47

CHAPTER 3

THE LIFE OF THE KING

The NT portrait of the King omits most of His childhood and begins its detailed description with Jesus’ baptism by John. From that baptism until His death approximately three years later, the NT records the God-Man’s appearance with a narrative of miracles, stories, and sermons.

As with the virgin birth event, so also with this period in the King’s life. Men vary radically in their response. The NT pictures the King living out such an odd life, making such stupendous claims, that critics either consider Jesus imbalanced or that the NT simply presents a false picture of him, concocted by Church leaders after the fact. In this chapter we will discuss the life of the King, the responses of unbelief to it, and the doctrinal truths revealed through His life for us. Included among these truths is a discussion of how Christ’s life contributes to an inerrant, infallible Bible. (Read here at least two of the following gospel sections--Matt. 3-25; Mark 1-13; Luke 3-21; and John 1-17).

THE HISTORICAL APPEARANCE OF THE KING.

As in the case of the virgin birth, so is the case with Jesus’ life. Acceptance of the NT interpretation proceeds out of a prior biblical world view. Although Jesus’ life was the most concentrated revelation of the Word of God in history, it was really a continuation of the OT revelation. OT revelation, built upon the imagehood of God in man, was manifestly verbal. When God spoke to Abraham, Moses, and the others, He obviously spoke words. In fact, most of the OT would be meaningless apart from verbal revelation since the verbal covenants between God and Israel form the basis of most OT books. God did not leave Israel to guess what He was doing in history; He repeatedly gave her verbal explanations of these and future events. God as the Designer of human speech could even speak through an ass, if necessary (Num. 22:21-35)!

Those sympathetic to this OT view of revelation, therefore, have not been hostile to the King, neither physically in ancient times, nor philosophically in modern times. They have understood the King as the pinnacle of revelation. He is God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh (John 1:14). His momentous claims, seen in this light, are just what rational men would expect of the authoritative OT God of Creation!

Such believers in Jesus view the NT documents, therefore, as generated by the Holy Spirit to picture accurately the King and to bring out exactly the details willed by God the Father for our information and response. This NT picture of Jesus is often called the “kerygmatic Christ” from the Greek word for a preached message (kergyma). The NT is the kerygma of the early Christians that gives the true interpretation of the King’s life for mankind. In orthodox faith there is identity between the NT picture and “what really happened” in the life of Jesus, the “historical Jesus.” (Unbelief, as we shall see shortly, sharply divides between the “kerygmatic Christ” and the “historic Jesus.”)

It is not just a matter of revelation and authoritative Scripture that is at issue here. The NT picture of the King shows that He “pioneered” a new, righteous way of life for mankind through the filling of the Holy Spirit that had never occurred before in history. No human being since the fall ever successfully lived a perfect life in Satan’s world until Jesus made the “breakthrough.” The NT details of His life are very important to “see” what righteousness and godliness look like amidst the details of everyday life. Only if the kergymatic Christ is the same as the historic Jesus can we know what God expects of us, what His “standard” really is, and what the Holy Spirit seeks to create in believers today.

UNBELIEVING RESPONSES TO THE KING’S LIFE

As we did in the previous chapter, we will do again here. We’ll look first at how unbelief has rejected the King’s life, both in ancient times as well as in modern times. Then we’ll show why such rejection is a necessity for unbelief to be consistent with itself. Unbelief is a pathology of the mind and heart born from mankind’s sin. It shows over and over that mankind judges itself when it tries to judge the King.

ANCIENT AND MODERN REJECTION OF THE PERFECT LIFE.

The responses of unbelief have varied little over the ages. The ancient responses to Jesus may have been a bit more provincial than modern unbelief; but, as I will demonstrate below, it exhibited the same disdain for God’s self-authenticating, authoritative Word.

Ancient Jewish Responses. During the days when the King spoke and performed miracles, a Jewish backlash arose from His threatening challenge to their popular religious views of the day. Jesus’ threat can be seen in many areas: His assault upon Pharisaic legalism, His radical interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures (particularly His innovative picture of the OT Messiah), and His stubborn, bold claim of implicit authority for whatever He taught.

Much to the offense of the leading legalists of the day, Jesus lived socially in a manner considered sinful for a rabbi. Jesus spoke with many women in public, once drank out of the same vessel as a woman of questionable reputation by the Well of Jacob (John 4: 7-27), and freely permitted other women to loosen their hair in His presence (Luke 7:36-50; John 12:1-8).[1] Jesus seemed to go out of His way to collide with other bureaucratic “regulations” of His day. In one of the most clear-cut cases in the NT He and his disciples broke the regulatory details of Sabbath living (Matt. 12:1-13; John 9:1-16).

Jesus claimed that such traditions as the public behavior of rabbis and the detailed Sabbatical regulations were mere human distortions of the original revelation given by God in the OT. Only God’s Word, not man’s traditions, was the proper base of human action according to Jesus. He insisted, for example, that the Ten Commandments of the OT had to be recovered from obscuring tradition and retaught once again in their original spiritual sharpness (Matt. 5-7). The fourth commandment (“Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy:--Exod. 20:8) must be understood as establishing a day of refreshing rest for man rather than a day of further religious burden (Matt. 12:1-13). The fifth commandment (“Honor thy father and thy mother”—Exod. 20:12) had to be rescued from the religious gimmicks which were destroying its force (Matt.

15:4-6). The sixth and seventh commandments (“Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery”—Exod. 20:13-14) had basically to do with the deep mental

attitudes and not with just the actual overt acts, according to Jesus (Matt. 5:21-32).

More startling to His contemporaries than His challenge of their legalism was Jesus’ radical interpretation of the OT. Although He interpreted the Scriptures in their original literal sense as many contemporary rabbis did, Jesus insisted that all revelation was fulfilled in Himself! Jesus saw Himself anticipated typologically in Jonah (Matt. 12:39-41; Luke 11:29-32), Solomon (Matt. 12:42; Luke 11:31), David (Matt. 12:3-4; Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4), and Isaiah (Matt. 13:13; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10). He also saw Himself anticipated typologically in the national experience of the nation Israel. Like Israel, Jesus came out of Egypt (Matt. 2:13-23) and encountered a testing period in the wilderness which He met using Scriptures from the wilderness-wandering period of Israel’s history (Matt. 4:1-11; cf. Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3). Additionally, Jesus predicted His resurrection on the third day based apparently upon prophecy that the nation Israel would be restored on the third day (Hos. 6:1-3).

