Lure of Perfection

In a recorded video conference session, a presenter warned against chasing after the mirage of an ideal.  It simply does not exist.  Why can’t things be the way Scripture lays out?  Why can’t we establish pristine liturgy and doctrinal perfection in Christ’s Church? or perfect relationships in our families?  Enter reality.  Life does not work that way.  Relationships are messy, because people are messy.  They (we) are sinners and fail one another, yet idealism is alive and well.  I once overheard a man opine that there were no good examples of fathers in the Bible.  At first that seemed legitimate, but as I considered the premise, it made no sense.  The fathers mentioned in the Bible are good examples.  They are as good as mankind gets.  How’s that for commentary?  If reality is so divergent from the ideal, how is it that we continue to seek the latter?  There are two primary reasons, both drawn from a myopic view of the Bible.

Miracle workers
Who wouldn’t want to perform a miracle or two?  Maybe we would never lead millions of people, so set Moses aside, but what about Elijah?  There is a man’s man.  He declared that there will be a drought until he said otherwise (1 Ki 17:1), provided unlimited oil and flour to a widow of Zarephath (1 Ki 17:13-14), raised that widow’s son from death (1 Ki 17:21-22), stood up to the prophets of Baal and called down fire from heaven (1 Ki 18:36-38), and lastly, told King Ahab that the drought would be over and to hurry home to beat the downpour (1 Ki 18:44-45).

Then there is Peter.  Maybe he was an apostle, but he was a regular guy—a fisherman by trade.  You could easily imagine him on an episode of Deadliest Catch.  What do we find Peter doing in the book of Acts?  He healed a lame man (Ac 3:7), healed Aeneas (Ac 9:33-35), restored Dorcas to life (Ac 9:40-41), and was present when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles (Ac 2:2-4; 8:14-17; 10:44-45).  That sounds like the normal Christian life—right?

Have you looked at the lives of these men?  When the queen threatened to take Elijah’s life, he tucked his tail, ran, and begged for God to take his life (1 Ki 19:2-4).  Not exactly the bastion of perseverance we might expect.  Surely, Peter fared better, being filled with the Holy Spirit?  Not so.  He was helping out in Antioch when the church in Jerusalem sent men to see how things were going.  Sure enough, the mighty apostle played the hypocrite and led others astray as well.  Paul got up in his face face and laid down some smack (Gal 2:11-14).

Branches of Christianity promote and cater to the idea of signs and wonders being normative for the “Spirit-filled” life, but what is the reality?  Should they be expected?  The miracles of the Bible are generally confined to three periods: Exodus and conquest of Canaan, Elijah and Elisha, and Jesus’ birth through the death of the 12 apostles.  Compared to the millennia covered in Scripture, that is barely a blip on the RADAR screen.  We focus on a tiny bit of something miraculous and overlook the abundance of Divine faithfulness.

Heroes of faith
You probably know where this will be going: open your Bibles to Hebrews, chapter 11.  There we have a stellar examples of mighty faith to which we may attain as “Spirit-filled” believers in the same God as they.  Consider the first two, Abel and Enoch, who were rewarded for their faith by an early exit from this world.  Perhaps that is not the best example, since we really want long life and prosperity.  Noah built an ark, saving the human race, but wait, he was found drunk and naked by his son.  Maybe we should keep looking.

Here we go: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Surely, these patriarchs are definitely men of stellar character.  Alas, they were all liars and schemers, and played favorites among there offspring.  What about Moses?  God chose him to lead the people out of Egypt: a man of uncompromising resolve, no doubt.  He murdered an Egyptian, tried to wriggle out of the task God had given him to do, and near the end of his life, stole glory from God.

