HERESIES OF WESTCOTT AND HORT #10
NOW WE FINALLY GET INTO THE SERIOUS HERESIES OF THESE TWO MEN - Keith Hunt
Heresies in Christology
In this general division of Christology, there is usually taken up the subjects of the Person and Work of Christ, and similar topics [cf. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. V]. Under this area, I noted the following items, in various degrees of heresy and/or error. This is the most extensive area of heresy on the part of Westcott and Hort, and is also the most important area of heresy, since it relates both to the Person and to the work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Heresies of Westcott and Hort on the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ
A. The elimination of or the denial of the eternal pre-existence of the Lord Jesus Christ
1. Westcott objects to the "pre-existence" of Christ in John 1:1. He wrote:
(John 1:1) (In the beginning) The "being" of the Word is thus necessarily carried beyond the limits of time, though the pre-existance of the Word is definitely not stated. The simple affirmation of existence in this connection suggests a loftier conception than that of pre-existence; which is embarrassed by the idea of time. . . .
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 2
If the "Word" was "in the beginning" and with God, and was God, He most certainly would have to be "pre-existent." John 1:1 and following clearly teach this.
2. Westcott denied Christ's "pre-existence" in John 1:15. He wrote:
(John 1:15) He that cometh after me is preferred before me. The supposed reference to the pre-existence of the Word... seems to be inconsistent with the argument which points to a present consequence. . . .
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 13
Only a "supposed" reference, says Westcott, to the "pre-existence" of the Word. "For he was before me" certainly implies His eternal pre-existence.
3. Westcott merely said that the words of John 17:24 "imply" the "pre-existence" of Christ, rather than clearly teach this. He wrote:
(John 17:24 (Before the foundation . . . ) The words distinctly imply the personal pre-existence of Christ:;
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 248
These words do more than "imply" it, they specifically, and definitely teach the "pre-existence" of Christ. Otherwise, how could Christ have "glory" and how could the Father love Him before the foundation of the world"?
4. Westcott, with his questioning of the "pre-existence" of Christ, calls a "strange opinion" the thought that "Melchizedek" was a "Christophany." He wrote:
(JJebrews 7:1) Two other strange opinions may be noticed. Some orthodox Christians supposed that Melchizedek was an incarnation of the Son of God or perhaps simply a Christophany.
—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 202
This is not so "strange" as Westcott believes. I think that Melchizedek was a theophany or a Christophany judging from the language both of Genesis and of Hebrews.
B. The questioning of the omniscience of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In various places, Westcott questions or omits completely the omniscience of Christ. He wrote:
(John 1:42) (Thou art) This is not necessarily a prophetic declaration by Divine knowledge.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 25
Here is a down-playing of Christ's omniscience.
(John 1:48) (when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee).. . the Lord shewed His Divine insight into the heart of man.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 27
This was more than "insight," it was "omniscience."
(John 11:11) (his glory) The manifestation of His glory in this "sign" must not be sought simply in what we call its "miraculous" element, but in this taken in connection with the circumstances, as a revelation of the insight, the sympathy, the sovereignty of the Son of Man. . . .
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 39
(John 2:24-25) (he knew what was in man) Only on rare occasions does He ask anything, as if all were not absolutely clear before His eyes. . . . But St. John exhibits this attribute of complete human knowledge most fully.... At other times it appears to be the result of an insight which came from a perfect spiritual sympathy, found in some degree among men.... A careful study of these passages seems to shew beyond doubt that the knowledge vf Christ.. . has its analogues in human powers. His knowledge appears to be truly the knowledge of the Son of Man, and not merely the knowledge of the Divine Word, though at each moment and in each connection it was, in virtue of His perfect humanity, relatively complete.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 46
This is pure heresy. Christ's "knowledge" was not only "relatively complete," but He knew everything as being omniscient. His knowledge had no "analogues in human powers" at all, but was the result of Deity and the attribute of Deity, namely, omniscience.
(John 4:1) (When therefore the Lord knew . . .) Nothing implies that the knowledge of the Lord was supernatural (see ii. 24, note).
