An Antidote to Arianism: Part seven

The “divinity” of Christ?

It seems to be a commonly-held view among Arians in the body of Christ that Christ is a “hybrid being” who consists of a “divine part” and a “human part.” One verse to which Arians will appeal in support of this view 1 Timothy 2:5. Here’s how 1 Tim. 2:4-6 reads in the CLNT:

“[God] wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus, Who is giving Himself a correspondent Ransom for all (the testimony in its own eras)…”

Concerning this verse, Stephen J. has drawn attention to the use of the word “of” in the expression “one Mediator of God and mankind.” But the word “of” here is not a translation of a single Greek word. Instead, the use of “of” is simply expressing the grammatical fact that both “God” and “mankind” are in the genitive case, and that the “one Mediator” pertains to both God and mankind. It has nothing to do with what kind of being the one Mediator is; it’s simply making clear the fact that Christ’s mediating role and activity is on behalf of both God and mankind.

So what kind of being is the “one Mediator of God and mankind?” What kind of nature does he have? In Acts 17:29, Paul referred to God as “the Divine.” Is Christ “divine” in the sense that God is “divine”? Does Christ have what Peter referred to as the “divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4), and which Paul referred to as God’s “divinity” (Rom. 1:20)? No. If he did, he’d be the same being as the Father himself (who, being the only true God, is the only being who has – or who can have – the divine nature and “divinity”). Since the one Mediator doesn’t have the divine nature – i.e., since he essentially lacks divinity – then he must have a nature that belongs to some kind of created being. But what kind of created being is the one Mediator?

Answer: Paul answers this question in the same verse in which we read that there’s one Mediator of God and mankind:

“For there is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus…”

The one Mediator is “a Man” (it should be kept in mind that the capitalization of “man” in this verse is merely a translational preference; the word translated “Man” here is the same word translated “man” elsewhere). In other words, the one Mediator is a human being (and thus has a human nature). Scripture could not be any clearer on the fact that Christ is the same kind of being that God made when he created the first man, Adam (John 8:40; Acts 2:22, 23; 17:31; Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21). Nowhere in Scripture is Christ said to be, or to have ever been, any other kind of being.

In accord with this fact are the following words of Hebrews 2:17:

“Whence [Christ] ought, in all things, to be made like the brethren, that He may be becoming a merciful and faithful Chief Priest in that which is toward God…”

The words “in all things…made like the brethren” do not allow for the view that Christ isn’t fully human, or that some part of him isn’t human (which would be the case if he pre-existed as a non-human being). Just as “the brethren” of whom we read here were/are fully human (and didn’t “pre-exist” as non-human beings), so it is with Christ. When God made Christ (that is, when he brought into only-begotten Son into existence), the being that came into existence was – and continues to be – just as truly human as Adam was.

This being the case, it follows that any understanding of the purpose and nature of Christ’s mediating role according to which Christ can’t be fully human in order to be the one Mediator of God and mankind is necessarily mistaken. That is, the belief that the one Mediator of God and mankind must, with regard to his nature and the kind of being that he is, be something other than the same kind of being that God created when he created Adam is necessarily mistaken. Rather than being explicitly informed by Scripture, any such understanding is based on conjecture and inference (and ought to be rejected).

Since Christ is “a man” – and not a “God-man” (or a “God-human hybrid”) – it necessarily follows that his being a man is consistent with his status/role as the “one Mediator of God and mankind.” In other words, Christ doesn’t have to be a different kind of being than what he’s explicitly said to be (i.e., a human) in order to do what he has done/is doing as the “one Mediator of God and mankind.”

Some may object that, since Christ isn’t a member of the group of humans of whom he’s the one Mediator (and who are referred to as “mankind”), it must mean that he’s not “fully human.” But that’s not the case. In Romans 5:12 we read that it was on account of death having passed through into all mankind that “all sinned.” But Adam sinned before “death passed through into all mankind” (indeed, it was because of his sin that “death passed through into all mankind”). Since Adam didn’t sin because of the consequence of his own sin, Adam is necessarily excluded from the group of humans referred to in this verse as “all mankind” (i.e., who “all sinned” on account of the consequence of Adam’s sin). So here we have another example in which one human (Adam) is distinguished from another group of humans referred to collectively as “all mankind.”

