7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Vipers

He is indeed a philanthropist, who braves the indignation of the rulers and the people for their real good. Look at that humble peasant of Judea, itinerating through the length and breadth of his native land, denouncing the Scribes and Pharisees, the Rulers and Elders of the people, as hypocrites, a race of vipers, a wicked and adulterous generation, and murderers of the prophets sent to them by God! And why does this carpenter's son presume thus to arraign "these powers that be, which are ordained of God?"

Because they had made void the law of God by their traditions. How knew he that? had they not the volume of the Book, and could not these "great and good men" of Israel, with all their learning, too, interpret the Law as well as he? Is not this Joseph's son, whence, therefore, hath he this wisdom?—Yes, they had indeed the book, they read it, too, in their synagogues, but they had other standards, other laws and statutes, other ordinances—the Mishna and the Talmud—which stood between them and the simple import of the prophetic rolls.

The people were perishing for lack of knowledge, the temple servants were starving, while the wolves in the clothing of sheep,—the Scribes, Pharisees, and Lawyers, were devouring widows' houses and fattening upon the spoil. Jesus, this humble, though bold and daring innovator, pointed to the Book of God as his authority. "It is written," "It is written," was his confident appeal,

"My house shall be a house of prayer, but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Martyrdom for truth, but monuments of stone for the destroyers of the people. Convinced but not converted, an insane people sacrificed this noble victim to the malice and cupidity of their rulers. "They madden whom the gods destroy;" so this infatuated people would none of God's reproof; he sent his eagles against them, and they fell by the edge of the sword.

The Apostolic Advocate, Nov 1834

8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The formation of living souls from the dust, and waters of the sea.

...as John observed,

'God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.'

àHe employs means in all he does by himself and others. These means are laws to a vast extent completely hidden from his creatures. The law of soul-creation from the dust is known only to Jesus of all the sons of men. The law exists though hidden; and awaits its application by him for the resurrection of the dead.

Jesus, as God's representative, will re-create their souls from their original dust by God's spirit. 'God,' says Paul, 'shall make alive your mortal bodies by his ruach, pneuma, or spirit.

...His spirit-directing finger, is enough for this. He wills it, and it is done; not without law, or contrary thereto, but in harmony with latent physical principles whose modus operandi is known only to Him that appointed them, and is prepared and authorized to apply them.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Dec 1852

15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;

The time specified in Dan. ix. for the appearance of the Messiah was about to expire; and we learn from Josephus and Tacitus that there was a general expectancy of Messiah's advent. This would tend to fix attention on John. ...John also (the other John) tells us that

"the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, who art thou?"

To whom he answered,

"I am not the Christ" (Jno. i. 19, 20).

Nazareth Revisited Ch 4

The seventieth week was the week in which the covenant was confirmed in the attestations which the Father gave to Jesus as his Son, and as the Seed of Abraham and of David, to whom he had promised the land of Canaan, and the kingdom and throne of David for an everlasting inheritance.

The week of confirmation was divided between the ministry of John and that of Jesus. The former was engaged in baptizing the people into the hope of Messiah's immediate manifestation; and when he was about finishing his work, Jesus was baptized, and publicly recognised before the assembled people, as the Son of God by a voice from the excellent glory.

He was also anointed at the same time, and sealed, as the Most Holy One of Israel. John having now finished his ministry, was thrown into prison by Herod the tetrarch; and Jesus being thirty years old, entered upon the work of the latter half part of the week, or three years and a half remaining to complete the 490 (Luke 3:15,19-23).

After he had passed some months of his ministry, he was warned by some Pharisees that Herod would kill him; to which he replied,

"Go tell that fox, Behold I cast out devils and do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless, I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following; for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem" (Luke 13:31-33).

Besides showing that a day is sometimes used prophetically for a year, the Lord's reply shows also the period of his ministry as equivalent to the latter half part, at the end of which he expected to die, and afterwards to be perfected by a resurrection to life.

Elpis Israel 3.4.

16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you [you - the baptised believers] with the Holy Spirit and [you - the generation of vipers] with fire [AD70]:

‭"‬He shall destroy you and burn up your city‭"—Matt ‬22: 7...Joel 2: 1-11;30,31

Thus,‭ ‬John prophesied of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit‭; ‬and,‭ ‬under the metaphor of fire burning up the chaff,‭ ‬of the overwhelming destruction that was coming upon Jerusalem and Judea,‭ ‬whose multitudes were then listening to his discourse.