—-Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 66
Again, here is a denial of His omniscience.
C. Westcott questions the omnipresence of the Lord Jesus Christ, making only "the Spirit" fulfilling this role.
(John 14:16) (for ever) Christ's historical presence was only for time. His spiritual Presence was "for all the days until the "consummation of the age" (Matt, xxviii. 20). This presence was fulfilled through the Spirit.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 205
This is incorrect. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself is also omnipresent, and is here wherever believers are, the same as is God the Father......
D. Westcott and Hort deny or question the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
1. Westcott said the "Word" was "distinct from. "God,'" and only "essentially 'God,'" but not "God" actually. He wrote:
(John 1:1) Because the Word was personally distinct from "God" and yet essentially "God," He could make Him known.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 2
If the Lord Jesus Christ was "distinct from God," then He could not have been "God." John 1:1 affirms that He "was God" as the Word, and yet Westcott wants merely to say that He was "essentially God" without being actually God. This qualifying word, "essentially," should not be used if Westcott wishes to affirm Christ's absolute Deity. Christ was "God" without any qualifications whatsoever, just like the Father was "God" .... and will be "God" also into eternity future. Westcott wants to use the term "God" only for the Father. This is heresy.
(John 1:1) (the Word was God) Thus we are led to conceive that the Divine nature is essentially in the Son. . . .
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 3
It is more than the "Divine nature" being "essentially in the Son," but Deity was and is actually in the Son. "Essentially" is a limiting word which is not clear and is not needed if Westcott really wishes to affirm Christ's Deity. More than the "Divine nature" is in the Son. It is spoken of the believers that they might be "partakers of the divine nature" (1 Peter 1:4b), yet it is never spoken of believers that they are Deity or God. This is a weak term, when speaking of Christ.
2. Westcott falsely interprets "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" merely to mean the "sum of the Divine attributes." He wrote:
(John 1:16) St. Paul says that "all the fulness dwelt" in Christ (i. 19), and more definitely, that "all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him. .. ." Here St. Paul's thought is
evidently that the whole sum of the Divine attributes exists together in Christ, and that each Christian in virtue of his fellowship with Him draws from that "fulness" whatever he needs for the accomplishment of his own part in the
great life of the Church.
-—Westcott—John, op. "cit: p. 14
All the "fulness of the Godhead bodily" by all means must mean the clear fact that Jesus Christ was "God" and "Deity." To say it merely means that He had the "sum of the Divine attributes" does not clearly state or imply that He was and is God and Deity. An "attribute" of God is not "being God."
3. Westcott falsely interprets "making himself equal with God" to mean merely placing "his action on the same level with the action of God." He wrote:
(John',,5:18) He called God His own Father (Rom. viii. 32)— His Father in a peculiar sense—making Himself equal with God, by placing His action on the same level with the action of God.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 84
The Lord Jesus claimed to actually be "God," and not simply to place "His action" on the "same level with the action of God." This falls far short of the true Deity of Christ, and is not acceptable.
4. Westcott falsely stated Christ was only "in absolute union with God" rather than actually being God. He wrote:
(John 8:28) (that I am, and that I do nothing of myself) . . . perceive, that is, that my being alike and my action are raised above all that is limited, and in absolute union with God.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 132
If Christ's actions were "in absolute union" with "God," then He couldn't be God, could He? "God" and Christ are different to Westcott, when in reality, Christ is "God" and "Deity" without qualification.
5. Westcott denied that the Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father could be "equal in power," hence denied thereby the Deity of Christ. He wrote:
(John 10:30) (I and my Father are one). It seems clear that the unity here spoken of cannot fall short of unity of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father's hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible to suppose that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 159
Westcott is vague here, but he seems to be saying that there could be no "equality in power" between God the Father and God the Son. If there is no "equality in power," there can be no Deity of Christ, and Christ could not in fact be "God."
