SCRIPTURE
STUDIES
VOLUME FIVE - THE
ATONEMENT BETWEEN GOD AND MAN
STUDY
IV
THE MEDIATOR OF THE ATONEMENT
—THE UNDEFILED ONE
Seemingly
Conflicting Scriptures Reconciled — The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception Not
Sustained — The Birth of
Jesus Separate from Sinners Essential to the Divine
Arrangement — Otherwise no Ransom Possible — The Latest Deductions of
Science in re the Union
of Life and Protoplasm — The Logos Made Flesh — Born of a Woman yet Undefiled — How the Imperfect Mother Could
and Did Bring Forth the
Undefiled One — This Same Principle Operating in Other Features of the Divine Plan, as Testified by the Scriptures.
“Who
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
Not one.” Job 14:4
“He was manifested to take away sins and in him is no sin.”
“Such an High Priest was suitable for us—holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate
from sinners.” 1 John 3:5; Heb. 7:26
HERE are Scripture statements apparently in conflict: the
first declaring, in harmony with our experience, that all of Adam’s
posterity is affected by virus of sin from the poisoned fountain: the
latter declaring that our Lord Jesus was as a man different from other
men—unblemished, undefiled, spotless.
And since the entire theory of the Atonement, presented in the
Scriptures, demands that of necessity our Redeemer must be an unblemished
man—of our race and yet separate
from it—this becomes a very important point before the minds of the
Lord’s thinking people. How did God accomplish in our Lord Jesus’ case
what is impossible to man, according to all human experience and according
to Job’s testimony? To give
ample proof of how the divine arrangement did accomplish this desired yet
seemingly impossible thing of producing a member of the race, yet separate
from its blemishes, to be its ransom—to
give [page 98]
a corresponding price for the first perfect
man whose sin and its curse blights the race—this is the
pleasurable task of the present chapter.
Not that a knowledge of the manner
is essential either to the faith or salvation of the true disciple taught
of God; but that in the light of present-day destructive criticism
(reasonable and unreasonable) it is expedient that this truth, so closely
identified with the Atonement, the very center and foundation of true
Christianity, should be solidly buttressed, to the intent that the faith
of the Lord’s people may be able to withstand the assaults of the
Adversary against the doctrine of the ransom—from pulpit, press and pew.
The Scriptural statement of the fact of our Lord’s spotlessness was,
thank God, quite sufficient for his saints for centuries; but now as
“meat in due season” for the household comes the scientific and
philosophic attestation to the possibility of all that is claimed in the
divine Word on this subject—quite in harmony with “the laws of
nature.”
The Roman Catholic Church in its doctrine of “The Immaculate
Conception” of Mary, attempts to establish faith in our Lord’s mother,
as immaculate, spotless, perfect; and thus to prove that Jesus could be
born pure and separate from sinners: but this is not our claim.
We admit that our Lord’s mother was a member of Adam’s race, in
the same sense as all other members of it—that her life was derived from
the Adamic stock, that she inherited human weaknesses and blemishes and
unavoidably was, like all others, under the sentence of death.
We claim that “the man Christ Jesus” was an exception—the only exception.
And it is well for us not to forget that God’s providential care
for the children of men is frequently manifested in the exceptions
of nature. For instance, it
is the rule of nature that heat causes expansion, while freezing causes
contraction: but how fortunate it is for humanity that water is an
exception to this principle—that water, contrary to the general rule,
expands in freezing. Were it to follow the customary law of nature and contract
with freezing, it would have the effect of making the ice heavier than the
unfrozen water, [page 99]
and cause it to sink to the river bottoms, so that as
a consequence our rivers would become solid ice, which even the summer
heat would not dissolve. How
fortunate, too, that antimony among the minerals is an exception to this
law of nature also: otherwise it would be impossible for us to secure
clear-cut edges on our printing types, secured by the mixing of this
metal, which contracts, with other metals which expand under heat.
So the one exception to sin-defilement in our race was its only
hope—its ransom, its salvation under divine providence.
With these thoughts we proceed to examine how the Logos was “made
flesh,” “born of a woman,” “of the seed of Abraham,” and
yet was uncontaminated, and could therefore be a suitable and acceptable
ransom for Adam and his race.
The Scriptures hold out the thought that all existence,
living energy
or being, comes from the father and not from the mother.