What about the judges listed: Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jepthah?  We know the time period was bleak, even being described as a time when everyone “did what was right in his own eyes.”  A judge needs character, so it seems they should be model citizens.  Barak needed to have Deborah “hold his hand” in battle, even though the victory had been guaranteed, and the credit ended up going to another woman (Jud 4:6-9).  Gideon worked under the cover of night to tear down idols, then required multiple signs from God even though he had a definite call and promise, and lastly, after a great victory, built an ephod that led the people into idolatry (Jud 8:27).  Jephthah was a mercenary, the son of a prostitute, who before battle foolishly vowed to sacrifice what first came out of his house—his daughter (Jud 11:30-34).  Samson was a moral train wreck, womanizing and disregarding the Nazarite vow he was under.

Surely, we can be safe with Joseph, Samuel, and David.  Maybe Joseph, but there is the honored son’s cloak and bragging about the dreams where he rules over his parents and brothers.  What of Samuel?  He apparently lacked good parenting skills (1 Sa 8:1-3) much like his high priest guardian, Eli (1 Sa 2:29).  And lastly, there is the man after God’s own heart, King David, the adulterer and murderer.

We want our heroes to be perfect in every way, but none of them are.  We  see someone commended for great faith and automatically assume moral purity.  We have trouble reconciling that God can and does use sinful men to do His bidding.  I do not condone their failures and sins, but we must face the reality that they had faith.  The reason the names are listed is that they believed what God had told them or fulfilled a specific plan He had for their lives.  They just believed the promise, just did what they were told.  Seems like a formula for increased faith to me (see Lu 17:5-10).

Don Quixote is alive and well
In Miguel de Cervantes’ novel Don Quixote, there is a woman, Dulcinea, on whose behalf the self-appointed knight fights.  He describes her as the loveliest of all women, deserving complete adoration, yet in reality she is quite plain and nothing like the fantasy he preserves in his imagination.  The same is true of our ideal pictures of a spiritual Christian and pure church.  The pinnacle of perfection does not exist, nor has it ever.  Sin remains, and the world, flesh, and devil are actively at work.  By seeking ever-elusive perfection, we fight imaginary battles against foes of our own making.  (I tend this direction.  Maybe it’s a male thing.)  In thirsting to drink from the Fountain of Youth, we can miss the refreshment from returning and drinking at the Fountain of Life.

Do we cease from confronting error then?  No, the tasks of false teaching and practice need to be addressed.  But there are questions to be asked.  Is the teaching or practice actually false, or is the problem only in my mind?  Am I as defender being vigilant or quixotic?  Is the standard by which I adduce an answer to either even reliable?  In the final analysis, we must ever be returning to the revealed Word of our God as delivered in Scripture and the body of sound doctrine delivered to the saints.

Are we not to be examples of examples of Christ to the world and fellow believers?  Indeed, even as the apostle Paul tells us (Php 3:17; 1 Th 1:7; 1 Ti 1:16) and with eyes wide open, but realizing perfection will come when Jesus returns in power and glory.  Christianity is Christ.  He is the example to whom Paul pointed and of whom we are to hold, however imperfectly, not through our own strength but by virtue of the Holy Spirit working in us.  In these things, we all

beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another.  Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart.  But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways.  We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.  (2 Co 3:18-4:2)

May we be honorable vessels for His use.  There is a real spiritual battle going on.  We could spend less time tilting at windmills and more contending for the faith.

The Gospel Goes to All

Paul Receiving the Call to Macedonia

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”  (Acts 1:8)

And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.”  And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.  (Acts 16:9-10)

For already had the Lord, according to the preceding words (of the prophet), revealed His Holy One with His arm, that is to say, Christ by His mighty power, in the eyes of the nations, so that all the nations and the utmost parts of the earth have seen the salvation, which was from God.  By thus departing from Judaism itself, when they exchanged the obligations and burdens of the law for the liberty of the gospel, they were fulfilling the psalm, “Let us burst their bonds apart, and cast away their cords from us;” and this indeed (they did) after which “the Gentiles raged, and the peoples plot in vain;” after which “the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Anointed.”*… Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true catholic Jerusalem, in which, according to the twenty-[second] Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His Father; “I will tell of Your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise You.”  For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him.  And a little afterwards He says: “From You comes my praise in the great congregation.”†  In the sixty-[eighth] Psalm He says again: “Bless God in the congregation.”‡  So that with this agrees also the prophecy of Malachi: “I have no pleasure in you, says the Lᴏʀᴅ of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand.  For from the rising of the sun to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to My name, and a pure offering”§—such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.22

