Introduction
One of the most stupendous
events recorded in the Bible is what people call the incarnation. If
Christians are asked what they understood by this event, most would
reply with something like ‘When God took a body and became the Man
Jesus Christ’. Theologians would probably find such an explanation
acceptable but theology is not necessarily in accord with Scripture.
If we are believers, then it must be Scripture alone that carries
authority for us, both in this and in every other matter—it is to
the Bible that we must turn. Again, I suppose that many would focus
on the Lord’s birth and understandably begin there. Perhaps
surprisingly to such, this is only recorded by two of the four
Evangelists (Matthew and Luke) and is absent entirely from the
Epistles apart from one or two oblique references such as Gal. 4: 4.
The Lord’s birth is
how He entered this
scene. This
has great importance,
especially in regard to the setting in which it is placed, but is
not
in itself the truth of what we know as the incarnation. It does
not figure in the NT books that deal with the matter such as
Hebrews, Philippians and John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel and His Epistles
Scholars generally agree that John’s Gospel was
written late and was probably the last book of the Bible to be
penned. The studious believer knows that this is so because of its
contents compared to the rest of the NT. It is sufficient to say
here that John was called by the Lord when mending nets (see Matt.
4: 21) and the whole of his subsequent ministry in his Gospel and
Epistles, taking character from his calling, is on the line of
mending and recovery. This, as I hope to show, includes the truth of
the incarnation.
John’s presentation of the Lord in his
Gospel is summed up by Paul when he says that “God has been
manifested in flesh” (1 Tim. 3: 16). John himself expresses the
incarnation as “the Word became flesh”
One striking feature of the book of Acts
is that the majority of the communications from God recorded there
are indirect—that is through angelic agency, visions and the like.
Even when Paul was addressed directly from heaven by the Lord
himself, he refers to it years later in Acts 26: 19 as the “heavenly
vision”. Nowadays people do of course claim to be spoken to by
angels or to have had visions, but a considerable number also allege
that God spoke to them directly. Such persons will eagerly point out
Scriptures in the book of Acts that appear to justify their claims.
That the writer of Acts records God as speaking to Christians
without any (John 1: 14), without any detail as to how that took
place. Accordingly, he commences his Gospel with the words “In [the]
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God” (John 1: 1). Here we are taken back as far as our minds can
comprehend to learn that the One who became flesh was already there
in “[the] beginning”. When Scripture says that “the Word was God”,
we must accept the simple sense of the words and not try to inject
any limitations into that statement by assuming it just means ‘God
in His nature’ or any other such restriction. When the Bible says
“the Word was God, it means exactly that.
Now the Scriptures are complete—there is
nothing missing on the one hand nor anything superfluous on the
other. Hence we can learn not only from what they say but also from
what they do not say. John 1: 14 does not say ‘the Word became man’
but “the Word became flesh”. Now there are several things connected
with the incarnation that the Lord is said to have become. Examples
are “became a minister of [the] circumcision” (Rom. 15: 8), “being
rich, became poor” (2 Cor. 8: 9), “became to all them that obey him,
author of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5: 9), “become for ever a high
priest” (Heb. 6: 20), “became surety of a better covenant” (Heb. 7:
22) and “became dead” (Rev. 1: 18). Yet the Scriptures never say of
the Lord that He became man but that He became
flesh—and Scripture is
always wiser than we are.
In keeping with his Gospel, three times
in his epistles (see 1 John 4: 2, 3; 2 John 1: 7) John speaks of
Jesus Christ come in flesh, not come as man, the final instance
being a warning that “many deceivers have gone out into the world,
they who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh—this is the
deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 1: 7). So why does the Bible
never say that the ‘Word became man’?
Flesh and Man
If there is one truth more than any other that is
guarded by the Holy Spirit, it is “[the] person of Christ” (2 Cor.
2: 10). In considering the Lord, we must ever have before us the
truth that He Himself stated: “no one knows the Son but the Father”
(Matt. 11: 27). We must never assume that we can encompass all that
is involved in the truth of His Person. Our knowledge will always be
limited to what God has been pleased to reveal in the Scriptures and
we must never tread beyond it.
That the Lord Jesus was truly a man is
beyond dispute. Twice in His epistles Paul refers to the Lord
directly as man (see Rom. 5: 15; 1 Tim. 2: 5) and the Lord Himself
declared “but now ye seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth
to you, which I have heard from God” (John 8: 40). Man is a
tripartite creature having spirit, soul and body (see 1 Thess. 5:
23). The Lord’s manhood was real and accordingly we read of His
spirit (see Mark 14: 33; John 11: 33, 13: 21, etc.), His soul (see
Matt. 26: 38; Mark 14: 34; John 12: 27 etc.) and His body (see Matt.
