangelicalism as H.G. Hendricks, H.W. Robinson, G.W. Peters, and R.H. Seume serve on the faculty… Each year an array of speakers who travel with New Evangelicals mold the mind of students to a middle-of-the-road position. These speakers have included R.A. Cook, Arnold T. Olsen, H.T. Armerding, Clark Pinnock, F.A. Schaeffer, Carl Henry, Clyde Taylor, and Ted Engstrom.”53 Dr. Dollar also clarifies succinctly, “That the new evangelical strategy must be one of infiltration and not separation. In addition, he (New Evangelical Harold Ockenga, President of Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California54) named the new evangelical forces as the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Fuller Seminar, Billy Graham, and Christianity Today… In 1960 Ockenga wrote: ‘my personal concern as the originator of the New Evangelicalism has been to stir the interest of Evangelical Christianity in meeting the societal problems through content of Biblical Christianity. This is the tradition of Calvin, Luther, and Knox.’ “55 Dollar goes on to clarify that Charles J. Woodbridge, a Fuller Seminary faculty member who left in protest to Ockenga’s new direction, called this new and dangerous direction, “a theological and moral compromise of the deadliest sort. Such a threat is it that the sharpest language must be used to expose its threat and insidious danger… Neo Evangelicalism advocates toleration of error. It it following the downward path of accommodation to error, cooperation with error contamination by error, and ultimate capitulation to error.”56

It is reiterated here that Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary in 1924, does not use the sharpest language and does not expose the error of the 70+ denomination that he is pandering to. He is the epitome of neoevangelicalism as herein defined. His Christology, however, has some saving merit.

Chafer’s introduction to Christology brings out a notable difference between a Bible doctrine book and a theology book. The “ology” in theology emphasizes a discourse which meanders down every conceivable avenue of consideration for a topic. While a Bible doctrine must detail every straight and narrow consideration of what God has revealed, a thorough “ology” must do that, plus introduce and explore some of the major broad paths and wide gates of mans creation. It should thereby open some vistas which may not have been considered by the student of doctrine being ever vigil to show how the wide paths do lead to destruction. Chafer’s Christology pursues this mind broadening purpose.

In previous volumes Chafer has missed this higher calling of a systematic theology. Dr. Chafer states his purpose to “collect and systematically arrange, compare, exhibit and defend all facts concerning God and his works from any and every source.”57 In making such a brash definition Chafer unwittingly puts philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, and Roman Catholics such as Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, and Protestants who persecuted Baptist, men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, on equal grounds with Holy Scripture. In writing his eight volumes on Systematic Theology he repeatedly makes this blunder. Systematically such an approach is theological malpractice. His lack of organizing thoughts and direction is serious, but his total miss-organizing the “system” in systematic, coupled with his strong reliance on extra Biblical sources make his systematic theology inexcusable. His Christology, however, is commendable.

This author has found no Systematic Theologies which carefully follow the aforementioned methodology. They each, more or less, follow Dr. Chafer’s recipe and end up parked on some wide road, defending mans twisted ideas about eternal decrees of God, the election of individual souls, the Catholicness of a Church, an allegorical end time, or the replacement of God’s chosen Israel with their Catholic Church. For that reason systematic theology has often been a dangerous venture for the impressionable student. For the student well grounded in Bible Doctrine, however, a careful venture into the mind broadening arena of mans ideology is still a worthwhile venture. Dr. Chafer’s Christology documented in his fifth volume seems to be such a worthwhile excursion.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer’s opening chapter on the pre-incarnate Christ is the most comprehensive of all systematic theologies this author reviewed. Since his introduction to this chapter eloquently introduces his whole subject it is recited below:

Dr Chafer’s Introduction to The Pre-incarnate Christ

Christology (Cristos, logoV), to which this entire volume is devoted, is the doctrine respecting the Lord Jesus Christ. In attempting to write on His adorable Person and His incomprehensible achievements – which achievements when completed will have perfected redemption, exercised to infinite satisfaction the divine attribute of grace, manifested the invisible God to His creatures, and subdued a rebellious universe in which sin has been permitted to demonstrate its exceeding sinfulness – the limitation of a finite mind which is weakened by a faulty perception are all to apparent. Samuel Medley expressed this sense of restriction when he sang:

“O could I speak the matchless worth,

O could I sound the glories forth

Which in my Saviour shine,

I’d soar, and touch the heavenly strings,

And vie with Gabriel while he sings

In notes almost Divine.”

Thus, again, the same inability is felt and expressed by Charles Wesley:

“O for a thousand tongues to sing,

My great Redeemer’s praise;

The glories of my God and king,

The triumphs of His grace.”

Of this incomparable One it is said that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God”; yet such an One, who thus occupied the highest place of Deity in company with the Father and the Spirit, “Was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” He who is from everlasting to everlasting was born of a woman and died on a cross. He who according to the mind of the Spirit is Wonderful, was spit upon by men. He who, by the same mind, is Counselor is rejected of men. He who is The might God is crucified in abject weakness. He who is The everlasting Father, is a Son who learned obedience by the things which He suffered. He who is the Prince of Peace must Himself tread the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, for the “day of vengeance” must yet be in His heart and He must yet break the nations with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces as a potter’s vessel. He who said, “I am among you as he that serveth,” also said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,: He who is the chaste, wooing Lover of the Canticles is the King of glory who is might in battle. He who created all things occupied an infant’s cradle. He who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners was made to be sin in behalf of others. He who was the Bread of Life was Himself hungry. He who was the giver of the supernatural Water of Life was Himself thirsty. He who was God’s Gift of Life to a lost world was Himself dead. He who was dead is alive for evermore.58

Chafer also broadens the general outline of Christology to pursue a sevenfold division. He defends the need for such an expanded outline as follows:

Dr Chafer’s seven fold divisions of Christology

The larger and usual division of Christology is twofold – Christ’s Person and His work. The work of Christ, being generally restricted to the redemption He has achieved, does not include other essential features- his life on earth, His teachings, His manifestation of divine attributes, His offices as Prophet, Priest, and King, or His relationships to angelic spheres. It is with this larger consideration of Christology in view that a sevenfold division of this extended theme will be pursued: (1) the pre-incarnate Christ (Chap I), (2) Christ incarnate (chaps. II-VIII), (3) the sufferings and death of Christ incarnate (chap. IX), (4) the resurrection of Christ incarnate (chap. X), (5) the ascension and session of Christ incarnate (chap. XI), (6) the second advent and kingdom of Christ incarnate (chaps. XII-XIII), and (7) the eternal kingdom of Christ incarnate (chap. XIV).59

Despite Chafer’s later complication of the genuine purpose of a theologian, he carefully defines it properly in this introduction. Chafer’s Christology, likely written for lecture, rather than for his more inclusive, less direct systematic theology, follows this formula well, as can be seen in his outline for teaching the preiincarnate Christ:

Dr. Chafer’s Purpose in defining

To the theologian whose task is to discover, arrange, and defend the truth which God has spoken, the assignment relative to the absolute Deity of Christ is simple indeed. The joining of the doctrine of Christ’s humility to the doctrine of His Deity does create a problem which demand the most exact and careful consideration; but the doctrine respecting Christ’s Deity when standing alone is without complications.

The general division of the divine revelation regarding Christ’s preexistence may be comprehended under a sevenfold arrangement of truth: (1) Christ is God, hence His preexistence; (2) Christ is the Creator, hence His preexistence; (3) Christ is party to the before time covenant, hence His preexistence; (4) the Old Testament anticipation of Messiah which Christ answered is that of Jehovah God, hence His preexisted; (5) the Old Testament angel of Jehovah is Christ, hence His preexisted; (6) indirect Biblical assertions declare Christ to have preexisted; and (7) direct Biblical assertions declare Christ to have preexisted.60

In presenting the deity of Christ Dr. Chafer waxes the more eloquent. He uses the Westminster Confession’s extensive delineation of God and follows that with this profound paragraph:

It is probable that no more comprehensive declaration respecting God has been framed than this; yet it is precisely this infinity of Being which Scriptures predicate of Christ. There is nothing which is said to be true of God which is not said to be true of Christ and to the same degree of infinite perfection. It is true that He took upon Himself the human form and that is so doing important problems arise regarding the theanthropic Person which He became. These problems have been considered under Theology Proper and will yet be resumed later when contemplating the incarnation and earth-life of the Savior. The fundamental issue is that Christ is God. This has also been proven earlier earlier and is now to be demonstrated again. The student is enjoined not to pass over these proofs without having attained to a profound conviction of the Deity of Christ. If he wavers respecting this foundation truth, he should re-canvass every argument and attempt no forward step until this credence is definitely acquired, for apart from this conviction no true progress will be made. If, on the other hand, such a conviction is not gained, the student is fundamentally wrong and can, under such abnormal unbelief and want of amenableness to the Scriptures, serve no worthy purpose as an exponent of the Sacred Text. The Lord has Himself declared that “all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father” (John 5:23). The Son is dishonored when assigned a lower place than that of the Father. Such dishonor to the Son is displeasing to the Father, and a ministry is vain indeed which, though sincere, advances under the displeasure of God. The Deity of the Father is all but universally admitted, so also the Deity of the Spirit; but the Deity of the Son is challenged. Such a doubt would not have arisen had the Son not become incarnate. It is His entrance into the human sphere that has provided a field for unbelief. Thus it is required the more that the exact testimony of the Word of God should be given in its full authority. As would exist through misunderstanding of the theanthropic Person, the strongest evidence is supplied concerning the Deity of Christ. The Scriptures are as clear and conclusive in their expressions respecting the Deity of Christ as they are respecting His humanity. His humanity is revealed by the natural method of ascribing to Him human titles, human attributes, human actions, and human relationships. Similarly, His Deity is disclosed in the same manner by ascribing to Christ divine, divine attributes, divine actions, and divine relationships.61

One area where Chafer’s description of the divine names applied to Christ exceeds Cambron’s doctrine description is in the name of Logos. Since Logos is also the root stem of the “ology” in theology that whole thesis included here:

1. The Divine Names. The names found in the Bible – especially those applied to divine Persons – are far more than empty titles. They define as well as indicate the Person to whom they belong. The name Jesus is His human designation, but it also embodies the whole redemptive purpose of His incarnation (cf. Matt. 1:21). Similar titles such as “The Son of man, The son of Mary, “The son of Abraham,” “The son of David,” assert His human lineage and relationships. In like manner the designations “Word,” or Logos, “God,” “Lord,” “The might God,” “The everlasting Father,” “Immanuel,” “Son of God,” connote His Deity. Among these divine names, some are final in their implications.

a. DESIGNATIONS OF ETERNAL RELATIONSHIP: Logos (LogoV). As language expresses thought, so Christ is the Expression, the Revealer, the Manifester of God. The term Logos – used only by the Apostle John as a name of the Second Person – indicates the eternal character of Christ. As Logos He was in the beginning, He was with God, and He was God (John 1:1). He likewise became flesh (John 1:14) and thus is – according to divine functions – the manifestation of God to man (cf. John 1:18). In His manifestation, all that may be disclosed relative to the Person of God was not only resident in Christ – “In him dwelleth all the fullness [plarwma] of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9) – but all the competency of God – knowledge-surpassing, indeed – was resident in Him. No stronger declaration of the Deity of Christ can be made than is indicated by the cognomen Logos. Without the use of this specific title the Apostle Paul also has written both in Colossians and in Hebrews of the same preexistence of Christ; and concerning the origin of this title and the fact that the Apostle John employs it without explanation – suggesting a general understanding of its meaning – collateral reading may be pursued (cf. Dean Alford, M.R. Vincent, and in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.w., Alexander).

