Posts Tagged ‘76’

75. The New Testament, in several passages, carries forward the thought of all believers being, in some special sense, the seed of the woman. At present we will call attention to one instance only, explaining first, however, that the fact is not emphasized (but clearly implied, nevertheless),—for God knew from the first the tendency of the church toward Mariolatry. John 1:12-13 declares: “As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” That word “born” might, perhaps, with greater propriety, have been here translated “begotten,” since the two words are identical in the original. “Sons” of God, here, of course, mean children of either sex. Now fix your thoughts for a moment on the last part of the quotation. The “not” and the “nor” are distinctly eliminative, and the word “man” in the phrase, “nor of the will of man,” is not the title of the race,—mankind, but the specific term used of the adult male or husband; in other words, it is aner, not anthropos. Most commentators pass this fact by unnoticed, or declare one word is used where the other is meant, but this is very doubtful. The scholarly Bengel says: “The will of man is contained in ‘the will of the flesh,’ and yet it is mentioned separately, as if it were the greater, and in some measure the more guilty part of it. For Christ had a mother, but one who knew not man.” See par. 83.

76. Let us analyze these words in John’s Gospel:

1. In the birth of the sons of God, natural descent (“blood”) is counted out.

2. Natural appetite (“the will of the flesh”) is counted out.

3. The “will of man” (the husband), is likewise counted out.

4. But, in that it is not mentioned, the will of the female is not counted out. This prophecy concerning womanhood, made in Eve’s day, fulfilled in its first stages in Mary’s day, will have its complete fulfillment only in the regeneration of every human being who becomes a child of God. Mary had a wonderful character which Protestants do not enough appreciate. She reached that high pinnacle of purity and self-renunciation from which she could regard dishonor with scorn, and allying her will with the will of her God, in the conception of the Head of a new race (when she said: “Be it unto me according to Thy word“), she became, in her own person, the one to realize the promise that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. Modern rationalism, which talks of “the divinity of man” (not meaning likewise “the divinity of woman”), and the “natural conception of Jesus,” robs woman of her crown, and will quickly reduce her, in public esteem, to the level of the woman of paganism.


Read Full Post »