FROM WHAT? TO WHAT? THROUGH WHAT? ACCORDING TO WHAT? BY WHAT? ANALOGOUS TO WHAT? FOR WHAT?

THE TERM carnation, used as our subject, designates the act whereby the Logos became flesh—human (John 1:1-3, 14). It is used here to distinguish that act from a term of a counterfeit of that act, implied in the word incarnation, by which is meant that the alleged second person of the trinity, remaining what He was before that act, took in addition to His alleged Divine nature, human nature, in which human nature the Divine nature dwelt by having assumed human nature into the unity of His Divine nature's person. The alleged act of uniting these two natures in one person so that God dwells in a man is what the proponents of this view mean by the word incarnation, while by the word carnation is meant the prehuman Logos' becoming a human being, becoming changed from a spirit being into a human being—the Word became flesh. Thus the term incarnation is used to teach an error; for it designates an act which never occurred, and which palms off a counterfeit teaching in the place of an act that actually did occur. If the thought conveyed by the word incarnation were true, our Lord would be a hybrid, which is obnoxious to God's creative works. Despite this, the thought of the incarnation is very wide-spread, and is interwoven into most of the creeds of Christendom, for which reason we will here briefly refute it, referring our readers to general refutative details in EA, 472-510, 516-536. To clarify our subject we will treat it under seven lines of thought, under each one of which we will refute the

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

8 

opposing error and set forth the pertinent truth: the Carnation: I From what? II To what? III Through what? IV According to what? V By what? VI Analogous to what? VII For what? 

I. From what was the carnation? It was a transfer of the Logos, also called the Archangel, Michael, from the plane of a spirit nature lower than the Divine plane, but higher than that of angels, to the plane of human nature. It was the act that changed the spirit being called the Logos and the Archangel, Michael, into the human being called Jesus, the son of Mary. This view is markedly different from the one contained in the word incarnation; for incarnation denies a change of nature altogether, since it teaches that God, in an alleged second person remained God, retained His Divine nature, but added to His Divine nature human nature and assumed that nature into the unity of a person in the Divine nature. It denies that that resultant human being had a personality of its own, claiming that its personality was that of the assuming Divine nature. This nine-months-long gradual assuming of human nature by God in His alleged second person, taking it allegedly into the unity of His Divine person, is the incarnation of God, according to the creeds. Briefly we will refute this view, asking our readers to look for general details contained in the references given in the preceding paragraph, but remarking that though in those references the trinity doctrine is refuted, the reasons there given against it apply equally to the thought that an alleged second person of the trinity underwent incarnation. This view implies alleged mysteries, which are unreasonable, ununderstandable, unexplainable and self-contradictory, hence are contrary to Bible mysteries, which to the faithful consecrated are reasonable, understandable, explainable and self-harmonious (EA, 473-475). It is contrary to the seven axioms of Bible interpretations, i.e., a doctrine to be true must be self-harmonious, harmonious with all Bible passages, harmonious with all 

Christ—His Carnation. 

9 

other Bible doctrines, harmonious with God's character, harmonious with the ransom, harmonious with facts and harmonious with the Bible's purposes (EA, 475-486). It is contrary to the Holy Spirit as God's Mind in His faithful people; for it contradicts the Spirit as a part of sanctified reason (EA, 486, 487). 

The doctrine that an alleged second person of a trinity became incarnate is wholly lacking in Scriptural proof; for no passage gives such a thought, since none of the passages that they allege as proof contains such a thought (EA, 487-494). Moreover, this doctrine is an invention of Satan, his counterfeit of the doctrine of the carnation of the Logos, who was identical with Michael, the Archangel (EA, 494, 495). The incarnation doctrine is of heathen origin, since heathen religions, e.g., Buddhism, teach it; therefore it is an error, since devils originated the doctrines of heathenism (EA, 495, 496). It is also proven to be an error; because it is a teaching of Antichrist, who in his teachings has counterfeited every doctrine of the true Christ (EA, 496, 497). The fruits of the incarnation doctrine are: disparagement of God, grieving of Christ, injuring God's real people, enslaving in superstition and priestcraft God's nominal people, making infidels of clear thinkers, persecution of its rejectors, making the Father repellent and the Son by contrast more loved than the Father, turning faith into credulity, etc. (EA, 498, 499). It is erroneous, because based on wrong methods of interpretation; for it perverts clear statements into meaning otherwise than they say (EA, 499, 500). It rejects in part, and for the rest perverts the Bible teachings on Christ's three natures: His prehuman, His human and His posthuman natures. It teaches that He was Divine from all eternity, while the Bible teaches that He had a beginning and became Divine first in His resurrection (EA, 504-510). If the prehuman Word were God in His alleged second person, His carnation would have been impossible, since an immortal being could not have been made mortal,

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

10 

and a changeless being could not have become a human being, which necessarily implies a change from one nature to another. Hence, we answer negatively our first question, From what was the carnation? by saying that it was not from the Divine nature in the alleged second person of the trinity. That Jesus is not God is manifest from the facts that He is never, in proper translations of the Bible, inspiredly called God, the Supreme Being; nor is He called by God's exclusive name, Jehovah; nor does the Bible ever ascribe to Him personally Jehovah's peculiar attributes of person, like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, eternity, supremacy; nor does it ascribe to Him Jehovah's peculiar work; nor does it ascribe to Him Jehovah's peculiar honors, all of which prove that He is not God in the supreme sense of that word (EA, 516-536). 

Having seen that the starting point of the carnation was not from the Divine nature, we are now ready to answer from what it was: It was from that of a spirit being of a nature below the Divine, but above that of angels. In other words, the Being that became carnate was one lower than God, but higher than angels. It was the Logos (the Word), Michael, the Archangel, who became carnate. That the prehuman Christ was Michael, we infer from the fact that it is Jesus who, preparatory to His Millennial reign, takes His Millennial power and brings the time of trouble upon the nations (2 Thes. 1:7, 8; 1 Thes. 4:16; Rev. 11:15-18; 19:11-21), which Daniel said Michael would do (Dan. 12:1, compared with Matt. 24:21). Michael is called the Archangel, i.e., the chief Messenger (Jude 9), which our Lord is; for there can be but one chief messenger of God, i.e., Jesus (Mal. 3:1; Ps. 34:7). Hence the word archangel never occurs Biblically in the plural, archangels. If there were more than one archangel, Jude, in speaking of Michael, would have called Him an archangel, whereas, since there is but one, he called Him the Archangel. That Jesus is meant by the Archangel of 1 Thes. 4:16 is evident from the

Christ—His Carnation. 

11 

fact that it is His voice that, in the Second Advent, shakes the heavens and earth and makes them disappear, and awakens the dead (Heb. 12:26; John 5:29). It is before His face in His Second Advent that the heavens and earth flee away (Rev. 20:11). It is in His day, the Second Advent period, that they will be dissolved (2 Pet. 3:7, 10, 12). Thus the identity of Michael and Jesus is established. And the identity of the Logos and Jesus is evident from John 1:1-3, 14; 2 Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 2:14, 16; Gal. 4:4. Hence our Lord had a prehuman existence which He left when He became carnate—when He became flesh. This we proved in detail in EB, 37-80. Accordingly, we answer positively our question, From what was the carnation? as above we answered it negatively, by saying, His carnation was from His Logos nature, His Michael nature, that of a Spirit Being lower than the Divine nature, but higher than that of created spirit beings other than Himself, i.e., of angels. 

