The Man Christ Jesus, part 1
By John Hooper
‘What think ye of Christ?’ is the test
To try both your state and your scheme.
You cannot be right in the rest
Unless you think rightly of Him.
John Newton (1725-1807)
What think ye of Christ? What a fundamental question that is! It is the question by which Jesus exposed the difference between a genuine disciple and the Pharisees (Matthew 22:42), and it has remained a crucial question throughout history, revealing the issues that separate Christ and His true followers from those who oppose the gospel. The doctrine of the deity of Christ is the touchstone of orthodoxy for any man who claims allegiance to the Christian faith. H. J. Galley, a Strict Baptist pastor of an earlier generation, once wrote in the Quarterly, “Here is a kind word of advice, especially to our younger readers. All who deny the deity of Christ are wrong on all else, for this is fundamental. Never waste time in considering other religious ideas which are built on any other foundation than a belief that He is very God of very God.” 1
Likewise, it might be said that all who deny the humanity of Christ are “wrong on all else.” What has come to be known as the hypostatic union, that mysterious joining together of divinity and humanity in the one person of our Lord Jesus Christ, is beyond our comprehension, and yet it lies at the centre of the faith “once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). Our Lord’s manhood might not excite the same sense of wonder in our hearts as does His divinity, but Scripture makes clear its absolute necessity to His mediatorial work, for “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). He is not only “true God” but also real, complete and perfect Man, and that should amaze us.
Very quickly, even while the New Testament was being written, Christ’s manhood became subject to attack by the enemies of truth. The apostle John warns his readers, including us today, against any who undermine this doctrine: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God…. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:1-3).
But what exactly does it mean, that Jesus Christ is come “in the flesh”? Or, to be more precise, how did His humanity originate? And why is it important for us to know? These are questions we will try to answer in this and a subsequent article. Here, we will treat the subject from a historical perspective, and next time we hope to consider something of its saving and pastoral significance.
Church history
As we survey the earliest years of New Testament church history it becomes clear that time was needed for the churches to settle their understanding of some very difficult and yet crucial areas of Christian doctrine. Many debates were had and many battles fought over the doctrines of the Trinity and the person and natures of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the purposes of God those struggles were necessary to establish the church in her knowledge and affirmation of the truth, and out of them came the grand confessional statements that we know today as the Nicene (AD 325), Athanasian and Chalcedonian (AD 451) creeds. Those ecumenical creeds, as they are sometimes called, remain foundational statements of the Christian faith and it does us good to read and familiarise ourselves with them. They arm us for the fight.
Some might be tempted to think that those battles were fought over rather esoteric points of theology that have little relevance to the gospel, nor to the faith and day-to-day life of the modern believer, but nothing could be further from the truth. That kind of thinking was one of the characteristics of the liberals in the early twentieth century, whose mantra was that life is more important than dogma, but in its wake liberalism brought only spiritual deadness. Dr Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949), writing in 1906, expressed the need of the hour:
May God by His Spirit maintain among us, and through our instrumentality revive around us, that truly evangelical type of piety which not merely tolerates facts and doctrines, but draws from them its strength and inspiration in life and service, its only comfort and hope in the hour of death.2
Likewise, almost twenty years later, J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was to write,
Christian doctrine, I hold, is not merely connected with the gospel, but it is identical with the gospel, and if I did not preach it at all times, and especially in those places where it subjects me to personal abuse, I should regard myself as guilty of sheer unfaithfulness to Christ.3
What some might regard as obscure points of doctrine have, in fact, a direct bearing on the salvation of every one of us, and one of those is the doctrine of the humanity of our Saviour. If Jesus Christ is not both true God and true man in union, we are not saved. Indeed, we go so far as to say that without it we cannot be saved.
The formulation of the ancient creeds did not mean that doctrinal battles were over. The subsequent 1500 years have been peppered with individuals and groups who questioned or denied some aspect of Biblical doctrine. The existence of the Bible League itself is testimony to ongoing struggles and skirmishes as truth has come under attack repeatedly over the past century and more, and old battlegrounds have had to be fought over again. Despite the church having defined the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ many centuries ago, there continue to be sects, groups and individuals who deny it. Likewise, our Lord’s real humanity was settled during those early centuries but it has remained an area of controversy.
