The Old and New Testaments represent the kingdom of God in its past and future administration.

The Christadelphian, Mar 1873

Authenticity of the New Testament

àMR. ROBERTS: I say, respected friends..., that Matthew was written by Matthew in the Hebrew language, and afterwards translated into Greek; Mark was written by Mark at the dictation of Peter, as is supposed; Luke was written by Luke; John was written by John; the three last all in Greek. They were all written for the information of believers in Christ, and as an authentic and official record (for the information of subsequent generations) of the facts upon which their faith was based.

I am not able to produce the originals, because, as I believe, they do not exist. If Mr. Stern asks me why, I give this answer: I say for precisely the same reason that he would tell me who wrote the five books of Moses, the books of Samuel and the others. Why would he say so? for a very good reason. If the authorship of a book is unquestioned at the moment of its production, and continues in all subsequent generations to be received, the fact amounts to a demonstration.

Was Jesus of Nazareth The Messiah?

SECOND NIGHT of DEBATE

Mr. Robert Roberts and Mr. Louis Stern, Oct. 1871

àThese four Cherubim faces, in the order that they appear in Rev. 4:7, fit very beautifully into the pattern of the four gospels, as emphasizing the respective phases of Christ's mission-

MATTHEW: The lion, the King of Israel, addressed to Israel, tracing the line from Abraham and David.

MARK: The ox; the servant; the gospel of work and activity, no genealogy.

LUKE: The man, tracing the line from Adam; addressed to mankind.

JOHN: The eagle; the spiritual presentation, the spiritual discourses; again, as fitting, no genealogy

Matthew 1

Matthew affirms that Joram begat Ozias (or Uzziah), while according to 1 Chron. 3:12, and 2 Chron. 26:1, not Joram but Amaziah was the father of Uzziah.

Matthew has simply omitted three links in the enumeration—Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah—for the sake of harmonizing it with the number of generations elapsing between David and the Babylonish captivity. The interval was about 500 years, and giving something over 30 years to a generation there would be fourteen generations in the time. But there were eighteen names to deal with, which interfered with the plan upon which Matthew's genealogy is drawn, that, namely, of dividing the whole line from Abraham into three equal parts, marked by epochs in Israel's history—Abraham, David, and the Captivity. He therefore omitted the names in question and Jehoiakim at another place. This does not make Matthew contradict Chronicles, for in the same sense as David is the father of Jesus, Joram was the father of Uzziah—through intervening links.

3.—Matthew affirms that Josiah begat Jechoniah, whereas, according to 1 Chron. 3:16 Jechoniah was son to Jehoiakim, Josiah's son.

The same explanation applies in this case as in the last. The omission of Jehoiakim was no more the result of ignorance than in the case of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. It was a deliberate accommodation to the length of the chronological interval, and the plan upon which the descent of Christ was set forth—a mere abbreviation of the family pedigree.

4.—Matthew says that Zorobabel was the son of Salathiel, while 1 Chron. 3:19, makes him the son of Pedaiah.

Matthew is not alone in this matter, for, by reference to Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:3; Ezra 3:28; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; it will be found that Zerubbabel is described as "the son of Shealtiel" (a mere English spelling for the Hebrew of Salathiel). 1 Chron. 3:17, shews that Salathiel was Pedaiah's elder brother. How comes it that Zerubbabel should appear as the son of both? We have not the information which would positively answer this; but the materials for a solution exist in the fact that it was a law in Israel that a dead man's brother was required to take his brother's widow and raise up seed to his brother.—(Deut. 5:6.) Is it impossible that Zerubbabel, while the actual son of Pedaiah, may have been so by the widow of his brother Shealtiel or Salathiel, and therefore known as the son of the latter? We have no information; but we have the two facts that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, and that he was genealogically reckoned as the son of Salathiel, Pedaiah's brother; from which some such inference follows

5.—Luke affirms that Rhesa was the son of Zorobabel; while Matthew says that Zorobabel's son was Abiud; and the Old Testament mentions neither one nor the other.

As regards the apparent discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, we have disposed of that in the answer to the first question. The Zorobabels were not the same. When, therefore, Luke says that Zorobabel had a son, Rhesa, he does not contradict Matthew, who says (another) Zorababel had a son, Abiud. The only difficulty lies in the absence of Abiud in the genealogy of the Chronicles. This cannot be expressly explained. In view, however, first, of the incompleteness of the Old Testament account of Zerubbabel's descendants, and, second, the frequent variations in Hebrew names (the same person being often known by two names), the difficulty is not of an insurmountable character. It may well be that Abiud is either another name for one of the sons mentioned in Chronicles, or that it is the name of a son not mentioned there at all.