Now, based on what Knoch wrote in his article “The Mediator Between God and Man” (https://s3.amazonaws.com/unsearchablerich/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+74++1983.pdf; see pages 147-148), it would seem that he understood Christ to be some kind of “hybrid being”:

“The Scriptures are emphatic concerning [Christ’s] work of mediation. ‘There is one God, and one Mediator of God and mankind, a Man, Christ Jesus . . .’ (1 Tim.2:5). Those who make Him either Deity absolute or merely human must do so by avoiding this truth and all the divine explanations of those relationships by which Christ bridges the chasm between us and God.

The implication of what Knoch’s saying is that Adam was “merely human” when he was created. But by creating Adam, God defined what a human is, and what human nature is. So by “merely human,” Knoch must mean “truly human.” If a certain being has the same kind of nature with which Adam was created, they’re just as human as Adam was when he was created. Thus, by implying that Christ isn’t “merely human,” Knoch was basically saying that Christ is not the same exact kind of being that God created when he created Adam. He may be similar to a man in some ways, but he’s not a man (at least, according to this theory). As we’ll see, Knoch seemed to consider Christ to be a hybrid being that is neither fully God nor truly human.

In any case, it in no way follows that, in order for Christ to be the one Mediator of God and mankind, he can’t be just as truly human as Adam was (and that he must, instead, be some kind of “hybrid being” that is neither fully human nor fully divine).

Knoch continues:

“All saints believe that, in some sense, Christ is a Mediator between God and man. Some hold Him to be absolute Deity, yet are compelled to acknowledge some limitations. Others make Him a mere man, yet more than all other men. His true place is seldom clearly defined. The solution lies in the great truth that our Lord is unique, quite unlike any other personage in the universe. We do not need to effect a compromise between the conflicting views concerning Him, for both are wrong, though each contains elements of truth. Let us not allow such explanations to rob us of the Mediator, the Christ we need.

“The Mediator, the Christ we need” is the man whose identity and nature is revealed in Scripture. Knoch’s view that Christ is something other than human is not only based on complete conjecture, but it’s contrary to Scripture’s explicit testimony that Christ is a man. Nowhere in Scripture is Christ referred to as some other kind of being. And in the few verses in which the title “God” is used of Christ, it’s obviously being used in a relative sense (and does not refer to Christ’s nature or to some “divine” element of which he’s partially comprised). It is because of his present status/role as a “subjector” or “placer” in relation to all other created beings (for Christ has been given more power and authority than any other created being) that the title “God” (or “god”) can be applied to him. The title “God” could not have been applied to Christ before he received all authority in heaven and on earth. And in an absolute sense, this title can only be applied to the One who has infinite power and supreme authority (i.e., the Father/Yahweh).

Knoch went on to write:

“The key to His present constitution is very simple. He is derived from two distinct sources. His spirit is directly from God, unlike any other man. His body, however, is purely human. His soul, which is the consciousness resulting from this combination, is a thing unmatched, capable of direct communion with the Supreme Spirit, and condescending to the corrupt condition of mortal men.

In contrast with Knoch’s view that Christ is something other than the kind of being that God created when he created Adam, Paul was quite clear in 1 Tim. 2:5 and elsewhere that Christ is “a Man.” While I have no doubt that Paul and the other apostles and writers of the Greek Scriptures considered Christ to be “more than all other men,” it wasn’t because they believed that one of the “elements” of which Christ was comprised made him somehow “divine” in nature (or gave him some degree of “divinity”). For there is no scriptural reason to believe that any “part” or “element” of Christ’s nature/being has ever been anything other than human. The very fact that Christ is “a Man” is irreconcilable with any man-made theory according to which Christ has some sort of “hybrid nature” of which “divinity” or “deity” is an essential element.

