The Second Man The Lord from Heaven.

Paul Thomas

The Second Man

The Lord from Heaven.

A Critical Appraisal of Historical Christology

from Chalcedon to the Monothelite

Controversy (AD 681).

PAUL THOMAS

Paul Thomas

quotations are from the King James Version, 1611 (Authorised

Version). No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical,

including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information

storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from

the copyright holder. The right of Paul Thomas to be identified as

the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the

views expressed in this book are the author‟s alone.

ISBN:

Paul Thomas

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Bishop Dr. Teklemariam Gezahagne,

the Superintended of the Apostolic Church International Fellowship.

With wisdom, patience and love, he took the time to share the

marvellous truths contained in the pages of this book. The Ethiopian

eunuch went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in search of the truth and

returned with the priceless name of Jesus. I, and many others, have

travelled to Ethiopia and were infinitely enriched with the revelation

of the heavenly origin of the blessed flesh and blood of our Lord,

Jesus Christ.

Thanks are also due to the Apostolic Church International

Fellowship, Norway, for their untiring support. This book coincides

with the 10

anniversary since the founding of the ACIF, Norway.

Paradoxically, it was the issue of the origin of the body of the Lord

Jesus Christ which saw the need to establish a new church. In

conceiving of this book a while ago, I was unaware of the

approaching anniversary which will be celebrated this December,

2011. I am both very pleased and humbled to say that we have

steadfastly kept the profession of faith without wavering.

Revelation 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I

come.

Paul Thomas, London, UK,

October, 2011

Paul Thomas

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iii

Introduction 7

CHAPTER ONE 10

The first Adam – a figure of Christ 10

The effects of sin on the body of Adam 12

Could Jesus have been tempted with sin? 15

The uniqueness of Christ‟s birth 18

The blood is the life of the flesh 20

The Lord‟s Supper 24

A “glorified” body after the resurrection? 26

CHAPTER TWO 32

Introduction 32

The genealogies of Matthew 1 & Luke 3 33

The curse on Jechonias 35

Seed of the woman 37

Seed of Abraham 44

Seed of Abraham, circumcision & baptism 47

Partakers of the divine nature 52

Seed of David 59

Paul Thomas

CHAPTER THREE 68

Kinsman redeemer 68

What does kinsman redeemer pertain to? 70

The necessity of a sinless Redeemer 73

Eikōn and homoiōma 77

The Son of man 81

CHAPTER FOUR 86

Nestorius 86

Apollinaris‟ truncated Christology 95

Eutyches and mono/miaphysitism 101

CHAPTER FIVE 105

Introduction 105

Leo I – the master tactician 106

To be acknowledged in two natures? 110

Canonizing the uncanonizable. 114

CHAPTER SIX 122

Introduction 122

One person praying to another view 123

Establishing the identity of Jesus. 124

Why did Jesus pray? 126

What does Jesus grew in wisdom mean? 132

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Recapitulation and atonement 136

CHAPTER SEVEN 143

The Sinless Heavenly Man 143

Sinlessness vs. impeccability 144

Temptation and the sinlessness view 148

The Monothelite Controversy 157

The first Lateran Council AD 649 161

Triumph of dyothelitism 163

What says the Word? 164

A dehellenization of Christianity 168

CHAPTER NINE 171

Conclusion 171

Sermon on manna 176

Index 184

Works cited 191

Paul Thomas

Introduction

What is the origin of the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ? Is Jesus the

Son of God or the Son of Mary? How are we to understand phrases

such as “seed of the woman”, “seed of Abraham” and “seed of

David”? Is it important to establish the origin of the flesh of Jesus at

all? These are some of the questions this book considers in light of

the Bible. Although some Christians do not believe it is important to

grapple with such questions, even a liberal theologian like John Hick

states that the “incarnation makes Christianity unique among world

religions. This is so because Christianity is founded by God Himself

in person” (Hick 1985, 34). I quite agree with Hick. A question

which follows from this is: If God founded Christianity in person,

and the main vehicle through which He achieved this is His body,

then what is the origin and nature of this body?

Today, the prevailing view in the Christian denominational world is

that Jesus entered the world with a human flesh assumed from Mary.

Those who hold this view contend that it was necessary for Christ to

assume human flesh in order for Him to qualify as our “kinsman

redeemer”. However, upon closer examination of the Biblical

evidence, we find no support for such a reading. In part, this book

aims to explore a number of similar readings believed to support the

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

contention that Jesus assumed a human flesh. However, the

overriding objective is to convincingly argue for the Scriptural

position that Jesus came into this world with a flesh which had its

source in the Word of God – heavenly flesh.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the

Father,) full of grace and truth.

The central thesis of this book is: did God robe Himself in earthly

human flesh or did He come in His own heavenly flesh? The belief

that Christ‟s flesh is heavenly will be shown to be a bedrock

teaching in the Bible. Conversely, to believe that Jesus assumed

human flesh - having its origin in the lowly dust - leaves one with a

distorted view of the identity of the One True God in Christ and,

sadly, a diminished view of His resplendent glory. It will be argued

that a wrong understanding of the Word made flesh (John 1:14)

doctrine (Christology) impacts negatively on a series of other

foundational doctrines in the Bible among which are baptism in

Jesus name and the Lord‟s Supper.

The eminent German theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was

martyred by the Nazis, once said:

What is bothering me incessantly is the question what

Christianity really is, or indeed who Christ really is, for us

today (Bonhoeffer 1971, 279).

Paul Thomas

Similar questions have propelled the need to write this book. It is

such “incessant botherings” which lead us to more profound truths

concerning the only wise God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in

whom is hid all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom. In the Right

Hand of the Lord: Literal or Metaphorical? (2011), I invoked Isaiah

34:16 to challenge the reader to suspend his/her preconceptions and

examine the contents of this book with a critical, but judicious and

open spirit. I find no better verse to invoke, once again, before we

commence this journey:

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no

one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it

hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

CHAPTER ONE

The first Adam – a figure of Christ

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the

ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man

became a living soul.

Man is a spirit-being. God fashioned a dust-body to serve as a vessel

to contain the spirit which He blew into us. The name Adam means

“red earth”. Thus the first Adam was created a being with a dual

heritage: his spirit was from God while his body was of the earth.

The woman also shared in the same biological origin as Adam.

When God created the first couple, He called them both Adam – or

red earth.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed

them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were

created.

The above is important because some people mistakenly presume

that because Jesus did not have a human father, He somehow evaded

the sin of Adam. The Scripture makes it clear that women (including

Mary) have no separate existence of their own, which means that

there was no way Jesus would have avoided the sin of Adam

Paul Thomas

although, as is claimed, He assumed human flesh from Mary alone.

One Scripture that confirms the inseparable link between men and

women is I Corinthians 11:8:

1Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the

woman of the man.

This book contends that the virgin birth makes redundant the

argument for a human Christ. God chose a virgin precisely to ensure

a rupture in the natural order of human procreation so that the entire

act – from start to finish – was a sovereign act of the divine alone.

Coming back to the creation of Adam, are we to believe that humans

were destined to live with a body made from the earth forever? Did

God intend for mankind to live eternally with a dust-body in the

Garden of Eden? Leave aside the fact that God, in His omniscience,

knew that the first humans would sin and be expelled from Eden.

Imagine with me, if you will, that they had never sinned. Would they

have lived happily ever after in the Garden of Eden? Actually, the

Bible has something to say about this.

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,

even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of

Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

In stating that Adam is “...the figure of him that was to come”, the

apostle Paul teaches us that Adam was not the real image of God.

Adam was a figure or an imperfect model foreshadowing the coming

of the second Adam – Jesus Christ. We ought to be very thankful

that Adam was not the ultimate fulfilment of the creative act of God.

Who would want to be confined to this earthly body with all its

flaws, temptations and limitations? Keep in mind that even before

the Fall, our first parents were susceptible to enticement, temptation

and deception. So even if Adam and Eve had not sinned, their

creation was far from the perfect, heavenly, incorruptible and sinless

beings that God had envisioned for the future. This would only

become possible through putting on the body of God Himself (Jesus

Christ) which will be discussed later.

The effects of sin on the body of Adam

Not only was the first Adam but a figure or a shadow of Christ

before the Fall, but the effects of the Fall make it theologically

impossible for Jesus to assume a body from the descendants of

Adam. Hence we are, in essence, looking at two challenges which

militate against a human body for Jesus: one that the pre-Fall body

of Adam was a mere figure, and, two, that the hereditary nature of

sin taints every single individual of the human species. The

Scriptures confirm this over and over again:

Paul Thomas

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can

he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 25:5 Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the

stars are not pure in his sight.

Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of

man, which is a worm?

Bildad the Shuhite‟s description above of the human condition is

deflating. All who are born of women are unclean in the sight of

God. All it takes to become unclean is to be born. Let us be clear

about one thing: it was God who declared that the day Adam would

eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would surely

die (Genesis 2:17). The fact that all humans die simply means that

we have inherited the sin of our federal father Adam. Paul reiterates

this:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of

God;

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the

world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for

that all have sinned:

The reason I labour this point is because some people believe that

Jesus had to become a human being exactly like us in order to save

us. I have often asked them how it was possible for the Lord to avoid

the corruptible sinful nature of Adam to which they replied that the

Lord somehow worked a miracle and circumvented the sin. Now

they, regrettably, do not make any attempt to back up such a serious

allegation with any Scripture, yet this spurious claim is taught as a

pivotal doctrine in their churches.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

At this juncture I only focus on the fact that the effects of the

inherited sin makes it impossible for Jesus to mingle with the

biological make-up of humanity. The whole human gene pool is

spiritually contaminated by the sin of Adam. However, it will be

clearly established later that Jesus Himself denied any biological

relations with the progeny of Adam. He claimed to be from above

and not of this world (John 8:23,24).

As I will often make mention of Oneness Christians in this book, I

will briefly consider their understanding of the Godhead. Oneness

Christians uphold the biblical doctrine of the One True God

manifested in flesh (I Timothy 3:16), and reject the doctrine of the

Trinity. They believe that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles and

modes of the same One God. Where we part ways is in their

understanding of the manner in which God was manifested in flesh.

They hold to the mainstream erroneous view that God assumed flesh

from Mary as it was necessary for Him to become a genuine human

being like us in every way.

Oneness adherents have basically continued in the error of the

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) which I will elaborate on later. Most

theologians, however, agree that Chalcedon gendered more

questions rather than solve the ones raised.

However, Chalcedon only asserts that Jesus is truly God and

truly human, it does not explain how this is possible. But this –

Hick claims – makes it an unintelligible and meaningless

utterance (Schmidt-Leukel 2006, 115).

Paul Thomas

The problem is this: How is the classical Christological

tradition to be continued in our era? The hallmark of that

tradition - "truly divine, truly human" formula - has become a

sore point (Wildman 2007, 302).

The reader will notice that I refrain from using the word

“incarnation” in this book. There is a good reason for doing so. Look

up any book on systematic theology and you will notice that

incarnation refers to the manner in which “the second member of the

Trinity” assumed flesh from Mary. This phrase is completely alien to

the biblical doctrine of the Godhead. There is no “second member of

the Trinity”. Christological debates of the third and fourth centuries

revolved around this false premise. As such, it is quite puzzling that

Oneness believers, who deny such phraseology (second member of

the Trinity), nevertheless embrace the mistaken belief that Jesus

derived His humanity from Mary – a product of the Trinitarian

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451).

Could Jesus have been tempted with sin?

Oneness Christians maintain that Jesus could have been tempted and

even sin. The quote below is a case in point:

This is also related to His ―sinlessness‖. Some have questioned

his genuine humanity because of His ―sinlessness‖. Some have

denied His capability of sinning (in other words, questioning

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

His human will, His human spirit and human emotions, His

flesh and blood body) (Chalfant).

The problem with the above is that Chalfant recognizes only one

category of flesh – those who can trace their lineage back to Adam.

Once he operates with this narrow definition of mankind, it follows

logically that all who are born of this lineage must be capable of

sinning or else their humanity is void. This is the classic reductionist

fallacy: it runs the risk of denying God‟s sovereignty in begetting a

completely new lineage of which Jesus was the firstborn.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did

predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he

might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Furthermore, this position would require God to share in the fallen

state of humans. On the contrary, God already revealed to the

prophet Isaiah that He could not find any one from the lineage of

Adam which is why His own arm brought salvation unto Him.

Isaiah 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered

that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought

salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

Isaiah 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I

wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own

arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

Chalfant believes that Jesus is the One and only God. How does he

then reconcile this belief with the Scripture below?

Paul Thomas

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted

of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth

he any man:

The fundamental mistake committed by Chalfant and others of this

school of thought is their inability to conceive of another lineage of

man which has its source in God Himself. This is precisely what the

apostle Paul expounded to the Corinthian church.

1Cor 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made

a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1Cor 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but

that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

1Cor 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second

man is the Lord from heaven.

Oneness, and other theologians, believe that Adam‟s human nature

before the Fall was identical with the Lord‟s “human nature”. In the

words of one theologian:

The grace in which human nature was originally created meant

that before the Fall Adam‘s human nature, like that of Christ,

was free from every temptation ―from within‖. The

impossibility, in the cases of Adam and of Jesus, of human

nature being tempted ―from within‖ results from the uniquely

graced character of these two human natures. In these two

cases, grace worked to ensure that human nature could not

―turn against itself‖, so to speak (Riches 2011, 14).

The flaw with such reasoning is that it not only has no biblical

foundation but overlooks the fact that God never intended for born -

again believers to be trapped in an adamic body forever. Again, as

previously stated, Adam was a figure or shadow of Christ. Rather

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

than put Jesus and Adam‟s “human nature” on par with each other,

the apostle Paul demonstrates a qualitative difference between the

two:

1Cointhians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the

second man is the Lord from heaven.

1Corinthians 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the

earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

In the narrative of the Gospels, the Lord never sought any affinity or

kinship with Adam. His statements could only be understood as

attempts to distance Himself from any such ties with the lineage of

Adam.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am

from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

The uniqueness of Christ’s birth

We must ponder the question I raised earlier again: why was Jesus

born of a virgin? Perhaps, someone may be tempted to say that it

was a fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. There is a problem

with this line of reasoning. How many people really knew that Mary

was a virgin? The Bible records that Joseph was told to marry Mary

in order to conceal the awkwardness and shame of the situation. In

fact, he married her so that no one would ask questions about the

circumstances of her pregnancy. In other words, it was all hushed up.

So why then was the Lord born of a virgin if this was not public

knowledge? Simply because this was the best way to avoid any

Paul Thomas

genetic linkage or intermingling with the human race. Actually, the

Bible is quite explicit with regards to the origin of the flesh of Jesus.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The

Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest

shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which

shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Why would God resort to such a drastic step? Why could He not

settle for a human specimen? Clearly, this is because of the

universally corrupt and sinful condition of all humans. Had the Lord

received any genetic contribution from Mary, He would necessarily

have been contaminated with the acted and inherited sin which has

always been a hallmark of the human condition. But as Luke 1:35

states, the baby to be born was referred to as that holy thing. This has

not been said of any other child in the entire Bible. One cannot but

notice that God was doing something entirely new with the birth of

Jesus. It was so unique that He began preparing the children of Israel

to expect this momentous event several centuries before it came to

pass.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little

among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come

forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth

have been from of old, from everlasting.

Bethlehem was an obscure village among the thousands of Judah

but rose to great prominence because Jesus was born there. Christ

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

may have had a humble birth but His origin was from everlasting.

The question which arises here is: which part or aspect of Jesus was

from everlasting – His Spirit alone or His flesh too? Many Christians

restrict the Lord‟s everlasting origin to His Spirit alone, believing

His flesh to have originated with Mary. This would, in essence,

make the Lord partially everlasting – the eternal Spirit of God

dwelling in a human body derived or assumed from the race of

Adam. This would make Him a demi-god not unlike the half-human

gods of Greek mythology. It goes without saying that this is not the

Jesus we know from the hallowed pages of the New Testament.

The blood is the life of the flesh

I vividly remember a conversation I had with a Pastor years ago.

This man did not believe that the Lord‟s flesh was heavenly, so I

asked him a specific question: “If you had met Jesus, in the days of

His ministry in Israel, what aspect of His being would you worship –

His flesh, Spirit, or both (the whole man)?” After some hesitation, he

answered, “I would worship the Spirit in the flesh, and not the

flesh.” Gauging from his facial expression, I could see that he was

quite surprised by this pronouncement. It dawned on him that he had

not put much serious thought into the issue. I asked this question

because I felt that it might bring to the surface the theologically

impoverished understanding Oneness Christians have of the Word

made flesh doctrine. I proceeded to open the Scriptures to the

Paul Thomas

following verse and demonstrate to this Pastor that the blood of

Jesus is referred to as the blood of God:

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the

flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,

to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his

own blood.

Upon a closer examination of this text, the good Pastor responded, “I

believe the blood of Jesus is the blood of God, but His flesh is

derived from Mary”. It was my turn to be surprised. In the space of a

few minutes, he had modified his position: the blood was heavenly,

but not the flesh. Obviously, I pointed out many of the Scriptures

which have been used in this book to show that the flesh of Jesus –

like His blood – is of heavenly origin but to no avail. I explained that

the blood is the life of the flesh, and not the other way round as all

Bible students know:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I

have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for

your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the

soul.

Does God have blood? Yes, according to Acts 20:28. Where did He

get this blood from? The answer is equally simple – from His own

life-source. God is the source of all life everywhere. Without Him

there is no life:

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was

not an thing made that was made

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

In order to grasp the blessed truth of the heavenly origin of the flesh

and blood of Jesus, it is crucial to understand that God is the author

of life. He was not dependent on human life, which He created from

the dust, to manifest Himself in a body. Rather, God manifested

Himself through His own life – His blood and flesh in order to save

us. Why, then, have many in the Christian world, ever since the

Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), misunderstood this bedrock

teaching of the Word of God? In my humble opinion (I myself was

led astray with this teaching for many years), this is because most

people have been indoctrinated over many years to believe that there

can only be one type of flesh of man – human flesh.

I pray that the contents of this book will destabilize this

indoctrination. Why will God come in His own blood but not His

own heavenly flesh? Remember that Jesus is the Lamb of God. In

the Old Testament, the Lamb was supposed to be without blemish,

spot or wrinkle before it was selected to be eaten during the

Passover. It was to be examined by the members of the household

meticulously for 4 days before it was declared free of all defects and

fit for consumption.

Exodus 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the

first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

This raises a legitimate question: as the Lamb of God without

blemish, how would Jesus have avoided the blemish of the inherited

Paul Thomas

sin of the human gene pool? It is not enough to say, as many

Oneness Christians do, that God worked a miracle to circumvent

this. Where is the Scriptural evidence for this? The Bible does say

that Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15), but nowhere does it say

that God worked a miracle to expunge the inherited sin of Adam.

This would be an interpolation (to insert erroneous material into a

text). Actually, we are told very explicitly by the Lord Himself why

He was and is without any sin, but are we prepared to hear?

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am

from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

It was because Jesus (Spirit, flesh and blood of God) was a

completely heavenly being that He avoided the sin of corrupt and

fallen humanity. We know that Herod, Pilate, the High Priest, the

Pharisees and Sadducees all examined Jesus to find fault in Him, but

they found no fault in Him. He was fit to be the Lamb of God who

takes away the sin of the world. All hail the name of Jesus! This was

the testimony of Pilate:

John 19:4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto

them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I

find no fault in him.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

The Lord’s Supper

The Lord‟s Supper is one of the most profound and powerful

sacraments of the church. It was solemnly instituted by the Lord

Himself and continues to be observed by Christians everywhere. Let

us first take note of the Lord‟s exact words:

Mathew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and

blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said,

Take, eat; this is my body.

The body of the Lord is the most precious gift to humanity. In the

Lord‟s Supper, we are commanded to eat His body because, by

doing so, we partake of the divine nature inherent in Jesus. His life

becomes infused in us and we live in Him through this act of eating

His body. So far so good. But how do Christians square all of this

with their fundamental belief that Jesus‟ body was human in every

way like ours, except for sin, as they often stress? Can a human

earthly body impart eternal life into our decaying bodies? The

answer is simply no. A dying man does not ask for another dying

man to revive him. In fact, the Old Testament plainly forbids the

eating of human flesh and blood. When Jesus openly commanded

the Jews to eat His flesh and drink His blood, His strange words

stirred a great commotion among them:

John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying,

How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Paul Thomas

It is because Jesus‟ flesh and blood are of a heavenly order that He

can legitimately make such a bold claim. Unfortunately, His

audience at the time, and many today, are still perplexed and asking

the question “Mana?” which means “What is this?” when we talk

about the doctrine of the flesh of Jesus. You will recall the children

of Israel said this of the bread which God sent them to eat for 40

years in the Wilderness of Sinai. Like the veil of Moses which hid

the mysteries of God, there is a veil preventing them from plainly

grasping the saving heavenly flesh of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus

Christ. We pray fervently that the rays of God‟s revelation will help

them see beyond the veil.

In the Tabernacle and subsequent Temple there was a thick veil that

separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. No one except the

High Priest could enter into the Holiest place, and only once a year.

Everyone knew, however, that beyond this veil lay the majestic

shekinah glory of God between the cherubims atop the Mercy Seat,

where the blood offering was poured. At Calvary, Jesus tore apart

the veil for all to look directly into the Holy of Holies. I am

convinced that without correctly perceiving the heavenly flesh and

blood of our Lord, a Christian will only have partial access to the

revelation of the Kingdom of God. Such was the importance the

Lord attached to His heavenly origin that he repeated this more than

once in John chapter 6:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from

heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven,

that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven:

if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread

that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the

world.

We must not miss the clear import of the words of Jesus. Three vital

components can be detected in His words above:

 He is the bread of life.

 This bread came down from heaven.

 This bread which came down from heaven is His flesh.

The conclusion is that Jesus‟ flesh is from heaven, and not of the

earth. Keep in mind that the Lord‟s Supper was instituted before

Jesus faced the Cross and resurrected. This is of significance because

Oneness and other Christians contend that the Lord‟s flesh changed

after the resurrection. If this is true, then why would Jesus offer us

His flesh and blood before the resurrection – a body which was not

“glorified” yet? In the Lord‟s Supper, the Lord said, “Take, eat...”

(Matthew 26:26). It was in the present tense and not a command to

be observed after the resurrection.

A “glorified” body after the resurrection?

Oneness Christians maintain that Jesus had a body which was

“glorified” after the resurrection. I use inverted commas because this

Paul Thomas

term is used diffusely and without any serious attempt at providing

solid Scriptural evidence. When pressed, the best they can do is

quote the following verse:

John 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that

believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet

given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

In their view, the phrase ...Jesus was not yet glorified is taken to

mean His body underwent a change. When asked to specify what

kind of changes, they have often referred to the instance where the

Lord appeared out of thin air in the room, although the doors were

shut to greet the astounded apostles (John 20:19). Let us explore this

position. To begin with, John 7:39 does not utter a word about the

body of our Lord. The context is the outpouring of the Holy Spirit

which was fulfilled in Acts 2. That Jesus was not yet glorified refers

to the fact that He had not yet overcome the forces of sin, the Devil

and death at the Cross.

Actually, the whole premise of the argument is non sequitur. Why

should the outpouring of the Holy Spirit be dependent upon the body

of Jesus undergoing a change? Was Jesus not begotten with a

glorified body already from the first moment the Word was made

flesh? John attests to this truth:

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,

(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the

Father,) full of grace and truth.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

According to John, when the Word was made flesh (i.e. way before

the resurrection), they beheld His glory. John compared Jesus‟ glory

to that of the Father – full of grace and truth. Now, needless to say, if

Jesus‟ glory was the glory of the Father, in what sense does He need

to be “glorified”? We often say in church, “Let us glorify God”. This

has nothing to do with God transmutating in some manner due to our

praises. From the moment Jesus was born, He was always God, not

only at that instant in time, but from eternity. What does God

Himself say about His susceptibility to change?

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye

sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and

forever.

Strong‟s G1392 has doxazō which is the Greek word translated

“glorified”. A list of possible meanings is provided:

1) to think, suppose, be of opinion

2) to praise, extol, magnify, celebrate

3) to honour, do honour to, hold in honour

4) to make glorious, adorn with lustre, clothe with splendour

a) to impart glory to something, render it excellent

b) to make renowned, render illustrious (Strong 1995).

1) to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become

manifest and acknowledged (Strong 1995).

Obviously, none of these meanings can be extrapolated to refer to

the body of our Lord. What is of particular concern, in my view, is

that the Oneness perception of the body of our Lord, sadly, takes

away from the glory of His being. I do not say this lightly, and am

Paul Thomas

aware that many are doing this inadvertently. However, some of

their theologians, make no attempt to conceal a truncated view of the

glory of the body of our Lord. Take a look at the statements below

(emphasis mine):

Before His resurrection, Jesus had the same kind of body (flesh

and blood) that we have - capable of suffering, death, and decay

and not able to inherit eternal life without a change (Bernard

2001).