Heavenly flesh?
For the rest of this article we will take ourselves back to the Reformation of the sixteenth century. Anyone with some knowledge of those times will be aware that the Reformers found themselves fighting error on two fronts. On the one hand there was Roman Catholicism, and on the other hand there was Anabaptism, and one of the key issues that set most Anabaptists apart from both the Reformers and Roman Catholicism was that of the humanity of Christ. Specifically, argument raged over the question of how Jesus acquired His humanity. Where did it come from? Traditionally, the answer given was that Jesus derived His flesh from Mary, but a number of Anabaptists rejected this, believing that His body came directly from heaven. It became known as the “heavenly flesh” or “celestial flesh” theory.
It is difficult for us to know for certain who introduced the idea into the Anabaptist movement but Melchior Hofmann (1495-1543), one of the early leaders of Dutch Anabaptism, adopted it and pursued it with a passion. Hofmann was born a German and had once been an ardent Lutheran, taking the Lutheran Reformation across northern Germany and into Scandinavia, but he broke with Luther and later, in about 1530, made contact with Dutch Anabaptists. In 1533 he had this to say about the humanity of Christ:
And if it be established that Christ’s flesh was Mary’s natural flesh and blood, we would all have to wait for another redeemer, for in such a one we could get no righteousness. And it is certain that all who put their trust in Adam’s flesh will never by such faith be able to inherit eternal blessedness. Rather the wrath of God remains on such. For those who seek their sanctification in Adam’s seed as well as their blessing, cleansing, justification, redemption and coming to life, they cast away the true foundation stone, the eternal Word, and thrust the Lamb of God away…. For if he had been the seed of the first Adam he would have had to die for himself as all other men, that is certain. Yes, he would have had to die for his own inherited guilt and be cursed as all other men.4
Hofmann believed that, rather than being derived from Mary, the body of Christ came directly from heaven, and he used colourful illustrations to press home his view. The most well-known is that of Christ passing through Mary “as water through a pipe,”5 thereby avoiding any connection with Adam. This “water through a pipe” language suggests the influence of medieval mysticism and allegory, and it might possibly go back further still. It is remarkably like that of some second century Gnostics who believed that “Christ passed through the body of Mary, as water passes through a funnel.”6
Another metaphor was that of the “heavenly dew.” In medieval times it was believed that pearls were formed by dew falling from heaven and solidifying in an oyster. This spawned the idea in Hofmann’s fertile mind that “The Eternal Word, which was true heavenly dew, in an unsensual and incomprehensible way but through the Holy Spirit, fell from the mouth of God into the wild mussel of the Virgin Mary, and in her became a bodily Word and spiritual pearl.”7
Other Anabaptist examples
The Catholic turned Lutheran preacher Bernard Rothmann (c. 1495-c. 1535), having brought the Reformation to Münster in 1531, was clearly moving in a similar direction when, in 1534, he wrote this in his personal Confession of Faith:
We believe that there is one Christ, not born of Mary’s flesh and blood, but rather … He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born from Mary, the Virgin. Mary did not receive it from her own flesh and blood but she conceived the living Word of God by the Holy Ghost.8
Notice Rothmann’s careful use of prepositions: Christ was born from Mary rather than of Mary. We find similar distinctions in the writings of Menno Simons (1496-1561), often considered to be one of the more moderate and evangelical of the Anabaptists. In 1550 Menno wrote the following in a letter to Martin Micronius (1523-1559), one of the continental Reformers:
Our doctrine and belief is that this same Word, Wisdom, and First-born, as we have confessed, in due time descended from heaven, and that He became a true, mortal man subject to suffering and death by the power of the most High and His Holy Spirit, not of Mary but in Mary, above all human comprehension.9
Note the language: “not of Mary but in Mary.” Prepositions are among the smallest of words but they can be made to carry the weightiest of significance. Later, in the same letter, Menno writes,
