ESUS CHRIST: GOD IN THE FLESH

by abuGian
Posted: 25 Oct, 2004.

This is a critique of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914) article, “Jesus Christ: God Incarnate?”  by Jose J. Ventilacion
(God’s Message, Jan 2003, Vol. 56).

This critique in a glance:

The Term Incarnation Not in the Bible?
In the Flesh.
John 1:1’s Logos: An idea about Christ?
The Lord Jesus is the Word of God.
Greek, Anyone?
All Things Were Made By Him.
The Life Was the Light of Men.
Who says, The Word is the Father?
Jesus, Another Being?
Mr. Ventilacion’s False Dilemma.
Mystery of Godliness.
Closing

After quoting Dr. Wayne Grudem[1], Mr. Ventilacion said,

“Admitting that the doctrine of Incarnation is not ‘explicitly’ taught in the Bible, proponents of this concept

can only resort to erroneous interpretations of some biblical texts as their bases, two of which are John 1:1

and 14.” [2]

Did Dr. Grudem really admitted that the Doctrine of Incarnation is not explicitly taught in the Bible? Let’s
find out what Dr. Grudem REALLY said, taken from the same article,

"Although the word does not explicitly occur in Scripture, the church has used the term incarnation to

refer to the fact that Jesus was God in human flesh.  The incarnation was the act of God the Son whereby he

took to himself a human nature." (Emphasis added.)

Can an intellectually honest reader believe that Dr. Grudem really admitted that the Doctrine is not in the
Scripture? What is the difference between adoctrine and the word (or the term) used to represent that
doctrine? Is it really difficult to distinguish the two? Well, for those who don’t know the difference, you’ve
come to the right place.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines doctrine as,

“A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or

philosophic group; dogma.”[3]

In CONTRAST, the American Heritage Dictionary defines term as,

“A word or group of words having a particular meaning.”

What Dr. Grudem referred to being not explicitly occurring in the Scripture is the word incarnation, not the
doctrine per se. There’s a whole world of difference between these two. To Dr. Grudem, the term incarnation
is what represents the doctrine, and although to him, the term is not explicitly in the Scripture, the doctrine
it represents is in the Bible.

The Term:        INCARNATION

The Doctrine:         THE FACT that Jesus was God in human flesh; the act of God the Son whereby he took

to himself a human nature

How can Dr. Grudem deny the doctrine when he said the term, incarnation, was “the act of God the Son
whereby he took to himself a human nature?” How can Dr. Grudem deny the biblicality of the doctrine when
he called it, “THE FACT that Jesus was God in human flesh”?

Mr. Ventilacion either failed to fully comprehend what Dr. Grudem said OR he was deliberately misleading
his readers as to what the latter actually said.

The Term Incarnation Not In The Bible?

Is the term not in the Bible? Not really. The question is which Bible? Webster’s Revised Unabridged
Dictionary defines incarnation as,

“The act of clothing with flesh, or the state of being so clothed; the act of taking, or being manifested in, a

human body and nature.”[4]

The term according to Webster came from the Latin incarnatio. The reason we asked which Bible is because
in the Greek, or in the English or in the Filipino Bible, you won’t find anything that come close to this Latin
term. In the Vulgate however, a Latin Bible, we find something close,

“in hoc cognoscitur Spiritus Dei omnis spiritus qui confitetur Iesum Christum  in carne  venisse ex Deo

est.” (1 John 4:2, Vulgate)

“quoniam multi seductores exierunt in mundum qui non confitentur Iesum Christum venientem in carne hic

est seductor et antichristus.” (2 John 1:7, Vulgate)

When Dr. Grudem said “the word does not explicitly occur in Scripture” he was right in that the
term, incarnatio is not explicitly in the Bible, however, the word is implicitly occuring in the Scripture when
John used the terms in carne in Latin or en sarx in the Greek.

In The Flesh.