In short, the Bible reveals that the humanity of Christ had to

qualify for exaltation and glorification, which occurred by His

death, resurrection, and ascension ( (UPCI 2003)

Bernard concludes that Jesus could not inherit eternal life without a

change. If this is true, why then does Jesus boldly declare before the

resurrection:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the

life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Are we to infer that Jesus was speaking as the Father, which

excluded His body? This would present a fragmented Jesus part God

and part an ordinary mortal with a need for a Saviour Himself. The

truth is that Jesus is the life Himself (John 14:6); He does not need to

inherit eternal life. John also confirmed that Jesus is the author of

life:

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have

heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked

upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

Furthermore, that Jesus actually could inherit eternal life before the

resurrection is plainly evident in the fact that He could

simultaneously be on earth and in heaven. Only a heavenly body can

enter heaven – a body which is no longer constrained by the

debilitating effects of sin and corruption, as the apostle Paul declares

(I Corinthians 15:50). If Christ could enter heaven prior to the Cross,

it should mean that He was in possession of an incorruptible

heavenly body all along. What does Jesus have to say about this?

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that

came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in

heaven.

It would be an irreconcilable contradiction to hold that Jesus is the

author and giver of eternal life while simultaneously unable to

inherit eternal life without undergoing a change in the nature of His

flesh. The UPCI position paper on the humanity of Jesus is equally

disheartening. They assert that Jesus had to qualify for exaltation

and glorification. A barrage of questions queue up to interrogate this

assertion: why then did the angels worship Him at His birth? What

was the nature of the glory which gave Jesus the liberty to forgive

sins? How did He “qualify” to shine radiantly like the noonday sun

on the summit of the high mountain (Matthew 17). As I stated

earlier, this Oneness position is untenable. It is a denigration of the

Paul Thomas

immutable glory and honour of the great God and Saviour, Jesus

Christ (Titus 2:13).

The Bible declares plainly that Adam was a figure of him who was

to come, which is Christ. A figure is but a mere shadow and not the

true substance. A shadow has never been useful to anyone, neither

does it mutate into the substance. It vanishes with the appearance of

the first rays of the sun leaving only the substance behind. Human

flesh is but a shadow of Christ who is the substance, the true image

of God. When all is said and done, the sun of righteousness will rise

on our adamic bodies returning it to the dust. Only the body of Jesus

will remain. We must put on this glorious body if we wish to live on

eternally.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

CHAPTER TWO

Introduction

In this chapter I will consider a list of objections raised against the

Word made flesh doctrine. It is not uncommon for many to adhere to

a literal reading of the genealogies mentioned in Matthew 1 & Luke

3. They suppose that since the list traces Jesus‟ lineage through Mary

back to Adam, He is a human in every sense of the word, except sin.

In particular, many Christians believe that phrases such as “the seed

of the woman”, “seed of Abraham” and the “seed of David”

undergird the belief that Jesus had a body of the lineage of Adam.

This chapter will seek to show the grave deficiencies inherent in a

literal understanding of the genealogies and “seed of...” titles applied

to Christ. In 2003, while on a six-month missionary trip to Nairobi,

Kenya, we held a 3 day seminar to teach on the subject of the origin

of the flesh of Jesus. I remember that many of the questions raised

by Pastors who held a Chalcedonian Christology revolved around

the “seed of...” titles. At the end of the seminar, we rejoiced when

these same Pastors received the soul-blessing revelation of the Word

made flesh doctrine. Much of the content reproduced here is material

which was used then. Again, I also acknowledge the contribution of

Paul Thomas

Bishop Teklemariam Gezahagne without whom I myself perhaps

would still have languished with an impoverished understanding.

The genealogies of Matthew 1 & Luke 3

As mentioned in the introduction, the two genealogies outlined in the

New Testament are central to the debate about the origin of the flesh

of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the estimation of most Bible-readers,

these are straightforward accounts of the lineage of the Lord. Why

else would Matthew and Luke meticulously note down the names of

the ancestors of the Lord, according to them. After all, Matthew

begins his account with the words:

Mathew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son

of David, the son of Abraham.

For those unfamiliar with the Jewish reckoning of pedigree

(ancestral line), it is easy to see why they take the list literally. Upon

closer examination, however, it becomes crystal clear that Matthew

did not intend the reader to take the genealogy literally. The point

was to demonstrate that Jesus did come out of a line which could be

traced back to David and Abraham, but this did not imply a physical,

biological shared ancestry. Firstly, women feature in this genealogy.

In fact, to claim that Jesus was a legal ancestor of David based on

Mary‟s familial ties to the house of David reveals a poor grasp of

Jewish and biblical customs. Moses declared that only those who

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

could validate their pedigree from their father‟s side could be

numbered among the children of Israel.

Numbers 1:18 And they assembled all the congregation

together on the first day of the second month, and they declared

their pedigrees after their families, by the house of their fathers,

according to the number of the names, from twenty years old

and upward, by their polls.

Now, as every Bible believer knows, Joseph was not the biological

father of our Lord. Yet Matthew mentions, “And Jacob begat Joseph

the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ”

(Matthew 1:16). In fact, the entire genealogical list in Matthew 1 &

Luke 3 is built on this assumption. How can this be reconciled with

what we have just read in Numbers 1:18? The Jews were quite

stringent in implementing the dictates of Numbers 1:18. We read in

the Bible that some priests were dismissed from the service in the

days of Nehemiah because their ancestry could not be corroborated.

Nehemiah 7:64 These sought their register among those that

were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore

were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood.

If Christ cannot claim Joseph as his biological father, then the

integrity of the entire ancestral list in the two Gospels is in jeopardy.

There can only be one other way out of this conundrum – the list was

not meant to be taken literally. Indeed, this is precisely what Luke

intends when he states:

Paul Thomas

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of

age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the

son of Heli,

By injecting as was supposed in the text, Luke was issuing a

disclaimer to the effect that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. It

logically follows from this that the genealogical odyssey he

embarked upon was to be understood in legal terms – not biological.

Since Joseph did marry Mary and accept the baby as his own, this

conferred legal rights upon the Lord. Jesus was the son of David

through legal adoption, but not physical descent.

The curse on Jechonias

As already mentioned, the genealogy in Matthew1 & Luke 3 are not

intended to be taken literally as there are a number of discrepancies

which cannot be easily harmonised with the rest of Scripture. Beside

the problem of tracing Jesus‟ ancestry through a woman, Mary, there

is a curse on one apparent “ancestor” of Jesus in Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is

he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out,

he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

Jeremiah 22:29 O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the

LORD.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man

childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of

his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and

ruling any more in Judah.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Notice that Jechoniah (Coniah, Jechoniah & Jechonias all refer to the

same individual) was pronounced under a solemn curse and

condemned to be childless. None of his seed would sit on the throne

of David. Yet, curiously, Jechoniah features in the two genealogical

accounts in Matthew and Luke as the “forefather” of Jesus.

Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren,

about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Matthew 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon,

Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

No doubt this discrepancy requires some explanation. Bible

commentators such as the erudite Matthew Henry acknowledge that

Jechoniah could not have had any children at all. He speculates that

the seven children Jechoniah is alleged to have had in I Chronicles

3:17 were all adopted sons born to him in the Babylonian captivity.

Henry concludes, “Whether he had children begotten, or only

adopted, thus far he was childless that none of his seed ruled as kings

in Judah.” (Matthew Henry).

All this leaves anyone who believes in a literal reading of the

genealogies of Matthew 1 & Luke 3 in a very difficult position. I

only labour the point of the genealogies because Christians who

believe in a human descent of Christ from Adam often cite these

lineages as evidence. On the contrary, the two lists do not even agree

with each other. There are as many attempts to reconcile the

differences as there are scholars and arm-chair theologians. One

thing is clear – the names diverge between David and Joseph.

Paul Thomas

It does appear that Luke reckons the genealogy through Joseph's

father whereas Matthew begins with Joseph's maternal grandfather.

Either way, these lists have raised more questions, particularly

among unbelievers, rather than provide any “evidence” for Jesus‟

physical descent through Adam.

In brief, the genealogies are a cul-de-sac. Why would Christians seek

to “prove” Christ‟s humanity by citing genealogies which begin with

Joseph when they simultaneously acknowledge that he was not the

paternal father of Jesus?

Seed of the woman

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the

woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy

head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It is commonly held that Jesus is the “seed of the woman” which no

doubt is true. However, many Christians presuppose the “seed of the

woman” to be a literal physical descendant of the woman. One

objection to such a position is the lack of consistency in applying the

same interpretation to the “seed of the serpent” in the same sentence

of Genesis 3:15. Can the Devil generate physical seed of his own?

The answer is no. For instance, when the Lord referred to the Devil

as the Father of some of the Pharisees (John 8:44), we would all

agree that this was applied in a metaphorical sense. Jesus can only be

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

the “seed of the woman” in a metaphorical sense and not a literal

one.

Significantly, the apostle Paul stresses that “seed” refers to one

person alone – Jesus Christ. The connotation is that Jesus is a unique

seed promised to various biblical individuals through whom

redemption will be effectuated.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the

promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of

one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

As the promised Word Seed, then, Jesus had no physical connection

with Eve or Mary. It would be misleading, even heretical, to look for

Jesus‟ origin in the mortal and dust-bound constitution of the human

race. Let us keep in mind that God had pronounced a dreadful curse

upon the entire line of Adam.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till

thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for

dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Jesus was not taken from the dust which means that He cannot return

to the dust. We are talking about a genuinely heavenly being – the

Son of God. His origin and source is God Himself. In every sense –

body, soul and Spirit – Jesus is the “image of God” (Colossians

1:15). There is Scriptural evidence to support the fact that Jesus had

a flesh not subject to the decomposing effects common to all

members of the race of Adam.

Paul Thomas

Act 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in

that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the

second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Act 13:35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt

not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Act 13:37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

Notice that the apostle Paul draws a link between Jesus, the Son of

God, and the fact that He saw no corruption. Paul contrasts this by

comparing Christ‟s death and resurrection with David, who as his

Jewish audience were aware, died and was subject to the

disintegrating effects of death. Put another way, because Jesus had a

body which emanated directly from God, it was impervious to the

earthbound elements active in the process of decomposition. This

was one body which the bacteria and worms stayed away from

because it is the body of God Himself. In fact, God robed Himself

with this unique divine body to plague death itself.

Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I

will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O

grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from

mine eyes.

Let me introduce another objection often raised in support of what I

refer to the “Son of Mary” position. By that I mean those who

maintain Jesus had a human flesh of the same substance and origin

as ours. The adherents of this teaching often quote Galatians 4:4 in

support of their interpretation.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God

sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

They emphasize that “made of a woman” can only mean that Jesus

was a genuine human being sharing in the genetic make-up of the

woman. There is a simple straightforward answer to this. No other

English translation uses “made of..” for the Greek ginomai which is

translated “born of...”. Born of a woman approximates the original

because what does it mean to say that Jesus was “made under the

law”? In his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D.

Ehrman, exposes how the dominant Christian faction of the time

blatantly changed certain texts in the Bible to align with their

Christology (study of the nature of Christ). Significantly, one of the

texts they tampered with was Galatians 4:4 (Ehrman 1996) in order

to make it say that Jesus was of the race of Adam. What we need is

Christians who have the audacity to refuse to submit to the

traditional dogmatic church rule when it clashes with the testimony

of Scripture (Bockmuehl 1980, 30).

I will consider one more point before concluding this section. We

often speak of the “seed of the woman” almost unconsciously

oblivious to the fact that women do not have seed but egg. The man

provides the seed or sperm which fertilizes with the woman‟s egg

producing a zygote and a nine month gestation period. We often

speak of “the seed of the woman” as if it is a self-contained, pre-

packaged, child-bearing unit. For a bona fide human child to be

Paul Thomas

born, a male and female parent, with each gamete contributing 23

chromosomes, is essential. Only the male has the ability to produce

sperm (seed) because he has the Y-chromosome which the female

lacks. In an article reminiscent of a Jekyll and Hyde experiment,

(Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon? (2008)

), we are

told that scientists are now attempting to develop technologies that

enable men to produce eggs and females sperm. Fortunately, they

conclude:

Nevertheless, some biologists feel that the obstacles to making

female sperm are huge. "I think it will take far more than 10

years," says Robin Lovell-Badge of the National Institute for

Medical Research in London (Ibid.).

The point is clear, though – woman do not have seed. This begs the

question: who‟s seed is Jesus then? The answer can only be that

Christ is the seed of God, the Son of God alone. God alone is

capable of reproducing after His own kind. He has no need of other

agents to contribute anything as He is the author of life. He creates

out of nothing (ex nihilo) and can also generate from His own being

as He did with His own flesh. Interestingly, God looked down upon

His own lifeless body on the Cross and called it His own body:

Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead

body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for

Aldhouse, P. (2008). Are male eggs and female sperm on the horizon? New

Scientist. http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=3904 Retrieved

24.08.2011.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the

dead (emphasis mine).

Someone might be tempted at this point (as many have done) to

inquire “is this all really necessary?” “Surely, the origin of the flesh

of Christ is not a matter of salvation”. On the contrary, what one

believes with regards to the origin of the body of our Lord has direct

and vital bearing on the plan of salvation. The quotation below

captures the above (soteriology is the theological study of salvation

as effected by Jesus).

Because Christology is so closely tied to soteriology, there is

good reason to suspect that the one cannot be reconstructed in

isolation from the other (George W. Stroup 1976, 58).

Therefore we conclude that “seed of the woman” is a profound

prophetic title encapsulating the divine origin of Jesus in every way.

In Jeremiah 31:22 God prophesizes that He would do a new thing

upon the earth – a woman would surround a man.

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou

backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing

in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

What does the above actually refer to? How was it understood by

Bible commentators in the days of say Matthew Henry?

Many good interpreters understand this new thing created in

that land to be the incarnation of Christ, which God had an eye

Paul Thomas

to in bringing them back to that land, and which had sometimes

been given them for a sign, Isaiah. 7:14; 9:6. A woman, the

virgin Mary, enclosed in her womb the Mighty One (Matthew

Henry, online commentary on Jeremiah 31:22).

It is not a “new thing” for a woman to compass/surround a man as in

the womb for all men have been conceived in this fashion, What is

utterly novel and jaw-dropping is that this would happen through a

virgin with no male intervention. As Henry states, “A woman, the

virgin Mary, enclosed in her womb the Mighty One”. Clearly, God

would not need a woman to contribute to the process of conceiving

the Mighty One.

Much of the obfuscation we have encountered so far can easily be

dealt with if we are willing to concede that God is able to reproduce

a “new” kind after His own kind. Even the celebrated church father,

Augustine, conceded that it was possible for God to take a man from

elsewhere who had his origin not in the flesh but the Spirit, only to

fall into the same error as the architects behind Chalcedon:

God could of course have taken a man to himself from

somewhere else . . . not from the race of that Adam who had

implicated the human race in his own sin. . . But God judged it

better to take a man to himself from the very race that had been

conquered, in order through him to conquer the enemy of the

human race; to take one however whose conception from a

virgin was inaugurated by the spirit not the flesh, by faith not

lust (Augustine 1991).

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Seed of Abraham

Few have paused to consider why the Lord is called the seed of only

a few select individuals in the Bible. Why is Jesus not called the

“seed of Solomon” for instance? Or why not “seed of Cosam?”

(Luke 3:28). If Jesus is the biological descendant of all those

mentioned in the genealogies of Matthew 1 & Luke 3, then one

could randomly select anyone from the list. Those to whom I pose

this question often fall silent or look puzzled, and rightly so. The

appellation “seed of...” is only biblically valid if it is applied to the

woman, Abraham and David. This select list itself contains vital

clues about the revelation of Christ‟s heavenly flesh and ministry.

Let me now address the “seed of Abraham”.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the

promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of

one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The verse above makes it plain that “seed of Abraham” is the

promise given to Abraham concerning the coming of Christ. This

has nothing to do with physical seed as Abraham‟s righteousness

was attributed to him on account of his faith in the coming of this

seed – Jesus. The appellation “seed” has a beautiful meaning which

we should take heed not to miss out on in our passion to defend our

Christological positions. Why is Jesus called “seed”? A seed aptly

captures many aspects of the Lord. The seed (Word) was already in

Paul Thomas

existence before the Fall. A seed can lie dormant for a long period of

time but suddenly sprout to life when the conditions are right. Christ

was the promised Word Seed who, just like some seeds which are

carried along with the waves of the sea, was spiritually carried along

in this chosen line of Abraham‟s descendants only to sprout to life in

Mary‟s womb (fullness of time Galatians 4:4) and emerge with

salvation.

As the “Seed”, Jesus did not need life or biological material from

any human, but, rather, could give life to us. This is precisely the

point the apostle Paul stresses:

1Cor inthians15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam

was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening

spirit.

1Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: The first man Adam became

a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit (New

International Version).

This takes us back to the point I made earlier: we must accept that

God is His own seed. To deny that Jesus came in a new, heavenly

body is to deny that God has life-giving seed of His own. We often

refer to Abraham as the father of many nations. Indeed, Abraham‟s

great faith was the catalyst which the “Seed” (Christ) capitalized

upon to kick-start the birthing process. In other words, Jesus is the

seed which acted upon the faith of Abraham to produce children as

innumerable as the stars of the sky and the sand grains of the desert.

Abraham provided the faith, so to speak, but Jesus birthed the actual

children. No wonder Abraham longed for the day of Jesus.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he

saw it, and was glad.

Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Jesus because the Lord would

birth children in His own image fulfilling the Scripture below:

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did

predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he

might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Thus Christ is the seed of Abraham because He, as the life-giving

Word Seed, fathers countless children in His own image. Abraham

himself is dependent on Christ as the seed who effectuates the new

birth in him. Jesus is the seed of the new order of individuals who

shall enter the Kingdom of God. Of all “seeds” mentioned in the

Bible, only Jesus is the incorruptible Word Seed.

1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of

incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for

ever.

The reason this appellation is not applicable to the aforementioned

Solomon or Cosam is because there was nothing noteworthy in their

lives which would attach Christ in a special way as the seed. For the

woman, it was the promised seed of hope in the darkest hour of

humanity. For Abraham, God renewed His promised seed because of

his extraordinary faith and, as we shall see, for David, it was a token

acknowledgement of his great love for God, and desire to build God

Paul Thomas

a house which moved God to associate him with the promise of the

Word seed.

There is another and more profound way in which Jesus is the seed

of Abraham. It has to do with the covenant of circumcision which

finds its equivalent in the New Testament covenant of baptism in

Jesus name.

Seed of Abraham, circumcision & baptism

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep,

between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child

among you shall be circumcised.

Before Abraham could appropriate the “seed of Abraham” i.e.

Christ‟s saving nature, he was first commanded to eliminate and

discard the body or “seed” of Adam. We must choose whether we

wish to remain the children of Adam – with the inherited corruption

of soul, spirit and body – or the children of God. This, in essence, is

at the core of the whole Bible. It can also be portrayed as the “tale of

two Adams”: one from the dust and the other from heaven.

The elimination and discarding of the body of Adam was symbolized

in the act of cutting off (circumcision) the foreskin. I would like to

make two observations on this issue. Firstly, it appears there is a

very good reason why God chose the foreskin to symbolize the

removal of the body of Adam. This part of the male anatomy is

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

where the “seed of Adam” is passed on from generation to

generation. Submitting to circumcision was a way of acknowledging

that we are sadly passing on the seed of corruption and death. There

is a strange paradox here: the seed of Adam gives life to a newborn

baby but, simultaneously, also transmits the seed of spiritual

and physical death. However, underlying this seemingly pessimistic

message was the more optimistic message that we surrender to

circumcision in the belief that one day the Messiah will come and

give us a new, heavenly body. Before life comes death, before the

resurrection comes the grave, before joy there is sorrow and before

the second Adam comes the first Adam.

Psalm 30:5 For his anger endureth but a moment; in his favour

is life: weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the

morning.

The second observation is this: remember that circumcision was

never intended to be a pleasant experience. We can only imagine the

many hours and perhaps days of agony endured by a little eight-day

old infant. Grown adults, too, felt the excruciating distress both

physically and emotionally. Their very manhood and egos took a

brief beating for a few days. Keep in mind that the surgical tools

used in those days were crude and nothing like the medical tools and

conditions of today. There is an episode recorded in the Bible where

Zipporah, Moses‟ wife, performed a circumcision in what can only

be few seconds or minutes with a sharp stone:

Paul Thomas

Exodus 4:25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the

foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a

bloody husband art thou to me.

These two observations: the cutting off of the foreskin, and the

bruising experience of circumcision, have beautiful spiritual

meaning. We read in the New Testament that the act of baptism in

the name of Jesus Christ is the fulfilment of the commandment to

circumcise given to Abraham.

Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the

circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the

sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye

are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,

who hath raised him from the dead.

Now we understand that circumcision in the OT is actually a shadow

of the true act of baptism where Christ Himself steps into the watery

grave and removes the entire body of Adam – not just the foreskin.

Jesus did not and could not undergo a change in his body because

His flesh and blood are of heavenly origin. He is the prototype which

all those who hope to be saved must become. This is why the Lord

tells the sceptical apostles after the resurrection: “Behold my hands

and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath

not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39).

Before I reflect on the significance of the bruising in circumcision, it

is crucial to understand in what way Jesus is the “seed of Abraham”

with regards to circumcision. Earlier I indicated that Jesus, and not

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Abraham, was the father of many nations in the sense that He gave

birth to innumerable individuals born-again in His own image.

Abraham was the patriarch to whom the covenant of circumcision

was first given. As with all things in the Kingdom of God, in order

for the “seed” of God to become activated, there was the need for a

man of tremendous faith. Faith is like the lubricating oil in an engine

without which the whole machinery would come to a standstill. In

the pages of the Bible, God has richly rewarded faith and sharply

rebuked disbelief.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him:

for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is

a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

God found such a man in Abraham and gave him the covenant of

circumcision. As I stated previously, circumcision is fulfilled in the

act of baptism by faith in the name of Jesus. In baptism, Jesus

Himself performs the removal of the body of Adam. It is here, in the

water, that Abraham and Jesus meet. It is in the watery grave that we

become the children of Abraham by faith, and the children of Jesus

through a genuine legal, spiritual new birth. Jesus becomes the “seed

of Abraham” in the sense that He has the power to beget new sons.

The old covenant is replaced by the new covenant here in the very

waters of baptism. Abraham‟s faith brought Jesus to us. Now we

become the children of Abraham through baptism in Jesus‟ name.

The apostle Paul knew this very well:

Paul Thomas

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into

Christ have put on Christ.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's

seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Contrary to what many Christians preach today, we only become the

children of Abraham through baptism in the name of Jesus Christ,

and not by raising one‟s hand and repeating the sinner‟s prayer. It

would have been very easy and convenient for Abraham to have

raised a hand and repeated a pre-packaged prayer, rather than submit

to the bruising experience of circumcision. This brings me to the

second observation and its meaning.

There is a solemn message in the pain endured during circumcision.

The bruising inflicted represents an attack on the adamic nature with

all its rebelliousness and corruption. There is no polite way to say

this: God hates the adamic nature. It can never, and has never been

subject to the Spirit of God. It must be bruised and destroyed in the

watery grave of baptism. God does not ask for humans to reform, He

commands humans to die in the waters of baptism. He seeks a

complete overhaul – a new creature.

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for

it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please

God.

Circumcision, which is New Testament baptism, must be entered

into only with considerable thought and seriousness. In the days of

ancient Israel, we would not expect any man to undergo

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

circumcision without some prior preparation. Circumcision rendered

a man inactive and in a state of reflection for some time. Ministers

should be careful to discern whether potential candidates for baptism

are thoroughly prepared. Compared to circumcision, baptism in

water is far more convenient, but should be just as solemn.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with

him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we

should not serve sin.

What all the above points to is the biblical truth that God wants us to

put on a new body in salvation – the body of Jesus Christ Himself. It

is this teaching which is central to the Word made flesh (John 1:14)

doctrine. I will explore this topic next.

Partakers of the divine nature

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and

precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the

divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world

through lust.

How can we become partakers of the divine nature? The answer is to

be born again of the water and the Spirit (John 3:5). Water is the

agent which strips us off the “seed of Adam” and clothes us with the

heavenly bodily garments of our Lord Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:27).

Water is the agent which transports us from this world to the next,

spiritually speaking. Of paramount importance, with reference to the

Paul Thomas

Word made flesh doctrine, is the fact that God was manifested in

flesh (heavenly flesh) in order to clothe us with this heavenly body

with which we can have access to heaven. The place where we “put

on” this heavenly body is the waters of baptism. Why does the Bible

command people to be baptised in the water in Jesus name? Simply

because the water is where Christ circumcises the body and nature of

Adam and gives us His incorruptible flesh. It was for this reason that

the Ethiopian eunuch replied:

Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,

thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus

Christ is the Son of God.

Note that the Ethiopian eunuch upon sighting water asked the

question, “...See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”

(Acts 8:36). Apparently, there is something which can hinder us

from being baptized in Jesus name. That something is the belief that

Christ is the Son of God. I stress “Son” because it draws attention to

the significance of the body of God. In other words, if one does not

believe that Jesus is the flesh and blood of God, then baptism profits

nothing. I do not apologize for declaring that those who do not

believe that the body of our Lord is heavenly – Word made flesh –

have misunderstood the whole point of God manifesting Himself in

flesh (His own flesh and blood).

This will require a study of a few Scriptures to drive home this truth.