27: 58; Luke 22: 19; Heb. 10: 5 etc.).
Some, in their endeavour to stress the
reality and perfection of His manhood, would speak of the Lord as
having a human spirit, a human soul and a human body. This mars the
uniqueness of that manhood and takes us beyond divine revelation
into the sphere of human speculation.
All the needs of the body were present in the Lord for we read
of His hunger (see Matt. 4: 2; 21: 18), His thirst (see John 19:
28), His weariness (see John 4: 6) and His being asleep (see Matt.
8: 24). However, only
some of the emotions
common to man were there. Thus while we read of His joy (see John
15: 11; 17: 13), His sorrow (see Matt. 26: 37, 38) and His weeping
(see Luke 19: 41; John 11: 35) there is
never any thought of
fear or mirth being expressed in “the days of his flesh” (Heb. 5:
7). Note the language used: it is the days
of His flesh (see also John 6: 51; Rom. 1: 3; 9: 5; 2 Cor. 5:
16; Eph. 2: 15; Col. 1: 22; 1 Pet. 3: 18; 4: 1), not the days of His
manhood, and certainly not the days of His humanity—that would link
Him too closely with fallen man. Paul spoke “after the manner of
men” (Rom. 6: 19; AV), or “humanly”. However, that word (or its
various forms) is never once used of the Lord or in relation to Him
(see also 1 Cor. 2: 5, 13; 4: 3; 10: 13; James 3: 7; 1 Pet. 2: 13).
Once again, Scripture is wiser than we are.
Man is a creature but flesh is not. It
is a condition or state of that creature. If the Bible had said that
the Word became man, then such a statement could be used to argue
that the Word exchanged His deity for manhood and that the Lord
became a creature. When the Word became flesh, there was no change
in what He ever was in Himself. The change was in the conditions
that He entered into. The Word did not became a creature but did
enter into the restrictive conditions belonging to the creature.
Again, if the Scripture has said that the Lord became man, then, the
door would be open to another error, namely that manhood was
something additional that the Lord added to His deity, thus implying
that the Lord had a dual personality. This is virtually stated when
people speak of the Lord as the God–Man—a term unknown to the
Bible.
Hebrews Two
There is much that is in this chapter that is
of great value for our souls to consider, but in connection with our
subject we must confine ourselves to verses 9–15 and particularly
verse 14. The incarnation is introduced by speaking of “Jesus, who
[was] made some little inferior to angels on account of the
suffering of death” (v9). His abasement, by being made some little
inferior to angels, we will see in all its depth when we come to
consider Philippians 2. For the moment we must note that believers
are referred to as children of God (see Heb. 2: 13) for, as we learn
elsewhere, we have been born “not of blood, nor of flesh’s will, nor
of man’s will, but of God” (John 1: 13). Nonetheless, our natural
birth, as distinct from our spiritual one, is one of blood and
flesh. This brings us to Heb. 2: 14 where we read “Since therefore
the children partake of blood and flesh, he also, in like manner,
took part in the same, that through death he might annul him who has
the might of death, that is, the devil”. What the Lord is said to
have taken part in was not humanity, not manhood but “blood and
flesh”, that is the
natural condition of
man—sin apart. We enter that condition through birth and the Lord
entered that condition “in like manner”, that is, through birth. But
there is a guard inserted here by the writer which is not
immediately apparent in the English translation. We “partake” of
that condition but He only “took part in the same”. The intended
difference is there in the Greek. The word used for
partake is
koinwnew
which is the verb form of
koinwnia
meaning fellowship or an equal common
sharing. The condition of “blood and flesh” is common to all the
children—all
partake of it. But when the writer says the Lord “took part in
the same” the word translated
took part in is changed from
koinwnew
to
metecw
which
only means to associate. This word
always refers to
something
outside of oneself.
What Scripture guards against here is any thought that the condition
of blood and flesh that the Lord took
completely defined Him.
Those conditions were
outside of and
distinct from Himself.
Philippians Two
This is
a Scripture where one must tread with extreme care, noting what is
said, how it is said, and also what is not said, for as mentioned
earlier, the Scriptures are complete, with nothing missing and
nothing superfluous. Certain Greek words are used in Philippians 2
whose meanings affect our understanding of the passage and we must
consider these first. We have
μορφη
(form) in verses 6 and 7,
doulos
(bondman) in verse 7,
ginomai
(taking his place) in
verse 7,
ομοιωμα
(likeness) in verse 7 and
schma (figure)
in v8.
Both
ομοιωμα
(likeness) and schma
(figure)
always refer to
external appearance.
The essence of
ομοιωμα
(likeness) is resemblance;
that of
schma
(figure) is physical form.