Bro Thomas

The Christadelphian, May 1873

17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

It is not surprising that such teaching -- delivered with the fervour and fearlessness of divine authority, -- should arrest attention at a time when moral earnestness had been killed by a punctilious and hypocritical ritualism; and when the public mind was in the tension of a justly-founded expectancy.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 4

18 And many other things in his exhortation preached he unto the people.

This general suspense and anticipation would dispose the people to attend to a teacher so emphatic and peculiar. The nature of his teachings would rivet the attention excited by his peculiarity. He commanded them with authority to repent: to turn from their sins; and to submit to baptism at his hands for the remission of the same.

With this command, he associated two solemn intimations -- first, that judgement was impending on that generation: the axe was lying at the root of the trees, and every tree failing to bring forth good fruit would be cut down and cast into the fire; and secondly, that the coming one was among them, about to make his appearance

Nazareth Revisited Ch 4

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

"What part of God's righteousness did the sinless Jesus fulfil in his being immersed by John?"

Answer.—The sin of Adam consisted in disobedience; so the righteousness of Jesus consisted in obedience. Thus Paul says:

"As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so, by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous."—(Rom. 5:19.)

Again:

"Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered."-(Heb. 5:8.)

Righteousness consists in doing what is commanded. Now, John was "sent to baptize with water."—(John 1:33.) The "word of the Lord came" to him while in the wilderness.—(Luke 3:2.) Hence, submission to John's baptism was obedience to the divine command, and, therefore, righteousness.

Jesus, though God-manifest, was the seed of David according to the flesh, therefore, a Jew, and subject to the word that came from John; and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient.—(Phil. 2:8.) This obedience was righteousness.

"In all things, it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren."—(Heb. 2:17.)

The Christadelphian, Dec 1870

22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

By God manifest we mean that a manifestation took place in the Son born of Mary, previous to his official anointing, as well as after.

...A mere human being, ever so highly endowed by Holy Spirit, would not be in the same relation to God as His own Word made flesh. Such a man would be a mere medium; not the 'Holy thing,' 'Thy salvation,' 'The Saviour,' 'A light,' and other titles by which the Lord Jesus is described. The foregoing sets forth the true position of the Ogle ecclesia on this important subject."

The Christadelphian, Mar 1873

The anointing

Do ye understand the mighty idea involved in this expression? Many talk as if it were a mere effusion of galvanism—the pouring out of something which, when poured, was a limited quantity in the possession of him anointed. We shall find it imports a profounder thing than this—viz., the establishment of such a connection between the anointer (God) and the anointed, as that the power and intelligence of the one streams with the anointing through the other, establishing a unity of which we have little conception.

Whence comes the term anointed? It is borrowed from the practice under the law of pouring oil in token of appointment or consecration. Confined to this, the limited idea referred to is in its place, but it must be remembered that the anointing with oil was a mere type of that marvellous operation which was to result in Christ—the great end and substance and antitype of all the Mosaic ceremonials:—God manifest in the flesh by the spirit, constituting a Son of God.

When that operation was accomplished, Jesus of Nazareth was in the bosom of the Father, "for God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him." By the spirit, he was in God, and God was in him. The connection was one of power and intelligence. If the limited action of the spirit on a prophet made the prophet's mind en rapport with the Deity for the time being, what was the mental condition of a man begotten of the spirit and inhabited by the spirit in measureless presence? It was a condition of unity with the great fountain head. Jesus and the Father were one.

When did this begin? There were stages in the development. The first was when the words of the angel to Mary were fulfilled.

"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also shall that holy thing that shall be born of thee be called the Son of God."—(Luke 1:35.)

A child begotten of the Holy Spirit—that is, of God—was a very different child from one begotten of the will of the flesh. The difference was manifest in the fact that at no period did the child commit sin. An ordinary child, however well organized, would have gone astray before acquiring the experience necessary to give wisdom.

The brain brings nothing into the world but impulse. There is the latent capacity for wisdom, but no wisdom until the experience of evil imparts it. But this child had wisdom from the beginning: Wisdom was its starting point. It grew in wisdom; it never sinned: at twelve it knew its Father and its mission and devoted himself to His work—a knowledge intuitively derived from the Spirit that guided him from his mother's womb; (Psalm 22:9–10; 71:6); for such a knowledge with such results at such an age would have been an impossibility with a merely human brain.