After studying this use of Scripture by Jesus, Dr. R. T. France concluded: “Jesus saw his mission as the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures; not just of those which predicted a coming redeemer, but of the whole sweep of Old Testament ideas. The patterns of God’s working which the discerning eye could trace in the history and institutions of Israel were all preparing for the great climax. . .which the prophets foretold. And in the coming of Jesus all this was fulfilled.”[2].

In stressing fulfillment of all the OT in himself, Jesus wove together OT passages in a way new to His generation. He drew the key ingredient from the suffering servant picture in Isaiah 53, which He then combined with other OT passages such as Daniel 7 with its picture of the Son of Man. Jesus relied heavily upon further Messianic pictures in Psalm 110 and Zechariah 9-14. These OT pictures, when assembled together, formed a composite picture of the Messiah which perfectly fit Jesus’ life and death. France rightly notes: “In the Jewish world of the first century AD Jesus of Nazareth was a man apart. . . . .While second to none in his reverence for the Scriptures, his diligent study of them and his acceptance of their teachings, . . .he yet applied the Old Testament in a way which was quite unparalleled. The essence of his new application was that he saw the fulfillment of the predictions and foreshadowings of the Old Testament in himself and his work. . . .

Such a use of the Old Testament was not only original; it was revolutionary. It was such that a Jew who did not accept it must violently oppose it. It is not surprising that a community founded on this teaching soon found itself irreconcilably divided from those Jews who still looked forward to a coming Messiah.”[3]

Of course, behind Jesus’ disregard for the secondary and tertiary religious regulations and His innovative interpretation of the OT, was His basic implicit authority. He boldly spoke forth His position without justifying references from rabbinical traditions (Matt. 7:28-29). In a way startlingly similar to Yahweh on Mt. Sinai, Jesus ascended a mountain and gave His “law” in the famous Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). Jesus clearly claimed implicit authority to originate the Word of God in this sermon because of the repeated statement, “Ye have heard it said to them of old time. . . .but I say unto you” (Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44). He did not say, “Thus saith the Lord” after the manner of OT prophets; He said, “Thus saith I.” Jesus even claimed to add to the OT revelation in Matthew 13:1-52 when He taught His disciples certain mysteries or previously unrevealed truths about the OT Kingdom of God.

When He uttered these prophecies, especially in the closing days of His life (Matt. 24-25) not as words from God but as His own words. Sinful men, even religious men, could not help but be offended that Truth existed independently of their interpretation, that they were responsible to a transcendental standard external to themselves. In a way analogous to the modern legal community, the Jewish Pharisees had virtually ignored Truth in favor of endless quibbling about judicial technicalities. They were forcibly reminded of the OT pattern of God’s words and works through the way the King lived and taught. To this apparent “intrusion” into their conventional society, they responded deeply and violently (e.g., Matt. 12:14-15; John 8:59)..51

Modern Unbelieving Responses.

For all their vehemence the ancient opponents of Jesus did not deny the historical existence of their hated object. They did not pretend that He was otherwise than He was. Modern opponents, however, have tried to precisely this thing. They have concentrated upon denying that the NT Jesus ever really existed and have tried to replace Him with a reconstructed model better suited to the requirements of their unbelief.

A clear example of how modern unbelief has denied the existence of the biblical Jesus is shown in this address a generation ago by philosophy professor Avrum Stroll at the University of British Columbia. As you read this excerpts, note the flow of logic:

“In contemporary philosophical theology one of the most widely debated questions concerns the relation between the historical Jesus, a man supposedly living in Palestine sometime between 9 B.C. and AD 32, and the Jesus described in the Gospel writings. . . .

One may, I think, not unfairly summarize the scholarly opinion on this question as follows: the existence of Jesus is beyond question; but the information we have about him is a composite of fact and legend which cannot be reliably untangled. . . . These passages from Josephus [Antiquities, VIII.3; XX.9], and the passage from Tacitus [Annals, XV.44], contain the only information we have about the existence of Christ from non-Christian sources in the first century. It is clear that neither writer

could have been an eye witness to the events he describes. . . .

The Gospels, of course, purport to contain descriptions of the life and activities of Christ, from the time of his nativity, through his baptism, crucifixion and resurrection.

Until the attention of historical scholarship was directed to these documents early in the nineteenth century, it was commonly assumed that they contained eye witness

reports of the events described. . . .

It is extremely unlikely that the writers of the documents we now possess would have been eye witnesses to the activities of Jesus. . . .

Even if there were reason to believe some of the material to express eye witness accounts of Jesus’ life, the accretion of legend, the description of miracles performed by Jesus, which exist in these writings [sic] make it difficult, if not impossible, to extract from them any reliable historical testimony about the events escribed. . . .It seems to me likely that during this [NT] period a prophet arose. . . .; but an accretion of legends grew up about this figure, was incorporated into the Gospels by various devotees of the movement, was rapidly spread throughout the Mediterranean world by the ministry of St. Paul; and that because this is so, it is impossible to separate these legendary elements in the purported descriptions of Jesus from those which in fact were true of him.[4]

In this address one can clearly see the unbelieving presupposition in Dr. Stroll’s statement that “the descriptions of miracles performed by Jesus, which exist in these writings make it difficult, if not impossible, to extract from them any reliable historic testimony. . . .” In other words, Stroll tries to interpret the Gospels within his pre-established, pagan worldview rather than interpret the Gospels within the biblical worldview that emerges from the Old Testament in anticipation of the New. Instead of submitting to the biblical view of God, man, and nature, Stroll follows out his naturalistic worldview and changes the NT picture to fit it. He, with a host of other modern unbelieving critics, denies that the NT picture records what “really” happened in the historic appearance of Jesus Christ.

Modern NT criticism, therefore, has sought to reconstruct the supposedly “true” situation. The actual historic person of Jesus is often affirmed, but He has been carefully distinguished from His NT picture. Some of the critics have believed that historic research was capable of “going behind” the NT documents into first century Palestine and recovering some idea of what the “real” Jesus was like. Others, like Stroll, have refused to search for Him, believing that the methods of historical research simply could not apprehend a specific individual who lived so long ago. In both cases, however, the critics have never identified the real Jesus with the NT picture of Him.

This NT picture of Jesus is often called the “kerygmatic Christ” as mentioned above. It contrasts with the “real” historic Jesus. Figure Two shows how this pagan sort of thinking contrasts with biblical thinking on the issue. Some of the more extreme critics hold to position “A” in which the kerygmatic Christ has no connection whatsoever with the historic Jesus. In their worldview man experiences religious emotions and responds in his imagination by generating religious images. No communication exists between a Creator and his creature because at bottom all is one impersonal cosmos, a grand Continuity of Being. NT writers, in this view, merely created the kerygmatic Christ out of their religious imaginations. Christ, in this view, is a like a chameleon that takes on the qualities of the observer’s theology.