6. Westcott, by saying Jesus was only "one with God," denied that He was "God" himself. He wrote:
(John 10:34) (Jesus answered . . . ) This, they argued, was violated if Jesus, truly man, claimed to be one with God.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 160
You cannot be "one with God" and be "God" also. Thus, Westcott was denying that Jesus Christ was "God."
7. Westcott spoke of the "special relation" in which "Christ stood to God" for Martha, thus denying that Christ was in effect "God" Himself. He wrote:
(John 11:22) (I know) The emphatic repetition of God, at the end of both clauses in the original, serves to bring out, as it were, the special relation in which Christ stood to God in Martha's thoughts.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 168
If "Christ" merely "stood" in a "special relation.. .to God," then He by no means could be considered by Westcott as "God" Himself.
8. Westcott denies that "thy throne, O God," in Hebrews 1:8 refers to Christ's Deity or that this is even the proper translation. He wrote:
o Qeo" can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy thron, 0 God,... therefore, O God. Thy God ...) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God ...), and in opposition to in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God ...).... Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God). ... It is commonly supposed that the force of the quotation lies in the Divine title (o Qeo") which, as it is held, is applied to the Son. It seems however from the whole form of the argument to lie rather in the description which is given to the Son's office and endowment.
—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., pp. 25-26
What Westcott is saying, in essence, is that the translation of the KJB, "thy throne, O God," applying as it does, directly to the Lord Jesus Christ—though perfectly good Greek, and within the rules of Greek syntax, taking "O God" in the vocative case—is rejected completely by him, thus denying that this passage teaches clearly the Deity of Christ.
9. Hort denies that "Lord" In 1 Peter 1:3 refers to the Deity of Christ, but merely means "teacher." He wrote:
(1 Peter 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ) In all this early usage probably represents not Adon, but the nearly equivalent Aramaic Mar, sometimes applied to teachers by disciples. . . .
—Hort—1 Peter, op. cit., p. 31
Thus, Hort re-defines "Lord:" to mean merely "teacher" instead of "Lord" and Deity as a title for the Lord Jesus Christ.
10.Hort shows that he does not consider the Lord Jesus Christ as "God" by his comment on Revelation 1:1. He wrote:
(Revelation 1:1) The conception of the book is not that the primary Revealer is Christ, though by the will or permission of God; but that the primary Revealer is God, Christ being both that which is revealed and the supreme or immediate instrumental Revealer.
—-Hort-—Revelation, op. cit., p. 5
Hort here seems to be denying that Christ is "God" since he refers to Him in terms other than that term. He could have said that it was "God the Father" he believed to be the Revealer, rather than "God the Son," and hence preserved the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ without question.
11.Hort denied that Christ was "God" in Revelation 1:2 as well. He wrote:
(Revelation 1:2) .. . John's conveyance of the revelation to the churches, just as he had received it from the angel, and the angel from Christ, and Christ from God.
—-Hort-—-Revelation, op. cit., p. 7
If indeed "Christ" received something from "God," then Hort did not consider Christ to be Himself "God."
12.Hort denied that the Lord Jesus Christ was spoken of as "Alpha and Omega," and "Lord God," and "the Almighty." He wrote:
(Revelation 1:8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord (God), which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty) This verse must stand alone. The speaker cannot be our Lord, when we consider 1.4... and all scriptural analogy is against the attribution of with or without to Christ
—Hort-—-Revelation, op. cit., p. 13
What Hort is saying is that "Lord God" cannot refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, because that would clearly give His Deity, and Hort does not believe that there are any "scriptural analogies" for this, much less for Christ to be called the "Almighty." How about John 20:28, where Thomas declares that Jesus Christ is "my Lord and my God"? This shows how Hort goes to any length to deny the Deity of Christ or to say He is "God." The word in Greek for "God" does not even appear in the text of the Received Text on which the KJB is based, but the Westcott and Hort false text does contain the word "God" at this point. Even so, Hort rejects this affirmation of the Lord Jesus Christ, when it seems so clearly to apply to Him.