The mother receives the sperm or seed of life from the father,
furnishes it a cell-nucleus out of which a form or body is produced, and
nourishes the germ of being until it is able to maintain an independent
existence; i.e., until it is able to appropriate to its maintenance the
life-sustaining elements which the earth and air supply—then it is born.
The word father
has the significance of life-giver.
Accordingly, God was the “Father,”
or life-giver, while the earth was the mother, of Adam, and hence of the
human race. (Luke 3:38) Adam’s
form or organism was of and from earth
(which therefore served as his mother); but his spark of life which
constituted him a man came from God (who thus was his Father or
life-giver): and in the male of the human species has since resided the
power to communicate that spark of life or living seed to progeny.
In harmony with this principle, children are spoken of as being of
or from their fathers, and borne by
their mothers. (Gen. 24:47) Thus
the children of Jacob, counted through his sons, were seventy when he came
down to Egypt. All of those seventy souls or beings are expressly said to
have come out of the loins of Jacob. (Gen. 46:26,27; Exod. 1:5)
So of Solomon, it is said that he came out of the loins of David. [page 100]
(1 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 6:9)
So also the Apostle Paul and Israelites in general claimed that
they all came out of the loins of Abraham; and of Levi it is written that
“he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchisedec
met him.” Heb. 7:5,10
Thus also the whole race was in and sprang from Adam their father, by mother Eve but
not from her. And thus it is
written that “all in ADAM die,” but not all in Eve.
Because the race came of Adam, it was tried in his trial, condemned in his
failure and included under his
sentence.
This, which the Scriptures teach, is the latest deduction of
science on this subject of progeneration, as applied to humanity and to
all mammalia. Scientists find
abundant and conclusive proof in nature that life
or being comes always from the male.
The simplest form of illustration is a hen’s egg: of itself it
originally contains no life, but is merely a cell-germ with its supply of
nutriment ready to build up an organism
as soon as vivified, fecundated or impregnated with the life-germ or
life-seed from the male bird.
The egg contains not only the germ-cell but also the proper
elements of nutrition and in proper proportion, adapted to the minute
organism begotten in it by the sperm or life-seed; and under proper
conditions that organism develops. The germ-cell, or “formative yolk,”
or protoplasm, receives the life-germ or sperm, and this becomes the
embryo chick, which appropriates to its own development the
“food-yolk” and the albumen, until it breaks the shell and is able to
sustain itself by appropriating cruder elements of nutrition. The principles here involved are the same in human and other
animals.
In view of these harmonious testimonies of the Bible and science,
it is a reasonable deduction that if the father were perfect, the child
would be perfect. Under even
moderately favorable conditions a perfect sperm or life-seed in uniting
with the female germ-cell would produce a living embryo so vigorous and
healthy as to be capable of appropriating the proper elements of
nutrition, and voiding, throwing off or neutralizing the unfit.
And the perfect being thus produced [page 101]
would likewise possess the power of neutralizing or
repelling, by its perfect functions and without injury or inconvenience to
itself, all elements not beneficial.
On the contrary, in proportion as the sperm or life-seed be
imperfect, the living embryo will be weak and unable to overcome the
unfavorable conditions of its environment, and will appropriate whatever
its mother furnishes—good or bad—and will be the prey of disease.
Being imperfect, it is unable to reject wholly the poisonous
elements and the consequence is weakness and disease.
The old proverb, “One man’s meat is another man’s poison,”
rests upon the principle here enunciated.
A person possessed of good digestive powers can eat and extract
nutriment and strength from food which would speedily sicken and
eventually kill another of inferior powers.
The more rugged extracts the good and avoids the injurious
elements: the weaker is unable to do this and is really poisoned,
frequently to the extent of sickness. Yet let us remember that no member of our race is nearly
perfect—none are able to defend their imperfect systems against the
myriads of foes that assail through food and drink and air. Consequently
none are born perfect and none can avoid the encroachments of disease for
long. It preys upon the
weakest organs first and soon all collapse.
From this standpoint it follows that had mother Eve alone sinned
the race would not have died; for had Adam remained perfect, his life
unforfeited and unimpaired, his offspring would have been born without
blemish. And even had the death sentence passed upon mother Eve,
bringing imperfections to her, these would not have impaired her
offspring; being perfect,
they would have appropriated good elements, and have neutralized, voided
or passed off naturally and without injury, any unwholesome elements of
nutrition supplied them.