At 30, the time had arrived to introduce him to Israel, and to bestow an increase of the power to which he owed his existence. Accordingly, it was revealed to John (sent to prepare the way of the Lord), that on whomsoever, among the crowds that came to his baptism, the Spirit should visibly descend that was the Christ. When Jesus came out of the water, the manifestation was given; and the Messiah (or Christ) stood revealed;

"This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased!"

He then entered upon the second stage: the manifestation of God in mortal flesh by the spirit shed without measure upon a man provided for himself by the operation of the spirit upon the "seed of David according to the flesh." For three years and a half, this wonderful man—in whom God tabernacled—to whom the winds and the sea were obedient—went about doing good, speaking the words of God, and teaching as one having authority and not as the scribes.—(Matt. 7:29.)

At the end of that time, he was crucified, and the Father left him for three days. On the third day, He returned to him, and the anointing was then consummated in the substance of the man Christ Jesus being changed to spirit, and he was "received up into glory," where

"he ever liveth to make intercession for those who come unto God by him."

The Christadelphian, Oct 1869

The Spirit

And of spirit, what know we? Nothing but in its effects. The gifts of the spirit are familiar only as manifestations of power. God, by the Spirit, enstamped on the apostles and early believers, certain powers and faculties extra to those appertaining to the living soul of Edenic origin; but the essence of the spirit is as inscrutable as the Father's person.

Prophets spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit; this was but the expression of ideas burningly impressed on their minds by the omnipotent power of the Father, exerted by, or through, or in the spirit.

Our familiarity with prophecy is apt to make us imagine ourselves familiar with the modus operandi of inspiration. The prophets were acted upon by divine impulse; but the divine impulse understand ye? Nay; we know it as a fact—that is all.

The spirit, though a fact is a mystery to our understanding. We talk much of it, and may come from sheer familiarity with the word, to put it by in the mind as a thing we understand; but let it be perceived, that it is only in its manifestations or functions toward ourselves, that we apprehend it. In itself, it is incomprehensible.

The Christadelphian, Oct 1869

23 And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph), the son of Heli [Mary's father],

"Jesus was at this time about thirty, and the general supposition was that he was the natural son of Joseph, but he was, in reality, genealogically of Heli."

Human versus divine paternity

Luke's words prove that to his (Luke's) private information, Jesus was not the son of Joseph in a natural sense; for in penning this public record of his genealogy in which he is bound to admit the legal relation of Jesus to Joseph, he inserts a parenthesis which fences off the popular idea of his being the natural son of Joseph.

It is as much as to say "The common idea was, that he was the real son of Joseph, but this is a popular delusion; for though the legal son of Joseph, he was the product of creative power, through Mary, the wife of Joseph." This is the effect of Luke's parenthesis. On no other principle can the occurrence of such a parenthesis be rationally accounted for.

There is another, and, if possible, more conclusive view of the matter. A glance at the original would suggest that Luke's brief parenthesis is wrongly marked in the common version; and that it really includes the whole supposition alluded to. Luke's words literally translated, would read

"And he (Jesus) was beginning about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed, a son of Joseph) of Heli."

The words "which was the son," that precede "of Heli," in the common version, are not in the original. Their introduction changes the significance of the verse. It makes it allege that Joseph was the son of Heli (Mary's father), whereas he was the son of Jacob; and it destroys the connection between Jesus and Heli, which it is evidently Luke's intention to point out.

Paraphrasing Luke's words, so as to express their evident significance, they would read "Jesus was at this time about thirty, and the general supposition was that he was the natural son of Joseph, but he was, in reality, genealogically of Heli." Genealogy being only reckoned by males, Heli, Mary's father, would be put for Mary in stating his natural extraction.

This harmonises all the apparent difficulties in the case, and destroys the proof which Josephites see in Luke's genealogy. Luke's genealogy is not the genealogy of Joseph, but of Heli, Mary's father, and Joseph's father-in-law.

If Luke give the genealogy of Joseph, Matthew does not; for the lines are different. Josephites allege them both to be that of Joseph. How can this be, when they are different? Josephites must reject one, for two conflicting pedigrees cannot be right. But there is no necessity for rejecting either. One is the genealogy of Mary, and the other of Joseph; and both are essential to show that, notwithstanding the departure from the natural order of things in Christ's begettal, Jesus is still the son of David, and heir to his throne.