*  Psalm 2:2-3; Acts 4:25-30
†  Psalm 22:22, 25
‡  Psalm 68:26
§  Malachi 1:10-11

Language for God in Patristic Tradition by Mark Sheridan – Book Review

When reading the Church Fathers, there are times when they are befuddling.  Why did they suddenly take this turn or that, which seemingly has nothing at all to do with the passage at hand?  Why did they go to such great lengths to explain themselves?  Many times we need a road map.  Mark Sheridan has provided just such a map, uncovering for the reader the mindset of the patristic writers in their wrestling and explanation of God’s self-revelation.  The author gleans primarily from Origen’s body of work to demonstrate how the Alexandrian father influenced exegesis for centuries afterward, even to today.

The author begins by examining the early writers as they wrestled with God's transcendence in communicating with mankind.  How could someone so completely “other” express himself in human terms?  Could a self-limiting language accurately convey the expanse of divine meaning?  What has been left unsaid that can only be extracted through the work of the Holy Spirit?  These questions are not those readily considered by the modern reader of Scripture, but to one such as John Chrysostom, this was paramount:

Chrysostom seems constantly to be concerned that his hearers will take the text too literally, and he frequently (several hundred times) introduces this distinction between God’s “considerateness” in formulating things in a human way and what is “a sense befitting God” (Sheridan, 41).

The literal meaning of a text was never in doubt, and we see the great care with which they mined the depths of Scripture in order to correctly expound the spiritual meaning and application.  Knowing their reverence for the Bible, we can understand how writers like Origen earned a reputation for overly spiritualizing in his commentaries and homilies.  We can readily admit that he overstepped the typology and figures the inspired writers used.

Alexandrian homileticians were not the only group to attempt to a spiritual extraction from their sacred text.  Philo, a Jew living at the time of Christ, was noteworthy in his use of allegory to explain the Hebrew Scriptures.  Also, a chapter is offered to the Greek and Latin philosophers who attempted the same rhetorical device to explain their concepts of divinity.  Perhaps this might be the weakest aspect of the book, since the intent is to explain biblical rather than pagan anthropomorphism, but it does lend an historical background to the patristic practice.

After this background information, Sheridan turns his attention to specific passages of the Hebrew Scriptures: first, by gathering patristic comments on Jesus’ and Paul’s use of Torah in teaching; second, by engaging three classic cases from the nation of Israel; and third, by reviewing the imprecatory portions of Psalms.  Each of these requires its own chapter to properly establish how the Fathers interacted with these in light of the New Testament.  These chapters of applying what has been presented in the prior chapters and developing the exegetical sense of the early church, especially as it relates to the Alexandrian school.  Lastly, we are offered a comparison of modern with patristic understanding of the problem texts mentioned in the previous chapters.

Overall, this book is worth the read and is not beyond most readers.  Preachers and teachers would do well to take up this work and learn how the Early Church addressed the Bible.  Plus there is bonus material.  As good as this book is, I found the appendix to be absolute gold.  Sheridan summarizes Christian hermeneutics during the first centuries of the church.  The three major points addressed are:

1. Presuppositions about the Nature of the Text of the Scriptures
2. Criteria for a Correct Interpretation
3. Some Rules of Interpretation

This summary information from the Church Fathers is as applicable to today as it was 1700-1800 years ago and demonstrates that these early expositors were taking greatest care.  I dare say that if the modern Church took the same level of care in their attention to holy things, much exegetical nonsense would be avoided.


Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from IVP Academic.  I was not required to write a positive review.  The opinions I have expressed are my own.  I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Know Your Stuff

Our pastor is going through the book of Acts right now.  While teaching on the opening paragraphs (Acts 17:1-15), a major point he made was “Know Your Stuff” with the idea that Christians are to “be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for the hope that is in you” (1Pe 3:15).  I agree, but while considering his point, the question came to mind: how much do we need to know?