6.—Matthew gives 28 generations from David to Christ, while Luke gives 43 for the same period. Luke's reckoning gives 24 years to a generation, which is reasonable; Matthew's, 34, which is out of all character.

True, Matthew divides the interval between David and Christ into two periods of 14 generations each; but it is not true that "Luke gives 43 for the same period." He does not even mention 43 names. Between Jesus and David (neither of which are to be included) are 41 names; but this does not mean 40 complete generations, in the sense of Matthew's division. Father and son may be contemporary, and not constitute two generations in the general sense of Matthew. The period of 24 years does not see a complete change in the generation. The end of that period will find a full half of those who were active at its beginning still prominent men in their day; but the period allowed by Matthew is an approximation to a complete change in the actors on the scene. In this respect, Matthew's calculation is in character with experience, while that which our correspondent characterises as reasonable (which is neither Luke's nor Matthew's) would present a very superficial and one-sided view of the case.

The Christadelphian, Dec 1872

[MATTITYAHU - OJB]

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

àAs the " son of David, the son of Abraham " he was as much interested retrospectively in the Egyptian deliverance as his disciples, who were to be considered as having come out of Egypt in their fathers; as the son of Mary, partaking of their common sin, caused mortality (for death entered into the world by sin - Rom.5 : 12, he stood in as much need as they of that redemption from death, which he finally attained through the shedding of his own blood, as the antitypical lamb of Yahweh's passover (Heb. 9 : 12 'omit ital' "for us" ; also chap. 5 : 7).

Where he differed was in the mental state resulting from the fact that God was his father in the generative sense. He was God's well-beloved son, in whom God was well pleased, because he abode in His commandments, and did always those things that were pleasing unto Him (John 15: I0; 8 : 29).

He also differed in the Father's abiding presence in the fulness of the Spirit in the vessel so prepared. He was the Father's human manifestation in the midst of Israel, for the purpose of laying the foundation of human salvation in harmony with the principle of the Father's supremacy which required in the blood-shedding of such as partake of human mortality, the declaration of the Father's righteousness as the basis of the remission of sin unto life eternal to those recognizing and submitting to it.

The work was accomplished in his death and resurrection, by which he became " the first begotten' of the dead" (Rev. I : 5) and a name by investiture with which men may be saved-the only name given under heaven for this purpose (Acts 4: 12).

...the line does not go beyond Christ. Beginning with Adam, it ends with Christ. There has been no preservation of a genealogical line since his day. Human generation has, since that time, become fused into a common mass, in which no man could trace his pedigree. There must be a meaning in this, as there is in all the works of God. It is not difficult to see a meaning. We see it if we go forward far enough. Go to the end of the thousand years. Go to the time when there is no more curse, no more pain, and no more death.

Whose name is the "one name" in all the earth? Whose name covers all men-symbolically engraved on every forehead? At whose name does every knee bend and every tongue confess? THE NAME OF JESUS. The population then filling the earth is all in Christ, just as the present population is all in Adam.

The race of Adam will have disappeared, except in so far as absorbed and preserved in Christ. Hence there was no need for the preservation of Adam's pedigree after Christ, for all natural pedigree after him is effaced in him; that is to say, it counts for nothing outside of him, and inside of him it is absorbed.

The royal institution

à...Now it was important that the line of descent from David should be preserved till the promised son should appear; otherwise a cloud would-in the eyes of men-have lain upon the greatest of the works of God, for how should it have been manifest to men that Jesus was the promised Messiah of the house of David, if the line of descent had been lost or become involved in obscurity?

It is a proof of the Messiahship of Jesus, coordinate with many infallible proofs, that the genealogy of the house of David ceased to be preserved after his appearance.

But there was no need for its preservation after his appearance on any ground, for as the natural heir to David's throne, revived from the dead, and made to live for ever, his existence must always override subsequent genealogy, even if it had been preserved; for who could hope to take the throne with a legal heir ever living? Thus do all the works and ways of God harmonise one with another in all their details.

Seasons 1.99.

2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;

.à..here is an unbroken and attested line of ancestry bridging a gulf of four thousand years-a marvel that few people appreciate, because one with which all people are familiar-like the sun, the greatest and most astounding phenomenon in human experience, and yet the least noticed because so well known.