Luke does not state that "several spurious gospels had then begun to be circulated." He simply observes that many had attempted a narrative of the facts of Christ's life, and that he, having authentic and personal knowledge of the whole matter, had been induced to put forth his account.

The Christadelphian, Jul 1889

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years age (being as was supposed the Son of Joseph) which was of Heli, and so on. All the words in italics form the parenthesis; and not as in the English version, namely the words 'as was supposed.'

Joseph was not son of Heli, but son of Jacob; but Jesus 'was of Heli,' being grandson to him as the father of Mary; who, by her marriage with Joseph reunited the two branches of Zorobabel's house, and so constituted Jesus, as her first-born, the Heir of the Kingdom and throne of David.

Joseph Denies that he was the Father of Jesus

No human testimony, however, could have convinced him that a pregnant maiden, had not known man. But he did so believe; for in publicly acknowledging her as his wife, this just man proclaimed his conviction that, though nature and flesh were against her, he believed her to be a virtuous woman. But there can be no faith, or belief, without testimony, for faith is the belief of testimony; and no human testimony was adequate to the proof of the proposition, that a woman may become enceinte without intercourse with man.

There is, therefore, but one conclusion open to us in the premises, namely, that the testimony was supernatural or divine; and that Matthew's account of the matter, is the only rational and truthful solution of the case. Joseph endorsed the truth, by abandoning his original purpose of repudiation; by publicly acknowledging her as his wife; by abstinence; and by giving the newly-born infant the Heaven-appointed name of Yahoshaia, or Jesus, which implied 'the Deity with us,' Jews, according to the prophet.

But no man can prove of his own knowledge whose son he is. Jesus might have affirmed, that the Deity, by the formative power of His influence, and not Joseph was his father; but as he himself once said,

'if I alone testify of myself, my testimony is not true",

it was necessary that his real father should bear witness. This he did accordingly, about thirty years after his birth. The Deity proclaimed his paternity before the multitude and their leaders, saying, as he emerged from Jordan's watery grave,

'This is my Son the beloved in whom I delight.'

This proclamation was never denied. It was too notorious for any contemporary to venture a denial. John the baptizer testified to the truth of it; and the voice in effect justified the conclusion of Joseph in the case.

Joseph being only the reputed, and not the natural father of Jesus, the Jews were not therefore justified or 'correct' in rejecting him as the future King of Israel and the seed. On the contrary, if Joseph had been his real father, Jesus would have been neither the king nor the seed promised; for that personage was to be both Son of David and Son of Deity, as testified to David in 2. Sam. 7:14; Psal. 2:7; Rom. 1:3, 4; Heb. 1:5.

In both genealogies the descent of the rights of Jesus were reckoned through the males of David's house. Jesus descended from Zorobabel, son of David and Governor of Judea, at the return from Babylon; and so did Joseph, but through different branches, whose interests and rights were united in the marriage of Joseph and Mary. Matthew gives the descent of Joseph from Zorobabel; and Luke, the descent of Jesus from the same.

But Luke's account is obscured in the English version by placing parenthesis marks in the wrong position.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, May 1859

That Mary does not appear by name in either of them [the genealogies] is not a difficulty when we remember that it had ceased to be a custom at the time these genealogies were drawn from the public registers, to recognise the female element in the genealogy. If the woman were an important link, she appeared either by her husband or other male relation. In this case, she appears by her father.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 6

As was supposed.

It does not say‭ "‬and Joseph begat Jesus.‭"... ‬as soon as it reaches Joseph,‭ ‬it breaks away from the style of phraseology by which the descent of the line is previously traced.‭ ‬It introduces Joseph,‭ ‬not as the father of Jesus,‭ ‬but as‭ "‬the husband of Mary,‭ " ‬and isolates Joseph from all connection with Christ's paternity,‭ ‬by declaring that of Mary was Jesus born,‭ ‬and that Joseph was merely her husband.‭

This shows the object of this genealogy,‭ ‬and suggests an answer to the question‭ "‬Why was this line given if Joseph were not the father of Jesus‭?" ‬As the husband of Mary,‭ ‬Joseph was legally one with Mary.‭ ‬The two were made‭ "‬one flesh‭" ‬by marriage.‭

Hence,‭ ‬in a legal point of view,‭ ‬Jesus was the son of Joseph by being the son of Mary,‭ ‬and through‭ ‬Mary inherited the lineage and rights and titles of Joseph.‭ ‬Had any other than a son of David been the husband of Mary,‭ ‬it would have interfered with the legal and blood-relationship of Jesus to David.‭ ‬Jesus would not in all respects have been the son of David.‭ ‬In fact his relationship would have been obstructed by the legal power of the husband over the wife.