Bishop Lightfoot, in his commentary on Colossians, chapter 1, verse 15 ff., has declared the meaning of Logos and its use in the Sacred Text. He Writes:

As the idea of the Logos underlies the whole of this passage, though the term itself does not appear, a few words explanatory of this term will be necessary by way of preface. The word Logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestatio’ of the Unseen God, the Absolute Being, in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As his reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation Whether the logos was conceived merely as the divine energy personified, or whether the conception took a more concrete form, I need not stop now to inquire; but I hope to give a fuller account of the matter in a later volume. It is sufficient for the understanding of what follows to say that Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1_ “The Word is a Divine Person, ” o logoV hn proV ton qeon kai qeos hn o logoV; and (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ,” o logos sarx egeneto. It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logoV; and that therefore their use in Alexandrian writers, such as Philo, cannot be taken to define, though it may be brought to illustrate, their meaning in St. Paul and St. John. With these cautions the Alexandrian phraseolgy, as providential preparation for the teaching of the Gospel, will afford important aid in the understanding of the Apostolic writing. – 8th edition., pp. 141-14262

The designation of Christ which capture his eternal relationship is further enhanced by his title of “First Begotten” (poqtotokoV). This is explained by Chafer using John F. Walvoord’s outline as follows:

First Begotten” (poqtotokoV). This title – sometimes translated First-Born – indicates that Christ is First-Born, the elder in relation to all creation; not the first created thing, but the antecedent to all things as well as the cause of them (cf. Col. 1:16). Of this title Dr. John F. Walvoord writes, “This term is used twice in the New Testament without referring to Christ. (Heb. 11:28; 12:23), and seven times as His title. An examination of these references will reveal a threefold use: (a) Before all creation (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15). As the ‘firstborn of every creature’ (Col. 1:15), the title is obviously used of Christ as existing before all creation, hence, eternally self-existent. (b) Firstborn of Mary (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7; Heb 1:6). Here the reference is plainly to the fact that Christ was the first child born to Mary, a usage in contrast to that speaking of His eternal sonship. The term is used, then, of His pre-incarnate Person, and also of His incarnate Person. (c) Firstborn by Resurrection (Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5). The meaning here is that Christ is the first to be raised from the dead in resurrection life, hence, ‘the firstborn form the dead’ (Col. 1:18). In relation to the eternity of Christ, this title is another proof that Christ is the self-existent, uncreated God spoke of in Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; and that in view of His eternal Person, He also has the honor of being the first to be raised from the dead in resurrection life” (Outline of Christology, unpublished ms., pp. 5-6).

A consideration of thee designations cannot but impress the devout mind with the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ existed as God from all eternity, and that He will so exist throughout eternity to come.63

Dr. Chafer puts more emphasis on types than do other theologians. In his introduction toe the doctrine of Christ incarnate, under the heading, the major types of Christ, he quotes a whole section of Dr. Walvoord’s unpublished notes64. In his section on the sufferings and death of Christ incarnate Dr. Chafer again includes a list of the major types of Christ.65 These two lists are combined and inserted into this text and should be studied with care. Quoting, then, Dr. Walvoord’s notes on types of Christ:

by John F. Walvoord

Taken from, Browse Articles, Series in Christology.(copied from

Typical Persons

Aaron. The Scriptures, particularly Hebrews, give a firm basis for believing that Aaron is a true type of Christ. As a priest, Aaron was appointed to his sacred office (Heb 5:4) as was Christ to His priesthood (Heb 5:5-6). Aaron was appointed to minister in the earthly sphere as Christ was appointed to the heavenly (Heb 8:1-5). Aaron administered the old Mosaic covenant while Christ ministered the new covenant (Heb 8:6). Aaron was appointed to offer sacrifices daily while Christ offered Himself once for all (Heb 7:27). The Aaronic type reveals Christ in His true humanity and in His priestly work. As Aaron remained a part of Israel even as he served as mediator, so Christ remains genuinely human, on earth knowing weakness, certain limitations, suffering, and struggle, as did Aaron, and even in heaven continues in His true humanity. While Hebrews brings out the contrasts between Aaron and Christ, there is obviously a typical foreshadowing of Christ in the Aaronic priesthood in the person of Aaron. The intercession of Aaron is a picture of the intercession of Christ.

Abel. In this type we have Christ presented as the true Shepherd who made an acceptable bloody sacrifice to God in obedience to the command of God. As Abel was slain by Cain, representing the world, so Christ was slain. As Abel’s offering was accepted by God, so Christ in His offering is accepted. The fact that Abel’s offering was accepted because offered by faith (Heb 11:4) does not take away its essential character. It was because Abel believed that revelation concerning sacrifices that he offered his lamb in contrast to Cain’s bloodless offering. He is therefore a type of Christ in life as Shepherd, in his offering, and in his death.

Adam. One of the important types recognized by Scripture is that of Adam. Adam is the head of the old creation as Christ is the head of the new creation. This is plainly inferred in Romans 5:14, “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (R.S.V.). Both Adam and Christ entered the world through a special act of God. Both entered the world sinless; both acted on behalf of those whom God considered in them representatively. The sin of Adam is contrasted to the act of obedience of Christ. The Scripture discussion of the subject leaves no room for doubt on the main elements of this type (Rom 5:12-21). The very terms first Adam and last Adam and similar expressions are applied respectively to Adam and Christ (1 Cor 15:45-47). Adam as the husband of Eve is also a type as the bridegroom in relation to the church as the bride.

Benjamin. In the contrast of the two names of Benjamin there was foreshadowed the two aspects of the Person of Christ—His sufferings and the glory to follow. With her dying breath, Rachel named her new-born son, Ben-oni, meaning, son of sorrow. Jacob called him, however, Benjamin, meaning, son of my right hand. As Ben-oni, Christ was the son of sorrow to his mother (Luke 2:35) and the one who knew suffering as the man of sorrows and death. As Benjamin, Christ is “the son of my right hand” to God the Father, victorious in the battle with sin as Benjamin was victorious as the warrior tribe. While the type is without express New Testament authority, it seems a clear prophetic picture of Christ.

David. The historic and prophetic connection between David and Christ is commonly recognized, but the typical significance of David is often overlooked. David is a type of Christ as the one who is first shepherd, then king. David experienced the call of God, rejection by his brethren, was in constant danger of his life because he was anointed king, and during the years of his rejection took a Gentile wife, typical of the church. Later he ruled over Israel in complete power and sovereignty. It is not difficult to see the typical significance of these events, as well as many minor incidents in his life as foreshadowings of Christ.

Isaac. In the New Testament Isaac is used as a type of the church, which is composed of the spiritual children of Abraham (Gal 4:28) and as a type of the new nature which is born of the Spirit in contrast to the old nature typified by Ishmael (Gal 4:29). It is interesting to note that Isaac is taken to be a type of two distinct things in two successive verses of the New Testament.

More prominent in the person of Isaac are typical truths relating to Christ which are not mentioned in the New Testament. Isaac was a type of Christ in many particulars. The births of Isaac and of Christ were genuinely miraculous. Both are involved in the promised deliverance first announced to Eve. Their births were anticipated and involved in the promises of God long before fulfillment. Both are the beloved of their fathers and both are declared to be only-begotten (John 3:16; Heb 11:17) although Ishmael was born before Isaac and all believers in Christ call God their Father. In Genesis twenty-two in the sacrifice of Isaac on Moriah we have a foreshadowing of the death of Christ which is too clear a picture to gainsay. In the type, Isaac is saved at the last moment and a substitute is provided. In the antitype, just as truly offered by the Father, there could be no substitute. Truly, Isaac lived because Christ died. In the beautiful story of Genesis twenty-four the securing of the bride for Isaac is again a prophetic picture, in type, of the Holy Spirit securing a bride for Christ, and complete in all its details.[6] Cf. the beautiful exposition of this by George E. Guille, Isaac and Rebekah (Chicago: The Bible Institute Colportage Assn., 1914), 31 pp. The entire life of Isaac affords a more complete typical picture of the Person and work of Christ than any previous character in Scripture.[7] For a simple summary of Isaac as a type of Christ cf. Scofield Reference Bible, notes, pp. 31, 33, 34.

Joseph. While the New Testament nowhere authorizes the interpretation that Joseph is a type of Christ, the numerous factors of his life which point to this conclusion indicate in fact that Joseph is the most complete type of Christ in the Old Testament. Both Joseph and Christ were born by special intervention of God (Gen 30:22-24; Luke 1:35). Both were objects of special love by their fathers (Gen 37:3; Matt 3:17; John 3:35); both were hated by brethren (Gen 37:4; John 15:24-25); both were rejected as rulers over their brethren (Gen 37:8; Matt 21:37-39; John 15:24-25); both were robbed of their robes (Gen 37:23; Matt 27:35); both were conspired against and placed in the pit of death (Gen 37:18, 24; Matt 26:3-4; 27:35-37 ); both were sold for silver (Gen 37:28; Matt 26:14-15); both became servants (Gen 39:4; Phil 2:7); both were condemned though innocent (Gen 39:11-20; Isa 53:9; Matt 27:19, 24). As Joseph is a type of Christ in humiliation, so is he also in exaltation. Both were raised from humiliation to glory by the power of God. Even Pharoah saw in Joseph one in whom was the Spirit of God (Gen 41:38), and Christ is manifested in resurrection power as the very Son of God. Both during the time of exaltation but continued rejection by brethren take a Gentile bride and were a blessing to Gentiles (Gen 41:1-45; Acts 15:14; Rom 11:11-12; Eph 5:25-32). After the time of Gentile blessing begins to wane, both were received finally by their brethren and recognized as a savior and deliverer (Gen 45:1-15; Rom 11:1-26). Both exalt their brethren to places of honor and safety (Gen 45:16-18; Isa 65:17-25). It is an unmistakable evidence of the providence of God that Joseph should have been guided through such unusual experiences which were not only tokens of God’s care over him but profound truths typical of the Person and work of Christ.

Joshua. Attention is directed to Joshua first on account of his name, which means, Jehovah saves. It is the Old Testament equivalent of the Greek name Jesus. As a type of Christ, Joshua is significant first because he is the successor of Moses just as Christ succeeded Moses and the law (John 1:17; Rom 8:2-4; Heb 7:18-19; Gal 3:23-25). Joshua like Christ won a victory where Moses had failed (Rom 8:3-4). In the time of conflict and defeat both Joshua and Christ interceded for their own (Josh 7:5-9; Luke 22:32; 1 John 2:1). The portions of Israel were allotted by Joshua even as Christ gives gifts and rewards to His own (Josh 13ff). While not a prominent type of Christ, it adds its own truth to the whole.

Kinsman-Redeemer. Throughout the Old Testament there is constant reference to the גאל or kinsman-redeemer. It is evident that these instances are typical foreshadowings of Christ as our Redeemer. The general law of redemption in the Old Testament is clear. The redeemer had to be a kinsman, one related to the person or inheritance to be redeemed (Lev 25:48-49; Ruth 3:12-13; Heb 2:14-15). Christ fulfilled this by becoming man and by having the sins of the world imputed to Him. The Old Testament redeemer had to be able to redeem even as Christ in the New Testament (Ruth 4:4-6; John 10:11, 18; 1 Pet 1:18). The redemption is accomplished by the payment of the price (Lev 25:27; Rom 3:24-26; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Gal 3:13). Latent in the entire Old Testament order of redemption is the prophetic picture of Christ who would come to redeem through the sacrifice of Himself. The consummation of His redemption yet awaits the saints both in earth and in heaven.

Melchizedek. The brief account given of the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek in Genesis fourteen provides the background for this type of Christ. In the account Melchizedek as king of Salem brings forth bread and wine as the priest of the most high God and blesses Abram after his return from the conquest of the kings. The Scriptures record that Abram gave to Melchizedek tithes of all. Later in Psalm 110:4, it is predicted that Christ should be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. These two passages are the occasion for the discussion in Hebrews 5-7 in which Christ is declared a priest according to the prophecy of the Psalm. Combining the various elements presented in these passages, it becomes clear upon Scriptural warrant that Melchizedek is a type of Christ. His name is significant. As Dr. Isaac Brubacher has written: “The name Melchisedek is a composite word derived from two Hebrew words, מלכ meaning, king; and צדיק meaning, righteous. The two words combined with יוד of possession form מלכי־צדק which means, my king is righteous. The narrative further tells us that he was king of Salem. The word Salem is derived from the Hebrew word שׁלם which means, peace.”[8] Old Testament Types of Christ (unpublished dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1938), p. 85. Hence in Melchizedek we have a type of Christ as the righteous King-Priest, who is king of Salem—meaning, king of peace. As one who brings forth bread and wine some have suggested that the type refers particularly to the resurrected Christ. In the New Testament Melchizedek is interpreted as proving the eternity of the priesthood of Christ and its superiority to the Levitical priesthood, based on the argument that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham his forefather (cf. Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20 ; 7:17, 21 ).