Other critics haven’t been quite so extreme. They hold to position “B” in Figure Two. They claim that the kerygmatic Christ has some sort of relationship to the historic Jesus, but they aren’t sure of the correspondence. They fervently desire to have some objective historic fact underneath the kerygmatic Christ, but because of their pagan commitments they cannot give up the idea that the NT must be a product of human thought. Both positions “A” and “B” differ profoundly from historic, orthodox Christianity which is shown in position “C” and which was explained above.

Historical “Real” Jesus

Kerygmatic NT Christ.

Position A: complete divorce between the historical Jesus and the NT picture.

Historical Jesus/Kerygmatic NT Christ

Position B: partial divorce between the historical Jesus and the NT picture.

Historical Kerygmatic Real Jesus Christ

Position C: Identity between the historical Jesus and the NT picture.

Figure 2. Three views of the relationship between the ”real”” historical Jesus and the NT picture of him (the so-called “kerygmatic Christ”). Positions A and B show paganized viewpoints whereas Position C shows the biblical worldview. The same three positions could be extended to the entire canon of Scripture.

Unbelief’s Need to Reject the Life of Jesus Christ. All the unbelieving responses to the King’s appearance have displayed the same apostate background as the unbelieving responses to the virgin birth discussed earlier. In the virgin birth debate, it will be remembered, the pagan ideas of God, man, and nature led critics to either call Jesus a bastard or the virgin birth a physical impossibility. The pagan Continuity of Being motif further led critics to misstate the doctrine of the God-man character of Jesus Christ. In the present debate over the life of Christ in general it is the pagan denial of biblical revelation that has mislead the critics.

The ancient Jewish critics insisted that the OT Scripture was to be viewed as literature that required authoritative interpretation by the rabbis. In actual practice the Jewish interpretation traditions and detailed applications to social life had long since replaced the Scripture itself. Fallen, sinful teachers’ fleshly minds had effectively separated the ordinary Jew from knowing God in a direct, personal way (cf. John 12:37-41; Rom. 11:25-27; I Cor. 1:18-2:9). When, therefore, these Jewish critics faced Jesus Who claimed to bring the original OT Scripture to the forefront over and above the contemporary traditions, they were profoundly offended. Particularly galling to them was the idea that Jesus asserted direct revelational authority, placing His words on a par with the OT Scripture (and therefore above those of the rabbis).

Modern critics have followed a similar path. Having turned from the pieces of biblical truth mixed into Western civilization, they deny the possibility of any verbal revelation. One of the most famous theologians of the twentieth century, Dr. Paul Tillich, wrote: “There are no revealed doctrines, but there are revelatory events and situations which can be described in doctrinal terms. . . .The ‘Word of God’ contains neither revealed commandments nor revealed doctrines.”[5] Such denials of divine revelation parrot the same denials found in eastern religion.[6] Paganism is basically the same whether western or eastern.

Instead of replacing the Scripture with the Jewish rabbinical traditions, modern Gentile critics replace the Scripture with pagan beliefs that have grown up since mankind received the “Noahic Bible” at the beginning of civilization. Figure Two could be drawn to represent the entire Bible, not just the NT picture of Jesus. The Bible’s view of history couldn’t possibly be “real” history; these critics, therefore, demand the right to reconstruct the “true” picture of universal history as in positions “A” and “B”.

The King made His appearance in history; that is fact. Men receptive to God’s revelation have accepted that record. Other men, in their self-deception of unbelief, try again and again to reinterpret that record to preserve some sense of safety from an interfering God. Men, therefore, have divided themselves over Jesus Christ. They have been forced to expose their hearts’ innermost views of God. In the words of John the Apostle, they have judged themselves (John 3:18-21). Figure Three pictures the process.

Pagan worldview of revelation

Biblical worldview of revelation

The King’s Historic appearance

Rejected! Accepted!

Figure 3. The fact of the King’s historic appearance is interpreted in accordance with one’s worldview of revelation.

Because biblical revelation immediately renders the recipient accountable to the God Who has revealed himself, it is the sinner’s desperate desire to somehow deny that it has taken place. All the gimmicks—from some of the ancient Jewish religious traditions to modern intellectual paganism—have the aim to safeguard the self-proclaimed “innocence” of fallen man.

DOCTRINAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE KING’S APPEARANCE: KENOSIS, IMPECCABILITY, AND INFALLIBILITY

Even as the virgin birth pictures the doctrine of the hypostatic union, the life of the King pictures additional doctrinal truths. While the overall motif is the issue of revelation, when that revelation comes through a human being the issue of sanctification comes to the fore. Jesus Christ was involved in sanctification because of his true humanity. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews put it this way: “It was fitting for [the Father]. . .in bringing many sons to glory to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10). When we discuss the doctrine of sanctification in connection with the God-man, we do so under the doctrinal titles “kenosis” and “impeccability.” After studying these truths we will move on to the end result of Jesus’ sanctification, His revelational infallibility.

THE DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS.

In Parts III and IV of this series we defined the goal of the believer’s life as the development of loyalty to God; that is the aim of sanctification. We also made the point that sanctification is not primarily directed against sin; it is the training of the soul in obedience to God’s will in every area. It follows, therefore, that even a sinless human (like Christ) would have to experience sanctification to accomplish His mission as a man. Since He is the King of the Kingdom of God, Jesus Christ must be perfectly sanctified to carry out this leadership role. In undergoing sanctification Christ fulfills the ideal pointed out by OT King David who was the first type of the

Messiah.

David’s experiences provide some analogy with Christ’s human experiences. In particular, the long struggle of David to accede to his throne (I Samuel 16 to II Samuel 4) is analogous to Christ’s struggle to win His kingdom during His earthly life. Just as David’s prophetic anointing by the prophet Samuel was not enough to effect throne succession in Israel, so Jesus’ anointing by the prophet John was not enough to place Him immediately as reigning king. David had to endure the acid tests of experience before the nation would recognize his throne claim. So, too, Jesus had to endure trials before His kingly character would be revealed. Finally, just as David had to endure the attacks of incumbent king Saul in spite of the fact that he, David, was the rightful heir, so Christ had to endure the attacks of the god of this world (Satan) even though He was the Messiah Who is to reign upon earth. Jesus’ manner of meeting these trials and attacks during His life is held up by the Apostle Paul as a model for every believer today in Philippians 2:5-11. Obviously, if Christ was true man as well as God and if His sanctification was perfect, He is the example for believers. In explaining how Christ is the perfect example Paul developed the doctrine of kenosis. This doctrine can best be understood by first looking at the NT data, then studying a statement of the doctrine, and finally examining applications of the doctrine.

