Did the Incarnation Dissolve on the Cross?
Roy A. Huebner
Table of Contents
Note 2
If Christ did not have a human soul and spirit, it follows that when He on the cross dismissed His spirit, “He dismissed Himself,” i.e., the deity left the body; and that means that the incarnation dissolved. The truth is that He had a human soul and spirit, which remained united to the deity while His body lay in death. Thus there was no dissolution of the incarnation. Along with other blasphemous doctrines, F. E. Raven taught that the deity was the spirit of manhood in the person of Christ. He was followed in this by J. B. Stoney, C. A. Coates and James Taylor, Sr., etc., as we shall see.
W. Kelly rightly said of F. E. Raven
This man’s mission is not from the Holy Spirit, but from an opposing and evil spirit to seduce unwary souls from the truth they once seemed to enjoy into a whirlpool of confusion and corrupting error.
F. E. R.’s teaching concerning the incarnation, W. Kelly rightly denounced as Apollinarian.
F. E. R.’s Apollinarian doctrine was enunciated in a paper titled, The Person of the Christ, printed in June 1889, one year before Bexhill acted in June 1890 to separate from Greenwich, which was sheltering F. E. R.
In this paper he said
The second error maintains that the truth of Christ’s Person consists in the union in Him of God and man . . . The idea of the unity of the Person in the sense asserted is not found. It is a Person in a condition in which He was not previously.
He is here arguing against the orthodox statement that Christ is God and man united in one Person. The “union in Him of God and man” means that man as human body human soul, and human spirit was united to the deity. This is the truth F. E. R. here denies. His teaching, the “Person in a condition,” means the Deity clothed Itself, as it were, in a human body, so that the Deity was the spirit of the body. That body, this means, had no human spirit.
He also said
[Christ] is not a man in the sense that He is God . . . In Person He is God, in condition He is Man.
Gal. 4:4. The same Person abides, though the condition be changed, in His coming of a woman.
Every Scripture which definitely refers to the incarnation speaks of it as the assumption by Christ of a form or condition.
In the expression, “Father into Thy hands I commend my spirit” I judge that the Lord takes up an expression suited to the position in which He was. But it is the Person who left the condition, which He had assumed to take it again . . .
Look at the wickedness of the last statement. “The Person who left the condition” means the Lord did not dismiss a human spirit. According to F. E. R., what He dismissed as the spirit of the body was the Deity. Therefore, as his followers expressed it, He dismissed Himself.
Query—Why is He not personally Man?
Mr. Raven—He is personally the Son. You cannot have two personalities in one. He is the Son, but in the condition of a Man.
J. N. Darby wrote
I am quite aware of and accept the ordinary orthodox statement of two natures in one person . . . And this last statement, that Christ had no human personality, no ego, which is really heresy (though God and man were united in one person), and the mere folly of man attempting to fathom the mystery of His person, when He had said, “No man knoweth the Son but the Father”. . .
F. E. R. would not confess the union of God and man in one Person, which all fundamentally sound Christians confess.
I believe the old notion of the union of God and man to be wrong. I do not think it was meant wrongly, but, in the light of what has come out now, it was incorrect. 6
Consider F. E. R.’s blasphemy concerning the Son’s emptying Himself (May 2, 1896)
. . . the Son emptied Himself—in mind took a place lower than that of God in which He could say, “My Father is greater than I” . . . .
Since Christ had, according to F. E. R.’s teaching, no human mind (for He had no Human spirit), these words really mean that in the divine mind, which is the Deity He took a lower place than God. What revolting blasphemies! He continued
I hardly care for the expression “He took human nature into union with Himself.” I do not like the term “union” in this connection. It is hardly the scriptural way of speaking of the incarnation. There it is “become flesh,” “took upon him the form of a servant,” etc., etc., none of these passages convey the thought of union, but rather identification of a Person with a state or form assumed.
W. Kelly wrote
Without that union there must have been two distinct personalities, the divine and human. It is the union of both in one Person which alone secures the truth according to Scripture. F. E. R. with shameless self confidence vaunts his idea, which is plain heterodoxy.
He does not “bring the doctrine” of Christ. . . who utters his scornful unbelief of Christ’s Person in terms which must have ensured his expulsion with horror from all fellowship of saints in former days.
The notion that a divine Person was the spirit of the body of our Lord would in effect mean that when He advanced in wisdom (Luke 2:40), the divine Person advanced in wisdom. That is absurd. The notion means, furthermore that when He delivered up His spirit (John 19:30), “He dismissed Himself.” Thus, since in F. E. R.’s scheme the Lord only had a body (no human soul and spirit), when He died, the divine Person was no longer connected with manhood in any way. It follows that in death, on the cross, He was no longer man. The incarnation dissolved.