It’s an important question, because people react to the point in a variety of ways.  Some will recognize that the example being used is the apostle Paul, who had been trained and groomed in Old Testament.  Following that was a face-to-face with Jesus Himself.  How many of us can hope to attain to that level of education?  I have a better-than-fair knowledge of the history and theology of the Mosaic Covenant, but my attempt to replicate Paul’s results would fall short.  On the other end of the spectrum are those who have a great zeal to share the gospel but can and will use detrimental means, focusing on results—winning a soul for Christ—rather than proclaiming the truth of God’s word.

Returning to the question at hand, how much knowledge is enough?  Possibly the best answer is one given by John D. Rockefeller when asked how much money is enough.  He replied, “Just a little bit more.”  That should be our attitude toward to Scripture.  Our appetite is never sated; we constantly take of the bread and fount of life.  Whatever our level of understanding, viz. God’s word and the plan of redemption, the need remains for constant input for spiritual refreshment and renewal, so that we can continue to perform the God-given tasks (Eph 2:10) in working out salvation with fear and trembling (Php 2:12).

Would I advocate that new Christians withhold from sharing the gospel?  Not at all.  He or she should be making Christ known as willingly as any seasoned apologist.  If the new believer is being properly discipled,* there will be growth in Christ with a concomitant growth in wisdom.  Also, understand that much of interaction with unbelievers is listening.  Much can be learned from just asking questions and letting a person talk.  You find commonality, even if that is just that you are both sinners but manifesting it in different ways.  Communicate what you know to be true: Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for your sin.  Conversely, do not communicate what you do not know.  If there are gaps in your knowledge, admit it and seek the answer later, or bring in another person.  If someone more knowledgeable can help, get that person to help.

Lastly, whether the person with you in conversation is defensive or aggressive, remember that you are being asked for the source of your hope.  The source is not you.  You will make mistakes.  There have been many times when I’ve walked away from a conversation thinking, “Oh, I should have said…”  In some ways it signifies thinking that the encounter was mine to win, rather than God’s to work through His Word.  Consider it a lesson learned and move on.  God’s Word is living and active, yours and mine are not: give it clearly, and let it work.  Remember that you are the servant with a message, not the Master.


*  Yes, there are some faithful believers undertaking this essential work to raise up the next generation.

Garbage In, Garbage Out? We Can Do Better.

In a recent episode of the “Boars in the Vineyard” podcast, one of the two pastors had to fly solo, so he decided to review the top five singles of the day in the Christian & Gospel genre of iTunes.  Those songs were:

• •  How Can It Be – Lauren Dangle
• •  Soul on Fire – Third Day
• •  Because He Lives (Amen) – Matt Maher
• •  Oceans (Where Feet May Fall) – Hillsong UNITED
• •  Greater – Mercy Me

Most of these I had heard previously, though the first was new.  While listening, my impression was that the middle selection by Matt Maher was the best lyrically.  Overall, the content demonstrated a depth of understanding about who Jesus Christ is and our position because of His sacrifice that reached far beyond what was communicated in the other four reviewed.  The lyrics can be found here.

Yes, the song is a rewrite of Bill and Gloria Gaither’s “Because He Lives.”  That is why it seems familiar, and their names are given as co-authors.  Notice though, that Maher decided to begin with a creedal affirmation in the Lord Jesus—something uncommon in Christian music—and continued with other creedal themes: original sin, resurrection, and life everlasting.  In some ways, he lyrically improved the Gaither version, but unfortunately retained the formulaic repetition to which the music industry and audience is accustomed.

What I found most interesting in the comparison was that Matt Maher is a practicing Roman Catholic.  He shamed the content of the avowed Evangelicals also reviewed.  While someone might make a case that this was accomplished only because he began with a song written by an Evangelical, I only need to point to Maher’s song “Christ Is Risen” to put this to rest.  His music has substance.