Biblical Data on Kenosis. The word kenosis comes from the Greek verb “to empty” used in Philippians 2:7. How did Christ empty Himself? This question is difficult to answer because Christ is God, and God is immutable. The Bible, however, insists that Christ did give up something related to His divine nature while He lived on earth under the conditions of trial and pressure. One part of the biblical data concerns Christ’s divine attribute of omniscience. Passages such as Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32 proclaim that Christ did not have access to, nor did not exercise, omniscience on at least some occasions. Other texts (e.g., Mark 5:9; 6:38; 9:21; John 6:6) indicate Jesus genuinely asked for information from people without searching their hearts with His omniscience. In fact, a prophetic passage about the Messiah found in Isaiah 50:4-11, speaks of Christ learning from God the Father: “He wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught” (50:4b). Hengstenberg, the great student of OT Christology, commented on this text that “the figure is taken from a teacher, who, in the morning, before he commences his instruction, summons his pupils to him”[7]. If Jesus was God, critics ask, why was His omniscience so “hidden”?

The early Arian heretics wrongly concluded that Jesus could not have been full deity. Obviously on other occasions in the NT Jesus clearly manifested His omniscience (John 1:48; 2:24-25; 16:30; 21:17). Something was emptied here, yet without changing Jesus’ divine nature.

Another part of the biblical data concerns Christ’s omnipotence. In Matthew 4:1-4 Christ refused to show His omnipotence to answer Satan’s challenge to make stones into bread. Matthew 12:28 says Christ cast demons out, not by His omnipotence, but by God’s Spirit dwelling in His as a man. Luke 4:14,18 likewise proclaims that Christ did His wonderful works by the indwelling Spirit rather than by His own omnipotence. Nevertheless, other passages equally proclaim that Christ occasionally used His omnipotence (Matt. 8:26-27; John 2:7-11). Again, something appears to be emptied; yet Jesus’ divine nature still seems to have existed.

The biblical data, then, present an ambiguous picture. Sometimes Christ shows His divine nature, but on most occasions He does not. Paul in Philippians 2:5-11 explains this situation as some sort of “emptying” or kenosis. Jesus Himself refers to the problem as being without His eternal glory (John 17:5).

The Doctrine of Kenosis Stated. Theologians have been concerned in stating the doctrine of kenosis not to dilute the divine nature of Christ on one hand, yet to give due weight to the restricted use of this divine nature during Christ’s trials on the other hand. If His divine nature is diluted, then the hypostatic union is denied. If His divine nature is not restricted, then Christ cannot be a model for believers in sanctification since His would have an advantage not shared by any other man. The question is how to describe what was going on in the incarnation that avoids these two errors. Some have defined kenosis as the giving up of some or all of the divine attributes. Others, particularly Reformed Conservatives ones, have defined kenosis as the non-use of the divine attributes. The best definition, however, is that kenosis refers to the giving up of the independent use of the divine attributes. This definition fits best with the principle found in Acts 1:7 which was used by Jesus to justify the withholding of information from the disciples. The principle is that the Father’s decree controls all things, even the flow of revelation. Christ’s kenosis, therefore, is a result of His subjection to the Father’s will. He subordinated Himself to the Father by giving up the independent use of His divine nature.

The Roman Catholic Christologist Karl Adam tries to visualize kenosis in the area of Jesus’ use of His omniscience:

“Because Jesus’ human soul belonged to the self of the Logos, all knowledge is objectively and in principle available to it. His possession of it was potential. Every time his messianic mission made it necessary, he could draw with the cup of his human intellect from the infinite spring of divine wisdom. . . Usually, it remained potential knowledge, not actual knowledge. It remained in his unconscious, hidden beneath the threshold of his daylight consciousness. Only when his hour was come, could he and might he by way of contemplation realize this potential knowledge.”[8]

The subordination that we saw in the doctrine of the hypostatic union is thus clarified with the doctrine of kenosis. As the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son has some sort of inherent, eternal subordination to the First Person insofar as His role and relationship to the Father is concerned, though not insofar as His essence is concerned. During the period of His life on earth, He acquired a created nature (His true humanity) which gave additional cause for subordination. The kenotic state, then, can be viewed as a special, extreme case of the general intra-Trinity subordination.

Implications of Kenosis. Of what practical use is the doctrine of kenosis in the Christian life? Paul, at least, thought it must have had some application as he revealed it in Philippians 2. Three major implications can be seen beginning with Paul’s discussion.

In Philippians 2 Paul is concerned with the heart of sanctification: the goal of loyalty toward God regardless of what He asks. Such loyalty comes from a primary virtue: humility of the creature before the Creator. The foundational virtue in the biblical worldview is not courage or self-righteousness as in certain pagan worldviews; the basic virtue underlying all other virtues is humility before God. Christ, in His kenosis, models what this humility ought to look like for mankind. Christ submitted wholly to the Father’s plan even when that plan required “devaluation” or “emptying” of the independent use of His own divine attributes. He faced at this point the biggest temptation to pride ever faced in human history: would He humble Himself to endure the abuse of rebellious creatures and the wages of their sin when He

could have remained in the tranquility and purity of heaven? Note the frequent NT references to Christ’s humiliation before His exaltation:

“Now that ‘He ascended’, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? (Eph. 4:9)

“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” (Heb. 4:10)

“Who. . .endured the cross, depising the shame. . . .that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself. . . .”(Heb. 12:3)

“Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example. . . who did no sin. . . .Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” (I Pet. 2:21-23)

Christ modeled for us the cardinal virtue of humility before God in all situations. Humility before God is the basis of faith. When Christ was demeaned by evil men, Peter says “he committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.” Now Christ assumed this humble mental attitude while at the same time being God. We may sometimes think we are gods, but He WAS and IS God. The implication is clear: if Christ had to stoop that low to obey God, there is nothing that God can ask us to do that is too low or too humble. Thus, says Paul, “Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5).

