In this chapter we will continue to review Elder Lemuel Potter's pamphlet titled "Unconditional Election Stated And Defined; Or, A Denial Of The Doctrine Of Eternal Children, Or Two Seeds In The Flesh." It can be read (here).
We are focusing on a basic Two Seed tenet that affirms that the man Christ Jesus preexisted his incarnation, being what the Bear Creek Association of Primitive Baptists today still have in their articles of faith, a remnant of the Two Seedism that was prevalent in it throughout the 19th century, which says:
"We believe in the man Jesus being the first of all God's creation and the pattern of all Gods perfection in nature, providence, grace and glory, and in relative union with the Divine Word, and thus united with the whole Trinity." (Article Two)
The words in bold are exactly what Arius taught and is a leading tenet of Arianism. Arianism is a belief in the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization. However, the Bible clearly shows that Jesus in his divinity as the Son of God was never created, but was himself the Creator of all things. It is true that the humanity of Jesus, including his body and soul, were created in the womb of the virgin Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit. In earlier chapters I cited from Elders Gilbert Beebe and Samuel Trott where they interpreted Colossians 1: 15-17 and Revelation 3: 14 in a similar way as do the Arians, saying that when Christ is called the "firstborn of every creature" and "the beginning of the creation of God," it means that Christ was the first thing God the Father created. However, Arians say that Christ when created before time was not then created with a human body, but was a created incorporeal god and that he became incarnate when he took upon himself a human body via being born of the virgin Mary. Two Seed Arians, however, say that Christ as a man and as the Son of God (not divine) was created or begotten before time.
Potter wrote:
"And while there are strong advocates for the doctrine that the body of Christ is eternal, and that at most he only received his blood from the Virgin Mary, his flesh and bone being eternal, we should notice very carefully what is said on the subject. Whatever it was that is so frequently called a branch of David, or seed of David, is what he took from his mother, whether it be blood exclusively, or flesh, bone and blood. We may also further consider that this branch came out of David, and not out of eternity. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots." Isa. xi. 1."
And,
"...the only existence this branch had at the time of the prophecy was in the loins of Jesse. If he did exist in eternity, in flesh and bone, he could not be of the seed of David according to the flesh."
And,
"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews vii. 14. If the Lord sprang out of Judah and was so carefully preserved through all generations from Judah down to the time of his birth of the Virgin Mary, was he not properly of the lineage of Judah? It is, surely, in this sense that he is the seed of David according to the flesh. But the objector says that his flesh and bone and nature was in heaven, and was put forth in the womb of the Virgin Mary when she was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then he took his blood."
Many Two Seeders argue that since Christ was Head of all from eternity, therefore his body (or the church, his mystical body) existed from eternity. Some of them also argued that the human soul of Christ existed from eternity. Some of them argued that the human body of Christ existed from eternity. In previous chapters I have stated how this was similar to the view of Joseph Smith and the Mormons who viewed God, Father and Son, as having human bodies. But, Mennonites also denied that Christ received his true humanity from Mary. Sixteenth-century Anabaptist leader Menno Simons, along with Melchior Hoffman, taught that Jesus did not derive his human nature from Mary, a doctrine known as "celestial flesh." They believed Christ's flesh was divine and "conceived in her," not "of her," to ensure he was not tainted by Adam's sin.
Potter shows however that the scriptures do not teach such a far fetched notion. Christ's humanity was conceived in the womb of the virgin and did not exist prior to this time except in the mind and purpose of God. He was "the seed of the woman." (Gen. 3: 15) Likewise, through his mother biologically, he is the "seed of Abraham" and the "seed of David." Jesus acknowledges that he is both the "son" of David and the "Lord" of David (Matt. 22: 41-45). He is David's son as respects Christ's human body and soul. He is David's Lord as respects Christ's divinity. Jesus says of himself: "I am the root and offspring of David." (Rev. 22: 16) By this he means that he was a human being by human procreation, although he was begotten by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph, the wife of the virgin Mary. Paul says that Christ "was born of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1: 3)
Wrote Potter:
"But let us proceed with the scriptural testimony relative to his assuming humanity. The Apostle gives the following admonition: "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 himself 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. ii. 5-8. What was it that was made in the likeness of men? It could not have been his body, if it existed in eternity in the form of a man; for that which already existed could not be made. It could not have been human nature if he always possessed that, and yet he was made in the likeness of men. In this it seems clear from the scriptures already quoted, that he became like a man by taking on him the nature and body of a man. Whatever the nature of a man is, is the human nature, and it is strictly in this sense that he was of the tribe of Judah. But I am asked, what was it that took this nature? I answer, Divinity. And when Divinity took upon himself the form and nature of a man, he possessed two natures - human and divine. When the angel explained to Joseph the condition of Mary, he did not say that an eternal human body or nature had been put forth in the womb of the blessed Virgin, but that something was conceived or begotten in her; he did not say it was of humanity, but of the Holy Ghost. Matt. i. 20. Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father. John iii. 15-18. Jesus being thus begotten of God and born of the Virgin Mary, comes into the world just what had been promised from the time man needed a Saviour."
