A Critique of Teklemarian’s “Bible Writer’s” TheologyBy William Chalfant |
|
Introductory Note: This book
by Reverend Teklemariam Gezahagne came to my notice when I received a
copy in the mail. I had read Reverend Teklemariam’s first work, The
Identity of Jesus Christ,some years ago. I was impressed with
Reverend Teklemariam’s zeal and love for the Lord Jesus Christ. I was
also impressed with his knowledge of the scriptures. One is overawed by
the tremendous accomplishments of this man of God in the past reports of
the great revival coming out of the ancient land of Ethiopia. Psalms
68.31 says, “Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon
stretch out her hands unto God”. What a great role Brother Teklemariam
Gezahagne has played in the fulfilling of that scripture! A
Synopsis Of The Book, Bible Writers’ Theology: This book
contains ten chapters, covering the following areas of study: I. The
Necessity of Biblical Theology; 2. Existence of God; 3. Bibliology; 4.
The Oneness of God; 5. Angrhopology-The Origin of Man; 6. Angelology; 7.
Christology; 8. Soteriology; 9. Ecclesiology-The Church, and 10.
Eschatology. The scope
of the book, then, is very broad, and represents a tremendous amount of
study, and is sprinkled with hundreds of scriptures, and other
quotations and references. In this
review, it is my intention to concentrate in basically only two areas:
Christology and The Oneness of God. It is impossible to do justice in
reviewing such a large study without narrowing the scope of the inquiry. A Look
At The Christology and The Oneness of God: It was
Rufus Jone’s (The Church’s Debt To Heretics, 1924)
observation that no one “could deal profoundly with the problem of
Christ’s nature without being regarded a heretic from one side or the
other”. This is something to be seriously considered. We are indeed
told in the scriptures that “God...manifest in the flesh” is a great
mystery (1 Timothy 3.16). Anyone who tackles this “great mystery” of
God-manifest-in-the-flesh risks being misunderstood. It is my belief
that some of what Brother Teklemariam has written is going to be
misunderstood and misconstrued. For my part, I sincerely wish to avoid
misconstruing what this talented man of God has said in my review of his
book. If I have done so in this review, I offer my deepest apologies,
and wish for the record to be set straight forthwith. Brother
Teklemariam’s approach has left the strong impression that he does not
consider the Lord’s humanity to be genuine-at least in the sense that
Jesus was a full fledged member of the Adamic race. Without a doubt, he
has rejected the teaching that Mary contributed anything to the
incarnation, and that Jesus is biologically descended from Adam,
Abraham, and David through Mary. What is the
evidence that Brother Teklemaiam does not apparently accept the genuine
humanity of the Lord? We will examine some of the statements made in Bible
Writers’ Theology to demonstrate why we might come to such a
conclusion. The View
of Teklemariam Has Similarities To the Christological Model of
Apollinaris: Philip
Schaff (The Seven Ecumenical Councils) stated that the ancient
trinitarian teacher, Apollinaris of Laodicea (310-390 AD), had a fear of
teaching a “double personality” for Christ, and so “he fell into
the error of a partial denial of His true humanity”. While Apollinaris
was a trinitarian, and therefore espoused the incarnation of a second
divine Person, his error concerning the humanity of Christ is uncannily
mirrored in the Christology of Brother Teklemariam. Schaff
notes that Apollinaris “wished to secure an organic unity of the true
incarnation”. He did this, however, according to Schaff, “at the
expense of the most important constituent of man”. Apollinaris
attributed to the man Jesus a human body (soma), and a human soul
(psyche), but he believed that Christ did not have a human
spirit. Rather, Apollinaris said that the divine Logos replaced the
human spirit (pneuma) in Christ. It was
Schaff’s view that Apollinaris, in his Christology, approached the
idea of a theos sarkophorus (a “God-bearing flesh”).
The Antiochenes, such as Nestorius (c.381-451 AD), who was a little
later, held to an anthropos theophorus (a “God-bearing
man”). Unfortunately, Nestorius, saddled with the trinitarian view,
also held to the incarnation of a second divine Person instead of God
the Father. But the Christological model of Apollinaris bears some
similarities to that of Brother Teklemariam. We will see why. BOTH
APOLLINARIS AND BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM RESTRICT THE USE OF THE WORD
“FLESH” IN JOHN 1.14: Apollinaris
appealed to John 1.14, which states that “the Word was made flesh”.
He argued that the Bible did not say that the “Word was made spirit”.
By this argument, Apollinaris was contending that the man Jesus did not
have a human spirit, since the scripture did not specifically say that
the “Word was made spirit”, but rather “the Word was made flesh (sarx)”.
Both the Greek sarx and the Hebrew basar (or besar
) can mean either “the substance of the body” (flesh) or “man”
and “mankind” (e.g., “all flesh”, or “no flesh”). David said
in Psalms 56.4, “...I will not fear what flesh can do unto me”. In
Daniel 2.11, the Chaldeans are reported to have answered king
Nebuchadnezzar, “...there is none other that can show it before the
king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh (basar)”. Jesus used
the word “flesh” (sarx) in the same manner in Matthew 24.22,
“And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh (sarx)
be saved...”. It is obvious in John 1.14 that “flesh” can refer to
the entire man rather than just “the substance of the body”. Those
trinitarians who opposed the view of Apollinaris in the fourth century
were quick to point out that he was restricting the use of the term sarx
in John 1.14 in order to deprive the “Jesus” of his Christological
model of a human spirit. But if we take away the human spirit from Jesus
we also take away His humanity. One cannot be a genuine human being
without possessing a human spirit. BOTH
APOLLINARIS AND TEKLEMARIAM BELIEVE THEY ARE DEFENDING THE DIVINITY OF
CHRIST BY DENYING HIS GENUINE HUMANITY: Apollinaris
thought he was defending the divinity of Christ by excluding an integral
part of genuine humanity from Him. And it is noteworthy that Brother
Teklemariam feels the same way. In his Bible
Writers’ Theology, Brother Teklemariam states: However, according to the human reasoning of some, Jesus is an ordinary man of earthly flesh and blood with His own independent human spirit. Considering such an explanation, the oneness of God would actually be two persons: the Father, who has an independent personality, and Christ, with His own independent personality (q.v., p.120). Yet,
nowhere does the Bible teach that Christ is a separate divine or
a separate human person from the person of God the Father. And if
Christ can have flesh and blood, why can He not also have a human spirit
and a human soul? Christ is said to be the “express image of his (God
the Father’s) person (Hebrews 1.3). The Greek word for person
is normally prosopon, but in this scripture the word used is hypostasis,
which basically means “being”, “underlying reality” ,or
“subsistence”, etc.). In two
other passages (2 Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15), Christ is referred
to as “the image of (the invisible) God”. Jesus Christ is God
Himself manifest in the flesh (which is a genuine human being). The man
Christ Jesus, as the Image of the invisible God, is no more a separate
person than one’s image in a mirror would be a separate person from
that individual. This
is the mystery of the incarnation. In the
words of Brother Teklemariam above, the words “an ordinary man”
describe the position, as he would have it, of those who hold that Jesus
possessed a genuine human spirit, which, according to Brother
Teklemariam, would be “His own independent human spirit”. It is not
necessary, however, to conclude that Jesus was simply an “ordinary man
of earthly flesh and blood” from the fact that He had a genuine human
spirit. No “ordinary man” has ever been born sinless of a virgin. No
“ordinary man” has ever been God Himself manifest in the flesh.