The great Puritan pastor, Richard Baxter (1615-91), made a skillful use of the application of the doctrine of kenosis while exhorting fellow pastors to do their job. Watch his powerful use of the truth of kenosis in a very practical setting:

“O, then, let us hear those arguments of Christ whenever we feel ourselves growing dull and lifeless. Can you hear him saying, “Did I die for those people, and will you then refuse to look after them? Were they worthy of my blood, and are they not worth your labor? Did I come down from Heaven to seek and to save that which was lost, and will you refuse to go next door, or to the next street or village to seek them? How small is your labor or condescension compared to mine! I debased myself to

di this, but it is your honor to be so employed. Have I done and suffered so much for their salvation, and will you refuse that little that lies upon your hands?”[9]

A second implication of kenosis concerns subordination in human relationships. Much of modern rebellion against authority in the home and in society, though triggered perhaps by poor leadership situations, comes from a misperception of subordination. The popular myth views subordination as one individual’s being constitutionally inferior to another. This myth flies in the face of the Trinity and kenosis. Even in the extreme case of subordination in kenosis, the Son was not constitutionally inferior to the Father. The subordination, obviously, remained one of role only. The kenotic state of Christ did not involve His giving up His attributes so that He had to resume them after ascending into heaven! Kenosis involved giving up independent (unsubmissive) use of the attributes for the sake of a role under the Father. One example of the misunderstanding of subordination is the view of it within the Women’s Liberation movement. This movement assumes that woman’s subordination in marriage to the husband is one of constitution, not of role. Christian feminist writers like Scanzoni and Hardesty try hard to defend their notion that all subordination is repulsive so they seek to refashion the subordination of the Trinity and kenosis:

“Is Christ subordinate to the Father? . . . Christ as God and man both rules and submits. He voluntarily, out of love, set aside the privileges of the Godhead to assume the work of redemption as a man, but he has now ascended into heaven to resume all his divine attributes. He is no longer subordinate to the Father as he was on earth, but coequal, as the creed says, “very God of very God” (see Heb. 1:3; I Cor. 15:27- 28).”[10][Emphasis supplied.]

Their theology is heretical. Christ did not ascend into heaven “to resume all his divine attributes” because he had them always while on earth as John’s gospel particularly shows. As the second Person of the Trinity in heaven now the Son has an ordered relationship with the Father that can be understood only in terms of subordination of earthly sons to earthly fathers. The words “son” and “father” have been chosen by the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture, not by “patriarchal”, biased male authors of the text. Scanzoni and Hardesty so confuse constitutional subordination with role subordination that they cannot comprehend orthodox Christianity! Their very citation of I Corinthians 15:27-28 refutes their point: the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father, not just when He was under kenosis.

The doctrine of kenosis, therefore, offers clear evidence of what subordination in social structures is and is not. No legitimate subordination—whether in marriage, in family, in business, in the military, or in the local church—ought to imply constitutional inferiority. A struggle with pride may be involved, but to destroy such false pride is to imitate “the mind of Christ.”

A third implication of the kenosis doctrine has to do with the problem of the difference between the Creator’s knowledge (omniscience) and the creature’s knowledge (finite). NT writers cite the sympathy and understanding of Christ as the great High Priest (Heb. 4:14-15). Had the Son not come down to earth to live as a man under kenosis, He would not have this special “sympathy” and “understanding.” When He became man, while still God, Christ encountered finite creature knowledge as a creature. While living on earth, He learned as a man (Heb. 2:10; 5:7-8). He was on the “receiving end” of revelation (Isa. 50:4). Consequently, He can see things from the creature’s perspective of experienced, learned truth. Behaviorally, then, kenosis ought to encourage us to come to the Father through the Son as our spokesman in

prayer, knowing that besides being God He is one in nature and understanding with us.

Some would argue that because God is omniscient, He must know how creatures know, and therefore the kenosis experience of Christ does not really add new knowledge to the Second Person. This argument, of course, is but a specific example of the general position that regards history as insignificant. This position borders on Docetism which we studied under the hypostatic union debate earlier. There, you remember, we noted that history brought about a lasting actual change in the Second Person. He became God and man in one person, and carries the scars of crucifixion on His eternal resurrected body. This denial of historical significance is sometimes found in extreme Calvinist circles. By way of contrast, the Bible insists that while God can know what the creature knows, He thus knows from the infinite standpoint

of omniscience, not from the finite standpoint of the creature. God’s omniscience cannot be identified with creature knowledge. To do that would be to surrender to Pantheism, a variant of paganism. Kenosis, therefore, fills in more details of just what is meant when “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). Kenosis adds to the hypostatic union doctrine more implications of Christ’s humanity.

Because Christ knows what it is like to be a creature who must walk by faith, the Father has made Him to be our judge (John 5:22). We are to be tried at the bar of judgment by our Peer, One whose judgments we cannot refute as “unsympathetic” and “unknowing”. Unlike adherents of post-biblical Judaism or Islam with their sole monotheistic gods, we have the God Who walked on this planet, experienced fatigue, faced evil, and successfully fulfilled the mission of His human life without “cheating” by using His attributes where we have nothing. He lived as a creature in every detail, constantly walking by the same humble faith we are directed to use.

To sum up implications of the doctrine of kenosis: Christ is the perfect model of sanctification. He modeled the cardinal virtue of humility toward God. He showed us what true submission to authority is. And because He had to utilize the filling of the Holy Spirit in His faith walk, He has become an emphatic Intercessor for us with His Father. Like a test pilot puts a new airplane through its paces, beyond the envelop of normal everyday flight, Jesus Christ demonstrated the Christian life perfectly in every area beyond levels we are likely to experience.

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPECCABILITY.

If Christ’s hypostatic union means He had true humanity, and if His kenosis means that this true humanity met every trial without reliance upon His divine nature, then what was the situation whenever Christ was tempted? Was He always successful? If so, how? Like the doctrine of kenosis the doctrine of impeccability will be viewed below under three headings: biblical data, doctrinal statement, and applications.

Biblical Data on Impeccability. That Christ was morally perfect is central to the Christian faith and one repeatedly mentioned in the NT. The following verses are just a few that confirm the point: Luke 1:35; John 8:46; Romans 8:3; II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:14; 7:26; I Peter 1:19; and I John 3:5. Nevertheless, many other verses seem to show Christ behaving in a fashion considered today as rude, impolite, and even eccentric. The gospel of Matthew particularly notes this behavior. Jesus call His opponents “snakes,” “hypocrites,” ”adulterers,” ”children of hell,” and “whitewashed gravestones” (Matt. 12:34; 15:7; 16:4; 23:15, 27). In spite of His own teaching not to call people fools in Matthew 5:22, Jesus calls His enemies fools in Matthew 23:17.19.[11] In Mark 11:13-14 Jesus curses a defenseless fig tree. In Matthew 15:26. He calls a seeking Gentile woman “a dog.” At least twice He appears abrupt with His own mother (Matt. 12:48; John 2:4). In Matthew 8:21 Jesus is harsh toward traditional Jewish family loyalties, and in John 2:15 He assaults businessmen, damages their wares, and blocks public access.