We confess and say, and that in accordance with the Lord’s Word, that the Scripture exempts none from sin but Him that is free indeed, namely, Christ Jesus … whereby it is plainly shown that He is not of Mary’s flesh….10
So, if Christ was not of Mary’s flesh, how did Menno think He acquired His humanity? He elaborates in his Brief and Clear Confession:
In the same manner the heavenly Seed, namely, the Word of God, was sown in Mary, and by her faith, being conceived in her by the Holy Ghost, became flesh, and was nurtured in her body; and thus it is called the fruit of her womb, that same as a natural fruit or offspring is called the fruit of its natural mother. For Christ Jesus, as to His origin, is no earthly man, that is a fruit of the flesh and blood of Adam. He is a heavenly fruit or man. For His beginning or origin is of the Father (John 16:28), like unto the first Adam, sin excepted.11
One of the hazards in studying the Anabaptists is that, if we are not careful, we might attribute to all of them the errors of some. Calvin was puzzled as to why there is no mention of the celestial flesh theory in the Swiss Anabaptist Schleitheim Confession drawn up by Michael Sattler (1490-1527), but Sattler and the Swiss Brethren generally did not hold to it. Neither did the prominent Hutterite, Peter Riedemann (1506-1556), who stated categorically, “[Christ] did not bring his human nature with him from heaven but received it from Mary.”12 Also, Pilgram Marpeck (1495-1556), one of the leading Anabaptists in Strassburg and Augsburg, held to the orthodox view. But these were the exceptions among the Anabaptists. In the main, the celestial flesh idea prevailed.
Reformed responses
We might add too that these views were not confined to the mainland of Europe but found their way to the south-eastern counties of England too, as Anabaptists fled the continent. In 1549 a tailor by the name of Michael Tombe was brought before Archbishop Cranmer and declared to him his belief that “Christ toke no flesh of our lady.”13 Another of the same view was Joan Boucher – also known as Joan of Kent – who, because she refused to recant, was burned at the stake in Smithfield on 2nd May 1550.14
It was around this time that Anabaptists were giving my namesake John Hooper (1495-1555), the bishop of Gloucester, “much trouble with their opinions respecting the incarnation of the Lord.”15 In response, he wrote an essay entitled A Lesson of the Incarnation of Christ. Beginning at Genesis 3:15, this essay draws on many passages of Scripture, from both Old and New Testaments, to refute the celestial flesh theory. It then goes on to pre-empt a number of Anabaptist objections, the result being a clear and concise setting forth of Biblical truth on which the hearts and minds of the Lord’s people might be firmly settled.16
What are we to make of all this? Well, it is clear that the Anabaptists were driven by a concern to maintain the sinlessness of Christ, and for that we are able to give them credit. However, in so doing, and despite all their protestations, they rejected a key element of His humanity – His organic unity with the human race. Yes, the Son of God incarnate was separate from sinners, but Scripture insists that He was “made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest…” (Hebrews 2:17). This is the third time in that second chapter of Hebrews that Christ and His people are called brethren. We are all natural brethren, as being born of the stock of Adam (Luke 3:23, 38), and we are spiritual brethren, as by grace we have been born again and adopted into God’s family. To that end “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4).
One of the earliest Reformed confessions, the Belgic Confession, was composed in 1561 in Menno’s home territory of the Netherlands, so perhaps it is not surprising that it is especially full in its treatment of the incarnation. In Article 18 we find this thorough and eloquent affirmation of the true and real humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ:
We confess, therefore, that God did fulfil the promises which He made to the fathers, by the mouth of His holy prophets, when He sent into the world, at the time appointed by Him, His own, only-begotten and eternal Son, who took upon Him the form of a servant, and became like unto man, really assuming the true human nature, with all its infirmities, sin excepted, being conceived in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Ghost, without the means of man; and did not only assume human nature as to the body, but also a true human soul, that He might be a real man. For since the soul was lost as well as the body, it was necessary that He should take both upon Him, to save both.