Seasons 1.99

3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram;

4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon;

5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias;

9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias;

10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias;

11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;

14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;

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

The Genealogy of Christ

àIt is not true that genealogy among the Jews is only reckoned by the male line, though that is the prevailing rule of reckoning. The Jewish rejectors of Jesus have dogmatised on the point because of the argument it has given them against Jesus being the Son of David; but their own scriptures condemn them.

There are several instances where the line is traced through a female. Thus in the tribe of Judah, a house is recognised as "the children of Sheshan" (1 Chron. 2:31), although it is expressly recorded that "Sheshan had no sons, but only daughters (verse 34), one of whom he gave in marriage to his Egyptian slave, Jarha, whose share in the matter was not allowed to divert the genealogical tree.

Again, in the same tribe, Jair, the grandson of Hezron, by his own son, is (Num. 32:41) styled "the son of Manasseh," because Hezron's wife was a daughter of Manasseh, though by the male side, he was a son of Judah.

Again, in the genealogical reckoning, after the Babylonish captivity, you find it stated (Ezra 1:61) of one of the priests that he

"took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai, the Gileadite, and was called after their name."

There are other illustrations of the same thing, but these are sufficient to show how little ground there is for the Jewish objection to the genealogy of Jesus, who, as the son of a female of the house of David, could, compatibly with Jewish practice, if there were special reasons, be reckoned a son of David, even if his father had been a man and a member of another family; but who is much more indefeasibly so in having had no human father, except putatively, and in being born after his mother had been made one in wedlock with a husband, and he a man of the family of David, whose rights, and status, and descent as such, Jesus inherited by the force of his mother's union with him.

The Christadelphian, Jan 1872

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are 14 generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

àThe generations of Israel's nation are reckoned from Abraham. Between seven of them there is a remarkable relationship in the way of type and antitype. These are the fourth, the fifth, the fourteenth, the fifteenth, the thirty-second, the forty-second, and, possibly, the rising generation of the present time.

The events of the fourth occurred under Moses; of the fifth, under Joshua; of the fourteenth, under David; of the fifteenth, under Solomon; of the thirty-second, under Zorobabel; of the forty second, under Christ; and of the last, the substance of all that have preceded it, and as yet in the undeveloped, but not unrevealed, future.

The six generations present so many pictures, as it were, of what will be transacted in the seventh. But want of space forbids more than an allusion to the fact. Referring to the remarkable incidents of Jewish history, the apostle says,

"all these things happened unto them for types ( TUPOI, representative things): and they are written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the ages (TA TELE TON AIONON) have come."

Elpis Israel 2.4. Logos p301

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.

When Did Jesus Become Christ?

àJesus was Christ when born in Bethlehem, as saith the angel to the shepherd:

"Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11).

Hence, his birth is termed "the birth of Jesus Christ" (Matt. 1:18). He was Christ in a fuller effusion of the Christing power (which begat him), at his baptism on the banks of the Jordan, when the Spirit visibly descended and abode upon him.

Hence, John the baptiser said:

"I am not the Christ, but I am sent before him. He (the Christ) must increase, I must decrease. He that cometh from above is above all. God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him" (John 3:28, 30, 31, 34).

For the same reason, we find Andrew saying to Peter:

"We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted, the Christ" (John 1:41).

In harmony with which is Christ's answer to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well:

"I that speak unto thee am he" (the Christ) (John 4:26);

and the declaration of the Samaritans,

"This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world" (John 4:42).

To the same effect is the question of Christ and Peter's answer:

"Whom say ye that I am?" "Thou art the Christ; the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).

Wherein then lies the force of Peter's declaration:

"Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ!"

It lies here, that by the resurrection of Christ, God had confirmed the assertion of Jesus that he was the Christ (an assertion which had been denied by the Jews); and at the same time had perfected his Christship in exalting him to the spiritual nature.

There were degrees in the development: first, the Son of God, as the flesh-offspring of the Holy Spirit by Mary, the Word made flesh;

second, when he was thirty years of age, the fulness of the indwelling Father by the Spirit shed from above; and,

third, his glorification after resurrection. This process is briefly defined by Paul as "God manifest in the flesh (which comprehends the whole period of his natural life), justified in the Spirit."

The manifestation was not complete till the last stage was reached. The Christship, so to speak, was not fully developed till Jesus was glorified. Peter, therefore, with this completion in view, could appropriately speak as if it were a thing just accomplished:

"God hath made Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ"

But Peter did not mean to say that Jesus had not been the Christ before the crucifixion. This would have been a stultification both of his own previous testimony and of the facts of the case. The Christing was the Holy Spirit, and with this, Jesus was "full" (Luke 4:1) in the days of his flesh; yea, even as a child (Luke 2:40); as in the case of even John the Baptist (Luke 1:15). How otherwise could the first stage have been realised:

"God manifest in the flesh?"

As to the time when Jesus was glorified, the Holy Spirit was shed forth by Jesus upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost; but his own glorification was a previous necessity. There is no evidence that Jesus shed forth the power immediately after he received it himself. He poured out the Spirit at the right time, and that time was the day of Pentecost; but the power may have been in his hands against the arrival of that day. He intimates that

"all power was in his hands before he left the earth" (Matt. 28:18).

It is probable that in all senses, he was "perfected the third day" (Luke 13:32). The question "when" matters little. It is the fact, and not the date, of the Lord's glorification that is the important matter. If the date had been important, we should have been precisely informed. The date has not been given. Consequently, we cannot know for certain, however ingeniously we may speculate.

The Christadelphian, July 1898

The etymological and scriptural import of the phrase "the Christ."

We remarked, that it was a Greek word anglicized by the cutting off of the last syllable. The Greek before mutilation is χριστος, from χριω, to anoint to consecrate: hence christos signifies anointed. A christ is an anointed one. All kings and priests, therefore, who are made such by χρισμα, or that with which the anointing is performed, are christs.

They are, however not therefore Yahweh's christs. They only are his, who are anointed by his appointment; for his purposes. All others are the christs of the Devil Power, and styled "His Angels."

The chrism, or anointing matter, may be oil or spirit. The kings and priests of the houses of David and Aaron, and the prophets of the Hebrew nation, were anointed with oil, or

"an oil of holy ointment."

They were, therefore, all of them, irrespective of moral considerations, Yahweh's christs. Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and the prophets, were anointed with holy spirit. This was the chrism which dwelt in them; and is referred to by Peter when he said

"the Spirit of Christ was in them" (1 Epist. 1:11)

—the same Spirit that quickened the son of Heli's daughter when he rose from the dead (1 Epist. 3:18) and styled by Nehemiah in his prayer to Yahweh "thy spirit in thy prophets" (9:30.)

Christ, or Anointed, are represented in the Hebrew by Meshiach, commonly written Messiah.

To affirm, then, that A, B, and C, are Yahweh's christs, is to declare that they have been anointed with oil or spirit as his prophets, priests, and kings. To say to A, "thou art a christ," might be to declare a truth; but to say, "thou art the Christ" implies that A is some particular christ, who had somewhere been the subject of special discourse.

Now this we find to have been the case when we read, mark, and inwardly digest those ancient writings current under the style of "Moses and the Prophets." Moses taught that a prophet was to arise in Israel like unto him (Deut. 18:14) to whom they were to hearken; that the Yahweh-spirit would put his words into his mouth; and that whosoever would not hearken unto those words, it should be required of him.

He taught that this prophet was to speak in the name of Yahweh: that is, he was to be the medium through whom the Spirit would discourse to the Hebrew nation; and that when the spirit should so speak, the spirit would be the person or manifestation to whom he referred when he said to Moses

"I will be who I shall be"—Ehyeh asher ehyeh‭—"

This is my name,‭ ‬and this is my memorial‭ (‬or remembrancer‭) ‬for the Aion,‭ ‬and for a generation's generation.‭"—‬Exod.‭ ‬3:15.‭ ‬Hence Moses taught that this prophet should bear‭ "‬the glory‭" ‬of the Spirit,‭ ‬which is‭ "‬the name‭" ‬he proclaimed to Moses‭—‬Exod.‭ ‬33:18,‭ ‬19‭; ‬34:5‭–‬7-

‭"‬the august and glorious name aith Yhwh Elohaikah, the I shall be thy Mighty Ones." Deut. 28:58.

Here, then, the nation was taught to expect the appearance in its midst of a person, who should be at once an Israelite and the Eternal Spirit—two beings in combination; the Spirit manifested in and through flesh. Moses also taught that this Spirit-manifestation, or Prophet, whom he styles Shiloh (Gen. 49:10) should be a scepter in Judah; and though Judah's seed, yet in a peculiar sense, "the seed of the Woman"—Gen. 3:15—the destroyer of the serpent-power.