Before someone naively talks about being “Christlike,” he ought to explain this apparent discrepancy between Jesus’ claimed sinlessness and His reported behavior. Modern observers, so heavily conditioned by present-day psychological models of “ideal” personality, are upset by this discrepancy. Psychologist Paul Vitz is right when he notes “Certainly Jesus Christ neither lived nor advocated a life that would qualify by today’s standards as ‘self-actualized. ’”[12] The problem, however, doesn’t lie with Jesus; it lies with present-day personality theories. Vitz notes in his book the anti-biblical assumptions behind these modern (and mostly existentialist) theories.

Describing Jesus’ sinless but disturbing personality, Karl Adam writes: “From a purely psychological point of view, this humanity is characterized by an enormously powerful will. Jesus knew what he wanted. He knew it as no one else did. In this entire public ministry. . .we cannot point to a single moment when he pauses to consider, or where he reflects, or where he takes back any word or deed. From the beginning he appears as a finished, mature man.[13]

Jesus’ personality is disturbing because it is perfectly holy and in active contact with the sinful, unholy world. Being “Christlike” is not necessarily, therefore, being conformed to what modern psychological theory regards as the ideal or healthiest personality. For this reason Christian psychologists ought to develop new standards for the model personality, based not upon man’s speculations or statistical distributions, but upon the objective revelation of Christ. Would Christ, for example, be hired by a modern corporation which.63 filtered job applicants on the basis of what modern theories consider mentally healthy personality?

Biblical data supply not only a clear picture of Jesus’ holy and sinless personality, but they provide other clear light on His human nature. Matthew 4:1-11 related how Jesus explicitly refused the use of His divine nature to meet temptation. Matthew 26:36-46 tells how Jesus struggled in Gethsemane without using His divine nature to meet the temptation to avoid the Cross. On the other hand, in the same situation John 8:5-6 notes that Jesus ever so briefly flashed forth His deity with the utterance of the divine name I AM (cf. Exod. 3:14). James 1:13 makes it plain that Jesus, to be tempted by these trials at all, had to have been tempted through His human nature exclusively, never through His divine nature. Finally, Hebrews 4:15 insists that Jesus was tempted in every part of His true humanity—His spirit, His body, and His soul.

The Doctrine of Impeccability Stated. To state the doctrine of impeccability, one has to examine these two expressions: (1) “not able to sin” (non posse peccare); and (2) “able not to sin” (posse non peccare). The first statement means that one is not able to sin at all, while the second statement means that one is able to avoid sin although he is able to sin as well. The second statement clearly applies to Adam before the fall. The major question in discussing Christ’s impeccability is to determine which statement applies to Christ.

Good Reformed theologians have taken both sides of this question. Charles Hodge, for example, thought that statement (2) must apply to Christ because he held that it must be possible for one to fall or sin in order to insure that any temptation would be real. William Shedd, however, held that statement (1) applies to Christ because he observed it was impossible for Christ as God-man to sin without fracturing the hypostatic union and the sovereign plan of God. Hodge was obviously trying to protect human responsibility. Shedd focused upon divine sovereignty. The problem of resolving these two truths arises again and again in biblical thought. (In the next chapter we encounter the dilemma in connection with the death of Christ—for whom did Christ die?) To clarify matters we must dig a little deeper into the language and logic being used to discuss the question, using our knowledge of the Creator-creature distinction and the Trinity (see Appendix A). (Remember what we learned in Part II of this series? . . .Always check on how a question is stated before you try to answer.)

The biblical question doesn’t involve abstract categories such as “free will” and “determinism”. To phrase the question as though free will and determinism are locked in mortal combat, implies that both categories are universal and apply to all existence, including the Creator and the creature, in the same way. Saying that, however, puts the speaker solidly in the pagan camp believing in the Continuity of Being. The question rather is: how do the analogous qualities of the Creator’s choice and the creature’s choice coexist? One expresses the incomprehensible nature of God; the other describes human design.

To avoid drifting into the logical contradiction of free will versus determinism, it is better to use the terms “divine sovereignty” and “human responsibility.” The adjectives “divine” and “human” remind us of the fundamental Creator-creature distinction that underlies all our experience. As undiminished deity, Jesus possessed divine sovereignty; as true humanity He possessed human responsibility. In the first statement above “not able to sin” refers to the uncreated divine nature. The verb “able” here takes on meaning from divine sovereignty. The second statement “able not to sin” refers to created human nature. In this statement the verb “able” takes on meaning from human experience. Because of the hypostatic union, both must apply to Jesus Christ. The verb “able”, therefore, has different meanings in the two statements. No logical contradiction exists. Other Scripture supports this truth that Jesus was constrained (John 5:19) and free (John 8:35-36) at the same

time.

Genuine temptation, therefore, does not require the possibility of failure if by “possibility of failure” we mean that history is indeterminate, that its final outcome is ultimately the result of creature choices, atomic motions, and a plethora of other “causes.” If instead we mean by “possibility of failure” an unknown piece of the overall plan of the Creator, then temptation is adequately pictured.

In the case of Jesus Christ, however, we must further ask about whether temptation under the “not able to sin” condition (i.e., it wasn’t in the plan of God for Him to sin) is somehow less of a problem than temptation is for fallen beings like ourselves. Did Jesus, in other words, not really enter in to the struggles we face? B. F. Westcott, who lived in the nineteenth century along with Hodge and Shedd, gives us insight into what it means for a sinless being to be tempted. His classic commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews puts the matter well: “Sympathy with the sinner in this trial does not depend on the experience of sin but on the experience of the strength of the temptation to sin which only the sinless can know in its full intensity.”[14]

Following Westcott, one can imagine a “temptation pressure”, pictured in Figure Four, which rises with resistance to the temptation. The pressure is relieved when one gives in and sins (line “B”). A sinless creature such as Jesus never gives in and, under the sovereign plan of God, might continue to experience the temptation and experience an intensity never encountered by a creature who sins (line “A”).

The doctrine of impeccability, therefore, states that Jesus Christ, though genuinely tempted beyond anything any other creature ever experienced, could not sin. As the One having true humanity and undiminished deity coexisting in one Person forever, Christ would always be victorious, even though kenotic during His life on earth.

