Basic HTML Version
321
virgin birth, and sees in it a token of the fact that God has creatively established a new
beginning by condescending to become man.[The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 556; Credo,
pp. 63 ff.; Revelation, pp. 65 f.] He also finds in it doctrinal significance. According to him the
“sin-inheritance” is passed on by the male parent, so that Christ could assume “creatureliness”
by being born of Mary, and at the same time escape the “sin-inheritance” by the elimination of
the human father.[Credo, pp. 70 f.] In answer to the question, whether the virgin birth has
doctrinal significance, it may be said that it would be inconceivable that God should cause
Christ to be born in such an extraordinary manner, if it did not serve some purpose. Its doctrinal
purpose may be stated as follows: (1) Christ had to be constituted the Messiah and the
Messianic Son of God. Consequently, it was necessary that He should be born of a woman, but
also that He should not be the fruit of the will of man, but should be born of God. What is born
of flesh is flesh. In all probability this wonderful birth of Jesus was in the background of the
mind of John when he wrote as he did in John 1:13. (2) If Christ had been generated by man, He
would have been a human person, included in the covenant of works, and as such would have
shared the common guilt of mankind. But now that His subject, His ego, His person, is not out
of Adam, He is not in the covenant of works and is free from the guilt of sin. And being free
from the guilt of sin, His human nature could also be kept free, both before and after His birth,
from the pollution of sin.
f. The incarnation itself part of the humiliation of Christ.
Was the incarnation itself a part of
the humiliation of Christ or not? The Lutherans, with their distinction between the incarnatio
and the exinanitio, deny that it was, and base their denial on the fact that His humiliation was
limited to His earthly existence, while His humanity continues in heaven. He still has His human
nature, and yet is no more in a state of humiliation. There was some difference of opinion on
this point even among Reformed theologians. It would seem that this question should be
answered with discrimination. It may be said that the incarnation, altogether in the abstract,
the mere fact that God in Christ assumed a human nature, though an act of condescension, was
not in itself a humiliation, though Kuyper thought it was.[De Christo II, pp. 68 ff.] But it certainly
was a humiliation that the Logos assumed “flesh,” that is, human nature as it is since the fall,
weakened and subject to suffering and death, though free from the taint of sin. This would
seem to be implied in such passages as Rom. 8:3; II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:6,7.
2. THE SUFFERINGS OF THE SAVIOUR.
Several points should be stressed in connection with the
sufferings of Christ.
a. He suffered during His entire life.
In view of the fact that Jesus began to speak of His coming
sufferings towards the end of His life, we are often inclined to think that the final agonies
constituted the whole of His sufferings. Yet His whole life was a life of suffering. It was the