The words "took upon himself the form of a servant" shows that Christ did not always have this form, this "fashion as a man," this being "made" in the "likeness of men."
However, I am a little perplexed by Potter's comment which stated: "Hence, the truth that he is begotten of God, and is known in scripture as the only begotten of the Father." It seems to me that he believes that Christ being the "only begotten Son of God," or "only begotten God," was what was true of his human conception rather than his divine conception (or generation). The orthodox view affirms that Christ's being begotten in his divinity was from eternity, what theologians called "eternal generation." Christ has always been the begotten Son of the Father so that there never was a beginning to his sonship nor to the Father's fatherhood. In human generation or procreation there is a beginning to it. But, with the divine generation of the Son there is no beginning. Just as Wisdom can be said to be "set up from everlasting" so too can we say that the Son was begotten from everlasting, that he has always been in the bosom of the Father, and is why he is the "only" begotten, his being divinely begotten being unique and unlike human generation.
It is true that we may say that Jesus was the Son of God in several ways besides his being God by having been begotten of the Father from eternity. Potter says that he believes that Christ is the Son of God by his having been born of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, this being what he means by "hence." If Potter limits Christ being the Son of God to that birth of his humanity, then he holds a serious error. As I noted in a previous chapter when giving the anti Two Seed views of Elder Joshua Lawrence, we saw where he also denied that Christ being begotten of the Father pertained to his divinity. It seems that many first generation "Primitive" or "Old School" Baptists likewise believed this, although today I would say that most do not. In my book "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" I mention how a few elders back in the 1970s, when I was also a young elder among them, began to teach that Christ being the Son of God had reference to his being begotten in the womb of Mary, or to his resurrection. Both elders, Conrad Jarrell and Jackie Mott, were disfellowshipped by the majority of Hardshells and so they started their own sub cult.
In my series on Adoption I cited from David Schrock (See here) to show how Christ is named "Son of God" in four ways. He is the “Son of God” in the sense that he fulfills the role of (1) Adam (who was called the Son of God (Luke 3: 38) Christ being the second Adam, (2) Israel (who is also called God's son (Exo. 4: 22), Christ enduring the temptation of Satan in the wilderness whereas Israel did not, and (3) David, who was God's begotten son because he was set up as king over the people of God and who Jesus supersedes as King, and (4) as the divine Son by having been eternally begotten.
Wrote Potter:
"We read on down to the 14th verse; it is said, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." Here is when he assumes humanity. He was not flesh in eternity; but the Word that was in eternity 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. But when we ask, how could that be made flesh that was always flesh? We are met with this answer: It does not say when it was made flesh. That indeed is masterly, as though it could be eternal at all, and yet be made. It does not matter when it was made flesh; but was it made flesh at all? If so, flesh is not eternal; for that which is made is not eternal. The Word was eternal, but flesh is not. Hence, when we speak of the Word that was in the beginning, we speak of the Son in the original capacity."
This is all true, but one must be careful not to use such reasoning to deny that Christ is the eternally begotten Son of God, that there was no time when he was not so. It is amazing how Two Seeders, on the one hand, spoke of Christ in his composite nature as a Mediator, composed of both human and divine natures, being such from eternity but then, on the other hand, argued that what is begotten denotes a derivation or beginning.
Wrote Potter:
"Although it was by him the worlds were made, and he is truly said to come down from heaven; yet his flesh and bone, or human nature, did not come down; for it was "made of a woman, made under the law (not made in heaven), to redeem them that were under the law." Gal. iv. 4-5."