Implications of Impeccability. Like the Christological doctrines we have already discussed (hypostatic union and kenosis), impeccability has deep implications that turn out to have very practical, everyday consequences for us. First, it reveals something about evil and human responsibility. Often well-intentioned Christians try to answer the evil problem by claiming that it was a necessary corollary to having genuine human choice in history. In Jesus’ case, however, there was genuine human choice without evil. Was Jesus supposed to sin in order to prove He had genuine choice? Certainly not. To err is not a necessary quality of being human; or, to put it another way, probation does not require the possibility of sin. Whatever the ultimate cause of evil (see Part II of this series for the foundational discussion of the problem of evil), it is not to “prove” genuine responsibility exists.

A second very practical implication of impeccability follows from the first. If created humanity does not require evil, and if Jesus was the “test case” that proves this in history, then what happens when we share His nature? After Christ arose, ascended, and sent the Holy Spirit to start the Church Age, His nature through regeneration was given to every believer. His nature was proven out historically to be impeccable so in us it remains impeccable. Jesus Christ was ordained in the plan of God to live the perfectly righteous life, being victorious in his sanctification at every point and the model of what man should be. Later, in Part VI to this series, we will apply this truth to difficult NT passages like I John 3:5-6,9 which seem to teach “perfectionism.”

A third implication of impeccability is that it demonstrates that the hypostatic union successfully combined the “troublesome” pair of qualities: divine sovereignty (the (Q)uality of God’s choice) and human responsibility (the quality of creature choice) in one person. If this pair is supposedly a set of “irreconcilable opposites”, how is it that they worked together historically in the person of the God-Man? Jesus Christ showed during his life on earth freedom of choice (Matt. 26:39, 53; John 8:35-36) while simultaneously “constrained” by God’s sovereignty (Matt. 26:54; John 5:19).

THE DOCTRINE OF INFALLIBILITY.

Kenosis and impeccability are truths about the King’s sanctification. The NT amply testifies that the King lived a perfectly righteously life utilizing the spiritual assets of a creature without “cheating” and drawing upon His divine attributes to get out of trials and temptations. As the righteous role model for humans, Jesus Christ’s life also

demonstrated a crucial truth about revelation: inerrancy or infallibility. In Part III of this series we studied the doctrine of revelation in connection with the event of Mt. Sinai. We noted that biblical revelation is verbal, personal, historical, comprehensive, and prophetic. Now we add another characteristic: biblical revelation is always considered to be inerrant or infallible. The Word of God as the OT and NT scripture is the final authority and standard for truth in Christian thought over against experience and reason. Unfortunately, during the last few decades among some evangelicals, there has arisen an attack upon the authority of revelation. Repeating the same basic error of modernism that came about in the nineteenth century, these evangelical critics insist that revelation may contain historical and scientific errors. To engage this controversy, we’ll now look at the God-Man as ultimate revelation. What does His life demonstrate about historical and scientific validity?

Jesus’ Historical and Scientific Claims. Since revelation is necessarily comprehensive, it should be no surprise that Jesus spoke about many things open to historical and scientific investigation. Did He err in doing so? Was He right in affirming that Genesis 1 and 2 both form a coherent account of creation (Matt. 19:4-6)? Was He right in believing in a literal Abel, the son of a literal Adam (Matt. 23:35)? Did Jesus speak the truth about a literal flood with a literal Noah (Matt. 24:37-39)? Did He correctly insist on the Mosaic authorship of the Law (Luke 27:24). Modern criticism certainly thinks that Jesus was wrong on these matters.

Several decades ago, G. C. Berkouwer, the famous Reformed theologian in Holland, has argued that one must distinguish genuine sin which involves willful turning from the truth, from technical error which involves ignorance and misinformation. Jesus might have been impeccable and the perfectly righteous One, according to this view, but He was not necessarily free in His humanity from ignorance and misinformation. Jesus’ belief in a literal Adam, Berkouwer thinks, is an instance of a technical error. The purpose of the Bible and Jesus, Berkouwer writes, “is not at all to provide a scientific gnosis in order to convey and increase human knowledge and wisdom, but to witness of the salvation of God unto faith.”[15] Occurrence of technical errors, he supposes, does not hinder the purpose of revelation.

According to such critics, Jesus’ righteousness coexists with ignorance that causes technical errors. Can this be true? It certainly is true of ourselves. The limitations of human knowledge jeopardize every thought and statement we make. Is it true, however, of Jesus? If Jesus functions as a prophet of revelation, as one who carries out God’s prosecution against those breaking His covenants, can technical errors be tolerated? In Berkouwer’s language, is it possible “to witness of the salvation of God unto faith” while erroneously reporting God’s actions in history? How many errors are permitted in the testimony of a courtroom witness before his testimony becomes worthless, especially when the testimony lies in the area of the witness’ self-proclaimed competence? In John 3:11-12 Jesus proclaims that He is testifying to God’s work. His life’s ministry is spent citing historic acts and words of God to convict Israel of its sin. If Jesus’ testimony, therefore, is full of technical errors in those areas which can be checked by men (“earthly things”—3:12), what credibility is left in those areas which are not verifiable by men (“heavenly things”). In legal testimony, technical errors cannot be tolerated.

A critic might reply at this point that I’ve falsely constructed the purpose of Jesus’ teachings. He did not intend at all, the critic says, to function in the legal sense of testifying. The critic ignores the biblical context of revelation. He isolates a piece of the Bible and reinterprets it inside his unbelieving frame of reference (ref. Fig. 3). One must recognize that Jesus’ testimony and the Bible itself are not casually touching historical data. Revelation “to witness of the salvation of God” must consist of a legal record. The very titles, “Old Testament” and “New Testament,” show the Bible’s legal character and thus the legal character of Jesus’ testimony. The format found in Deuteronomy 32 and in many of the prophets makes the legal nature of the record clear. Recall our discussions in Parts III and IV of this series. That record is to be used in the ultimate trial: God’s faithfulness versus man’s unfaithfulness. The historical details form precisely the core of the evidence! It is not a peripheral

matter whether God saved Jonah miraculously or how long a certain king reigned. Technical errors in the midst of the very evidence needed in a legal

record destroy the usefulness of that record. Jesus’ use of the OT record in His day to convict Israel demands that the whole revelation be inerrant—free of

technical errors.

Moreover, it is very dubious that any line can be drawn between harmful sin and supposedly harmless technical error in Jesus’ case. Jesus not only functioned like an OT prophet, but He set Himself up as the self-authenticating authority as we studied earlier in this chapter. He used no references or sources for His claims outside of Himself other than OT references interpreted around His Messianic concept. If on this basis He made His case that God performed a certain act historically in the OT, when God in fact did no such thing, He committed the sin of bearing false witness (cf. Exod. 20:16). He then sinned and no longer should be considered the perfectly righteous role model. Impeccability dissolves and the hypostatic union turns into a fiction.