Oneness proponents cannot explain how God could have mingled

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

with adamic flesh and avoid the contamination of sin. Furthermore,

they believe that Jesus assumed a body which could not inherit

eternal life without undergoing a change, as we have seen (e.g.

Bernard). Based on such statements, culled from their literature, it

becomes clear that their fallacious understanding leads them to

actually believe that a human, tainted with all the frailties and

shortcomings of the fallen human nature came to save us. They often

proclaim that God had to become like us in order to save us. This is

the unbiblical belief that underpins the whole edifice of Oneness

Christology. Unfortunately, it has been repeated long enough to be

accepted as a cornerstone biblical teaching. What saith the Lord,

however? God saw no man of the adamic race.

Isaiah 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered

that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought

salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

Isaiah leaves us in no doubt as to what transpired. God saw no man.

This clearly speaks of the line of Adam because it is followed by

therefore his own arm. In brief, God discounted the line of Adam

and introduced His own arm – namely, Jesus Christ. How did Jesus

understand the origin of His body? The apostle John employs a very

revealing term in His Gospel:

Paul Thomas

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only

begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not

perish, but have everlasting life.

The Greek for “only begotten Son” is monogenēs (Strong's G3439).

There is a powerful revelation couched in this phrase. Thayer‟s

Lexicon describes it as “single of its kind, only”. He goes on to state,

Used of Christ, it denotes the only son of God or one who in the

sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren

In other words, Christ had no equivalent in His Sonship and

begetting. One way to elucidate this is to hark back to the creation

account in Genesis where God commands all living beings to

reproduce after their own kind.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living

creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of

the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Just as all living creatures reproduced after their own kind, God

Himself reproduced after His own kind. This is the connotation of

monogenēs – single of its kind, only. It is altogether wrong of

Oneness theologians to claim that it was necessary for God to

manifest Himself in human (read adamic) flesh in order to empathize

with us. Pardon my crudeness in asking: Does one have to become a

www.BlueletterBible.org (Online) Thayer‟s Lexicon.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3439&t=KJV

(accessed 25.08.2011).

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

dog to empathize with a dog? Conversely, I have often heard of

incredible, heart-warming stories of animals saving humans. The

plain truth is that God does not need to come in human, fallen flesh

to empathize with our pain and sorrows. He is the omniscient (all-

knowing) God, and to suggest otherwise is to question His

omniscience. In fact, He didn‟t need to even put on any kind of flesh

for Him to feel the pain of His people, Israel.

Exodus 3:7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction

of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by

reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows;

Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the

angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he

redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days

of old.

Furthermore, the demand that Christ had to become just like us in

order to save us adds a new criterion to salvation: it assumes that the

right “dose” of empathy plays a vital role in redeeming us. Salvation

is not dependent upon the degree to which Jesus empathized with us.

There is no salvation through “adequate empathy”. This has parallels

with the Catholic idea of praying to Mary because, as they claim,

she, as a mother, can empathize effectively with us, and plead with

her Son to come to our aid. All this ignores the fact that God made

mothers to be what they are: He is the master-empathizer. God

conceived of this idea of creating a mother with all the noble

attributes which we heap on her (however, even mothers run out of

love and patience, at times), which means that His love, mercy,

Paul Thomas

kindness and empathy is unfathomable and infinite. So to

boisterously claim that God had to become like us in order to share

our suffering is to suggest erroneously that if God comes in a

heavenly flesh and blood He cannot share our suffering. This is an

unwarranted assumption. If God could empathize with the children

of Israel (see Exodus 3:7 & Isaiah 63:9... In all their affliction he

was afflicted ) even before He came in any flesh, then surely He

could empathize with us in His own heavenly body.

What is indispensable is the elements of flesh and blood for

salvation, and not arguments about whether or not God can save us

without become a clone or duplicate of Adam. At this juncture, I will

consider a verse which many Oneness Christians employ to support

their claim:

Hebrews 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be

made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and

faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make

reconciliation for the sins of the people.

They key word in the verse above is “wherefore”. This suggests that

the context of Hebrews 2:17 must be traced to a point earlier in

Hebrews chapter 2. We find the subject matter in verse 14.

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of

flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;

that through death he might destroy him that had the power of

death, that is, the devil;

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

In the verse above we observe the crux of the issue: that Christ had

to come in flesh and blood because this would enable Him to partake

of death through which He would destroy the Devil. The Bible

affirms that Christ came in flesh and blood, but nowhere in these

verses does it say anything about the origin of Christ‟s flesh. A Bible

reader who has come as far as Hebrews chapter 2, should by then

have come across numerous Scriptures expounding on the heavenly

flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1: 18; Luke 1:35; John 1;1,

14; I John 8:23; Acts 20:28; I Corinthians 15:47; Phil 3:21 etc). Yes,

Jesus came as a man, and not a ghost or phantom (I Timothy 2:15).

Yes, He partook of flesh and blood in order to die. But none of this

touches on the subject of this book – what is the origin of the body of

our Lord?

Let us not leave hold of the profound biblical truth that God was

manifested in His own flesh and blood so that we shall have the

privilege of partaking in His divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Those who

claim that God assumed our human flesh are basically reversing

what God did. They are asserting that God had to partake of our

human condition. We must make a choice – the two positions are not

complementary or reconcilable simply because what is at stake is

Jesus‟ identity as the incorruptible Word made flesh. Before, I

conclude this chapter, I will turn to the subject of Christ as the “seed

of David”.

Paul Thomas

Seed of David

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of

David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

As previously stated, the Lord Jesus Christ is only referred to as the

“seed of...” with regards to a select few individuals in the Bible. One

of them was King David. Again, as already discussed, God granted

this exclusive privilege to be associated with His Word Seed to these

select individuals because there was something outstanding about

their lives which highlighted certain aspects of the ministry of

Christ. In the case of David, it was the promise of an eternal royal

lineage.

2 Samuel 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt

sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which

shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his

kingdom.

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will

stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

Some critics point to ...out of thy bowels...(2 Sam 7:12) to argue that

Christ indeed shared “genes”, if you will, with David. But this would

be to shoot oneself in the foot as all Christians agree that Joseph was

not the natural father of the Lord. In what sense, then, is Christ the

seed of David? The answer is in an adopted and legal sense alone.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Even theologians, who champion Chalcedon, concede this important

point.

The naming of Jesus commanded in v.21 [Matthew 1:21] and

carried out in v. 25 was the means by which, according to

Jewish custom, Joseph took Jesus as his true adopted son. Once

Matthew‘s fellow-Jews could be persuaded to believe in this

claim about Joseph‘s ancestry, they would not have a problem

with the fact that Jesus was an adopted rather than a natural

son. He too could be regarded as a true son of Abraham and

son of David (Stevenson and Wright 2010, 41)

One can genuinely wonder why Christians tenaciously persist in the

blunder of “humanizing” Jesus despite their readiness to

acknowledge that He could only be the son of David in an adopted

and hence legal sense alone. Why can‟t we let God be God and cease

from our attempts to “make God in our own image?” I interrogate

this obsession with “humanizing” Jesus because many have, in their

zeal to defend the indefensible, invented doctrines which clearly are

heretical. For example, in exploring the adolescence of the Lord

(Luke 2:41-52), the idle speculation of the theologians below leads

them to the conclusion that Jesus rebelled against Mary and Joseph.

Jesus‘ genuine humanity is revealed here in his conflict with his

parents. It is fascinating that Luke has not suppressed this

conflict, contrary to any idealistic notion of the child Jesus

giving his family a trouble-free time. Jesus apparently didn‘t tell

Mary and Joseph that he was staying behind (―typical

teenager‖ do I hear parents saying?); when they found him, he

answered in what most parents today might regard as an

Paul Thomas

unbearably precocious manner, blandly ignoring their anxiety

(Stevenson and Wright 2010, 61).

What did the Lord Himself believe about His so-called Davidic

physical ancestry? In the famous exchange with the Pharisees, He

questioned their understanding of the much-used title “son of

David”.

Matthew 22:42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is

he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

Obviously, the Lord knew that there was a misconception about the

manner in which the people understood this title, hence the question.

A first step in dispelling fallacies is to question taken-for-granted

beliefs. Today, too, we encounter this unquestioned linkage of Jesus

with human ancestry.

Matthew 22:43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in

spirit call him Lord, saying,

Matthew 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my

right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Matthew 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

It is crystal clear that the Lord was attacking this universal belief that

the Messiah would be the physical descendant of David. In other

words, how could David be the ancestor of someone whom he refers

to as “my Lord”? I have heard of people worshipping or venerating

their ancestors but never their descendants (for obvious reasons) as

David does. Some years back, while on a brief missionary trip to

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Ghana, I was first exposed to the persistence of what the Ghanaian

anthropologist and Catholic priest, Peter Sarpong refers to as

“ancestor veneration” (Sarpong 1974). The tradition of venerating

ancestors by, among others, pouring out libations, is commonly

practiced. In the case of David, he was supernaturally inspired to

worship the Messiah who would one day become his “son” through

the agency of legal adoption. The Lord was basically telling the

Pharisees that they have got it all wrong: rather than stress that the

Messiah is the son of David, they ought to stress the Lordship of the

Messiah over David. What was the denouement of this exchange?

Matthew 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word,

neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more

questions.

I have often wondered why the Pharisees never engaged the Lord

again after this particular discussion. Could it be that the shock of

discovering that their whole messianic theology was flawed was too

much to bear? That the son of what they perceived to be a carpenter

could so incisively shred to pieces their Christology was perhaps the

reason they avoided him studiously after this. This is unfortunate,

though. My prayer is that present-day theologians, who champion

the nonsensical theological relics from Chalcedon, will humbly

consider the testimony of the Lord regarding His origin.

Vonelle R. Kelly, an advocate of the UPC school of Christology,

wrote a booklet entitled Another Jesus: The Fallacy of the Doctrine

Paul Thomas

of the Heavenly Flesh (2004). In no uncertain terms she levels the

charge of idolatry against the heavenly flesh proponents, hence the

title Another Jesus. Curiously, the book, no more than 40 odd pages,

has a preface, foreword and “about the author” sections to laud the

accomplishments of this obscure author. How does a 40 page book

have about 10 pages dedicated to the task of sanctioning and

valorising the author? The booklet essentially regurgitates familiar

UPC counter-arguments against the heavenly flesh doctrine. The

UPC academic and theological discourse is one notorious for its

strict “North-Korea” like regime of internal self-referencing with

David Bernard invariably sprinkled in to provide some ballast and

authentication for the insulated UPC audience.

Kelly‟s booklet is based on her Master thesis – an arena where

student aspiration and supervisor acquiescence converge to promote

a culture bordering on “Guru veneration”. It basically works

something like this: obscure or mediocre academics, whatever their

department or line of specialization, recruit certain “promising”

students to supervise. The grateful and indebted student feels a

burden to repay this favour by becoming a “clone” of her supervisor.

The obscure academic takes immense pleasure from seeing his name

feature in a published article or two (the academic maxim “publish

or perish?”). The student, in return, has his or her ego massaged in

that these supervisors and faculty staff act like a “cloud of

witnesses” praising the virtues of the student at every available

opportunity.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

It wouldn‟t be fair to take a sledgehammer to ...a Master thesis so I

will address a point or two from Kelly‟s (2004) booklet. For Kelly,

Romans 1:3 is repeatedly cited as definitive proof buttressing the

claim that Jesus was biologically of the seed of David.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which

was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Regarding this verse she quotes Seagraves who describes Romans

1:3 as “a precise statement concerning the biological connection of

Jesus with David” (Kelly 2004, 18). In addition, a further comment

on Romans 1:3 is attributed to Seagraves in the footnotes: “That is,

so far as the flesh of Jesus is concerned, it was made out of the seed

of David. Mary was, of course, the seed, or descendant, of David.”

(Ibid).

Perhaps Kelly and Seagraves may not have heard about the

contention surrounding this particular translation of Romans 1:3 that

they throw around with such zest. A good place to begin is with the

aforementioned book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The

Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New

Testament by one of the world‟s foremost textual critics, Bart D.

Ehrman (1993). It probably would disturb (and rightly so) the self-

induced smugness of Kelly and Seagraves to hear that the original

text does not say what they claim. Rather, according to Erhman,

Romans 1:3 along with Galatians 4:4 was changed by the “orthodox”

Paul Thomas

scribes who wanted the text to align unambiguously with their

version of Christology – a Christology which Kelly and Seagraves

champion – to silence so-called “heretics” who were not convinced

that Jesus was a human like us in every sense of the word.

In reality the text says nothing of Christ being “born” as one finds in

most translations. A total anomaly is the King James Version, 1611,

which has “made of the seed...”(The King James Version has the

distinction of being the only English translation that I could find

with the very odd “made of...”). Let me the give the last word on

this topic to Erhman.

Given the orthodox assumption that ―having come from the seed

of David‖ must refer to Jesus‘ own birth - an event not actually

described by Paul – one is not taken aback to find the text of

Romans 1:3 changed as early as the second century, as attested

by the citations of Origen, and periodically throughout the

history of its transmission (61

syr

pal

, Byz

mss

mss acc to Aug

). As

was the case with Galatians 4:4, the change was a matter of the

substitution of a word in the versions and of a few simple letters

in Greek, so that now the text speaks not of Christ ‗coming from

the seed of David‖ but of his ―being born of the seed of David‘‖

(Erhman 1993, 239).

This is consonant with Bishop Gezahagne‟s contention that the

Greek word ginomai ought to be translated “come out of...”. When

Erhman‟s book first caught my attention many years ago, I braced

myself not knowing what to expect. Imagine my surprise when I

discovered that a number of the texts that the early scribes fiddled

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

with were precisely the same ones that the UPC and other defenders

of the “human Jesus” used as “evidence” for their position. Ehrman,

by the way, is not a “heavenly flesh” proponent as far as I am aware.

On the contrary, he is currently an agnostic.

In conclusion, to reiterate my earlier point, Jesus is the seed of

David not in any physical sense but as a royal titular honour

bestowed upon him. This honour was extended to David in

recognition of his exemplary role as the model king of Israel. Like

Christ, David was born in Bethlehem, an obscure backwater of

Israel. Like Christ, David‟s beginnings were very humble, but he

soon ascended the throne of Israel buoyed by the grace of God. Like

Christ, many challenged David‟s claim to the throne and sought to

kill him. Note that it was to be a king that Christ was born. “You are

a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, „You are right in saying I

am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into

the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens

to me‟” (New International Version). However tainted and imperfect

David‟s kingship was he nevertheless was a figure foreshadowing

the advent of the ultimate King of Kings and Lord of Lords – Jesus

Christ.

Jeremiah 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I

will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall

reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the

earth.

Paul Thomas

Jeremiah 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel

shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be

called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

So it is the kingship or royal title that is at the core of “seed of

David” just as it was the covenant of circumcision which

corresponds to baptism in Jesus name which is at the core of the title

“seed of Abraham”. What is required is a balanced Christological

approach which does justice to both – that Christ is the adopted and

legal son of David, and that He is also the God, the Creator of David.

This two-fold Christological understanding is captured in the words

of the Lord Himself.

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto

you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring

of David, and the bright and morning star.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

CHAPTER THREE

In this chapter two interrelated objections to the “Word made flesh”

doctrine will be considered. The first is the claim that Jesus is our

“kinsman redeemer”. Proponents of this understanding assert that it

was necessary for Christ to be a human in every respect because only

a blood relative (kinsman) can redeem humanity. They maintain that

if Christ was not a genuine human being, He would not be qualified

to redeem us. The second objection pertains to the belief that the title

“Son of man”, which Jesus used on several occasions to refer to

Himself, “proves” His human ties with us.

Kinsman redeemer

Is Jesus a blood relative of the human race? Did He perceive His

physiological origin in such terms? The truth is that one would be

hard-pressed to find a single utterance from the mouth of our Lord

which undergirds such an understanding. On the contrary, there are

several utterances which indicate a distancing of Himself from any

attempts to shoehorn Him into a such a shared ancestry with

humanity. For instance:

Some label our Christology as the “heavenly flesh” doctrine. Although this is

often said facetiously, we believe the underlying theology is commensurate with a

biblical Christology. However, we prefer to use the term “Word made flesh”

because this highlights its biblical grounding (John 1:1,14).

Paul Thomas

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am

from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from

heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and

the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life

of the world.

It is a strange paradox to claim blood relations with someone who

declares unequivocally, “I am not of this world” (John 8:23). In fact,

a careful perusal of Christ‟s understanding of His origin reveals a

disconnect between what He says and what mainstream Christianity

– especially the Chalcedonian declaration – professes. We would do

well to remember that God created humans from the dust of the

earth. This implies an unbridgeable rupture between the Creator and

the created order. It is precisely for this reason that one cannot say

that Jesus was created for that would assign a different origin

altogether to His being – one which would negate His

consubstantiality

(of the same being) with the Father. So how did

the Lord perceive His own origin? He identified in every way with

the Father as the scripture below bears out:

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into

the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

The early church fathers claimed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father

in His divinity but not His humanity which they believed was consubstantial with

humans. This position is not biblical. Christ was consubstantial with the Father in

His divinity and physiology.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

It is clear that the Lord attributed and equated His entire being

(Spirit, flesh and blood) to the Father. It is biblically untenable to

attempt to carve up or fragment Christ‟s being with the aim of

assigning one part to a heavenly origin and another to an earthly.

The Lord always spoke as one integrated being not susceptible to

fragmentation. This can be witnessed in the myriad “I am”

statements (John 6:35; John 8:12; John 9:5 etc).

Isn‟t it curious that nowhere in the statements of the Lord do we

writers, agonizing over the frailty of the human condition, often

spoke of their humble origins from the dust, but Christ distanced

Himself rather from the race of Adam with regards to His origin.

David, for example, declares:

Psalm 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that

we are dust.

What does kinsman redeemer pertain to?

One of the main errors committed by those who contend that Jesus

had to be fully human like us because He had to be our kinsman

redeemer is their misapplication of the functions of a kinsman

redeemer. To begin with, we do not find the term kinsman redeemer

in the Bible at all neither do we find any statement that stipulates

that Jesus had to be our kinsman redeemer in order to save us. Type

Paul Thomas

in “kinsman redeemer” into any Bible software program or online

search engine (King James Version) and the words “kinsman” and

“redeemer” never occur together. What we find is that “kinsman”

alone occurs 13 times while “redeemer” alone occurs 18 times. This

is instructive because we often hear the claim made boldly, even

from the pulpit, that Jesus had to be our kinsman redeemer without

any biblical warrant. Regrettably, this is a case of teaching for

doctrine the tradition of men (Mark 7:8; Colossians 2:8). The

problem which such a coupling of two terms, used in different

contexts, is that this conflation fosters a necessary nexus to the effect

that a potential redeemer must also share in our humanity.

In shedding some much needed light on this topic, we will need to

engage in a biblical study of the scriptures which adjudicate on the

meaning of the term and parameters of its application. It will emerge

quite convincingly that the legal ramifications within which the

Bible situates the term does not extend at all to making atonement

for salvation when pertaining to human interactions. Interestingly,

both words – kinsman and redeemer – are translated from the same

Hebrew word ga'al (Strong‟s Hebrew 1350) in most cases. Table

3.0 highlights some of the contexts in which the word is applied.

One can note that only God can redeem individuals from death, a

fact which all Christians would accept.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Table 3.0

Human relations

With regards to God

In marriage

Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Individuals from death

Psalm 130:8; Hosea 13:14

Redeem from slavery

Leviticus 25:47-49

Israel from bondage

Exodus 6:6

Buy back land

Leviticus 25:25

Israel from exile

2 Samuel 7:23

Exact revenge

Numbers 35:12-19

Again, note that nowhere do we find any scriptural injunction which

demands that God must become a human blood relative if He is to

save us. This is an interpolation. On the contrary, as Bishop

Teklemariam Gezahagne explains:

Christ cannot be the kinsman of uncircumcised human beings.

Until the earthly Adamic nature is removed by means of

baptism, Christ cannot be their kinsman...Christ cannot be

kinsman even for the Jew who is naturally circumcised until he

experiences New Testament circumcision (Gezahagne 2007,

36).

The above statement upholds the Pauline demarcation of the

heavenly man from the earthly man, “The first man is of the earth,

earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven (I Corinthians

15:47). The two Adams have two different origins which cannot be

coalesced because the one emanates from God Himself, while the

Paul Thomas

other is a product of created material - dust. They never converge but

run parallel to each other with the Adamic man doomed to the

eternal flames of hell without undergoing the process of rebirth

(John 3:5). Between the two Adams is water –the agent through

which the descendants of the first Adam can remove their dust-

bodies. In this water, the last Adam, Jesus, steps in to perform the

circumcision and clothe the recipient of His grace with His heavenly

body.

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into

Christ have put on Christ.

The necessity of a sinless Redeemer

In an article entitled Creation and the Virgin Birth, the late founder

of the Institution for Creation Research, Dr Henry Morris, raises

precisely the kind of questions that Dr Gezahagne and this book

pose. Rather than kowtow to the prevailing theological Christology,

riddled with myriad inconsistencies, Morris frames the statement of

the problem well:

But even this doesn't resolve the dilemma completely, for how

could His [Jesus] body be of flesh (carbon, hydrogen, amino

acids, proteins, etc.), received by the normal process of

reproduction of the flesh of his parents, without also receiving

their genetic inheritance, which is exactly what makes it sinful

flesh? "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my

mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5). "Man that is born of a

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

woman is of few days, and full of trouble … Who can bring a

clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4) (Morris n.d.)

Morris astutely observes the paradox in claiming that the Lord came

as a full-fledged human being without interrogating how the Lord, as

the perfect Lamb of God, circumvented the spiritual contamination

of the entire human gene pool. He goes on to state:

Not only is there the problem of inherent sin, but also of

inherent physical defects. Over many generations, the human

population has experienced great numbers of genetic mutations,

and these defective physical factors have been incorporated into

the common genetic pool, affecting in some degree every infant

ever born (Morris n.d.).

Morris is to be complimented in that he does not settle for the

temptation of quietly conforming to the prevalent views inherited

from Chalcedon. In this article, he boldly postulates that Christ took

nothing in terms of biological material from Mary or Joseph, but

rather, God planted a “unique Seed” in the woman‟s womb.

Therefore, even though He was nurtured in Mary's womb for

nine months and born without her ever knowing a man, it was

also necessary for all this to have been preceded by

supernatural intervention, to prevent His receiving any actual

genetic inheritance through her. The body growing in Mary's

womb must have been specially created in full perfection, and

placed there by the Holy Spirit, in order for it to be free of

inherent sin damage. Christ would still be "made of the seed of

David according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), because His body

was nurtured and born of Mary, who was herself of the seed of

Paul Thomas

David. He would still be the Son of Man, sharing all universal

human experience from conception to death, except sin. He is

truly "the seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15), His body formed

neither of the seed of the man nor the egg of the woman, but

grown from a unique Seed planted in the woman's body by God

Himself (Morris n.d.).

We couldn‟t agree more with Morris. This is the plain testimony of

the Scriptures. To assert that Christ had to first become a human like

us by mingling with our genes and DNA is to invite the Lord to

share in our corruption by virtue of the effects of sin on the human

gene pool. One thing gene mapping has established is that we are all

pre-disposed to some disease or the other passed down to us from a

long line of ancestors who were all unsuspectingly carrying the

defect in their bodies. We all dread the question, “Do you have a

history of heart (or some other) disease in your family?” This is why

some unscrupulous insurance companies desire to map every

potential customer‟s genome before they buy a life insurance. The

human gene pool is like one gigantic blood bank that has been

contaminated.

The website, The Daily Scan, which specializes in all matters

related to the human genome and research in cancer, among others,

commented on the pros and cons of sequencing every individual‟s

genome. They asked the question: “What if health insurance

companies started rejecting people on the basis of pre-existing

genetic conditions?” However, a Dr Dave responded:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Everyone is at multiple high risk for some dreaded diseases or

disorders - as Steve Quake revealed with his own genome.

Once insurance companies realize they need to reject everyone

to eliminate the high risks, will they go out of business and go

away? No such luck (The Daily Scan 2010).

Those who repeatedly state that God worked a miracle prior to the

conception of the Lord in the womb of Mary contradict the

explanation forwarded by the angel Gabriel to Mary:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The

Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest

shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which

shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The Holy Ghost is declared to be the progenitor of this holy thing.

Clearly, the connotation is one of the emergence of a completely

new flesh – a heavenly man who will beget sons in His own image

(Romans 8:29). Jeremiah was told by God that a new thing would be

done on the earth; a woman would surround or encompass a man

(Jeremiah 31:22).

Paul Thomas

Eikōn and homoiōma

One very instructive way of determining whether the body of our

Lord was consubstantial with God or with humanity is to compare

two Greek words: eikōn and homoiōma. Eikōn (Strong‟s Greek

1504) is translated image in English. For instance:

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the

firstborn of every creature:

I have often wondered, “Was not Adam and countless other

individuals born before Jesus?” In what sense, then, is the Lord the

first-born of every creature? The answer lies in the meaning of

eikōn. The word means “taken from the same source”. Christ not

only resembles God, but is drawn from the prototype which is God

Himself. Now, since God never had a flesh before, when He robed

Himself in flesh, it follows that this flesh is the firstborn of every

creature. Firstborn of every creature because this event is sui generis

– a cosmic first. We recall from the creation account how God

commanded every creature to reproduce after its own kind. It

follows that when God begat, He could only reproduce after His own

kind.