Wrote Potter further:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John iii. 13. From this we are clearly taught that even when he was in the flesh, he filled immensity. He was here teaching the people, and yet was in heaven. If it was necessary for him to have a body in eternity in order to exist as the Son of man, it would now become necessary for him to have two bodies; one on earth, and one in heaven. But this text is sometimes used to prove that he came down from heaven in a body, undertaking to show from it that whatever of Jesus ascends to heaven first came down from heaven. But it seems to always prove too much when it is all quoted, and according to the interpretation they give it, that nothing will go to heaven only what comes from there, the body of the Saviour will be excluded from heaven; for he is here in the body, and says no man has ascended up to heaven but the Son of man which is in heaven. His body is not in heaven when he makes use of the expression. This is not all that we may learn from this text; for something has descended from heaven, and whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body. But it seems that this is as good an opportunity as is afforded in the Bible anywhere for us to ascertain whether the body of Christ did come down from heaven or not. Whatever was in heaven, called the Son of man was that that had ascended; and that which had ascended, had come down from heaven. If the body had not ascended it had not come down from heaven, and yet something had come down from heaven, and that something had ascended while the body of Jesus was still on earth. Hence, it is easily understood from this that when the Bible gives any account of the Saviour coming down from heaven, it has direct allusion to something besides his body. It must, therefore, be understood to be that that was in the beginning with God, which is the Word. He, in this capacity, as the Son of man, held the office of Redeemer before the creation; for, in view of his fulfilling this office, and as a part of its work, the creation of other worlds, as well as our own, and all that it contains, was assigned him by the Father. He, therefore, existed before he appeared in the world; yea, he sat upon the mediatorial throne and executed his office from the beginning of time."
In earlier chapters I cited the Two Seed motto that said - "nothing goes to heaven but what first came down from heaven." Potter mentions this fact. I believe Potter is right when he says - "whatever is called the Son of man now without a human body, may also have existed in eternity as the Son of man without a human body." I would add that the term "son of man" in reference to Christ does not strictly denote his humanity, but to his identity as the Son of God and his divinity by allusion to what the prophet Daniel saw in regard to this "son of man." (Dan. 7: 14) There this son of man is clearly an equal to the "ancient of days" who sits upon the throne and who is given an everlasting kingdom. I would encourage the reader to read what Bible scholar Sam Shamoun wrote on this matter in "The Son of Man as the Son of David; Examining the OT Evidence for
The Messianic Identity of Daniel’s Heavenly Figure." (See here)
On John 3: 13 Gill wrote:
"Not that he brought down from heaven with him, either the whole of his human nature, or a part of it; either an human soul, or an human body; nor did he descend locally, by change of place, he being God omnipresent, infinite and immense, but by assumption of the human nature into union with his divine person..."
Jesus often spoke of his "coming down from heaven." By this he does not mean that he existed as a man prior to his conception in the womb of the virgin Mary. He means what Potter said. He as the Son of God came down from heaven when he became incarnate.
Some bible teachers think that what Christ says is this: "no one has ascended to heaven and come back." But, that seems like adding to what Christ said, although it may indeed be what he meant.
Others suggest that what Christ means is that no one has ascended to heaven by his own choice, effort, or means. Yes, Enoch and Elijah were taken away to heaven, but they were taken up there, being passive in being taken there, and not ascending there by their own means. Elijah went to heaven and yet he later appeared with Moses on the mount and conversed with Christ, so he is one who went to heaven, came back to earth, and went back I suppose. But, Elijah did not speak to people on earth and tell them about what he saw in heaven.
Adam Clark in his commentary says:
"This seems a figurative expression for, No man hath known the mysteries of the kingdom of God; as in Deuteronomy 30:12; Psalms 73:17; Proverbs 30:4; Romans 11:34. And the expression is founded upon this generally received maxim: That to be perfectly acquainted with the concerns of a place, it is necessary for a person to be on the spot."
That too may be the meaning. Jesus in this case would be saying - "I have come down from heaven. So, anything you want to know about it, I am the only one who can tell you."
The following verses seem to agree with this point of view:
“Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach)." (Rom. 10: 6-8 nkjv)
No one needs to ascend to heaven to know something about heaven because 1) God himself came down from heaven, descended upon Mt. Sinai, and there revealed himself and his word to Moses and Moses revealed it to the people, and 2) Christ, the Son of God, has also come down from heaven and is now revealing the things of heaven. What we know of the abyss of Hell, or of the sea, is also a result of it being revealed by God's revelation.
In conclusion we must realize that John 3: 13 cannot be decisive in affirming that Christ had a human body before his descent from heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment