A reader inquires about chapter 2, of "Gods King," published in the May, 1948 issue of "Christian Truth." The first three pages of the article contain the points in question regarding the 16th Psalm, where the Lord Jesus as a man expresses His dependence on God in the words, "Preserve Me, 0 God: for in Thee do I put My trust." The inquirer says that some persons were troubled about such remarks as these: "He was to show what Adam had failed to exhibit—the proper character and position of the lowest in rank of God's intelligent creatures, called by Him, man"; and "how fully then He took the place of a creature, who should ever be dependent upon the Creator"; and "He was as a creature dependent, and throughout He remained so." They were afraid that the deity of the Lord Jesus might in some way be sullied by these statements.
ANSWER: We appreciate the diligence that seeks to be careful to detect anything that would be derogatory to Christ Jesus our Lord. For a Christian to be indifferent to any slight put upon the Son of God would show a very low state indeed; it would he that lukewarmness that the Lord condemns in Rev. 3 We would, however, call our reader's attention to the context by quoting more fully from the article:
"Power to be exercised by Him as God's King seems only natural and right, but a position of lowly dependence is one which man would never have assigned to Him. Yet this was the place He took when upon earth, who will one day rule all nations with a rod of iron; for He was to show what Adam had failed to exhibit—the proper character and position of the lowest in rank of God's intelligent creatures, called by Him, man.
"Perfect God and perfect man, whatever be the relative position He occupies, in it He is perfect.
"As man on earth, He entered fully into His place, and acted throughout as befits the creature."
It should be noted that the author of "God's King" is careful to show that this position as a man was one which He took, and that He was "perfect God and perfect man." Surely Scripture bears this out. Does not Phil. 2 tell of His humiliation—His becoming a man? To deny His true—but perfect—humanity would be to dishonor Him who in love stooped so low. He ever was God, but in order to meet us in our deep need He came where we were—took the form of a man.
And in that position which He in grace took He demonstrated that perfect dependence and obedience which should have characterized the creature—Adam and his posterity—but, alas, did not. Surely we do not need to be reminded that this blessed One was not and could never be a creature,
for He was the Creator; but when in grace He came down to that low estate He did so in all perfection and showed out in His whole pathway full dependence and perfect obedience. What a great contrast between the first Adam and the Last Adam, the first man and the Second Man!
We might quote another portion of the article:
"To turn now to the Psalm before us, which gives us the principles of His walk before God-it begins with declaring His dependence, and ends with expressing His confidence. 'Preserve Me, 0 God,' is the first utterance. 'Thou wilt show Me the path of life' is the closing expression of confidence. How fully then He took the place of a creature, who should ever be dependent upon the Creator. To be as gods, was the bait held out but too successfully to Eve in the garden of Eden; the refusal to leave the path of dependence upon God, characterized the Second Man, when tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Yet all the while He was God. The stormy sea obeyed His behest, and was stilled; fishes were brought in abundance to Peter's net, and one fish brought him the exact sum demanded as tribute from the disciple and his
Master; the winds too dropped at His word; the devils owned His authority; and death released its grasp, when He bade Lazarus to come forth. Power then He had; all nature obeyed His bidding, who took so dependent a place as to say, 'Preserve Me, 0 God: for in Thee do I put My trust.' Is it degrading for a man to own himself dependent on a superior being? Is independence of God what the creature may desire? These questions receive a complete answer from the acts of God's Son down here. He was as [note: it does not say He was a creature but was as one-it is the position He took] a creature dependent, and throughout He remained so."
May our inquirer note that in this paragraph also the author is careful to affirm His deity. Should we not stand in wonder and admiration as we behold Him who created all things coming so low for the glory of God and our good? And when we think of the perfection He always displayed as a man down here, does it not by way of contrast show how far Adam and his seed fell? And does it not serve as a rebuke to us—His blood bought people—that we should fail in dependence on, confidence in, and obedience to, God? Well may we "consider Him" the only One who is the perfect example.
Another reader had questioned a remark in this same series about the use of the word "essence" in connection with the Lord Jesus down here. It said that as to His essence He was God. The meaning of the word "essence" would make clear that no error was there. Webster's Dictionary says: "That in being which underlies all outward manifestations and is permanent and unchangeable." Surely it was so that no matter what human veil there was He was nevertheless always God. As one of our poets has said,
"There see the Godhead glory Shine through that human veil."