Therefore, it is an erroneous conclusion that since Christ had a genuine
human spirit, then He must be therefore be an “ordinary” man. THE WORD “INDEPENDENT” MUST BE CAREFULLY
QUALIFIED IN DESCRIBING THE MAN JESUS: The word
“independent”, in describing the man Jesus, must be carefully
qualified. Brother Teklemariam seems to indicate that it makes Jesus a
“separate person” from God the Father. But it is evident, for
example, that Jesus possessed a human will, since He yielded that will (thelema)
in the Garden of Gethsemane to the Spirit (God the Father). He said,
“...nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22.42). His
human will was ever yielded to the will of the Spirit, but Luke 22.42 is
evidence that he indeed possessed a human will. The
independence of the man Jesus is seen by virtue of His genuine humanity,
but His humanity is completely subservient to, and submitted to, the
Spirit. Yet for any genuine sacrifice to be acceptable to God, the
victim, like Isaac, had to be willing. Jesus said of His human life,
“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself...This
commandment have I received of my Father” (John 10.18). Jesus said,
“...I do always those things that please him (the Father)” (John
8.29). But 11 verses later, Jesus said to the Jews, “But now ye seek
to kill me, a man (anthropos) that hath told you the truth, which
I have heard of God...” (John 8.40). The Greek word anthropos
means a male human being or a “man”. Jesus was a genuine member of
the human family. Although His flesh was holy (Luke 1.35), He did not
possess “divine” flesh during the days of His “flesh”. Else how
could he have been a proper sacrifice? Brother
Teklemariam says, “The Bible says, ‘God was manifested in the
flesh’. It does not say God was manifested in an independent man”
(q.v., p.121). Again, this
statement is very reminiscent of the position of Apollinaris ,which was
that John 1.14 means “flesh” to be “the substance of the body”
and not a “whole man”. This is a key point. Brother
Teklemariam has misinterpreted John 1.14 to mean only “the substance
of the body”, in a very restricted use of the word “flesh” (sarx).
But God spoke a complete human baby into existence in the womb of Mary. There
Are Similarities To the Arian Viewpoint of A Separate Pre-Existent
“Word-Image” In Teklemariam’s View of The Word (Logos): In Brother Teklemariam’s work, Bible Writers’ Theology (p.105), he writes: The Word of God that came from heaven became flesh leaving His richness. His glorious existence within the Father, and being the Word of life, was changed to be man for the sake of us all. Not only did he become man, but He was born in poor circumstances and lived a poor life... (q.v.). BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM SEEMS TO HOLD THAT THE WORD
HAD A PERSONAL, PRE-EXISTENT SUBSISTENCE WITH THE FATHER,
WHICH IS ACTUALLY A FORM OF “ARIANISM”: The phrase
“His glorious existence within the Father, and being the Word
of life” indicates that Brother Teklemariam seems to believe that the
Word had an a personal, pre-existent subsistence with the
Father, since He says, “His glorious existence within the
Father”. This seems to uphold the incorrect trinitarian interpretation
of John 17.5. Then he
says, “being the Word of life, was changed to be a man”
(q.v.), indicating that a separate Person was actually “changed to be
a man” in the process of the incarnation. It is true, in other places,
Brother Teklemariam denies that he believes, or holds, the Word to be a
separate Person from the Father. Unfortunately his terminology is, at
the least, confusing. There are
other examples of this type of an “Arian-like” viewpoint of a
pre-existent personal “Word-Image”: This
scripture (John 17.3) openly declares to us that there is only one true
God and His Son, the Personally,
I am not comfortable with the term “God-man” (theandrotos),
since it has a trinitarian sound to it (although I know that many
teachers use it in the correct sense in their interpretation of the
incarnation), but it has the flavor of a “mixing” of humanity and
divinity that seems to “disrespect” the divinity of the Lord, and
the inviolability of the Spirit. “God-man” would be like “half-God
and half-man”, which is an unacceptable concept in describing the
incarnation. Brother
Teklemariam comes close to Arianizing, when he says, “God from the
beginning has His own Word as His invisible image” (q.v., p.123). He
identifies a personified being (pre-existing, as he would declare,
however, as God the Father, but nevertheless still differentiated from
God the Father). In my opinion, this differentiation could lead to
misunderstandings about the strict monotheism in the word of God. This
is how the Logos became the fulcrum upon which the trinitarian teaching
was launched. Teklemariam
maintains that this Word-Image (the Word of God) “walked in the garden
in the cool of the day” (q.v.). Moses, according to Brother
Teklemariam, “thought that God was known only by His voice” (Deut.
4.12-23) (q.v.). Brother
Teklemariam then quotes Hebrews 1.2,3 in support of this Word-Image,
“...by whom also He made the worlds”. He is assuming that the Word
was made an Image (pre-existent) before the Word was made flesh.