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living

creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of

the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Eikōn can be usefully compared to the word homoiōma (Strong‟s

Greek 3667). Inspired by the word of the Lord, the apostle Paul

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

selected this word to indicate that the flesh of our Lord resembled

that of humans but was by no means derived from the same source.

Paul states:

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak

through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of

sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The word likeness above has been translated homoiōma.

Significantly, some theologians, who believe that Christ came in a

fallen flesh (yet not touched by sin), seem to be uncomfortable with

the clear implications of Romans 8:3. For instance, Revd Dr Calvin

T. Samuel, a Methodist Tutor in New Testament at Surgeon‟s

College, London, writes (emphasis mine):

The Greek word used here, homoiōma usually denotes likeness,

copy, or form, indicating less than a full identity. Might this

suggest that Jesus is only like sinful flesh but not quite the

same? I think not. Paul does not imply a docetic Christ, who

only appears to share our sinful humanity but actually does not;

rather, Paul understands incarnation in terms of one who

actually shares our sinful flesh (Stevenson and Wright 2010,

121).

Note Dr Samuel‟s acknowledgement that homoiōma indicates “less

than full identity”. Indeed, Jesus‟ identification with humans does

not extend to sharing our frail and dust constitution. It is evident that

these theologians do not feel it incumbent to accept the clear

meaning of Scripture, but take the liberty to pigeonhole the Word of

Paul Thomas

God into their presuppositions. Dr Samuel clearly understands the

plain sense of Romans 8:13, something which he spells out explicitly

himself. Rather, it is the fact that he cannot get himself to agree with

the meaning because this would fly in the face of his theology –

what he refers to as sarx hamartias (sinful flesh). Mark Twain once

said, “Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they

don‟t understand, but for me, I have always noticed that the passages

that bother me are the ones I do understand”. The above, however, is

a case where one is so bothered by what one understands that an

immediate attempt is made to invent a re-interpretation.

The Hebrew and Greek scholar, Spiros Zodhiates, aptly showed the

difference between eikōn and homoiōma. In fact, it is significant that

he chose to compare the two by contrasting their meanings. He

states:

...eikōn sometimes may be used as synonymous with homoiōma

and both may refer to the earthly copies and resemblance of the

archetypal things in the heaven. However, there is a distinction:

eikōn always assumes a prototype, that which is not merely

resembles but from which it is drawn...however, while in

homoiōma and homoiōsis there is a resemblance, it by no

means follows that it is derived from what it resembles.

(Zodhiates 1984, 1685)

Following Zodhiates (1986), the main difference between the two

words is the degree of identification. Christ is always referred to as

the image of God while He comes in the likeness of humanity. Here

a Bible student cannot help but recall the story of the brass serpent in

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

the wilderness of Sinai (Numbers 21). Why didn‟t God command

Moses to place one of the fiery snakes on the pole? Why a brass

serpent? The difference in the material composition is not irrelevant.

The cure prescribed by God had to necessarily belong to a different

order. Christ is God‟s remedy for mankind‟s fatal condition. The

serpent raised on the pole may have borne a resemblance to the

venomous serpents sliding on the desert floor, but there was a world

of difference in their material make-up. Christ‟s body may have

borne a resemblance to that of all humans but it did not originate

with Adam.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the

wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Another objection that militates against the concept of the kinsman

redeemer is the fact that salvation is the domain of God alone, and

not a human kinsman. As was shown in Table 3, the function of

human kinsmen was limited to issues such as marriage, land, debt

and slavery. God alone arbitrates over the domain of salvation.

Indeed, as has been reiterated often in this book, it was for this

reason that God was manifest in flesh (I Timothy 3:16) because a

heavenly man, untainted by humanity, was now needed. The biblical

testimony confirms the above:

Psalm 49:6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast

themselves in the multitude of their riches;

Paul Thomas

Psalm 49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his

brother, nor give to God a ransom for him

Psalm 49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and

it ceaseth for ever:)

Psalm 49:9 That he should still live forever, and not see

corruption.

With regards to Psalm 49:8, the NIV states, ―the ransom for a life is

costly, no payment is ever enough”. The Scriptures above

substantiate the argument that a human kinsman‟s role, though

effective with reference to debt, land, slavery etc, is useless when

confronted with the priceless cost of redeeming a soul. Indeed, the

Psalmist mocks the rich who, in their arrogance, believe their wealth

is omnicompetent.

In the last section of this chapter I will consider the view that Jesus‟

use of the title “Son of man” supports the understanding that He

perceived Himself as a full-fledged human being like any other.

The Son of man

The Lord employed the title “Son of man” as a self-designation over

40 times in the New Testament. The first thing to do is determine the

way this title was used in other parts of the Bible before we invest

the Lord‟s usage with any meaning. What emerges, after a careful

study of the Old Testament, are very different applications of this

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

title which makes it quite difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain the

sense in which the Lord designated Himself as the Son of man.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither

the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he

not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Psalm 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the

son of man, that thou visitest him?

Job 25:6 How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of

man, which is a worm?

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the

Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the

Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

In Numbers 23:19 God rejects the title “Son of man” because He

does not grieve or lament (nacham) as a human (son of man) does. If

this is true, and Jesus is God, in what sense can He be called the

“Son of man?” Job 25:6 depicts the “Son of man” as a “worm”

which is hardly flattering at all, and problematic when applied to

Jesus. Daniel saw one like the Son of man as opposed to an angel or

some other figure. This is purely descriptive and cannot be taken to

mean this person had a human nature like ours as some do.

Objectively speaking, the title is actually open to debate and

discussion. The influential Reformed theologian, Louis Berkhof,

concedes this point:

It is hard to determine why Jesus preferred this name [Son of

man] as a self-designation. Formerly the name was generally

regarded as a cryptic title, by the use of which Jesus intended to

Paul Thomas

veil rather than to reveal His Messiahship. This explanation was

discarded when more attention was paid to the eschatological

element in the Gospels, and to the use of the name in the

apocalyptic literature of the Jews ( (Berkhof 2003, 313).

Following Berkhof (2003), two interpretations are outlined: that

Christ used this title to veil His Messiahship and, two, that the title is

eschatological (the study of last things e.g. death, judgement, heaven

and hell). Doubtless there are many other contending interpretations,

but to categorically invoke the Lord‟s usage of this title to

“corroborate” His humanity is plainly wide of the mark. The paucity

in finding Scriptures to bolster such a view sadly exposes a dyed-in-

the-wool mentality among some Christians determined to uphold a

dearly held Christological view.

To begin with, every association of God with the word “man” does

not automatically make Him a human being like us. The Scripture

below is a case in point:

Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

God said this of Himself in relation to His assault and destruction of

the forces of Pharaoh. He engaged in this war without having a body,

but as the omnipresent Spirit that He has always been. Could it be

that Jesus, perhaps, was identifying with God as precisely such a

“man”? This is Bishop Gezahagne‟s stance. Either way, of

significance is Jesus‟ question to the apostles:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea

Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I

the Son of man am?

This question relegates the title “Son of man” to a secondary order.

If Christ asks the question, ―Whom do men say that I the Son of man

am?‖, then we would frankly be wasting our time debating the

meaning of Son of man. Peter is to be commended in that He did not

seek to catalogue the opinion of diverse authorities and scholars, but

sought the opinion or revelation of God Himself. The answer should

settle the debate:

Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art

the Christ, the Son of the living God.

In brief, the Son of man is the Son of God - a title which supersedes

and supplants every other man-made opinion of Christ from then on.

Again, we can only wonder at the tenacity of the adherents of

Chalcedon to search hard for a Jesus who conforms to their

predetermined idea of a human kinsman redeemer complete with a

fallen human nature. To their mind, only such a human Jesus will

suffice – they will not countenance any other. One can only wonder

if there exists a psychological need for “humanizing” Jesus – a need

not borne out by Scripture, but rooted in what psychologists call “kin

altruism”. A study conducted by researchers at Stanford University

indicates that electoral voters tend to vote for those candidates with

whom they share some facial similarity. They talk about the human

Paul Thomas

tendency to emotionally favour those who are closely related to

them, which social psychologists refer to as “kin altruism”.

Humans certainly behave as though motivated by kin altruism.

People treat their kin preferentially in a variety of contexts from

wartime emergencies to mundane situations (Burnstein,

Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994; Shavit, Fischer, & Koresh, 1994;

Wells, 1987). Furthermore, humans discriminate in favour of

similar-looking others in trust games (DeBruine, 2002) and in

adoption decisions (DeBruine, 2004). Based on these findings, it

appears plausible that humans are genetically predisposed to

favour similar-looking people, including those who seek elective

office (Bailenson, Iyengar and Yee n.d.).

We see some of this apparently genetically-conditioned inclination

towards “kin altruism” in the way pictures, paintings and portraits of

Christ are indigenized. I once saw a T-shirt with a Black “Rastafari

Jesus” hanging on a Cross in Shepherds‟ Bush, London, UK. When

asked whether Jesus was black, the vendor was adamant that this

was so. I thought about the ubiquitous Catholic pictures of the

Caucasian blue-eyed Jesus sporting shoulder-length blonde hair and

a dramatic bleeding heart clearly visible and staring piously into

heaven which I used to encounter in the houses of my school

teachers back in an Anglo-Indian boarding school in India. Perhaps

it is in the interstices of these felt psychological needs that one might

discover the human need to make “God in our own human image”

rather than accept that He came into this world with His own

heavenly flesh and blood without taking one iota of flesh or blood

from the race of Adam.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

CHAPTER FOUR

This chapter traces the roots of the fully man, fully God Christology

which crystallized at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). A study of

the events that led to this Council, I believe, will help us better

understand why and where the church erred with reference to the

body of our Lord. If this formulation is so important why did it take

so long to see the light of day? All along it is essential to keep in

mind that the creed of Chalcedon had never settled the issue of what

theologians call the incarnation, but has given rise to a plethora of

new questions. As the church historian Diarmaid MacCulloch puts it:

After much ill-tempered debate on such matters, the outcome of

the Council of Chalcedon in 451 was dictated by political

circumstances and did not carry the whole Christian world with

it ( (MacCulloch 2009, 8).

Nestorius

Nestorius (386-451) was appointed Archbishop of Constantinople in

428. If the Christological controversies of the 4

and 5

centuries

can be perceived as a struggle between the Eastern churches vs. the

Western, then Nestorius was embedded in the Western school of

theology also known as the Antiochene school. The doctrine of how

the two natures in Christ were related to each other was called

communicatio idiomatum (Latin for communication of properties). A

Paul Thomas

major difference between Antioch and Alexandria was that the

former endeavoured to balance the two natures without dividing

them or uniting them at the expense of the particular characteristics

of each nature. On the other hand, Cyril and other Alexandrian

theologians, inclined more towards only one nature (the divine) in

Christ. The latter is called monophysitism or miaphysitism (one sole

nature) in Christological debates.

Nestorius felt that the Eastern churches (Alexandrian school)

engaged too much in allegorism – words were taken to mean

something completely different from the sense intended by verbal

language. Nestorius, and others of the Antiochene school, were more

inclined towards a literal-historical tradition of exegesis (Greer

2009). Let us take an example from the New Testament:

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not

robbery to be equal with God:

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took

upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of

men:

For Nestorius, it was vital to distinguish and safeguard the two

subjects in the verses above or what in Greek is called prosopon –

the self-manifestation of an individual. As such, Nestorius detected

two prosopons in Philippians 2:6,7: the divine prosopon who is in

the “form of God” and the human prosopon who is in the “form of a

servant”. According to him, the two were to always be kept apart as

there can be no hypostatic union between them as claimed by Cyril,

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

a notable Alexandrian theologian. The Word of God (Logos) cannot

undergo any change and is always divine, whereas the human

prosopon is passible (can suffer) and dies. Immersed in Greek

thought, Nestorius could not believe that the divine nature of Christ

could suffer. To his mind, it was important to postulate two clearly

discernible prosopons in Christ without mixing or impacting on each

other, although subsisting in the one person of Christ. It was this

extreme focus on the two separate natures that left Nestorius

vulnerable to accusations of heresy.

For instance, Nestorius objected to the use of the phrase Theotokos

to describe Mary as the “Mother of God”. Because of his separation

between the divine and human natures, Nestorius maintained that

Mary could only give birth to the human nature alone, so she should

rather be called Christotokos (mother of Christ). Nestorius‟ polemic

was aimed at the Alexandrian school of Christology. There men like

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444) emphasised the union of the two

natures in Christ (hypostasis) to such a degree that Nestorius feared

the distinction was blurred. With regards to Theotokos,

He was in effect saying that the title could only be used if one

simultaneously balanced it by calling Mary Anthropotokos,

Bearer of a Human, and he insinuated that those who over-

praised Mary were reviving the worship of a mother-goddess

(MacCulloch 2009, 225).

He was finally condemned as a heretic at the Councils of Ephesus

(431) which was repeated at Chalcedon (451) because of the

Paul Thomas

perception that Nestorius‟ Christ had “a dual personality and did not

constitute a real union, but only a juxtaposition of natures”

(Whitelaw 1897).

One criticism levelled at Nestorius is relevant to this study‟s critique

of the Oneness Christology espoused by, among others, the United

Pentecostal Church International. For years, the standard Oneness

response to the question, “Whom did Jesus pray to?” was that “the

human nature prayed to the divine nature”. Among others,

Trinitarian theologians attacked this position successfully, showing

the discrepancy of one nature praying to another (see, among others,

Slick

). Indeed, the Oneness assumption smacks of Nestorianism

where two separate persons (divine and human) are posited in Christ.

However, even Nestorius did not make the absurd assertion that one

nature (read person) prayed to the other. Although referring to

Nestorius, the criticism below is just as applicable to the UPC

position:

Nowhere in Scripture do we have an indication that the human

nature of Christ, for example, is an independent person,

deciding to do something contrary to the divine nature of Christ.

Nowhere do we have an indication of the human and divine

natures talking to each other or struggling within Christ, any

such thing. Rather, we have a consistent picture of a single

Slick, M. Who did Jesus Pray to? http://carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-

pentecostal/who-did-jesus-pray. Retrieved 21.09.11.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

person acting in wholeness and unity. Jesus always speaks as

―I,‖ not ―we,‖... (Grudem 1994, 555).

Curiously, Jason Dulles, another UPC theologian, repudiates the

Oneness understanding of “one nature prayed to another”. He prefers

the idea that Jesus prayed as a result of the “genuineness of His

human nature”

. In other words, Jesus prayed because the

assumption of human nature found Him constrained by the

limitations common to humanity. In what is an open contradiction of

the likes of David Bernard (Supt. of the UPCI), Dulle states:

We do not understand this as meaning that the divine nature of

Christ prayed to the Father, because then we have God praying

to Himself. This is not the portrayal of Scripture, and would

make no sense. This may sound Nestorian, but there are certain

things which can be said of one nature which cannot be said of

the other (Ibid).

However one twists and turns it, these Oneness theologians cannot

escape the accusation that talk of “one nature in Christ praying to

another” leaves them susceptible to the charge of Nestorianism, as

Dulles himself notes.

What does the Bible say with reference to Nestorius and the so-

called “orthodox” position which condemned his teachings? To

begin with, the whole premise of the Christological controversy is

Dulle, J. If Jesus Was the Father, Why Would He Pray to the Father?

http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/howjesusprayiffather.htm Retrieved

21.09.11.

Paul Thomas

defective because both, Nestorius and his opponents like Cyril,

espoused a belief in a pre-existent God the Son assuming human

nature through Mary. Because the premise is fallacious, all that

follows is but a quixotic exercise where windmills are mistaken for

giants. Oneness theologians vociferously attack the Council of Nicea

(325) & Constantinople (381) for canonizing the doctrine of the

Trinity, and rightly so. How is it, then, that they are quiet with

regards to Chalcedon which relied heavily on the Trinitarian

conceptualization of Jesus as the “Second member of the Trinity?”

How does one uncritically engage in a discussion where there is a

tacit consensus that the distinct second member of the Trinity, Jesus

Christ, assumed human nature?

Having voiced this vital objection, we must consider the biblical

position on the issue of Nestorianism. Does the Bible operate with

the understanding of one or two natures in Christ?

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the

express image of his person, and upholding all things by the

word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat

down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Of paramount importance in the verse above is the reference to

Christ as the “image of His person”. He is not a separate person from

God or one person with two natures in a hypostatic union as

Chalcedon later declared. Such language is not found in the Bible.

The Greek word translated person (Hebrews 1:3) is hypostasis

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

(Strong‟s G5287) which means “the substantial quality, nature, of a

person or thing”. As mentioned previously, Jesus is derived (image)

from the source which is God in every way. This extends to His flesh

and not His Spirit alone. The Bible further declares that God was

manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16) and not that God assumed

human nature.

Again, as I have previously discussed, it is the taken-for-granted

belief among theologians that Christ must have had a completely

human nature like ours which lies at the root of the error. For

instance, Gregory of Nazianzus once remarked, “What Christ has not

assumed, he has not healed; but what has been united with God is

saved”

Significantly, many who regurgitate this citation do not

pause to ask whether it is grounded in the Scriptures or not. This a

case of elevating the authority of the so-called church “Fathers”

above that of the Bible.

Gregory makes a necessary nexus between God and human flesh

which has its origin in the dust. He claims that God had to unite

Himself with these dust-creatures called humans or there can be no

healing or salvation for them. This doctrine is actually diametrically

opposed to the Bible which states unambiguously that there is no

hope, restoration or salvation for human flesh which is of the dust:

Epistola 101.7 (PG, 37, 181).

Paul Thomas

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till

thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for

dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

1Corinthians 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and

blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth

corruption inherit incorruption.

The assertion that salvation is predicated upon the assumption of

dust-flesh is Gregory‟s invention. Why would God unite Himself

with that which is sin-sick, frail, feeble, mortal, corrupt and

condemned? Besides, if Christ saves only that which He assumes,

then what happens to the rest of creation which, according to Paul, is

groaning and waiting for redemption? It would not be sufficient,

then, if one follows Gregory, to claim that Christ‟s assumption of

human flesh alone is adequate for all other creatures. Sticking to

Gregory‟s maxim, Christ would have to assume the flesh of all

creatures – an obnoxious thought.

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth

and travaileth in pain together until now.

Romans 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have

the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within

ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our

body.

Contra Gregory, all that was needed for the redemption of fallen

humanity was sinless flesh and blood which was fulfilled when the

Word made flesh (John 1:14) was crucified for us.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

It is also significant to note that whereas the Scriptures declare that

Jesus is the express image of the Person (hypostasis) of God, we are

told that we will partake of the divine nature (physis) of God.

2 Peter Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and

precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the

divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world

through lust.

The distinction is not trivial. Jesus is identical with the Person of

God, but born-again believers will share, not in the Person

(hypostasis) of God, but in the divine nature (physis). In other words,

we will share in the properties and characteristics of the divine

nature of Christ without in any way sharing in His deity or

Personhood. This paints a beautiful picture of the mission of Christ.

He did not come for us to speculate endlessly about the number of

natures in His being and the intricacies of their interactions, but for

us to partake of His divine nature through the agency of the new

birth.

Just as the star of Bethlehem journeyed from the East but stopped

above the manger of Christ, Christians would do well to resist the

temptation of going beyond the testimony of the Scriptures. Sadly,

however, as the case of Nestorius demonstrates, many who reject the

plain testimony of the Bible, will be stranded on the shore of

speculation.

Paul Thomas

Besides Nestorius, the Christological views of two other key figures

will be considered before I explore the Council of Chalcedon itself.

Apollinaris’ truncated Christology

Another Christological view which exercised many before Nestorius

was that of Apollinaris. Appointed Bishop in AD 361, Apollinaris

taught that Christ was indeed one person with a human body but

devoid of a human spirit and mind. The Logos (divine nature of the

Son of God) took the place of Christ‟s mind and spirit. The

statement below aptly captures the Christological position of

Apollinaris:

Christ was only ―in the likeness of man‖, and so, by the strict

canons of Apollinaris's logic, not man actually... Secondly, the

human soul was not the sort of thing with which the divine nous

[soul] could have anything to do, both because of the

fundamental difference between the two in their nature and

function, and morally, because the human soul, as the governing

element in man, is the seat of all his vile passions and affections

(Bates 1961, 142,143).

To begin with, there is no doubt that Apollinaris held that Christ had

a human body. By this we understand that His flesh was of the race

of Adam biologically. However, Apollinaris somehow believed that

the divine Logos stepped in and animated the human body assumed

from Mary. One is left with a human shell bereft of a human mind

and soul indwelt by the pre-existent God the Son (Logos).

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

The UPC theologian, William Chalfant, in his article entitled, A

Critique of Teklemariam‘s ―Bible Writer‘s Theology‖, states “But

the Christological model of Apollinaris bears some similarities to

that of Brother Teklemariam”

. One can genuinely wonder if

Chalfant has read Bible Writer‘s Theology at all. Bishop

Teklemariam does not believe that God the pre-existent Son

assumed a human body through Mary – something which

Apollinaris believed. Secondly, Bishop Teklemariam nowhere holds

that the divine Logos (remember this is God the pre-existent Son)

replaced the human soul and mind in the “human” body assumed

from Mary, again, a tenet that Apollinaris held .Chalfant‟s critique is

a classical case of building up a straw man, completely alien to the

theological universe of Bishop Teklemariam, and then striking him

down. Chalfant does a disservice to the ethics of scholarly debate by

associating Bishop Teklemariam‟s Christology with that of

Apollinaris when they bear no resemblance whatsoever.

And what is Chalfant‟s Christological position? The UPCI actually

adhere to a Christological position which is unique to their Oneness

theology. They reject the notion of God the pre-existent Son which

automatically invites the stamp of heresy by the majority of the so-

called mainstream Christian world. After this it really doesn‟t matter

what they say about the “incarnation” because they no longer are

William Chalfant. A Critique of Teklemarian‘s ―Bible Writer‘s‖ Theology.

http://www.gloriouschurch.com/html/Review-of-Bible-Writers-Theology.asp.

j Retrieved 21.09.11.

Paul Thomas

taken seriously by the Trinitarians, for example, who constitute the

majority of Christendom. I say majority not because the majority are

right by default, but because Chalfant, by invoking the names of

heretics from the pages of history, seems to forget that his own

views fare no better when seen though the lens of the “majority”. It

is not uncommon for some today to recruit one “authority” or the

other from church history and appeal to the “tradition”.

The UPCI claim to believe in one indivisible God who manifested

Himself in a complete human being assumed from Mary. Obviously,

this is not what the architects of Chalcedon had in mind. For them,

and most of the denominational world today, the discussions

revolved around how God the Son (not the Father or the Holy Ghost)

assumed flesh in Mary. Although the UPCI postulate a strict

monotheism, they nevertheless stray away from it in joining the

denominational world and asserting two natures in Christ –

something which they nor the Chalcedonians can find in the

Scriptures. As previously mentioned, their rather novel teaching that

the human nature prayed to the divine nature in Christ exposes the

incoherence of their Christology, which has been the subject of

much criticism by Trinitarians. For instance, it has been rightly

pointed out to Oneness theologians that persons pray and not

natures. A look at the difference between a “person” and a “nature”

will drive home the point:

The term ―nature‖ denotes the sum-total of all the essential

qualities of a thing, that which makes it what it is. A nature is a

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

substance possessed in common, with all the essential qualities

of such a substance. The term ―person‖ denotes a complete

substance, endowed with reason, and, consequently, a

responsible subject of its actions (Berkhof 2003, 321).

By way of “evidence” Chalfant states, “both Apollinaris and Brother

Teklemariam restrict the use of the word “flesh” in John 1:14”

(Ibid). To his mind, there can only be one kind of flesh - a complete

human being like us. He goes on to say, “Both the Greek sarx and

the Hebrew basar (or besar ) can mean either “the substance of the

body” (flesh) or “man” and “mankind” (e.g., “all flesh”, or “no

flesh”).” (Ibid). By inserting “can mean...” Chalfant leaves open the

alternative that the context determines usage – a prudent principle in

hermeneutics. Two scriptural texts demonstrate that “flesh” (sarx)

can also be used to specifically delineate the physical aspect alone:

2 Corinthians 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly

beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh

and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

1Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just

for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death

in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

At the heart of this debate is a failure to adequately grapple with

what really constitutes for a human being. Chalfant and others throw

around the term as if there is a happy consensus with regards to the

definition of human. What does it mean to be a human being? The

field of anthropology abounds with vigorous debates about the

Paul Thomas

concept of humans and humanity. The noted Oxford theologian,

Richard Swinburne, dedicates a whole article to this question.

Swinburne goes through a list of various stereotypic criteria and

finds that the notion of humanity is quite diffuse. Some of the issues

he raises are:

 Whether individuals who orient themselves not through

sensory perceptions but other bodily processes would qualify

as humans.

 Could there be humans without moral awareness?

 As in the case of Jesus, could a person who had no desire to

commit an immoral act be human?

Swinburne‟s answer to the above is: “Once again, our criteria for

humanity yield no clear answer. But there is plenty of scope for

different explications of what it is to be human” (Swinburne 1989).