According to 1 John 4:2,  “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is of God.” And according to 2 John 1:7, “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.”
In John 4:1, the writer-Apostle cautioned the faithful from easy believism. He admonished to test every
spirit in order for them to know whether those are truly of God or not. According also to the Apostle, there
are already many false prophets in the world, and so to identify the false prophets (v.1), to identify spirit of
the antichrist (v.3), to identify the spirit of error (v.6), to identify the deceivers (2 Jn. 1:7), the Apostle left
us a criteria in vv. 2b-3,

“Every spirit that confesseth 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 antichrist,

whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

We know that the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914) believes Jesus is man not Divine yet one wonders if the Apostle
John believed that Jesus is man not Divine as the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914) does, how come the Apostle had
to emphasize that Jesus is come in the flesh? Isn’t it obvious that if Jesus is not Divine, he is in the flesh?
Many regarded this admonision as a warning against Docetic Gnostics who taught that Jesus’ body were not
a real flesh but a phantom.

John 1:1’S Logos: An Idea About Christ?

After misrepresenting Dr. Grudem, Mr. Ventilacion then proceeded to interpret the Scriptures. He said,

“The Word or logos is not another God but refers to the idea about Christ, which was ‘with God’ or in

God's mind in the beginning.” (Emphasis added.)

Is it true that the Word is the idea about Christ and not Christ himself as the Word personified? If so, how
come John in Revelation 19:13 said?--

“And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and HIS name is called The Word of God.”

(Emphasis added.)

Hebrews 1:1-2 explained,  “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (Ephasis added.)

Furthermore, how can we say that the idea about Christ came unto HIS own but HIS own received HIM not
(John 1:11)?  Why did John address theidea in personal pronouns? How can we say that the idea about
Christ gave power to become sons of God to those who receive HIM (v.12)? And how can we say that
the idea about Christ was made flesh (v.14)?  Can an idea be referred to in personal pronouns? Can an idea
give power or authority? Can an idea be made flesh?

John 1:14 says,

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only

begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Was it just an idea that dwelt among the disciples turned Apostles? Did the Apostles beheld the glory of just
an idea? Was there a scripture that would attest that the Father has begotten a one and only idea?
John further said in v.15,

“John [The Baptizer] bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh

after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.” (Emphasis added.)

Isn’t it clear that the Word who was made flesh was he whom the Baptizer bare witness to? And why did the
Baptizer say, “He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me,” if Christ did not pre-
existed knowing John the Baptizer was born months before Christ (Luke 1:36)?

It may be argued that the word “before me” means pre-imminence. But would take make a sense, since the
idea of pre-imminence is already implied by the phrase, “he that comes after me is PREFERRED before me”?

The Lord Jesus Is The Word Of God.

The Lord Jesus is the "Word of God." He is the Word of God in John 1:1, 14. He is the Word of God in
Revelation 19:13. He is the spokesperson of God in the last days (Hebrews 1:1-2; cf. 1 John 5:9), the
Apostle of God who came from eternity to dwell among them. (Hebrews 3:1 cf. Zechariah 2:10-11). He was
the Person who came to his own but his own did not receive him (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; John 1:11 cf.
Matthew 13:58; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:28; John 4:44). He gave power to become sons of God to those who
receive him (John 1:12; Galatians 3:26). He is the Word of God or the Lord of Glory incarnate (John
1:14; cf. Psalms 24:7-10; 1 Corinthians 2:8; 1 Timothy 3:16; James 2:1). He is the only begotten of the
Father full of grace in truth (John 1:14, 18; 3:16). He is the Person the Baptizer gave witness to as the one
who came from above and is above all (John 3:27-36). He is the Word personified.

Greek, Anyone?

By appealing to Greek authorities like R. H Strachan and W. Barclay, Mr. Ventilacion attempted to show that
the theos in the clause, “the Word was God” is an adjective. But of course it is! If it is a noun then don’t we
end up being Modalists? As stated earlier, how could John have said that the Word was God (the Father)? A.
T. Robertson explained that by grammar, John denied Sabellianism. He said that John's construction in the
Greek makes it impossible to interchange the words Logos and Theos in the clause, “The Word was God,”

“And the Word was God. kai (grk 2532) Theos (grk 2316) een (grk 2258) ho (grk 3588) logos (grk

