Pop Quiz

A Practical Example Showing Why Doctrine Is Important
by Phil Johnson



ere's a set of talking points the Jehovah's Witnesses hand to their door-to-door teams to instruct them on how to foment doubt about the deity of Christ. Some lazy JW saw an article I wrote on the deity of Christ and as a kind of shorthand reply, he e-mailed me a copy of the handout he was given by his church.^*

I wonder how many evangelicals would be prepared to give an answer.

*The misspellings and typos in the document are all exactly as they appear in the original.

Good Points For Field Service IF JESUS IS GOD Why is he called the "firstborn" of all creation? Col. 1:15, Rev.3:14 Why did he say that he did not come of his "own initiative" but was sent? John 8:42, 1 John 4:9 Why did Jesus not know the "day and the hour" of the Great Tribulation but God did? Matt. 24:36 Who did Jesus speak to in prayer? How did he "appear before the person of God for us"? Heb. 9.24 Why did Jesus say "the Father is greater than I am"? John 14:28, Php. 2:5, 6 Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism saying "this is my son"? Matt. 3:17 How could he be exalted to a superior position? Php. 2:9, 10 How can he be the "mediator between God and man"? 1Tim. 2:5 Why did Paul say the "the head of Christ is God"? lCor. 11:30 Why did Jesus "hand over the Kingdom to his God" and "subject himself to God"? 1 Cor. 15:24, 28 Who does he refer to as "my God and your God"? John 20:17 How does he sit at God's right hand? Ps. 110:1, Heb. 10:12, 13 Why does John say "no man has seen God at any time"? John 1:18 Why did not people die when they saw Jesus? Ex. 30:20 How was Jesus dead and God alive at the same time? Acts 2:24 Why did he need someone to save him? Heb. 5:7 Who is reffered to prophetically at Prov. 8:22-31? Why did Jesus say "that all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth"? Matt. 28.18, Dan. 7:13, 14 (similar) Why did he have godly fear? Heb. 5:7 How could he learn obedience and be made perfect? Heb. 5:8-9 Why would an angel be able to strengthen him or angels minister to him? Luke 22:43, Matt. 4:11 Why would Satan try to tempt him if he KNEW that he was GOD? Matt. 4:1-11 Jesus when sent to the earth was made to "be Lower" than the angels. Heb. 2:7. How could any part of a God Head EVER be lower than the angels? Then if Jesus was the sameas God, who was he being tempted to rebel against? could God be tempted to rebel against himself? Matt. 4:1 Near the end of his earthly life, Jesus cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46 Can God desert or forsake himself? Heb. 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience! To whom would he obey if he was GOD? And Does God need to LEARN anything? God's justice is strickly perfect. Ex. 21:23-25 for example. The ransom price was one perfect human for another. An imperfect man's life would be too low. Ps. 49:7 If Jesus was the same as God, the ransom price paid by a God would have been too high. Adam was a perfect MAN and the ransome price was a perfect MAN, not higher nor lower.

---

The Folly of Treating Christology Like a DIY Project

by Phil Johnson



ome of the comments and e-mails I received after Friday's post basically said things like this:


"I am still not convinced that we can ascribe all the divine attributes of God to Christ when He was on this earth." Phrases like "I'm skeptical. . ." "You might be able to finesse it. . ." "You might think twice about it. . ." and, "The solution you guys are working with. . ." seemed to imply that one or more of our commenters may have thought I was floating experimental or hypothetical ideas about the deity and Incarnation of Christ.

In the first place, I wouldn't do that. In the second place, I don't recommend that approach to students of doctrine—much less aspiring teachers. In the third place, the question of whether Jesus was dispossessed of divine attributes in order to become human is not something I would ever propose for debate.

The problem with all kenotic theories is very simple to understand: if Christ divested himself of any essential attribute of God, then by definition He shed His deity. That, of course, is the kind of "problem" liberals and postmodernists are quite happy to take on board, but Christians concerned about orthodoxy have never taken such a blithe approach to the Incarnation.

Of course, the question of how full deity and true humanity can coexist in one Person is full of mystery. In fact, it is one of the toughest conundrums in all of theology, and for that reason rationalists and unbelievers frequently deny the possibility of the Incarnation altogether. But authentic Christians have always affirmed it, and not one orthodox Christian theologian of any serious repute has ever taught that the incarnate Christ was divested of the divine attributes.