II. Our next question is, To what was the carnation? Because of false views on this subject, we will approach it negatively, and answer first to what it was not. Christ's carnation was not that of God taking into the unity of His person human nature, resulting in His becoming a God-man. This is evident from the fact that in His prehuman nature He was not God, hence could not by His carnation have become a God-man. Above it was shown that in His prehuman nature He was on a lower plane of existence than the Divine plane, but higher than the angelic plane. Hence He could not have become a God-man by His carnation. Nor by His carnation did He become a Spirit-man, a Logos-man, a Michael-man, i.e., He, by His carnation, did not remain the Spirit Being that He was before His carnation, and take into unity of His person as the Logos human nature; for this is not only contrary to the Bible, but since it would have made Him a hybrid, it would have become obnoxious to nature as God willed it to be. If then, in His carnation He did not 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

12 

become a God-man, nor a Spirit-man, a Logos-man, a Michael-man, to what was He brought by His carnation? We answer, Exactly what the word carnation means—being made flesh, becoming a human being. The Biblical proof of the foregoing we now present. We will begin with John 1:1-3, 14. The A. V., made by trinitarians, has darkened this, as it has many other passages, in order to color it with their pertinent error, which, of course, they thought to be true. Hence we present the rendering of the Improved Version, first alone and then with some bracketed comments: 

"In a beginning was the Word; and the Word was with the God; and the Word was a god. This one was in a beginning with the God. All things became through him; and without him there became not even one thing which has become." Having given the I. V. rendering which we consider exact and literal, we will now quote it again, adding at appropriate places our comments: In a beginning [God's plan, having various times and seasons, has for each of these a beginning, the one here meant was that time at whose start the Logos was created (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14), which was before the time when the angels were created, since the Logos was God's Agent in their creation (Col. 1:16, 17)] was the Word [Logos. He is here called such because, as the officer through whom ancient kings spoke to their subjects was called the king's Logos, Word, so as the One through whom God speaks to His subjects He is called the Logos by God]; the Word was with the God [here the Supreme Being is meant by the expression, the God. This sentence proves that instead of the Word being God in the supreme sense of the word, He was associated with God, the Supreme Being, in the sense in which a prime minister is associated with his king, not as his equal, of course, but as especially near to him as his chief agent. We are to remember that when the word god is applied to the Supreme Being, it is a proper noun; but when applied to other mighty beings, it is a common noun. Hence 

Christ—His Carnation. 

13 

here the word God is a proper noun; but in the next clause it is a common noun, as is indicated by the translation, a god]; and the Word was a god [the Word is here called a god, a mighty one, because He was such; for the Bible about 200 times calls both good and bad angels, gods (Ps. 97:7, compared with Heb. 1:6; 1 Cor. 8:5; 2 Cor. 4:4), because they are mighty, which is the meaning of the Hebrew word for gods, elohim. It even calls mighty men gods, e.g., every civil ruler is called a theos (2 Thes. 2:4) and the judges in Israel are called elohim, gods, rendered in the A. V. by the word judges (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9). As the mightiest of God's spirit beings, of course, the Logos was a God, a mighty one. The contrast between the God and a god here conclusively proves that the Logos was neither the Supreme Being nor a second person of the Supreme Being]. This one was in a beginning with God [the repetition is for the sake of emphasis, to bring out more prominently the fact that the Word was neither the Supreme One nor a part of the Supreme One, as trinitarians hold, but the Agent, the Prime Minister, of the Supreme One, the One especially near to Him in office function]. 

The Logos' being God's special Agent in creation is brought out in v. 3: All things became through him [all created things, Himself excepted, of course, since He is the Father's only directly created Being (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), came into existence through Him as the instrumental Agent, but not as the sourcel Agent, which the Father alone is (1 Cor. 8:6). Sourcel agency in Greek is indicated by either the prepositions hypo, by, or ek, ex, out of, while instrumental agency in Greek is usually indicated by the preposition, dia, through, but the Greek preposition, en, is sometimes used to indicate either kind of agency, the connection revealing which kind is meant when it expresses agency, though it primarily and usually means in. Dia is used here of Jesus, in 1 Cor. 8:6 and in Col. 1:15, 17. In all four verses instrumental agency

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

14 

is meant. Hypo is never Biblically used to designate the Logos' work in creation. The full thought of sourcel and instrumental Agent is given in 1 Cor. 8:6: All things are by (ex) the Father; all things are through (dia) the Son. Thus the Logos was God's Agent through whom God created all things]; and without him there became not even one thing that has become [here our Lord is shown to be God's universal instrumental Agent in creation, nothing of all creation coming into existence apart from Him. Thus whatever angelic helpers He had in the work of creation, what they did was in every detail under His direction.] St. John having thus described our Lord's prehuman nature and His work and honor in creation, describes His carnation in v. 14, which we will quote from the I. V.—"The Word became flesh" [ceased being the Word by being changed into a human being]. Be it noted that this verse does not tell us that the Word remained the Word, and added to His spirit nature as the Word, human nature, which would have made Him a hybrid, that it does not imply that in doing such he added to Himself humanity in such a way as to have bereft it of personality, making in a union of two natures the personality of the spirit nature that of the human nature. Its thought is very simple. The Word became flesh. It ceased being what it was before, and became, not another person, but the same person in a different nature—He ceased being a spirit being, and, remaining the same person, became a human being. As a person He was transferred from existence on a spirit plane of being to the human plane of being. For the act of carnation Luther used as apt an expression to characterize it, Menschwerdung, literally, becoming man. The expression carnation describes rather the process than the product of the process—the Logos becoming human; for carnation means literally, flesh making, whose product was, of course, the man Jesus. 

Next we will study Phil. 2:6-8 as a proof text of the transference of the prehuman Logos from a spirit 

Christ—His Carnation. 

15 

plane of existence to the human plane of existence. But few verses have been more maltreated by earlier trinitarian translators than this one. The A. V. makes v. 6 teach the opposite of what it teaches, an evil that the R. V. and A. R. V. have largely corrected. The first clause of v. 7 should be the last clause of v. 6. We will first quote the I. V. rendering of this passage without comment, then will quote it with bracketed comments, as we did with John 1:1-3, 14: "Be intent within yourselves as to this, which was also within Christ Jesus, who, being in God's form, regarded the being equal with God not a thing forcibly to be seized; but on the contrary he emptied himself. Having taken a slave's form, after becoming in men's likeness, and after being found in estate as a man, he humbled himself, after becoming obedient, until death, even the death of the cross." We believe the I. V. gives both a literal and a correct translation of these three verses. Now we quote this passage with some bracketed comments added: "Be intent within yourselves [from your whole hearts be determined] as to this [on following the course that is about to be described], which [determination] was within [a matter of whole-heartedness of] Christ Jesus, who, being in God's form [during His preexistence, when His mode of existence was that of a spirit being, even as God's mode of existence is that of a spirit being. This clause does not say or imply that He was on the Divine plane of existence as a second person in an alleged trinity; it simply shows what the mode of His existence was: He existed then as a spirit being, a mode of existence shared in by God, who is a Spirit (John 4:24), and all other spirit beings (Heb. 1:14). The contrast implied here is between the mode of existence that spirits have as distinct from the mode of existence that humans have, as the entire section shows; for it contrasts His prehuman and His human mode of existence], regarded [was of the full conviction] the being equal with God [a thing which no creature can be] not a thing [not an object 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

16 

of ambition] forcibly to be seized [a thing that Lucifer attempted to do in the greatest act of attempted usurpation of all history, thereby making himself Satan, opponent (Is. 14:12-14), and a thing that the Logos not only avoided, but abhorred and opposed]. 

But on the contrary [instead of imitating Lucifer, He pursued an opposite course, for] he emptied himself [He divested Himself of His prehuman nature, which, next to the Divine nature, was the highest of all natures, of His prehuman office, which was that of being God's prime minister in the work of creation, providence and revelation, and of His prehuman honor, which He received from God as His prime minister, and as such from all other orders of Spirit beings, and from God's Old Testament people. In brief: He gave up His prehuman nature, office and honor. As above indicated, a period follows the words, emptied himself, which should have been made the last part of v. 6, not the first part of v. 7. If v. 7 be begun as the I. V. indicates and as was said above it should be begun, it would make it consist of a series of participial clauses, but not of a complete sentence; hence what is marked as v. 8 should belong to v. 7 so as to make it consist of a complete sentence. The I. V. treats the participles of vs. 7 and 8 strictly as participles and translates them literally, thereby giving these two verses a fullness of thought that they greatly lack as rendered in the A. V., which very loosely translates them as principal and indicative verbs]. Having taken [this present perfect participle is rendered as such in the I. V., while the A. V. renders it as a past-tensed principle indicative verb, and inserts the words, upon him, which are without corresponding words in the Greek, and which, as interpolated, should have been printed in italics in the A. V., to indicate that they are interpolated, but which should be omitted as in the I. V. It shows that the action indicated by it occurred after the actions indicated in the other three participles in vs. 7 and 8, which three are in the Aorist (past)

Christ—His Carnation. 