Moses. As one of the great prophets and leaders of the Old Testament, it is not surprising that Moses should also be a type of Christ. Moses predicted to the children of Israel on the basis of the revelation given to him by Jehovah that a prophet would come like unto himself to whom they should give ear (Deut 18:15-19). The typology of Moses is, however, based primarily on the evident significance of events in his life foreshadowing the coming of Christ. Like Christ, Moses as a child was in danger of death, being born in a period during which Israel was under oppression. By sovereign choice of God, both were chosen to be saviors and deliverers (Exod 3:7-10; Acts 7:25). Both are rejected by their brethren (Exod 2:11-15; John 1:11; Acts 7:23-28; 18:5-6 ). Both during the period of rejection minister to Gentiles and secure a Gentile bride, typical of the church (Exod 2:16; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-32). Moses after the period of separation is concluded returned to deliver Israel even as Christ is predicted to return to deliver Israel. Both are received by Israel at their second comings (Exod 4:19-31; Rom 11:24-26; Acts 15:14-17). Like Christ Moses is prophet (Num 34:1, 2; John 12:29; Matt 13:57; 21:11 ; Acts 3:22-23); priest as advocate (Exod 32:31-35; 1 John 2:1-2) and intercessor (Exod 17:1-6; Heb 7:25); and king or ruler (Deut 33:4, 5; John 1:49). Like Christ, Moses had to die before the children of Israel could enter the land, typical of a Christian’s possessions. As in the lives of Isaac and Joseph, we find in Moses an outstanding illustration of typical truth valuable for its foreshadowing of the life and ministry of Christ.

Nazarite. While Christ Himself was not a Nazarite in the strict sense of the term, He nevertheless fulfilled the spiritual significance of the Old Testament regulations governing Nazarites. A Nazarite was required, in the commandment recorded in Numbers six , to abstain from wine and unclean food, not to cut the hair or beard, and not to touch dead bodies. The underlying thought was total separation to God and holy use. Abstention from wine seems to represent abstaining from natural joys in order to have spiritual joy (Ps 97:12; Hab 3:18; Phil 3:1, 3; 4:4 ). Long hair identified the Nazarite but was to the world a token of reproach (1 Cor 11:14), and symbolizes willingness to suffer because of identification with the Lord. Abstention from unclean and dead things was necessary to be holy to the Lord. Christ beautifully fulfills this type in every spiritual sense (Heb 7:26).

Taken as a whole the typology of persons in the Old Testament manifests that it is Christ-centered, having its main purpose in foreshadowing the Person and work of Christ. It is a rich field for devotional study and one that unfortunately has been greatly neglected.

Typical Events

The field of typical events is too inclusive to be embraced in a brief study, but as a complement to other aspects of Christological typology, illustrations can at least be drawn from the abundance of incidents in the Old Testament. The major typical events from the fall of Adam to the entrance of Israel into the land will be considered.

Clothing of Adam and Eve. In the midst of the ruin of sin and the judgment which followed the fall of Adam and Eve, the Scriptures record a gracious thing which God did for fallen humanity. In Genesis 3:21 (A.R.V.66) it is written: “And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.” It was, of course, a supply of a physical need for clothing which God recognized, but it seems evident that the meaning is deeper than this. God was representing to them the fact that He would supply that which would cover the nakedness of sin and provide a righteous covering through the death of Christ, a thought which is given frequent utterance in Scripture (Job 29:14; Ps 132:9; Isa 61:10; 64:6 ; Rom 3:22; Rev 19:8).

Preservation in the Ark. Another dramatic event in the early history of the race is the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark. The ark itself is a significant type, to be considered as a typical thing, but the event of preservation is freighted with meaning. In the midst of almost universal judgment, God singled out the righteous and preserved them. It represents in general God’s deliverance of the righteous from judgment. In particular it foreshadows the future preservation of the saints in the period of great tribulation before the second coming of Christ. It may also be applied to the true church which will be caught up to be with Christ before this final period begins and will return to the earth after the judgment is completed. The principle of deliverance of the righteous is referred to by Peter in his warnings of judgment on the wicked. God “saved Noah” while “bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (2 Pet 2:5). God also “delivered just Lot” from Sodom (2 Pet 2:7), though the city was destroyed. Peter concludes: “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Pet 2:9). Paul expresses the same confidence, even though like Peter he was facing imminent martyrdom (2 Tim 4:18). The principle is illustrated in the ark that God preserves His own through His judgments upon the wicked. While it is in the large a work of the Trinity, it is clear that it is based upon the work of Christ in His sacrifice, intercession, and second coming.

Deliverance from Egypt. The entire picture of Israel being delivered out of Egypt and brought through the wilderness experiences into the promised land is a major field of typology and one which illustrates the work of Christ in salvation. The major elements of the deliverance, the plagues, the institution of the Passover, and the salvation of Israel at the Red Sea all speak of Christ. The plagues represent the judgment upon the wicked world and in type speak of the future deliverance of Israel in the great tribulation. The Passover is an eloquent type of the death of Christ as the believer’s only place of safety from the judgment and death which overtakes the world. At the Red Sea Israel is delivered through the same waters which destroyed the Egyptians, a type of the death of Christ in its power to deliver from the world. The wilderness experiences with the manna from heaven (Exod 16:4), speaking of Christ as the bread of life, the water out of the rock (Exod 17:6), speaking of Christ smitten that we might have life, and many of the other incidents speak of the work of Christ for His own.

Entrance into the Land. The crossing of the Jordan River and the subsequent conquest of Canaan has always been recognized as typical truth, though the interpretations have often been confused. Canaan is not a type of heaven, but is instead the believer’s present sphere of conflict and possession in Christ. It is obtained by crossing the Jordan with its piled up waters which speak of the death of Christ as the means for victory and enjoyment of our possessions in Christ. The Angel of Jehovah, which is Christ, went before the Israelites and it was through His power that they achieved the conquest. The experiences of Joshua have their parallel in Ephesians in the New Testament. We possess our possessions by faith in Christ, by crucifixion with Christ, and by the mighty power of God.\

Typical Things

It is an essential postulate of theism that creation reveals the Creator. In fact, the material world was evidently designed by God to illustrate spiritual things. Such elements as life and death, light and dark, the sun, moon, and stars—in a word both the macroscopic and the microscopic—speak of corresponding ideas in the spiritual world. It is not strange or unexpected that God should expressly appoint certain things to constitute illustrations of spiritual truths. Where God appoints a thing to reveal a truth, we have a type. The Old Testament is full of things which have a typical meaning. Often there is express Scriptural warrant for such interpretation, but there is a vast field which is left to the insight of the interpreter without mention in the New Testament. If the study is confined to the more obvious types two fields of typology stand out—the sacrifices of the Old Testament and the Tabernacle. Both were designed and revealed by God Himself and were unquestionably intended to be types and illustrations of spiritual truth. In addition to these, there are a few other outstanding typical things in the Old Testament such as the rod of Aaron, the brazen serpent, and the smitten rock.

The Old Testament sacrifices. The sacrifices of the Old Testament are clearly intended to be a typical foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Christ. Almost every aspect of the meaning of the death of Christ is anticipated. Central in the sacrifices is the feature of shed blood, looking forward to the shed blood of Christ. The explanation given in the Old Testament is that the blood was given and shed to make an atonement: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life” (Lev 17:11 A.R.V.). This central truth dominates the typology of the sacrifices.

Among the sacrifices, the offering of a lamb was most common. This was practiced even before the Mosaic law (cf. Gen 4:4; 22:7 ). At the institution of the Passover, the lamb was used by Israel for its observance. Under the Levitical ritual, a lamb was offered morning and evening as a sacrifice and two lambs were offered on the Sabbath. As a general rule the lamb was an acceptable sacrifice for most other offerings. Without exception the lamb was to be without blemish and its blood was shed. The New Testament makes plain that in all these sacrifices the lamb prefigured “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). The lamb speaks of the purity of Christ (1 Pet 1:19), of the gentleness and submission of Christ to the will of God (Acts 8:32; 1 Pet 2:21-23) and of substitution—bearing sin which was not His own. In Revelation, Christ is given repeatedly the title, the Lamb.

Other animals were, of course, used and sometimes prescribed. The ox or bullock was used frequently in the burnt offerings (Lev 1:5; Num 7:87, 88; 2 Sam 24:22; 2 Chron 5:6; 7:5 ). In the sin-offering the bullock is again specified as an acceptable offering (Lev 4:3, 14) especially for sins by priests or of the whole congregation. The sacrificed bullock typifies Christ as the one “obedient unto death” and bearing the burdens and sins of others. Another animal frequently used in sacrifices was the goat. Like the lamb it was used before the Mosaic law (Gen 15:9), was permitted for use in the Passover (Exod 12:5). It was used as a burnt offering (Lev 1:10), as a sin offering (Lev 4:24; Num 15:27), and as a peace offering (Num 7:17). A special case is the use of two goats on the day of atonement, one of which was killed and the other allowed to escape as a scapegoat (Lev 16:5-10). In all the instances the use of the goat seems to emphasize the thought of substitution. Even in common English the word goat has come to mean a scapegoat or one bearing blame for others. It anticipates that Christ would become the sin bearer for the sins of the whole world. The live goat of Leviticus 16 illustrates Christ bearing away our sins from before God—His present work as Advocate in contrast to His finished work on the cross. In every instance Christ takes the sinner’s place and fulfills in antitype all that was anticipated in the type. Christ is not only our sin-offering, but our burnt offering—whose righteous obedience is accepted as on our behalf—and as our peace offering, the one in whom and through whom we have peace.

The special offering of the red heifer has its own place in the sacrificial offerings. As described in Numbers 19, the ceremony of its sacrifice and the sprinkling of blood was designed as a means of cleansing from defilement, a clear instance being found in the purification of an unclean person (Num 19:17). The sacrifice speaks of Christ as cleansing the believer from the defilement of sin through His sacrifice.

Other sacrifices only enlarge the typical truth already mentioned. The turtle-dove or pigeon was the offering of the poor, and refers especially to the fact that Christ became poor that we might be rich (2 Cor 8:9). The pigeon was acceptable for burnt offerings (Lev 1:14), sin offerings (Lev 5:7), trespass offerings (Lev 5:7), and for various rites of cleansing (Lev 12:6, 8; 14:22, 30 ; 15:14, 29 ). The usual pattern was to offer one dove as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt offering. Of special interest is the fact that Mary, when offering for her cleansing according to commandment of Leviticus 12:6, 8, brought the offering of the poor (Luke 2:24). Two birds were also used in the ceremony of the cleansing of the leper (Lev 14:4-7) in which one bird is slain and the other dipped in blood and released, somewhat after the pattern of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. In this sacrifice we have again the two aspects of the work of Christ for sinners—His death and His present work.

Taken as a whole the sacrifices point to the one sacrifice of Christ as forever putting away sin. They make the death of Christ essential to God’s plan of salvation and speak of the most profound truths of Biblical revelation.

The Tabernacle. Of all typical things in the Old Testament, undoubtedly the Tabernacle was the most complete typical presentation of spiritual truth. It was expressly designed by God to provide not only a temporary place of worship for the children of Israel in their wanderings but also to prefigure the person and the work of Christ to an extent not provided by any other thing.

In view of the many excellent works on the structure and meaning of the Tabernacle, we need to offer here only a brief résumé of its more important aspects. The Tabernacle itself was surrounded by a linen fence, speaking of the righteousness of Christ and supported and displayed by wooden posts, the wood speaking of the humanity of Christ throughout the Tabernacle. The posts themselves rested on sockets of brass, typical of the righteousness of God, and were fastened together by fillets of silver, the metal of redemption. The fence as a whole shut out those outside both from entrance and from seeing within. It typifies the fact that Christ in His righteous life and sacrificial death excludes all from participation who do not come through the door.

The door of the fence was to the east. It was some thirty feet wide (twenty cubits) and hung on four pillars. The gate was made of white linen which was embroidered with blue, purple, and scarlet, four colors which seem to anticipate the four Gospels. Matthew is the Gospel of the King—purple, Mark of the Servant of Jehovah who came to be obedient unto death—scarlet, Luke the perfect man—white linen, and John, the Gospel of the Son of God come from heaven—blue. There seems to be a planned connection between the door of the court, the door of the Tabernacle, and the door of the Holy of Holies. Frank H. White has commented: “By comparing Ex. xxvi.31, 36 , and xxvii.16 , it will be seen that the ‘Gate of the Court’ was made of the same materials, with exactly the same arrangement of colors as the door of the Tabernacle and the Beautiful Vail, excepting that the latter had cherubic figures worked upon it. The entire dimensions were also the same. The Gate of the Court being twenty cubits by five, or one hundred cubits square, whilst the hangings for the door and the vail were both ten cubits by ten, making also a square of one hundred cubits. Do not these facts indicate that the same truth is prefigured in each instance? There was but one gate to the Court, one door to the Tabernacle, and one vail by which to enter the Holiest of All.”[1] Christ in the Tabernacle (London: S. W. Partridge & Co., 1910), Twelfth Edition, pp. 78-79. The gate clearly refers to Christ as the door of salvation and worship. As Christ Himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).