This is fraught with dangerous overtones in the sense that it smacks of
Arianism by considering a pre-existent Word-Image, since Arius taught
that Christ existed before the ages as a Creator, a second “god”, if
you please. Now, Brother Teklemariam would obviously reject any
suggestion of such thinking or such conclusions, but the idea of a
pre-existing Word-Image leads to such thinking willy-nilly. This
thinking appears repeatedly in Bible Writers’ Theology: In
Philippians 2.5-9, the Apostle Paul was not speaking about God the
Father nor yet about the THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF PHILIPPIANS 2.5-9 DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A PRE-EXISTENT “PERSONALIZED” WORD “EQUAL” WITH GOD THE FATHER: I might
say, that a proper interpretation of Philippians 2.5-9 will demonstrate
that Paul was not expressing a kenotic theory at all (i.e., some divine
Person emptying himself of His divine prerogatives up in heaven and
coming down in an incarnation), but rather Paul was actually revealing
the depth of the humility of God almighty already manifest in the
flesh. PHILIPPIANS 2.5-9 COVERS THE “DAYS OF HIS
FLESH”- NOT SOME PRE-EXISTENT PERIOD OF GLORY Paul starts
off (verse 5) by stating, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus”. This is speaking of the incarnate state. Paul is
considering “the days of his flesh”. He is not speaking of some
second divine Person up in heaven getting ready to become incarnated! It
is Christ, born of Mary already, that had “the mind of God”. Philippians
2.6 then becomes a little clearer. “Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God”. Here, then, the phrase, morphe
theou, cannot be speaking of some pre-existent condition, but
refers to the actual incarnated state itself. John 5.18 is the only
scripture which seems to explain this passage. John
reports in John 5.18 that the Jews were angry with the man Jesus,
“because he had not only broken the sabbath, but said also that God
was his Father, making himself equal with God”. Equality with
God can only be predicated of the actual incarnation state. Jesus, the
Image of God, born of the virgin, was “in the form of God” (morphe
theou). Vine’s
Dictionary (p.205)
makes much of the fact that the Greek word isos is in the neuter
plural and should be translated “on an equality with God”. However,
the context of the entire passage should override the idiosyncratic
grammar of one word. Philippians
2.7, in the context of being within the sphere of the incarnation
itself (and not from a pre-existent heavenly sphere) is easily
understood. “But made himself of no reputation”. He “emptied
Himself “here upon the earth for our sakes. “Took upon him the form
of a servant”. Isn’t it odd that those who espouse the kenotic
theory wish to make the word morphe (“form”) in verse 6 to
have higher meanings than the very same word morphe in verse 7? W.E. Vine
(q.v., p.251) waxes eloquent concerning the noun morphe in
Philippians 2.6, quoting Gifford as saying: Thus
in the passage before us morphe theou is the divine nature
actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ...for the
interpretation of the ‘form of God’ it is sufficient to say
that...it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is
inseparable from them (sic), since they (sic) could have no actual
existence without it...it does not include in One can
readily see that no such claims are made for the very same noun (morphe)
used in the very next verse 7 (morphen doulou). Nor are any such
claims concerning the broad, original meanings of the noun morphe
made about its use concerning Christ in Mark 16.12, where the risen
Christ appears to His disciples “in another form” (en hetera
morphe). It is clear the word has no such esoteric meanings as
“nature” and “essence”. This
extreme divergence of application seems only “appropriate” if one
accepts the kenotic theory of a separate, pre-existent divine Being,
emptying Himself of His divine prerogatives in Heaven, and then coming
down into the sphere of the incarnation as a human being. On the
other hand, if Paul is only speaking of what Christ did for us within
the sphere of the incarnation, then this passage makes sense. Then
we realize the truth that God never laid aside any divine prerogatives
in heaven, although He purposely exercised them in a limited sense in
the incarnate state. He continued to be God, omnipresent, omniscient,
and omnipotent. If, verse
5, “this mind...which was also in Christ Jesus” (a reference to His
humanity by placing the title of “Christ” first) immediately places us in the sphere of the incarnation, then, verse 6,
of course, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”, is
likewise speaking of the condition of the incarnation, as we see from
John 5.18. It follows then, that such phrases as “made himself of no
reputation”, “took upon him the form of a servant”, and “was
made in the likeness of men”, are all within the sphere of the
incarnation (not a transition from the heavenly sphere to the sphere of
the incarnation). THE JESUS IN PHILIPPIANS 2.5-9 IS EXALTED BY GOD
AND IS THEREFORE THE MAN CHRIST JESUS: We know
that such phrases as “the death of the cross” refer to the
incarnation state. And then verse 9 makes sense when it says,
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name”. The glorification of the man Christ Jesus
attests to His humanity and to the sphere of the incarnation. It has no
reference to any heavenly “emptying”, but rather He “emptied
Himself” out right here on earth for our sakes. He gave everything
that He had for us. It is the humanity of Christ (the man Christ Jesus)
that is exalted. Therefore,
Brother Teklemariam’s statement concerning Philippians 2.5-9, “he
(Paul) revealed that ‘the Word that became flesh’ was equal to (the
same as) the Father before it became flesh” simply follows the defunct
kenotic theory, with the variation that he interprets “equal to” to
mean “the same as”. However, as one can see, if you give any
credence to a pre-incarnational “emptying” of a divine Being, who is
equal to God, then you give life to the possibility of a second divine
Person. This is the trinitarian error. But “God manifest in the
flesh” would not think it robbery to be “equal with God”. For
anyone else at all to think so would be the same as the rebellion of
Lucifer. The only place where we can see that God manifested Himself in
another nature is the incarnation. This is the only place where
“equality” would not be thought to robbery. Hebrew 2.16 states,
“For verily he took not on (him the nature of) angels; but he took on
(him) the seed of Abraham”. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM INCORRECTLY SEEMS TO CALL
THE WORD THE OFFSPRING OF GOD. THISCOULD BE MISINTERPRETED AS BEING AN
ARIAN TEACHING: In the
above quote by Brother Teklemariam, he stated also, “when the Word of
God (the offspring of God) was made flesh in the womb of Mary”. It
seems from the context of his remarks that Teklemariam actually means
that the baby born of Mary is “the offspring of God” (in other
words, the actual incarnation);however, he states, “when the Word of
God (the offspring of God)” in such a way that one could interpret
this phrase to mean a pre-existent Word, which was the “offspring of
God”. This would unfortunately comport with the teaching of the second
century trinitarian apologists such as Justin, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus. HE PLAINLY HOLDS TO A PRE-EXISTENT WORD-IMAGE: Brother
Teklemariam gets even plainer concerning his view of a pre-existent
Word-Image. He states: Let us remember that from eternity, the Word of God was the invisible image and form of God. From everlasting, God has Word and Spirit (breath of life) in His nature. Furthermore, whenever God acts, He breathes Spirit and emanates Word (Psalm 33.5,6) (q.v., p.127). This is
plain. Brother Teklemariam understands the Word to be the “invisible
image and form of God” from “eternity”. He does not understand
only the visible man Christ as the Image of the invisible God, but
rather the pre-existent Word is the “invisible image and form of
God” from “eternity”. This goes beyond the scriptures. This has
the taste of Arianism. It is very close to formulating a second divine
Person (while insisting that the Word is God). This
teaching makes an “invisible image” which later became
“visible” (at the incarnation). Brother Teklemariam states, “When
the invisible ‘person’ of God was made flesh, He became a Son
but still remained the God of Israel” (q.v., p.117). And, “Before
the great God was made flesh, he was the angel ‘person’ of God,
not Son”. An “angel person” of God? In this manner, Brother
Teklemariam comes extremely close to making another pre-existent divine
Person contrary to the strict monotheism of the Bible. THIS IDEA OF A PRE-EXISTENT PERSONIFIED
“WORD-IMAGE” ALSO CAUSES A MISINTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1 AND 2: This
pre-existent “Word-Image” produces a philosophical
“misunderstanding” (Genesis 1.26,27) of how man was created in the
“image and likeness” of God. The dangerous thing about this theory
of a pre-existing “image” is that -when carried to a full
conclusion- it is the actual ground and basis or the seed of the trinity
theory. Trinitarians, following such teachers as Philo, postulated the
Logos (Word) as the “image of God”, but the New Testament teaches
that the man Jesus is the visible Image of the invisible God (2
Corinthians 4.4, Colossians 1.15, and Hebrews 1.2,3). Jesus said, “he
that seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14.9). Brother
Teklemariam seems to believe there is a difference in the creation of
man in Genesis 1.27 and the making of man in Genesis 2.7. He writes: Genesis 1.27 clearly teaches us that God created the future spiritual Adam in His spiritual image (Tselem) by predestination (Romans 8.29,30; Eph. 1.4-11). Accordingly, in Genesis 2.7 we see God creating the outer man from the dust of the ground in His likeness (Demuth), which is not the same as “image” in the Hebrew translation. ‘Tselem’ speaks of the spiritual likeness while ‘Demuth’ speaks of the appearance likeness. ‘Demuth’ or “likeness” limits man from the divine nature. (q.v., p.135) However,
this interpretation is not borne out in the scripture. If Genesis 1.27
refers to the “future spiritual Adam”, assuming that Brother
Teklemariam means the new creation of those who have received the New
Birth through “predestination”, then why does Genesis 1.27 say that
they (“male and female”) were created in his own image? These very
same creatures God tells to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
(“fill”) the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1.28). Is it not true
that the same man and woman created in Genesis 1.27 are described in
Genesis 2.7, and in Genesis 2.22? 1 Thessalonians 5.23 tells us that man
consists of “spirit, soul, and body”. Both the
“outer man” (the “tabernacle”, as Peter says) and the “inner
man” (as Paul says) are created in the image of God. In other words,
the entire man. God is a Spirit (John 4.24), but God knew that one day
He would appear in the flesh (“God manifest in the flesh”), the man
Christ Jesus. The first Adam was a type and a shadow of the Great Adam,
who was to come, Jesus Christ. THE
ORIGIN OF CHRIST’S FLESH: Brother
Teklemariam is very adamant about his belief that the flesh of Jesus
Christ was in no way derived from the virgin Mary: If Christ is the same with the Father, we dare not say that the Son of God was the flesh of Mary, for it was the Word of God that was active in creation. Can we say that the Word that became flesh is the Father? (q.v., p.124). It is
apparent from Brother Teklemariam’s work that he systematically goes
about to negate all traces of the Lord’s genuine humanity. His efforts
center around a few theories which he upholds: (1) Christ derived
nothing from the virgin Mary. She is apparently only a “surrogate”
mother or an “incubator”. In fact, according to Brother Teklemariam,
Christ did not even consider her to be His mother.(2) Christ is not the
seed of David nor the seed of Abraham-all such references to “seed”
(starting with the prophecy in Genesis 3.15) are merely “figurative”
(q.v., p.108), and (3) Christ has never been (even in the days of His
flesh) “a little lower than the angels”. IS THE VIRGIN MARY “DRY GROUND”? Isaiah 53.2
states, “For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a
root out of a dry ground”. Brother Teklemariam says that since Mary is
described as “dry ground”, that means that she is “biologically
dry ground”, out of which “seed by itself cannot produce life”
(q.v., p.136). But it is
not possible to show any apostle or New Testament writer who compared
the youthful, pure teenage virgin Mary
to “dry ground”. It is far more likely that the “dry ground”
represented Judaism, which had not heard from God for 400 silent years. Gabriel
told Mary, “thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee,
blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1.28). The angel told Mary,
“thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son” (Luke
1.31). When the pregnant Mary came into the presence of Elizabeth, this
woman was filled with the Holy Ghost, and said to Mary, “Blessed art
thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (Luke 1.42).
This is not a Catholic saying, but this is the word of God. Should we
say “the fruit of dry ground”. Even if we were to call this young
teenager “dry ground”, could we say that the “root out of dry
ground” took nothing from the ground in which it grew up? Elizabeth
calls Jesus “the fruit of thy (Mary’s) womb”. This is under the
inspiration of the Holy Ghost. According
to Brother Teklemariam, Mary represents the church, which by itself
cannot produce life. And he states, “Mary is a type of the church; she
is representative of the body of Christ by giving birth to Christ”
(q.v.). However, it is more likely that Mary is a type of Israel, since
Christ Himself gave birth to the New Testament church, of which Mary
became a part. Revelation 12.5, for example,shows that it is
“Israel” which gives birth to the Man-child. If the Man-child
represents Jesus, who is to rule the nations with a “rod of iron”,
and who has been caught up to God and to His throne (Acts 1.11), then
the church did not produce Jesus! Jesus is the Founder of the church. WHAT KIND OF FLESH DID JESUS HAVE? Brother
Teklemariam states, “No one can prove the biological relationship of
Christ with Mary’s flesh and blood” (q.v., p. 123). In another
place, he affirms, “God will not mingle his holy divine nature with
sinful humanity” (q.v., p. 129). But I am reminded of a scripture
which says, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”
(Acts 10.15). And I do not mean to imply by this that there was any
“mingling” of the two natures. He “partook” of flesh and blood,
and He “took upon him the seed of Abraham”. He did not “mingle”
the two natures. And so the
very purpose of the incarnation is brought into question. We must
therefore ask if the biological “link” to Mary is broken, and if God
did not really enter into the human family (there being no “biological
link”) to become a genuine sacrifice, then we do not really have a
proper substitute for Adam. A divine man, then, gave His life on the
cross. It was indeed, after all, as the docetists of the second century
affirmed-Jesus was not a genuine human being? If Jesus is not genuinely
human, then we are faced with docetism, a doctrine that eventually leads
to the conclusion that Jesus did not really suffer and die (as other
human beings). THE BABY BORN OF MARY IS CALLED A “HOLY
THING” IN THE SCRIPTURES, INDICATING A GENUINE
HUMAN BEING: Let us
examine Luke 1.35: And
the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall oveshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing (hagion) which shall be born of thee shall be
called the Son of God. Brother
Teklemariam translates this passage differently by saying, “therefore,
also, that Holy One who is to be born shall be called the
Son of God”. However, the Greek text of Stephens (1550 AD) uses the
noun hagion, which is in the neuter gender, and must be
translated “holy thing” (as we see in the King James Version). What is the
significant difference? Hagion lends itself to the humanity of
Christ. Moreover, the word “holy” can be used of a human being or
the phrase “Holy One” can also be used either of a human being or of
the Spirit. However it was not the Spirit that was born of the teenage
virgin, but rather a genuine human being. That is why the angel
qualifies the word hagion, and says “that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God”. Mary did not
give birth to the Word, but Mary gave birth to a human being. It is that
human being which is called by the angel “the Son of God”. ANCIENT CATHOLIC WRITERS STRUGGLED ALSO OVER THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE INCARNATION: Trinitarian
Catholic writers struggled for several centuries to explain the
incarnation. Of course, they never departed from their fatal, initial
error of incorrectly assuming that another (second) divine Person was
actually incarnated in the man Jesus. Epiphanius (315-403 AD), bishop of Salamis, had this to say about the incarnation:(He)...was made man, that is to say a perfect man, receiving a soul, and body and intellect, and all that made up a man, but taking flesh unto himself into one holy entity...was perfectly made man,for the Word was made flesh; neither did He experience any change, nor did he convert His divine nature into the nature of man, but united it to His one holy perfection and divinity. (“The Seven Ecumenical Councils”, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, Mich., Wm. Eerdmans, 1983) Notice that
Epiphanius is not allowing the Word to be used in the sense of God
speaking the baby into existence in the womb of the virgin, but rather
he is using the Word in the sense of a pre-existent divine Person, who
unites “the nature of man” to “His one holy perfection and
divinity”. With Brother Teklemariam’s doctrine, however, there is
this difference: the Word
is considered as a divine Person, but rather than “uniting” the
nature of man to His “one holy perfection and divinity”, the Word
seems to somehow be changed or converted into holy flesh, without any
contribution from the virgin. Nestorius
(381-451 AD), another early Catholic theologian, who was the bishop of
Constantinople,did not see a real concrete union of the two natures in
Christ. To him, there was only a “moral” union between the Word and
the human. He considered Jesus to be a “mere human being in whom the
Son of God was present as in a house”. There was a synatheia
(“conjunction”) of the two natures, but not a real henosis
(“union”). An enoikesis (“indwelling”) of the man Jesus
by the Word. While
Nestorius believed that Christ was “morally” one Person, he believed
that in reality there were “two persons”, and that a “strict
distinction” had to be made between the two (persons). Nestorius
believed therefore that Mary was not theotokos (“the mother of
God”), but only the mother of the man Jesus. It was not “the Son of
God” (whom he held to be the second divine Person), or the Logos
(Word), who died on the cross, but rather the man Jesus. Nestorius’
great opponent, the Catholic bishop Cyril of Alexander (d.444 AD),
rejected the idea that the Word “united a (human) person to
Himself, but that (instead) the Word was made flesh”. But unlike Bro.
Teklemariam, he holds that Hebrews 2.14 (which states that God also
partook of flesh and blood) means that there was a real union of the
two natures in the virgin Mary at the moment of the incarnation. Brother
Teklemariam would apparently reply that the Word was actually made
(divine) flesh, and that Hebrews 2.14 only refers in general to
the partaking of flesh and blood. It does not, he would apparently
argue, mean that the Lord actually partook of the specific flesh and
blood of the virgin, but rather only generally “partook” of flesh
and blood by becoming flesh (John 1.14). Cyril,
however, said that to reject the “union” of the two natures would
produce “two Sons” (since trinitarians uphold a pre-existent divine
Son also). There would be a Son, begotten from eternity, and then a
human Son, born of Mary. Since there are two genuine natures (unique
deity and genuine humanity) involved, there must be a genuine union of
the two natures. Both sides rejected a krasis (“mixing”) of
the two natures. One side asserted that a true incarnation (“enfleshment”)
could not have taken place without a real henosis (a mysterious
“union” of the two natures), while the other side said a henosis
was out of the question (although they allowed a “moral” henosis
or union), and that only a synatheia (“conjunction”) could
have taken place, and this would permit an enoikesis or an
“indwelling” of the Son of God (the “second divine Person”) in
the man Jesus, as a man “dwells in a house”. Cyril
believed this union of the Logos (the Word) and the human being took
place in the womb of the virgin at conception. He wrote, “He was not
first born a common man of the holy virgin, and then the Logos (the
Word) came down and entered into Him”. While Cyril
believed in a indescribable union of the Logos (Word) with the flesh in
the womb of the virgin, Nestorius believed that such a union would
denigrate the pure humanity of Christ. He believed that the Logos (the
Word), which he incorrectly held to be the second divine Person of some
Trinity, indwelt the man Jesus, and that a loose union (which he
preferred to call a “conjunction”) developed so that the two could
be seen as one Person. The Logos “assumed” the flesh, but the man
retained his own human personality. This was the teaching of the school
of Antioch, heavily influenced by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and, even
earlier, to some degree, by Paul of Samosata. And so the
trinitarians struggled with the mechanics of the incarnation. Cyril,
when confronted by the charge of “mixing” (advocating a krasis
of the Word and the flesh), retracted his position, and explained that
he meant a “union” of natures in Christ. By doing this, he
cleared himself from charges of “Apollinarianism”. EUTYCHES, LIKE BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM, CLAIMED THAT
THE FLESH CONCEIVED BY THE VIRGIN WAS NOT OF HER NATURE: In the
fifth century, an abbot in Constantinople caused such a stir that a
council was convened at Chalcedon in 451 AD. The abbot, Eutyches,
claimed that the flesh which the virgin conceived was not of her nature.