17 

tense; for all four of these two verses' participles are dependent on the principle verb of the sentence, humbled, and indicate four actions prior to the action of their principle verb, the action of the last three occurring before that of the first. Unlike Greek, English does not have a past (Aorist) participle; hence, to indicate the past actions in the three occurrences of the Aorist participles of vs. 7, 8, the I. V. uses the word after with the English present participle], a slave's form [the mode of existence that a slave leads. This refers to the ministry of hard, self-denying, study, spread and practice of the Truth into which our Lord entered immediately after making His consecration, which is here meant by the participial clause, after becoming obedient; but before He took a slave's form, two other things besides His consecration occurred, as shown in the other two past participles of vs. 7, 8]. 

After becoming in men's likeness [after becoming a human being, which took nine months after His begettal by God's holy, power, and which was completed as such at His birth at Bethlehem. Here is another passage that proves that He did not remain what He was during His preexistence, a spirit being, and take in addition to His spirit nature human nature, but that He became a human being, thus becoming nothing more and nothing less than a human being; but unlike the rest of humanity, He became a perfect and sinless human being], and after being found in estate as a man [here is indicated that Jesus had to attain to the estate of full manhood, which in Israel, for sacred ministries, required one to be at least thirty years of age (Num. 4:30, 35, 39; Luke 3:23). Accordingly, before He could enter His ministry, He had to be in estate as a man. Thus we see three of the four things that had to be before He humbled Himself: (1) he had to become like a slave, (2) a human being and (3) of full manhood, the first of these three occurring after the other two occurred. The fourth will be brought out shortly], He humbled himself [abased

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

18 

Himself to carry out His ministry under very humiliating circumstances and experiences], after becoming obedient [here is the fourth participial clause, and, like the other three, it indicates action prior to that of the sentence's principle verb, humbled. The obedience here referred to is consecration, the most exacting of all kinds of obedience, e.g., the obedience of justification, which Jesus perfectly exercised from childhood up, is one almost entirely limited to justice, and is by far less exacting than that into which Jesus entered by consecrating Himself; for the latter included the former plus that of love, sacrifice. It is because the obedience of consecration is the most exacting of all obediences that it is here emphasized. Accordingly, this clause teaches us that it was after Jesus made His consecration at 30 years of age that He began to exercise His ministry as a slave, which, to fulfill, required Him to humble Himself unto and amid every circumstance and experience that Divine providence marked out for Him to have (Heb. 2:10; 5:7-9)], until death [both until death and unto death did He humble Himself, enduring the contradictions of sinners, physical exhaustion, mental sorrow, excommunication as a blasphemer, outlawry as a rebel, and physical sufferings until death], even the death of the cross." [the most painful and disgraceful death of Roman jurisprudence, and the extreme penalty of the Mosaic Law (Gal. 3:13)]. 

After the above bracketed explanation, a paraphrase of the thought of Phil. 2:6-8 should be helpful and thus will be given: God's people should be intent on developing the same determination that was in Jesus, who before becoming human existed as a spirit in the same mode of existence as God does as a spirit, but who regarded that being equal with God was not a thing forcibly to be seized, as Satan attempted to do; on the contrary, instead of such an unholy ambition, He gave up His prehuman nature, office and honor to become a human being. Not only so, but having undertaken a ministry that made Him a slave after He

Christ—His Carnation. 

19 

became human and after He was found to have come to full manhood's estate, He humbled Himself after He had by a vow entered into the obedience of consecration, until He experienced death, even the death of crucifixion. After this brief paraphrase we will quote the I. V. rendering of this passage, that our paraphrase of it may all the more readily be seen to give its thought properly: "Be intent within yourselves as to this which was also within Christ Jesus, who, being in God's form, regarded the being equal with God not a thing forcibly to be seized; but on the contrary he emptied himself. Having taken a slave's form, after becoming in men's likeness, and after being found in estate as a man, he humbled himself, after becoming obedient, until death, even the death of the cross." The above quotation and discussion show how greatly the trinitarians who made the A. V. perverted the thought of v. 6 and darkened the thought of the rest of the passage, and how clearly the I. V. gives its thought by its proper punctuation of the section and by its literal rendering of its grammar and vocabulary. 

A third passage clearly shows to what Christ's carnation brought Him: 2 Cor. 8:9: Again we quote the I. V. rendering of this verse: "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus, that, being rich, for us he became poor, in order that we by his poverty might become rich." The following would be the wording of this passage according to the God-man view when strictly applied to this passage, in view of its nullifying the ransom by preventing a corresponding price to be given: For you know the avariciousness of our Lord Jesus, who, being rich in the possession of the Divine nature and thus of all God's attributes of person and character, and of God's offices and honors, desired to become as much richer than He was as adding to His riches as God the wealth of perfect humanity in the unity of His person would make Him, that by His increased riches we might be left unransomed, and thus forever poor, since a God-man, not being a corresponding 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

20 

price to perfect Adam and the race in his loins, could not be our ransom, corresponding price. What violence must be done this passage to bring it into line with God-manism! How trinitarianism makes void the Word of God, as well as degrades God to equality with an Inferior, and super exalts Christ to equality with His Superior, the Supreme Being. We will now quote with bracketed comments the I. V. rendering of this verse, and from this will recognize how beautifully harmonious this passage is with John 1:1-3, 14 and Phil. 2:6-8, as it is clearly out of harmony with the God-man theory: "For you [God's faithful people] know [from their understanding of the harmony of God's Word] the grace [loving favor] of our Lord Jesus, that [the following is the way that loving favor expressed itself], being rich [in the possession of the highest of all natures, the Divine nature excepted, the highest of all offices, God's excepted, prime ministership to Jehovah, and the highest of all honors, God's excepted, willingly given Him by God and the good angels and men], for us [in our interests] he [that very rich one] became poor [in nature, as a human; in possessions, having nowhere to lay His head; in office, that made Him a slave, and in human eyes, a tramp preacher; in associates, the nobodies who followed Him, and in honor, being despised and rejected of men and afflicted as an alleged blasphemer, and hence excommunicated, and as an alleged rebel against human government, and hence crucified as an outlaw], in order [for the purpose] that we [His followers] by his poverty [in the respects which were mentioned in the third preceding bracketed comment, and by which He became our ransom] might become rich," [in the present blessings of justification and of the high calling along the lines of the truth, righteousness, love and power of heavenlimindedness, and in the future ones of the Divine nature and joint-heirs with Christ]. 

A fourth passage treating of our Lord's carnation indicating to what He came through that act is Heb. 

Christ—His Carnation. 

21 

2:14, 16, 17. As in the other cases, we will quote it from the I. V.: "Since, therefore, the children have shared blood and flesh, he himself also similarly partook of them … for certainly he laid not hold of angels; but on the contrary he laid hold of the seed of Abraham, because it was fitting to become like his brethren in all things." As in the other cases, this passage will be quoted with bracketed comments: "Since, therefore, the children [of God] have shared [in common with one another and the rest of mankind] blood and flesh [human nature (Matt. 16:17; 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 1:16), i.e., were human beings], he [our Lord] himself also similarly [exactly like them, apart from their imperfection, since He was perfect, sinless] partook of them [i.e., blood and flesh, became a human being. If He had been a God-man, there would not have been any similarity whatever between His being a sharer of human nature and our being sharers in human nature; for He would have been a hybrid and His humanity would have had no personality of its own, His personality, according to the God-man theory being that of God, which would have destroyed all similarity between His and our sharing in human nature. With great clarity this passage proves that in His carnation He became a perfect human being, nothing more and nothing less] … for certainly [it is a positive fact that] he laid not hold of [took not as His own, while undergoing a change of nature, the nature of] angels [thus He did not become an angel, which, had He done so, would have made Him stoop to a nature only one step lower than His prehuman nature]; but on the contrary [in contradiction thereto] he laid hold of the seed of Abraham [He stooped to a nature two steps lower than His prehuman nature, i.e., to human nature in its Jewish race as a descendant of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob], because [giving the reason for His becoming a pure human being] it was fitting [in order to qualify Him for His office as our High Priest] to become [not to remain the Logos, 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

22 

Michael, but to become a pure human being] like his brethren [not like the wicked of mankind, but like the faithful consecrated] in all things" [in their course of studying, spreading and practicing the Truth, and of enduring the incidental experiences amid crucial trials and temptations; for to be like them in all these activities and passivities, He had to be exactly like them, sin apart, since to be tested along all lines of human nature, as His brethren are, He had to partake of human nature exactly like them, sin apart (Heb. 2:17, 18; 4:15)]. Certainly this passage takes its place alongside of John 1:1-3, 14; Phil. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 8:9 in teaching that Jesus, in His carnation, became a perfect human being, having nothing more and nothing less than human nature as a result of His carnation. 

