THE FORM

SOUND WORDS

OF

When used by Paul of his own kinsmen the word `flesh' needs no explanation, and we accept it. It must be just

as real when used of Christ. Again, His humanity is asserted, and, in this connection, both His Messiahship and His

office of Kinsman-Redeemer.

In regard to Romans 8:3, it remains for us to consider how unique is this One Who stooped so low. He was truly

of the seed of David, for Mary His mother was a descendant of Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:23-38), but He

was, moreover, more than man, He was the Son of God, and declared so by His resurrection. He was also sinless,

and that not only in act but in nature: `God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh' (Rom. 8:3).

We have already established the fact that the human nature of Christ was real. The `likeness' refers here not to

the question of `reality', but to that of `character'. It was `sinless'; it was flesh, but only in the `likeness' of sinful

flesh Homoioma, `likeness', has a negative relation to hamartia, `sin'.

In Colossians 1:22 and 24 we have two references to the `flesh'. The apostle speaks of himself and his ministry

`Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my

flesh' (Col. 1:24).

He speaks of Christ and His gracious work thus:

`In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in His sight'

(Col. 1:22).

Paul in his flesh could `suffer'; Christ in His flesh could `die'. He Who thus came in the likeness of sinful flesh,

is declared to be the Son of God.

We must now give consideration to this title of `The Son of God'. It occurs in Romans 1:3,4, but was not dealt

with while the references to being `in the flesh' were engaging our attention.

The first title by which the apostle Paul addressed Christ was, as we have seen, the great name `Lord' (Acts 9:6),

but the first title found in his public testimony is `The Son of God':

`And straightway he preached Christ ("Jesus" according to revised texts) in the synagogues, that He is the Son of

God' (Act 9:20).

If we compare this passage with one immediately following - where we read that Paul confounded the Jews at

Damascus proving that `this is (the) very Christ' (Act 9:22) - we shall have an inspired comment on the title `The

Son of God'. The reader will remember that John's testimony is directed to this too (John 20:31), even as was

Peter's earlier confession (Matt. 16:16). The riches of the grace of the gospel are expressed by the apostle in the

words of Romans 8:32, `He that spared not His own Son', where the words `spared not' are the same as those used

of Abraham in the great typical chapter Genesis 22, where in verse 12 they are translated `not withheld'.

The words `Son' and `Father' are mutually coextensive; unless used relatively they have no meaning. No

juggling with words, or beclouding the issue with mysteries, can alter the fact that, however far back into the past

eternity we may push the `begetting' of the Son, the Father must have been in existence before the Son was

begotten, and if so, then it goes without saying, that the Son, as `Son', must derive from `the Father', even as the

Son Himself gladly acknowledged His Father was of necessity `greater'. The problem is not solved by adopting the

unexplainable doctrine known as `The eternal generation of the Son', for such a term cannot be apprehended either

by reason or faith. But the problem does not exist in the Scriptures; it is man-made and consequently can be

ignored. If we will but see that `God' became `The Father' at the same moment that His only begotten Son was

born, we shall see that both the titles of `Father' and `Son', even as we have already seen of the great title `Jehovah',

are relative and for the age. It has been assumed that from all eternity `God' was `The Father'. This is nowhere

stated in Scripture. Indeed, apart from one or two allusive references such as, `like as a Father', or `If I be a Father',

found in the Old Testament, the Fatherhood of God awaited the advent of the Son. In the opening of his Gospel,

John does not say:

`In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with the Father, and the Son was the Father',