With regard to Christ’s “constitution” (as Knoch calls it), the fact that Christ is a man (and has a human mother and other human ancestors to whom he’s related) means he’s just as human in nature as Adam was when he was created, and that no “part” of him is “divine” in nature/essence. Rather, Christ was “in all things…made like the brethren” (Heb. 2:17).

The fact that Christ is “derived from two distinct sources” is in no way evidence for the theory that Christ consists of a “human part” and a “divine part.” For God to be the direct source of a human’s spirit doesn’t mean the spirit is “divine.” In order for that to be the case, the spirit of which God is the source would have to be God’s own spirit (i.e., the spirit that’s inseparable from God’s own divine nature; see 2 Pet. 1:4; cf. Heb. 6:4). Only those who are reading Genesis 2:7 with an Arian doctrinal bias would conclude that someone other than the one God, Yahweh himself, was the direct source of Adam’s spirit (i.e., Adam’s life-principle or “spirit of life”). In Eccl. 12:7 we read that, at death, “the soil returns to the earth just as it was, and the spirit, it returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it.” No one reading this without a doctrinal bias would conclude that someone other than “the One, Elohim” is the direct source of the spirit that returns to him at death. In fact, we have reason to think that God is, in fact, the direct source of the spirits of all humans (Heb 12:9), and that he forms the spirit within each human (Zech. 12:1).

What was unique about Christ’s creation is that God himself directly generated Christ. No human father (and no sperm derived from a human father) was involved in the begetting of Christ. But when God generated Christ, he didn’t need to give Christ a different kind of spirit (i.e., a different kind of life-principle or “spirit of life”) than he gives every other human in order to be Christ’s Father. All he needed to do is directly generate Christ (i.e., cause him to exist within Miriam without the involvement of any human father or human-derived sperm). It’s because of this supernatural event that Christ can validly be referred to as God’s “only-begotten Son.”

Building off of Knoch’s theory concerning Christ’s nature (and how he thinks Christ is able to be the “one Mediator of God and mankind”), James Coram wrote the following in an article:

“Christ is the Mediator Who links humanity with its Creator, so that He is neither man nor God in an absolute sense, yet He is either in a relative one. The combination is not that of two ‘natures’ which can never be harmonized, but that of body and spirit, the same elements which unite perfectly to form the souls of all other men. His humanity consists in a body derived from Adam through the virgin Mary, His human mother. His deity consists in a vivifying spirit directly from God. These two fuse freely to make a Man unique (1 Tim.2:5) and a God unparalleled—the peerless Man and the only begotten God (John 1:18). https://unsearchablerich.s3.amazonaws.com/urscans/Unsearchable+Riches+Volume+112++2021.pdf

As Coram correctly states, Christ isn’t “God in an absolute sense.” Only the Father alone is, absolutely speaking, the “Subjector” (or “Placer”). He alone is eternal/uncreated and possesses infinite power. Only in a relative sense – i.e., only in relation to other created beings – can certain created beings be referred to as “gods” (i.e., as “subjectors” or “placers”); for a more in-depth defense of this understanding, see the following two-part article:  refuting-argument-for-deity-of-jesus. And Christ – who has more power and authority than any other created being – is more deserving of being called “God” (in a relative sense) than any other created being. But his relative “divinity” has nothing to do with his nature or to some “divine element” of which he’s comprised (and which gives him some degree of “divinity”). Instead, it has everything to do with his God-given power and authority.

And what did Coram mean when he said that Christ is human only “in a relative sense?” Just as a being is either the only true God or he isn’t, so a created being is either truly human or he isn’t. To regard Christ as human only “in a relative sense” is simply to regard him as a something other than human. And this, it would seem, is how Arians typically regard him.

I’m not entirely sure what Coram meant when he said that Christ “links humanity with its Creator.” Christ certainly reconciles humanity to its Creator, but he doesn’t have to have some degree of divinity or “deity” in order to accomplish this.