Gal. 4:4 is another passage teaching Christ's carnation, not incarnation. We will quote it from the I. V.: "But when the fullness of the time came the God sent forth his son, after becoming of a woman, after becoming under law, in order to buy out those under law, in order that we might receive sonship." We will now quote the passage with some bracketed comments: "But when the fullness of time came [when the Divinely appointed time of the Divine Plan of the Ages set in] the [supreme] God sent forth [not in the carnation, but in His ministry begun when He was thirty years old; for the past (Aorist) participles, "after becoming," prove that the sending forth was after the two becomings] his son, [who] after becoming of a woman [after coming into existence as a human being, born of the virgin Mary (hence not as a God-man, but as a perfect human being)], after becoming under law [after coming into existence as a Jew under the Law Covenant, hence not as a God-man, but as a perfect human being, which occurred at His birth as a human being of the seed of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob], in order to buy out [from under the law by the ransom price] those under law [the Jews who alone were under the Law Covenant], in order that we

Christ—His Carnation. 

23 

[Jewish believers] might receive sonship" [by the begettal of the Spirit]. This passage, showing that God's Son became a human being and a subject of the Law Covenant before He entered His ministry at 30 years of age to become man's ransom price, proves that He as such was neither a God-man, nor a Logos-man, a Michael-man; since as such He could not become a ransom, a corresponding price, for man, but had to be for it a sinless perfect human being. Hence this passage takes its place with all others in proving that the carnation brought Jesus upon the plane of human existence as a perfect human being, nothing more and nothing less. The five passages so far examined treat of Jesus' carnation doctrinally, while Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-56; 2:1-20 treat of it historically. 

Having proven that our Lord, by His carnation, became a human being, and as such was only a human being, nothing more and nothing less, it is in order to see what He was as such, in order to see more fully to what His carnation brought Him. In the first place, and herein He differs from us. He became a sinless human being. And He was sinless in His disposition and sinless in His motives, thoughts, words and acts, while we are in our disposition by heredity depraved, as well as sinful in our motives, thoughts, words and acts. He was sinless as a babe (Luke 1:35), as a boy (Luke 2:40, 52), and as a man (Matt. 3:15-17). On His sinlessness as a man we would here make some remarks. He was conscious of His sinlessness, therefore could challenge His adversaries to prove Him guilty of sin, a sinner (John 8:46). Because of His sinlessness, Satan could in no wise find anything in Him responding to his temptations (John 14:30). His sinlessness qualified Him to become a sin-offering, and thus our righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21); for verily He loved righteousness and hated iniquity (Heb. 1:9). Though tempted on all points in selfishness and worldliness, like His brethren, He was not tempted to sin, since He had no depravity (Heb. 4:15). It was because

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

24 

He was holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners that He was fitted to be our High Priest (7:26). He was indeed the lamb of God without blemish and without spot (1 Pet. 1:19); for He was sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). It is because of such sinlessness that, having no inclination to sin, Satan could not tempt Him to sin, though, as shown above, he did tempt Him to innocent selfishness and worldliness. 

His being without blemish and spotless (1 Pet. 1:19) proves that by the time He reached manhood's estate of 30 years, He was perfect in all His physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious organs, as a human being; for like His Father, He was perfect (Matt. 5:48); since He, like Adam in his perfection, was the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26, 31; Col. 1:15). Accordingly, His human perfection was physical. In His body every organ was perfect in itself and in its adjustment and adaptation to every other one of His bodily organs, so that combinedly they worked as a perfect physical organism. Thus it was free from pain, disease and deformity. He must have been a handsome man. His stature and His strength corresponded to His healthfulness and physical perfection. It certainly was graceful and magnetic as a body. Apart from the perfect bodies of Adam and Eve, no human ever had such a body as our Lord had as a human being. While the statement, "Thou art fairer than [any other] of the children of men" (Ps. 45:2), refers to our Lord's human character, the statement would also be true, if applied to His human body. Our Lord was perfect as a human being mentally when He attained the age of 30 years. Every one of His mental organs was perfect in itself and perfect in its relations to all His other organs of body, mind, heart and will. Thus His perceptive powers, those that have to do with recognizing and determining size, weight, form, color, order, numbers, differentiation, events, time, tune, language, as well as abstract qualities and principles, were each perfect in itself and were perfect in their relationship 

Christ—His Carnation. 

25 

to one another and to His other mental powers, as well as to His body, heart and will. Thus His representative powers (memory, phantasy and imagination) were perfect and acted perfectly toward one another and toward His other mental faculties and operation, and toward His body, heart and will in themselves and in their operations. Thus His reasoning faculties, both inductive and deductive, were each perfect in itself and with each other and with all the rest of His mental faculties and their operations, as well as with His physical, artistic, moral and religious faculties in themselves and in their operations. And thus His intuitional faculties were perfect in themselves and in all His other faculties in themselves and in their operations. In a word, He was perfect in all His mental faculties and in their relations and work. 

Likewise He was perfect as a human being, when 30 years old, in His artistic faculties. In Him as faculties and in their activities, His organs of beauty, sublimity, imitation, oratory, humor, agreeableness and constructiveness, were all perfect in themselves, in their mutual relations and in their activities, as well as in their relation to His other faculties and their activities as to body, mind, heart and will. Hence, His motives, thoughts, words and Acts abounded in the expressions of His seven artistic faculties. His selfish moral faculties, those that connected Him with Himself, were likewise perfect in condition and action as a human being, when He was thirty years of age. Thus His self-esteem, love for others' esteem, for ease, safety, secretiveness, providence, food, drink, self-defense, aggressiveness, health and life, were each perfect in itself and in its actions within Himself, as well as toward all His other faculties of body, mind, heart and will in themselves and in their actions. So, too, at that age as a human being, His social moral faculties were each one of them perfect in itself and in its operations. Accordingly, His love for the opposite sex, parents, brethren, friends, home and native land was 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

26 

perfect in itself and in its workings toward every other one of His social faculties, and toward all His other moral faculties, as well as toward His physical, mental, artistic and religious faculties in themselves and in their operations. Finally, as a human being at 30 years of age, He was perfect in His religious faculties, each in itself and in each one's operations, each in its relations to His other religious faculties and each in such harmony in its relation to His physical, mental, artistic and moral faculties in quality and work. 

The operation of such perfect religious faculties under the control of His perfect human will gave Him, as a human being, the perfect human higher primary graces: faith, hope, self-control, patience, piety, brotherly love (love to neighbor) and charity. The perfect harmony of these in their mutual relations in using His selfish and social human affections as servants of truth and righteousness, gave Him the lower primary selfish and social graces, the lower selfish being: self-esteem, approbativeness, peace, cautiousness, secretiveness, providence, appetitativeness, combativeness, aggressiveness and vitativeness, and the lower social being: sexliness, filiality, friendship, domesticity and patriotism. While He had the perfect faculties of husbandliness and fatherliness with their affections, in the interests of His mission as Messiah He never exercised them in the conjugal and paternal relations as husband and father. Moreover, the higher primary human graces in their harmony and domination of His lower primary human graces developed the secondary graces, by suppressing the efforts of the latter to control the former. Thus there were developed in Him humility, modesty, industriousness, bravery, candor, generosity, frugality, longsuffering, forbearance, forgiveness, self-sacrificingness (in so far as the last named was required by human righteousness), chastity, subhusbandliness, subfatherliness, being not by Him exercised, though present as powers and affections, sufiliality, subbrethrenliness, subfriendliness,

Christ—His Carnation. 