You might ask, “How is that possible?  Roman Catholics don’t have the truth.”  What they have and take seriously are the early creeds coupled with deliberate, systematic catechesis.  Church groups and denominations that eschew creeds, confessions, and catechesis tend to rely on a hodgepodge of teaching hoping that something sticks.  Those that espouse the same are beginning with a better system of instruction, unfortunately, many (most?) have decided to relegate these to the attic to dust off periodically as curios of antiquity or the trash heap for final disposal.  We should not be surprised by Matt Maher.  He is the product of systematic instruction: what goes in, comes out.  Or as Jesus Himself put it:

The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.  (Lu 6:45)

What we are taught as important readily spills forth from our lips, pens, and song lyrics.

Christians are called to disciple nations by baptizing and teaching all that Jesus taught us (Mt 28:19).*  Pray that the Church reaffirms its high and holy calling to faithfully instruct the next generation and reclaims the bounteous treasure that has been entrusted to faithful men, that both inside and outside the gathering of its people each Sunday, Christ is effectively and rightly made known.


*  He is the Word of God incarnate, thus making Him the source, subject, and object of all Scripture.

Today's Christianity?

This morning I read a blog post (HT: Bill Muehlenberg) warning of an article, “Contraception Saves Lives,” which promotes Margaret Sanger.  That’s right.  The queen of modern eugenics is lifted up for her undying quest to make contraceptives “widely available to working class and poor women.”  The author, Rachel Marie Stone, attempts to make the same poor arguments that are proffered by Planned Parenthood for ease of access to contraception and abortion: fewer unwanted pregnancies saves money and lives.

This global problem may be argued medically or economically, but that is treating the symptom.  This is a spiritual problem and must be addressed spiritually.  Certainly, there will be economic and medical fallout for actions, and these must be addressed in a compassionate and godly manner, but that does not get to the problem.  To give a horticultural example, that would be like snipping the buds off of weeds in order to stop seed germination, when the need is to pull them out, roots and all.  The readers would be better served by an article addressing the need for Christians to identify sin where it is manifest—I am lost and undone—and to proclaim the gospel of Christ.  He died for me—a personal Savior for a personal sin.

No matter how one tries to pretty up this pig, it still wallows in the mire.  The editors of Christianity Today (CT) should be ashamed for allowing this to be published.  I'm sure CT printed this piece in order to generate publicity for their periodical.  With over 200 comments as of this writing both condemning and lauding the content, they succeeded, but (and excuse my assumption here) I expected something with Christianity in the title would print something—well—Christian, not pagan.  For that reason I suggest they change the name to Paganism Today in order to more correctly identify their brand.

God Promises and Delivers

Their prince shall be one of themselves;
    their ruler shall come out from their midst;
I will make him draw near, and he shall approach me,
    for who would dare of himself to approach me?

declares the Lᴏʀᴅ.

And you shall be my people,
    and I will be your God.  (Je 30:21-22)

Jeremiah has been describing the future restoration of Israel and Judah.  Among these is the promise one who will arise from among them and is one of them—i.e. one of their flesh-and-blood brethren.  This is important because he will have two offices in regard to his brethren: king and priest.  God will supply one who will both rule and intercede for the people by drawing near to God.  The only other mention in Scripture of one having this dual role is Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God (Ge 14:18).  There must be one chosen of God to be priest after the order of Melchizedek, who will also rule in peace (as Salem is translated).

After assuring their election, the Lord promises that He will be their God.  This is a wonderful, comforting promise to a nation acting wickedly, but I realize two things.  First, He wants a people.  He wants His elect.  Second, He promises to draw them to Himself and to make Himself available as their God as an act of divine volition and not of their desire.  And being on the heels of the king-priest promised, we might assume that the promised on coming to the people to do all this work is God Himself.  No other person would be able to function in the way needed to bring reconciliation between God and man.