A position, that in some aspects, is not different from that of Brother
Teklemariam. Bishop Leo
of Rome countered this position by stating: It was the Holy Ghost which gave fecundity (fertility) to the virgin...It was from a body that a real body was derived...the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us...in that flesh which He assumed from a human being, and which He animated with the spirit of rational life...He united the inviolable nature (divine) to the passible (human)...(He was) whole in what was His (the divine nature), whole in what was ours (human nature) (Letter To Flavian, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, q.v.). Eutyches
was condemned also because he held that the Son pre-existed with both
divine and human natures before the incarnation (apparently in
the divine foreknowledge of God), but he insisted that the Son
later had only one nature, and that the flesh born of the virgin was not
of Mary’s nature. The Catholics, on the other hand, maintained that
Christ received human nature from Mary, and divine nature because He was
the second divine Person in the Trinity, and yet did not confuse the two
natures in the incarnation, although the natures were united. Brother
Teklemariam also effectively denies the genuine human nature of Christ
when he states: Christ was not a partaker of Mary’s nature or blood. We must remember that Christ came to change her and all believers into His nature, not He to be changed to their nature (q.v., p.137). He then
lists four scriptures, which I wish to examine so that we might be fair
to his argument. The scriptures listed in support of the above statement
are:(1) Ephesians 5.30;(2) 2 Peter 1.1-4; (3) Romans 9.4,5; and (4) 1
Corinthians 15.39-50: BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM APPARENTLY CONFUSES THE
POST-RESURRECTION (GLORIFIED) FLESH OF CHRIST WITH HIS PRE-RESURRECTION
MORTAL FLESH: (1)
Ephesians 5.30 “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of
his bones”. This, of course, is referring to the glorified Christ
(after the resurrection), and so has little reference to the “days of
his flesh”; (2) 2 Peter 1.1-4, obviously referring to verse 4, where
it reads, “partakers of the divine nature”. Again, this is referring
to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the divine nature, of course, is
that of Christ who is God. “Divine nature” refers to His divinity,
and does not in any way take away from His genuine humanity; (3) Romans
9.4,5, speaks of the Israelites, “of whom as concerning the flesh,
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen”. This passage
has nothing to do with the type of flesh that Christ possessed in the
incarnation (“the days of hisflesh”), and (4) 1 Corinthians
15.39-50. ALL FLESH IS NOT THE SAME FLESH-BROTHER
TEKLEMARIAM WANTS TO USE THIS TO SHOWTHAT CHRIST HAD DIVINE FLESH (EVEN
IN HIS MORTAL STATE): This
passage seems to be central to Brother Teklemariam’s thinking about
Christ’s humanity. The initial thought by Paul is “all flesh is not
the same flesh”. Paul contrasts “celestial bodies” and
“terrestial bodies”. The conclusion by Brother Teklemariam seems to
be that Christ did not have genuine human flesh (as a part of the human
family through the incarnation). But again, Paul brings up
pre-resurrection flesh and post-resurrection flesh. This is a point that
Brother Teklemariam seems to miss. The man Jesus was glorified in the
resurrection. It is almost as if Brother Teklemariam wants to believe
that there was no difference in the pre-resurrection mortal body of
Jesus and the glorified, post-resurrection body. These four passages
which he uses for proof of his contention that Christ was not a partaker
of Mary’s nature (in other words, He did not have a genuine human
nature) are not really appropriate, since they do not prove his point at
all. Brother
Teklemariam states that “the Word became genuine heavenly Man
in the womb of Mary” (q.v., p.137). I might add that a “genuine
heavenly Man” could not die, but a genuine mortal man could. This
unfortunately has a taste-a very strong taste-of docetism, the
gnostic teaching that Jesus was not really mortal flesh like we are. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM ATTACKS THE VALIDITY AND THE
INSPIRATION OF LUKE BY REJECTING THE GENEALOGY OF LUKE (AND BY
IMPLICATION THAT OF MATTHEW): I do not
think this was his intent, but Brother Teklemariam attacks the
inspiration of the scriptures and the veracity of Luke when he states
that “it is clear that to Luke, the long genealogy connecting Christ
to Adam, was no more than prevailing Jewish tradition of his
day” (q.v., p.139). Why would
Luke give the genealogy connecting Christ to Adam if he did not feel
that this was important? Moreover, why would he mention it at all if he
did not believe it was true? Brother
Teklemariam’s reason for rejecting this seems to be twofold: (1) Luke
uses the phrase “as was supposed” in Luke 3.23, “Jesus...being (as
was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli (etc.)”.