While Coram correctly points out that Christ can’t have “two natures,” it’s unclear why his view wouldn’t entail that Christ has two natures. For if Christ’s “deity consists in” his spirit, then his spirit makes him something other than (or something beyond) human. And that could only be the case because the spirit itself is a different nature (i.e., it’s what Peter referred to as “the divine nature”), or it gives Christ a different nature. At the very least, if Christ only has one nature (according to Coram’s view), then such a nature can only be understood as a contradictory fusion of “divine” and “human.” But as already stated, one can’t have some of the qualities that constitute God’s “divinity” (and which distinguish the Father from every created being), or 50% of the divine nature that distinguishes the Creator from every being he creates. The idea that a certain created being could be half-God or “part God” (with regard to the kind of being he is) is not just unscriptural; it’s nonsense. 

Lest the reader think that I’m “overreacting” to the view that Knoch and Coram were trying to articulate, I recently saw a post by another Arian believer in which he approvingly quoted the following words by Seventh Day Adventist Minister, E.J. Waggoner:

“While both are of the same nature, the Father is first in point of time. He is also greater in that He had no beginning, while Christ’s personality had a beginning.”

I think these words express what many Arians believe regarding the distinction between Christ and God. According to their understanding, the difference between Christ and the Father is not one of nature. Rather, the difference is that Christ “had a beginning” while God himself “had no beginning.” One major problem with this view is that the Father’s nature is inseparably connected with the fact that he had no beginning. That is, the Father had no beginning because of the nature that he has. He, alone, had no beginning because he, alone, has divinity.

Now, like Knoch, Coram seems to have believed that Christ possessed “deity” because he received his spirit “directly from God.” But even non-Arians believe that Christ received his spirit directly from God. The real question, then, is this: What is the nature of that spirit that Christ received from God? For it’s the nature of this spirit that determines whether or not Christ has “deity.” If Christ’s spirit isn’t the same spirit as God’s own spirit – if there is some distinction between Christ’s spirit and the spirit with which God is equated (John 4:24) and which descended on to Christ at his baptism (Matt. 3:16) – then Christ isn’t “spiritually divine.” His spirit does not possess what Paul referred to as “divinity.” If, however, one believes that Christ’s spirit is the same spirit as God’s spirit, then one’s position is indistinguishable from what Christians believe about Jesus (i.e., that he’s “God in human flesh,” and has the same divine nature as the Father himself). That is, if the spirit that Christ received “directly from God” (and because of which the Arian believes that Christ possesses “deity”) is essentially the same as God’s spirit, then it would mean that Christ is “divine” in the same sense that the Father is divine.

In an email I sent to Martin Zender on 3/29/26 (and to which he never responded), I quoted what he wrote in the description for his “MZTV” show from 3/27/26 as follows:

“Today you are going to hear, in their own words, what the deniers of Christ's divinity have to say about our Lord and Savior. He is no different than we, and we are no different than Him. He had no divinity whatsoever. He was made “just like the first Adam.” According to these unqualified teachers, our Lord and Savior was created by a human sperm cell, not by the overshadowing spirit of God.”

In response to what MZ wrote here, I wrote the following:

“Could you please clarify what you mean by Christ’s “divinity?” We know that “divinity” is a scriptural word; in Rom. 1:20, Paul referred to God’s “imperceptible power and divinity.” In the CLNT Greek-English Keyword Concordance this word is defined as “the qualities pertaining to God.” I believe the qualities that constitute God’s “divinity” are qualities that are unique to him, and which distinguish him from all created beings (i.e., all beings who exist because of God, and of whom he is the uncreated source).

“Also, what kind of being do you think Christ pre-existed as before you think his life on earth began? I remember hearing you affirm (in a conference message from 2018) that Jesus has a hybrid nature, and is “a perfect cross between God and man.” If I remember correctly, you said that Christ is neither “all man” nor “all God,” but rather “a perfect combination of the two.”

