The Person and Work of Christ
To what extent did Christ become “sin for us’? on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21)?
Our sins were borne “in His body,” but not in His nature. In that respect He was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners.’ It was His soul which was made an offering for sin (Isa. 58). That was the real atonement and therefore the sacrifice was both an exterior act — His body broken; and an interior act — His soul offered. But such expressions as “‘saturated with sin,” etc., are unscriptural and coarse.
In what sense does the blood of Christ cleanse repeated sin in the believer’s life?
New discoveries of sin in the believer’s life do not require new applications of the blood in the sense of salvation. ‘He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet” (John 18:10), and the cleansing of the Church is “‘by the washing of water by the Word” (Eph. 5:26), but the place of the believer in the light is kept secure through the shed blood which, so long as the believer sins, “cleanseth him.”
What is the difference between conversion and regeneration?
Conversion is the act of man in turning from sin to God through faith in Jesus Christ; regeneration, the response of God to conversion and is ‘the impartation of a new nature, even God’s own nature” (Torrey), through the recreative power of the Spirit (John 3:5, 6; 2 Cor. 5:17, R.V.; 2 Pet. 1:4, R.V.). ‘Regeneration is God’s act; conversion is ours’ (Hodge).
What is it to be “‘born of water and of the Spirit’’? Water in Scripture is a symbol of both the Word and the Spirit (see John 7:38, 39; Eph. 5:26). The Spirit and the Word together effect the new birth (John 3:5; 1 Pet. 1:23). The Word reveals the truth concerning the salvation that is in Christ, and when that truth is believed, the Spirit regenerates.
Is it correct to say that God imputes righteousness by imparting it?
Such a statement confuses together things which differ; viz., justification and sanctification. The doctrine of Romans 4 is that God reckons or “imputes” to the believer because of his faith — a faith which has Christ for its content — that righteousness which Christ is, and which Christ has wrought. This act of imputation is instantaneous, and changes the believer’s standing before God. Imputation is a word of the counting room. The word is used in Paul’s direction to Philemon concerning the debts of Onesimus, “put that on mine account.” Philemon was to “impute” to Paul the debts of Onesimus. Certainly there was no “impartation.” In a word, imputation is immediate and justifies — — impartation is gradual and sanctifies.
How did Christ fulfill His office as prophet?
We must first see what that office involved. The prophets were men raised up mostly outside the priestly or Levitical class in times of apostasy and declension. Their function was, primarily, that of revivalists and patriots, speaking to the national conscience and striving to restore faith in Jehovah, purity of worship, and patriotism among the people. The ministry of Elijah illustrates this. Later in the history of the nation the predictive element became more prominent. Now by referring to Isaiah 61:1, 2, you will see how that passage applies to the prophetic office of Christ (see also Deut. 18:15-19; Acts 3:22).
THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST ill
Can we say that Isaiah 40:11, “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd,” etc., is a prophecy of the priestly work of Christ?
Yes. With this passage read Hebrews 13:20, 21. As the good Shepherd Christ gave His life for the sheep; as the great Shepherd He was “brought again from the dead,” to take care of the sheep. It is part of His High Priestly work (see Heb. 7:24, 25). The priests of old were rebuked as faithless shepherds (see e. g., Ezek. 34:1-10). Christ exercised this priest-shepherd office for the believers of this dispensation, but its larger manifestation awaits the kingdom age, when Israel will again be fed on the mountains of Palestine (see Ezek. 34:12-16).
What are the seven compound names by which Jehovah is revealed in redemptive relation to man?
Mere adjectivial descriptions of Jehovah are not names. Such descriptions abound, especially in the Psalms. The Hebrew form alone determines whether the phrase is a name, or a description. The names referred to are seven:
(1) Jehovah-jirah, “the LORD will provide’ (Gen. 22:18, 14).
(2) Jehovah-rapha, “the LORD that healeth” (Ex.
15:26).
(8) Jehovah-nissi, “the LORD our banner” (Ex.
17 :8-15).
(4) Jehovah-shalom, “the LORD our peace, or the
LORD send peace” (Judges 6:24).
(5) Jehovah-ra-ah, ‘the LORD, my shepherd’ (Psalm 23).
(6) Jehovah-tsidkenu, “the LORD our righteousness’’ (Jer. 23:6).
(7) Jehovah-shammah, “the LORD is present’ (Ezek. 48:35).
Are there any Scripture references to justify the teaching that our Lord’s body was transformed at His ascension?
There are no such passages. It is an inference from 2 Corinthians 5:1 and 1 Corinthians 15:50. Even then it rests upon a crass misapprehension of the meaning of those passages. The body in which our Lord arose is the resurrection body of 1 Corinthians 15:35-44; having, like the harvest from sown seed, identity of kind and continuity of substance with that which is sown, but purified from “‘corruption,” “dishonor” and ‘weakness,’ and made incorrupt, glorious, powerful, and spiritual. In this process of purification and endowment the body becomes neither impalpable nor incorporeal (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:26-28). The account of the ascension in Acts 1:9-11 directly establishes the visibility of the ascension body of our Lord, as also its identity with the body in which He arose from the grave, and the angelic promise of verse 11 assures the permanency of that body.
Why do not the genealogical accounts of Christ in Matthew and Luke agree?
Matthew is the “book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” This book presents the kingly aspect and so His genealogy is traced through the line of Israel’s kings, omitting some of his human ancestors which are found in Luke’s account. Notice, the words “‘son of’ are supplied. Luke traces his descent through Mary, while Matthew only traces His line through the kings.
Did Christ’s temptations cover the same ground as ours?
Yes, “apart from sin” (cf. Heb. 4:15). “Yet without sin” is misleading, implying that He finally overcame. There was no sin in Him to overcome (Luke 1:85). Christ was in all points tempted like as we are, apart from the inward solicitations to evil which come from the fallen Adamic nature. Christ was perfectly human, but by a new creation — the second man, the “last Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45).
Why is Christ spoken of as the ‘“‘Son of David’’?
Christ is called the ‘Son of David” not only because lineally descended from David (Luke 3:31), but also because he is the heir of David’s kingly rights under the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Jer. 23:5-8; Luke 1:26-33; Acts 2:29-32; 15:14-17).
If Christ were divine, how could He understand
human nature?
Christ was not only divine, but He was also the only naturally good man the law ever saw. Some object to the thought that He was naturally good, saying, “If we were naturally good we would not sin either; it is no credit to one with no sin in him to be good; how can such an one sympathize with me?” The answer is, The Old Testament sacrifice had to be perfect — without blemish, to answer for a sin offering. Christ, as the sacrifice for sin, had to be entirely without spot and blemish. If He had had a fallen nature — had sin in Him, He would have been one with us in sin and under the curse of the law. I might die for the world, but this would not save the world. The only one who could must be not only sinless as to act, but as to being. As to sympathy, Christ does not sympathize with our sins. He provides a remedy for them, by His perfect sacrifice. We have His sympathy for our trials, sorrows, etc., in His High Priestly work or office.