Two items of furniture stood between the gate of the court and the Tabernacle itself. The first of these was the brazen altar. It was made of wood covered with brass, constructed in a square shape five cubits to each side and three cubits high. It was equipped with staves on each side for the purpose of carrying it and various pots and pans formed a part of the equipment. On this altar the priest offered the various sacrifices. In many respects it was the most used and most prominent item of the Tabernacle. Standing as it did between the gate and the Tabernacle it speaks of the death of Christ as the means of access to God. The brass represents the righteousness of God which required a sacrifice and the wood underneath signifies the humanity of Christ. The righteousness of God was revealed in the incarnate Son of God dying as a sacrifice. The altar was the meeting place of a righteous God and sinful man.

Near the brazen altar was the laver, also made of brass and containing water for the cleansing of the priest in his daily ministrations. The laver clearly speaks of the cleansing of the believer priest. The water used in the laver represents the cleansing provided by the Word of God (cf. Eph 5:26). Apparently there was a place for water at the foot of the laver as well as on the top. In this the priest washed his feet. The central fact taught by the laver is that the priest must have clean hands and feet, representing spiritual purity in service and walk, in order to fulfill the functions of a priest at the altar. Its relation to Christology is stated in Ephesians 5:25-26, “Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” The laver, then, anticipates the present work of Christ in the cleansing of the believer by the applied Word of God.

The Tabernacle itself provides a pleroma of typical revelation afforded in no other single thing in the Old Testament. The Tabernacle was constructed in the shape of a parallelogram ten cubits wide and thirty cubits long with the entrance on the narrow side which faced east. It was constructed of wood boards ten cubits long and one and one-half cubits wide set on end in sockets of silver, two to each board. Transverse bars of wood held them together. All the wood of the Tabernacle was covered with gold and was therefore completely hidden from view. The combination of wood and gold speak here as elsewhere of the hypostatic union—the human and divine combined in one person—but viewed from the standpoint of the divine. All is glory in the Tabernacle. The sockets of silver upon which the boards rested refer again to redemption in Christ as providing the basis for all the truth typified in the Tabernacle.

The Tabernacle had four coverings. The outside which was visible was of badger skins (Exod 26:14). These were apparently dark in color, and not particularly attractive, giving no hint of the glories within. This signified that to human sight the Christ was to be ordinary in appearance at least before the cross and, in the words of Isaiah, was to fulfill the prediction, “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa 53:2 A.R.V.67; cf. Phil 2:7). Underneath the badger skins was the second layer of covering made of ram skins dyed red. Here was a covering made from a ram which was classified as a clean animal (contra badger). The rams were killed to provide the covering, and everything in the Tabernacle was under the skins of the sacrificed rams. The red color brings out the thought of shed blood specifically. As rams were used in the consecration of priests, it signifies that the blood of Christ has made us holy—in a word, accomplished our sanctification. The believer’s sanctification like the holiness of Christ Himself is often hid from the world by our present humiliation, i.e., the badger skins. The sanctification of the believer is nevertheless a present reality in the sense that all true believers are here and now set apart as holy to God through the sacrifice of Christ.

The third layer of covering was made of curtains of goats’ hair of sufficient dimensions (Exod 26:7-13) to cover the top and also the sides of the Tabernacle. While the dimensions of the two outer coverings are not given, it is clear that the goats’ hair covered everything. No explanation is given of the use of this material, but here again we have reference to an animal of sacrifice, the goat, which is used typically to emphasize substitution. The believer-priest as he ministered in the Tabernacle was completely covered by that which a substitute provided.

The fourth layer invisible from the outside but which could be seen in the Tabernacle from the inside was made of fine linen with cherubims embroidered in blue, purple, and scarlet, speaking of angelic presence and ministry, but more specifically of the glory of Christ which is seen by angels. As the priest looked up, he was in a figure looking into heaven itself. The colors speak of the various perfections of Christ as indicated in the description of the gate of the court. The inner layer of linen curtains may have hung down also on the inner side of the Tabernacle.[2] “John D. Davis, A Dictionary of the Bible (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1927), Fourth Revised Edition, s.v. Tabernacle, p. 754. Whether the linen or the gold boards appeared, everything spoke of Christ in the Tabernacle.

The door of the Tabernacle, mentioned before, was embroidered in blue, purple, and scarlet, and made of fine linen, suspended by gold hooks from five pillars of gold-covered wood. Like the inner veil of similar construction which separated the holy place from the holy of holies, the doors speak of Christ as the door to the presence and fellowship of God. In Hebrews 10:20, it is revealed that the veil represents the flesh of Christ—His humanity in its display of the holiness of God. The veil was rent as the body of Christ was rent, and the way is now open to every believer into the holiest of all.

In the holy place were three significant items of furniture: the golden lampstand, the table of showbread, and the altar of incense. The golden lampstand as described in Exodus 25:31-40 was made of pure beaten gold with seven individual lamps burning olive oil. The exact specifications given by God were followed. In its material it spoke of Christ in His divine perfections, represented by pure gold. The fact that the gold was beaten typifies His sufferings even as the Son of God. The number seven has reference to the perfection of all the attributes of Christ. The point of central significance in the lampstand, however, is the fact that it gave light only when supplied with pure olive oil, representing the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Tabernacle, being without windows, was dependent upon the light of the lampstand to reveal the glories within and to permit the priestly functions to be conducted. In type this represents the indispensable ministry of the Holy Spirit in making Christ known. The light required the constant attention of the priests, speaking of human agency in making known the revelation.

The table of showbread stood on the north side of the room opposite the lampstand on the south. It is described in Exodus 25:23-30 as a small table of two cubits long and one cubit wide, a cubit and a half high, made of wood covered with gold. The table in itself representing Christ in His incarnate state—human and divine as typified by wood and gold—was designed to present the work of Christ for Israel. On the table each week the twelve pieces of unleavened bread were placed, identical in size, and made fragrant by frankincense. Each piece represented a tribe of Israel. The weekly renewal spoke of God’s constant provision for them. The bread being unleavened typified the purity of Christ to which Israel was also called. The bread was made of fine wheat flour, ground and sifted, and baked in fire, signifying the sufferings of Christ. Frankincense represented the attractiveness of Christ. On each Sabbath, the priests ate the showbread, anticipating the fact that Christ is the believer’s food.

The altar of incense was placed just before the veil before the holy of holies. Like the table of showbread it was made of wood, covered with gold, smaller in area but higher—one cubit square and two cubits high. On it the priests were to burn the prescribed incense morning and evening. The instructions concerning its construction and use are precise (Exod 30:1-10, 34-38). The incense itself was composed of stacte, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense, each of which apparently had typical meaning. The incense was to be burned by taking a coal off the brazen altar and bringing it to the altar of incense. This meant that the priest had to offer the sacrifice first and come for cleansing to the laver, typifying the fact that true worship requires cleansing by blood and water beforehand. Once a year the altar of incense was cleansed by blood (Exod 30:10).

Without doubt the holy of holies was the most sacred part of the Tabernacle. In it were the ark of the testimony in which were placed the tables of the law, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the golden pot of manna (Exod 25:10-22; Heb 9:3-5). The ark itself was an imposing article of furniture protected by the most solemn instructions for preservation of its holiness. It was a chest two cubits and a half in length, a cubit and a half in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height. Made of wood, it was overlaid with gold, and provided with staves for carrying. On top of the ark of the covenant and serving as a lid was the mercy seat, which was made of a pure slab of gold the same size as the top of the Ark. At the two ends of the mercy seat, cherubims were made of beaten gold with wings stretched over the mercy seat. It was in this sacred spot that God promised Israel He would meet Moses and the high priest. Yearly on the day of atonement the holy of holies was sanctified by the sprinkled blood of the sacrifice. The holy law of God contained in the tables of the law and representing God’s righteousness was made into a mercy seat where the sinner could meet God through the shed blood. The priest coming into the holy of holies typified Christ entering into heaven itself to become the Mediator between God and man. The whole scene in the holy of holies was designed to represent a sinner coming into the presence of a righteous God. Israel was represented by the priest, even as the Christian is represented by Christ Himself. Through Christ every believer has access into the holiest of all—the very presence of God.

Taken as a whole, the Tabernacle speaks of Christ in every part. In it is prefigured the person, sacrifice, intercession, and provision of the Savior for those who trust Him. It is the Gospel in illustration and undoubtedly is more rich in its meaning to the believer of this dispensation than to the Old Testament saint who only dimly understood all the typical representation. The Tabernacle remains an almost exhaustless source of illustration of spiritual things relating to the Son of God.

Other typical things. Among other typical articles in the Old Testament, mention should be made of Aaron’s rod that budded, representing as it does the resurrection of Christ which is not given much space in the Old Testament. The background of the significance of this article is found in Numbers 16, where it is recorded that the children of Israel rebelled against the authority and leadership of Moses and Aaron. This was followed by two judgments, the first in which the earth opened and swallowed up the leaders of the revolt and the second consisting in a plague which destroyed the people who accused Moses and Aaron of killing the leaders of the insurrection (Num 16:42). God then ordered a test to show that Moses and Aaron were chosen of Him (Num 17). Twelve rods, one for each tribe, were laid up in the holy of holies overnight. In the morning the rod of Aaron budded, bloomed and yielded almonds. This signified God’s approval of Aaron, and the rod was placed in the ark of testimony as a reminder (Heb 9:4). The rod of Aaron became by this background a significant type of the resurrection of Christ. Though dead and without life, the rod had come to life and borne fruit. In bearing the testimony of its new life, it authorized the priesthood of Aaron. So Christ in His resurrection not only manifested life but authenticated His person and His work. As Christianity alone has a truly, resurrected Savior, so alone among the twelve rods the rod of Aaron was resurrected.

The brazen serpent of Numbers 21:5-9 bears the testimony of Christ Himself that it is an important type (John 3:14-16). As a result of rebellion of Israel against God and Moses, a plague of fiery serpents was sent among them which resulted in many dying. Upon confession of their sin, God provided for Israel a way of salvation from death. Moses was instructed to make a serpent of brass, set upon a pole, to which if the people bitten by the serpents would look they would be healed. Christ uses this as a striking illustration of His own death on the cross, revealing that just as the serpent lifted up brought life to Israel, so Christ lifted up would bring life to everyone who believed in Him.

The smitten rock of Exodus 17:5-7 constitutes the next type which will be discussed. As in many other instances in the Old Testament, the rock is typical of Christ. Express confirmation of this type is given in 1 Corinthians 10:4. Because of the need for water for Israel, Moses was commanded to smite the rock in Horeb. God promised that water would come out to satisfy their thirst. Moses obeyed and the water gushed forth. It represents the fact that Christ smitten and crucified provided the water of salvation which completely satisfies. As in the case of Israel, so the believer in Christ after the cross receives this gift of God though unworthy and the supply is given freely and abundantly to all who will partake. The water itself speaks of the fullness of ministry of the Holy Spirit which is made possible by the death of Christ. Of interest is the fact that when Moses struck the rock twice in Numbers 20:11 instead of speaking to it, a later incident than that in Exodus, he is severely punished by God for disobedience and unbelief. The rock once smitten need not be smitten again. The death of Christ need not be repeated for abundant life-giving water.

Noah’s ark has represented to the people of God of all ages the work of God in delivering His own from judgment. That the ark of Noah has typical significance can hardly be questioned. It is frequently mentioned in the New Testament in various connections (Matt 24:37-38; Luke 17:26-27; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5). Its historic setting in the deliverance of Noah and his family from the flood which engulfed the world is fraught with much meaning. In general, the ark represents the deliverance of the people of God from the judgment which overtakes the world—an illustration of the truth stated by Peter, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Pet 2:9). The ark was constructed by divine commandment and is a product of divine, not human, wisdom. Like the cross of Christ, the ark was foolishness to Noah’s generation. The ark had only one door and those passing through it were made safe, just as those who come through Christ the door enter into salvation and safety. The ark was constructed with only one window and that apparently in the top or roof of the ark. Those in the ark could only look up, speaking spiritually of faith and dependence upon God. The ark also represented the fact that safety is for those who enter into it. There was perfect safety inside, but no amount of human effort could have saved one outside the ark. Of interest also is the fact that the Hebrew word for pitch כפר (Gen 6:14) is translated atonement elsewhere in the Old Testament and 100 times appears with this or similar meaning—merciful, forgive, reconciliation, purged, cleansed, etc. As Noah and his family were covered by the ark from the judgment of God, so the sinner is protected from judgment for sin if he avail himself of the atonement provided.