Moses had such faith in this personage of whom he wrote (John 5:46) that

"he refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer evil with the people of God (who had the same hope) than to have the enjoyment of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of the Christ greater wealth than the treasures in Egypt."—Heb. 11:24–26.

The prophets are copious in their references to this spirit-anointed seed of Abraham. Even Balaam the son of Bosor had a glimpse of him in his regal and military glory. Balaam, who was compelled to bless Israel against his will, discerned a time in the then far-distant future, which he styled "the latter days," when he should himself have been raised from the dead, that he should "behold him but not nigh." For "a Star," said he,

shall come out of Jacob, and a Scepter shall arise out of Israel, and shall smite the princes of Moab, and he shall destroy all the sons of Sheth. And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also, his enemies, shall be a possession: and Israel shall do valiantly. And from Jacob shall he descend; and he shall cause to destroy the remnant from the city."—Numb. 25:17.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Aug 1857

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just [dikaios] man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

àJoseph "just" - "Cornelius the centurion, a just [dikaios] man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews...A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway" - Acts 10: 22,2.

So the dikaios "just" of the Hebrews meant fearing Yahweh, praying often, upholding Moses law and showing kindness. This was Joseph's character - a devout man.

Cornelius described as just - he walked in the commandments

attended the feasts -

Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before Yahweh thy Elohim in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before Yahweh empty - Deut 16: 16

observed sabbaths, attended the synagogue, studied the law and observed the rules of purifiication.

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Yahoshua... And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord. And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons [the gift of the poor] - Lk 2: 21-24

This was the spiritual family environment James was raised in..."the fear and admonition of Yahweh". All based around keeping the law testified to be "holy, and just, and good" which

Jewish boys began learning the Torah at five years of age.

https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim

James would be filled with wonder by his older brother's grasp of scripture who no doubt constantly posed questions to Joseph which proved challenging, testing his own understanding to its limits.

Mary also devout. She was Yahewh's choice "the blessed handmaid" Lk 1: 28. Both parents saw beyong the mechanics of the law to its spiritual bearings and lessons as a law of life and immortality.

Supplemented notes from an address by Bro Roger Lewis - James Servant of Grace

àNow, as to Jesus, one of three things must have attached to him—either he was the son of Joseph, "as was supposed," or he was a son of accident, or the Son of God. Joseph denied that he was his son, for when he found Mary enceinte he was minded to put her away, regarding her situation at first as the result of vice.

He had such proof, however, submitted to him that he was convinced that it was not as he supposed, and by cordially retaining her subjected himself to what would otherwise have been a personal indignity, and insult to his own honour.

Now Joseph is a better witness in Mary's case than the enemies of her son in after ages. If he were not impartial, his partiality did not lean to Mary. She was in a situation that could not be gainsayed; it was not by him; therefore, leaving God out of the question, she must have been playing the harlot, which was sufficient to make him discard her, for he was a just man. But notwithstanding this prima facie evidence of guilt, he acquitted her as innocent, and acquiesced in the solution given, that

"that which was begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit."

Joseph's conduct, then, proved two things; first, that the child was not his; and secondly, that Mary was virtuous, and consequently that it was no other man's. God had acknowledged to Joseph that the child was his; others might, however, dispute Joseph's testimony, and attribute his assent to delusion.

The public must therefore be convinced of the divine sonship of Jesus by God himself. The Messiah was to be Son of God, as the prophets affirm, and if Jesus was that Son, God must declare it.

Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Apr 1851

àMary, though unmarried, was under espousal to Joseph, her future husband. We are not informed whether she had made him acquainted with the angel's communication to her on the subject of the coming birth of the Messiah.

It is possible that maidenly modesty imposed on her an entire reserve with reference to the subject. If this were not so -- if she frankly explained to him what had taken place, then Joseph did not and could not believe her, but attributed her condition to the only cause he could recognise.

It was the occasion of extreme embarrassment and dismay to both Joseph and Mary. Joseph was "a just man;" he could not pass over the serious breach of behaviour that had evidently occurred. At the same time, his love inspired pity. If he must part with his intended wife, he would do it "privily." He was "not willing to make her a public example" (Matt. i. 19).