3056)]. By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho (grk

3588) Theos (grk 2316) een (grk 2258) ho (grk 3588) logos (grk 3056). That would mean that all of God

was expressed in ho (grk 3588) logos (grk 3056) and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the

article. The subject is made plain by the article ho (grk 3588) logos (grk 3056) and the predicate without

it Theos (grk 2316)] just as in John 4:24 pneuma (grk 4151) ho (grk 3588) Theos (grk 2316) can only mean

‘God is spirit,’ not ‘spirit is God.’ So in 1 John 4:16ho (grk 3588) Theos (grk 2316) agapee (grk

26) estin (grk 1510) can only mean ‘God is love,’ not ‘love is God’ as a so-called Christian scientist would

confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John

1:14 ho (grk 3588)Logos (grk 3056) sarx (grk 4561) egeneto (grk 1096), ‘the Word became flesh,’ not ‘the

flesh became Word.’ Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally

God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to

the other). Thus, in the Trinity, we see personal fellowship on an equality.”[5]

After that, Mr. Ventilacion quoted the rendering of Goodspeed and Moffat that speak of the Logos as Divine.
And having done so, he appeared to have managed to strip the Lord Jesus of his divinity by attributing his
divinity to the mere idea about him.

While we agree with Mr. Ventilacion that indeed God has planned Christ’s coming to this world and that we
also agree that whaterver God planned always come to pass, the context of John Chapter 1 does conform to
the result of his interpretational gymnastics that the Word in John 1:1 is not the Lord Jesus Christ pre-
existing.

All Things Were Made By Him.

Aside from misrepresenting Dr. Grudem’s work, Mr. Ventilacion also attacked the Roman Catholic exegesis
on John 1:1,

“How do Catholic theologians understand these verses? They say that Jesus Christ is the ‘Word’ in John 1:1

and since the third clause of the verse says ‘the Word was God,’ they conclude that Christ is God.  By

substituting the term ‘Word’ with the term ‘Christ,’ they suppose that the third clause could then be

rendered as ‘[Christ] was God.’”

But shouldn’t we think of Christ himself is the Word personified instead of thinking that  the Word was just
the mere idea about Christ? Is it not written in the following verse (v.2-3) that?--

“[T]he same (the Word) was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him

was not any thing made that was made.”

Can an idea make anything? Isn’t it in true that in carpentry, the Carpenter uses tools by which he create
his woodworks? Can a carpenter use his idea or plans to complete a woodwork? No he can’t. But through
the right tools he can make a chair, a door or even a house.  According to Strong’s the Greek
word dia (rendered in the text as “by”) is,

“[A] primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or

occasional)”

But before the reader gets the faulty idea that v.3 means, “All things were made on the account of the
Word.” Let’s bring in Colossians 1:16 into the picture.  Colossians 1:16 does not only use the Greek dia, it is
also parallels itself with what John said about the Word,

“For by him [the Son] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,

whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created

by [Gk., dia] him, and for [Gk., eis] him.”

The foregoing text wouldn’t make sense if it means, “All things were created on account of the [by] Son
and on account of the [for] Son.” Don’t you think? That would be redundantly absurd! The text here tells
us that all things were created THROUGH [Gk., dia] the Son and ON THE ACCOUNT [Gk., eis] of the Son.
Let’s go back to Hebrews 1:1-2. It says,
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath

in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,  by whom also he

made the worlds.” (Emphasis added.)

And so, there can be no doubt that after considering the context, the grammar, the usage of the words
used, and by correlating scriptures with scriptures we can confidently come to the conclusion that John 1:3
is telling us that the Word in v.1, was not a mere idea about the Son but the Son himself whom Paul also
considered the immediate agency through which God’s created all things. As a Carpenter cannot make a
table without his tools, all creation would not come to existence without the Son, Word personified. As John
succinctly puts it, “And without him was not any thing made that was made.” But unlike the Carpenter's
tools, the Word personified is alive and conscious of one's self. Thus in v.4, John said,

“In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”

The Life Was The Light Of Men.

