 |  |
Mediator", the "Man" Christ Jesus, when he writes to Timothy (I Tim. 2: 5), and
nevertheless declare in the contemporary epistle to Titus, that the Lord Jesus Christ is
"The Great God and our Saviour".
T i t u s.
GOD.
JESUS CHRIST.
"The commandment of God our
"The Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour"
Saviour" (1: 3).
(1: 4).
"The doctrine of God our Saviour"
"Looking for the blessed hope, and
appearing of the glory of our great God and
(2: 10).
Saviour Jesus Christ" (2: 13, 14, R.V.).
"Through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (3: 6).
"The love of God our Saviour" (3: 4).
This essential Deity and perfect Humanity, in the Person of Jesus Christ, is implied in
the title "The Son of God". So, John, who opens with the twofold revelation of the Word
"Who was God", "Who became flesh" (John 1: 1, 14), tells us that the purpose he had
when writing his gospel was,
"That ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God" (John 20: 31).
Romans declares Him to be "The Son of God" (Rom. 1: 4); Hebrews, which gives
Him the title of "God" in chapter 1:, tells us that He partook of flesh and blood in
chapter 2: and emphasizes the glory of His title "The Son" a title intended to combine
both phases of truth (Heb. 1: 2, 5, 8).
The very unity of the faith, is the acknowledgment or recognition of the Son of God
(Eph. 4: 13)*. The Deity and the Humanity of Christ are pivoted upon His Sonship,
which must not be considered independently of the Deity on the one hand, for that makes
Him a mere man like ourselves, nor of the Humanity on the other hand, for that removes
Him entirely from our sphere and we are left without a Redeemer or a Mediator. Truth in
the balance is the only truth that honours the Scriptures and their revelation concerning
the person of our glorious Lord.
[NOTE: * - For an examination of epignosis and Eph. 4: 13,
the reader is directed to a series of studies entitled "Acknowledgment".]
To take the word "My Father is greater than I" as a "proof" that the speaker was not
"our great God" as well as "our Saviour", is to take truth out of the balance, and to
misapply the relationship of the "Son" with the "Father" in order to demonstrate an
entirely different relation, namely that of both the Son and the Father to essential Deity.
It is equally possible having commenced with a text which taught that Christ is God, to
prove, though erroneously, that as there is "one God", the Father must be excluded. This
terrible possibility is happily not attempted and the converse misunderstanding
concerning "The Son" is illuminated by keeping this blessed "truth in the balance".