In the New Testament application is made of the historic use of the ark with various spiritual meanings. The suddenness of coming judgment is illustrated by the fact that the rain came the very day Noah entered into the ark (Matt 24:38; Luke 17:27). The ark was a monument also of the faith of Noah—”By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” (Heb 11:7). The relatively few who are saved is referred to in 1 Peter 3:20, in spite of the longsuffering of God in waiting: “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” The salvation provided in this instance—salvation by water—is not a proof of baptismal regeneration, as the water never touched Noah or his family. Rather it is an illustration of the fact that the very judgment which condemned and destroyed the world was an act by which Noah was separated from the sins of his generation. As it prefigures the death of Christ, it speaks of the fact that not only are believers redeemed from the guilt of sin but also separated from the present power of sin.

Both from the Old Testament historic setting and the New Testament use of the incident, it is clear that in Noah’s ark and its use we have an illustration of the principles of God’s dealing with the world and with the believer. The deliverance of Noah will have a large-scale repetition in the deliverance of the church before the time of tribulation which will overtake the world and also the preservation of some who believe in that tribulation time. Exceedingly precious to the believer in times of apostasy and approaching judgment is the promise of God that He will deliver.

The field of typical things in the Old Testament is, of course, almost exhaustless. It is not possible here to include them all, but the principal types as presented will serve at least to illustrate this rich area of revelation which has been so greatly neglected in traditional theological treatment of the person and work of Christ. The study is its own apologetic for giving attention to this important subject.

Typical Institutions and Ceremonies

In addition to the many typical persons, events, and things which foreshadow the person and work of Christ in the Old Testament, there are typical institutions and ceremonies. As Jesus Christ is the central theme of revelation, it is not strange that most types should speak expressly of Him and this is true in the types under consideration. Many of the types previously considered are also related to typical institutions and ceremonies. In the discussion to follow, unnecessary duplication will be avoided.

The important typical institutions and ceremonies include the Old Testament priesthoods, the sacrifices, the feasts of Jehovah, the cities of refuge, and the Sabbath. These are representative of this field, at least, and will provide another glimpse of the beauties of the person and work of Christ.

The sacrifices. It is necessary only to mention here that the sacrifices previously considered under typical things[1] Bibliotheca Sacra, 105:420, pp. 404-7. are in themselves typical institutions. The sin offering, trespass offering, meal offering, peace offering, and burnt offering occupy a central place. These and other offerings are an integral part of the Levitical ritual which was revealed and required by God. All of the sacrifices point to the person and work of Christ as the New Testament makes very clear. For the devout heart seeking to know more of the love and grace of God the Old Testament sacrifices provide a rich area of meditation and study. In any case they make the essential requirement of shed blood to stand out boldly in the divine pattern of salvation for lost man and erring saints.

The Old Testament priesthoods. In previous discussion both Aaron and Melchizedek were found to be types of Christ.[2] Ibid., 105:419, pp. 287-88, 292-93. Both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are types of the priesthood of Christ. The earliest kind of priesthood in the Old Testament followed the pattern of the patriarchs. In this system the father or head of the family was also its priest. In a general way even this priesthood anticipated Christ, but in Aaron and Melchizedek there is a full and detailed revelation.

The argument in the Epistle to the Hebrews in support of the superiority of Christ to the Aaronic priesthood is based on the anticipation in Melchizedek. As to order of priesthood, Melchizedek in type brings out the fact that Christ is supreme over all other priesthoods, introducing a new order entirely; that His priesthood is eternal, i.e., had no successors, no beginning or ending; that the priesthood of Christ is untransmitted and untransmissible (Heb 7:24); and that it is based on resurrection anticipated in the elements of memorial, bread and wine. The importance of this revelation will be brought out in later consideration of the priesthood of Christ.

In its detail the Aaronic priesthood provides light on the work of Christ as priest and His spiritual qualifications for the office. Aaron anticipated the priesthood of Christ both by similarity and contrast. As Aaron ministers in the earthly sphere, Christ ministers in the heavenly (Heb 8:1-5). Christ served realities rather than shadows (Heb 8:5), administered a new covenant rather than the Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:6). Christ in His sacrifice offered a final sacrifice for sin once for all instead of a daily sacrifice (Heb 7:27). In all these things Christ fulfilled what Aaron anticipated. There are also many similarities. Like Aaron, Christ ministered in sacred things (Heb 5:1), was made a priest by God Himself (Heb 5:4-10), was a true Mediator (1 Tim 2:5), was a part of humanity as the Second Adam as Aaron was a part of Israel, offered sacrifice to God, and on the basis of sacrifice offered intercession (Heb 7:25). There can be no question that the Aaronic priesthood not only was an ad interim dealing of God but that it was also designed to portray in type what Christ was as priest and what He did.

The consecration of the priests for the most part anticipates the priesthood of believers in the present age rather than the priesthood of Christ, but in the case of Aaron the typology seems to point to Christ. The induction into the priest’s office for Aaron began with washing with water (Lev 8:6). While it may not exhaust the meaning of the baptism of Christ, it is significant that His public ministry began with water baptism. Following the washing with water, Aaron was clothed with his priestly garments, which speak of the prerogatives and office of the priesthood of Christ. He was also anointed with oil, which has its antitype in the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ after His baptism. In the case of Aaron (contra other priests), these aspects of induction into the priestly office preceded the sacrifice, even as they preceded the sacrifice of Christ. For other priests the sacrifice came first, as for believer priests in this age.

Feasts of Jehovah. The importance of the feasts of Jehovah in Israel’s religious life cannot be overestimated. These seven feasts as outlined in Leviticus 23 and given further treatment elsewhere were the backbone of the Levitical system. Most of them have a definite typical meaning in relation to Christology.

The Passover was the first and in some respects the most important feast. It was celebrated in the first month, and signified deliverance from the judgment which overtook the Egyptians. The lamb which was sacrificed clearly was a type of Christ. In the New Testament Christ is declared to fulfill the spiritual meaning of the Passover and those who come into the safety of His shed blood are called to a holy life (1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:19).

The second feast, the feast of unleavened bread, which immediately followed the Passover, speaks of Christ as the Bread of Life, the holy walk of the believer after redemption, and of communion with Christ. The absence of leaven typically represents the sinlessness of Christ and the believer’s fellowship in that holiness. The prohibition of work during the feast brings out that the holy walk of the believer like his redemption is not a result of human effort, but is a divine provision.

The feast of first fruits celebrated for Israel the new harvest in the land and their deliverance from Egypt. The typical truth is that of the resurrection of Christ: “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept…. But every man after his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor 15:20, 23). The feast occurred on the “morrow after the sabbath” (Lev 23:11), i.e., on the first day of the week, even as Christ was raised on the first day of the week. Like the feast of first fruits, the resurrection of Christ anticipates the harvest which is to follow, the resurrection of the saints.

The feast of the wave loaves, coming exactly fifty days after the feast of first fruits, without question foreshadowed the day of Pentecost at which time the two loaves, typical of Gentiles and Israel, are united into one body, the church (Eph 2:14). It does not have special Christological significance, however, except as a result of the work of Christ. The feast of trumpets, likewise, speaking of the regathering of Israel to the land, does not refer specifically to Christ.

The feast of the day of atonement represents in large measure the work of Christ on the cross. The sacrifices and preparation of the high priest, of course, were not necessary for Christ, but the sacrifices and ceremonies for the people are foreshadowings of the work of Christ. The day of atonement centers on the work of the high priest, even as the work of salvation centers in Christ. The high priest properly prepared and clothed would perform the ceremonies required on behalf of the people. The sin offering of the goat was presented first, the goat killed, and the blood was brought into the holy of holies and sprinkled upon the mercy seat (Lev 16:15). Then the live goat was allowed to escape in the wilderness after the sins of the people of Israel were confessed with the hands of the high priest on the head of the goat. The whole transaction speaks of Christ as our substitute, dying and cleansing by shed blood, and putting away our sins from before God, as represented by the scapegoat. The blood of Christ opens the way into the holiest of all and the seat of the ark of the covenant, representing God’s holiness, becomes a mercy seat. This thought is clearly indicated in the New Testament (Rom 3:25; Heb 9:7-8, 23-28). Other aspects of the day of atonement speak also of the work of Christ. The goat of the sin offering was carried outside the camp and burned, even as Christ was sacrificed outside Jerusalem (Heb 13:11-13). In addition to the sin offering, a burnt offering was provided (Lev 16:24), speaking of the obedience and devotion of Christ in His death and constituting a ground for merit for the believer—justification. Most significant is the contrast between the Aaronic high priest entering the holy of holies once a year and the open access afforded every believer priest in this age to the very presence of God in heaven. The day of atonement provides, then, not only a temporary form of worship for Israel, but it is also a beautiful and suggestive type foreshadowing the wonders of the work of Christ on the cross.

The feast of tabernacles seems to have a double meaning. It referred to Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and constituted a memorial of this event. It was also prophetic of the future regathering of Israel and will be observed in the millennium (Zech 14:16-19). In contrast to the other feasts which speak of the finished work of Christ, this feast represents the unfinished work of Christ and the plan of God for the future regathering of dispersed Israel and their blessing in the land of Palestine. Present world events seem to be the beginning of this work of God to be completed after the return of Christ.

Cities of refuge. In the Mosaic law provision was made for the protection of those who innocently had taken the life of another. Six cities of refuge were established, three on either side of Jordan, and placed in the hands of the Levites (Num 35; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20). If judged innocent of willful murder, the party responsible could have deliverance from the avenger of blood as long as he remained in the city of refuge. It was provided that at the death of the high priest, he could return to his home, but not before. The cities of refuge are obviously a type of refuge in Christ. The sinner there finds refuge from judgment for sin and is made free by the death of the high priest. God is frequently spoken of as a refuge in the Old Testament (Ps 46:1; 142:5 ; Isa 4:6) and also in the New Testament (Rom 8:33-34; Heb 6:18-19). While God has always been the refuge of His saints, it was not until the death of the high priest, fulfilled in Christ, that complete freedom was provided.

Sabbath. As an institution in Israel, the Sabbath had a central place. It was a day of complete rest and was supplemented by other Sabbath days, and Sabbatic years. For the most part these observances were for Israel and stand in contrast rather than similarity to the Christian observance of the first day of the week. The typical significance of the Sabbath is, therefore, relatively minor.[3] For a complete discussion of the meaning of the Sabbath, cf. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, IV, 100-113. The Sabbath uniformly is a symbol of rest. This is its first meaning as found in the rest of God after creation, and this was carried out for Israel. In the New Testament it is used as a type of the rest of faith of the Christian who has ceased from his own works and is resting in the work of Christ. In Hebrews 4:1-11, the principal passage in the New Testament on this theme, the contrast is plainly made between the day of rest of the Sabbath and the rest of faith in Christ: “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his” (Heb 4:9-10).

Taken as a whole, it is proper to conclude that the typical ceremonies and institutions of the Old Testament have as their main theme the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, imbedded in the religious life of saints before Christ, are found the principal elements of the New Testament revelation concerning Christ. Beautiful as are the types they are exceeded by the antitype, and devout souls can long for that future complete revelation when we shall see Him face to face.

Dr. Chafer included in his Christology an extensive and needful section on the second advent of Christ incarnate. The area is covered in this work under Eschatology, but it is of such importance that highlight are included in this section. The Roman Catholic religion promoted itself as the replacement of God’s Chosen People Israel. The Holy Catholic Church, in their doctrine, was to incorporate every promise made to Israel and be the spiritual fulfillment of all the hope and promise God placed in them. This is Replacement Theology. When Protestants reformed Roman Catholic doctrine into a Reformed Theology they carried all this Roman allegorical error into their precepts. It is called Covenant Theology. A brief history of that whole travesty is in order here.

After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Origen (184-253 AD) and his mentor Clement of Alexandria Egypt (150-215 AD), both sainted fathers/founders of the upcoming Roman’s Catholicism, concluded that that was the destruction of all Judaism. Gone, in their mind, was any promise for a literal restoration of Israel and their reentry to their promised land. Impossible, in their mind, was a literal fulfillment of Psalms 2:6, “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.” God’s chosen people, the Hebrews, God’s chosen nation, Israel, and God’s chosen remnant, Judaism, were indeed, in their mind, annihilated and gone forever. Something must be done with all the promises made about Israel’s restoration and eternal existence68.