See vv.6-9. Although there seems to have been a little shift from the Word being the subject towards the
Baptizer, it turned out it was only to furtherbeef up the writer’s testimony about the Word (vv.1-5).
Referring to the confessions of Baptizer, Apostle John said,

“He [the Baptizer] was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light,

which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made

by him [Gk. auto], and the world knew him [Gk. auto] not. He came unto his own, and his own

received him [Gk. auto] not.” (John 1:8-10)

Who was this Light? Who was the true Light that comes into the world? If it is not the Baptizer, then it must
have been another person. Otherwise, what good reason would the Gospel writer have to compare a real
person to an idea? And who made the world and yet the world knew him not? As we have earlier explained,
an idea or a plan can’t be the immediate agency through which God’s created everything, therefore the
Word must be asomeone, a Person rather than a plan or a thought.

And so who is the Word personified? Who was he who came unto his own yet received him not? Can Mr.
Ventilacion answer these questions? Or perhaps he is so content to have taken John 1:1 out of its context
and say that the Word refers to the idea about Christ,

“The Word or logos is not another God but refers to the idea about Christ, which was ‘with God’ or in God's

mind in the beginning.

“Thus, the clause, the logos was with God, indicates that the logos is different or distinguished from God.  

This position does not contradict the biblical doctrine on the absolute oneness of God.  On the other hand, if

we were to accept the position of the Trinitarians that the logos is a being who, although is distinguished

from God, is also God, we would face the prospect of accepting an unbiblical position that there are two

Gods.”
Who Says, The Word Is The Father?

One important thing the readers need to understand about the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914) is that when you say
“God,” the Person that comes to their mind is the Father. So whenever you say, “Jesus is God,” in their
Unitarian worldview, they take that you mean to say, “Jesus is the Father.” And this is shown by the effort
that Mr. Ventilacion exerted to explain to that the Word is different or distinguished from the Father.

Of course the Logos is to be distinguished, otherwise, how could John have said, “Word was WITH God”?
How can the same also be WITH himself? Trinitarians don’t teach this. So we wonder why did Mr. Ventilacion
spent effort in telling our Roman Catholic friends that the Logos is not the Father? Could it be he is ignorant
of what the Trinitarians really believe in?

The Doctrine of the Trinity is a product of fidelity and utmost respect to the authority and inspiration of the
Scriptures. When John said the “Word was with God,” the Trinitarians take the Son as the Word
personified distinct from the Father. But this does not go as far as to separate the two Persons as two
separate Beings.

Jesus, Another Being?

Is it taught by the Trinitarians that Jesus is another being distinguished from God? If not, then why create a
fictitious dilemma that if the Father and the Word are two distinct persons, they have to be two separate
beings? Didn’t Jesus say in John 10:30, “I and my Father ARE ONE”? Doesn’t it say in the 1 John 5:7 of the
Lamsa version of the New Testament,  

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three

are one.”[6]

Now this is no ordinary translation to the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914), they use this almost consistently when
quoting Acts 20:28. Although the Father and the Son are two distinct persons, it does not follow that they
have to be two separate Gods.

Mr. Ventilacion’s False Dilemma.

Anyway, Mr. Ventilacion seems too confused with what the Trinitarians believe. First he tried to disprove
that Jesus is the Father, something which Trinitarians don’t believe in. Secondly, he tried to disprove that
Jesus is another Being distinguished from the Father which is also something that the Trinitarians don’t
believe in. He seems ignorant of the fact that the Modalist Monarchians are those who are teaching that
Jesus is the Father.On the other hand, the claim that Jesus is another being is claimed by Tritheists. Either it
is true that Mr. Ventilacion know little about the Trinity or once again he is here is trying to mislead the
readers by creating a false dilemma.

False dilemma, is the limiting of options into few alternatives (usually two). In this case, Mr. Ventilacion,
like the Serpent in the Garden, subtly seduced his readers to prefer his faulty interpretation of the Scriptures
from two extremes: Modalism or Tritheism that serves as a caricatureof what the Trinitarians really believe
in.