Her whole previous character would prompt him to spare her as much as possible. "While he thought on these things," and while probably both he and Mary were deeply suffering from the peculiar situation, they were relieved of their distress in the only way possible in the circumstances. v20.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

àThis intimation would not only end a painful dilemma: it would serve also to strengthen the foundation upon which the knowledge of the divine sonship of Jesus rested: for now, not only Mary, but Joseph also, was made aware of the fact on the testimony of God, and no room was left for human tradition, or for a merely humanly - acquired conviction on a subject so all-important.

Joseph thus enlightened and delivered from what must have been an almost killing embarrassment,

"did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born son."

How long they kept loving company thus at Nazareth, is not exactly apparent. It would be several months.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 8

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Yahoshua: for he shall save his people from their sins.

àTo talk of Christ dying for himself,‭ ‬without a very careful qualification,‭ ‬is misleading.

‭ ‬Let us take heed lest we cloud our own and others‭' ‬eyes to the plain and precious revelation regarding the object of Christ's death-

‭"‬My blood is shed for you,‭" ‬Christ said.‭ "‬shed for the remission of sins.‭"

‭ ‬Paul emphasised the same truth:‭

‭"‬Christ our passover is sacrificed for us‭"—"‬he died for us‭"—"‬he died for the ungodly‭"

‭—"‬for our sins‭"—"‬for our offences.‭"

Peter,‭ ‬touching upon the subject,‭ ‬said:

‭ "‬Christ also hath suffered for our sins,‭ ‬the just for the unjust.‭"

‭ ‬John similarly declared,‭

‭"‬Christ was manifested to take away our sins‭"—"‬he is the propitiation for our sins‭"

‭—"‬he laid down his life for us.‭"

‭ ‬Isaiah,‭ ‬centuries before,‭ ‬had foretold the same thing:

‭ "‬He was wounded for our transgressions,‭ ‬bruised for our iniquities‭"—

‭"‬for the transgression of my people was he smitten.‭"

Brother Roberts has very truly said that some brethren have made the mistake of confining attention too exclusively to Christ's own part in the death of the cross.‭ ‬Although Christ was made mortal,‭ ‬a sharer of sin's flesh,‭ ‬and needed redemption,‭ ‬yet it is a paramount truth that God sent Christ,‭ ‬not to save himself,‭ ‬but us‭ (‬Matt.‭ ‬i: 21‭); ‬not to purge his sins,‭ ‬but ours‭ (‬Heb.‭ i: ‬3‭)‬.

Bro AT Jannaway

The Christadelphian, March 1899

Joshua

"There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name." [John the Baptist]

the name was not derived from the family pedigree, and

"was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb."

... The very reason given for the bestowal of the name Jesus is sufficient to place it beyond the range of human invention;

"for he shall save his people from their sins."

It is not according to the habit of men to be governed by so large and so pure an idea. Human enterprise or inventiveness runs in the channel of human sympathies and passions; "the things that be of men" are visible in all their ways and thoughts. But here is a reason that relates alone to "the things that be of God," and is therefore self-evidently from a divine source.

It was not a new name in the sense of never having been used before: but it was new in Mary's circle, and in her use of it to name her son, it probably received for the first time its true application, of which previous uses were the typical adumbrations.

For as the least informed may be aware, it is a Hebrew name in which the Creator's name is the leading ingredient -- Joshua or Yah-shua -- Yahweh shall save. Yahweh saved Israel by Joshua, the successor of Moses, and again by Joshua, who took a prominent part in the restoration from Babylon.

But in these cases, the work was transitory, and performed indirectly. In the case of this newly-born child, the work was to be for ever in those for whom it should be effectual: and it was to be done in a direct manner by God himself, who was the Father of the child, and who made him what he was, and dwelt in him by the Spirit, working and speaking through him, as Jesus repeatedly testified afterwards, and as indeed was manifest from the nature of his words and works.

It was most fitting, therefore, that he should be called Yah-shua or Jesus: also Emmanuel -- "God with us." He was, without much figure, "the Word made flesh" -- the wisdom and power and fiat of the Father become incorporate in a man of the house of David, that sin might be taken away, and the way opened for friendship, love and life for evermore.

Nazareth Revisited Ch 8

The Name of Jesus

The name of Jesus is certainly a doctrinal name: that is, a name conveying a doctrine; for its very first occurrence in the New Testament is accompanied with this explanation:

"Thou shalt call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people (whose people? Yah's people, the people of Yahoshua, or Jesus) from their sins."