Perhaps you know that I am describing what could only be accomplished and explained through the person and work of Jesus Christ.  It bears repeating.  Here in Jeremiah we have yet another promise of a messiah, who would fulfill, beyond our expectations, all that our God required of both us and Himself and reconcile Creator with created.

What a great God!  What a great Savior!  What a great salvation!

The Instrument of Death Is Now the Symbol of Glory and Dominion

Come now, when you read in the words of David, how that “the Lord reigns from the tree,”* I want to know what you understand by it.  Perhaps you think some wooden king of the Jews is meant!—and not Christ, who overcame death by His suffering on the cross, and thence reigned!  Now, although death reigned from Adam even to Christ, why may not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, from His having shut up the kingdom of death by dying upon the tree of His cross?  Likewise Isaiah also says: “For unto us a child is born.”  But what is there unusual in this, unless he speaks of the Son of God?  “To us is given He whose government is upon His shoulder.”  Now, what king is there who bears the ensign of his dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather upon his head as a diadem, or in his hand as a scepter, or else as a mark in some royal apparel?  But the one new King of the new ages, Jesus Christ, carried on His shoulder both the power and the excellence of His new glory, even His cross; so that, according to our former prophecy, He might thenceforth reign from the tree as Lord.  This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he prophesies to the Jews, who should say, “Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof,”† that is, His body.  For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery.  If you require still further prediction of the Lord’s cross, the twenty-second Psalm is sufficiently able to afford it to you, containing as it does the entire passion of Christ, who was even then prophetically declaring His glory.  “They pierced,” says He, “my hands and my feet,” which is the special cruelty of the cross.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19

*  Psalm 96:10 (Old Latin Version, Dominus regnavit a ligno)
†  Jeremiah 11:19

Jesus Christ: True Fullfillment of the Davidic Covenant

Accordingly the prophet Nathan,… makes a promise to David for his seed, “which shall proceed,” says he, “from your loins.”*  Now, if you explain this simply of Solomon, you will send me into a fit of laughter.  For David will evidently have brought forth Solomon!  But is not Christ here designated the seed of David, as of that womb which was derived from David, that is, Mary’s?  Now, because Christ rather than any other was to build the temple of God, that is to say, a holy manhood, wherein God’s Spirit might dwell as in a better temple, Christ rather than David’s son Solomon was to be looked for as the Son of God.  Then, again, the throne for ever with the kingdom for ever is more suited to Christ than to Solomon, a mere temporal king.  From Christ, too, God’s mercy did not depart, whereas on Solomon even God’s anger alighted, after his luxury and idolatry.  For Satan stirred up an Edomite as an enemy against him.  Since, therefore, nothing of these things is compatible with Solomon, but only with Christ, the method of our interpretations will certainly be true; and the very issue of the facts shows that they were clearly predicted of Christ.  And so in Him we shall have “the sure mercies of David.”  Him, not David, has God appointed for a testimony to the nations; Him, for a prince and commander to the nations, not David, who ruled over Israel alone.  It is Christ whom all nations now invoke, which knew Him not; Christ to whom all races now betake themselves, whom they were ignorant of before.  It is impossible that that should be said to be future, which you see (daily) coming to pass.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.20

*  2 Samuel 7:12

He Came in Humility to Suffer—to Reign

We affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these foretold the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon.  For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: “He is like a tender plant, like a root out of a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty: His form was disfigured;” “marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity;” “placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense;” “made by Him a little lower than the angels;” declaring Himself to be “a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people.”  Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,” but after His rejection become “the chief corner-stone,” accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom.

Of this advent the same prophet says: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him.  His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”  Then indeed He shall have both a glorious form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men.  “Thou art fairer,” says (the Psalmist), “than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips; therefore God hath blessed Thee for ever.  Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and Thy majesty.”  For the Father, after making Him a little lower than the angels, “will crown Him with glory and honor, and put all things under His feet.”  “Then shall they look on Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, tribe after tribe;” because, no doubt, they once refused to acknowledge Him in the lowliness of His human condition.  He is even a man, says Jeremiah, and who shall recognize Him.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.7