Jackson on Article II: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man

The two expressions ‘‘ Son ’’ and ‘‘ Word ”’ must be carefully taken together. ‘‘ Son ”’ alone might be misconstrued to imply inferiority of origin. ‘*Word”’ alone might imply that our Lord was merely a mode of the Father’s manifestation. Taken together they safeguard the truth both of His eternity and His baa (John i., 1- 14, and 18).

_ “ Begotten from Everlasting of the Father.” This refers, not to an event in time, but to ** an unchangeable relation or fact of the divine nature.”’

“Very (verus) and Eternal God.’’ Here is the plainest possible statement of the belief of the Church in the Godhead of Christ. Its reasonable- ness is best seen by recalling how it arose. The Gospels show clearly that the disciples were not predisposed to accept such a belief, and that our Lord made no effort to press it on them. On the contrary He seems to have observed the utmost reserve about His real nature, and to have waited for the truth to dawn gradually upon their minds. When it did so, it came as the irresistible con- clusion of His character, and teaching and miracles (Matt. xvi., 16 and John vi., 68 and 69),

al

—- we —

and finally of His Resurrection (Rom. i., 4). And within a generation we find that belief in the God- head of Christ, in its most definite and unreserved form, had become part of the accepted teaching of the Churches (Rom. ix., 5 and Heb. i., 2 and 3)”.

“* Of one substance (consubstantialis) with the Father.” ‘ Consubstantialis ”’ is the equivalent of Suodvos, the Nicene safeguard against Arianism. Substantia (or, évcfa) denotes that underlying something which makes a thing what it is. Hence ‘‘ consubstantialis ’’ implies that Christ possesses in Himself all that makes God what He is, all that is essentially Divine (Col. ii., 9).

(b). THe INCARNATION OF OUR LoRD.

“ Took Man’s nature.’’ Here we have the fact of the Incarnation, which was essential to our Lord’s work for man. To be a true mediator between God and man, He must be ‘‘ the man Christ Jesus ’’ (1 Tim. ii., 5). And to redeem us from sin He must first take our nature and become one with us (Heb. ii., 16). In taking our nature Christ did not take our sinfulness (see Art. XV); and in taking our nature He did not take a human personality (see below).

“In the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of her substance.’’ Here we have the mode of the In- carnation, Compare the words of the Apostles’ Creed, ‘‘ conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.’’ The fact that our Lord was born of a human Mother ensured the reality of His human nature; the fact that He was con- ceived by the Holy Ghost ensured the sinlessness of that nature. The birth was a miracle; in the words of Godet, it was “‘ the miracle of the first

creation repeated on a scale of greater power.’’

“Two whole and perfect Natures. … were joined together in one Person.’’ This statement guards the doctrine against two forms of error. One is the error of Apollinarius (c. 370) who, in order to ensure the unity of the Divine Person, denied the completeness of His human nature. The other is the error of Nestorius (c. 431), who, in order to ensure the reality of Christ’s human nature, insisted that He must have taken a human personality. In the Gospel narrative, the function and activities of the two natures are successively attributed to the One Person (Matt. viii., 24 and 26).

[…]

This portion of the Article deals with the death of our Lord—its reality and its meaning.

“Truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried.’”’ This emphasises its reality to guard against the teaching of certain Anabaptists who had revived the early ‘‘ Docetic’’ heresy, that our Lord’s sufferings were only apparent and not real.

‘To reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice… .’’ This explains its meaning. Though the Crucifixion was the work of men’s ignorant malice (John xv., 25 and Acts iii., 17), yet unconsciously their act fulfilled a Divine purpose (Acts xii, 27). The Cross, to which the world condemned Christ, became the altar on which He accomplished the great work He came to do. That work had a twofold aspect—Godward and man- ward. The first is defined by the words “ to reconcile his Father to us.’’ This does not mean that the Father was unwilling to be

reconciled, but that the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross by atoning for sin opened the way for man’s return to God.. Study carefully Rom. iii., 25 and 26, Heb. ix., 26, and 1 Peter iii., 18. It is _ important to remember about this side of the sub- ject that Christ died for us of His own free will (John x., 18) and in perfect unity of purpose with the Father (2 Cor. v., 19).

“ To be a sacrifice not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.’’

This defines the meaning of our Lord’s death more in its manward aspect. It is the sacrifice to which the burdened conscience looks (Heb. ix., 14), and finds atonement both for the guilt which we inherit as members of a sinful race, and for the guilt which we incur by our personal sins. | Christ’s death has an abiding efficacy ; ‘He is the propitiation for our sins’’ (1 John iis, 2).

[…]

INTO HE Lt (ad inferos).