While
μορφη
(form)
can have an external
aspect, it always indicates the
essence of a matter. Greek
has some eight words that can be translated servant and the word,
doulos
is the most extreme of all and means
slave or, as the text has
it, bondman. A slave is
one whose
only will is that of his master. The word
ginomai
(taking his place) could
be translated becoming meaning a change from a previous state,
condition, or position—a meaning it has elsewhere in the Scriptures.
Turning now to
the detail of the verses, the introductory words are “For let this
mind be in you which [was] also in Christ Jesus …” (v5). It is not
just the Lord’s actions but the thinking behind those actions that
we are to have as believers—and the Apostle employs the truth of the
incarnation to this end. The Lord is thus shown as the great pattern
for us. No stoop could be greater than His stoop. It is not from God
to man but from God to slave, for the bondservice takes precedence
over the manhood in the order in which the two truths are presented.
This action was entirely His.
What form (μορφη)
means in v7, it must also mean in v6. We must work from what we know
to what we don’t know. While men may have had some limited
appreciation of the outward expression of the Lord’s bondservice, in
its essence it was not
partial, nor relative but
absolute. He himself
says: “I do
always the things that
are pleasing to him” (John 8: 29, my emphasis). Thus if “taking a
bondman’s form” (Phil. 2: 7) means that the Lord’s bondmanship was
absolute, then “subsisting in the form of God” (v6) likewise means
that He was God in the
absolute sense of the
word.
Did the Lord lay aside His deity at the
incarnation? Emphatically not, for the word
subsisting is the
present participle
indicating continuance. He was God and remained God. In contrast to
Adam, He “did not esteem it an object of rapine” (that is robbery)
“to be on an equality with God” (v6). He was not taking something
away from God, for He was God. The words “taking a bondman’s form”
(v7) tell how He “emptied himself”. He divested Himself of the
Godhead glory that was rightfully His by descending to the position
of a bondman or slave. Such was the immensity of the stoop! It could
not be greater. It is only now that Paul comes to the Lord’s manhood
and the language is, as ever, precise. The Greek allows the words
“taking his place” to be replaced by a single word
becoming. But Paul does
not go so far as to say ‘becoming a man’. As ever there is a guard.
It is becoming in “[the]
likeness of men” (v7, my emphasis).
Outwardly, the Lord
resembled other men.
And this is stressed by a measure of repetition with “having been
found in figure as a man” (v8)—there were no physical differences.
It then says He “humbled himself”. The action was His for no man
ever humbled him. The account of His stoop is completed by giving us
the extent of that bondservice in His “becoming obedient even unto
death, and [that the] death of [the] cross” (v8).
The Will of God
We now come to the heart of
the matter of the Lord’s incarnation. Let us recall that Paul placed
the Lord’s bondservice before His manhood in Phil. 2 because it
takes precedence over all else. His manhood was the means by which
the Lord carried out the will of God as the divine Servant. This
bondservice is expressed in Paul’s use of Psalm 40: “Wherefore
coming into the world he says, Sacrifice and offering thou willedst
not; but thou hast prepared me a body. … Then I said, Lo, I come (in
[the] roll of the book it is written of me) to do, O God, thy will”
(Heb. 10: 5, 7). This is the essence of the incarnation. Let us see
how the Lord Himself states it.
“I am come down from heaven, not that I
should do my will, but the will of him that has sent me” (John 6:
38). Note the dignity of that descent and the absence of any thought
of birth. Note also the Gospel from which the words are taken.
Strikingly, as already mentioned, it is only in John that the Lord
speaks of Himself as a man and correspondingly we have His
bondservice brought before us much more in this Gospel than in
Matthew and Luke, or even Mark (Mark’s presentation of the Lord’s
service is not the extreme one of
slavery to the will of God). So why does John stress the Lord’s
bondservice so much? Perhaps it is because this was in danger of
being lost to the saints. In keeping with this, the matter of the
Lord being sent dominates John’s Gospel, with the Lord speaking of
Himself as being sent over 40 times. Servants are sent (see Acts 3:
26) and the Lord was no exception.
Now God alone is
independent in the absolute sense. By contrast every creature is
dependent on God for life and the conditions in which that life is
set. When the “Word became flesh” (John 1: 14), He entered into the
dependent and limited conditions belonging to man as the
Bondservant. Let us hear His own words. “I cannot do anything of
myself; as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous, because I
do not seek my will, but the will of him that has sent me” (John 5:
30). Ponder the full force of those words “I
cannot do anything of myself”—they state an impossibility.
Thus although the Lord remained what He ever was as “God blessed for
ever. Amen” (Rom. 9: 5), He entered the restrictive conditions of a
bondservant and His only will was that of the Master who sent
Him—for slaves are subject only to their master’s commandments.
Peruse the Synoptics and you will find nothing of the Father’s
commandments to the Son even though the centurion caught something
of the flavour of the Lord’s position as the Bondservant (see Matt.
