<< Back |
Chosen no: R-506 b, from: 1883 Year. |
Change lang
| |
Enriched By Manhood.
In the columns of an exchange we read this
explanation of why Jesus became a man:
"One, whom we may call brother, has brought
the language down to us, and knowing our language, is able to teach it
to us. How short his earthly life! How infinite its results! The everliving,
irrepressible Word, worked out a fitter abode and re-ascended to God ENRICHED BY THE POSSESSION OF MANHOOD."
This statement is almost too absurd to
criticize. If it were true, why should not angels be thus enriched? Nay, if it
so enriched the Son of God, why should not the Father also thus enrich
himself? Truly our exchange has a higher estimate of manhood, and a lower
estimate of spiritual nature, than we can find taught in Scripture. We read
that a perfect manhood, as illustrated in Adam and again in Jesus (See Psa. 8:5, and Heb. 2:9),
is a little lower than the nature of angels, though they are the lowest
order on the spiritual plane.
But again, notice the reason given for Jesus
becoming a man--that he might become acquainted with our language and teach us
of heavenly things. Now, it is true, that Jesus did teach some [R507 : page 5] heavenly things, though very
little, as he said: "If I have told you earthly things and ye
believe not, how shall ye believe IF I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12). The fact is that the revelation of
heavenly or spiritual things dates from Pentecost, after he was gone, as it is
written: "It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I go not away,
the Comforter will not come unto you....I have yet many things to say unto you,
but ye cannot bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come he
will guide you into all truth." (John 16:7,12,13).
It follows, then, that the writer of the above
is not only in error about Jesus being enriched with manhood, but is in
error also as to why he became a man. He could and did teach us
heavenly things while he was in heaven; hence the object of his becoming a man
must be something else.
Let us inquire of Paul on this matter, and let
us remember that a little Scripture is better than a great deal of theory,
whether it be the old musty theories expressed in the fifteenth century creeds
or in modern theorizings such as the above. The Apostle says that Jesus humbled himself in becoming a man, and that the object of so doing was to redeem men, to give himself a ransom for all, to taste death for every man. This
being accomplished he was exalted again to the spiritual plane, yea to the
highest grade on that plane of being--He has been made a partaker of the Divine
nature. (1 Tim. 1:15; Matt. 20:28;
1 Tim. 2:6; Acts
20:28).
He was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened in spirit." And "Though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him [so] no more." (1 Pet. 3:18; 2 Cor. 5:16).
His humanity was all dropped, and so must ours be, for "Flesh" and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God." (1 Cor. 15:50.) Therefore we must be changed to his likeness, which is not human, but "The express image of the
Father's person." Let us keep natures separate, and remember that
apples, potatoes and peas cannot be blended: nor can horses, dogs and
fish; because they are of different natures. So the human and the divine
natures cannot be blended because they are different natures. See Paul's
definition of the distinctness of natures--"There is one kind of flesh of
men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." 1 Cor. 15:38-41,48.
But in this same exchange the editor asks,
"Why will any contemporary hold the editor responsible for expressions of
correspondents?" Now we should say that the above expression is not
editorial matter, but what of it? We do not criticize the editor's writings
only, but the statements of the PAPER. It is the paper which goes forth
as a Teacher. Unless said editor endorses the above expression of nonsense he
has no right to publish it. Is there no responsibility to either the Church or
the head of the Church connected with his position of editor?
What should we say of the cook, who would serve
up to the table a dish prepared by a subordinate, knowing it to contain
deleterious and poisonous food?
W.T. R-506b : page 5 - 1883r