Origen, a renown scholar of Scripture, came through with a method of rejecting what the Bible literally states, and supposing that the Bible was written with a secret and concealed intent. Only the very pious and astute could interpret this secret intent of Holy Scripture. This hermeneutical method, this method of spiritualizing away the literal meaning of Scriptures, is called the allegorical method of Bile interpretation. It became the mainstay of Roman Catholicism, wherein if the unapproved commoner were found reading a Bible, he was executed. Luther, Calvin, and all Protestantism rejected this allegorical method for interpreting “So Great Salvation”, but they retained every evil bit of it for keeping Israel annihilated. In their reformed theology the Protestant’s Catholic Church is the spiritualized replacement for an annihilated Israel. Straight from John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” comes this Covenant Theology, where believers are the elect replacement for Israel. His misleading antics about election are much larger than the gross errors captured in a TULIP model of Calvinism. In the larger realm, that wicked concept of an annihilated Israel, never to be restored in the Kingdom of God, is captured and promoted as Preterism.

This false teaching of Covenant Theology, Reformed Theology, and Preterism, can trace its roots all the way back to the first century, and in this age of easy access to every published work every written, they very effectively do just that. It is important to know the root of their error and the evil of this error. It is still a root of false teaching and false teachers. One need only reference the false teachings of amillennialists, Calvinists, or both in one Dr. Harold Camping69 to illustrate the dangers of this sweeping error.

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer set out as a young fundamentalist to reprove the Protestant’s error and preach the Premillennial return of Christ and the dispensational doctrines that support it. That zeal was somewhat quenched when he settled into the midst of 70+ denominations and founded Dallas Theological Seminary, but his introduction to his chapter, “The Second Advent of Christ Incarnate” deserves audience. That introduction is inserted into the text and should be studied here:

Dr. Chafer’s “The Second Advent of Christ Incarnate”

Since Christ is the center of all Biblical prediction, there is properly an eschatology to be included in Christology. It contemplates the return of Christ to the earth, the kingdom which He will then set up on the earth, and His eternal reign. The first of these is now to be considered, the second in the chapter following, while the last forms the theme of the closing main division of Christology or chapter XIV.

Though theologians differ about the time and the manner of Christ’s second advent, all who receive the Bible seriously do agree that He will return to this earth The Scriptures clearly teach that Christ will come for judgment and for the setting up of His kingdom on the earth. Over this kingdom He with His Bride shall rule forever. No apology is entered or entertained for taking the vast body of Scripture which presents Christ’s coming again and his kingdom in other than its natural, literal, and grammatical sense. All predictions due to be fulfilled before the manner and without exception; it is therefore reasonable to believe that unfulfilled predictions will be accomplished as faithfully and as definitely. It is possible that for want of faith some men of the past age of law who were confronted with predictions respecting the first advent when it was yet future were inclined to place some so-called spiritualizing interpretations upon these great prophecies; but it remained true, and would have remained so though no living man had taken God at His Word, that the inspired predictions moved on majestically in their natural, literal, and grammatical fulfillment. Foe those who have not done so, it may be introduction into almost limitless fields of divine revelation and into overwhelming demonstrations of divine faithfulness to follow through an investigation which pursues this specific method of interpretation – such, anyway, is this division of Christology designed to be. The theme is as august, majestic, and consequential as the consummation of all divine purposes in mundane spheres must be. If matters of present world crises arrest the attention and spread consternation among all civilized inhabitants of the earth, how much more should believing men be aroused to unprecedented attention b the portrayal of those stupendous realities which constitute the closing scenes – the final disposition of evil and the final enthronement of righteousness and peace unto all eternity to come! However vividly – unless it be the creation of the universe – and that program which is yet to come is, so far as that which is sublunary is concerned, more of prophecy related to the first advent and the probability of literal fulfillment of prophecy related to the second advent, George N. H. Peters writes70:

… The truth that Christ is coming to the earth again is so emphatically and repeatedly asserted in the Sacred Text that nearly all creeds have included it in their declarations, and only those who are lacking in respect for the verity of the Bible text fail to acknowledge that Christ is to return; however, a wide variation in belief has existed about how and when He will return. A woeful lack of attention to the precise testimony of the Word of God is revealed in these conflicting sentiments more than is found in connection with any other one doctrine. Human notions and fancies have run riot with little apparent attempt to harmonize these ideas with the Scriptures. The assumption must arise that they are not diminished by it. An example of the human imagination’s straying when making no reference to the extended testimony of Scripture is furnished – and similar quotation might be made from various theologians – by Dr. William Newton Clarke, late Professor of Christian Theology in Colgate University, in his book An outline of Christian Theology (5th ed., pp. 443-46). Having written at some length on certain points and having implied that Christ’s second advent is fulfilled in the death of the believer – using John 14:1-3 as the proof-text, by the coming of the Spirit on Pentecost, and by the destruction of Jerusalem, he summarizes as follows:71

The battle against Reformed Theology’s Covenant Theology was well worded when Dr. Chafer quoted Dr. William Newton Clarke. That battle is ongoing. Their Roman gate may be wider and their Catholic path broader, but there is a straight and narrow truth expounding a Premillennial return of Christ, and a Pretribulational Rapture of the Church. Although there be few that find it, rejoice that you are herein standing on it.

Dr. Chafer has much more to say about Christology. His depth

+Critique of Geisler’s 2002 Christology

Normal L. Geisler has Christology as an appendix to his systematic theology.72 Although that tells something about his organization, he does begin his appendix with this note:

Christology is discussed in three other places: The work of Christ on the cross is treated under Soteriology in chapters 60-61; the nature of Christ as a member of the Trinity is discussed in Chapter 40; Christ’s future reign is examined in part 8 on eschatology (“last things”). Other elements of Christology are outlined here in this appendix.

This caption to his appendix reveals the importance of including a complete section for Christology in ones systematic theology. Although the preeminent topic touches every area of theology and might be addressed in other areas, there are concepts that need expounded in its own section. Secondly the caption tells us that Geisler only outlines his Christology, and does not expound any areas to the point of being an “ology.”

Of Norman L. Geisler’s Systematic Theology in One Volume73, Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary said, “Great theologians are best when they are outstanding philosophers also. Then, of course, you often cannot fathom what they are saying. Norman Geisler has the unique ability as a philosopher and theologian to deal with profound concepts in ways that the common man can easily grasp. Consequently, this systematic theology will not only sit on the desk of the scholar but also of the pastor, and on the coffee table of many a layman74.”75 Geisler’s single volume of systematic theology is indeed superior to Charles Hodge, and Augustus Strong’s work. Charles Hodge was a meticulous and scholarly Princeton graduate but he was first and foremost a Presbyterian with a staunch reformed theology. Augustus Strong was a Baptist, equally meticulous and scholarly, but desiring to meld Baptist doctrine with reformed theology and atheistic evolution. Where Dr. Henry Thiessen did not believe an inspired, inerrant, infallible Holy Bible was in existence in his day, Dr. Geisler uses such as his prima facie source, if not his sole source for his doctrine. Dr. Geisler’s work in one volume is also superior to Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer’s eight volumes of systematic theology. Whereas Dr. Chafer wrote an extensive Christology, and a superior chapter on the pre-incarnate Christ, Dr. Geisler’s concise style and complete organized coverage of theology exceeds Dr. Chafer’s verbose eight volumes of effort.

Despite Geisler’s outlined treatment of Christology in an appendix, some of his outline forms present remarkable insight to the wealth of Bible information available. His presentation of fourteen direct physical evidence of the death of Christ76 is a good example. And concerning the resurrection of Christ, he fully expounds on the twelve appearances of the resurrected Christ.77 His tabling of the miracles of Christ 78 marks a very useful outlining in considering the whole life of Christ. The presentation of this outline prompts the inclusion the more extensive table compiled by this author. The consideration of the life of Christ incarnate can be enhanced by the study of the following chronological table showing the harmony of the life of Christ.

Harmony of The Life of Christ

The order of event in general according to Andrews’ ‘Life of Christ’79

Introduction Childhood and 1st Year of Public Ministry


















Annunciation to Mary


March, 5 BC



Birth of John the Baptist


June, 5 BC



Birth of Jesus


Dec, 5 BC




Song of the angels




Visit of the Wise Men


Jan, 4 BC



Flight into Egypt


Feb, 4 BC



Childhood and Youth


2-26 BC




First Passover at age 12


Apr 8 AD



John the Baptist Ministry


26-28 AD






Baptism of Jesus


Jan 27 AD





Temptation of Christ more likely fits between John 4 & 5, after John lists the daily sequences after Christ’s baptism.

John 4 n 5



First Disciples


Feb 27 AD




First Miracle


Tuesday Feb



First Temple Cleansing


Apr 11-17



Discourse to Nicodemus


Apr 11-17



Great Ministry in Judea





Departure to Galilee




Samaritans at Jacobs Well





Healing of Nobel mans Son






Temptations of Jesus







Passover likely Pentecost


June 27 AD



Healing at pool Bethesda


June 27 AD



Discourse w Pharisees (without disciples, who were likely off fishing)


June 27 AD


Public Ministry of Christ in the 2nd Year











Unrecorded Jan – Mar 28 AD

Jan-Mar, 28



(more likely Pentecost)


Mar 30-Apr 5



Healing at pool Bethesda

( See above)

(See 1st year)



Imprisonment of John







Return to Galilee







Rejection at Nazareth




Takes up abode in Capernaum


April May




Calling disciples to be fishers

Sea of Galilee

April May





Many Miracles


April May





First circuit of Galilee


April May





Healing of a Leper







Healing Paralytic


May June





The call of Matthew


May June





Discourse on Sabbath


May June





Withered Hand Sabbath Day


May June





Calling of the Twelve

Horns Hattin






Sermon of the Mount

Horns Hattin


Ch 5 -8:13



Healing Centurion’s Servant






Raising the Widow’s Son





John Baptist sends to Jesus






Warnings and invitations




The woman, a sinner




Another tour of Galilee





Healing blind and dumb







Visit of his mother +







Eight parables by the sea

Sea of Galilee






Stilling the Tempest





Restoration of the demoniac





Matthew’s Feast





Jairus’ Daughter raised, Woman Cured





Heal two blind men and dumb possessed


Public Ministry of Christ in the 3rd Year











2nd rejection at Nazareth


Winter 29




The 12 sent forth


Winter 29





Death of John the Baptist


March 29





Feeding of the 5,000


April 29






Jesus walks upon the water

Sea of Galilee





Heals many that are sick





Discourse – Bread of Life




Discourse – Unwashed Hands


April 29




To Sidon + Syrophenician Woman’s daughter

Region of Tyre & Sidon

Summer 29




Return through Decapolis, Miracles of healing





Feeding the 4,000




Demanding a sign warning





Blind man healed




Peter’s confession of faith

Near Cesaera Philipi





Jesus’ 1st mention Death & Resurrection


8:31 – 9:1



The Transfiguration





Healing of Demoniac boy





Foretells death & resurrection






Jesus & Children






Discourse/ Parb – Forgiveness



At Feast of Tabernacles


Autumn 29

7:1 – 10:21


Discourse – Water of life

11-18 Oct 29



On light & freedom



On one born blind



The good shepherd



Return to Galilee

Autumn 29


Final Departure from Galilee


Nov, Dec 29





The Mission of the 70




Parable of Good Samaritan



Discourse on prayer



Ans attacks of Pharisees



Discr. – Great Moral Truths



Discr- Galileans slain Healing on Sabbath Mustard Seed



Guest of Mary & Martha




Feast of dedication


20-27 Dec 29



Retires Beyond Jordan


Jan 30



Dines with Pharisee



Parab- Great Supper



Counting the Cost



Parab- Lost Sheep, Silver



Parab- Lost Son



Parab- Unjust Steward



Rich man & Lazarus



Forgiveness & Faith



Raising of Lazereth


Feb 30


The 3rd Entry into Jerusalem, From Galilee to Calvary

Events Place Date Matt Mark Luke John
098 Jesus to Ephraim in N Judea Ephraim 1-4 Abib 11:47-57
099 Healing 10 Lepers Samaria Mon 4 Abib 17:11-19
100 Coming Kingdom Jezreel? Tue 5 Abib 17:20-37
101 Discourse on Divorce Thr 7th 19:2-12 10:2-12
102 Widow, Pharisee Publican Tirzah? Wed 6 Abib 18:1-14
103 Christ blessing little children Wed 6th 19:13-15 10:13-16 18:15-17
104 The rich young ruler Wed 6th 19:16-30 10:17-31 18:18-30
105 Parable of vineyard laborers Shilo? Thr 7 Abib 20:1-16
106 Foretold death and resurr. Thr 7th 20:17-19 10:32-34 18:31-34
107 James and Johns Ambitions Thr 7th 20:20-28 10:35-45
108 Healing 2 blind men Jericho Thr 7th 20:29-34 10:46-82 18:35-43
109 Zaccheus the publican Thr 7th 19:1-10
110 Parable of pounds Fri 8 Abib 19:11-28
111 Jesus arrives at Bethany Bethany Fri 8th 12:1
112 Anointing by Mary Fri 8th 26:6-13 14:3-9 12:2-9
112b Plot to kill Jesus & Lazarus Sat 9 Abib 12:10-11
113 Triumphal Entry Sun 10 Abib 21:1-11 11:1-11 19:29-44 12:12-19