More importantly, Scripture flatly states otherwise: "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

Now, the fact that Christ possessed all the divine attributes does not necessitate that the full expression of those attributes was always operative in every aspect of His human experience. It should be obvious, for example, that if the human mind of Christ had maintained conscious awareness of everything known to the omniscient mind of God, His experience would not be like ours at all. In the words of Leon Morris:

Think how very different life would be for the student if he knew from the beginning of the year what questions would turn up in His examination paper! What vistas of bliss and ease the prospect opens up! . . . Ignorance is an inevitable accompaniment of the only human life that we know . . . . If this was the manner of it [if Jesus lived life knowing all the secrets of the universe], then the life Jesus lived was not a human life." [The Lord from Heaven (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964),46-47]

In other words, there must have been things Jesus did not know in the realm of His human consciousness, or else it would not be the case that He "can have compassion on the ignorant . . . for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity" (Hebrews 5:2). Scripture plainly tells us there were things the human Jesus did not know (Mark 13:32). He "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52) in the normal human fashion—yet without sin. As He matured, He learned, and as He learned, He was ordinarily subject to the normal limits of human ignorance. The omniscient knowledge of the divine mind of the Son of God was not communicated in exhaustive detail to His human consciousness—but He did not abandon that aspect of His deity, and Scripture is quite clear about that (John 2:24-25; 21:17, etc.).

I've participated in Christian forums online since 1995, and one thing has always absolutely amazed me about the nature of theological discussion on the Internet: Whenever the discussion turns to Christology and the Incarnation, people seem to crawl out of the woodwork and start shooting from the hip. This is one area of theology where orthodoxy is very meticulously defined and has been accepted by all major traditions without serious challenge since the fourth century. Why anyone would want to enter the fray with a "Well, I think this: [your novel idea here]" kind of argument is mystifying to me.

The reason these issues were hashed out so carefully in the early church is that they are absolutely foundational. And it behooves us all to study historical theology and the major creeds on these matters before launching into speculation.

In the early centuries of the Christian era, the church was relentlessly assaulted with Christological heresies. Between them all, they pretty much covered every possible heresy regarding the Person of Christ. You think you have a new way to explain the Incarnation? It's no doubt already been done.

For example, the Ebionites insisted that Jesus was a mere man—the holiest of all men, but no more than that. The Apollinarians acknowledged His deity but denied that He had a human soul. The Nestorians made Him both God and man, but in doing so made Him two persons in one body—a man in whom the divine Logos dwelt rather than a single person who was both human and divine. The Eutychians, the monophysites, and the monothelites went to the opposite extreme, fusing the divine and human natures of Christ into one new nature. The—Arians claimed He was not God, but the highest of all created beings. (Just like today's Jehovah's Witnesses.) And the Docetists denied that Christ was really human. Most Docetists taught that Jesus' human body was only an illusion.

Scripture, Church councils, and written polemics were all utilized in the refutation of these erroneous views. As soon as one issue was settled, however, another would surface and need to be dealt with. In 325, the council of Nicea condemned Arianism, affirming what Scripture declares: that Jesus is fully divine. Ironically, the heresy of Arianism enjoyed its heyday after Nicea, and the influence of Arianism (with the Arians' incessant pleas for tolerance), opened the door to other heresies, including revivals of some Christological errors that had already ostensibly been eradicated.

There were overreactions against Arianism as well. The Apollinarians went overboard on the side of Christ's deity and did not do full justice to His humanity. In 381 the council of Constantinople condemned Apollinarianism as heresy.

The war against Christological heresies continued until the council of Chalcedon (451) issued a statement about the Person of Christ that has stood as the definitive test of orthodoxy from that time until now. From that point on, the confession of Chalcedon has universally been affirmed in every major branch of the Christian church—Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.

The statement is brief. It is all one sentence:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; very God and very man, of a rational soul and body; coessential [homoousion—identical in essence] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial [homoousion—identical in essence] with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer [Theotokos], according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have spoken of him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The genius of that statement—the element that put an end to incessant heresies on the nature of Christ—is found in the phrase "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation." Those four negative statements forever defined and delimited how the person of Christ is to be understood. G. C. Berkhouwer called those four negatives "a double row of light-beacons which mark off the navigable water in between and warn against the dangers which threaten to the left and to the right."

