This morning we considered only one false concept about Jesus of Nazareth; that is, the claim that he never existed. We investigated that claim and gave evidence for his existence. We have every reason to maintain that Jesus of Nazareth lived and that he was Immanuel, God with us.

There are other false statements about Jesus that I wish to pursue tonight. Some, after admitting the historical Jesus, deny other important aspects of his being and doctrine.

The Docetics, one among many of the Gnostic sects, taught that Jesus could not have been in a real, human body like everyone else. If He were God in the flesh, He must have had some special body and only appeared to be in the flesh. Though this doctrine received a much fuller treatment after the close of the first century, the apostle John certainly dealt with it before his death. He wrote,

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of anti-Christ whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:1-3.)

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 7.)

"Which (those that believe on his name) were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. . . ." (John 1:13-14.)

Hippolytus gives an account of this sect. They were among the first anti-Christian errorists which alarmed and upset the early Christians. The apostle John denounced them early and subsequent church fathers took them to task.

This belief would have profound implications concerning the resurrection. If Jesus was not in a real body, then he could not have so suffered the death of the cross and have been raised from the dead. While trying to protect the Lord from any fleshly stains from Adam, it committed a worse error by denying his real death and resurrection.

I believe that it is beneficial to understand why these debates about the nature of Jesus arose. Remember that while he was alive on earth, the disciples most often thought about Jesus as a fellow Jew and a great teacher. Then he would walk on water or raise the dead! They were constantly challenged about their view of Jesus. Recall that he asked the disciples once, Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? (Matt. 16:13.) After his ascension, the followers of Christ had more time to reflect upon Jesus. If He were God in the flesh, how could he be just a man? If he were a man, how could he be divine? How did he keep from committing sin? What sort of person was Jesus of Nazareth? In the centuries following the first, the great debates over the nature of Jesus occurred. One such debate was whether Jesus came in the flesh.

Though they are mentioned several times in Scripture, some deny that Jesus had any brothers or sisters. His brothers are even named for us---James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. Jesus’ family on earth is important because of the denial of Jesus. If Jesus did really live on earth, then we might also ask about his family. Was not Joseph and Mary his parents? Did he not have brothers and sisters? Well, the Bible says, Yes, to both these questions.

"And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?" (Matthew 13:54-56.)

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? And who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister and mother." (Matthew 12:46-50.)

Those who claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin deny therefore that she ever gave birth to any other children than Jesus. The effort seems to be to exalt Mary above the commonplace. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception says that Mary was made holy so that at Jesus’ birth she could not pass any of the original sin from Adam to Jesus. These two doctrines, perpetual virginity and immaculate conception, go together in that they protect Mary and Jesus from original sin.

Those who so deny that Jesus had brothers and sisters say that the original words refer to relatives or cousins. Such is not true, either in word meaning or usage. Note the context of Matthew 12 first. Jesus’ family had come to speak to him. His fleshly brothers and sisters stand in contrast to those who are his spiritual brothers and sisters. He said that those who did God’s will are his real brothers and sisters. In Matthew 13, his whole family is being mentioned. They are amazed that Jesus could work miracles and teach so well. They asked, Who is this man? Do we not know him? His father the carpenter, Mary his mother, and his brothers and sisters? To refer to relatives or cousins would not have been sufficient. He was referring to his own family.

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus." (Matt. 1:24-25.) Note two words here: "till" and "firstborn." Joseph did not know his wife until after Jesus was born. This means that afterwards they lived together as man and wife. Jesus is also designated as Mary’s firstborn son. This indicates that she would have others.

The whole doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based upon a false concept about purity and righteousness. It is assumed that one is more holy if a virgin rather than a Christian mother. A Christian mother is every whit as holy as any virgin, perpetual or not. For holiness, no celibate, male or female, can compare with Christian parents. As Paul expressed it, "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed is undefiled." (Heb. 13:4.)

To suppose Mary’s virginity throughout her life would be to suppose that she defrauded Joseph her husband, contrary to Scripture. We do not believe that Mary did that. "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." (1 Cor. 7:5.) Remember that Joseph and Mary were married. "Then Joseph her husband. . . ." (Matt. 1:19.)

This denial of the brothers and sisters of Jesus is a case of a position already being determined by a prior doctrine. The worship of Mary and her exaltation made necessary the denial.