The Week of His Passion (Acts 1:3)

Events Place Date Matt Mark Luke John
101 Discourse on Divorce Thr 7th 19:2-12 10:2-12
105 Parable of vineyard laborers Shilo? Thr 7 Abib 20:1-16
106 Foretold death and resurr. Thr 7th 20:17-19 10:32-34 18:31-34
107 James and Johns Ambitions Thr 7th 20:20-28 10:35-45
108 Healing 2 blind men Jericho Thr 7th 20:29-34 10:46-82 18:35-43
109 Zaccheus the publican Thr 7th 19:1-10
110 Parable of pounds Fri 8 Abib 19:11-28
111 Jesus arrives at Bethany Bethany Fri 8th 12:1
112 Anointing by Mary Fri 8th 26:6-13 14:3-9 12:2-9
112b Plot to kill Jesus & Lazarus Sat 9 Abib 12:10-11
113 Triumphal Entry Sun 10 Abib 21:1-11 11:1-11 19:29-44 12:12-19
113a Cleansing temple Jerusalem Mon 11th 21:12-17 11:15-19 19:45-48
114 Cursing the barren fig tree Mt Olives Mon 11Abib 21:18-19 11:12-14
115 Cleansing temple Jerusalem Mon 11th 21:12-17 11:15-19 19:45-48
116 Fig tree withered, in and out Mt Olives Tue 12 Abib 21:20-22 11:20-26 (21:37-38)
117 Christ’s Authority Questioned Temple Tue 12th 21:23-27 11:27-33 20:1-8
118 Parable of 2 sons Temple Tue 12th 21:28-32
119 Para of wicked husbandman Temple Tue 12th 21:33-46 12:1-12 20:9-19
120 Para-Marriage of kings son Temple Tue 12th 22:1-14
121 Question of tribute Temple Tue 12th 22:15-22 12:13-17 20:20-26
122 Sadusees ? Resurrection Temple Tue 12th 22:23-33 12:18-27 20:27-40
123 Lawyer ? great command Temple Tue 12th 22:34-40 12:28-34
124 What think ye of Christ Temple Tue 12th 22:41-46 12:35-37 20:41-44
125 Woes to Scribes Temple Tue 12th 23:1-36 12:38-40 20;45-47
126 Lamentation over Jerusalem Temple Tue 12th 23:37-39
127 Widows mite Temple Tue 12th 12:41-44 21:3-4
128 Greeks Seek Jesus Temple Tue 12th 12:20-50
129 Prophecy of end of world Mt Olives Tue 12th 24:1-51 13:1-37 21:5-36
130 Parable of 10 Virgins Me Olives Tue 12th 25:1-13
131 Parable of Talents Mt Olives Tue 12th 25:14-30:
132 Last Judgment Mt Olives Tue 12th 25:31-46
133 Plotting of Rulers w Judas Jerusalem Tue 12th 26:1-5,14-16 14:1-2,10-11 22:1-6
134 Jesus in retirement??? Bethany??? Added to fit good fri into errant tradition!
135 Preparation for Passover Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:17-19 14:12-16 22:7-13 22:7-13
136 Arrival at upper room Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:20 14:17 22:14
137 Strife for prominence Jerusalem Wed 13th 22:24-30
138 Washing Feet Jerusalem Wed 13th 13:1-20
139 Paschal Supper Jerusalem Wed 13th 22:15-18
140 Betrayer declared Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:21-25 14:18-21 22:21-23 13:21-35
141 Lords Supper Instituted Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:26-29 14:22-25 22:19-20 1Cor11:23-5
142 Peter’s fall foretold Jerusalem Wed 13th 22:31-38 13:36-38
143 Farewell Discourse Jerusalem Wed 13th 14:-16
144 Prayer of Jesus Jerusalem Wed 13th 17:1-26
145 Jesus and Peters confidence Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:30-35 14:26-31 22:39 18:1-3
146 Garden Gethsemane Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:36-46 14:32-42 22:40-46
147 The Betrayal Jerusalem Wed 13th 26:47-50 14:43-45 22:47,48 18:4-9
148 The Arrest Jerusalem Midnight 26:50-56 14:46-52 22:49-53 18:10-12
149 Jesus Led to Annas, Caiaphas Jerusalem Thr 14th 18:13-15
150 Jesus before Caiaphas Jerusalem Thr 1-5am 26:57-58 14:53,54 22:54,55 18:19-24
151 Jesus before the Sanhedrin Jerusalem Thr 1-5am 26:59-66 14:55-64
152 Denials of Peter Thr 1-5am 26:69-75 14:66-72 22:56-62 18:15-27
153 Jesus Mocked Thr 1-5am 26:67,68 14:65 22:63-65
154 Sanhedrim Condemns Jesus Thr 5-6 am 27:1,2 15:1 22:66-71
155 Condemned & Blasphemed Thr 5-6 am 23:1
156 Death of Judas Thr 5-6 am 27:3-10 Act 1:18-19
157 Jesus before Pilot Thr 5-6 am 27:11-14 15:2-5 23:2-5 18:28-38
158 Jesus sent to Herod Thr 5-6 am 23:6-12
159 Pilot releases Barabbas Thr 5-6 am 27:15-23 15:6-14 23:13-23 18:38-40
160 Jesus condemned, scourged Thr 5-6 am 27:26-30 15:15-19 23:24,25 19:1-3
161 Pilot seeks to release Jesus Thr 5-6 am 27:24-25 19:4-16
162 Led away to crucifixion Thr 9 am 27:31-34,38 15:20,23-28 23:26-32 19:16-18
163 The Superscription 27:37 15:26 23:38 19:19-22
164 1st words Forgive them 23:33,34
165 Soldiers cast lots 27:35-36 15:24 23:34 19:23,24
166 Jews Mock 27:39-44 15:29-32 23:35-37
167 2nd words to thief 23:39-43
168 3rd words Woman behold son 19:25-27
169 Darkness covers the land Thr Noon 27:45 15:33 23:44,45
170 4th words Distress to God 27:46,47 15:34,35
171 5th words I thirst 27:48,49 15:36 19:28-29
172 6th words It is finished 19:30
173 7th words Into thy hands Thr 3pm 23:46
174 Death, Veil rent, Earthquake 27:50-56 15:37-41 23:45-49 19:30
175 Spear pierces side 19:31-37
176 The burial, the watch Garden Thr 3-6 pm 27:57-66 15:42-47 23:50-56 19:38-42

His Resurrection and Appearances

Events Place Date Matt Mark Luke John
177 The Morning of Resurrection Garden Sun 17 Abib 28:2-4
178 Women come to the sepulcher 28:1 16:1-4 24:1-2 20:1
179 Mary Magdalene tells Peter 20:2
180 The women at sepulcher 28:5-8 16:5-8 24:3-8
181 Peter and John race to tomb 24:12 20:3-10
182 Jesus appears to Mary 16:9-11 20:11-18
183 Jesus appears to women 28:9,10 24:9-11
184 Guard reports to priests 28:11-15
185 Jesus on Road to Emaus 16:12-13 24:13-25
186 Jesus appears to Peter 1Cor 15:5
187 Appears to apostles – Thomas 1Cor 15:5 16:14 24:36-48 20:19-23
188 Appears to all the apostles Sun 24 Abib 20:24-29
189 Jesus to seven in Galilee Galilee Sun 1 Zif 21:1-23
190 Appears to more than 500 Galilee Sun 8 Zif 28:16-20 16:15-18 1Cor 15:6
191 Jesus appears to James Sun 15 Zif 1Cor 15:7
192 He appears to all the apostles Jerusalem Sun 22 Zif Act 1:1-8
193 The Ascension Bethany Thur 26 Zif Act 1:9-12 16:19 24:50-53
194 Conclusions Mark, John 16:20 20:30-31
195 Epilogue of John 21:1-25
196 Holy spirit given, Pentecost Jerusalem Sun 6 Sivan Act 2:1-11
197 Jesus appears to Paul Damascus 37 AD Acts 22:6-16
198 Jesus appears to John Patmos 96 AD Rev 1:9-20
199 Our high priest in heaven Heb 9:11-28
200 Jesus reigns in new heaven Rev 21:1-27

Christology Conclusion

Christology is such a prominent, perhaps preeminent, consideration in theology, that its repute, and His, will never be complete. In the last verse of his Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Apostle John put it thus, “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen” (John 21:25)


The Holy Bible

Bancroft, Emery H., Elemental Theology, 1932, Baptist Bible Seminary, 1945, 1960, Zondervan 1977, [In 1932 Emery H. Bancroft became the first Dean of Baptist Bible Seminary, Johnson City, NY and published his text for his course Elemental Theology. In 1968 the Seminary relocated to Clark Summit PA. In 1970 this author attended Practical Bible Training School on the Johnson City campus and studied Bancroft’s text. In 1999 – 2000 this author attended Baptist Bible Seminary to take Greek (NT502 and NT503) via a 3 hour commute from Hammondsport NY to Clark Summit PA, and was reintroduced to Bancroft’s exceptional work.]

Cambron, Mark G. Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, [Independent Baptist, Professor, Tennessee Temple Bible School, 1954].

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas Seminary Press, 1948.[Lewis Sperry Chafer was an American theologian. He founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential founding member of modern Christian Dispensationalism. Born: February 27, 1871, Rock Creek, Died: August 22, 1952, Seattle, Education: Oberlin College, Wheaton College. For my Doctorate of Philosophy in Theological Studies through LBTS, I was tasked to analyze all six volumes of his Systematic Theology]

Satan, 1909, Free ebooks – Project Gutenberg,2004, accessed 06/01/2013

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985.

Dollar, George W., A History of Fundamentalism in America, Bob Jones University Press, 1973.

Gaussen, L., Theopneustia – The plenary Inspiration of The Holy Scriptures deduced from Internal Evidence, and the Testimonies of Nature, History and Science, David Scott’s translation, Chicago, The Bible Institute Colportage ASS’N., 1840.

Geisler, Norman L, Systematic Theology in One Volume, Bethany House, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11 [Geisler, also a neoevangelical, sharply contrasts with Lewis Sperry Chafer in that Geisler 1) admits what he is, neoevangelical, 2) admits what he is attempting, a compilation of evangelical theologies, 3) shows superb organization and structure of thought, 4) contains depth, and 5) is a masterful communicator. This author cannot endorse all that Geisler believes to be true, but can endorse that he seems to capture all that has been believed by conservative evangelicals.]

Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV, Charles Scribner & Company, 1871, Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940, Christian Classics Ethereal Library,, public domain. [The Internet Archive], [Charles Hodge, 1797-1878, Presbyterian Minister, Princeton Theologian].

Larkin, Clarence. The Spirit World, Published by the Clarence Larkin Estate, 1921, Cosimo, 2005

Miley, John, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1894, The Internet Archive, [John Miley (1813-1895, Methodist Theologian].

Rice, Edward G., The 357 Magnum Errors of the Modernist’s Critical Texts, Public Domain,,

Ryrie, Charles C., Basic Theology. Victor Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1981.

Schofield, C. I., Prophecy Made Plain, Photolithoprinted by Grand Rapids Book Manufacturers, Grand Rapids, MI, 1967.

Shedd, William G. T., Dogmatic Theology, Roosevelt Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1888. [The Internet Archive], [William G.T. Shedd, 1820-1894, Old School Presbyterian & Reformed Theologian].

Strong, Augustus H., Systematic Theology:Three Volumes in 1, Philadelphia, Valley Forge PA, The Judson Press, 1907, 35th printing 1993. [Augustus H. Strong, 1836-1921, American Baptist Pastor & Theologian].

Thiessen, Henry Clarence, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1949. [Henry Clarence Thiessen, ? -1947, President of Los Angles Baptist Theological Seminary, later renamed John MacArthur’s The Master’s College].

Lectures in Systematic Theology. Revised by Vernon D. Doerksen, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 2006.

Waite, D.A.. Defending the King James Bible. The Bible For Today Press, 2002.

Yoho, Walter Allan, YAHWEH The Greatness of God, Volume 1 thru 3,, 2010. [Dr. Yoho teaches theology at Tabernacle Baptist Theological Seminary 717 Whitehurst Landing Rd. Virginia Beach VA 23464 under Pastor. James Baker. We met after our military-hop to Norfolk VA on our return from Mazara Del Vallo, Italy in May 2016. I have been enthralled with his three volumes of theology since that meeting.]