On the other hand, suppose that Adam had sinned and Eve had
remained sinless: Adam’s condemnation and death would have affected the
entire posterity just the same. However
perfect the germ-cells and nourishment [page 102] provided by mother Eve, only imperfect dying beings
could be produced from diseased sperm or life-seed from Adam. Hence the
appropriateness of the Scriptural statement that “All in Adam die,”
and “By one man’s
disobedience... death passed upon all.” 1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:12,19
How wonderful the correspondence here between the first and second
Adams and their brides. As
the death of the race depended
not upon Eve but wholly upon Adam, and yet she shared in the bringing of
it, so the restored life
of the redeemed race depends not at all on the bride of Christ, but upon
Jesus, the Redeemer, though by divine favor it is arranged that his bride
shall share in the restitution of “that which was lost.”
The fountain, Adam, having become contaminated by sin and death,
none of his posterity can be free from contamination; for, “Who can
bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”
The reference here must be understood as applying to the man, and
not to the woman: none coming from or out of the contaminated fountain can
be clean. Hence, “There is none righteous, no, not one”; none can
redeem his own life, much less give to God a ransom for his brother. Rom.
3:10; Psa. 49:7
It is a well-recognized fact that the mind of a mother, during the
period of gestation, has an important bearing upon the character and
disposition of her children, for good or evil.
There are many instances of mental as well as of physical
“birthmarks.” Whether at
all or how much a perfect embryo,
begotten of a perfect life-germ, might be injured by an evil mind
in the mother, it would be impossible for humanity under present
conditions to determine; for we have no opportunity for proofs along this
line. Nor is it necessary to
our argument to determine this proposition, for it was not under such
conditions that the “man
Christ Jesus” was born. The
Scriptures explicitly point out: (1) That the Lord chose for the mother of
Jesus a holy woman “blessed among women,” who had “found favor with
God” (Luke 1:28,30,42); (2) Mary was full of faith and the joy of the
Lord, to be an instrument in his plan: and (3) not regarding fear of [page 103]
reproach from Joseph or the world, she lived
rejoicing in God, saying—“My soul doth magnify Jehovah; my spirit
rejoiceth in God my Savior.” (Luke 1:45-47)
Thus we perceive that the mind of Jesus’ mother, instead of being
antagonistic to his perfect development, cooperated to that result.
It follows, then, that the only obstacle to the generation of a
perfect man of an imperfect, blemished, but well-willed mother is the lack
of a perfect father to supply perfect spermatozoa. And hence the consistency of the teaching
of Scripture, that in the case of Jesus a perfect
life (not of or from the Adamic fountain) was transferred
by divine power from a pre-existent condition to the embryo human
condition, was born “holy” (pure and perfect), though of an imperfect
mother. (Luke 1:35) That Jesus was thus uncontaminated with the imperfections,
mental, moral or physical—which his mother in common with the entire
human race shared, is entirely reasonable and, as we have just seen, in
perfect accord not only with Scripture but also with the latest scientific
findings and deductions.
Another fact which scientists are demonstrating to themselves,
which seems to concur with the Scripture testimony, is, that though life
or being comes from the father, form and nature
come from the mother. The
scientific proofs of this are more abstruse and less easily grasped by the
ordinary mind; and this, because in wisdom God has not only separated the
various kinds or natures,
but in great measure has limited them, so that they cannot mix or blend
beyond certain limits without losing the powers of fecundation.
A common illustration of this is the mule, a hybrid which cannot
propagate.
The old idea that form and nature came from the male is abandoned
by modern students of nature, who now agree that the female furnishes organism
as well as sustenance—in fact furnishes all except the life-seed or sperm
which comes from the father or life-giver.
Take as a Scriptural illustration of the foregoing claims the
improper union between “the daughters of men” and those angels which
kept not [page 104] their proper estate or condition. (Gen. 6:2,4; Jude
6; 2 Pet. 2:4) The angels, when they assumed human form, being perfect in
vitality, begat children far superior to the then greatly fallen race of
Adam in mental acumen as well as in physical powers, so that the record
is—“the same were men of renown.”
These wonderful men, let us remember, were born of imperfect, dying
mothers, but begotten by vigorous, unimpaired fathers.
The dying race of Adam would have had hard masters in those
superior Nephilim
(Hebrew, fallen ones) which were never recognized by God, either by a
trial for life, or by a condemnation to death.