27 

subdomesticity and subpatriotism. Finally, by the domination of His higher human primary graces over combinations of His other human graces, He developed the tertiary human graces: zeal, reverence, joy, meekness, obedience, contentment, goodness, gentleness, moderation, mercy, impartiality, and faithfulness. His developing all the human graces by the time He reached 30 years of age was initially due to His carnation as a perfect human babe with perfect physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious faculties, perfect in their composition, quality and compass; for it was to this condition as a human being that His carnation brought Him. Thus we have answered our second question: To what was His carnation?—to a man. 

III. Having seen from what and to what the carnation was, through what it was will next be discussed. On this another set of opponents of the Truth have taught errors, and these will be briefly considered as a negative answer to our question before we give it its Biblical answer. Both Jews and infidelistic nominal Christians have denied Christ's pre-existence, teaching that He first came into existence by His birth from Mary. Additionally some Jews teach that a Roman soldier, Pandera by name, in fornication begat Him of Mary, and other Jews and some nominal Christians, now called Modernists, teach that Joseph was the actual father, as Mary was the mother of Jesus. These so teach because of their infidelistic denial of miracles. The so-called Modernists are now the special advocates of the thought that Joseph was the actual and sole father of Jesus. By an arbitrary twisting of words and an arbitrary denial of the plain sense of the narratives of Jesus' generation they deny that he was begotten by the Holy Spirit, affirming that Joseph was His begetter. Such deniers, being infidelistic in attitude, are a part of the symbolic man that sways the second slaughter weapon (Ezek. 9), hence are sifters, and thereby are proven to be error-believers and error-teachers on the subject. As to the claim of some Jews

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

28 

that Joseph was His real and sole father, it should be said that, except the doctrine of the trinity, their denial of which is justified, they take more offense at the doctrine of Jesus' begettal of the Spirit and birth from the Virgin Mary than they do at any other doctrine of so-called orthodoxy. In connection with their claim that Pandera was Jesus' father, the rabbis have maliciously depicted the alleged act of Jesus' begettal as that of a bastard's begettal. Not only so, but they claim that it was done while Mary was menstruating—a thing that science has proven is impossible, since no begettal can take place during menstruation. Yet Jewish theology necessitates the thought that the Messiah must be born apart from a human father; for it rightly teaches that sin is a thing not of the body, but of the soul, and that the soul comes from the father (Gen. 46:26), and the body from the mother, resulting in sinfulness being transmitted by the father. Jewish theology also teaches that the Messiah will be sinless. It, therefore, follows from its pertinent teachings that the Messiah cannot have a human father, since that would make Him sinful. Hence Jewish theology necessitates the doctrine that Messiah's begetter be not a human being. Accordingly, we see the fallacies of the Jews and Modernists in their answer to our question, Through what was the carnation? Jesus was only supposed to be the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Please note the change from the term begat in all the cases of Matt. 1:1-16 to the expression, "Mary, of whom was born Jesus," in the second part of Matt. 1:1-6. If Joseph had begotten Him, it would have said: Joseph begat Jesus, as Matt. 1:2-16 speaks of each other who there is spoken of as fathering a son. 

This brings us to the positive side of the question; Through what was the carnation? We answer this question as follows: His human begettal was a direct act of God through His Holy Spirit, in the sense of His holy power, fructifying the ovum in the Virgin Mary's womb; and Jesus' embryonic development until birth 

Christ—His Carnation. 

29 

was in her womb, ending in His birth from a virgin. This is the plain teaching of the Bible, as we will now proceed to prove. First, we will prove that His begettal to human nature was a direct act of God by the Holy Spirit in the sense of God's holy power. This Gabriel, as God's messenger in the annunciation, told Mary, when she asked how the Messiah could be born of her, a virgin (Luke 1:34, 35): "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which is begotten shall be called, the Son of God (A. R. V.). Gabriel gave his message in the form of Hebrew poetry, which, among other ways, takes the form of parallelisms, i.e., repeating the same thought in different words. Hence the expression, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee," means the same thing as the expression, "The power of the Most High shall overshadow thee." Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is here used in the sense of God's holy power, which is the first sense of the words, Holy Spirit. The I. V. gives a more literal translation of this passage, as follows: "A Holy Spirit shall come upon thee; a power of the Most High One shall overshadow thee." Therefore, God by His holy power as Jesus' Father begat Him as a human being. And this is affirmed in the second part of the passage under study, which will be quoted from the I. V. "The holy born one [the child begotten in holiness by God through His Holy Spirit as His power] shall be called God's Son." This begettal of Jesus by God is not the same one as is referred to in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18, which refer to His creation as the Logos, the firstborn of all creatures (Col. 1:15; Rev. 3:14), nor is it the antecedent of the birth that He experienced at His resurrection (Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:18; Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5, preceded by His begettal of the Spirit at Jordan, Matt. 3:16, 17). Accordingly, Christ underwent three creations: (1) as the Logos, (2) as the human Jesus and (3) as God's Divine Son. Jesus' begettal as a human being as being

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

30 

a direct act of God by the Holy Spirit is directly stated in Matt. 1:18, 20, which not understanding, Joseph decided to divorce her, and was therefrom prevented by a direct angelic message. 

Having seen that God by His holy power begat the human Jesus, we will now show that Jesus was conceived and developed by, and born of, the Virgin Mary. It was prophesied of Him that He would be of virgin birth, as we read in Is. 7:14: "Behold, a [the, so the Hebrew] virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil and choose the good" (A. R. V.). The word translated virgin here is almah and is the only Hebrew word that, apart from its two uses to denote the soprano voice connected with singing (in the heading of Ps. 46; 1 Chro. 15:20), without exception in the Bible, means virgin, as its other seven occurrences prove (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Is. 14:7; Ps. 68:26; Prov. 30:19; Cant. 1:3; 6:8). There is another Hebrew word, bethulah, often translated virgin, that does not necessarily imply virginity; for in Gen. 24:16 a further statement had to be used to add to its meaning virginity: "The damsel … was a virgin; neither had any man known her." If the word necessarily implied virginity, the clause following it here would not have been used. Its use here proves that the word does not necessarily mean a woman of virginity. Moreover, in Joel 1:8 it clearly means an aged widow, mourning for the dead husband of her young years; for she is here used as a simile of God's people bidden to lament their loss of true teachers: "Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth." Accordingly, the Septuagint translators were right in rendering the word almah into Greek by parthenos, which undoubtedly mean a woman of virginity. 

In Biblical usage, apart from its two uses to denote the soprano voice, almah never means anything else than a woman endowed with virginity. But after Christians

Christ—His Carnation. 

31 

began to use Is. 7:14 to prove Jesus' virgin birth, Jewish controversialists, to evade their argument, invented for it an ambiguous definition that does not necessarily imply virginity—maiden, and insisted that, not almah, but bethulah necessarily means a woman endowed with virginity, the latter claim being refuted by the two cases cited above, and the former claim by all the pertinent seven of the nine occurrences of almah in the Bible. Above we showed by a bracketed addition that the definite article the, and not the equivalent of the indefinite article a, occurs in the Hebrew. This strengthens the virginity thought of the passage; for that definite article gives the thought that here someone unusual and important is referred to; moreover, a miracle is here implied; for there would not be a miracle, which is one of the meanings of the word oth, here translated sign, if a non-virgin maiden should bear a son, a thing that unfortunately often happens naturally. The miracle consisted in this: that a virgin should conceive and bear a son, which implies that no sexual intercourse preceded the conception and birth. Jewish controversialists also claim that this prophecy does not refer to Jesus, because He was not given the appellation Immanuel. Here, too, they are guilty of sophistry; for the word name in the Bible has at least seven meanings, as has often been proved in these columns from abundant scriptures: (1) appellation, (2) nature, (3) character, (4) reputation, (5) office, (6) honor and (7) the Word of God. Here we understand that His office as High Priest is meant, i.e., He as such by reconciling God and man effects it that God is on our side, Immanuel, God with us, i.e., God is on our side, takes our part, favors us. The eating and the butter and honey are symbolic: butter, fat, in Biblical symbols represents love; honey, joyous, sweet hopes; Jesus' eating these means His appropriating them to Himself as His own; and, of course, these became His when He had learned to refuse the evil and choose the good. The fulfillment of this prophecy of 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

32 

Is. 7:14 is described in Matt. 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-56; 2:1-20. Matt. 1:25 proves that, though married to Joseph, Mary remained a virgin until after Jesus' birth, after which she became the mother of four sons, and at least two daughters (Matt. 12:46-48; 13:55, 56; John 2:12; 7:3-8 [these brethren were not His cousins, as Romanists in their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity allege, for they disbelieved, while His cousins, John and James, James the Less and Jude, did believe, for they were Apostles]). 