Therefore we confess (in opposition to the heresy of the Anabaptists, who deny that Christ assumed human flesh from His mother) that Christ is become a partaker of the flesh and blood of the children; that He is a fruit of the loins of David after the flesh; made of the seed of David according to the flesh; a fruit of the womb of the Virgin Mary; made of a woman; a branch of David; a shoot of the root of Jesse; sprung from the tribe of Judah; descended from the Jews according to the flesh; of the seed of Abraham, since He took on Him the seed of Abraham, and became like unto His brethren in all things, sin excepted; so that in truth He is our Immanuel, that is to say, God with us.
More concisely, the Heidelberg Catechism, dating from 1563, states in Answer 35,
God’s eternal Son, who is and continueth true and eternal God, took upon Him the very nature of man, of the flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Ghost; that He might also be the true seed of David, like unto His brethren in all things, sin excepted.
Today the Anabaptist denial that Christ took “flesh and blood” from Mary lives on in some circles in the theory of His divine or incorruptible blood. But, as we shall see next time, that expression “flesh and blood” is used by the Spirit of God in Scripture itself.
“Of her substance”
A particular phrase is used by Reformed theologians to express clearly and succinctly the truth that concerns us here. The Thirty-nine Articles, the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration are united in their use of this phrase to describe what it means that Christ was born of Mary. They tell us that He was born “of her substance.”17 This form of expression was not new to those days but had been known since the time of the Athanasian Creed, a statement formulated to counter heresies almost a thousand years before the Reformation:
For the right Faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of his mother, born in the world. (Emphasis added)
How thankful we should be to God for those astute and faithful theologians of the past upon whose shoulders we stand. They have made it so much easier for us not only to discern and maintain the truth but also to defend it against error.18
- H. J. Galley, “The Deity of Christ,” Truth Unchanged, Unchanging (Abingdon: Bible League, 1984), p. 466. First published in the Bible League Quarterly in 1954. ↩︎
- Quoted in Iain H. Murray, The Life of John Murray; (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), p. 22. Vos taught in Princeton Theological Seminary alongside B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen. ↩︎
- Ibid., p. 31. ↩︎
- Walter Klaassen (edit.), Anabaptism in Outline (Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press, 1981), pp. 27-28. ↩︎
- George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation (Kirksville, Missouri: Truman State University Press, 2000), p. 493. ↩︎
- Christopher Wordsworth, Church History, (London: Rivingtons, 1881), Vol. 1, p. 207. ↩︎
- Williams, Radical Reformation, p. 494. ↩︎
- Klaassen, Anabaptism in Outline, pp. 35-36. ↩︎
- Menno Simons, The Complete Writings of Menno Simons (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1984), p. 865. ↩︎
- Ibid. p. 870. ↩︎
- Ibid. p. 437. ↩︎
- Peter Riedemann’s Hutterite Confession of Faith (Waterloo, Ontario: Herald Press, 1999), p. 68. ↩︎
- Williams, Radical Reformation, p. 1196. ↩︎
- However heretical the views of the Anabaptists may have been, we believe the Reformers were wrong to resort to the civil magistrate and the penalties of the State. Spiritual warfare calls for spiritual weapons alone, notably the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God, and spiritual discipline. ↩︎
- Williams, Radical Reformation, p. 1198. ↩︎
- Hooper, Later Writings of Bishop Hooper (Cambridge: The University Press, 1852), pp. 1-18. ↩︎
- It is strange that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, while based on the Westminster and agreeing with it that Christ was born “of a woman,” omits the phrase “of her substance” from its handling of the incarnation. Whether it was an oversight or a deliberate omission we will never know, but Baptists must not allow this weakness in their confessional statement to justify a questioning of the doctrine those words teach. ↩︎
- Recently a series of lectures in the north of England claimed, according to its promotional flyer, that the Anabaptists were an “Evangelical group of people who had a bigger understanding of the Reformation and Scripture than even the Reformers.” It is regrettable that such a sadly mistaken view should resurface and be promoted in these days. ↩︎