"And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matt. 23:6-12.)

Since Jesus is the Head of the Body, no one should seek to exalt oneself above another in the church. There is only one head; we are all members of the same body. Jesus taught that the greatest would be the one who humbles himself and serves others, like Jesus did. If he came to serve and to give his life a ransom for many, then we certainly should not exalt ourselves.

Religions have rejected the Lord’s teachings in granting and receiving titles. Here are some examples: a) the use of Reverend to refer to the minister, b) the use of doctor of philosophy. (Anyone who graduates from schools of higher learning are given some degree, but this is the only one that is used as a title with their name!) We must be careful not to disobey the Lord’s teaching here. c) the use of Brother for preachers, d) the use of Father, Holy Father, etc. The word, Pope, is from father in Greek.

How do religions justify the use of such titles? Here are some of their replies:

John Paul II was once asked a series of penetrating questions in 1993 by Vittorio Messori, an Italian radio and television reporter. For the first time ever, a sitting Pope would be interviewed on live television with questions asked freely by the interviewer. Due to conflicts the John Paul II did not answer the questions on live TV, but rather answered them for publication in a book entitled, Crossing The Threshold of Hope, 1994. The first question asked was whether he, as Pope and Holy Father, was a scandal or a mystery of the ancient faith. In answering, John Paul referred to Jesus’ words in Matthew 23---"Call no man on earth your father." To call me the "Vicar of Christ" or "Your Holiness" seem inimical to the Gospel. These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage. One must not be afraid of these words either. (Crossing, 6.)

He seemed to say that since Jesus, though God in the flesh, was humble and served other, so also could the Pope as a representative of Christ on earth. In other words, the words do not matter if one serves instead of exalting himself. Besides that he said, the Pope is not the only one who holds this title. Each bishop is "Vicarius Christi." (Crossing, 13.) It is good to serve others humbly, but Jesus still taught us not to use the titles of exaltation.

Of all the false doctrines that have plagued the church from the beginning until today, this one is among the most dangerous. It is, in effect, a denial of the Gospel of Christ. In the churches of Christ, this is the one that we are in the most danger of teaching and believing. To my knowledge, those who would say that the righteousness of Jesus does not benefit us today are in a very small minority. But even so, this doctrine is dangerous and should be avoided. We are not affected by the ancient heresies of the Gnostics; we do not deny his virgin birth, nor his death and resurrection on the third day; we do not deny his ascension to the right hand of God. We are not among those who deny his sinlessness (about 25% of modern believers do believe that Jesus committed sin). What value will all that be if in the end we deny his grace and righteousness on our behalf??

Here are some quotations:

"Salvation must precede any justification that may ever be ours. God forgives our sins through the blood of Christ. That is a matter of grace. . . . After he has forgiven us, he holds us ‘not guilty;’ he reckons righteousness to us, because we are righteous---that is, not guilty. God does not reckon something to us that is not already ours." (Gospel Advocate, May 1, 1947, C. D. Crouch.)

"But what, precisely, was the thing counted to Abraham? It was not the righteousness of God, nor the righteousness of Christ. This much is certain. Indeed, the position that Christ’s righteousness, whether the attribute or the righteousness of perfect obedience, is ever imputed to human beings, is without even the semblance of countenance from the Bible. It is a matter of astonishment that it should ever have been held; and matter of still greater astonishment that any one should now hold it." (Commentary on Romans, Moses E. Lard, 1875, 129.)

"But, righteousness can no more be transferred than can sin (Romans 4:8) . . . No Bible verse teaches the transferred righteousness of the Calvinistic system and, in fact, Christ was under obligation to live obediently in his own behalf." (Bible Light, "What About ‘Imputed Righteousness?’ Keith A. Mosher, Sr., 1992, 2.) "If Christ’s personal righteousness was transferred to the saved, no one would be under any obligation to obey God! Christ died in one’s stead, he was not born in one’s stead." (Bible Light, Mosher, 1992, 8.)

Mosher said that righteousness can no more be transferred than can sin. But what about our sins being placed upon the Lord?? In denying one, he has denied the other as well. Were not our sins counted upon the Lord when he went to the cross? Isaiah said so (Isa. 53), and Paul (2 Cor. 5:21).