It was a mercy indeed which, not having authorized their existence,
blotted them from existence in the flood, and sparing as a new beginning
for the race Noah and his family, with the comment—“Now Noah was
perfect in his generation,”
which implies that the majority of Adam’s posterity had become greatly contaminated
and more or less a new race by association with the angels in human form.
We say a new race because of their
new life and vigor coming from new fathers.
So great was the renown of these “Nephilim,”
that the dread of them is to be found with more or less distinctness in
heathen mythologies to this day; and hundreds of years after their
destruction in the flood, the false
report that some of these were yet alive caused a panic among the
Israelites while flushed with the victory of recent battles. (See Num.
13:33; 14:36,37.) No doubt there were some large men in Canaan, as other
scriptures show, but never except in this “evil
report” are they called Nephilim.
Another illustration of this principle that life (vitality) comes
from the father, and organism (nature) from the mother, is found in the
fact that Jehovah, himself of the divine nature has begotten sons
of various natures. He is the
father or life-giver to those sons
of angelic nature (Job 2:1; 38:7; Heb. 2:9), as well as to sons of human
nature (Luke 3:38), as well to the “new
creatures” who, in the first resurrection, shall be made
partakers of his own divine nature. (2 Pet.
1:4) The spirit or energy of Jehovah operating upon [page 105]
spirit-substances produced and developed angels; the
same energy or spirit operating upon earthly substances produced man and
the lower animals. (Gen. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:47) And when God would give us a
clear conception of the generation of the new creatures to the divine
nature, he represents them as begotten of his word of promise in the womb of the
Covenant which he made with Abraham, which Covenant was symbolized
by a woman, Sarah, telling us that as
Isaac was the heir of Abraham and child of promise (by Sarah), so
we, as or like Isaac, are children of God, being children of the promise,
or Sarah Covenant. See Gal.
4:23-31; 1 Pet. 1:3,23; 2 Pet. 1:4.
The same principle is illustrated in the fact that in the typical Jewish
dispensation, prior to the Christian age, a child inherited blessings and
privileges of its father, according to the favor and standing of its
mother, thus again declaring that the mother’s nature, rights,
privileges and liberties attached to the child, though not of necessity
the father’s. See Gen. 21:10; Ex. 21:4; Gal. 4:30.
The foregoing arguments are clinched by the fact that our Lord
Jesus was born of a woman. The
“holy thing” born of a woman partook of the woman’s nature, i.e.,
human nature—“of the earth, earthy.”
Though retaining all the purity and perfection of the pre-existent
(spirit) state, the transferred germ of being (in harmony with this law we
are examining) partook of the nature of the mother and was “made
flesh” by being “born of a woman.”
Yet the “clean thing” came not out of the unclean race, but
“proceeded forth and came from God” and was merely developed and
nourished in Mary. John 8:42; Gal. 4:4
It is yet further in harmony with this same principle that though
our Lord Jesus has since been highly exalted to the divine
nature, and is no longer human, yet it is declared of him that he
shall be the life-giver or “father”
of the whole human race, while it is also shown that his work for the race
is to restore
the perfection of human nature, which was lost for all through Adam’s sin.
Thus, while their “father” or life-giver will be on the divine
plane, his children will be on the [page 106]
human plane, born out of a Covenant of restitution,
illustrated by Keturah, Abraham’s third wife.
Reviewing our subject then, we perceive that the “miraculous”
birth of our Lord Jesus, perfect, unblemished, of an imperfect mother, was
not contrary to the usual procedure of the Creator’s arrangements, but
in full harmony with them: we see that similarly father Adam was born into
being perfect because he was born of
God, though his mother (the earth) was still imperfect except the
specially prepared Garden of Eden. The
Scriptural assurance then that our Lord had a prehuman existence, the
life-principle of which was transferred to Mary’s womb and born of her
“holy,” is abundant assurance that he was as the same Scriptures
declare “holy, harmless, undefiled,
separate from sinners.” Just such an one “became us” or was
suitable to the necessities of our case—such an one as could be accepted
by Justice as our ransom-price;
and then being made humanity’s High Priest in things pertaining to God,
would be able to compassionate the weak and burdened—having been touched
with a feeling of human infirmities when he himself compassionately took
our sicknesses. Matt. 8:16,17; Heb. 7:26
We pass on now to the consideration of how he could be thus without
sin and yet be “made like unto his brethren.”