Modernists in their infidelism disbelieve the virgin birth. They seek to justify their unbelief on the alleged silence of the Bible thereon before Matthew and Luke wrote. They say that Mark, writing before them, does not mention it. To this we reply, Nor does he mention anything about Jesus prior to His public ministry. It would be as logical to deny His previous life of thirty years and many of His later Acts on the basis of Mark's silence thereon, as to deny His virgin birth on the basis of the same silence. This case is a good illustration of the weakness of the argument from silence. They allege that the virgin birth was never taught by the early brethren before Matthew and Luke wrote. How do they know that it was not taught before they wrote? To be able to make such a statement with the authority of truth, they would not only have had to be living then, but be gifted with omnipresence and omniscience to know it of a certainty! They remind us of a defending lawyer who, replying to the accusing lawyer's statement on having six eye-witnesses to the guilt of the accused, said that he had twelve witnesses who did not see him commit the crime. Do Modernists expect us to accept their view on no one teaching the virgin birth before Matthew and Luke wrote, on the basis of their argument from silence, as the stupid judge decided on the opposing statements of the two above-mentioned lawyers, that since twelve were more than six, he would acquit the accused? Doubtless a dozen millions could have been found to 

Christ—His Carnation. 

33 

witness that they did not see the accused commit the crime! But was the virgin birth not taught before Matthew and Luke wrote? We answer, Jesus' claim to sinlessness implies His begettal by a non-human father, i.e., God; for if He had been begotten by a sinful human father, who necessarily would have transmitted sinfulness to Him hereditarily, He would have been a sinner, whereas He claimed to be sinless (John 8:46). In John 8:41 the Jews contrasted themselves in their birth, as not being one of fornication, with that of Jesus, implying that they believed His to be such; for so did they and the Jews ever since interpret Jesus' birth from Mary to be; and His reply in v. 46 refuted their implied accusation and implied His virgin birth. 

Again, St. Peter on Pentecost set forth Jesus as a sinless One, proven so by His resurrection (Acts 2:24), and called Him the Holy One (v. 27), all of which implies His virgin birth. Shortly afterward Peter calls Him the Holy One and the Just One and the Prince of Life resurrected (Acts 3:14, 15), again implying His virgin birth, by virtue of His sinlessness. Jesus' sinlessness is the strongest kind of a proof of His virgin birth and from God's fatherliness. The basis of the Apostolic preaching of remission of sins through Jesus' sacrifice is a proof of the virgin birth of Jesus preceded by God's begetting Him for it (Acts 2:38; 3:26; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38, 39). To the Modernists and all other deniers of the virgin birth on the basis of Mark's silence we say, Matthew and Luke were inspired. Hence their record of the virgin birth is God's own statement thereon and is true, even if they wrote after Mark, whose silence thereon is accounted for by His having a different purpose from theirs in writing his gospel, which did not require his describing anything of Jesus before He was ready to enter His ministry. Hence his not mentioning Jesus' virgin birth is no disproof of it. Let us not forget the fact that the denial of Jesus' birth proceeds from Jesus' enemies, the unbelieving Jews and Jesus' reprobates, the infidelistic 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

34 

Modernists, and this will enable us to take the measure of their denials. This is one subject on which all Bible believers are united as a basal truth of the Scriptures—He was "begotten by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary." This, then, answers our third question, Through what was the carnation? 

IV. We now come to the fourth question, According to what was the carnation? We answer: It was according to the order of nature, or to put it in another way, His carnation was in harmony with the laws of nature. It is not, of course, claimed that His carnation was accomplished according to the usual way of nature, whereby through sexual intercourse the male deposits the seed in the female's womb, where, connecting itself with the ovum from the female, begettal takes place. Nevertheless, the laws of nature were observed in the begettal of Jesus. In the act of begettal several things are deposited by the male in giving the seed that begets: (1) life-principle is in that seed and (2) the soul qualities are in that seed. As we saw above, the soul comes from the father, while the body comes from the mother, who receives the life-principle and soul qualities from the father, and who, uniting these with the ovum that she furnishes, gradually develops these into a human being, expelling it from her at the birth. It is not only the life-principle that the male furnishes for the production of a new being; but it is also soul qualities that he furnishes for such production. These qualities, in parts of the substance of every one of his brain organs, are in the germinating seed, and in the orgasm of sexual intercourse are given by the male to the female. The reason why the male experiences weakness and sleepiness after the act of begettal is that soul qualities as parts of every organ of his brain leave him in that act. It is in this sense that the soul comes from the father. This law was observed in Jesus' begettal, though exercised in a different way from that of the usual begettal; for therein God by His Holy Spirit as power used the life-principle of the

Christ—His Carnation. 

35 

Logos, instead of the life-principle of a human male, to fructify the ovum in Mary; and instead of the soul qualities of every brain organ of a human male to furnish soul qualities for the embryo, God used the soul qualities of the Logos to furnish soul qualities for the embryo that was to develop into the human being Jesus. Accordingly, we see that while Jesus' begettal was not caused in the ordinary course of human begettals, it was in thorough harmony with the laws of nature governing begettals: the implantation of the life-principle and the soul qualities by the begetter and the reception of these and the union of these with the ovum by the female. The Mormons teach that there was a sexual intercourse between God and Mary at Jesus' begettal; and the Jews to ridicule His begettal charge that the Christian view of it implies such intercourse. To this we reply, There is not the slightest hint to this effect in the Bible, and God's bringing it about by His power is a positive disproof of such a thought; furthermore, such a thought would imply a separation from God of part of His life-principle and of His soul qualities—both absurdities of the first order! In fact, this view is blasphemy. 

Nor was any law of nature violated in transmitting the holiness, the sinlessness, of the Logos to the human being Jesus. As the soul qualities are given by the father at the begettal, they would be sinless if the father were sinless, and sinful, if the father were sinful. Thus had Adam not sinned, even if Eve had sinned, he could by her, had she repented and sought to live righteously, have generated a sinless race. Keeping in mind that the human Jesus was the same person as had formerly existed as the Logos, and that, therefore, God used not directly His own life-principle and soul qualities to generate Him as a human being, but used those of the Logos for this purpose, we can readily see that a perfect life-principle free from the death sentence and perfect soul qualities free from hereditary depravity were used to generate Him as a human being 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

36 

free from the imperfection of the Adamic death sentence and free from the hereditary depravity of those who obtained their life-principle from death-condemned Adam and free from the depravity of the Adamic fallen condition that by heredity came to all of those who derive their life-principle and soul qualities from Adam. Thus in Jesus' generation there was no violation of the Scripture which teaches the depravity of all who derive these from Adam: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one" (Job 14:4); for He derived neither of these from Adam, but from the preexistent Logos. Hence He did not come from unclean Adam, but from the clean, undefiled and perfect Logos. However, from the fact that Jesus' life-principle and soul qualities came from the Logos we are not to infer that the Logos was His father, which the Bible tells us God is. Why, then, is the Logos not His father? Because, though He got His life-principle and soul qualities from the Logos, yet He being the same person as the Logos, the latter's life-principle and soul became His—the Word became flesh, even as the caterpillar is not the father of the butterfly into which it was changed, but is the same being changed into the butterfly. God, having caused His change of nature, and having transferred His life and soul qualities, was therefore the father of the human Jesus, and the Logos was not such. Thus the law of heredity was not transgressed, but kept in the Logos' becoming the sinless Jesus. 