Every heresy that has ever surfaced with regard to the person of Christ either fuses or separates the deity and the humanity of Christ. Chalcedon declared that the two natures can be neither merged nor disconnected. (The technical term for the union of Christ's two natures is the hypostatic union.) Christ is both God and man. Truly God and truly man.

There is no terminology outside the Council of Chalcedon's statement that has ever been accepted as orthodox by any major branch of Christianity. So anyone who denies any element of this formula—whether it's the two natures, the union of the two natures, or whatever—is unorthodox on the doctrine of the Incarnation. It's as simple as that. And this is not something to treat lightly.

---

Kenosis and the Omnipresence of Christ

by Phil Johnson



hilippians 2:7 says Jesus "emptied Himself" (NASB)—or if you're using the ESV, He "made himself nothing." Those are both legitimate translations of the Greek verb κενόω, (kenóō) but they must be interpreted carefully in a way that does not contradict the rest of Scripture.

Specifically, because we know that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever," (Hebrews 13:8), Philippians 2:7 cannot mean that Jesus emptied himself of His deity or laid aside any of His divine attributes when He took on humanity. That is the view of "Kenotic" theology, which is seriously heterodox.

So what about Jesus' omnipresence? Did He not have to divest Himself of that attribute in order to be incarnated in a real human body? Didn't he need to cease being everywhere present so that He could enter this world as a Man? Wasn't His omnipresence necessarily suspended when He was placed in a manger?

Strictly speaking, no.

The Spirit of Christ was no more physically confined to His human body during the incarnation than He is now. Remember that at His ascension He rose bodily and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. From thence He shall come—bodily—to judge the quick and the dead. In other words, He has not abandoned His humanity, even now that He is glorified. And yet He is present wherever two or three are gathered together in His Name (Matthew 18:20). He is "with [us] always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). And He has promised never to leave us or forsake us (Hebrews 13:5).

So Scripture expressly affirms that Christ is omnipresent. When He assumed a human nature He did not have to give up that (or any other) aspect of His divine nature. The incarnation was a miracle of addition, not subtraction. Jesus took on humanity; He did not divest himself of deity.

In the words of Peter Lewis:

We must be very careful here not to imagine, as some have done, that at the incarnation our Lord "left behind" something of his Godhead or its attributes. God exists in the perfection of his attributes. Take away any of his perfections and you no longer have God. You cannot have reduced Godhead. There is God and there is not-God: but there is nothing in-between! . . . In respect of his divine nature our Lord continued even during his incarnate life to fill the heavens and the earth with his power and presence. [The Glory of Christ, 233.]

John Calvin said something similar. He wrote this:

[Although] the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that he was confined therein. Here is something marvelous: the Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be home in the virgin's womb, to go about the earth, and to hang upon the cross; yet he continuously filled the world even as he had done from the beginning! [Institutes, 2:13:4.]

Hope that helps.

---

DIY Christology

by Phil Johnson

This is kind of a follow-up to Monday's post.

ack in the 1990s, I was an active participant in several e-mail forums devoted to theological discussion. I especially loved a couple of open forums where lay people, pastors, and seminary professors mingled—much like the combox of our blog. It was a helpful exercise in learning how to frame difficult concepts in simple terms. I loved the rookie participants, because they were full of good questions, eager to learn, and not afraid to challenge anything that seemed unclear or unbiblical.

But there were always a few lay participants who seemed to come to every discussion with the attitude that theology is (or ought to be) a dialectical exercise done mostly for recreation. They evidently thought the tools of the sport are nothing more than one's personal feelings, speculations, and inventiveness. Discussing doctrine was purely a diversion for them; nothing serious. But it seemed the more serious the topic under discussion, the more eagerly they jumped into the fray with their frivolous and half-baked ideas.

This was especially irritating when some difficult question about Christology, the Incarnation, or the two natures of Christ would come up. You could always count on several of the forum's theological tyros to crawl out of the woodwork and start shooting from the hip. "The hypostitic union? Get real. That doesn't mean anything. I think Jesus simply set aside His deity. How could he be human just like you and me if he retained the attributes of deity?" Or, "Well, I think He kept His deity and took on a human body. 'Two natures' is nonsense. He had a divine nature in a human body. And so on.

The Incarnation, of course, is one area of Christian theology where orthodoxy is meticulously defined and has been accepted by all major traditions without serious challenge since the fourth century. Why anyone (much less a total novice) would want to enter the fray now with a "Well, I think this: [your novel idea here]" kind of argument is mystifying.

