 |  |
of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil". Such knowledge is for
the mature mentally and spiritually; it is not for undeveloped babes, and this is what
Adam was at the beginning.
No one surely is going to argue that the `mature' who attain to the knowledge of good
and evil, thereby attain to Deity and become God!
Furthermore, there is no hint anywhere else in Scripture that Adam was deliberately
grasping after the position as God. Rom. 5: deals clearly with Adam and his fall, but
there is not a hint here of any such ambition. The whole of this extraordinary idea comes
from partially quoting Scripture and thereby misquoting it, and should be a warning to us
all.
If any contrast is intended with Christ in the Philippian passage, then it is much more
likely to be with Satan, who certainly did grasp after God's position, and still seeks it.
Isa. 14: and Ezek. 28: show us that Satan in his unfallen state was probably the first
and the most glorious of the angelic host, the chiefest of God's creation, but he was not
satisfied with this. He said, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God . . . . . I will be like the most High" (Isa. 14: 13-14). In other words he tried
to seize God's position and to be God Himself. This was in utter contrast to the Lord
Jesus, the pre-incarnate Word, Who was willing to humble Himself and stoop so low.
We must also take account of the Heavenly man theory which links Dan. 7: 13, 14
and I Cor. 15: 45-47. Some, like Lohmeyer, assert that Paul used the Gnostic myth of a
Primal man, who, as a heavenly Redeemer, descends from heaven to accomplish a saving
mission, and re-ascends back to heaven, taking back with him the trophies of victory.
This we reject absolutely. God's revelation in His Word is not dependent on the darkness
of pagan philosophies; rather it is the other way round. Gnosticism is often a corruption
of Divine truth.
But there are some who hold to a similar theory and maintain that it can be
substantiated from Dan. 7: and I Cor. 15: However, a careful scrutiny of these
passages will show the falsity of such a view. If we take what is probably the grandest
description of O.T. theophany, namely Ezek. 1: 4-28, we find the prophet trying to
describe what is really indescribable. All he can do is to use human terms to set forth in
some measure what he saw, hence the frequent use of "like" and "likeness". Above the
firmament he saw "the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire, and upon the
likeness of the throne, was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it" (1: 26).
He speaks of the appearance of fire of His loins, and the bow that is in the cloud.
All these were the nearest human terms to describe the vision, but the reality utterly
transcended his words. His eyes took in something of the Lord of glory, just as Isaiah
did, when he too saw "the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and His train
filled the Temple", and his ears heard the solemn worship of the seraphims crying,
"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory. And the posts