Furthermore, the resurrection then amounted to another incarnation, i.e., He came into “the condition of manhood” once again. These two scriptures alone would be sufficient to show the evil of his view s. The truth is that while Christ was dead, the human soul and human spirit remained united to the Deity. However, this would not fit the system, as the following quotation shows
The doctrinal basis of Mr. R.’s doctrine is that Christ at incarnation, took the first man’s condition of humanity—but an impersonal one, which was “not commensurate with the spiritual being” (Some Letters pp. 7, 8, 12). Therefore its inadequacy and incompetency to exhibit eternal life, and consequently the necessity that that condition should be laid aside and moreover, that from that condition of humanity.
“Christ was wholly separated by death, in order to be eternal life”—“a new man”—and to accomplish reconciliation, it had to be “terminated judicially in the cross, in the Man Christ Jesus” (The Person, p. 2).
What follows this ending of Christ’s incarnate impersonal humanity? Mr. R. teaches that a risen and glorified Christ is as to His humanity a new creation, a new man., which he affirms equally of Christ and of us (Some Letters, p. 5; Eternal Life, by F. E. R., p. 7).
In His incarnate humanity Christ was the “old” in contrast to the “new” which He now is (Eternal Life, p. 3; The Person, p. 2).
The reader will comprehend these remarks by observing that in the evil system the resurrection of Christ really amounts to another incarnation, as was pointed out above.
The fundamental evil opened a totally new sphere of doctrine for the instrument of Satan to mystically apprehend, and propound as new light and advanced truth among those who refused to bow to the Bexhill action of June 1890, separating from F. E. R. and Greenwich, which supported him.
In a letter dated July 1, 1895 F. E. R. wrote
——accuses me of not holding the real humanity of Christ because I will not accept his idea of a complete man ‘spirit, soul and body,’ distinct from Deity. He seems to me to have no idea of the Son becoming Man and giving a spirit to manhood, in fact of the incarnation.
C. A. Coates, who imbibed F. E. R.’s system, said
A divine Person has come into manhood . . . .
. . . the Son of God, a divine Person in manhood . . .
The Lord’s spirit went to paradise the moment He died . . .
It shows, too, how entirely He has taken the place of man, because His spirit was Himself.
That is a sample of the new form of language—it clothes the Apollinarian doctrine. “His spirit was Himself” means that the “spirit” was the Deity; that He had no human spirit as you and I have.
J. Taylor, Sr. wrote
Our Lord Jesus, though really man, begotten of the Holy Ghost, born of the divinely-overshadowed vessel was uncreate, though He entered His own creation, and His holy humanity had no link with that of fallen man.
As to His spirit, it was Himself —the Son . . . And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. The omission of ‘in spirit’ in [Luke 2] verse 40 is important as confirming that His spirit was Himself personally and could not be spoken of as in our case.
His spirit was Himself.
The shifty way in which teachers of evil doctrine often express themselves is illustrated in the following quotation from J. Taylor, Sr.
Every soul that loves Him and bows to scripture would surely admit that while becoming flesh He changed His estate He could not and did not change in any way His personality, and still more would reject any suggestion that henceforth there became embodied in Him two personalities. The thought is abhorrent! Nor would any reverent soul assert that He received, as we, a created spirit. Yet HE HIMSELF, THE SON, became and abides forever really, actually Man, in all that holy manhood involves. Having become Man, how could His spirit be other than human though never ceasing to be divine? for He brought into manhood all that was perfect in manhood according to God. It was surely as was said, Himself, for passing into death, in Luke, He commends His spirit to His Father. His death was a reality, as His burial attests (p. 279).
At the same time, to speak of Him having a human spirit savors of dividing up what scripture does not, and might seem to imply something added to Him (Note to page 279).
C. A. Coates wrote
As to waxing strong in spirit, you have no doubt noticed that the Editors omit “in spirit,” which leaves the expression as to waxing strong a general one, which is quite easy to understand as going along with advancing in stature, and belonging, of course, to the condition into which He had come . . . .
C. A. C made the same point about “in spirit” being omitted as J. Taylor, Sr. did. C. A. C. said, “because His spirit was Himself.” J. Taylor, Sr. said, “As to His Spirit it was Himself.”
Regarding the Lord’s dismissal of His spirit, F. E. Raven said
But it is the Person who left the condition.
