Concise Study of Basic Theology Vol IV: Concise Study of Basic Theology, #4

Concise Study

of Basic

Theology Vol IV

The divine attributes of Jesus

Henry Epps

Concise Study of Basic Theology Vol IV

By Henry Epps Jr

Copyright Henry Epps Inc

Smashwords Edition

Table of Contents

1 Jesus the Only Begotten Son of God 4

2 The Sacrificial Lamb of God 37

3 Jesus the Redeemer 54

4 Jesus the Word of God 78

5 Jesus the Messiah 83

6 Higher than the Angels 99

7 The Judge of God 111

8 The Glory of God 119

9 The Righteousness of God 128

10 Emmanuel 140

Chapter One

Jesus the only Begotten Son of God

In this brief statement of the death and burial of Jesus, Paul

makes no distinction between those who put him to death and

those who "took him down from the tree, and laid him in the

sepulcher." But this omission is entirely justifiable; for, although

his friends, Joseph and Nicodemus, performed the last two acts,

they did it by the express permission of Pilate, and it may be

regarded as, in a proper sense, the act of his enemies.

30–33. The speaker proceeds to the climax of his argument; a

proof of the Messiahship still more conclusive, if possible than

the testimony of John, or the fulfillment of prophesy. "But God

raised him from the dead; and he was seen many days by those

who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his

witnesses to the people. And we declare to you glad tidings

concerning the promise made to the fathers, that God has

fulfilled it to us, their children, by raising up Jesus; as it is written

in the second Psalm, Thou art my son; to-day have I begotten

thee." The fact of the resurrection of Jesus, so well attested by

competent witnesses, is introduced, not only as the final proof of

his Messiahship, but as happy tidings to these Jews, being no less

than the fulfillment of the promise to the fathers, and the

realization of their most cherished hopes.

The difficulty of applying the words of David, "Thou art my son;

to-day I have begotten thee," to the resurrection of Jesus, has led

many commentators to suppose that both it and the expression,

rising up Jesus, refer to his incarnation. But these words of

David, in every other instance of their occurrence in the New

Testament, are applied to his resurrection, and not to his natural

birth. In Hebrews 5:5, Paul says: "Christ glorified not himself to

be made a priest, but he who said to him, Thou art my son; to-

day have I begotten thee." Now, as Christ was not a priest until

after he had died as a victim, and was prepared to enter heaven

with his own blood, it is clear that these words are applied to his

resurrection, at the time of which he entered upon his priestly

office.

So, likewise, in Hebrews 1:5, the question, "To which of the

angels said he at any time, Thou art my son; to-day have I

begotten thee?" is adduced as evidence of his superiority to

angels, and cannot, therefore, refer to the period when he was

made a little lower than the angels. That the term rendered

begotten may be properly referred to the resurrection is evident

from the fact that he is called the first begotten from the dead,

and the first born from the dead, in which two expressions the

Greek words are the same. He was the "only begotten son of

God, by his birth of the Virgin Mary; but he became the first

born from the dead, or the first born of the whole creation,"

when he was declared to be the Son of God with power by the

resurrection from the dead. In applying the quotation from the

second Psalm, therefore, to the resurrection, and endeavoring to

cheer the Jews in Antioch, with the thought that a long-cherished

and familiar promise was thereby fulfilled, Paul was giving his real

understanding of the passage quoted, and it is one as much more

cheering than that which many commentators have gathered

from it, as the exaltation of Christ from the grave to his throne in

the heavens was a more glorious birth than that which brought

him into this sinful world.

34–37. That we have given the true explanation of the clause last

quoted is confirmed by the course of the argument in that which

follows, in which the speaker continues to quote from David, to

prove that, according to his prophesies, the Messiah, should raise

from the dead. (34) "Now that he did raise him from the dead, no

more to return to corruption, he spoke thus: I will give to you the

sure mercies of David. (35) Wherefore he also says in another

psalm, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (36)

For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of

God, fell asleep, and was added to his fathers, and saw

corruption; (37) but he whom God raised up did not see

corruption."

The words quoted from the fifty-fifth chapter of Isaiah, "I will give

you the sure mercies of David," have given no little trouble to

both translators and interpreters. No translator can feel well

satisfied with rendering ta osia David ta pista, the sure mercies of

David; yet the literal translators have generally adopted this as

the best that can be done. I think the words mean the holy things

made sure to David. The purpose of the quotation is to prove that

God would raise the Messiah from the dead no more to return to

corruption. He assumes, therefore, that the words quoted refer

to the Messiah, and that his hearers would not dispute the

reference. Whatever, therefore, might otherwise be our own

understanding of the words, we must take this as their true

reference. The promise is addressed not to the Messiah, but to

the Jews; for the pronoun you (umin) is in the plural number. It is

a promise, then, to give to the Jews the holy things faithfully

promised to David, among which was the promise already

referred to, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

It furnished, therefore, the required proof that the Messiah

would rise, and not see corruption.

The only objection which his hearers would be likely to raise

against the argument is, that in the words, "Thou wilt not suffer

thy Holy One to see corruption," David spoke of himself. But this

objection is anticipated by the remark that David had fallen

asleep and seen corruption, whereas he, Jesus, whom God raised

up, as was proved by the witnesses who saw him alive, did not

see corruption; hence to him the words must refer. According,

therefore, to the only possible application of David's words, and

to the admitted reference of the words quoted from Isaiah, they

were bound to admit that Jesus was the Messiah.

38, 39. Having now established, by brief, but unanswerable

arguments, the Messiahship of Jesus, Paul proceeds to offer the

audience the benefit of his mediation. (38) "Be it known to you,

therefore, brethren, that through this man is preached to you the

remission of sins; (39) and in him every one who believes is

justified from all from which you could not be justified in the law

of Moses." The expression en touto, in him, not by him as

rendered in the common version, indicates that the parties to be

justified must be in Christ, that is, in subjection to his authority;

as the expression en to uomo, in the law, applies to those who

were under the law, and not to uncircumcised Gentiles who were

not under it. The benefits of the Jewish law extended only to

those who were born in, or properly initiated into the body of

people to whom the law was given; and just so, the remission of

sins is preached only to those who shall be in Christ by being

properly initiated into his body.

By the antithesis here instituted between the law and the gospel,

Paul assumes that there was no remission of sins enjoyed by

those under the law. For he asserts that there were some things

from which they could not be justified in the law of Moses; and

in the expression "justified from all from which you could not be

justified in the law," the true supplement after all is sins, taken

from the preceding clause. He announces that remission of sins

is preached through Jesus, and from these he assumes that under

the law there was no justification. This point, indeed, would need

no argument, even if the context did not settle it; for certainly, if

there was anything from which under the law could not be

justified, it was sin; and, on the other hand, in Christ we are

justified from nothing but sin. The assumption is not, that

justification cannot be procured by works of law, for this is

equally true under Christ; but that those under the law of Moses

did not obtain remission of sins at all.

Paul argues this assumption at length, in the ninth and tenth

chapters of Hebrews. The only provisions in the law at all

connected with remission of sins were its sacrifices; and he

asserts of them, "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and

goats should take away sins." It cannot be rightly assumed that

he contemplates these sacrifices as considered apart from their

typical meaning; for he makes no such distinction. He takes them

just as he finds them, with all that belongs to them when offered

in good faith, and makes the assertion