It was as necessary that the husband of Mary should be a son of David as it was that Mary should be a descendant of David‭; ‬for if it had not been so,‭ ‬Christ's legal rights under the covenant made with David would have been destroyed.‭ ‬But by both father and mother being‭ "‬of the house and lineage of David,‭" ‬the natural and legal proprieties and necessities of the case were preserved,‭ ‬in spite of the marvel of Christ's supernatural begettal.‭ ‬Hence,‭ ‬the genealogy of Matthew is of the utmost value in showing that Joseph was descended from David.

The Ambassador of the Coming Age, Dec 1867.

A virgin shall conceive

As to Christ being styled "The Son of Man," we see in that title an intimation of the fact that he was not of the nature of angels (Heb. 2:16) but of real human stock—Son of Man, though Son of God. This is explained by the fact that though the inception of his being was due to divine impulse, his nature was elaborated from the substance of Mary, as much so as any child is from its mother; but if the meaning of it be that Joseph was his father, how is he the Son of God?

This point has already been brought out, Josephites ask if Adam could have been styled "Son of Man?" Certainly not, because there was no antecedent man-nature from which to evolve him. But what is he called? Son of God (Luke 3:38). This point tells destructively against Josephism.

Adam is styled Son of God because he was the direct product of the Creative Power as distinct from human procreation. With this fact in view, we have scriptural light shed on Christ's title as Son of God. His being called Son of Man as well is due to the intervention of human instrumentality by Mary his mother.

The genealogies of Luke and Matthew, while apparently giving the descent of Jesus through the line of Joseph, are two separate lines. They coincide from Abraham to David, but here there is a complete divergence. One line (that of Joseph) proceeds through Solomon and the kings of Judah his successors; and the other (that of Mary) through Nathan the prophet, into a collateral branch of the royal family.

The two lines once more unite in the family of Salathiel, in the days of the Babylonish captivity; but in the days of his grandson they again separate, and do not again approximate until the espousal of Mary and Joseph, with whom all genealogical traces of the line of David terminate.

These facts will be apparent to any one who will take the trouble to write out and compare the two genealogies. The difficulty with some is that Joseph appears to be the terminus of both lines. He is introduced at the end of both lines, but an inspection of the genealogies will show a difference.

As regards Matthew's genealogy, there is no obscurity. It brings the line from Abraham to Jacob, father of Joseph (an interval of forty two generations), and concludes with the words,

"and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

This, then, is the line of Joseph beyond doubt; but even this does not favour the view that Joseph was the father of Jesus. The very opposite. It does not say "And Joseph begat Jesus." It ought to have done so if it was so But as soon as it reaches Joseph, it breaks away from the style of phraseology by which the descent of the line is previously traced, and introduces Joseph, not as the father of Jesus, but as "the husband of Mary." It isolates Joseph from all connection with Christ's paternity, by declaring that of Mary was Jesus born, and that Joseph was merely her husband.

This shows the object of this genealogy, and suggests an answer to the question, "why was this line given if Joseph were not the father of Jesus?" As the husband of Mary, Joseph was legally one with Mary. The two were made "one flesh" by marriage. Hence, in a legal point of view, Jesus was the son of Joseph by being the son of Mary, and through Mary inherited the lineage and rights and titles of Joseph.

Had any other than a son of David been the husband of Mary, it would have interfered with the legal and blood relationship of Jesus to David. Jesus would not in all respects have been the son of David. In fact, his relationship would have been obstructed by the legal power of the husband over the wife. It was necessary that the husband of Mary should be the son of David as it was that Mary should be a descendant of David; for if it had not been so, Christ's legal rights under the covenant made with David would have been destroyed.

But by both father and mother being "of the house and lineage of David," the natural and legal proprieties and necessities of the case were preserved, in spite of the marvel of Christ's supernatural begettal. Hence, the genealogy of Matthew is of the utmost value in showing that Joseph is descended from David.