The reason these issues were hashed out so carefully in the early church is that they are absolutely foundational. And on such matters it behooves us all to study not only Scripture, but also historical theology and the major creeds before launching into homebrew hypotheses or stupid speculations.

Here's a simplified synopsis of how the church grappled with and finally settled the major questions about Christ's two natures:

Several early heresies arose in the early centuries of the church. Among them all, they pretty much covered every possible heresy regarding the Person of Christ. You think you have a new way to explain the incarnation? It's no doubt already been done.

For example, the Ebionites insisted that Jesus was a mere man—the holiest of all men, but no more than that. The Apollinarians acknowledged His deity but denied that He had a human soul. The Nestorians made Him both God and man, but in doing so made Him two persons in one body—a man in whom the divine Logos dwelt rather than a single person who was both human and divine. The Eutichians, the monophysites, and the monothelites went to the opposite extreme, fusing the divine and human natures of Christ into one new nature. The Arians claimed He was not God, but the highest of all created beings. (That, of course is precisely what modern Jehovah's Witnesses believe.) And the Docetists denied that Christ was really human. Most docetists taught that Jesus' human body was only an illusion.

Several Church councils convened to examine Scripture and decide between these differing views. As soon as one issue was settled, however, another would surface and need to be dealt with. In 325, the council of Nicea condemned Arianism and proclaimed that Jesus is fully divine. But within 60 years, the Council of Constantinople had to deal with Apollinarianism, which went overboard on the side of Christ's deity and was not doing full justice to His humanity. In 381 the council of Constantinople condemned Apollinarianism as heresy.

This war against Christological heresies continued until the council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a statement about the Person of Christ that has stood as the definitive test of orthodoxy from that time until now. The statement is brief. It is all one very long sentence:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; very God and very man, of a rational soul and body; coessential [homousios, identical in nature] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial [homousios, identical in nature] with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer [Theotokos], according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have spoken of him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

The genius of that statement—the element that put an end to incessant heresies on the nature of Christ—is found in the phrase "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation." Those four negative statements forever defined and delimited how the person of Christ is to be understood. G. C. Berkhouwer called those four negatives "a double row of light-beacons which mark off the navigable water in between and warn against the dangers which threaten to the left and to the right."

Virtually every heresy that has ever surfaced with regard to the person of Christ either fuses or separates the deity and the humanity of Christ. Chalcedon declared that the two natures can be neither merged nor disconnected. Christ is both God and man. Truly God and truly man.

There is no terminology outside the Council of Chalcedon's statement that has ever been accepted as orthodox by any major branch of Christianity. So anyone who denies any element of that formula—whether it's the two natures, the union of the two natures, or whatever—is unorthodox on the doctrine of the incarnation. It's as simple as that. And this is not something to treat lightly. The doctrine of Christ is not a theological sandbox for children to play in.

Incidentally, the technical term for the distinctive relationship between Christ's two natures is the hypostatic union. It's a doctine anyone who wants to discuss theology intelligently ought to be familiar with.

---

Colossians studies 10: Greetings 2 (1:1-2)

by Dan Phillips

(Continued from heah.)

Last time we saw who primarily wrote Colossians: "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" (Colossians 1:1). We saw that the letter to the Colossians is not like this post. This is being written by a student of revelation; Colossians was written by a conduit of revelation. As an apostle, Paul spoke for Christ. For he is, as he says, an "apostle of Christ Jesus."

In whose name did Paul write? Perhaps I can assume that most of our readers value those words properly; I daresay many churchgoers don't. Many think that Jesus is the Lord's first name, and Christ His last. If so, this order must mess them up: Christ Jesus. So let's be sure we know what they mean.

CHRIST is yet another non-translation. It is instead a transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (Christos), which simply means "anointed" (note: only two "n's"). It is from the verb χρίω (chriō), meaning to pour oil on something, to anoint it. A christos, then, is someone who has had oil poured on him.

So you see right off that it isn't a last name; in fact, it isn't a name at all. It's an adjective, used as a noun, a title.

Now here, perhaps some New Ager has stumbled by from a Religious Science or Christian Science site, and his eyes light up. "That's right!" he says. "It's the Christ, the principle of Sonship that is in us all!" You may recall that the Lord saved me out of the cult of Religious Science, founded by Ernest Holmes. The cult's textbook is called The Science of Mind, and it includes a glossary, which defines "Christ" thus:

The total manifestation of God, from the plant to an angel; from a peanut to the entire Universe of expression. Christ in Man means the idea of Sonship, the Perfect Man as He must be held in the Mind of God.

