I N D E X
17
The High God.
The Most High God.
THE God.
Christ - God manifest in the flesh.
Jehovah.
Creator.
The Great God.
Which will you believe, this glorious testimony of Scripture:
JESUS CHRIST IS THE GREAT GOD
or
He is A God, God in a subordinate sense?
You will remember that we opened this discussion by saying that `the one God' is `the Father', and that `the
man' is `the Son', and therefore could not be God Himself. I suggested that we were dealing with the question at the
wrong end. The Father must be greater than His Son. He Who sends is greater than the one sent. This is all true,
but reasoning that holds good with men may not hold good with one Who is both God and man. We have seen that
He is God, even the Great God, Jehovah, God Himself. Therefore we must distinguish things that differ. When He
took the form of a servant it was to obey. He took flesh and blood that He might obey. In Hebrews 10:5-7 is a
quotation from Psalm 40:6-8. Will you compare the two passages and note any important difference?
The Willing Servant
A - Apart from minor differences that are the result of translation, there is one that does call for explanation. In
Psalm 40:6 the words `mine ears hast Thou opened' are replaced in Hebrews 10:5 by the words, `A body hast Thou
prepared me'.
B - In the margin of the Psalm you have a note to the effect that `opened' is really the word `digged'. The
typical principle of interpretation which we have discussed elsewhere comes to our aid here. In Exodus 21:1-6 we
have the law pertaining to a Hebrew servant, which limited his servitude to six years, except under the following
exceptional conditions:
`If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his
master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master
shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever (the age)' (Exod. 21:5,6).
The `digged ear' was the symbol of loving willing servitude, entered for the love of those who would otherwise
have been left behind in bondage. The Lord of glory, the Creator of things seen and unseen, when He entered out of
love His period of willing servitude, took the form of a servant, and entered the body `prepared' for Him, which
body was the symbol of lowliness, and pierced for our sakes upon the cross. Shall we abuse the very condescension
of the Lord and make of it an argument against His very Deity?
A - I never realised till now, what a shameful thing it is, to use the very condescension of the Saviour as an
argument to rob Him of His title.
B - When people begin arguing that the `Son' must necessarily be less than the `Father' they are wasting time,
for Scripture teaches the same thing. The Son and the Father speak of that relationship which commenced when the
fulness of time came for Christ to be born of a woman. He came expressly to do the will of Him that sent Him, and
took the `form' of a servant and the `fashion' as a man in order to accomplish that purpose. This voluntarily
assumed subordination cannot be used as an argument when dealing with His essential Deity.
A - Do you not believe that Christ was `the Son' from eternity?