the consequence of its sin, even before the cross, for He was often weary,

and was acquainted with grief.  The intention of Romans 8:3 is more clearly

seen when we restore the order of the words used:

'God sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, condemned

sin in the flesh',

for had there been sin in the flesh of the Saviour, He could never have

offered Himself without spot to God.

Of the four Gospels, it is to the Gospel of John that we turn for the

most explicit doctrine of the Saviour's Deity.  'The Word was God', 'Before

Abraham was, I am', 'My Lord and my God' are texts that come immediately to

mind.  Yet there is but one reference in the three Synoptic Gospels to the

'flesh' of Christ, as over against seven references in John.  Of these

references in John, six are found in chapter 6 in the discourse that arose

out of the reference to the manna.  The remaining reference is in John 1:14,

'and the Word was made flesh'.  The prologue of John's Gospel occupies the

first eighteen verses, and opens and closes with the title and function of

the 'Word':

A

John 1:1.a

the word

b

c

A

John 1:18.

c

b

bosom, father

a

Verse 1 reveals the nature of Him Who is called 'The Word', but not until

'The Word was made flesh' could such a revelation be made of 'The Father' or

of 'The Son'.  There is need to exercise the most scrupulous care in speaking

of this most wonderful doctrine.  John 1:1 does Not say, 'In the beginning

was the only begotten of the Father', those titles are reserved until we

read, 'The Word was made flesh'.  Some in their anxiety to defend and uphold

the Lord's Deity have taken upon themselves to add to the Scriptures, and

would impose upon the believer as a part of his creed, 'The eternal

generation of the Son'.  At first sight this seems not only innocuous, but

praiseworthy, for it asserts most clearly that the Saviour was no mere man,

no creature of time, but was 'in the beginning' and 'was God'.  Upon closer

examination, however, some disconcerting results of the acceptance of this

doctrine make themselves manifest.  If Christ was 'the begotten Son' from

eternity, then the most vital and essential title, 'the only begotten of the

Father' is rendered meaningless, for by no stretch of imagination can a Son

be the same age as his father even though we borrow the expedient of the

evolutionist, and push the 'beginning' back into infinity.  If the Father

begat the Son, as Scripture affirms, then of necessity there must have been a

time when the Son did not exist, and consequently all unwittingly those who

have put out their hand to stay the ark of God, have robbed Christ of His

essential Deity.  Both the title, 'Father' and 'Son' are relative terms.

Even God Himself could not be a Father until He had a Son, and consequently

those who insist on the doctrine, 'The eternal sonship of Christ' are

practically saying, that in their estimation, it is a pity that John did not

put verse 14 of his prologue where he actually put verse 1.