Although Swinburne ultimately supports the view of Chalcedon, he

astutely destabilizes any smug assumption that there is an undisputed

scholarly consensus on the meaning of the taken-for-granted phrase

“human being”.

Think about it for a moment - imagine if you as a Christian

witnessed to someone who had never heard of Jesus before. You

state that Jesus was not born like other human beings but received

genes only from a woman (parthogenesis). You go on to explain that

all humans qua humans share in the fallen state because of the sin of

Adam, but this does not apply to Jesus. On the basis of these two

statements we shouldn‟t be surprised if our imaginary friend begins

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

100

to conceive of Jesus as some kind of a “superman” rather than your

average human being. Swinburne continues to further interrogate our

taken-for-granted approach to what it means to be human.

If we make an ovum in a laboratory, synthesize its genes from

inorganic material and fertilize it with a similar synthesized

sperm cell, implant it in a tissue culture and grow the embryo in

an artificial environment, the resulting being wouldn't be

human—even if the genes involved are qualitatively similar in

chemical make-up to human genes. To be human you have to

belong to the human race. Once again, whether our criteria of

humanity involve a historical criterion seems to me unclear. If

they do, the further question arises how thoroughly that

criterion has to be satisfied—if an individual's genes come only

from his mother (parthenogenesis), can that individual still be a

man? (Swinburne 1989).

Let no one imagine that this study directly or indirectly espouses a

Docetic or Gnostic view (that Jesus only seemed to have a body).

The Bible unequivocally declares that God was manifested in the

flesh (I Timothy 3:16). Jesus urged His apostles to handle Him and

verify that He had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). He is called the

“man Christ Jesus” (I Timothy 2:5). Our contention is that God was

manifested in a body which had its source in the Word (John 1:14)

and the eternal Spirit (Luke 1:35) and did not mingle with humanity

understood as the biological race descended from Adam. What kind

of human being declares,

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am

from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Paul Thomas

101

Clearly, while some are eager to “humanize” Jesus as a ditto member

of our species, He did not reciprocate the enthusiasm.

Eutyches and mono/miaphysitism.

The Eastern Alexandrian church, as mentioned earlier, maintained

that there was only one dominant nature in Christ after the

incarnation – the divine nature. The overarching focus is on the

mystical and speculative in contrast to the western tradition where

method and text was central. Eutyches (378-454) was the leader of a

monastery in Constantinople. Compared to Nestorius, Eutyches‟

Christological view was on the other extreme end of the spectrum.

He denied that the human nature and divine nature in Christ

remained fully human and fully divine. He held rather that the

human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the

divine nature, so that both natures were changed somewhat and

absorbed and a third kind of nature resulted (Grudem 1994,

556).

The analogy of a drop of wine in a glass or bucket of water is often

forwarded to visualize the position of Eutyches. The water represents

the divine God the pre-existent Son, while the drop of wine

symbolizes the assumed human nature from Mary. Just as the drop

of wine is swallowed up and diluted by the glass of water, the human

nature assumed is swallowed up to such a degree that we must speak

in terms of one dominant divine nature. This Christology is referred

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

102

to as monophysitism. However, the Eastern churches resent this

characterization because it gives the incorrect impression that they

deny the existence of a human nature in Christ. They would rather be

called “Orthodox” but also settle for miaphysitism (one nature), a

term often used by Cyril of Alexandria and connoting a composite

rather than indivisible “one”. (MacCulloch 2009, 227,228).

How does Eutyches‟ Christology fare in light of the testimony of

Scriptures? As with Nestorius and Apollinaris, the whole edifice is

defect on account of the unbiblical premise – how did God the pre-

existent Son manifest Himself in human flesh? This is similar to two

Arians (or their modern-day descendants Jehovah‟s Witnesses)

debating pointlessly whether Jesus was created just prior to the

creation of the world or at an earlier point. Jesus was not created but

begotten. One needs to be aware of the origin of the doctrine of the

eternally begotten Son to better grasp the false premise of the early

Christological debates.

According to Berkhof (2003, 93), the doctrine of the eternal

generation of the Son (also called “filiation”) was subject to some

debate. Central to the debate was whether the act of eternally

generating the Son was an act of free will on the part of the Father or

not. Origen, the main advocate behind this speculation favoured a

filiation that was dependent on the free will of the Father. Others

such as Athanasius argued that this would undermine the co-equality

of the Son making His existence contingent on the free will of the

Paul Thomas

103

Father. Finally, it was agreed that “The generation of the Son must

be regarded as a necessary and perfectly natural act of God”

(Berkhof 2003, 93). The impenetrability of this doctrine is manifest

in the fact that the generation of the Son (process of giving birth to

the Son) was an act that never started and never finished.

This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was

completed in the far distant past, but rather that it is a timeless

act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and

yet never completed (Berkhof 2003, 93).

For the uninitiated the above is as illuminating as Churchill‟s

characterization of Russia as “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside

an enigma”. How did this “riddle” see the light of day? The Arian

heresy was indirectly responsible. Arius and his acolytes believed

that there was a time when the Son was not. Origen responded with

the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son which has no

biblical foundation whatsoever. Given this wildly speculative

background, our contention is that none of the protagonists involved

in the early Christological debates were even close to the Scriptural

text of the Bible.

In short, the Bible does not give us the liberty to speculate on how

much “humanity” God the Son assumed through Mary. The Bible

declares that the blood of Jesus is the blood of God. This means that

Jesus‟ blood was not “human” assumed through Mary or we would

be compelled to say that Mary‟s blood is also divine and find

ourselves bestowing the honour of Theotokos on her.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

104

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the

flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,

to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his

own blood.

It follows logically from the above that if Jesus‟ blood is the blood

of God, then His flesh must also be that of God alone. It is for this

reason that we can worship Christ as the One true God without

differentiating between His Spirit, flesh and blood. I once asked a

Pastor whether he would have worshipped the flesh of Christ before

the resurrection to which he replied no. This is because he believed

in a dual Christ with two disparate origins – His Spirit from God and

His flesh and blood from Mary. I responded that God commanded

the angels to worship the first-begotten (read “flesh”) which means

the flesh of Christ was also worshipped (Hebrews 1:6). I also pointed

him to Acts 20:28. To my surprise, he instantly revised his position

and replied that the blood was from God but not the flesh.

The Christological debates outlined so far were far from being the

harmless musings of a few mendicants. The ecclesiastical heads in

conjunction with the political movers and shakers of the day felt that

the stability of their empire was at stake. With the likes of Attila the

Hun knocking on the door of Rome (Pope Leo I was sent to appease

him), they decided to call an ecumenical Council in Chalcedon (AD

451). This is explored in the next chapter.

Paul Thomas

105

CHAPTER FIVE

Introduction

However, Chalcedon only asserts that Jesus is truly God and truly

human, it does not explain how this is possible. But this – Hick

claims – makes it an unintelligible and meaningless utterance

(Schmidt-Leukel 2006, 115).

THE SYMBOL OF CHALCEDON (A.D . 451)

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men

to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same

perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and

truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the

Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial 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 Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one

and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged

in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;

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 declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

106

has taught us, and the Creed of the Holy Fathers has handed down

to us.

The above is the final formulation of the doctrine of the person and

nature of Christ hammered out by 370 Bishops attending the Council

of Chalcedon (a city in Modern-day Turkey). The Bishops also

passed 28 canons (church laws adopted by ecclesiastical authorities)

dealing with issues of church administration. There is a need to

unravel not only the meaning of the above creed but to gain some

insight into the background of key players like Pope Leo I. The

Chalcedonian Creed is also sometimes referred to as the Tome (a

large scholarly work) of Pope Leo I. Unless one is a Roman

Catholic, some may be taken aback to discover that a Pope actually

formulated the “dual nature” doctrine that they defer to. There is no

doubt that the Pope was intent on cementing the supremacy of the

See (a Bishop‟s domain of authority) of Rome. For example, Leo I

refused to ratify the 28

canon of Chalcedon because it sought to

equate the honour and prestige of the See of Constantinople with that

of Rome.

Leo I – the master tactician

Long before Leo became Pope in AD 440, his deep interest in the

Christological controversy in the East led him to commission a

theologian called John Cassian to prepare a florilegium (compilation

Classic Christology. Princeton Theological Seminary (1951).

Paul Thomas

107

of writings from various church fathers) against Nestorius in the year

AD 430. Cassian, with the blessings of Leo, passionately defended

the title Theotokos (Mother of God) applied to Mary. Cassian‟s basic

argument was that, “If we can say that Christ was born of the Virgin,

then we must also say that God was born of her” (Barclift 1997).

Already we perceive the not so subtle Mariolatry inherent in the

Christology of Leo. The Bible does not say that God was born, but

that God was manifested in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16). The apostle

John makes it explicit that the physical aspect of Christ which they

“looked upon” and “handled” was not something derived from Mary

but was from “the beginning” (I John 1:1). Mary could not give birth

to God which would question His status as the “I AM”, but rather

carried the flesh of God for nine months. It baffles me that Catholics

venerate Mary - even praying to her to intercede on their behalf -

when Jesus called her “woman” not once, but twice.

John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with

thee? mine hour is not yet come.

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the

disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother,

Woman, behold thy son!

The fact is that before he became Pope, Leo used the term Theotokos

and other terms with little regard for biblical grounding or precision.

Intriguingly, he later avoided using the term Theotokos because of

the use the Eastern church would make of it. Leo also confused the

manner in which the terms homo and humanus were applied.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

108

Augustine differentiated between the two much in the same way we

differentiate between “nature” and “person”. Humanus was normally

used to apply to the general nature of humanity while homo referred

to the concrete individual much the same way “person” does.

The tone of Leo's insights and the language he used to express

them shifted and acquired greater precision over time in his

letters and sermons in direct response to the dynamics of the

christological controversy in the East, of which Leo's Tome

made him a part. This development is most evident in three

areas: his avoidance of the "Mother of God" title for the Virgin

Mary after initially using it early in his pontificate; his use of

the terms homo and humanus, which Leo learned to distinguish

later in his pontificate; and his adoption of the Antiochene homo

assumptus formula late in his pontificate to emphasize the

fullness of Christ's human nature (Barclift 1997, 221).

All this suggests that Leo, far from being a competent theologian,

was more of an opportunist who coaxed and cajoled his way into

Chalcedon. The contents of his Tome was basically cherry-picked

from various sources, and he constantly engaged in the process of

refining his Christology by playing a “wait and see” game with the

theologians of the East. When his terminology came under scrutiny

and was questioned, he would respond that it was the language

barrier (he wrote in Latin while the Eastern church was Greek

speaking) which was to blame.

After Pope Leo's orthodoxy came into question in the East

among the monks and theologians affiliated with Alexandria, the

pope probably with Prosper's help - began to fine-tune his

Paul Thomas

109

vocabulary in order to prove his orthodoxy while

simultaneously seeking to preserve his position as a mediating

influence between the theologians of Alexandria and Antioch

(Barclift 1997, 238)

It is an indictment on the Bishops assembled at Chalcedon that they

shouted “It is Peter who says this through Leo. This is what we all of

us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles. Leo and Cyril teach the

same thing”. I do not need to labour the point that Peter said no such

thing through Leo, neither did the apostles believe such nonsense.

How could the apostles speak such things through the mouth Leo

who, as I have just shown, fumbled and groped his way around

theologically? As I mentioned earlier, when Jesus asked the apostles

the question, “...But whom say ye that I am? (Matthew 16:15),

Peter‟s revelation did not include words like “human being” “two

natures” or “God the pre-existent Son”. Let all theologians pay

attention to what he said:

Mathew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art

the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Had Peter spoken through Leo, this is what he would have said.

Incidentally, dead people like Peter do not speak through the mouths

of living people which says something about the theology of those

Bishops at Chalcedon. Moreover, I wonder how Oneness theologians

would respond to Chalcedon‟s declaration... born of the Virgin

Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood...If they deny

that Mary can be called the Mother of God, then perhaps they

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

110

should explain to us which parts of Chalcedon they consent to and

which they reject, rather than give the false impression that their

Christology is commensurate with Chalcedon.

To be acknowledged in two natures?

Chalcedon declares that Christ is to be acknowledged in two natures.

A formidable argument against this statement is that the word

“nature” is used uncritically and without qualification for both the

“human” and “divine” aspects of Christ. In other words, Leo‟s Tome

does not even seem to discern that the word “nature” cannot

indifferently apply to two very dissimilar aspects (one human and

the other divine). Is one to really uncritically assume that the readers

of Leo‟s Tome had the same understanding of what “nature” meant

when applied to the human and divine dimensions of Christ?

One theologian who warned that this lack of clarification would

lead to much confusion was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834).

Speaking about Schleiermacher‟s misgivings about the word

“nature” in the Chalcedonian formula, Stroup (1976) states:

Schleiermacher's assessment of the traditional formulas was

both an accurate historical judgment and a prophetic statement

about how the formulas would fare in nineteenth and twentieth

century theology (George W. Stroup 1976, 55).

Theology is a discipline which approaches its understanding of the

human being from the perspective of the Fall. In other words, one

Paul Thomas

111

condition for membership in the human family is to share in the

consequences of the Fall – we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). Now,

since all theologians agree that Jesus did not share in our sinful

condition, it begs the question: how, then, can He be called a

genuine human being like one of us? Let us say we (sinful and

bonafide humans) decide to bend the rules and extend to Jesus the

title of “human being”. Should it not logically follow that this

designation should be accompanied by some sort of debate about the

“nature” of Christ‟s “new humanity” without sin? It is with reference

to this point that Chalcedon fails singularly.

Is there, therefore, no such thing as human nature? Does the

Chalcedonian formula by mentioning explicitly 'human nature'

point to nothing concrete and real? Of course, the answer can

only be that there is a human nature, but this is not enough to

indicate what the proper approach to man is. For the question is

not whether or not there is such a thing as 'human nature' but

whether it is possible to approach man via his 'nature' or 'ousia'

itself (Zizoulas 1975).

So we conclude that “human nature”, whatever it might be, is

positively not something easily grasped or approximated as Leo‟s

Tome would have us believe. The anthropologist, Branislow

Malinowski, famously quipped that humans are “the most elusive of

materials” (Malinowski 1961, 11).

A disclaimer is in order before I proceed. It is not my desire at all to

explore the sometimes less than reverential discussion of the identity

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

112

of our precious Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Like many, who

would rather not go beyond the Star of Bethlehem, I, too, shudder to

engage in what borders on the blasphemous. I only brave these

stormy and precarious theological waters with the intent of

challenging those who hold such views to reconsider and discard

these man-made concoctions. As the apostle admonishes:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful

works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

Ephesians 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things

which are done of them in secret.

Ephesians 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made

manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is

light.

Armed with this proviso, let me proceed with the utmost fear and

trembling. Allow me to illustrate the difficulty of assuming that the

readers of the Chalcedonian formulas will come to similar

conclusions in relation to the word “nature”. Take, if you will, the

question of how many consciousnesses were in Jesus. Two respected

theologians, Thomas Morris (1986, 1987) and Richard Swinburne

(1989, 1994) believe that Jesus had two consciousnesses – a human

and divine consciousness. They posited that the human

consciousness was contained in the divine one. They have called

their model the “two-minds” or “divided minds” model (Bayne

2001, 125).

Incredibly, Morris (1986), despite admitting that it may be

“impossible for any mere human being to have more than one mind,

Paul Thomas

113

or range of consciousness”, yet doesn‟t hesitate to borrow from the

notoriously thorny world of psychopathologies (e.g. dissociative

identity disorder (formerly multiple personality disorder), hypnosis,

and commissurotomy (surgical incision on certain brain nerves to

treat psychiatric disorders) to suggest that these disorders “might

function as partial models of the structure of Christ‟s consciousness”

(Bayne 2001, 128). This is clearly the legacy of Chalcedon which

has opened a Pandora‟s box of every sort of impious speculation into

the “nature” of the Lord. What do other theologians think of this

“two-minds” model? Fortunately, it didn‟t seem to travel far.

I conclude therefore that the theory of two consciousnesses,

though it may seem far the most promising way of defending

traditional Christology, will not prove adequate in the long run.

Some other way must be found to explain how God and man met

in Jesus Christ (Hanson 1984, 483).

In short, the formula “to be acknowledged in two natures” really

means nothing because we do not have a clue about what a human

nature is leave alone a divine one – neither did the formulas provide

any guidelines in relation to their meaning. One is reminded of

Bassanio‟s description of Gratiano‟s loquacious nonsense in the The

Merchant of Venice when attempting to find any meaning of

substance in Pope Leo‟s Tome.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

114

Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man

in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two

bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and

when you have them they are not worth the search.

Canonizing the uncanonizable.

...it would be a mistake of equal proportion to canonize the

formulas of Nicaea and Chalcedon as eternally valid

interpretations of what ‗God was in Christ‘ means‖ (George W.

Stroup 1976, 53).

One can legitimately wonder why the Bishops at Chalcedon felt the

need to assemble together in such a high-handed manner to canonize

a formulation while completely ignoring the language of the Bible in

relation to Christology. Jesus made it abundantly clear that the Holy

Spirit would reveal the full truth to them which they would share

with the church.

Luke 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that

despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth

him that sent me.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he

will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself;

but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will

shew you things to come.

Shakespeare, W. The Merchant of Venice. Act 1, Scene 1.

Paul Thomas

115

It appears, sadly, that the so-called church fathers entertained the

unwarranted notion that they had been invested with apostolic

authority which gave them the right to “better” the revelation given

to the apostles by inventing new words. This is not an idle assertion

on my part, but is amply confirmed by others:

But by the fourth century Athanasius could hardly point to a

unified and consistent tradition. In fact much of his difficulty

arose precisely because he was an innovator who claimed that

his innovations were absolutely necessary if the Church's faith

was to be rescued from a theology which would surely destroy

it. Similarly Augustine, writing against the Donatists, had to

grant that the Donatists had Cyprian on their side. Nevertheless

he argued that, by innovating and changing, he was more

faithful to the Church's tradition than they (Wilken 1965).

The audacity of these “church fathers” to believe that they had to

“invent” new words in order to rescue the church‟s faith beggars

belief. It is this kind of philosophy which has been described as a

battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by the means of

language. I have often heard Trinitarians retort that the apostles did

not actually fully understand the revelation of the Triune God. In

their mind, this doctrine was there all along from the beginning, but

was slowly revealed incrementally to the church fathers. This kind of

sophistry is a poor attempt at concealing what can only be called a

coup d‘état of apostolic authority.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

116

The danger inherent in such a line of reasoning is clearly evident in

that others, even today, can claim to have a special “hotline” of

revelation to heaven which prior generations were not privy to or

failed to understand. If Athanasius, Augustine and Pope Leo I could

innovate new terms and formulations to “better” or “complete” the

message of the apostles, why not the charismatic preacher Benny

Hinn who stated:

God the Father, ladies and gentleman, is a person and He is a

triune being by Himself, separate from the Son and the Holy

Ghost... See, God the Father is a person, God the Son is a

person, God the Holy Ghost is a person; but each one of them is

a triune being by himself. If I can shock you and maybe I should,

there's nine of them! What did you say? Let me explain. God

the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with his own

personal spirit, with his own personal soul and his own personal

spirit body. You say, I never heard that! Well, you think you are

in church to hear things you heard for the last fifty years?"

Orlando Christian Centre Broadcast, 13 Oct. 1990.

Returning to the formula of Chalcedon, we see another blatant

invention which comes with a stark contradiction. Pope Leo‟s Tome

states that the Lord is to be acknowledged in two natures which are

supposedly united unchangeably (immutabiliter). Let me break this

down systematically. Firstly, remember that they are talking about

the two supposed natures of Christ – one human and one divine.

These two natures, they insist, must be acknowledged as

Audio recording available at this link: http://www.faith-

theology.com/2010/02/theology-fail-benny-hinn-on-trinity.html Retrieved

23.09.11

Paul Thomas

117

unchangeable. The formula even reiterates this point by stating...the

property of each nature being preserved...So far so good! Next, let

us zero in on the human nature. They insist again that the human

nature assumed was fully human just like yours and mine. When we

apply this understanding to the word unchangeable, a paradox

emerges.

If the natures are unchangeable, why then do they declare that

Christ‟s body changed after the resurrection? What did His human

nature change into? As long as Chalcedon‟s formula did not attach

any time-limit or qualification of any sort to the word unchangeable

and its corollary the property of each nature being preserved, this

critique remains valid. What does the Bible have to say about the

God who was manifested in flesh?

Hebrew 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and

forever.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:

handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye

see me have.

God does not undergo any changes. He declares Himself to be

immutable, “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of

Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6). As I mentioned earlier, God

could not find anyone (i.e. a human being) therefore His own arm

brought salvation to Him (Isaiah 63:5). The child that was born was

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

118

called “that holy thing” (Luke 1:35) and not the son of Mary. Take a

careful look at the verse below:

Hebrew 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter

into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Hebrew 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath

consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

What gives us the boldness to enter into the holiest place? The blood

of Jesus by a new and living way which he hath consecrated for us,

through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.

This is crystal clear: it is not the diffuse and ludicrous formulation of

Pope Leo I which gives us access to the holiest, but the flesh of Jesus

which the writer of Hebrews calls a new and living way. Now, you

will hopefully agree with me that human flesh and blood can hardly

be called a “ new and living way”. What is new about this flesh is

that it is God‟s own flesh; it is His own arm and is unprecedented in

the history of the universe. It is called the “only begotten Son” of

God (John 3:16).

John 3:16 refers to the Son as the “only begotten” of God

(monogenes). This can only be referring to the flesh as the Spirit in

Christ cannot be begotten. In other words, the flesh of Jesus is the

only kind of flesh begotten of the Father. God has never before, in

the history of the world, ever begotten a body like that of Christ‟s.

No wonder the Scripture says:

Paul Thomas

119

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto

me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Bishop Teklemariam makes a clear-cut distinction between the flesh

of Adam (human beings) and that of our beloved Lord:

These biblical truths compel us to emphasize that the flesh of

Christ in which God the Father was manifested, has nothing in

common with earthly Adamic or angelic nature. It is the Word

of the only God who became flesh (Gezahagne 2007, 18).

Before I conclude this chapter, where certain specific formulations

of the Chalcedonian Creed have been put under the spotlight, one

more observation must be considered with reference to the phrase

truly perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God

and truly man. A close appraisal of this declaration actually implies

that Christ was a new type of being – a “third type”.

If God Himself is a complete being (i.e. an independent individual)

and the humanity of Jesus is also understood as a perfect manhood

(i.e. complete with a body, spirit, soul and mind), then we have two

independent persons collaborating to mysteriously form a new “third

type of man”. The Bishops initially set out to “settle” the heresies

which were floating around since the time of the Docetists and

Apollinaris, but their deliberations resulted in the creation of a new

fictitious Jesus who never really existed. As Stroup (1976) observes:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

120

Rather than offering a description of Jesus as the Christ that is

free from the taint of either Docetism or ebionitism, Chalcedon

represents only a "paper solution"; it suggests either that Jesus

Christ as fully human and fully divine is some "third type" of

creature or that the inevitable result of the "two natures" model

is an implicit denial of Jesus' full humanity (George W. Stroup

1976, 56).

In the Old Testament, the Lord told Moses that He would rain down

bread from heaven. Although God shared with Moses that this edible

substance was bread, the children of Israel looked at it curiously and

called it manna – literally translated “What is this?”

Exodus 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they said

one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And

Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the LORD hath

given you to eat.

Those who intransigently adhere to the discredited Christology of

Chalcedon are still looking at Jesus today and asking “Manna? What

is this? Where is His flesh from?” At the end of this book, I have

included a sermon that I preached some time ago on the flesh of

Jesus with the title “Manna?” Perhaps the sermon may be the

catalyst that drives home the message about Christ‟s heavenly flesh.

In conclusion, we have an unambiguous choice before us today in

relation to the Christological controversies which continue to bedevil

the church in the 21

century. We can either listen to what the

Scriptures tell us about the origin of the flesh of Christ – that it is the

Paul Thomas

121

Word made flesh, or we can, like the children of Israel, continue to

puzzle over it and call it manna (what is it?), completely ignoring the

words of Moses. Significantly, the children of Israel ate something

they did not understand. Many Christians are also partaking of the

flesh and blood of the Lord without understanding what they are

eating. The apostle Paul warned the Corinthian church not only to

show the utmost care in partaking of the Lord‟s Supper, but to

discern the body of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh

unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not

discerning the Lord's body.

The Greek word translated discern is diakrinō (Strong‟s G 1252)

with a list of synonyms which includes: to separate, make a

distinction, discriminate, to prefer, to try, decide, to determine, give

judgment, decide a dispute. I pray that you the reader will make a

distinction and decide that Jesus‟ flesh is of the Word, not humanity.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

122

CHAPTER SIX

Introduction

The last chapter critically explored certain aspects of the

Christological controversies of the 4

and 5

century AD. This

chapter returns to one of the objections raised against the Word

made flesh doctrine (often dubbed the “heavenly” flesh doctrine).

 If Jesus is the One true God, why did He have to pray, and to

whom did He pray?