8: 9). Yet several times in John He speaks of receiving the Father’s
commandment. He says “as the Father has commanded me, thus I do”
(John 14: 31) and “the Father who sent me has himself given me
commandment what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:
49). Throughout “the days of his flesh” (Heb. 5: 7), the perfect
Bondman did nothing and said nothing without the Father’s express
commandment. In regard to His death, no man would take His life from
Him, for He said “I lay it down of myself.” Yet He would not even do
that without the needed authority: “I have authority to lay it down
and I have authority to take it again. I have received this
commandment of my Father” (John 10: 18). So that as that pathway
drew to a close, He could say “I have kept my Father’s commandments”
(John 15: 10).
It is only in
the immediacy of His death, when “becoming obedient even unto death,
and [that the] death of [the] cross” (Phil. 2: 8), that the synoptic
Gospels record His bondservice: “My Father, if it be possible let
this cup pass from me; but not as I will, but as thou [wilt]” (Matt.
26: 39; see also Mark 14: 36; Luke 22: 42); The closest we get to
this in John is the Lord saying “Now is my soul troubled, and what
shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But on account of this
have I come to this hour. Father, glorify thy name. (John 12: 27,
28).
As God and as Man
Believers are often inclined to speak of the
Lord’s actions and words by saying things like that He did this as
God or said that as man. This phraseology ‘as God’ or ‘as man’,
although apparently useful for some, is nowhere to be found in the
Scriptures. Nor is it right, for in effect it gives the Lord a dual
personality. But surely, some might say, we have examples of the
Lord exercising omniscience such as “But he, knowing their thoughts,
said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to
desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not
subsist” (Matt. 12: 25; see also Luke 6: 8; 11: 17). Surely only one
who is God knows the thoughts of men? Is this not a clear example of
the Lord’s omniscience? Was He not acting as God there? Did He not
know everything? Consider His own words given on another occasion:
“But of that day or of that hour no one knows, neither the angels
who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.” (Mark 13: 32). This
Scripture puts omniscience out of court entirely. Note too the
terminology. It is the Son as distinct from the Father. The Lord
Jesus knew the thoughts of men but only as told by the Father. We
get something similar in the OT when Elisha knew what Gehazi had
done (see 2 Kings 5: 26) because, being a prophet, he knew the mind
of God since God had told him. As for the other two theological
demands, omnipresence is ruled out by the restrictive conditions
into which the Lord entered in the days of His flesh. He could only
be in one place at a time. That leaves just omnipotence to consider.
When the Lord “rebuked the winds and the
sea, and there was a great calm”, we can say with the astonished
disciples “What sort [of man] is this, that even the winds and the
sea obey him?” (Matt. 8: 26, 27). Creation, of which He was the
Creator (see Heb. 1: 2, 10) obeyed the Lord. So how can this be any
other than a clear example of His omnipotence? Not so! Read Joshua
10: 12–15 in which we are told that the sun and the moon stood still
at “the voice of a man” (v14). Joshua was not God but creation
obeyed his command. The Lord stilling the waves is no more proof of
His omnipotence than His being “wearied with the way” (John 4: 6) is
supposedly evidence that He was not God.
The simple truth is that the Lord,
although being God, never exercised His deity when here in the
flesh. To have done so would have been to step out of the pathway of
the Bondman—the divine slave. All was done and said at the Father’s
command. Such is the wonder of the incarnation.
Conclusions
Although important in its own setting, the birth of the Lord Jesus
is not exactly the incarnation, being simply the means by which it
took place. The Bible never speaks of the Lord becoming man,
guarding against any thought of Him exchanging His deity for
manhood. Although the His manhood was real, it was also unique.
While He ever remained what He was in Himself as God, He entered
into the limited conditions of the creature expressed in the words
of Scripture by “the Word became flesh” (John 1: 14). Those
conditions involved taking the form of a bondman, a service that
took precedence over His manhood. Throughout His pathway here He
ever acted as the perfect Bondman, never saying or doing anything
without the Father’s command. Contrary to popular belief, He never
acted as God, but always as a bondman to the divine will.
When
that pathway drew to a close He said to the Father “I have completed
the work which thou gavest me that I should do it” (John 17: 4).
That bondservice is now ended and the days of His flesh are over and
will never be repeated. He is no longer in the conditions of blood
and flesh (see Luke 24: 39), for the blood has been shed, and though
He is still a man, He is no longer in a bondman’s form. God has been
glorified in the very scene where He had been dishonoured, the work
for man’s eternal blessing completed and the devil defeated (see
Heb. 2: 14). The One who stooped so low is now exalted and given “a
name, that which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of heavenly and earthly and infernal
[beings], and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord to
God [the] Father’s glory” (Phil. 2: 9–11).