But what if Mr. Ventilacion was not deliberate in this deceit? We would like to recommend that he read our
article, Insights on the Triunity of God: Biblical Definition of the Trinity so as to give him the idea of what
Christians believe and teach for almost two thousand years.
Furthermore, we also would like to give him an unsolicited advice that before he criticize an essential
doctrine of the Christian faith, he should make sure he fully understood it first. And if he is willing to
undergo our test if he has truly understood the very thing he is criticizing we would like to
recommend, Labing-Dalawang Tanong Para Sa Mga Bumabatikos Sa Katuruang Trinidad (Translation:
Twelve Questions For the Critics of the Doctrine of the Trinity).

Mystery Of Godliness.

Going back to Webster’s definition of Incarnation, “The act of clothing with flesh, or the state of being so
clothed; the act of taking, or being manifested in, a human body and nature.” There are five (5) important
things to remember when talking about God’s incarnation:

1. God’s incarnation means in Christ, the Divine Nature was clothed in the flesh.

2. Incarnation is a mystery revealed in the Scriptures although the term is not explicitly

stated.

3. In the incarnation, there was no transformation nor mingling of the Divine and the human

nature of the Son, instead the two distinct natures were joined together.

4. The joining of the Son’s Divine and the human nature is hypostatic in that, the attributes

and properties of each nature were retained unaltered

5. The purpose of the Son’s incarnation is to die as the atoning sacrifice for our sins according

to the will of the Father who sent him and begotten him.

We read in 1 Timothy 3:16, it says,

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in

the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

According to the above scripture, God was manifest in the flesh. “God manifest in the flesh” does not mean
the Father manifest in the flesh. The “God” referred to in this text is John 1:1’s the Word. God manifesting
in the flesh is what the Trinitarians call,  Divine Incarnation. However we do recognize that other readings
say, “He was manifest in the flesh.” But it doesn't diminish the reality of the Lord’s incarnation, not at all.
For to say that He manifest in the flesh is to suggest that he has an another state in which he existed before
he manifested, also, what great mystery of godliness is there if the Lord Jesus was just a man who
manifest in the flesh? The King of Glory manifest in the flesh is what the historic and biblical Christianity
calls INCARNATION.

In Colossians 2:9 we read,

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

The term “Godhead” came from the Greek word theotes which means Divinity or Diety--the very essence or
the very substance of God. According to the foregoing text, in Christ is all the FULLNESS OF DIVINITY. In
Christ is the fullness of the very substance of the Father. As Colossians 1:19 puts it,

“For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.”
Not that the Father and the Son has two separate DIVINITY, the texts here do not suggest that idea. What
we find, rather, is that the same Divinity of the Father is FULLY in the Son. As the Father is fully Divine, the
Son is likewise fully divine but without confusing both Persons. Philippians 2:5-7 (as rendered either by KJV,
NKJ, Darby, Douay-Rheims, Webster, and Young's Literal Translation) teach us that although equality with
the Father is in the Son's right, in humility he made no such reputation,

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not

robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,

and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and

became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

The foregoing scripture, also expressly reveals the while Christ Jesus was in the form of God, in humility he
took upon himself the form of a servant made in the likeness of men. Now isn't that INCARNATION?

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VIII, Article II, states,

“The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal

with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature,[John 1:1, 14; I John

5:20; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4] with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;

[Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:14, 16-17; 4:15] being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the

virgin Mary, of her substance.[Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal. 4:4; see Matt. 1:18, 20-21] So that two whole,

perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one

person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.[Matt. 16:16; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5; I Tim. 3:16] Which

person is very God, and very man,  yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.[Rom. 1:3-4; I

Tim. 2:5]”

Closing.

Mr. Jose J. Ventilacion who champions the Iglesia Ni Cristo (1914) taught us a lot in this article. He
demonstrated before us what not to do when commenting on an essential doctrine of the Christian faith:  

 One, don’t criticize a subject matter without fully understanding it first, otherwise you’d end up
beating a strawman.
 Two, don’t reason through fallacies like false dilemmas, because once they are detected it, it is the
end of your argument.
 Three, don’t misquote other writers for it shows either lack of comprehension or deliberate
misrepresentation.
 And four, don't misinterpret the Scriptures that you may not be put to shame as 2 Timothy 2:15
says,  “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.”

 Top.