There are three views that attempt to explain the prayers of Jesus to

the Father. The first view is the traditional Trinitarian view which

contends that since a person prays, Jesus as the second person of the

Trinity prayed to God the Father who is the first person of the

Trinity. This view teaches that one person in the Godhead prayed to

another. The second view is that of the Oneness theologians who

maintain that the human nature of Jesus prayed to the divine nature

within Him. In this school of thought, the proponents teach that there

is only one person in the Godhead, but when God was manifested in

the flesh, the “incarnation” produced a dual nature within Jesus. One

nature was fully human and the other fully God. They teach that the

Paul Thomas

123

human nature prayed to the divine to solicit help. The third view,

which I believe is the correct biblical view, is that of the One God

interpretation. This view states that Jesus did not pray to another

person outside of Himself or for His own needs or weaknesses.

Rather, He prayed for fallen humanity. He had come for this very

purpose: to be our intercessor. In other words, His prayers were on

behalf of helpless, depraved humanity. He was playing the role of

High Priest for us and was our advocate.

A brief analysis of the three positions

After having briefly introduced the varying views, let us take a

closer look at each one.

One person praying to another view

The first objection raised against this view is that it contradicts all

Scriptures in the Bible that declare that God is numerically One.

Here are a few examples: Deut 6:4; Deut 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah

44:8; Zech 14:8; Mal 2:10; John 1:1,14; Mark 12:29,32; Rom 9:5; I

Tim 2:5; I Tim 3:16; James 2:19 & I John 5:20. In the light of these

overwhelmingly One God scriptures, it would be inconsistent with

the testimony of God Himself to state that One God called Jesus is

praying to another God called the Father in a Triune Godhead.

The doctrine of the Trinity, as outlined in the Athanasian Creed,

states that the three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

124

consubstantial. This begs the question: How can Jesus be said to be

co-equal with the Father if He has to pray to Him? Wouldn‟t His

praying imply that He is inferior to God the Father?

It must be pointed out that this view only developed after the

doctrine of the Trinity was fully formulated by the church fathers at

Nicea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381). The Trinitarian creed

raises a welter of questions: Why did Jesus pray to the Father only

and not to the Holy Spirit? Why does He say in John 16:26

John 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not

unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

Why does He all of a sudden no longer pray to the Father at that

day? A first order of business is to briefly elaborate on the One God

position which we believe is commensurate with the Bible.

Establishing the identity of Jesus.

Before I proceed, let me establish a few bedrock biblical facts upon

which the subsequent arguments made are premised. God is one

(Deuteronomy 6:4) and this implies - not a composite or compound

one as the doctrine of the Trinity states - but an indivisible one. The

Jews inferred from Deuteronomy 6:4 that God is he (Mark 12:32).

Even Jesus Himself referred to God as he in relation to the creation

(Matthew 19:4). So there is One God in a strict monotheistic sense

Paul Thomas

125

and not a quasi-monotheistic one as the doctrine of the Trinity

(which is essentially a form of crypto-polytheism) declares.

This One God of the Old Testament Himself, and not His pre-

existent Son (no such thing as “eternal generation of the Son”), was

manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16). God is Word and Spirit (John

1:1, John 4:24); His Word is intrinsic to His being just as your word

is an inseparable part of you. His Word was made flesh (John 1:14)

and the life of this flesh is the Father Himself (Spirit and Father refer

to the same One God). There is sufficient evidence for this:

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the

Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of

myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the

Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

On the basis of the scriptural evidence thus far we acknowledge

Jesus to be none other than the One and only Jehovah of the Old

Testament who now indwells a body begotten of His own Word.

This rules out any contribution from humanity. When we say Father,

Son and Holy Spirit, we are speaking about Jesus because in Him

dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). With this

truth firmly established, let us approach the subject at hand.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

126

Why did Jesus pray?

Jesus prayed for us and His prayers were addressed back to Him

since He is the One true God is the short and simple answer. The

Word was made flesh not only because blood was necessary for God

to atone for our sins, but, in addition, God saw that we were

hopelessly weak and there was none to intercede or pray for us.

Isaiah repeats this twice.

Isaiah 59:16 And he saw that there was no man, and wondered

that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought

salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

Isaiah 63:5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I

wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own

arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.

God furnished us with two concrete reasons for His subsequent

manifestation in His own flesh and blood. These two elements,

which we can isolate from Isaiah 59:16 are the following:

I. There was no man. This means there was no human being

qualified to step in and act in the role of redeemer.

II. God wondered that there was no intercessor.

The Christian world often expends much energy on the first point,

and rightly so. For without God manifesting Himself in flesh and

blood, there would have been no way to make propitiation

(appeasement for the curse of the Law) for our sins. It is the second

Paul Thomas

127

point which has not been fully understood in churches and

congregations. The fact is that God was manifested in the flesh to

also serve as our intercessor. Let us never forget that.

Remember the High Priest in the Old Testament? He had a crucial

role to play on behalf of the children of Israel. Not only did he take

the blood of lambs and bulls into the Holy of Holies, but, just as

important, was his role in interceding for the people.

Numbers 16:46 And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer,

and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and

go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for

them: for there is wrath gone out from the LORD; the plague is

begun.

Numbers 16:47 And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran

into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was

begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an

atonement for the people.

Incense represents prayer. It was the prayer of Aaron which saved

the children of Israel from certain death. Similarly, Jesus came into

this world to pray for us and on our behalf. Note that Aaron was not

the one in danger from the wrath of God, yet Moses commanded him

to make haste, light the incense and run through the immense crowd

perishing in the wilderness for their sins. Jesus, too, was not praying

or agonizing for His own sins or His weaknesses as many Christians

proclaim, but He was performing the role of our High Priest, our

Advocate:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

128

1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that

ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Intriguingly, the word translated advocate can also mean “one who

pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor” (paraklētos). While

on earth, and in heaven too, Jesus pleads our cause. What perhaps

confuses many who read the Bible is the language Christ adopts

while praying for us. For instance,

Mark 14:35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the

ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass

from him.

Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible

unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I

will, but what thou wilt.

Many conclude that the Lord was caught in the throes of an

existential struggle. They infer that because He was a human being

like you and me, He began to falter under the building pressure.

Seven hundred years ago, Isaiah prophesied that many would

misinterpret the intercessions of the Lord on our behalf.

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our

sorrows:

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he

was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace

was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. yet we did

esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Paul Thomas

129

The above verses are crucial to unlock what was going on in

Gethsemane and the other prayers of Jesus. Not only did Jesus

intercede for us, He also bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, was

wounded for our transgressions, was bruised and chastised - all for

our redemption and salvation. Now here is the profoundly tragic part

of all this sacrifice – the last part of verse 5 says... yet we did esteem

him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. What a miss of

monumental proportions! Isaiah enumerated all that Christ had done

for us only to conclude that despite all that, we misunderstood His

mission; we deduced that God was afflicting Him for other reasons.

With the above in mind, let us look at the prayers of Jesus in

Gethsemane. Understand that the moment the Lord began to feel the

pangs of sorrow, the prophecy of Isaiah 53: 4 & 5 became

operational. Why would Christ feel sorrow for Himself? Sorrow is

integral to sin and the fallen condition. As the sinless Lamb of God,

these negative emotions were alien to Christ. What is happening is

that the sins of humanity were imputed to Him.

Matthew 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding

sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

This was no temporary change of mood that ordinary humans

experience resulting from some bad news or bad weather. Rather, as

the federal covenantal representative of the human race, Jesus was

now formally beginning the process of redemption.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

130

When Jesus said, “Not as I will...”(Matthew 26:39), He was

identifying Himself with humanity – He officially verbalized His

embodiment as the representative of humanity vicariously. This

vicarious representation did not begin at Gethsemane, though. From

the moment the Word was made flesh, the process of collective

representation was triggered. Even the fact that He was growing up

rather quietly and away from the limelight was part of this process

of redemption in that He suffered humiliation.

It was the servant-life of the Lord of Hosts, the life of the Sinless

One in daily association with sinners, the life of the Holy One in

a sin-cursed world. The way of obedience was for Him at the

same time a way of suffering. He suffered from the repeated

assaults of Satan, from the hatred and unbelief of His own

people, and from the persecution of His enemies. Since He trod

the wine-press alone, His loneliness must have been oppressive,

and His responsibility crushing (Berkhof 2003, 337).

This humiliation is tangible in a paradox: whereas God has always

been accustomed to issuing commandments as the Sovereign of the

universe and all creation - leave alone submit to anyone - Jesus as a

boy growing up in a Jewish milieu had to submit to Mary and

Joseph, the elders and Rabbis and every man-made law that

regulated His society. This is what the writer of Hebrews was

highlighting:

Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience

by the things which he suffered;

Paul Thomas

131

Based on the analysis so far, we conclude that the Lord was actually

not praying for Himself at all, but for humanity. When He said “Not

as I will” or “Not my will”, Christ adopted humanity‟s “I” and

“My”, fought against it and subdued it through His intercessory

prayers for us. Significantly, Irenaeus of Lyon (AD 125-202),

explained Christ‟s prayers in a very similar manner. His theory is

called “recapitulation”.

He has therefore, in His work of recapitulation, summed up all

things, both waging war against our enemy, and crushing him

who had at the beginning led us away captives in Adam, and

trampled upon his head, as thou canst perceive in Genesis that

God said to the serpent, ―And I will put enmity between thee

and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; He shall be

on the watch for thy head, and thou on the watch for His heel.‖

For from that time, He who should be born of a woman,

[namely] from the virgin, after the likeness of Adam, was

preached as keeping watch for the head of the serpent

(Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, V,XXI, 1).

God was on the “watch” in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17-19) as

Irenaeus declares. The Word was made flesh, groaned, agonized and

prayed, not for Himself, as some Oneness theologians believe, but

exclusively for fallen humanity. We must never take leave of

Isaiah‟s declaration that all His sufferings, grief, sorrow,

chastisement and every other form of buffeting the Lord experienced

was not for Himself. The fact that God put on flesh is in itself a

“lowering or state of humiliation” which was effected for us alone

and not for Himself.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

132

Irenaeus of Lyon stated that every act of Christ can only be

understood in light of recapitulating the mistakes of Adam. Adam

failed in his duty and responsibility to keep his side of the covenant

with God. The consequence of his disobedience had far-reaching

effects that encompassed the whole of humanity. This is because

Adam was the federal head of the human race. Christ is called the

second Adam by the apostle Paul:

1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam

was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening

spirit.

If capitulate means to accept defeat, then recapitulate is to be

understood as “undoing” the defeat. If the first Adam showed

solidarity with us in sin and disobedience, the second Adam showed

solidarity with us in obedience and righteousness through His

actions.

What does Jesus grew in wisdom mean?

Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in

favour with God and man.

Many are convinced, on the basis of the scripture above, that Jesus‟

human nature is alluded to which “increased” in wisdom. According

to them, since the divine nature cannot “increase” in wisdom, this

must refer to the human nature in Christ. To begin with, this implies

Paul Thomas

133

that the so-called “human nature” of Jesus started out with nothing

by way of mental content - like the tabula rasa (Latin for blank slate

or erased slate) of John Locke. This would mean that there were two

“entities” in Christ – the perfectly wise God and the perfectly

ignorant “human” entity. The ignorant entity, according to this

theory, was playing catch up with the perfectly wise one. We are not

told to what degree the human entity attained wisdom in comparison

to the divine one. Secondly, this theory clearly favours the nurture

theory as opposed to nature. In other words, they maintain that

Jesus‟ knowledge was incrementally gained through the vicissitudes

of daily life without deriving any advantage from nature (what we

would call genetic inheritance).

Needless to say, this position, despite its popularity, is untenable.

The biblical usage of wisdom (Strong‟s Gk 4678 sophia) is very

broad indeed.

1) wisdom, broad and full of intelligence; used of the knowledge of

very diverse matters

a) the wisdom which belongs to men

1) spec. the varied knowledge of things human and divine,

acquired by acuteness and experience, and summed up in

maxims and proverbs

2) the science and learning

3) the act of interpreting dreams and always giving the sagest

advice

4) the intelligence evinced in discovering the meaning of some

mysterious number or vision

5) skill in the management of affairs

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

134

6) devout and proper prudence in intercourse with men not

disciples of Christ, skill and discretion in imparting Christian

truth

7) the knowledge and practice of the requisites for godly and

upright living

b) supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God

1) to Christ

2) the wisdom of God as evinced in forming and executing

counsels in the formation and government of the world and the

scriptures.

The list above captures many aspects of wisdom which was common

in the Greco-Roman world. In the days of Luke, who was Greco-

Syrian, Greeks often distinguished between three or four types of

wisdom. In Aristotle‟s Nichomachean Ethics, for example, sophia is

equated with contemplative and theoretical reasoning about

universal truths. Epistēmē, from which we get epistemology (a

branch of the philosophy of science meaning a theory of

knowledge), is often subsumed under sophia.

This wisdom is distinguished from another type of wisdom called

phronesis. Phronesis differs from sophia in that it emphasizes the

ability to not only think rationally about universal truths, but to

consciously make choices that promote a good life in practical

situations. In other words, while sophia is abstract wisdom,

phronesis is the contextualized practical application of that abstract

Blueletter Bible

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4678&t=KJV

Retreived 11.10.11

Paul Thomas

135

wisdom on a daily basis. Aristotle thought phronesis was

fundamental in political decisions. In the Nicomachean Ethics,

Aristotle lamented the fact that the youth were accomplished in

geometry and mathematics but lacked true wisdom which required

both sophia and phronesis. To his mind, phronesis required time and

maturation. It was intimately connected with experience of diverse

life situations.

There is another wisdom called techne. This is simply technical

know-how or skill. It s concerned with the mechanics of process. For

example, a carpenter teaches his son to measure and saw which the

son duly imitates and masters.

Keep in mind that all these were aspects of wisdom. Dare we say

that Jesus grew in sophia understood as a reflection on universal

truths? He is the way, the truth and the life Himself (John 14:6)

which would make it redundant for him to grow in that kind of

wisdom. What about practical everyday wisdom – phronesis? Well,

if by this Luke means that God negotiated new experiences through

His flesh, then a case can be made for that. After all, it was not a

common everyday experience for God in flesh to obey His own

creation (e.g. Mary and Joseph). In this sense, He did grow in

experience. Finally, whether Jesus “learnt” the trade of carpentry in

the sense of techne becomes an issue open to debate. Did God, the

supreme architect, really submit a part of Himself (the mysterious

human nature) to a genuine apprenticeship involving a real learning

experience? This brief analysis raises a host of questions with

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

136

regards to the widespread interpretation of the precise manner in

which Jesus “increased in wisdom”. Given such nuances of

“wisdom” it is pretentious to claim that Luke was speaking of the

human nature of Christ.

Recapitulation and atonement

When Adam blatantly disobeyed God, he undermined and

jeopardized the whole foundation of divine order. As the federal

head of not only the human family but the whole of the creation

order on this earth, which he was to exercise wise dominion over,

Adam‟s disobedience dismayed God and the holy angels. The nature

of our walk with God is something that angels “look into”:

1Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have

power on her head because of the angels.

God could not let this breach of divine authority be overlooked. His

zeal for His own standards of righteousness had to be upheld. What

did He do? The unspeakable wonder is that He robed Himself in

flesh and entered the world to succeed where Adam had failed. The

paradox is astounding: God who provides for all human needs,

allowed Himself to be provided for; God who clothes our nakedness,

submitted Himself voluntarily to be clothed; He who knew all

things, sat meekly at the feet of finite and fallible minds to “learn

from them”; He who holds the fate of nations in His hands,

Paul Thomas

137

submitted to the Roman yoke of foreign oppression. The list goes on

and on.

Why did He do all this? This was not an exercise in mindless self-

flagellation. He did it because of His unfathomable love for you and

me. Every other explanation, no matter how theologically erudite or

articulate, fails. Indeed, God so loved the world...(John 3:16).

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that,

while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Why did Jesus obey and submit Himself to the order of man?

Because in so doing He was restoring or recapitulating His own

order. Now He was assuming humanity‟s “I” as His own “I”. So the

work of atonement (reconciliation between God and man through

Christ‟s shed blood and ministry) did not begin in the Garden of

Gethsemane, but much earlier. When Jesus obeyed Mary and Joseph,

through Him we obey our parents (a very solemn commandment

Exodus 20:12); when He obeyed his teachers and elders, we obeyed

through Him; when He submitted to persecution and buffeting, we

submitted through Him. Above all, through His obedience and

submission, we become righteous.

The last statement is crucial to understanding “Not my will...(Luke

22:42). Ultimately, Jesus did not come to restore a right order

between us and our relationship with the world alone , although its

importance should not be diminished. He came to restore and heal

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

138

our relationship with Him. Before there were parents, children,

friends, politicians or such a thing as society in general, there was

Adam and God alone. God is zealous for this relationship to be

restored. This is why He submitted and prayed often – even through

the night

Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out

into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to

God.

He prayed because we could not pray. Remember that He assumed

humanity‟s “I”. In other words, whenever we observe Jesus sighing,

praying, crying or agonizing, let us understand that He is performing

the role of intercessor on our behalf. He is God; why should He

struggle with His own will to obey Himself? God is not conflicted

like we humans between the will of the flesh and the will of the

Spirit. Oneness theologians are wrong to assert that Jesus prayed

because He was a human and human nature is weak. Natures to do

not pray – persons pray. As Dulles indicated, they are still

propounding Nestorianism, a belief in two persons in the one Jesus.

This can only be a quasi-monotheism.

Someone may object to the statement, “He prayed because we could

not pray”. Let me elaborate by soliciting a Scripture verse:

Romans8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:

for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the

Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which

cannot be uttered.

Paul Thomas

139

Let us scrutinize this verse. Paul is saying that the Spirit helps our

weaknesses because we do not know what to pray for. So the Spirit

itself prays for us. Now, here is the $ 64,000 question: Who is the

Spirit praying to? The answer should be equally straightforward – to

God Himself (who is the same Spirit). However, we don‟t formulate

it in this manner because of the awkwardness of the statement. But

technically this is really what is happening. If one can comprehend

this, it should not be a problem at all to accept that Jesus‟ prayers in

the Garden of Gethsemane (and throughout His life) were not for

Himself but for humanity. With moanings and groanings He made

intercession for us.

Irenaeus of Lyon subsumed all the sufferings of Christ under the

framework of recapitulating Adam‟s sin. Several of these can be

demonstrated:

i. God cursed the earth with thorns and thistles. Jesus willingly

appropriated this curse upon Himself literally in the form of a

crown of thorns (Genesis 3:18; John 19:2).

ii. The sweat on Adam‟s face was to remind him of the curse.

During the passion week, when the work of atonement was

about to reach a climax, Jesus‟ brow filled with great drops

of sweat (Genesis 3:19; Luke 22:44).

iii. We can only imagine the utter despair Adam felt when he

was expelled from the presence of God. Jesus re-enacted this

utter despair with the heart-rending cry “...My God, my God,

why hast thou forsaken me? (Genesis 3:23,24; Mark 15:34).

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

140

iv. There is a place of eternal darkness reserved for sinners. Our

precious Lord experienced darkness on the Cross to spare us

being cast into outer darkness (Matthew 25:30).

v. Hell is a place of excruciating and unquenchable thirst. He

who is the eternal well of life, thirsted on the Cross so we do

not have to experience the thirst of the rich man in hell (John

19:28).

These are some of the examples that underscore Christ‟s vicarious

role as our intercessor. Following Isaiah 59:16 & 63:5, God saw no

man and no intercessor. This is why He alone as the sinless Lamb of

God had to perform this role. It is not a case of the second member

of the Trinity praying to the first member of the Trinity which

diminishes the glory of God who declares, “...and I will not give my

glory unto another (Isaiah 48:11), neither is it the equally fallacious

contention that one nature prayed to another, but God praying for us

through the medium of His own flesh.

Isaiah 53:12 …and he was numbered with the transgressors;

and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the

transgressors.

Isaiah 63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the

people there was none with me...

We need to thank the Lord for this extraordinary love and sacrifice.

Isaiah begins the powerful chapter of the “Suffering Servant” with

the words, “Who has believed our report? and to whom is the arm of

the Lord revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1). There is a tone of sad indignation

secreted into one of the most majestic prophetic revelations of the

Paul Thomas

141

Old Testament because many have not believed this report, or

misinterpreted Christ‟s intercessions and sufferings. The truth is all

Jesus did was not for Himself, but for you and me. We are all like

Peter, desperately in need of Jesus‟ prayers.

Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not:

and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren

I will conclude this chapter with the beautiful and apt words of the

hymn “Who am I?”

When I think of how He came so far from glory

Came to dwell among the lowly such as I

To suffer shame and such disgrace

On Mount Calvary take my place

Then I ask myself this question

Who am I?

Who am I that the King would bleed and die for

Who am I that He would pray not my will, Thy Lord

The answer I may never know

Why He ever loved me so

But to that old rugged cross He'd go

For who am I?

When I'm reminded of His words

I'll leave Him never

If you'll be true I'll give to you life forever

Oh I wonder what I could have done

To deserve God's only Son

To fight my battles until they're won

To the best of my knowledge, the copyright has expired and the hymn is now in

the Public domain.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

142

For who am I?

Who am I that The King would bleed and die for

Who am I that He would pray not my will, Thy Lord

The answer I may never know

Why He ever loved me so

But to that old rugged cross He'd go

For who am I?

But to an old rugged cross He'd go for, who am I?

Paul Thomas

143

CHAPTER SEVEN

The Sinless Heavenly Man

This chapter will concern itself with another Christological offshoot

which has struggled to garner unanimous consensus among

denominational theologians, especially in the last couple of centuries

(Crisp 2007). I have briefly explored this subject in chapter 1:2, but

this chapter takes a different approach and focus. To be blunt, this is

an issue which those who hold to a human body and nature for

Christ wrestle with. Having concluded that the flesh of the Lord is of

earthly origin, it follows logically that they further must accept some

form of fallibility for this flesh. For those of a One-God persuasion,

who do not adhere to a human flesh for Christ (i.e. of the dust), the

debate is non sequitur. To explore and fill the lacuna between these

two positions, we will need a statement of the problem under

investigation:

 Hypothetically, could Jesus have sinned? And if the answer

is no, would it not imply that His humanity was a charade?

This must be addressed in conjunction with Hebrews 2:17 &

Hebrews 4:15.

To help us unpack the above we will need to canvass two contending

positions which stem from Chalcedon. What this means is that they

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

144

are both rooted in Chalcedon but have come to diverging

conclusions in relation to whether Christ was sinless or not.

Sinlessness vs. impeccability

Two main views dominate the theological horizon with regards to

the issue of Christ‟s ability to sin or not: the sinlessness view and the

impeccability view. Perhaps it is salutary to begin with the

impeccability view as this was the default position throughout

church history until a couple of centuries ago. The church fathers,

the scholastics (e.g. Anselm, Abelard, Scotus, Thomas Aquinas) and

the reformers generally held to the impeccability view leading one

theologian to state, “It has been the almost unanimous view of

classical Christology that Christ was not merely without sin, though

he might have sinned, but that he was incapable of sin” (Crisp 2007,

168).

Briefly defined, and as understood by the Scholastics, the

impeccability view (from Latin - non posse peccare) asserts that

Christ could not sin or that He was incapable of sinning. It is vital to

distinguish the basis for this conclusion from the biblical One God

view that also sees Christ as impeccable. The school of

impeccability (i.e. those who espouse the Trinity doctrine),

unfortunately, persist in adhering to the creed of Chalcedon where

Christ was reinvented as one person with two natures in a mystical

hypostatic union. Obviously, this stance is flawed as it has no

Paul Thomas

145

biblical grounding. Nevertheless, it is of some interest to this study

to note that one school of thought, albeit with an erroneous

Christological premise, rejects any suggestion that Christ could

hypothetically sin. We share their conclusion but not the premise.

The statement below, from a Trinitarian theologian, epitomizes the

impeccable view:

... I wish to take issue with the notion that, during his earthly

ministry, Christ was merely sinless, rather than impeccable. It

seems to me that only the traditional view, that Christ is

impeccable, makes sense. The alternative suggested by these

and other like-minded theologians who advocate the sinlessness

view, though stemming from a laudable desire to affirm the full

humanity of Christ, requires a much more radical revision of the

doctrine of God as well as of classical Christology than such

theologians may be willing to allow (Crisp 2007, 170).

Before we flesh out more substantive elements of the impeccable

stance, we need to understand the other view – the sinlessness view.

Simply put, this perspective contends that Christ could sin but did

not. In contrast to the impeccability view the sinless view does not

deny that Jesus could sin although He did not. This understanding is

driven by a concern to safeguard the integrity of the “humanity” of

Jesus. There was a fear that denying the Lord the natural propensity

to sin – which is integral to all human beings – risked courting the

Docetist heresy in which Christ appeared to be a human but, in

actual fact, was not. Regrettably, once again, we must recognize that

this fear is the outcome of a zealous belief in the true “humanity” of

Jesus – something which I have argued in chapter 5 is unbiblical.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

146

One staunch proponent of the sinlessness view is the Princeton

theologian, Charles Hodge. Hodge‟s objection to an impeccable

Christ derives from his a priori assumption that one predicate or

condition for being a man is to be tempted.

If He was a true man He must have been capable of

sinning...Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the

constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then

his temptation was unreal and without effect, and He cannot

sympathize with his people (Hodge 1960, 457).