Again, Martin never responded to my email. However, as far as I know, he hasn’t said anything since the 2018 conference that indicates he no longer holds to the “hybrid” view of Christ’s nature. So what’s the problem with this view? Well, one problem with it is that no being can be “part God.” One is either God – the only eternal, uncreated being – or one isn’t. And the same can be said about being human. One is either human – i.e., the kind of being that God created when he created Adam and Eve – or one isn’t. If a certain being isn’t the same kind of being that God created when he created Adam and Eve (e.g., if one is a celestial being, a dolphin, or a gerbil), then one simply isn’t human.

One reason MZ gave for why he holds to the “hybrid view” of Christ’s nature is the fact that Jesus’ mother was human and his father is God. But the “hybrid view” of Christ doesn’t follow from this at all. As I’m sure MZ would agree, Adam and Eve didn’t have human parents, and yet they were created fully human (with Adam even said to be “[a son] of God” in Luke 3:38). So for a human to be supernaturally created by God doesn’t make the human “part God” (or a “God-human hybrid”).

Another believer asked MZ a similar question concerning his understanding of Christ’s nature and what he meant by Christ’s “divinity” in the comments section of a subsequent MZTV video. In response, MZ replied as follows:

“Divine” means that His Father is God and not human sperm. Jesus has divinity in the sense that His Father is God and not human sperm. Christ's divinity differs from Yahweh's divinity in the sense that His Father is God and not human sperm. 

The implication of MZ’s response is that, if God wasn’t Jesus’ Father, then Jesus’ father would be “human sperm.” But of course, no human was fathered by “human sperm.” Human sperm isn’t anyone’s father. MZ’s father wasn’t “human sperm”; MZ’s father was a certain human male who begot his son when his sperm fertilized his mother’s egg (which resulted in MZ being conceived/generated). It is human males who beget human children, and not “human sperm.” That is, the father of a human child – the one who can be said to have “begotten” the child – is not “human sperm”; rather, the father of a human child is the source of the sperm that resulted in the fertilization of the mother’s egg.

So the mutually exclusive alternative to the (correct) view that God is Jesus’ Father is not, as MZ believes, that a sperm cell is Jesus’ father (for again, no one’s father is a sperm cell); rather, it would be the view that a human male (i.e., a human who was the source of a sperm cell that fertilized Miriam’s egg) is Jesus’ father. For if God supernaturally produced a sperm cell that fertilized Miriam’s egg, God would still be the Father of the human who was conceived (i.e., Jesus), and not “human sperm.” So, just as MZ’s father is his father because he was the direct source of the sperm cell that fertilized the egg that resulted in MZ’s natural conception, so we can conclude the following: God is Jesus’ Father because he was the direct source of the sperm cell (or genetic material) that fertilized the egg that resulted in Jesus’ supernatural conception.

MZ also said Jesus being “divine” means that “His Father is God and not human sperm,” and that “Jesus has divinity in the sense that His Father is God and not human sperm.” But “divinity” isn’t “the quality of having God as your Father and not human sperm,” and being “divine” doesn’t mean “having God as your Father” or “being the Son of God.” That’s absurd. Obviously, Jesus’ God and Father is divine and has divinity, but this fact has nothing to do with God having a father who is “God and not human sperm.” For of course, God has no father. Moreover, the very fact that the Father has “divinity” means it’s impossible for him to have a father. His divinity precludes this.

Contrary to MZ’s strained attempt to explain a view that’s not even found in Scripture (i.e., that Christ is “divine” and “has divinity”), the “simple, to-the-point, sensible, and Scriptural” view is that “divinity” has everything to do with the nature of Jesus’ God and Father. Just as the Father doesn’t have divinity because he’s Jesus’ Father (for God has eternally had divinity), so being God’s Son doesn’t mean that Jesus has “divinity.” To believe that Jesus possesses “divinity” by virtue of being God’s Son is simply to believe that Jesus and the Father have the same nature (which is exactly what Christians – whether they’re Trinitarian, Binitarian or “modalists” – believe). Arians can, of course, deny that this is what they actually believe, but such a denial is no different than when Trinitarians deny that they believe in three gods.