Uh, yeah; except no.

Words, like people, have histories and genealogies. You don't meet someone and instantly pop off with, "Okay, I'm going to say you're a circus clown, from an ancient family of circus clowns who entertained the crown princes of Europe, and...." The person is what he is, and you need to learn who he is and what he is and where he's been and what he's done.

So it is with words such as "Christ." They already have histories, when we meet them. We don't get to make them up. This word's history reaches back into the Old Testament, where the Hebrew equivalent is mâšîach — which means exactly the same thing ("anointed"), and is transliterated "Messiah." So "Christ" and "Messiah" mean exactly the same thing; and both transliterate Greek and Hebrew words (respectively) meaning anointed one.

In the OT, anointing was a sort of inauguration ceremony that identified special individuals. Which sorts? Three:

1. Prophets (1 Kings 19:16; Psalm 105:15)
2. Priests (Exodus 30:30; Leviticus 4:5)
3. Kings (1 Samuel 9:16; 24:6 [Hebrew 7])

The Old Testament prophesies the Messiah, the anointed one (Daniel 9:25-26), who unites in Himself all three offices:

1. Prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)
2. Priest (Psalm 110:4)
3. King (Psalm 2:6, 9; Isaiah 9:6-7)

JESUS also transliterates the Greek name passably. It is indeed our Lord's personal name, a name given and interpreted by the angel in Matthew 1:21 — "she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (NAS). "Jesus" is the Greek version of the Hebrew name "Joshua," which means salvation, or Yahweh is salvation, in Hebrew.

Here again, Holmes just makes it up in how he defines "Jesus":

The name of a man. Distinguished from the Christ. The man Jesus became the embodiment of the Christ as the human gave way to the Divine Idea of Sonship.

In contrast, the apostle John (who actually knew Jesus Christ) said

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22)

So you see, New Agers can't just come along and pump any meaning they care to into words like "Christ." Paul did not make up the word. He took a word with a long, rich, distinct history, and he plopped it right down on...

...not a concept
...not an ideal
...but a particular historical Person.

Now, briefly: where was Paul? He was in prison (4:3, 18); to be exact, he was in prison in Rome (Acts 28:17-31). To be even more precise, he was in prison for preaching the Gospel to people just like the Colossians; for preaching to them that they could be accepted as righteous by God for Christ's sake, without having to become Jews in any sense. So he had a personal investment, and some very convinced cred, in opposing the false teacher.

Next: who was the secondary writer? "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy the brother...."

Timothy was a child of mixed parentage (Acts 16:1). I often envied Timothy, raised in a home where his parents spoke Greek and Hebrew! No need for Machen and Weingreen!

Timothy was also a Christian believer who was nurtured up on Scripture (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15). He became Paul's beloved and trusted apprentice (Acts 16:1-3; Philippians 2:19-23).

What role Timothy had in the composition of the letter, we don't know. Perhaps he was Paul's secretary. But Paul presents his apprentice as joining with him in the letter's composition.


Next, I plan to go on to look at the recipients, and see the significance in how Paul greets them.

---

God's final word

by Dan Phillips

We begin with a too-literal rendering of one of the most masterful openings in all literature, Hebrews 1:1-2.

In many parts and in many ways God having of old spoken to the fathers in the prophets, at the last of these days spoke to us in Son, whom He appointed inheritor of all things, through whom also He made the ages....

God's revelation of Himself was in many parts, in that no one revelatory event was exhaustive. God did not disclose all of Himself nor all of His plan to Adam at his creation; nor to Adam and his wife at their fall; nor to Noah at his commissioning; nor to Abraham at his call. Each received a portion of revelation, but not the whole of it.

Further, this revelation was in many ways. Now a voice but no form; now a hovering flame and smoke; now a dream; now a vision; now a holy war, a miracle, a plague, a code of laws, a sacrificial system — these, and many more, were the array of forms that God utilized in beginning to make Himself known.

But all of it was God, who had spoken to the fathers in the prophets. Though incomplete, it was all intelligible to them, because it was addressed to them. However, though intelligible, it was incomplete. It was sloping upward, as it were, heading for a climax. What was that climax?