All three agree; the spirit that left the body was the deity and did not involve a human spirit. All three were Apollinarians.
It seems incredible that a man who believes the spirit of Christ was “the divine Person” could explain Luke 2:46 thus—Christ’s answers
. . . were not what He knew as God, but what He had learned from God in the place of an instructed One.
Since his view is that the immaterial part of Christ was only the divine Person, this involves a divine Person learning. We might think it is difficult to know whether the stupidity of these notions exceeds the blasphemy or not but see what leaven does to the mind.
And now we come to J. B. Stoney. His mystical system was at work during the last few years of J. N. Darby’s life. An examination of articles appearing in J. B. Stoney’s magazine, Voice to the Faithful, vol. 11 (I do not know if J. B. S. authored those criticized by J. N. Darby) is found in Letters of J. N. Darby 3:482-491. J. N. D. referred to “a settled system” (p. 488); says, “Your remarks, I think, are constantly fancies” (p. 489); warns “. . . Satan found opportunity to mix your own imagination with it, and introduce what tended to sap the reality of truth” (p. 491). A few more remarks are found on pp.472, 473. Further remarks are found on life and new creation in vol. 3, pp. 14, 15 and concerning related matters on pp. 54-56. A n article received by J. N. D. in 1875 (vol. 3. pp. 439-441), found in Food for the Flock 2:1, tends in the same line. (That article was not written by J. B. Stoney). J. N. D. rejected the system which many think was “new light.”
While J. B. Stoney had many good things to say, he was moving into mysticism that also ensnared F. E. Raven.
It is likely that J. B. S. developed F. E. R. who in turn led J. B. S. into supporting and personally holding and propagating fundamentally evil doctrine.
On Dec. 19, 1895 F. E. Raven wrote
For myself I can say that there is no one on earth whose ministry and self have produced so lasting a moral effect on me as Mr. Stoney.
Let us now examine some things that appeared in Mr. Stoney’s magazine. B. W. K. wrote
Those who say that the Son of God, or the eternal Son the Christ, and eternal Life are identical or interchangeable terms (and there are such) have evidently lost the all important distinction between the blessed Lord as a divine Person and as Man . . . .
Thus, Mr. Stoney allowed the printing of blasphemy in his magazine. This doctrine means that the Son was not eternal life essentially in His divine, eternal Being.
The Voice, 1891, p. 257, says, “Things and people continue in ordinary agreement until a greater light from God is made known, and then a division ensues . . .” This is sanction of F. E. Raven, not ignorance of what he was really saying. I do not know if J. B. S. wrote that article.
While no editor of any magazine would agree to accept responsibility for every expression and notion printed in His magazine, when such vital truth is touched, an editor is responsible.
Query—Why is He not personally Man?
Mr. Raven—He is personally the Son. You cannot have two personalities in one. He is the Son, but in the condition of a Man.
Compare that with the following from J. B. Stoney
The truth is that God was manifest in flesh; the divine Being, a Spirit, took bodily human form . . . The opposers want have two persons in one, man and God, one time to act as God and at another to act as man. They really do not see the incarnation. They do not see that He who was God became man and hence a man out of heaven. They would have Him to be a man in flesh and blood, and in a way distinct from His being God—whereas He is God, and He, that same Person became a man in flesh and blood, but He came from God, He brought everything with Him.
This is the same Apollinarianism as in F. E. Raven; and not only that, but the same doctrine that the second man was ever essentially in the Son, in eternity, is also in this statement. It is an integrated system of fundamental evil.
In 1893 J. B. Stoney said
The divisions among us all spring from not understanding the mystery, and the nature of Christ they are intimately connected.
If this statement is true, then J. B. S did not understand the mystery because he, along with F. E. R., was fundamentally unsound on the Person of Christ.
Mr. Stoney, we see, imbibed the main parts of F. E. R.’s evil doctrine. In June 1894, F. E. R. stated in a letter
I know of no divergence of thought between myself and J. B. S.
W. Kelly wrote
It is to join Apollinarus of Antioch (the Son). He too made the Logos simply form Christ’s Person, as F. E. R. does, and was therefore justly branded an Antichrist . . . F. E. R. with shameless self confidence vaunts his idea, which is plain heterodoxy.
J. N. Darby wrote
. . . He was a true man, body and soul, and, one may add, spirit. This was called in question by heresy as soon as His deity was.
Persons who hold such doctrines (as F. E. R., J. B. S., C. A. C. & J. T., Sr.), are antichrists and heretics.
R. A. Huebner