At this point, the Arian may object that, although they believe Christ is divine by virtue of being God’s Son, he is not “fully divine.” In other words, Christ’s divinity is only “partial.” But to say that Jesus received some percentage of “divinity” from God by virtue of being begotten by him is nonsense. Someone can be said to have “divinity” (in the sense that Paul used the word) only if they possess the qualities pertaining to God (which are thus qualities that distinguish God from every created, non-God being). And only Jesus’ God and Father has these qualities.

A human who was fathered/begotten/generated by God does not receive divinity (the qualities pertaining to God) by virtue of having been fathered/begotten/generated by God. That’s ridiculous. Nor can it be said that someone who was fathered/begotten/generated by God is “half God” or “50% God” or a “God-human hybrid.” Being God in the sense that Jesus’ God and Father is God (i.e., being someone who has divinity) is an all-or-nothing state or condition. You can’t have 50% of the qualities that distinguish the Father from every other being, or 50% of the divine nature that distinguishes the Creator from every being he creates. It’s not just unlikely that a being could be half-God; it’s impossible. 

After MZ answered the questions asked by the believer referred to above, Stephen J. also answered his questions. Here are Stephen’s answers: 

Jesus is of the Seed of David according to the flesh, and defined Son of God with power according to a spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:3-4.) He is not “50/50” anything; numbers here are a red herring. His flesh is man, and His spirit is divine. His soul is as complex as it gets; a joining of the likeness of sin’s flesh with a spirit of holiness. 

The term “divinity” in Greek is “PLACERship.” Since Jesus is inherently in the outward appearance of God, and has simulated God for the eonian times, serving as the Emblem of God’s Assumption, He is considered “divine” in relation to these roles, given Him in spirit, regardless of appearance. He represents God at every junction, since it is not pillaging for Him to be equal with God. In truth, Christ is no more “divine” than any other, beyond these roles that He is graced to fulfill.  

When Paul referred to Christ as having been “designated Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead,” the “spirit of holiness” isn’t Christ’s spirit. It’s the spirit because of which Christ was roused from among the dead. That is, Paul was referring to God’s spirit. In Romans 8:11 we read, “Now if the spirit of Him Who rouses Jesus from among the dead is making its home in you, He Who rouses Christ Jesus from among the dead will also be vivifying your mortal bodies because of His spirit making its home in you.” The same holy spirit because of which the mortal bodies of believers are going to be vivified is the holy spirit – or “spirit of holiness” – by which God roused Jesus (and thereby designated him “Son of God with power”).

Now, notice that Stephen actually gave two different explanations for how Christ can be said to be “divine.” The first answer he gave is that Christ’s “spirit is divine.” But this can only mean that Christ’s spirit has what Paul referred to as “divinity” (and that Christ’s spirit thus possesses the qualities of God himself). But this is precisely what those who hold to the doctrine of the “deity of Christ” believe (and who believe that, with regard to his essential nature, Jesus is just as divine as the Father). No, Christ’s spirit is not “divine.” A being whose spirit is divine but whose “flesh is man” is simply another way of referring to the fictional being that Christians refer to as “God the Son” (and the union of a divine spirit with human flesh is just another way of referring to what Christian theologians call the “hypostatic union of Christ”).

Moreover, despite Stephen’s insistence that Christ “is not ‘50/50’ anything,” Stephen’s first explanation of Christ’s “divinity” involves the view that Christ is comprised of a divine part (his spirit, which “is divine”) and a non-divine part (his human flesh). If part of Christ “is divine” and the other part isn’t, then Christ is neither 100% divine nor 100% human. So regardless of whether or not Stephen would say that Christ is “50% divine and 50% human” (or perhaps “25% divine and 75% human”), the fact is that his first explanation of Christ’s nature implies this.