But some object that Jesus' having a sinful mother, one inheriting the Adamic death sentence and depravity, He must have been a sinful and death-sentenced man. To this several things may be answered. In the first place, sin is a matter of the soul and not of the body as distinct from the soul; and as Jesus' body, but not His soul, came from Mary, He did not inherit sin from her depravity. Moreover, in Job 14:4 the words clean and unclean in the Hebrew are in the masculine, not feminine gender, and, therefore, refer to the male, not female parent. While undoubtedly a wicked disposition 

Christ—His Carnation. 

37 

in a mother increases the depravity transmitted by an Adamically fallen father, a good disposition in a mother will better some of the depravity transmitted by a depraved father. But in this case not only was there no depravity in the Logos to be transmitted to Jesus, but there was only vital physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious perfection that was transmitted by the Logos to Jesus, so that it was powerful enough to reject any physical, mental, artistic, moral and religious imperfection in Mary from being incorporated into the human Jesus. And as she furnished merely the body to Jesus, the Logos while undergoing the change of nature rejected by His perfection anything imperfect that Mary as nourishment furnished the embryo and fetus for its development. We see analogies to this in the fact stated in the proverb, What is one man's meat is another's poison. Thus many a person through weakness of vitality gets ptomaine poison from the same cheese as does not illy affect another. From eating tomatoes coming from the same can one is poisoned and another is unharmed. Some can even eat or drink uninjured the poison that would kill another eating or drinking it. All of this is due to the vitality of one being strong enough to reject the evil and the vitality of the other being too weak to reject it. Thus purely on reasonable grounds and Scriptural principles we see that Jesus escaped inheriting Adamic depravity from His mother. Not only so, but specific passages, teaching His sinlessness, prove that He did not inherit the Adamic depravity from her; for if He had, he would inevitably have sinned, since depravity is the root of sinful thoughts, motives, words and acts. The following passages, additional to those given above on His sinlessness, prove that He was by heredity undepraved and sinless in His life: Ps. 45:7; 89:19; Is. 50:5; 53:9; Zech. 9:9; John 7:18; Acts 4:27, 30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 7:26; 9:14; Rev. 3:7. Finally, the Bible teaches that sin and death come from Adam, and not from Eve, hence from the father, and 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

38 

not the mother (Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22; Eph. 2:3; 1 Pet. 1:18). These considerations prove that Jesus did not inherit depravity from Mary. And with this thought we conclude our discussion of our fourth question, According to what was the carnation? 

V. Our fifth question is, By what was the carnation? As on this subject error exists, we will approach it negatively, by showing by what it was not effected. Some claim that the carnation was accomplished by and with the death of the Logos. Some even claim that it was by the death of the Logos that our ransom was effected. This latter thought is evidently an error; for the Logos as the Archangel could not be a corresponding price, a price equal in value to Adam, for even angels are higher and thus greater in value than Adam (Heb. 2:7, 9); and the Logos, having been higher than angels (Heb. 2:16), was certainly of by far greater value than Adam. Consequently the error under discussion, being a, gross impingement against the ransom, yea, a complete setting aside of it, cannot be true, since the ransom is the central doctrine of the Bible, in contradiction with which no teaching can be true. That the claim that the Logos died to become man is erroneous, is evident (1) from the fact that the Bible nowhere teaches it directly or impliedly and (2) from the fact that it would imply that Christ died twice, once as Logos, and once as man. This thought, implying that He died twice for sin, directly contradicts the Bible, which teaches that Christ died but once, as we read in Rom. 6:9, 10, which we take from the I. V.: "Knowing that after being raised from the dead Christ dieth no more, death lording it over Him no more; for as for which thing He died, He died for sin once." See also Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10; 1 Pet. 3:18. Hence the teaching that the Logos died in the process of becoming a man is false according to the Bible. 

By what, then, was the carnation? We reply, It was by a change of natures. He exchanged His Logos nature for human nature—the Logos became flesh, a human

Christ—His Carnation. 

39 

being (John 1:14; Phil. 2:6-8; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14, 16, 17). He, a spirit being, was transferred into becoming a human being. Of all Scriptures John 1:14 tells it most clearly and simply: The Word became flesh—human. He, therefore, without dying ceased being the Word, and became the human Jesus. The death of the Logos was avoided by the gradual change of the Logos, lasting nine months, into the human being Jesus, similarly as the gradual change of a caterpillar into a butterfly is accomplished without the caterpillar's death. And as the caterpillar ceases to be, without death, when the change into the butterfly is completed, so the Logos ceased to be, without death, when the change of the Logos into the human being Jesus was completed. Thus the Logos gradually decreased as such in proportion as the embryo Jesus gradually increased as such, and at the completion of its becoming a human being it as the Logos ceased to be. The word transubstantiation, used by the Greek, Roman and Anglican Catholics to designate their doctrine of the change of bread and wine [allegedly] into the body and blood of Christ, does not correctly designate the process of the change of natures in Christ while He was ceasing being the Logos and becoming the man Jesus, because His spirit substance was not changed into human substance, since spirit substances cannot be made material substances. Nor can the change be called a change of personality, since it was the same person that existed as the Logos that became Jesus. 

The correct designation of this series of Acts is a change of natures in one and the same person. During the three-and-a-half years of His ministry Jesus underwent another change of natures, from the human to the Divine nature, without becoming another person; for it was the same person that had from the Logos become Jesus as from Jesus became the Lord of all, a Divine person, as we read in Heb. 13:8, "Jesus Christ the same [person] yesterday [during the Jewish Age, in His Logos nature], and today [during the 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

40 

Gospel Age, in His human nature], and forever [during all future Ages, in His Divine nature]." However, there is this difference in these two changes of nature in the same person, namely, that the change of the Logos into Jesus was accomplished without death, whereas the change of the man Jesus into the Lord of all required the death of the man Jesus. From this and the change of the Church, the Great Company, the Ancient and the Youthful Worthies not taking place without death, we infer that to change from a higher to a lower nature does not necessitate death, but that the change from a lower to a higher nature does necessitate death in the changed one. As in a human begettal the life-principle is at once transferred to the ovum from the male, so the analogy would suggest that the Logos' life-principle was at once transferred to the ovum in the Virgin Mary; and as in the human embryo's development the soul qualities of the male are gradually during nine months assimilated into the being of the embryo, so the soul qualities, and with them the very soul, of the Logos were during nine months gradually assimilated into the being of the embryo Jesus, the assimilation having been completed at the time the embryo was ready for birth. If one should object to this change of natures on the ground that we cannot understand it in its entirety as a process, we would reply, Neither can we understand all of the details in the process of the generation of any animal being, from the lowest plane of being to the highest, man's plane of being. There is very little more that we do not understand in the change of the Logos' nature to human nature than we do not understand in the change of the semen of a male and the ovum of a female into a human being, person. To sum up our answer to our fifth question, By what was the carnation accomplished? we would say, By the change of the Logos' nature to the human nature without the Logos' death. 

VI. Our sixth question is, Analogous to what was the carnation? An exact parallel to the carnation does 

Christ—His Carnation. 

41 

not exist, for it is the only thing of its kind ever to have been enacted; but there are analogies of it that help to clarify by way of illustration about every feature of it. A good illustration of the feature in it that the Logos ceased to be and the human Jesus came to be by the carnation is given us in the change of water into wine, wrought by our Lord's first miracle—that at the marriage feast at Cana of Galilee,—the Word became flesh; the water became wine (John 1:14; 2:9; I. V. in both cases). Several good illustrations are at hand to clarify the change of natures that occurred in the carnation, e.g., Jesus' change from human to Divine nature. Likewise, the change of the Church from human to Divine nature pictures it forth. So, too, the change from human nature in the Great Company now, and in the Ancient Worthies and Youthful Worthies during the Little Season, is analogous to it. In these changes of nature we find analogies in the same persons' retaining their identical personalities in the changed nature to the retention of the personality of the Logos by the human Jesus in the changed nature. The change of the caterpillar into the butterfly illustrates several features of it—the change from one to another nature, the identity of the being in the change, the change being made without death in the changed one, the gradualness of the change, the proportionate decrease of the one nature accompanying the increase of the other nature, etc. It is also illustrated in the change of seeds into plants, trees, etc. The natural generation of animals on various planes of being is very like various features of the carnation of the Logos. The change of oxygen and hydrogen, properly mixed, into water illustrates this change of the spirit Logos into the man Jesus. So does the change of electricity into light and heat give us a picture of this change of natures worked through the carnation process. 