But Luke is not casting doubt upon the genealogy by using the phrase
“as was supposed”. Luke is recognizing the virgin birth, but
acknowledging that the Jews considered (or at least legally recognized)
Jesus to be the son of Joseph. This does nothing to detract from the
validity of the genealogy. When this genealogy is compared with the
genealogy of Matthew in Matthew 1.1-16, it is found that two genealogies
are given. The first one is through Joseph’s ancestry in the Gospel of
Matthew (we see in Matthew 1.16 that Jacob is the father of Joseph, and
that Matthew’s descent from King David is through Solomon, while we
see in Luke 3.23 that Joseph is said to be the son of Heli or Eli, and
that this line of descent from King David is through David’s son
Nathan). It is probable, then, that the second genealogy given by Luke
is that of the other legal parent of Jesus, which is Mary. Brother
Teklemariam’s second reason for rejecting the genealogies of Jesus is
they are, in his words, “no more than prevailing Jewish tradition of
(Luke’s) day”. But Luke is inspired scripture. To reject the
genealogies simply because one believes they are “prevailing Jewish
tradition” and not inspired of God is dangerous. All scripture is
inspired of God. Why reject the genealogies? Let me give
you a real reason: the genealogies demonstrate clearly that Jesus was a
bonafide member of the Adamic family (born without a sin nature and also
the Son of God). If one is call into question the status of Jesus as a
true descendant of Adam, then one has to call the genealogies into
question. Matthew by
tracing the line of Joseph through Solomon to David is clearly
establishing the right of Jesus as a legal adopted son of Joseph to the
throne of David. Luke, on the other hand, by giving the genealogy of
Mary is establishing a “blood” line to David, Abraham, and finally,
Adam. TEKLEMARIAM STATES THAT THE TERM “SEED” AS
IT APPLIES TO JESUS IS USED IN A FIGURATIVE SENSE: In order to
disavow the true humanity of Christ (as a member of the Adamic race,
albeit without the fallen nature), it is necessary for Brother
Teklemariam to remove any biological descent of Christ from Adam,
Abraham, or David. He must explain away the plain terminology of the
scriptures which speak of Jesus as “the seed of Abraham”
(Galatians 3.16,17; Hebrews 2.16), and also as “the Son of David”
(Acts 2.30, etc.). First,
Brother Teklemariam interprets Galatians 3.15,16 to mean that since the
Gentiles, who were not Abraham’s biological seed, but rather a
“promised seed”, then Jesus Himself is not Abraham’s biological
seed, but is rather merely a “promised seed”. PAUL ACKNOWLEDGES THAT JESUS IS THE BIOLOGICAL
“SEED” OF ABRAHAM: The fallacy
of this argument is evident for several reasons: (1) Isaac, although a
“promised seed”, was nevertheless a biological seed;
(2) Paul’s reason for the access of the Gentiles into the status of
the “promised seed” is because of the righteousness of Jesus, a
biological seed of Abraham, who inherited the promises made to Abraham
and his seed. It is well to remember that Jesus was a circumcised Jew
(although some Gentiles tend to forget that). Paul is
reasoning that Jesus was the biological seed of Abraham to whom the
promise was made (Galatians 3.19). Paul said, “to Abraham and his seed
were the promises made” (Gal. 3.16). Isaac was the “child of
promise”, and God told Abraham, “he that shall come forth out of
thine own bowels shall be thine heir” (Genesis 15.4). It was not
good enough for one “born in my house” (Gen. 15.3). It had to be
someone who would come out of Abraham’s “own bowels”. When the
blood line is destroyed, then the entire fabric of the promises of God
are ripped apart. That is why
the scripture says, “For verily he took not on (him the nature of)
angels; but he took on (him) the seed of Abraham” (Hebrews 2.16). The
first phrase of this scripture in the Greek does not use the noun
“nature” (phusis), but the translators frankly used this noun
because they knew that the noun “seed” (sperma) was used in
apposition in the connective clause,and they did not wish to say “the
seed of angels”. The author is trying to demonstrate that Jesus was
made a “little lower than the angels”, and that He was descended
directly from Abraham, as to His humanity. This
passage (Hebrews 2.16) plainly states that He (God) took on Him the
“seed of Abraham”. That is inescapable. It does not say that He
“stood in” as the “seed of Abraham”. It does not say that He
manifested Himself vicariously as “the seed of Abraham”. It plainly
and unequivocally states that He “took on him the seed of Abraham”.
Hebrews 2.14, two verses above, says that, “Forasmuch then as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took
part of the same...”. He partook of the same flesh and blood
(obviously cleansed and purified in uniting it unto Himself in the
incarnation). The word “seed” can be used in a general sense as
“offspring” or “issue” (see Matthew 22.24). Vine’s Dictionary (q.v.) tells us that the unique
word for “likewise” in the above passage is paraplesios,
which “expresses the true humanity of Christ in partaking of flesh and
blood”. BROTHER
TEKLEMARIAM REJECTS THE FACT THAT JESUS IS THE BIOLOGICAL “SON OF
DAVID”: He writes, “David is not the natural father or the biological father of Christ” (q.v., p.181). And what is Brother Teklemariam’s reasoning for this statement denying any biological linkage to King David? “Christ is the root of David meaning the creator of David and the Savior of David” (q.v.). Nevertheless, Brother Teklemariam continues, “Jesus...was born from the line of David to fulfill the promise in 1 Chronicles 28.4” (q.v., p.182). This is a contradiction: if the man Jesus is not descended biologically from King David then He cannot be “born from the line of David”. Brother Teklemariam needs to clarify this seeming contradiction. The apostle Peter, under the anointing of the Holy Ghost, is quite clear that the man Jesus is indeed descended biologically from King David. Quoting from Psalms 132.11, Peter declares on the Day of Pentecost: Therefore
being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would
raise up Christ to sit on his throne. -Acts 2.30 It cannot get much plainer than that. Jesus is called the Son of David because He is “of the fruit of (David’s) loins, according to the flesh”. Thus, while Jesus had the legal right to the throne of David (which is an earthly throne), according to His humanity through His step-father Matthew, He would “raised up” to sit on David’s throne because He was “of the fruit of (David’s) loins”. How would He be “of the fruit of (David’s) loins” if not through Mary? BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM ALSO REJECTS THE PLAIN MEANING OF HEBREWS 2.9,
INSISTING THAT THE WORD “ELOHIM” OUGHT TO BE SUBSTITUTED FOR