Luke's genealogy is a little more obscure, but not a whit less fatal to the Josephite theory. Luke begins at the opposite end from Matthew. He traces the line backward, while Matthew does it forward. He begins with Jesus at the time of his baptism by John, and says,

"Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age (being as was supposed) the son of Joseph."

Now, why does Luke employ the word "supposed"? If, as Josephism hints, Luke believed Jesus to be the natural son of Joseph, why does he not say so, in the simple unequivocal style observed in all the other cases, instead of introducing a word which suggests doubt and mystery? Who "supposed" that he was the son of Joseph? And why was it the subject of "supposition"?

Does not the existence of a "supposition" show that a contrary idea had been asserted, viz., that Jesus was not the son of Joseph in a natural sense, but "Son of God"? Does it not show that there was a diversity of opinion existing at the time of Luke's writing? Supposition only comes into play where uncertainty exists

The Christadelphian, Jul 1889

‭My argument, at present, is that Jesus answers to all the characteristics of the Messiah foretold in Moses and the prophets. I have shown this in three particulars, the time, the place, and the family.

Now I proceed to a fourth. The prophets teach that the Messiah should not be of purely human extraction, but should have God for his father. I refer first to Psalm 116:16, which though not irresistibly to the point, is in harmony with the idea presented in Isaiah 7. The Messiah speaks thus: "Oh Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant and the son of thine handmaid; thou hast loosed my bonds".

By the two taken together, we are reminded of the necessity that Christ should be born of a virgin, arising out of the general prediction concerning him to be found in Gen. 3:17. There he is spoken of under a general figure. "The seed of the woman shall bruise thy (the serpent's) head." I ask Mr. Stern to give a reason why the words are not "the seed of the man." The seed of the woman was to be the instrumentality -- the means of remedying the evil that came from the woman listening to the lie of the serpent.

The woman being the cause of the transgression, in leading Adam astray, was to be the means also of deliverance from the condemnation into which, by her, he came. She was, apart from the man, destined to be the means of the introduction of the Saviour into the world. Hence the designation, "Seed of the Woman." I need not say how completely this is fulfilled in the birth of Jesus. But how could a child be born of a virgin? The account in Luke and Matthew is a complete answer.

In Matthew we read: "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit". In Luke: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore, that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." The womb of the virgin was preter-naturally quickened by the divine energy that formed all things in the beginning, and thus the product was a Son of God, answering to the before-time mysterious predictions of the prophets, which I proceed to continue to quote:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace."

I ask Mr. Stern to explain how, upon Jewish hypotheses, the Messiah could bear the name of God. Why should he, individually, be described in the language here employed: "Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." The New Testament supplies the reason. Jesus of Nazareth, as born of Mary, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was God's offspring, and therefore, naturally, inherited the name of his Father.

This is an explanation which the Christian system supplies, and which the Jewish system cannot; for the Jewish system says the Messiah is to be merely a man, merely the son of David. In this connection, I would introduce the argument employed by Jesus himself in controversy with the Jews on this very point. It was an argument they were not able to answer, and which Mr. Stern will not be able to answer. I refer to Matt. 22:42, where we read:

"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David call him Lord, how is he then his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions."

I now ask the same question of Mr. Stern. Upon what principle, agreeable to Jewish genealogy, does David call his son "Lord"? There is an explanation in connection with Jesus of Nazareth which their system cannot afford. Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of God, is higher than David, though born in the line of David according to the flesh. He is God manifest in the flesh, and, therefore, Lord of David. He says of himself, "I am the ROOT and the offspring of David" (Rev. 12:16); "The Father who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). "He that seeth me, seeth him that sent me" (John 12:4-5); "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also" (John 14:9).

Therefore, was Jesus greater than Jonah, greater than Solomon, greater than David; and, therefore, could David say as concerning the power that was his very origin, "He is my Lord"; although he could also say of Jesus as the flesh-medium of that power, "He is my son." This, indeed, is the great mystery solved in the genealogy, which brings me back to a point I omitted to mention.

It might be considered a strange thing that the genealogy of Joseph should be given, if Joseph were not the father of Jesus. But you will see that it was necessary; for if Mary were married to one who was not of the house of David, her individuality would be merged in his, here Davidic extraction would have been marred or covered, and the relation of the Messiah to David interfered with. Therefore, it was necessary that the husband of Mary, equally with Mary herself, should be a descendant of David. By this the Messiah, though not begotten of a human father, was, indubitably, David's son.

Bro Roberts - Was Jesus of Nazareth The Messiah?