That climax was brought about by revelation of the same God, but it came not of old, nor to the fathers. The summit has arrived at the end of these days. It has come to us. It has come in Son.

Translators despair of capturing the meaning of those two words, ἐν υἱῷ, in Son. They are almost adverbial in force, in that they describe the manner of God's speaking at these end times. It is not in many parts, it is not in many ways. It is in one who is Son, it is Son-wise, it is an in-Son kind of revelation.

But they also single out the locus of God's revelation: it is not in a thing, nor an event, nor an institution, nor in words alone. It is in a person — but not just any person. Not a mere prophet, nor a bright angel. The locus of God's final revelation is in one who is most fundamentally and essentially Son.

And this is God's final word. This is what God has to say: Jesus, the Son! Jesus in His miraculous conception, His miraculous life, His miraculous words and deeds. Jesus, in Himself not destroying the variegated Law and the various Prophets, but fulfilling them all to the utmost. Jesus, the Logos, the Word who reveals His Father. Jesus in His abandonment, His death, His resurrection. Jesus reaching out to sinners in the preaching of His Gospel.

Jesus constitutes God's final word, His final revelation. "Final" both in the sense that (unlike the Old) it will never be superseded, but also "final" in the sense that it is complete, and that it constitutes a crisis.

This revelation is a crisis in that we must deal with Jesus. If we would look impatiently past Him, restlessly cast about here and there, we shall find no other word from God — except for a word of final judgment, of final rejection, of final condemntation. F. F. Bruce well says in his commentary, "The story of divine revelation is a story of progression up to Christ, but there is no progression beyond him" (46).

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown — or Andy American, or Bob Briton, Artie Australian, or whoever you may be. Christmas is about God wrapping all He has to say in one person, the person of one who is — not a prophet, not a sign, not a shadow, not a vision, not a dream, not a type, but — His Son.

Now you've heard it. Would you like to see it? Read Luke 9:29-36, for a vivid enactment of this very truth. Two men, representing the Law and the Prophets (which is to say, the entire Old Testament), appear with Jesus in the mount. Jesus shines with brilliant glory (cf. Hebrews 1:3). Just as Peter proposes three equal tents for the three majesties, a cloud overshadows all. The Father speaks:

"This is My Son, the Chosen One. Listen to Him!"

And when the cloud departs, Jesus alone is left. God has spoken in one who is Son.

God grant us ears to hear, this Christmas — and God grant that there be more of us who hear.

---

All religions really do lead to God

by Dan Phillips

Do all religions lead to God?

Up to a few weeks ago, I would have emphatically answered "No." But now I've changed my mind.

The light flicked on as I listened to a really fine sermon preached by theologian Robert Reymond, titled "God's Immeasurable Love." Reymond made the shocking statement that all religions really do lead to God.

In this sermon, Reymond revisited the verse that featured very conspicuously in how the Lord saved me: John 14:6.

Reymond stressed Jesus' exact words: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Other religions will bring you to God. Shintoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam — they'll all eventually bring you to God. Mormonism, Christian Science, paganism, animism, and Roman Catholicism will bring you to God. Every practitioner of every religion created by man and/or demon will, by that religion, be brought to God.

But none of those religions will bring us to God as "Father"!

They will bring us to God as Judge. They would bring you and me, clothed in the unspeakably filthy rags of our human works (Isaiah 64:6), without excuse, hopeless, guilty and doomed (Ecclesiastes 12:14; Matthew 12:36; Acts 17:31; Romans 1:20, 32; 2:16; Revelation 20:11-15), falling continually and infinitely short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

The only way to God as Father is through the Lord Jesus Christ. Born again by the sovereign grace of God (John 1:12-13), adopted as sons of God through Christ (Ephesians 1:7), blessed with the spirit of adoption whereby we can cry out "Abba! Father" (Romans 8:15), which is the Spirit of God's own Son sent into our hearts (Galatians 4:6).

All religions lead to God — for damning judgment.

Only through Jesus Christ can we approach God as Father.

---

"Jesus was a Good Teacher" dodge (NEXT! #9)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: I believe Jesus was a moral example and a great sage and teacher.

Response: ...who sagaciously taught that He was God incarnate, the only sufficient sacrifice for man's sins, and the only mediator between God and man; who made worship of Him as God a moral imperative; and taught that anyone who doesn't believe in Him, and believe all those things about Him, is going to Hell? Hey, yeah! Me too!

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---