“ANGELS”: Since Hebrews 2.9 is referring to Psalms 8.5, Brother Teklemariam uses the Hebrew word there, elohim (literally, “gods”), which is translated as “angels”. He maintains that Jesus was never lower than the “angels”. He states, “the Word of God was made a little lower than Elohim to be the Lamb of God...(see Hebrew Bible Psalms 8.5)” (q.v., p.141). Unfortunately, the translation of Psalms 8.5 seems to be much in dispute. For example, the Revised Standard Version has it, “For thou hast made him but little lower than God”, with a footnote, stating “or angels, Hebrew elohim”. The William F. Beck “American Translation” says, “You make him do without God for a littlewhile”, with a footnote stating “Conjectural. The Hebrew may be a musical notation”. And the New American Bible (a Catholic version) say, “You have made him a little less than the angels”. In a lengthy footnote, the NAB states, “In Hebrew, elohim, which is the ordinary word for ‘God’, or ‘the gods’; hence, some translate, “a little less than godlike”...But the ancient versions generally understood the term as referring to the heavenly spirits”. We know also that the word elohim is also used of judges, etc. The witch of Endor, when she saw the shade of Samuel ascending up out of the earth (1 Samuel 28.13), referred to “gods” (elohim). But the real deciding factor on the interpretation of this must come from the New Testament. The writer of Hebrews is quite clear in Hebrews 2.9 that he is referring to “angels”, since he has consistently been comparing the superior qualities of Jesus to angels. However, when it comes to the “days of His flesh” (the incarnation), the writer is insistent that the man Jesus was made a lower than the angels for the purpose of “suffering death”. Why would Brother Teklemariam take the obscure interpretation of Psalms 8.5 and attempt to refute the clear meaning of Hebrews 2.9? Because the writer of Hebrews is stressing the genuine humanity of Christ. To be made “a little lower than the angels” is to be made a genuine human being. While on earth in the flesh, Jesus demonstrated His need of angels when He was ministered to by them following His 40 day fast and temptation by Satan (Matthew 4.11). Also, the man Jesus told His followers as He was being arrested, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matthew 26.53). But He was made, as the writer of Hebrews says, “a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death”. BROTHER TEKLEMARIAM STRUGGLES WITH GALATIANS 4.4: This very simple passage, “But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law”, becomes a difficult explanation for Brother Teklemariam. He becomes mired up in attempting to explain “made under the law”. Does this mean, he asks, “that the Son was ‘made’ out of a part of the law”? With this very poor logic, he then turns on the phrase, “made of a woman”. It is obvious here that we should understand that Jesus was born during the period or “dispensation”, which we call the Law. His birth was accomplished during that period. He was made “under the law”, or “according to the law”, so that He could be a lawful Redeemer (“a lamb without spot or blemish”). He was circumcised the eighth day, etc. After attempting to topple many other references to the genuine humanity of Christ (some coming from Paul himself), Brother Teklemariam dismisses Galatians 4.4 with a statement that “it is not biblical to build faith upon one witness of a scripture” (q.v., p.183). He admits that Jesus was born during the time when the Law of Moses was in effect, and he says, “He was also without doubt, born of Mary” (q.v.). But he nevertheless insists that Jesus cannot be “the son of the curse of the Law”. Jesus cannot be “of the sin of the woman”, quoting Psalms 51.5, and Job 25.4-6. None of this, course, would matter if God cleansed that which He took from the woman. Brother Teklemariam seems to forget that the Holy Ghost “overshadowed” Mary and that the “power of the Highest” came upon her. The angel told her, “therefore, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1.35). God is able to cleanse and to sanctify. Mary was living a holy and a sanctified life. She was a pure virgin. Let us give some credit to the grace and power of God to do as He pleases. Finally, the discussion always goes to the verb ginomai. I am not a Greek scholar, but I suspect the reason why the translators chose the English verb “made” is the fact that they had John 1.14 in mind, where the same verb ginomai was used. In John 1.14 it seems imperative that it be translated “was made flesh”. It would be awkward to say that the Word was born flesh (but many of the revised versions translate “became flesh” in John 1.14 and translate ginomai in Galatians 4.4 “born of a woman”). Vine’s Dictionary (q.v.) gives the preferred translation as “to become”, but notes that ginomai is sometimes “translated by the passive voice of the verb to make”, thus tacitly endorsing the translation of Galatians 4.4 as it is in the authorized version (KJV). He does recognize the translation of ginomai (“born”) in the revised versions for Galatians 4.4. “Made” of a woman is systematically congruent with “made flesh” in John 1.14. A BRIEF SUMMARY: Teklemariam Gezahagne, while he is an excellent writer and a fine scholar, ought to re-examine his treatment of the humanity of Christ and the Oneness of God. The Lord possesses two natures: His eternal divinity, which shall be justly and gloriously exalted above everything in creation, and His genuine humanity, which He assumed for our salvation. The writer of Hebrews, perhaps more than others unless we include the book of Acts, exulted in His great mercy that He has bestowed upon us through the incarnation. He wrote: Thou
hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy
God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
(Hebrews 1.9). The “fellows” of this passage are fellow members of the human race. He became one of us that we might be like Him. What Brother Teklemariam has done in this tremendous study (and I do not wish to take away from the value of it) is to exalt the divinity of Christ at the expense of His genuine humanity. If Jesus Christ is not God Almighty (God the Father), then He is not able to save us (but He is and He is!). On the other hand, if Jesus of Nazareth is not the true Son of Mary, and a genuine human being, descended from David and Abraham, then He cannot be our Redeemer and our sacrifice for sins. To deny His wonderful divinity (as God the Father) is to rob Him of His rightful glory. On the other hand, to deny His genuine humanity is to rob us of our blood sacrifice, who hung in our place on the old rugged cross. If He is not one of us, then we do not have a true Mediator. 1 Timothy 2.5 states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man (anthropos) Christ Jesus”. If He was not true anthropos and true God, then our faith is in vain. But it is not in vain, because He stood in my place. It is my humble prayer that Elder Teklemariam will look again at the scriptures clearly identifying the genuine humanity of our Savior, Jesus Christ. What is so glorious and thrilling is that He walked among us, a genuine man among men. The “seed” of the woman bruised the head of the serpent. It was a promise made to Adam and Eve, our ancestral parents, that one day one of us would face the devil and overcome him at Calvary. God did not tell Adam and Eve that it would be He Himself who robed Himself in flesh by means of the incarnation. But imagine their joy and their surprise when they found out who it was! The same One who walked with them in the Garden, knelt in the Garden thousands of years later, and said, “Not my will but thine be done”. Such a marvelous book written by Brother Teklemariam, but I hope he will consider revising it to give credence to the genuine humanity of Christ. Sincerely, William B. Chalfant, BS.Ed. ------(C) William B. Chalfant All rights reserved
|