1ology is from the Greek meaning a word, a discourse, a doctrine, a teaching, a matter under discussion, a thing spoken of or talked about, also the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, or reasoning about Others have limited this suffix by equating it to the English word science, which is “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” There really is no English equivalent that can capture the depth of ology, it is literally to go on, and on, and on about a topic with pen, or speech, or thought.

2Dr. Mark G. Cambron, B.A., M.A., Th.B., Th.M., Th.D., D.D., L.L.D., Litt.D., was one of the foremost theologians of our times. Born in Fayetteville, Tennessee on July 31, 1911. He was born-again in 1919. It was during a Billy Sunday campaign in Chattanooga that he trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. He served for many years at Tennessee Temple College (1948-59) with Dr. Lee Roberson and served as Dean of the College. From accessed 10/16/2013

3Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 60-69

4The Cambron Institute, 35890 Maplegrove Road, Willoughby, Oh 44094

5This author cannot recommend or condone the use of any of the modernist ecumenical copyright bibles, all of which brazenly disregard the inerrancy and infallibility of the verbally inspired Holy Bible by utilizing the Westcott and Hort Bible criticism, textual criticism and critical text as their source. It is noted and reproved in the Bibliology section of this work that Dr. Cambron’s Bible Doctrines book recommends using the R.V., instead of the Holy Bible, 41 times for 54 Bile verses.

6Ibid., 60-69

7This author cannot recommend or condone the use of any of the modernist ecumenical copyright bibles, all of which brazenly disregard the inerrancy and infallibility of the verbally inspired Holy Bible by utilizing the Westcott and Hort Bible criticism, textual criticism and critical text as their source.

8This author cannot recommend or condone the use of any of the modernist ecumenical copyright bibles, all of which brazenly disregard the inerrancy and infallibility of the verbally inspired Holy Bible by utilizing the Westcott and Hort Bible criticism, textual criticism and critical text as their source. The American Revised Version is more a creation of the publishing world than an actual translation. When the English Revised Version was being prepared, the translation committee invited American scholars to participate. The Americans had certain preferences that were not included in the text but were noted in an appendix. The American Committee agreed to wait twenty years before releasing their own translation (which they did in 1901 – called the American Standard Version). However, some publishers began incorporating the American preferences into the text (without the authorization of the American Committee) and calling it the American Revised Version.

9This author emphatically disagrees with Dr. Cambron’s reasoning on this issue. The italicized text of the King James Authorized version CANNOT be left out if a clear understanding of the Greek/Hebrew text is of value. The italics, as used by the King James translators (and only the King James translators), represents necessary clarifying English words used to capture the complete Greek/Hebrew meaning. The actual words might not be present in the Greek/Hebrew syntax, but in the expertise of the 77 linguistic experts which took 7 years to translate those words, the italics words are VERY necessary for competent consideration. Translation is never a word-for-word operation. Only the KJV translators had the professional courtesy to indicate the necessary English additions with italics lettering. Discarding their noble work is ill advised at best.

10Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 60-69

11Edward Rice, The 357 Magnum Errors of the Modernist’s Critical Texts, Public Domain,,

12Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren, The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, copyright United Bible Societies, U.S.A., 1966, 1968, 1975, 1983, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Sttuttgart 1993, 1994, 1998

13The name “Jesus” has been stripped from the Holy Bible in modernist versions in these 47 verses: Matt 4:12, 4:18, 4:23, 8:29, 12:25, 13:36, 13:51, 14:14, 14:22, 14:25, 14:27, 15:16, 16:20, 17:20, Mark 5:19, 6:34, 7:27, 8:1, 8:17, 11:14, 11:15, 12:41, 14:22a, Luke 7:22, 9:43, 9:60, 10:21, 10:41,42, 13:2, 24:36a, 24:36b, John 3:2, 5:17, 6:14, 13:3, Acts 3:26, 9:29, 19:10, Rom 15:8, 16:18, 1Cor 5:5, 16:22, 2Cor 5:18, Gal 6:15, Col 1:28, 2Tim 4:22, 1Pet 5:14

14The name “Christ” has been stripped from the Holy Bible in modernist versions in these 37 verses: Matt 23:8, Luke 4:41, John 4:42, 6:69, Acts 15:11, 16:31, 19:4, 20:21, Rom 1:16, 14:10, 16:20, 1Cor 5:4, 9:1, 9:18, 16:22, 16:23, 2Cor 11:31, Gal 3:17, 4:7, 6:15, Phil 4:13, 1Thes 2:19, 3:11, 3:13, 2Thes 1:8, 1:12, 1Tim 2:7, 2Tim 2:19, 4:22, Heb 3:1, 1John 1:7, 4:3, 2John 1:9b, Rev 1:9a, 1:9b, 12:17, 22:21

15The name “Lord” has been stripped from the Holy Bible in modernist versions in these 40 verses: Matt 28:6, Mark 11:10, Luke 7:31, 9:57, 9:59, 13:25, 22:31, 23:42, Acts 7:37, 22:16, 1Cor 11:29, 15:47, 2Cor 4:10, Gal 6:17, 1Tim 1:1, 5:21, 2Tim 4:1, Titus 1:4, Heb 10:30, Rev 16:5a

16Edward Rice, The 357 Magnum Errors of the Modernist’s Critical Texts, Public Domain,,

17Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 69-81

18The American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition, 1994, Softkey International Inc., s.v. “Cult”.

19Edward G. Rice, The Non-Christian Religions, E.G.Rice Publications, 2012,,

20This has been rehearsed by multiple American Baptist Association pastors and leaders in the hearing of this author for 50 years of his walk with the incarnate Christ.

21 Stephen J. Wellum (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is professor of Christian theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, and editor of the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Stephen lives in Louisville, Kentucky, with his wife, Karen, and their five children.

22 Stephen J. Wellum, “God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ,” a Crossway blog post of an except from his book, (accessed 11/12/2016)


24 Ibid.

25Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 81-93

26Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 93-101

27Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 101-109

28Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines, 1954, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 109-113

29John Miley, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, The Library of Biblical and Theological Literature, New York: Eaton and Mains, 1894, The Internet Archive


31 accessed 29 Sep 2014

32John Miley, Systematic Theology Vol. 1 & 2, 851.


34Ibid., 947-976

35Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology: Volume I-IV. Charles Scribner & Company, 1871, Hardback- Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1940.

36from Christian Classics Ethereal Library accessed 29 Sep. 2014

37A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, Three Volumes in One, Judson Press, 1907, 665.

382Chron 20:7, Isa 41:8, James 2:23

39Ibid., 665-796.

40Ibid. 669

41From the Papal Encyclicals, accessed Aug 2014 The decree, incidently, has a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease of 1.7% and an Average Grade Level for readers of 22.4 grade (that is 12th grade plus 11 years of college!). accessed Aug 2014

43ibid. /ecum04.htm#Canons

44Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Mich., William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1949, 107.

45Ibid., 107

46Ibid., “The Works of God: His Sovereign Rule”, closing paragraph, 187-188.

471Sa 1:15, Job 7:11, Isa 10:18, 26:9, 42:1, 51:23, Da 7:25, Mic 6:7, Mt 10:28, 12:18, 1Co 5:3 6:20, 7:34, 15:45, Eph 4:4, 1Th 5:23, Heb 4:12, Jas 2:26

481Thes 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

49Ibid., “The Trichotomous theory”, 227

50ASV is the registered trademark of Thomas Nelson & Sons and symbolizes the bible which was copyrighted and published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1901. In 1928, the International Council of Religious Education (the body that later merged with the Federal Council of Churches to form the National Council of Churches) acquired the copyright from Nelson and copyrighted the ASV in 1929. .Even quoting Thiessen, this author cannot recommend or condone the use of any of the modernist ecumenical copyright bibles, all of which brazenly disregard the inerrancy and infallibility of the verbally inspired Holy Bible by utilizing the Westcott and Hort Bible criticism, textual criticism and critical text as their source.

51Ibid., “The Pre-Incarnate Christ”, 287

52Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 160

53George W. Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 1973, Bob Jones University Press, 209

54Harold John Ockenga (1905-1985) was an American evangelical leader, a Congregational minister, and one of the co-founders of Fuller Theological Seminary. Harold John Ockenga (June 6, 1905 – February 8, 1985) was a leading figure of mid-20th-century American Evangelicalism, part of the reform movement known as “Neo-Evangelicalism”. A Congregational minister, Ockenga served for many years as pastor of Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts. He was also a prolific author on biblical, theological, and devotional topics. Ockenga helped to found the Fuller Theological Seminary and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, as well as the National Association of Evangelicals. from accessed 15 June 2014

55Dollar, A History of Fundamentalism in America, 204

56Ibid. 205

57from book promotion accessed Dec 2013

58Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume V, Christology, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 3-4.

59Ibid., 5

60Ibid., 7

61Ibid. 8-9.

62Ibid., 9-10

63Ibid., 11-12.

64Ibid., 43-44

65Ibid., 177

66This author cannot recommend or condone the use of any of the modernist ecumenical copyright bibles, all of which brazenly disregard the inerrancy and infallibility of the verbally inspired Holy Bible by utilizing the Westcott and Hort Bible criticism, textual criticism and critical text as their source. The American Revised Version is more a creation of the publishing world than an actual translation. When the English Revised Version was being prepared, the translation committee invited American scholars to participate. The Americans had certain preferences that were not included in the text but were noted in an appendix. The American Committee agreed to wait twenty years before releasing their own translation (which they did in 1901 – called the American Standard Version). However, some publishers began incorporating the American preferences into the text (without the authorization of the American Committee) and calling it the American Revised Version.

67 See previous note on A.R.V.

68There is an effort to keep this work’s reading ease at or below a 12th grade reading level. This complex paragraph resulted in a Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease 45.2, Average Grade Level 12.4 from

69Harold Egbert Camping (July 19, 1921 – December 15, 2013), the radio preacher who convinced thousands of followers that Jesus would return on May 21, 2011, to usher in the end of the the world, has died, according to a statement released late Monday (Dec. 16) by his Family Radio network. He was 92. from After numerous failed doomsday predictions, Family Radio founder Harold Camping announced this month that he has no plans to predict ever again the day of God’s Judgment. He also issued an apology to listeners, admitting that he was wrong.

“We have learned the very painful lesson that all of creation is in God’s hands and He will end time in His time, not ours!” a statement on Family Radio’s website reads. “We humbly recognize that God may not tell His people the date when Christ will return, any more than He tells anyone the date they will die physically.”

Camping, 90, has made predictions about Judgment Day, Christ’s return and the end of the world for the past few decades – with the May 21, 2011, forecast receiving the most media attention. Each time the date passed, he did not admit to mistaking the timing but instead reasoned that the events happened “spiritually” rather than physically.

But once Oct. 21, 2011 – the day Camping said the world would be destroyed physically – came and went, the Christian broadcaster began to reevaluate his views about being able to calculate and know the exact date of the apocalypse.

“Even the most sincere and zealous of us can be mistaken,” Camping and Family Radio staff stated in their March letter. “We realize that many people are hoping they will know the date of Christ’s return. In fact for a time Family Radio fell into that kind of thinking.

“But we now realize that those people who were calling our attention to the Bible’s statement that ‘of that day and hour knoweth no man’ (Matthew 24:36 & Mark 13:32), were right in their understanding of those verses and Family Radio was wrong. Whether God will ever give us any indication of the date of His return is hidden in God’s divine plan.” from accessed 9/27/2014

70Chafer is a complex writer. This paragraph analyzed by give Reading Ease -A higher score indicates easier readability; scores usually range between 0 and 100. Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease = 32.2 A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. Scores over 22 should generally be taken to mean graduate level text. Average Grade Level 17.2 Text Statistics: Character Count 1,911, Syllable Count 623, Word Count 377, Sentence Count 11, Characters per Word 5.1, Syllables per Word 1.7, Words per Sentence 34.3.

71Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol V, 281-283.

72Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology In One Volume,Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2002, 3, 4, 5, 11.


74The author objects to the Roman Catholic categorization of Christians being clerics, or clergy, who are denominationaly trained to read and interpret the Holy Bible, and laity or laymen, who were not trained and professional in their denomination. True, Bible believing, Born-again ones, are indwelt by the Christ and have eyes made to see, and ears made to hear. Such exude the priesthood of all believers.

75Ibid., flyleaf

76Ibid., 1510-1512.

77Ibid., 1512-1518.

78Ibid., 1504 – 1506.

79Cyclopedic Concordance of my mothers Scofield Reference Bible, New York Oxford University Press, 1945