Of late parthenogenesis, virgin birth, has actually been made to take place, by the application of life-principle to the ovum in women through scientific instruments, 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

42 

without sexual intercourse and without the use of the seed of a male. Several years ago Time reported six cases of this. The six women who permitted the operation to be performed on them were segregated from males two months before being subjected to the operation and kept segregated for nine months afterward, until the births set in, and in each case a daughter was born as a result. Similar experiments have been made with lower animals, e.g., rabbits, which also proved successful, these rabbits being segregated from male rabbits a sufficient time before and after the operation, to insure the certainty of the parthenogenesis. These experiments, particularly those with virgin women, completely annihilate the claims of the impossibility of the virgin birth of Jesus made by rabbis and Modernists. Their sneers, sarcasms, ridicules and mockeries are by parthenogenesis made to recoil upon their own heads. These are all the less excusable in rabbis, since they teach that the Messiah will be sinless and their own theological principles imply that He would have to be of virgin birth, in order to be sinless, since they teach that the soul comes from the father and that sin is transmitted with and in the soul. It is, indeed, remarkable how since 1799, and especially since 1874, God has been bringing to light one matter after another to confound the scoffs of unbelievers, e.g., as we have in our work on the Bible shown, He put to shame the scoffs of infidelistic higher critics by the recent uncovering of Biblical numerics, archeology and ancient geography and history; and now by parthenogenesis He has put to flight the infidelism of rabbis and Modernists on the virgin birth of Jesus. Praise and blessing and glory be unto God, who has arisen to turn the controversy of Zion unto victory! 

VII. Now, our final question, For what was the carnation? We say our final question, not from the standpoint that the carnation does not present other lines of forth, but from the standpoint that these seven will sufficiently cover for practical purposes the main important

Christ—His Carnation. 

43 

features of the subject, especially those that particularly call for discussion as food in due season for thinking Christians. For what, or why, was the carnation? Certainly, there must have been a very great necessity for it, else God would not have done the tremendous thing of emptying the Son of His bosom of His high nature, office and honor by making Him a human being. The Logos, Michael, was too dear to God's heart to have effected His carnation, unless one of the most compelling of reasons called for it. And this is actually what we find to be the case; for the Bible clearly teaches that God sent His Son into the world to save the world from the Adamic sentence and curse (Matt. 1:21; 18:11-13; Luke 1:68-70, 78; 2:10, 11, 30-32, 34; 5:32; 9:56; John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 12:47; Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:6, 8-11; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 1:9, 10; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 3:5, 8; 4:9, 10, 14). One might ask, Why did God, instead of making Michael a human being to save our lost and ruined race, not select the best man and woman of the Adamic race to produce the Savior? We answer, The son of the very best man and woman on earth, however good he might have been, could not have been the Savior, because he would have inherited from his father the Adamic depravity and death sentence, and, therefore, could not have saved himself, let alone the race, since, not being perfect in every way, he could not be an acceptable sacrifice, either for himself or for others (Ps. 49:7-9). God's justice, having justly sentenced Adam and the race in his loins to death, could not remove that sentence, unless it was met by a price equivalent to the debt that incurred the sentence, which alone could satisfy justice in releasing the justly death-sentenced race; for justice must, from its very nature, demand a full satisfaction of the sentence, to cancel it; for it is written: "Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex. 21:23-25). In other words, justice demands 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

44 

an absolute equivalent for a debt, to cancel it; and as long as the debt of Adam stood against him and his race on the book of Divine justice, it could not be canceled, until its equivalent were given to offset it. 

Such an offset an imperfect man could not make; for Adam's debt was that which he had to forfeit for his sin, i.e., all that he was and had as a perfect man, in other words, a perfect human body and a perfect human life, the right to human life and the life-rights that belong to one who has the right to human life. Since none of Adam's descendants had these, they having received from him by heredity imperfect bodies, imperfect life, forfeited right to life and forfeited liferights, they did not have an equivalent of his debt, hence could not satisfy justice by what they were and had, since they were not a corresponding price to the forfeitures of Adam. But Jesus as a perfect, sinless, human being, made so by His carnation, did have what Adam by his sin became indebted and had to forfeit to Divine justice, i.e., Jesus, by not having a human father, who would have transmitted imperfection and the curse to Him by heredity, but by being generated by God as His Father, escaped receiving the Adamic imperfection and death sentence and became a perfect human being. Thus He had a perfect human body in offset of Adam's forfeited perfect human body, a perfect human life in offset of Adam's forfeited perfect human life, the right to human life in offset of Adam's forfeited right to human life and the life-rights that belong to that right to life in offset of Adam's forfeited life-rights that had belonged to his right to life. In other words, He was by His carnation put into line of becoming a corresponding price, an equivalent price, to all that Adam had by sin forfeited. We say that He was by His carnation put into line of becoming a corresponding price to all that Adam had by his sin to forfeit; for, as a matter of fact, His carnation ended at His birth as a perfect babe; and He did not become a perfect man for sacred purposes until He was of full 

Christ—His Carnation. 

45 

age—30 years old, though He after birth grew in due times into a perfect child, boy, youth and man. Adam being a perfect man, a perfect man alone could be his ransom, corresponding price (1 Cor. 15:45-49; Heb. 2:5-9). Hence at His consecration Jesus offered His perfect body for Adam's perfect body, His perfect life for Adam's perfect life, His right to life for Adam's right to life and His life-rights for Adam's life-rights. And during the three-and-a-half years of His ministry He sacrificed His human all until and unto death, so as to make it available to give Divine justice as a corresponding price in payment of Adam's debt, substituting as a corresponding price an unborn race in His loins as an exact equivalent for the unborn race condemned to death in Adam's loins; and by these Acts He secured to the entire satisfaction of justice the right to have the sentence against Adam and his race canceled out of the book of Divine justice, whereby He becomes the world's Savior. In brief, the carnation was necessary [For what was the carnation?] to provide the ransom price to satisfy the claims of justice against Adam and his race, so that Jesus might save them. Glory, honor and praise be to God for this marvelous expression of His wisdom, power, justice and love displayed in the carnation! And glory, honor and praise be to Christ for His part in the carnation (Rev. 5:12, 13)! O, how greatly we should trust, hope in, love and obey God and Christ for the possibilities and actualities flowing out of the carnation! 

But one may ask whether God, who created Adam perfect out of the dust of the earth and life-principle taken out of the air, could not have created another human being perfect in the same way, and then have made him and the unborn race in his loins a ransom-price for Adam and the unborn race in his loins. We answer, Certainly He could have done these things, had He desired it; but He planned something better: A reward for the very faithful service that the Logos, Michael, had rendered Him in all righteousness and 

Christ—Spirit—Covenants. 

46 

efficiency, in the work of creation and Old Testament providence and revelation. Desiring to make the Savior His eternal Heir and Vicegerent throughout all the universes, to carry forward all His future plans and purposes, He considered it to be the most wise, powerful, just and loving thing to offer His only begotten Son the privilege, at great cost to Himself and to that Son, of carnation, in order to do the things for which it would be a necessary step. Therefore God decided on the carnation of the Logos as the best way of providing the Savior. And who will dispute that this was the most wise, powerful, just and loving way to proceed in this matter? Hence the carnation of the Word was enacted, for which let us praise our God as its Source and Christ as its Subject. And let us from the study of this subject have an enhanced faith, hope, love and obedience as to God and Jesus Christ!