Perhaps sensing the problematic nature of this understanding of how Christ can be said to be “divine,” Stephen went on to provide an alternate explanation (and one that doesn’t require the belief that Jesus’ spirit is “divine”). He said that Jesus is “divine” only in a representational sense, and that, “In truth, Christ is no more ‘divine’ than any other” (beyond the God-representing role that Stephen thinks Christ had in a “pre-existent state”). Stephen’s claim that, “In truth, Christ is no more ‘divine’ than any other, beyond these roles that He is graced to fulfill” is clearly not what MZ had in mind when he referred to Jesus as “divine.” But I suspect that Stephen could see the problematic (or at least deficient) nature of MZ’s understanding and explanation of what it means for Christ to be “divine,” and that this led him to contribute to the discussion by answering the questions himself (and providing an alternative explanation for what it means for Christ to be “divine”).

In any case, assuming that there is some valid sense in which Christ can be referred to as “divine,” Stephen’s second explanation (i.e., that, “in truth, Christ is no more ‘divine’ than any other, beyond these roles that He is graced to fulfill”) is far more reasonable that the other explanations provided. The only point that distinguishes this understanding from that of non-Arians is simply that we deny that Christ had this God-representing role before his life on earth began (i.e., before God generated him and thereby became his Father).

In accord with what is, apparently, the standard Arian understanding, Stephen has also made it clear that he doesn’t think Christ is “fully human.” In defense of this view, Stephen has referenced verses such as Matt. 8:27, 16:15-16, and 22:41-46 (the last verse referenced was considered in an earlier installment, so I won’t be commenting on it here). In the first verse referenced, we read that Christ miraculously calmed a storm. But the reason Christ was able to perform this and other miracles is explained by Peter in Acts 10:38: He was anointed by God “with holy spirit and power,” and “God was with him.” The reason Christ was able to do what he did isn’t because his nature was different than Adam’s, but because God had given him greater authority than any other man has ever had (Matt. 9:8).

With regard to Matt 16:15-16, Stephen has stated that Christ is not “merely ‘man,’ but the Son of the Living God.” But there is no reason to think that Christ’s being the Son of the living God is incompatible with being fully human. Christ is the Son of the living God because the living God is his Father. And the living God became the Father of his Son, Jesus, when he generated him (caused him to exist) in the womb of his mother. God didn’t generate a semi-human being (or a “God-human hybrid”) when he generated Jesus. He generated (and thus fathered) a being who is “fully human.” With regard to his nature, Christ is just as human as Adam was when he was created (which is “fully human”).

After quoting Hebrews 2:14 (which begins with, “Since, then, the little children have participated in blood and flesh, He also was very nigh by partaking of the same…”), Stephen writes the following:

“So let me ask you. If Jesus is choosing to partake of the same blood and flesh, making Him like man (Phil. 2:7-8,) how does this “contradict” the understanding that Christ exists before His physical birth?? If anything, this adds more weight to the revelation!!”

Stephen went on to add that I must “stretch the verses here to make them say what [I] want them to say!” However, right before accusing me of trying to make the verses say what I want them to say, Stephen claimed that Christ chose to partake of the same blood and flesh (hence his use of the words, “choosing to partake”). But Stephen is reading the idea of “choosing” (which presupposes pre-existence) into the text. Just as there is no good reason to think that “the little children” chose to “participate in blood and flesh” (which would imply their pre-existence), so there’s no good reason to think that Christ chose to “partake of the same.” Moreover, not only is there no good reason to think that Christ “chose” to participate in blood and flesh, but in light of what the author went on to say in v. 17, we can conclude that there is no “part” or “element” of Christ’s nature or being that is anything other than human.

The only reason Stephen is assuming that Christ chose to partake of blood and flesh (and that Heb. 2:14 thus “adds more weight to” what he considers “the revelation” that Christ preexisted) is because he’s reading this verse with the assumption that Christ pre-existed. And as we’ll see, the reason Stephen and others think that certain verses prove that Christ pre-existed is because their assumption that Christ pre-existed is governing their interpretation of these verses (just as, as we’ve seen, the reason why the Arian doesn’t think certain verses disprove the Arian view – e.g., Luke 1:35 – is because his assumption that Christ pre-existed his conception is governing his interpretation of these verses as well). 

Part eight: That Happy Expectation: An Antidote to Arianism: Part eight