“If He was a true man...” This, in a nutshell, is the crux of the

problem. This statement assumes a universal and undisputed

conception of what it means to be “a true man”. It is this supposition

which I believe misleads and obfuscates the entire discussion by

pretending to be an explanatory monism, a grand récit. It has

become de rigueur for theologians to state that Jesus had a sinless

humanity similar to the one that Adam possessed before the Fall

without presenting one shred of biblical evidence to support such a

bold and pivotal postulation. From this unfounded assumption a

series of conjectures are further spun without subjecting the original

thesis to a rigorous test. Take the statement below as a case in point:

The grace in which human nature was originally created meant

that before the Fall Adam‘s human nature, like that of Christ,

was free from every temptation ‗from within‘. The impossibility,

in the cases of Adam and of Jesus, of human nature being

tempted ‗from within‘ results from the uniquely graced

character of these two human natures. In these two cases, grace

Paul Thomas

147

worked to ensure that human nature could not ‗turn against

itself‘, so to speak (Riches 2011, 14).

Riches (2011) seems unburdened by the need to give some scriptural

evidence to back up the very sweeping an unfounded claims in

assuming that Christ possessed a flesh similar to that of Adam before

the Fall. It borders on the hypocritical to state that Christ could sin

because that is the true essence of humanity while ignoring the fact

that this same yardstick should also be applied to Christ‟s birth: can

Christ be human if He did not get male chromosomes from Joseph?

Either apply the whole spectrum of indices that apply to all humans

or abort the discussion completely and acknowledge Christ to be the

second man from heaven, as the Bible declares (I Corinthians 15:47).

I find it absurd that theologians like Hodge would happily disregard

the virgin birth as if this does not qualify as an anomaly while

protesting profusely at the mention of Christ‟s impeccability on the

grounds that all humans must experience temptation. Regretfully,

this eclectic and completely arbitrary exercise runs through the

writing of the majority who embrace the sinlessness view. Actually

the term “sinlessness” appears to be a misnomer because they do

believe that Christ could sin, although they are careful to say that He

didn‟t.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

148

Temptation and the sinlessness view

What is the driving force behind this concern with Jesus‟ ability to

sin? Clearly, the biblical portrayal of Christ as someone who weeps,

hungers, thirsts and wearies has helped shape the sinlessness

doctrine. For instance, the American Baptist theologian, Millard

Erickson, comments on Hebrews 4: 15 in this manner:

The thrust of the passage is that he is able to intercede for us

because he has completely identified with us; this seems to

imply that his temptation included not only the whole range of

sin, but the real possibility of sinning...There are conditions

under which he [Christ] could have sinned, but that it was

certain those conditions would not be fulfilled. Thus Jesus really

could have decided to cast himself from the temple pinnacle, but

it was certain that he would not (Erickson 1991, 562, 563).

Invariably, Hebrews 4:15 is one passage which often becomes the

epicentre of the debate on whether Christ could err or not.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be

touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points

tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

We will need to examine this verse to ascertain whether this is proof

positive that Christ could sin. Take, for instance, the phrase touched

with the feeling. Proponents of the sinlessness view infer that the

phrase demonstrates Christ‟s physical identification and solidarity

with our temptations, which He ultimately resisted. Interestingly, the

Paul Thomas

149

word translated touched with the feeling in English comes from the

Greek word sympatheō (G4834). The same word, which occurs only

twice in the New Testament, is translated compassion in Hebrews

10:34.

Hebrews 10:34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and

took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves

that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.

Now, no one would want to argue that the audience addressed in

Hebrews 10:34 were also experiencing the same bonds as the writer

of Hebrews. All that the phrase sympatheō implies is a shared

feeling of compassion or sympathy. To extrapolate from this and

contend that Jesus actually experienced our temptations and the

“pull” of sin is to go beyond the mandate of Hebrews 4:15. In other

words, it is true that Jesus sympathized with our infirmities but this

does not extend to an actual indulgence or sharing of those

infirmities. I can sympathize with an alcoholic struggling with his

addiction without experiencing or knowing anything about the power

of that addiction. My sympathy arises from my concern for the poor

man‟s seemingly futile battle with the bottle – an oppressive lifestyle

which grinds him down slowly. However, on my part, I would be

oblivious to the “pull” exerted by the bottle. It is, I believe, in this

sense that Christ sympathized with us; with the difference being His

power to deliver those who embrace His claim to be the Deliverer.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

150

It is important to remind the reader that the whole discussion is

actually a bit misleading. Where in the Bible does it state explicitly

that Jesus had to experience our temptations for our redemption to be

valid? As stated previously, redemption and salvation is contingent

on the blood of a sinless man – the Word made flesh. Our salvation

is not contingent on the right dosage of emotional sympathy on the

part of the Lord, but the blood of God Himself which is efficacious:

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the

flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,

to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his

own blood.

Returning to Hebrews 4:15 the last part states: but was in all points

tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Tempted is from the Greek

peirazō which in this context means to try someone with the

intention of enticing to sin or in some malicious way. Does this

“prove” that Christ was tempted in such a manner that He felt the

“tug” and “pull” of sin like we do? Are we actually insinuating that

the Lord struggled with some perverse thoughts which were

threatening to compromise His moral fortitude? God forbid! But

that is precisely what is inferred from the careless application of

such a word to Christ without qualification. The untenableness of

such a hermeneutic will become self-evident when we compare other

Scriptures with Hebrews 4:15. The same word peirazō from

Hebrews 4:15 is used to refer to the children of Israel tempting God.

Paul Thomas

151

Hebrews 3:8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in

the day of temptation in the wilderness:

Hebrews 3:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and

saw my works forty years.

Now, I assume no one will be willing to contend that Jehovah felt

the “pull” or “tug” to sin in the wilderness of Sinai. Jehovah had no

flesh or blood to speak of at that time. Even Trinitarians must

concede that their pre-existent God the Son did not yet assume any

human nature in the Old Testament, this being before the Word was

made flesh (John 1:14) or what they prefer to call the “incarnation”.

To set the record straight, One God theologians do not favour this

term because it has been historically employed to refer to the

Trinitarian process of God the Son assuming human flesh and nature

through Mary, which is unbiblical. You will recall that the children

of Israel were complaining and murmuring all the while, and,

scandalously, wished to build an idol and return to Egypt. This is

how they tempted God. Again, no Christian would want to entertain

the idea that Jehovah was tempted to yield to such demands.

Consistency, then, demands that we apply the same hermeneutics to

Hebrews 4:15. So what does being tempted really entail and how

was Christ tempted? As all good theologians are in the habit of

doing, it is prudent to differentiate between two sources of

temptation – external and internal. External temptations to entice

into sin have their source in the Devil. Significantly, the same word

used for tempted with regards to Jesus in Hebrew 4:15 is applied to

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

152

Satan in Matthew 4:3. Satan himself is called peirazō which is

translted tempter in Matt 4:3.

Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If

thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made

bread.

The word itself and the source of the word are collapsed together.

Temptation comes from Satan and Satan is temptation personified.

This can be easily seen in the pages of the Holy Scriptures; Satan is

never mentioned or features without temptation being present in

some form or the other. The Garden of Eden, the narrative of Job

and the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 are a few examples. The

main point in all this is not that Satan tempts – a fact which seems to

be intrinsic to his corrupt nature – but that this temptation is an

external source which says nothing about whether Jesus had a human

nature like ours or not. No one can stop Satan from tempting anyone

– including God. What is at the heart of our discussion is that Satan‟s

attempts at tempting Jesus ended in abject failure. His temptations

simply bounced off Jesus harmlessly.

Take a closer look at Matthew 4 and you cannot fail to perceive that

the apparent showdown between Jesus and Satan was actually a one-

sided contest, a walkover. Jesus never hesitated to respond

immediately and firmly to every perverse utterance of Satan. Satan

received a proper verbal lashing, and like a defeated dog with his tail

between his crooked legs, he beat a hasty retreat. Why couldn‟t the

Paul Thomas

153

words of Satan have any impact on Jesus? Simply because Jesus is

God in every sense of the word and God cannot be tempted.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted

of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth

he any man:

Remember that tempted is once again from the Greek peirazō. Crisp

(2007) has this to say about the temptations of Jesus and James 1:13.

Another traditional way of distinguishing different sorts of

temptations differentiates between external and internal

temptations, on the basis of James 1: 12–15. This passage

explains that those who are tempted are not tempted by God.

They are enticed by their own desires. Christ cannot tempt

himself because he is divine, and God tempts no one –

presumably, not even himself. Nor can he be tempted by his own

desires for the same reason. Only things external to him can

provide avenues of temptation (e.g. the Devil) (Crisp 2007,

178).

In contrast, James shows that humans have their source of

temptation from within their own sinful natures. This brings us to the

second source of temptation – the internal. In fact, one aspect that

confirms our humanity is the effects of the Fall which is observable

in every human. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of

God” (Romans 3:23). It is this shortcoming which was alien to

Christ. As the perfect and sinless man from heaven (I Corinthians

15:47), He was a genuine stranger to the nature and effects of sin

with its internal temptations.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

154

For purposes of illustration we can visualize the fallen nature and its

internal temptations in the following manner: let us say there is a

pathway with minus marked on the left side and plus on the right.

This pathway represents the journey of life which a human child will

undertake. The viewers will see that as the child grows, he will

mysteriously lean towards the minus marked on the left side of the

pathway while covering ground steadily. It is as if there is an

invisible magnetic force pulling him helplessly in that direction.

Another example, cited by some theologians, to elucidate the

internal source of human temptations is the temptation to eat

chocolate. Let us say that Jane loves chocolates although she knows

that the high-calories can pose a health risk to her already

compromised health. Now she succumbs to the temptation to eat

more chocolates but she can hardly blame this on the Devil. Crisp

(2007, 171) comments: “I need no external tempter to be tempted to

eat the whole bar of chocolate. This is what theologians mean when

they speak of „Jane being tempted by her own sinful nature.‟” One

objection to this analogy, however, is that submitting to the

temptation of eating a few chocolates may not be considered “sinful”

in the theological sense of the word (unless one is talking about the

sin of gluttony (Romans 16:18)).

The above examples, though, highlight, albeit feebly, some of the

internal sources of temptation common to the human condition. The

Paul Thomas

155

issue of internal temptation was put into sharp relief by Jesus

Himself:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever

entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into

the draught?

Matthew 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,

murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies:

Matthew 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to

eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

In other words, as long as whatever the Devil throws at us is not

allowed to internalize and become merge with our desires and

convictions, we have not succumbed to temptation. We can, once

again, in no way infer “the ability to sin” from the fact that the Devil

unleashed a barrage of temptations against the Lord. Again, it is only

when one entertains the predetermined idea that Christ was a human

being like us that we encounter a host of problems.

In fact, this is one reason we deny that Jesus assumed a complete

human nature as the architects behind Chalcedon decreed. The word

human is not a biblical term. According to the The Online Etymology

Dictionary (a study of the history of words), one of the sources of

the word human is:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

156

probably related to homo (gen. hominis) "man," and to humus

"earth,"

Needless to say, Jesus is not a humus-man. Nowhere does the Bible

give us the liberty to make such a proclamation. He is the heavenly

man with a body prepared not of the material of this cursed,

decaying and transient world. It is God the Father (a biblical term)

who begat and prepared this body of His own Word Seed.

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he

saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast

thou prepared me:

1Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of

incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for

ever.

Online Etymology Dictionary.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=human Retrieved 28.09.11.

Paul Thomas

157

CHAPTER EIGHT

The Monothelite Controversy

This chapter concerns itself with the issue of how many wills existed

in the Lord Jesus Christ. In the 4

century AD the issue of the

Trinity took centre stage followed by the issue of how many natures

existed in Christ in the 5

century AD. By the 7

century AD a new

controversy had gripped the church threatening to undermine the

unity of the empire. Initially, some argued that since only one divine

nature dominated in Christ, He exercised one will at all times during

His ministry. This was soon to be challenged. Monothelitism is the

term used to refer to the belief that Christ had only one will whereas

dyothelitism, which was sanctioned as the “orthodox” position,

denotes the belief that Christ had two wills in Him.

Many denominational Christians wrongly assume that many of their

core doctrinal beliefs are firmly grounded in the New Testament.

They are blissfully unaware of the surreptitious role played by

power-hungry Popes, Bishops and prelates of every stripe. Far from

honouring the high office they had been called to, their furtive

engagements finds parallels in the cloak and dagger world of secret

services like the KGB. Prelates manipulated behind the scenes to

wed religious and political power. After the Council of

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

158

Constantinople (381), for example, the Emperor Theodosius I, under

whose auspices the doctrine of the Trinity became official state

religion, threatened to confiscate the property of Bishops who

refused to submit to his newly endorsed state religion. Paradoxically,

the church, which suffered much persecution under Roman emperors

like Diocletian and Decius, itself became the new oppressor. It has

often been said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts

absolutely (Henry Kissinger famously described power as the

ultimate aphrodisiac). This axiom has reared its ugly head in the

annals of church history again and again. This chapter brings to the

surface many unsavoury acts and events which today‟s church may

be tempted to conceal, but must confront head on. The Lord was

reticent about yoking ecclesiastical authority with political power. It

was failure to adhere to this principle which makes for the

unpleasant reading in this chapter.

Matthew 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he

unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are

Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

This chapter proceeds under the conviction that there was and is only

one will in Christ. Although the monothelites are right in arguing for

one will in Christ, it will be shown that their Trinitarian premise is

unbiblical. Above all, this chapter will seek to demonstrate that the

so-called “orthodox” two will stance (dyothelitism) is an error which

can trace its roots back to Chalcedon (451 AD).

Paul Thomas

159

Monenergism: compromising Chalcedon

Contrary to what many modern-day Christians may think, there was

a fall-out from the Council of Chalcedon, especially among the

Christians of the East (Armenia, Egypt, Syria, Ethiopia and others)

who refused to recognize its canons. These Christians believed that

there was only one dominant divine nature in Jesus and only one

corresponding divine will. By the beginning of the 7

century the

Byzantine empire was now buffeted by the shah of Persia who

conquered some its territory. The astute shah exploited the prevailing

animosity and granted recognition to any Christian who rejected

allegiance to Chalcedon and by extension the Byzantine empire. The

Emperor of Byzantine, Heraclius (610-641), could ill afford to turn a

blind eye. Not only were the Persians a constant source of threat but

the rise of Islam with its highly motivated army was a mortal threat

to Constantinople. Heraclius decided that the stability of his empire

superseded the debate over the number of wills in Jesus.

The religious authorities in Byzantium were alarmed, and

quickly put together a christological compromise, that accepted

with Chalcedon that there were two natures in one person in

Christ, but insisted that the one person was manifest in a ‗single

divine-human (‗theandric‘) activity (or ‗energy‘: in Greek

energeia)‘. With this new religious settlement, Herakleios was

able to reconcile the divided Christians in Armenia and Syria

after his triumph over the Persians. 633 saw a tremendous

ecumenical advance with the reconciliation of the Christians of

Egypt negotiated on the basis of monenergism (as this doctrine

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

160

is called) by the new Patriarch of Alexandria and Augustal

Prefect of Egypt, Kyros (Louth 1998, 103).

So now, rather than defending the “orthodox” dual natures doctrine

of Chalcedon, the authorities at Constantinople hastily concocted a

new “middle path” acceptable to all parties all in the hope of

averting disunity and fragmentation. The new doctrinal kid on the

block this time was called monenergism – one energy or activity in

Christ.

Not only are we left to wonder about the precise dynamics behind

the “divine-human activity (monenergism)” in Christ, but the fact

that religious authorities were willing to compromise when it was in

their best interest to do so should be cause for great concern. These

doctrines were amendable, modifiable and even discardable. In light

of this unsavoury fact how may we ask can the contemporary church

invest so much authority and confidence in the pronouncements

made by such shady characters also known as “church fathers?”

Obviously, the hardliners in the west, particularly Rome, who were

unhappy with the compromise struck to reach out to the obdurate

monophysites of the east, began to rock the boat. The curtain was

about to go up on another squalid episode which has marred the

reputation of the so-called church in this turbulent era. An emperor,

two popes and a monk would do their dirty laundry in public.

Paul Thomas

161

The first Lateran Council AD 649

In AD 649 an ambitious monk named Maximus the Confessor (an

almost martyr for the Christian faith) along with the pope of the day,

Theodore I, agreed to convene a council to condemn what they

perceived as the heresy of monothelitism which was now

perpetuated under the disguise of monenergism. You will recall that

the popes of Rome have always considered themselves the

custodians of the legacy of the ecumenical councils such as Nicea,

Chalcedon and Constantinople. They were of the opinion that the

eastern churches, who denied that Christ‟s dual natures necessitated

two wills, were guilty of breaching the doctrinal integrity of the

Chalcedonian creed.

Intriguingly, they did not take the trouble of corresponding with the

emperor who traditionally was given the honour of convening

ecumenical councils. As will be seen, this deliberate oversight came

back to haunt them later. Some historians perceive this as a

watershed moment where the church of Rome felt strong enough to

flex its muscles co-opting a unique authority for itself. Emperor

Constans II had actually issued a Typos in 648 n which he banned

any discussion of matters pertaining to whether Christ had one will

and one energy, or two energies and two wills. In the eyes of the

emperor, not only were the pope and Maximus in breach of his

Typos, but had crossed a line by convening a council without his

approval.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

162

Just prior to the council, Pope Theodore I died. His successor, Pope

Martin I was eager to proceed with the council which was called the

first Lateran Council (AD 649). With 105 Bishops attending, 20

canons were passed based mainly on Maximus‟ exposition of two

wills in Christ. However, within four years, Emperor Constans II

summoned Maximus and Pope Martin I to Constantinople where

they were tried. Pope Martin was tortured to such a degree that he

later died from this treatment in the Crimea where he had been

exiled. Maximus‟ tongue and right hand were chopped off for failing

to recant (Louth 1998, 100).

This was a dramatic reversal of fortunes for the proponents of

Chalcedon at this stage. The groundswell of support encapsulated in

the chants of “Peter speaks through Pope Leo” in Chalcedon now

gave way to a new milieu antithetical to that era and culminating in

the death of a pope. Whereas one pope became an instant hero at

Chalcedon, another became a villain at Constantinople. One wonders

why there was this obsession with conformity and regulation. It has

often been observed that when the church yokes itself with the state

for ulterior purposes, it is always the church which is undermined

and gradually suffers at the hands of the secular powers.

Paul Thomas

163

Triumph of dyothelitism

In 680/681, the grandson of Constans II, Constantine IV, ascended

the throne. He successfully subdued the Islamic threat against his

empire but soon turned his attention to the growing discontent with

monothelitism which flared up again destabilizing the Byzantine

empire. In response to the emperor‟s suggestion, candidates

assembled in Constantinople from every quarter of the empire

marking this as the third council of Constantinople and the sixth

ecumenical council.

Emperor Constantine IV participated and presided over the first

eleven sessions himself. Those present concurred in their view that

“Peter spoke through Pope Agatho”. It was once again decreed that

there were two wills and two energies in Christ. The doctrine of

monothelitism (one will) and one energy (monenergism) were

declared anathema. Once again the western church celebrated while

the eastern church felt snubbed.

In summary, what we witness with reference to the historical debate

about the number of wills in Jesus is another high-stakes drama with

the usual ingredients such as scheming clergy, east vs. west divide,

vengeful emperors, popes with inflated egos, physical torture and

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

164

anathemas. How contemporary Christians can look to these dubious

characters for doctrinal or any other guidelines beggars belief.

What says the Word?

We need to hear what the Scriptures have to say about this

cacophony of noises. Was there only one will in Christ or two? Why

did the church under the auspices of Constans II (648) declare one

will and one energy in Christ initially? Significantly, the two main

views concerning the number of wills in Christ were propounded by

Maximus the Confessor (dyothelite) and his opponents, the

monothelites. Maximus contended, rather curiously, that both the

wills in Christ were inherent in His humanity. He felt that Christ‟s

two wills in the Garden of Gethsemane, where He seemed to

experience some consternation, cannot be ascribed to Christ‟s divine

will as that would suggest a God who was afraid.

...if both petitions must be ascribed to the same will, and if they

cannot be applied to the divine will without suggesting that God

was afraid of death, then the only other option is to ascribe both

petitions to Christ‘s human will – which is precisely Maximus‘

position (McFarland 2005, 425).

What is one to make of such an opinion? It appears that Maximus‟

position of two humans wills in Christ is heretical even by the

standards of Chalcedon which posits one will for the divine nature

and one for the human – which is precisely what the monothelites

Paul Thomas

165

stated, albeit without separating the two wills. As discussed in the

last chapter, Christ‟s “I” was an intercessory “I” intentionally uttered

in the role of the second Adam from heaven. It would be an error of

biblical proportions to assume that Christ was afraid on account of

the natural weakness of His so-called human nature. Nothing of what

He did was for Himself or meaningless. Every word, every action,

every sigh, every struggle and every moment He was actively

engaging in the task of reconciling mankind back to Himself through

His struggles.

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling

the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;

and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

What has been a source of some confusion for Christians has been

Jesus‟ statement, “...not my will, but thine, be done...(Luke 22:42).

From this the school of dyothelitism, which takes pride in calling

itself “orthodox”, adduced that Christ had two wills. Not only is the

appellation “orthodox” hubris but the very premise of their reasoning

is flawed. It is common to hear some individuals say something

similar while praying without this connoting a human will with

another accompanying will belonging to a different nature. This

would be absurd. Some humans can juggle two antithetical views

simultaneously in their minds without suffering from schizophrenia.

In other words, this is done all the time and yet no one would dare to

suggest that such individuals actually possess two natures within

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

166

their one personality. We might call them double-minded persons – a

condition James criticises, yet their integrity as normal unitary

beings is unquestioned.

James 1:8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

As I argued previously, we were included in the “I” of Adam when

he first lusted after godhood and reached out for the fruit. I do not

believe Adam‟s will to sin came about as a bolt out of the blue, but

faced some resistance from his God-anointed conscience. Sin,

especially in that age of innocence, was a new and very hazardous

endeavour and must have gone through some filtering process:

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted

of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth

he any man:

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away

of his own lust, and enticed.

James 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth

sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

It was this process of succumbing to sin which Jesus was reversing

in the Garden of Gethsemane, and all His life on this earth. The great

sweat drops pouring from the Lord‟s face bore witness to the

colossal collective rebellion of the will of humanity against the

Father. He adopted our “I” and engaged in the battle which we were

not able to wage against sin and the Devil. Thus the wills that Jesus

refers to are those of God and humanity. It was in the flesh of Christ

that the Father inexorably subdued our rebellious will.

Paul Thomas

167

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between

God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Once again the very premise for this whole discussion is suspect.

Are we to surmise each time someone says, “Not my will, but

thine..” that there exists two natures in such a person? What about

the apostle Paul who appeared to struggle between two desires or

wills? Are we to conclude that he has two natures?

Philippians 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a

desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:

Philippians 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more

needful for you.

The key word to keep in mind when discussing the issue of how

many wills in Christ is the role that He plays. A lawyer in a court of

law identifies to such a degree with his client that the lawyer often

mentions his client in a collective “we”. When Paul states, for

instance, that the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with

groanings which cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26), this actually

means that the Spirit prays for us as if the Spirit itself is the one in

need of prayers, without this being the case at all. The Spirit is not

groaning for itself, but for us. Similarly, the Lord Jesus was not

praying or agonizing for Himself, but for us. To fail to understand

this is to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah. We can be guilty of

misconstruing the Lord‟s prayers on our behalf.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

168

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our

sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and

afflicted.

A dehellenization of Christianity

There is a fundamental flaw that runs like a deep crack through the

edifice of modern Christianity (i.e. the type embedded in the 7

ecumenical councils). It is the cavalier way in which adherents of

Chalcedon (then and now) forget that it was a parochial Hellenistic

invention of philosophical words such as physis, hypostasis and

homoousia which were recruited from pagans and given “exclusive

interpretive rights” over all theological issues. For example, how did

the church allow a theologically illiterate, semi-pagan emperor like

Constantine to inject a Hellenistic concept such as homoousios in the

creed of Nicea?

Gamberini (2011) critiques the taken-for-granted normative

perception of concepts such as nature, person, and homoousia. He

draws attention to the Hellenistic strain of philosophy which

underpins these words – a philosophical tradition which is not shared

with Asian Christology, for example. Not satisfied with the

Eurocentric focus of western Christology, Gamberini (2011), who

shares in Rahner‟s criticism of the modern concept of person,

revisits and reformulates the term “person” using the Hindu

Paul Thomas

169

Advaita Vedanta, which has inspired many theologians in their

reconstruction of christology and trinitarian theology (among

them Aloysius Pieris and Raimon Panikkar) (Gamberini 2011,

263).

It was this insight which led theologians like Adolf Harnack to

suggest a “„dehellenization‟ of Christianity and so drop, for example,

the traditional concepts of ousia and hypostasis with the theological

insights that are embodied in these categories”

Can a theology embedded in an Aristotelian-Thomistic discourse

claim universality or validity given that the categories of physis,

ousia and homoousia find no resonance in other cultures? We are in

danger of inventing a stifling dichotomy which is not even based on

the Bible. The dilemma is captured in the question below.