Why would a technical error in testimony about God be considered a sin in Jesus case? Jesus claimed to be higher than the OT prophets (Matt. 11:25-27). Even in their case false testimony about the works of God was punishable by death (Deut. 18:20-22). In the NT Paul the Apostle submitted to the same legal ethic. Paul admitted that if he were technically wrong in reporting the physical resurrection Christ, he and the rest of the apostles would be “found false witnesses of God”(I Cor. 15:15). In the special context of Jesus, therefore, lack of technical error in reporting the works of God (inerrancy) is absolutely required by His moral perfection and impeccability.

The Unavoidable Nature of Infallibility. Either Jesus and the Bible are infallible, or man becomes the one considered infallible. For there to be genuine knowledge of anything, infallibility must be located somewhere. Even critics of infallibility admit this point when they say, like Beegle, that God's Word “in all essential matters of faith and practice” is “authentic, accurate, and trustworthy.”[16] Such a statement momentarily seems to solve the problem until someone asks, “who then determines the “essential matters of faith and practice”? Some evangelical proponents of errancy say that the rules of women’s behavior in churches given in such passages as I Corinthians 11 are wrong. Since at least 50% of most Christian congregations are female, is this matter not “essential for faith and practice”? Professor Paul Jewett, for one, thinks not so that it can be considered as a technical error.[17] Jewett has thus placed himself above the Scripture as an infallible critic. Infallibility has not disappeared; it has only been transferred from Jesus and the Bible to man.

This phenomenon of a moveable location of infallibility led Rushdoony to call infallibility “an inescapable concept.”[18] Noting how infallibility has been ascribed by unbelieving writers to the cosmic evolutionary process (de Chardin), to the general will of society (Rousseau), and to the ruling political party (Communism), he says, “The word infallibility is not normally used in these transfers; the concept is disguised and veiled, but, in a variety of ways, infallibility is ascribed to concepts, things, men, and institutions.”[19] One observes this movement of infallibility away from Jesus and the Bible to man in the conflict between Genesis and historical science. Modern schemes of earth history are basically considered infallible in that no amount of data will radically alter them toward the view of early Genesis. Another instance is the view that apparent discrepancies between the historical data of the Bible and the records of secular history will never be resolved by future data in favor of the Bible. In these cases Bible critics presume an inherent infallibility in modern world views. Infallibility has thus not been eliminated at all; it has simply been

absorbed by unbelieving thought and transferred to man so as to confirm his autonomy.

The Only Basis of Infallibility. Although unbelieving thought unwittingly relocates infallibility in man, it has no basis to support infallibility. Infallibility presumes either omniscience or submission to omniscience. Paganism, however, has no Creator and hence no omniscience. Thus in the final analysis unbelieving paganism cuts itself off from the only basis of infallibility and is left with its “castle” floating in midair.

Biblical thought on the other hand solidly grounds infallibility in the Creator Who speaks and reveals truths (review Fig. 3). As Paul insisted in Colossians 2:8, we must formulate our basic categories from the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ rather than from alleged “universals” projected out of the finite and sinful human mind. When we do this, human knowledge fits neatly within divine omniscience as seen in Jesus’ historic incarnation. Thoughts pass from omniscience to human consciousness as seen in Jesus.

Language is no barrier to thought because human language derives from God’s language. Moreover, not only do thoughts pass from God to man, but in Jesus there was spiritual perfection, impeccability, uninterrupted communion, total infallibility. Compared to Jesus the prophetic authors of the Bible through whom the Holy Spirit created infallible Scripture were lesser examples. The prophets were infallible only in the very limited areas of oracles and writings. As the Christian philosopher Gordon Clark observed:

“A sinless Christ is an example of such concurrence [of God and man] more stupendous than the errorless writings of an apostle. . . .If the Second Person can become man without sin, the lesser miracle of Paul’s inerrancy is all the more possible.”[20]

The doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy of revelation, then, assumes a rightful place alongside the kenosis and impeccability doctrines. Together these doctrines represent Christological expansions of the OT doctrines of revelation and sanctification. They are the results of studying carefully the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. While walking about on earth, the King of Kings provided mankind with a picture of infallible authority and perfect sanctification. As Figure Two illustrates, the NT Christ was historically real and therefore secured the foundation for revelation and sanctification.

SUMMARY

The NT portrait of the King of God’s Kingdom carries far reaching implications. The gospel narratives, when viewed from a biblical worldview, reveal the Word of God as never before witnessed in history. What will be your response? Will you align yourself with the unbelieving critics who reject the entire principle of revelation and who, therefore, try to rework Christ’s life into something less threatening for them? Or do you instead accept fully the NT picture of Christ? Without reservation can you call Jesus Christ Lord of all, the infallible authority over every area of life? Are you yet convinced that if you have seen Christ, you have seen the Father (John 14:9)?

END NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3

1. See documentation of extreme animosity of ancient Judaism to this practise in Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1971), p. 274 n 68.

2. R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (London: The Tyndale Press, 1971), p. 79f.

3. Ibid., pp. 223-4.

4. Dr. Stroll’s full address appears in John Warwick Montgomery, Where Is History Going? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969). Exerpts cited are from pages 210, 213, 216, 218, 219, 221.

5. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, I, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 125.

6. See the presentation by Lit-Sen Chang in his work Zen Existentialism (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1969), p32f.

7. E. L. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1970 [1847]), p. 227.

8. Karl Adam, The Christ of Faith (New York: Mentor Omega Books, 1962 [1957]), p. 312.

9. Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor (Marshallton, Delaware: Jay Green Publisher, n.d.), p.55.

10. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant To Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), p. 22.

11. This apparent conflict in the NT between the Sermon on the Mount and behavior of Jesus and his apostles merely shows that the teaching technique of the Sermon on the Mount involved calculated exaggeration (e.g., 5:29-30), a fact which ought to be kept in remembrance in reading passages like 5:39.

12. Paul C. Vitz, Psychology As Religion: The Cult of Self-Worship (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977), p. 91.

13. Adam, p. 282..71

14. B. F. Wescott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (2d ed. repr. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub Co., 1965 [1892]), p. 59.

15. G. C. Berkouwer, Holy Scripture, trans. Jack B. Rogers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975), p. 180.

16. Dewey Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1973), p. 308.

17. Paul Jewett, Man As Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975)

18. Rousas J. Rushdoony, Infallibility: An Inescapable Concept (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1978)

19. Ibid., p. 2.

20. Gordon H. Clark, “Beegle on the Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, XX, 3 (Sept., 1977), p. 276.