The "Divine Sonship of Christ"

By the Editor.

(Reproduced with slight emendation from the "Ambassador" of 22 years ago.)

First Article

THIS is a phrase which, notwithstanding its unscripturalness as a matter of words, represents a scriptural idea, viz., that Christ was the Son of God. Some say "that he was the son of God by his anointing and resurrection from the dead," but the son of Joseph by natural procreation. The terrible error of this view is apparent in a variety of ways.

There is first the fact that the sonship of Christ was proclaimed while he was yet in the flesh (Matt. 3:17; Luke 9:35; John 1:49; 3:16; 5:19–23; 6:69; 10:36). He was the Son of God before he suffered (Heb. 5:8). Therefore in determining the sense in which he sustained this character, we must exclude his resurrection from consideration. His sonship was a fact before he died and rose again.

This being so, we must confine our attention to "the days of his flesh" (Heb 3.) in seeking to know what constituted his sonship. Hedged, in this inquiry, within the four walls, as it were, of Christ's mortal life, in what does the Josephite view allege Christ's sonship to have consisted? It replies, "His anointing."

It does not indicate the authority upon which the anointing of the Spirit is to be considered synonymous with sonship. Saul was the "Lord's anointed" (1 Sam. 24:1); but not a son. David also had been anointed both with oil and Spirit; but he is nowhere styled the son of God. Jesus was anointed; but he was the Son of God in addition to this.

That Jesus is the Christ (anointed), and that Christ is the Son of God, are two separate propositions (1 John 2:22; 5:5). The prophets were moved by the same spirit that dwelt superabundantly in Jesus; but he was a Son, while they were not. Witness the distinction observed in Hebrews 1:1: that

"God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, hath spoken unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by a Son."

God spoke in both cases, and by the same spirit, but the channel of utterance was different. In the one case it was the mouth of the selected sons of Adam, in the other it was a begotten Son of God.

What made him Son of God? Josephites say, "the possession of spirit;" but this cannot be; for the prophets had the spirit as well as he. "The spirit of Christ was in them" (1 Pet. 1:11). According to the Josephite theory, all the prophets were all sons of God, for all had the same spirit. If so, where was the distinction indicated in the words of Paul, and emphasized in Christ's parable of the vineyard:

"And when the time of the fruit drew near he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruit of the vineyard. . . . Last of all he sent unto them his son, saying they will reverence my son" (Matt. 21:34–37).

Let this be read in view of the fact that the prophets were men selected, and inspired by the Spirit, while Jesus was preternaturally begotten of a virgin, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and the distinction is highly intelligible and immensely interesting.

The Christadelphian, Jul 1889

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

No man is a Son of God, because he is descended from "Adam Son of God" but Adam's sons become Sons of God by adoption through His Name. They must believe the promises covenanted; believe in Jesus, as the Yahweh-Spirit manifested in flesh, made a sin-offering, justified in spirit for the justification of believers; and be immersed into the Name, that they may be the subject of the repentance and the remission of sins which are offered in that name; and communicable only to such in putting on the name according to divine prescription.

The power of becoming a son of God consists in obeying the form of teaching apostolically delivered. In putting on Christ the Son of God by eminence, a man becomes a son of God. Addressing the sons of God in Galatia, Paul says:

"In Jesus anointed ye are all sons of God through the faith: for as many of you as were immersed into the Anointed have put on the Anointed. And if ye be the Anointed's, then ye are the seed of Abraham, and Heirs according to the promise" (ch. 3:26-29).

When a son of Adam is thus adopted into Abraham's family, he is a son of Abraham because he is in Jesus who was his descendant according to the flesh. He is in God the Father, -- and in the Son, by constitution; and Christ dwells in him by faith that works by love, and purifies the heart (Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:1).

This step being assured, what follows is of course. "IF children," says Paul, "then heirs, HEIRS OF GOD, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be GLORIFIED TOGETHER."

Eureka 1.1.3.

Men federally in Adam are all the children of God as the Scripture teaches, saying of Adam "who was the Son of God;" and again, "We are also His offspring." But this profits nothing beyond the present life; for in relation to a future life the children of Adam are not the children of God.

They only are sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty for the life to come, who are federally in Christ, His only begotten Son: only they can say in the enduring sense, "Abba Father;" they only are permanently affiliated to the Father of all.

Bro Shuttleworth

The Christadelphian, June 1873