Avoid those who teach that it is merely an individual appellation like John or Thomas. That you should be so soon shaken by such is a marvel; especially that you should conclude your immersion invalid because the word "Jesus" was not pronounced on the occasion. The Father is greater than Jesus.—(John 14:28.)

Therefore it was that Jesus commanded his disciples to baptise into "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," which name is provided in him who is the Son manifestation of the Father by the Spirit.

The mention of the elements of this name in the baptismal formula is by Christ's own direction. Re-immersion because the Father's name was named on you will be a sacrilege of which you will have to repent if you perpetrate so great a folly.

The Christadelphian, Aug 1874

Redemption the Work of God

God was the father of Jesus because the work to be done was to be a work of God and not of man, and because also it was a work that no man could do. If Joseph had been the father of Jesus, Jesus would have been a "mere man," and like all other mere men, a transgressor, and therefore one whose sacrifice must have ended in the grave.

It required the divine impress on the seed of David to qualify Jesus to be a sinless bearer of the condemnation of the world. Thus he was "of God made unto us righteousness." Thus it is that his name Yah-hoshua is fulfilled. God saves by Christ. God was in Christ. Christ was God manifested in the flesh, that the world's redemption might be the Father's own action.

This glorious result could not have been realised if Joseph had been the father of Jesus. As for the suggestion that the object was to free him from the very condemnation he came to bear, it is self-condemned. Had that been the purpose in view, he would not have been born of a human mother, but would have been brought into existence outside the human race altogether.

The Christadelphian, April 1875

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The Son did not preexist from all eternity. The Father did. There is only one God, and He is the Father. Distinct from Him (though one with Him), there is the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus. He who is our High Priest, our Elder Brother, the Captain of our Salvation, had no individual pre-existence. Yet how can you separate him from the pre-existent power constituting him such—the power that produced him, the power that was in him, of which he is the expression, and of which he is the mouth-piece?

He was, if you may say so, a divine phenomenon in flesh—an individual manifestation of the spirit in the flesh; and as the Spirit is one with universal power, and wisdom, having source in the Father, can you not see that there is an inscrutable connection between the man Christ Jesus and the power whose views and purposes he came to accomplish; so that when John the Baptist went out preaching, to pave the way for his introduction to Israel, he was preparing "the way of Yahweh."

When you consider that Jesus was the manifestation of Yahweh by that Spirit which in its immensity is Yahweh, there is no difficulty; but if you exclude the Spirit, then the subject is all in mist. Somebody will say. "Oh, the Spirit came at his baptism." Yes; but it came before then; it came upon Mary; and it cannot be that a high cause is brought to bear to produce no result. The result was to introduce, incipiently, the manifestation styled Emmanuel, and this result appeared in the babe Christ. For he was proclaimed to be "the Lord's Christ" (anointed) from his mother's womb.

The angels that came to the shepherds on the plains of Bethlehem, said: "Unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." And also it is written that to Simeon, who came in when the child Jesus came to be circumcised, it had been revealed that he should not see death till he had seen the Lord's anointed, the Christ; and when he had seen the babe, he said "Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace; for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before all people, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel."

The Spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, in token that he was the Christ. This was the testimony of John: "There standeth one among you whom ye know not. He it is who, coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes' latchet I am not worthy to unloose. . . . And I knew him not, but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come, baptizing with water. . . . He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit."—(John 1:26–33.)

The visible descent of the Spirit was then a public identification of the Messiah, as well as a bestowal of a higher degree of power than was conferred by his spiritual origin. Let those who think that the presence of the Spirit with him during the first thirty years of his life, unfitted him to be an example, consider this, that the Spirit, as they are obliged to admit, was with him when he was tempted in the wilderness. If then the presence of the Spirit, at that crisis, is no barrier to his being considered an example, why should it be considered so in the case of his earlier years? If it is a barrier in the one case, it is a barrier in the other.

If you are to say that, at any stage, there was no spirit with him, because of his being an

example, you are bound to deny the presence of the Spirit, at all stages: for, at all stages, he was an example.

And this is indeed what some would go to the length of doing, and say that the things performed by Jesus were not performed by his individual volition, but by the Father in heaven, in answer to Christ's prayer. This is dangerous speculation, which cuts at the root of that unity by Spirit-inhabitation which Jesus affirms to subsist between himself and the Father. Jesus was "God with us."

THE OPERATIONS OF THE DEITY

The Christadelphian, May 1870. p143-151

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.