The theologian Raimon Panikkar has formulated the real issue

in this way: ‗Does one need to be spiritually semitic and

intellectually western in order to be a Christian?

If the answer is no, then perhaps we need to pay attention to

Harnack. In my humble opinion, it is not just a matter of revisiting

and reformulating the Hellenistic terms and concepts that form the

bulwark of modern Christianity. What is needed is a complete

overhaul of the Aristotelian-Thomistic trajectory and an

unconditional return to the Word of God. Tertullian may have said,

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

170

“What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?” but he and

countless others down the centuries have paid homage to Athens.

Hosea 6:1 Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath

torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us

up.

Paul Thomas

171

CHAPTER NINE

Conclusion

Long before this present earth, animals, sea creatures and humans

were formed, God had predetermined that a new man, born in His

own image, would reside in heaven with Him forever. This new man

would not be earthbound – for dust must return to dust – but of a

heavenly nature and thus heaven-bound.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before

the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without

blame before him in love:

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of

children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good

pleasure of his will,

This new man would not just appear out of thin air ex nihilo. God

was the progenitor of this new race of man; God conceived of this

idea from eternity and He manifested Himself in this new flesh in a

truly unprecedented act. God knew long before the onset of

depravity in the days of Noah that humankind was a doomed species.

Flesh and blood indeed cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven;

neither does corruption inherit incorruption (I Corinthians 15:50).

The good news is that God does not wait for tragedy to strike but is

always many steps ahead. Noah prepared an ark to save his family

from the fury of the waters; God also prepared a new body of His

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

172

own incorruptible Word Seed (I Peter 1:23) to save the human race

from certain annihilation.

Hebrews 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath

consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

In other words, Christ‟s flesh is the new and living way – the ark

through which we are transported from this world to the next. It is

for this reason that we eat the Lord‟s flesh and blood represented by

the bread and wine during what is called the Passover. Jesus‟ flesh

and blood is the bridge that makes the crossing possible. Had the

Lord assumed human flesh and blood from Mary, the law would

have forbidden the eating and drinking of his human blood.

Thankfully, the testimony of the Bible makes it clear that Christ‟s

flesh was of heavenly origin.

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am

from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is

of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh

from heaven is above all.

Where was God when the Word was made flesh (John 1:14)? God

never left the flesh but manifested Himself through the flesh which

now became His permanent abode or tabernacle. It was through the

flesh that He fellowshipped with us, taught us, loved us, warned us

and redeemed us. The Father is now so fused and enmeshed with His

Paul Thomas

173

flesh that it would be pointless to speak about the Father, Son or

Holy Spirit alone, just as it would be absurd to address your spirit,

soul or flesh alone. We make sense of individuals not by subjecting

their tripartite constitution to a rigorous dissection, but by a holistic

approach in which a human is perceived as an integrated “I” never

mind the postmodern objections of Jacques Derrida who questions

the subjectivity of the “I” and calls for the death of the subject in his

deconstruction process.

Anyone reading the Bible without the influence of Chalcedon-

inspired theologians can plainly see that Christ is a heavenly man

who speaks as one integrated person and having one will. As has

been argued, He could not sin precisely because He is a heavenly

being whose very constitution makes Him incapable of entertaining

any sin.

John 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the

truth, why do ye not believe me?

The failure of theologians to give us a convincing answer for the

virgin birth serves to confirm the thesis of this book that God all

along meticulously circumvented the sin-tainted human gene pool as

pointed out by the late Dr Henry Morris. Neither have they given us

any convincing response to why Jesus twice called Mary “woman”.

By failing to accept Jesus as a heavenly man (the Word made flesh),

the so-called church fathers made theological shipwreck. They

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

174

invested greater confidence in the Hellenistic philosophy of the age,

especially Neo-Platonism, and uncritically transplanted Greek words

into the theological debates of the day. Rather than accept Christ‟s

compelling claims to be the second man from heaven, clerics

manipulated and anathematized each other with the aim of

“humanizing” Jesus. Thankfully, we live in an age and era where the

power of the clergy no longer strikes fear in anyone in this part of

the world; no emperor “approved” councils can be summoned

hastily to denounce the contents of this book and its writer as a

heretic (with possible exile to some remote island). The sun has long

set on the “Holy Office” with its Inquisitors militantly crusading in

the name of the Lord.

My concern, at the end of this book, is twofold. Firstly, I, like

anyone who loves the Lord Jesus and worships Him in Spirit and

truth, desire to strive for the truth which was once delivered to the

saints (Jude 1:3). Even those who do not concur with the Christology

outlined in this book will agree with me that the laissez-faire

Christianity in which “anything goes” is a blight on the truth. I am

reminded of the German churches during the Nazi holocaust whose

nonchalance was a blot on their integrity (except for a few brave

dissenting voices like that of Dietrich Bonheoffer, Paul Tillich and

Karl Barth) (Stott 2006). We must by all means continue to strive for

the truth as we understand it. As Martin Luther so forcefully said

before The Diet of Worms in 1521:

Paul Thomas

175

I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against

conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no

other, so help me God. Amen (Martin Luther).

However, I am equally concerned with the clamorous manner in

which Christians, particularly those who are convinced that they

have the licence to call themselves “orthodox”, engage in

Christological debates. Books have been torn in churches and burnt

in a bonfire style conflagration to ostensibly express disdain for

“false” doctrine. It is incumbent upon us to identify and upend such

spaces of belligerent contact which serve as incubators for a

subversive mythification of the “Other”. Whatever happened to:

1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be

ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a

reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

176

Sermon on manna

MANNA?

Exodus 16:15 And when the children of Israel saw it, they

said one to another, It is manna: for they wist not what it

was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the

LORD hath given you to eat.

One can sympathize with the bewildered Israelites who puzzled over

the bread from heaven. For the first time in the history of man, food,

which normally is associated with the produce of the land, suddenly

rains down from heaven upon them. One source reckons that God

rained down enough manna to feed 2 million people in the

Wilderness of Sinai.

Never before had such huge numbers of

people been fed under the open sky with no kitchens, cooks or

utensils present. What is obviously a logistical nightmare for man is

not hard for Him who is called Jehovah-Jireh. They had never seen

or tasted anything like this before. After much deliberation over this

mysterious new item which was to form a regular part of their diet

for the next 40 years, they decided upon the not very subtle manna

which is Hebrew for “what is it?”

Kantor, Mattis. The Jewish Time Line Encylopedia. Jason Aronson Inc.,, 1989,

1992.

Paul Thomas

177

It is significant that Moses declared, “This is the bread which the

Lord hath given you to eat”. Whereas the children of Israel had

resigned themselves to ignorance, we detect a different tone in the

statement of Moses – he did not wish them to remain ignorant of the

origin of the bread. We can delineate two important points from the

declaration of Moses: firstly, that this was bread from heaven and,

secondly, God is the Provider of this bread. God is not glorified if

we remain ignorant of these two vital facts. To please God we need

to walk with Him in reverence, but knowledge also. However,

despite this, the name manna (Hebrew man) somehow won the day

and stuck.

Why was it important for Moses to reveal the source of the bread?

Simply because it pointed to the coming of Jesus Christ, and failure

to understand the Old Testament type inevitably has an impact on

one‟s appreciation of the identity of the Lord. There are several

parallels but let me begin with the circumstances that heralded the

coming of the manna. After that, I will compare this with the birth of

our Lord.

Exodus 16:14 And when the dew that lay was gone up,

behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small

round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

178

It is highly significant that the bread had its source in the dew which

is described in terms of descending and ascending in a conscious

manner with purposive action. No doubt the dew symbolizes the

Spirit of Jehovah. Psalm 133:3, for example, compares the anointing

oil running down the skirts of Aaron to the dew of Hermon and Zion.

Dew has often been employed as a symbol for the Holy Spirit. In a

similar vein, we are told by the physician Luke that the Holy Spirit

would overshadow the womb of Mary and beget that holy thing

which shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The

Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the

Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing

which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

The bread had its origin in the Spirit of God. So, too, did the body of

our Lord Jesus Christ. It was apt therefore that the apostle John

dedicated the entire 6

chapter of his Gospel to a debate between the

Jews and the Lord revolving around this subject. There is an

undeniable parallel between the manna episode and John 6 in the

New Testament. In John 6 the same conversation seems to unfold

with bread as the subject matter. The Jews pointed to the miracle of

the manna in the desert and challenged Jesus to perform a similar

miracle if they were to take His claims seriously. Jesus‟ answer

puzzled the Israelites once again.

Paul Thomas

179

John 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said,

I am the bread which came down from heaven.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from

heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever:

and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for

the life of the world.

Jesus points to the heavenly origin of the manna and claims the same

for Himself. Lest someone be tempted to spiritualize the whole issue

and thus diminish the heavenly origin of Jesus‟ flesh, Jesus Himself

states, the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the

life of the world (John 6:51). The impact of His words was clearly

understood by the Jews, but, sadly, rejected. Let no one be in any

doubt that Jesus was claiming a heavenly origin for His flesh. After

all, the manna, which He compares His flesh with was a real event in

history, and so too is the Word made flesh (John 1:14). What was a

colossal stumbling block for His audience was the fact that they

believed Jesus to be the son of Mary and Joseph. In other words,

they clearly perceived the Lord to be claiming another lineage – one

that stemmed directly from God Himself, something they were not

prepared to accept. The issue of the parentage of Jesus was a

lightning rod issue which culminated in the refusal of some of His

disciples to follow Him anymore.

John 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph,

whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he

saith, I came down from heaven?

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

180

John 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back,

and walked no more with him.

Sadly, many walk with Jesus today still asking the question posed by

the children of Israel, “Manna?” They hold up a magnifying glass to

Jesus and conclude strange things about Him. Some say that He is

the second member of the Trinity; others that He had a dual nature

which He assumed from Mary; still others that He was tempted and

could sin and some that He had two wills in Him. What they forget

is that Jesus‟ body is the fulfilment of the unleavened bread

mentioned in the Old Testament. The human gene pool is

contaminated with the leaven of sin which was passed down from

Adam. Only Christ‟s flesh has no leaven of the race of Adam. This is

why Jesus took the bread – on the same day of the unleavened bread

– broke it and declared it to be His own body.

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the

passover must be killed.

Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake

it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is

given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

Those who reject the heavenly flesh doctrine have discounted Jesus‟

own testimony of Himself, namely that He is God manifest in the

flesh and has His source (whole being) in the Father. His flesh is a

heavenly flesh which is why we can eat His flesh and drink His

blood in the Lord‟s Supper.

Paul Thomas

181

John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I

am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

John 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend

up where he was before?

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say

unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink

his blood, ye have no life in you.

Those who oppose the heavenly flesh doctrine often state that

heavenly flesh could not empathize or die for us. Just because the

flesh is celestial does not mean that it was not passible (suffer) or

could not empathize with us. Despite its heavenly origins the manna

was still edible. We do not know what ingredients God employed in

preparing the manna in heaven, but that did not stop the Israelites

from consuming it. Whatever the nature of the “celestial flour” that

God used - if any - it seemed to work well with the human digestive

system. After all, heaven is the source of all earthly blessings. We

are expected to understand the machinations of earthly things in

order to grasp heavenly things as the Lord said: “If I

have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye

believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?”(John 3:12).

Again the children of Israel had to all rise up early and gather the

manna from the ground. I assume that kneeling would have been the

most convenient way to gather the small round pieces of heavenly

bread. This must have been quite humbling. The manna represented

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

182

the flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus. Anyone desiring to come to

Jesus must also humble himself and kneel in repentance and

worship. All are equal before the Lord. All must seek their daily

bread from Him every day. “Give us this day our daily bread”.

There is one more parallel I need to highlight. Who would not want

to sample heavenly food? Of the manna, the Bible says, “Man did

eat angels‟ food: he sent them meat to the full” (Psalm 78:25). It

would be fitting to imagine that bread from heaven would look

extraordinarily pleasant to the eyes and palate. However, the

anticlimax is palpable in the reaction of the Israelites. The manna did

not look attractive or taste particularly pleasant. Similarly, there was

nothing especially appealing in the body of our Lord. Isaiah says of

Him:

Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender

plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor

comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty

that we should desire him.

Like the manna, the Lord was unassuming and lowly. Nevertheless,

this should not take away from the heavenly origin of the manna or

the Lord. Some Christians, having read in the New Testament that

Jesus became weary, thirsty, sighed, cried and slept concluded that

His body was not heavenly, but human with flesh assumed from

Mary. Like the Israelites they enjoy the benefits derived from the

Paul Thomas

183

heavenly bread, but seem to have no clue what they are eating. If we

believe that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), and that the

fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9), we

will not need to say “Manna?” again.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

184

Index

Adolf Harnack, 169

Anthropotokos, 88

Antiochene school, 86, 87

Apollinaris, 95, 96, 98, 102, 119, 191

Arians, 102

Asian Christology, 168

Athanasius, 102, 115, 116

Augustine, 43, 108, 115, 116, 191

baptism in the name of Jesus, 49, 51

Bart D. Ehrman

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 40, 64

basar, 98

Bernard

David, 29, 54, 63, 90, 191

Bible Writer’s Theology, 96

Branislow Malinowski, 111

brass serpent, 79

Byzantine empire, 159, 163

Chalcedon, i, 14, 15, 22, 43, 60, 74, 84, 86, 88, 91, 95, 97, 99, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110,

111, 113, 114, 116, 117, 120, 143, 144, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 168, 173,

192, 193, 194

Chalcedonian Christology, 32

Chalfant, 16, 17, 96, 98, 192

Charles Hodge, 146

Christ’s body changed, 117

Christotokos, 88

church fathers, 69, 107, 115, 124, 144, 160, 173

circumcision

New Testament baptism, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 67, 72, 73

Paul Thomas

185

communicatio idiomatum, 86

Constans II, 161, 162, 163, 164

Constantinople, 86, 91, 101, 106, 124, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163

consubstantiality, 69

corruption

of human flesh, 30, 39, 47, 48, 51, 52, 75, 81, 94, 171

Cyril, 87, 88, 91, 102, 109

dehellenization of Christianity, 169

Diarmaid MacCulloch, 86

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 8

Docetic, 100

Dr Henry Morris, 73

Dulles, 90, 138

dust

cursed, 8, 10, 11, 22, 31, 38, 41, 47, 69, 70, 73, 78, 143, 171

dyothelitism, 157, 165

Eastern Alexandrian church, 101

egg

of woman, 40, 75

eikōn and homoiōma, 77, 79

Ethiopian eunuch, 53

Eutyches, 101, 102

federal head

Adam and Jesus, 132, 136

figure, 10, 11, 12, 17, 31, 66, 82

filiation

eternal generation of the Son, 102

firstborn, 16, 46, 77

Friedrich Schleiermacher, 110

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

186

Galatians 4:4, 39

Gamberini, 168, 192

genealogies

Matthew and Luke, 32, 33, 36, 37, 44

Gethsemane, 129, 130, 137, 139, 164, 166

glorified

body of Jesus, 26, 27, 28

Gnostic, 100

God is His own seed, 45

Gregory of Nazianzus, 92

Guru veneration, 63

heavenly flesh, 8, 22, 25, 44, 53, 57, 58, 63, 66, 68, 85

Hebrews 4

15, 148

Heraclius, 159

Hick, 7, 14, 105

his own arm

Isaiah, 54

Holy Office, 174

homo, 107, 108, 156

homoousios, 168

human gene pool, 14, 23, 74, 75, 173

human nature, 17, 18, 54, 82, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 97, 101, 108, 111, 113, 117, 122, 138,

146, 151, 152, 155, 165

humanity

criteria, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 29, 30, 37, 46, 60, 68, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 80, 83, 90, 93, 99,

100, 103, 108, 111, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 138, 139, 143,

145, 146, 147, 153, 164, 166, 192

“humanizing” Jesus, 60, 84, 174

humanus, 107, 108

hypostasis, 88, 91, 94, 168, 169

hypostatic union, 87, 91, 144

Paul Thomas

187

impeccable, 144, 145

incarnation, 7, 15, 42, 78, 86, 96, 101, 122, 151, 191

Irenaeus of Lyon, 131, 132, 139

Jacques Derrida, 173

Jason Dulle, 90

Jason Dulles, 90

Jechoniah

coniah, 36

Jeremiah 31:22, 42

John 8:23, 69

John Cassian, 106

John Hick. See John Hick

Hick. John Hick

Joseph, 18, 34, 35, 36, 37, 59, 60, 74, 130, 137, 147

kin altruism, 84, 85

kinsman redeemer, 68, 70, 80, 84, kinsman redeemer

Lamb of God, 22, 23, 74, 129, 140

likeness of humanity, 79

Logos, 88, 95, 96

Louis Berkhof, 82

made of the seed, 64, 65, 74

Mana, 25

Martin Luther, 174, 175

Mary. Mary, See

Matthew Henry, 36, 42, 43, 193

Maximus, 161, 162, 164, 194

miaphysitism, 87, 101, 102

monenergism, 159, 160, 161, 163

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

188

monogenēs

John 3

16, 55

monophysitism, 87, 102

Monothelitism, 157

Neo-Platonism, 174

Nestorianism, 89, 90, 91, 138

Nestorius, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 94, 95, 101, 102, 107

new thing, 42, 43, 76

Not my will, 131, 137, 167

Oneness, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 26, 28, 30, 53, 55, 57, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97, 109, 122, 131, 138

Origen, 65, 102, 103

out of thy bowels

son of David, 59

paraklētos, 128

parthogenesis, 99

Passover, 22, 172

peirazō

temptation, 150, 152, 153

Personhood, 94

Peter, 52, 58, 62, 84, 94, 109, 141, 162, 163, 172, 194

Peter Sarpong, 62

physis, 94, 168, 169

Pope Agatho, 163

Pope Leo I, 104, 106, 116, 118

Pope Martin I, 162

prayers of Jesus, 122, 129

pre-existent Son, 96, 101, 102, 109, 125

prosopon, 87

Paul Thomas

189

Recapitulation theory, 132, 137, 139

Richard Swinburne, 99, 112

right “dose” of empathy

false argument for a human Jesus, 56

Romans 1:3

of the seed of David, 64

sarx, 79, 98

sarx hamartias

sinful flesh, 79

Seagraves, 64

seed of Abraham, 7, 32, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50, 67, seed of Cosam, 44

seed of the woman, 7, 32, 37, 40, 42, 75,

shah of Persia, 159

sinlessness, 15, 144, 145, 147, 148

Son of God

heavenly origin, 7, 19, 38, 39, 41, 53, 76, 84, 95, 152

Son of man, 30, 68, 80, 81, 82, 84

Son of Mary

human Jesus, 7, 39

soteriology, 42

Spiros Zodhiates, 79

strict monotheism, 97

temptations, 12, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155

Tertullian, 169

The Daily Scan, 75, 195

Theotokos

Mother of God, 88, 103, 107

Tome

Leo's, 106, 108, 110, 111, 116

Trinity, 14, 15, 91, 122, 123, 124, 140, 144, 157, 158, 191

Typos 648, 161

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

190

unique Seed, 74, 75

UPCI, 30, 90, 96, 97, 195

Vonelle R. Kelly

Another Jesus, 62

Whom did Jesus pray to, 89

Y-chromosome, 41

Paul Thomas

191

Works cited

Augustine. The Trinity. Translated by Edmund Hill. XIII.23 vols.

New City : New City Press, 1991.

Bailenson, J, S Iyengar, and N Yee. Facial Similarity as a Voting

Heuristic: Some Experimental Evidence.

http://remiss.politics.ox.ac.uk/materials/iyengar_facial_similarity_no

v06.pdf (accessed September 16, 2011).

Barclift, Philip L. “The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great's

Christological Vocabulary.” Church History: Studies in Christianity

and Culture (Cambridge Journals Online), July 1997: 221-239.

Barclift, Philip L. “The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great's

Christological Vocabulary.” Church History: Studies in Christianity

and Culture (Cambridge Journals Online), July 2009: 221-239.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. 1/2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1957, 1969.

Bates, W. H. “The Background of Apollinaris's Eucharistic

teaching.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (Cambridge

University Press) 12 (1961): 139-154.

Bayne, Tim. “The inclusion model of the incarnation: problems and

prospects.” Religious Studies (Cambridge University Press) 37

(2001): 125-141.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

192

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. First published 1958.

Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003.

Bernard, David K. “The True Humanity of Jesus Christ.” Foreword

Magazine Summer. 2001.

http://www.oocities.org/robert_upci/true_humanity_of_jesus_by_ber

nard.htm (accessed August 20, 2011).

Bockmuehl, Klaus. The Challenge of Marxism: A Christian

Response. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1980.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Edited by

Eberhard Bethge. New York, 1971.

Chalfant, William. “The Humanity of Christ.”

http://www.oocities.org/robert_upci/humanity_of_christ_by_chalfant

.htm (accessed August 17, 2011).

Crisp, Oliver D. “Did Christ have a Fallen Human Nature?”

International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2004: 270-288.

Crisp, Oliver D. “Was Christ Sinless or Impeccable?” Irish

Theological Quaterly 72 (2007): 168-186.

Ehrman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New Ed

edition. OUP USA, 1996.

Erhman, Bart D. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1993.

Erickson, Millard. “The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary

Incarnational Christology.” (Baker) 1991: 562, 563.

Gamberini, SJ Paolo. “The Concept of 'Person' : A Dialogue with

Contemporary Asian Theology.” Irish Theological Quarterly 76

(2011): 259-277.

Paul Thomas

193

George W. Stroup, III. “Christian Doctrine : I Chalcedon Revisited.”

Theology Today, 1976: 52-64.

Gezahagne, T. Bible Writer's Theology. Hazelwood, Missouri:

Apostolic Experience Publishing, 2007.

Greer, Rowan A. “The use of Scripture in the Nestorian

controversy.” Scottish Journal of Theology 20, no. 04 (February

2009): 413-422.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: an introduction to a biblical

doctrine. Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Hanson, Revd. Canon A.T. “Two Consciousnesses: The Modern

Version of Chalcedon.” Scottish Journal of Theology (Cambridge

Journals Online) 37 (1984): 471-483.

Henry, Matthew. “Matthew Henry Commentary on Jeremiah 22.”

Blue Letter Bible.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?Auth

orID=4&contentID=1417&commInfo=5&topic=Jeremiah&ar=Jer_2

2_30 (accessed August 21, 2011).

Hick, John. Problems of Religious Pluralism. London: Macmillan,

1985.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. London: James Clrake,

1960.

Irenaeus. “Adversus Haereses Book V, XXI, 1.” Christian Classics

Ethereal Library. 13 July 2005.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxii.html (accessed

September 23, 2011).

Kelly, Vonelle R. Another Jesus: The Fallacy of the Doctrine of

Heavenly Flesh. 2004.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

194

Louth, Andrew. “They Speak to Us across the Centuries: St

Maximos the Confessor.” The Expository Times 109 (1998): 100-

103.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. A History of Christianity. London: Penguin

Books, 2009.

Malinowski, Branislow. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. USA:

Dutton, Inc.,, 1961.

McFarland, Ian A. “Naturally and by grace: Maximus the Confessor

on the operation of the will.” Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd, 2005:

410-433.

Morris, Henry. Institute for Creation Research.

http://www.icr.org/article/creation-virgin-birth/ (accessed September

12, 2011).

PTS. “Classic Christology.” Theology Today, 1951: 300-301.

Riches, Aaron. “Christology and duplex hominis beatitudo: Re-

sketching the Supernatural Again.” International Journal of

Systematic Theology, 2011: 1-26.

Sarpong, Peter. Ghana in Retrospect: some aspects of Ghanaian

culture. Accra: Ghana Publishing Corporation, 1974.

Schmidt-Leukel, Perry. "Chalcedon Defended: A Pluralistic Re-

Reading of theTwo-Natures Doctrine." The Expository Times, 2006:

113-119.

Stevenson, Peter K., and Stephen I Wright. Preaching the

Incarnation. Louisville : Westminister John Knox Press, 2010.

Paul Thomas

195

Strong, James. Blue Letter Bible. 1995.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1

392&t=KJV (accessed August 20, 2011).

Swinburne, Richard. “Could God become man?” Royal Institute of

Philosophy Supplements (Cambridge Journals Online) 25 (1989):

53-70.

The Daily Scan. 15 March 2010.

http://www.genomeweb.com/blog/debating-merits-personal-

genomics (accessed September 12, 2011).

UPCI. “Position Paper on The True Humanity of Jesus Christ.”

2003. http://www.spiritualabuse.org/issues/position/divineflesh.html

(accessed August 20, 2011).

Whitelaw, Thomas. “Could Jesus Err?” The Expository Times, 1897:

411-413.

Wildman, Wesley J. “Basic Christological Distinctions.” Theology

Today 64 (2007): 285-304.

Wilken, Robert L. “Tradition, Exegesis, and the Christological

Controversies.” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture

(American Society of Church History) 34 (1965): 123-145.

Zizoulas, J.D. “Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: A

theological exploration of personhood.” Scottish Journal of Theology

(Cambridge Journals Online) 28 (1975): 401-447.

Zodhiates, Spiros. Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible. Third printing.

Chattanooga: AMG Publisher International, Inc, 1984.

The Second Man: The Lord from Heaven

196