13.Hort said the "Arian meaning" referring to Christ as the "first thing created" just "might" be possible, thus denying His Deity. He wrote:
(Revelation 3:15) The words might no doubt bear the Arian meaning "the first thing created" —Hort—Revelation, op. cit., p.36
Hort goes on to say these words "equally well bear" another sense, but the fact remains that Hort could even say these words "might no doubt bear the Arian meaning" that the Lord Jesus Christ was "the first thing created," really means that Christ could not have been God or Deity, since He was but a created being of God. This is the purest of heresies on the Person of Christ.
14.Westcott sidesteps Thomas's clear affirmation that Jesus Christ was "God," and claims Christ never spoke of Himself directly "as God." He wrote:
(John 20:28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God ) . . . and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. He never speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. v. 18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.
—Westcott—John op. cit., p. 297
Here Thomas had given Christ the most resounding and clear denomination of Deity and had named Him as "God," and yet Westcott lowers the terms merely to "divinity" and then merely said of this lower term [Westcott and other clever modernist apostates have a different-meaning of "divinity" than we do of the word "Deity" of "God" and affirm that man himself also has "divinity" with variations as to whether this "divinity" is but a little "spark" or a full "flame"] that it is a "true expression of faith." What about its being a "fact'"? This he does not say. It reminds me of Bishop Pike (the late Anglican bishop in America) who said he didn't believe the Creed, but he could sing it, and explain it away thereby. When the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I AM," the Jews knew He was "speaking of himself directly as God," and they took up stones to stone Him (John 8:58-59). He said again "I and my Father are one," and again the Jews took up stones to stone Him because they understood clearly that He was "making himself God" (John 10:30-33). Westcott and Hort both have shown themselves to deny the full and clear Deity of Christ and go all around the point to keep from admitting clearly that the Lord Jesus Christ was, is, and ever will be God the Almighty Son. What heresy.
WESCOTT AND HORT WERE PROBABLY NOT THE FIRST, AND CERTAINLY NOT THE LAST, TO DENY THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST; TO DENY THAT JESUS WAS FULLY GOD - GOD IN THE FLESH - IMMANUEL. MANY TODAY TEACH CHRIST WAS MERELY A HUMAN WITH MORE OF THE SPIRIT THAN ANY OTHER HUMAN. SOME TODAY TEACH CHRIST WAS THE FIRST CREATED BEING AND HENCE WAS NOT ETERNAL. SOME TEACH JESUS DID NOT EXIST UNTIL CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB OF MARY. IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO AS WAITE DOES CORRECTLY STATE HERE, THAT CHRIST WAS NOT DIVINITY OR "GOD" - GOD THE SON; A PERSON OF THE VERY GODHEAD, WHO PUT THAT DIVINITY TO ONE SIDE FOR A TIME AND BECOME GOD IN THE FLESH, BOTH HUMAN AND DIVINE, TO TAKE THE SINS OF ALL WHO HAVE EVER LIVED, WHO WILL ACCEPT HIM AS PERSONAL SAVIOR. ONLY A GOD BEING COULD TAKE THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD UPON HIMSELF AND DIE THE PENALTY OF SIN....DEATH. NO ONE LESS THAN GOD COULD MAKE SALVATION POSSIBLE FOR ALL WHO WILL SEEK SALVATION - Keith Hunt
E. Westcott questions or denies the impeccability or sinlessness of the Lord Jesus Christ
1. Westcott seemed to imply that the Lord Jesus Christ had sin just like "every individual in the whole race." He wrote:
(John 1:51) All that truly belongs to humanity, all therefore that truly belongs to every individual in the whole race, belong also to Him.
—Westcott—-John, op. cit., p. 35
This statement would indicate that Westcott wrongly thought that sin also belonged to the Lord Jesus Christ, since sin "truly belongs to every individual in the whole race." This is a denial of the impeccability and sinlessness of Christ.
WAIT COULD BE READING INTO WESTCOTT THINGS WESTCOTT DID NOT MEAN. A WEAK ARGUMENT - Keith Hunt
2. Westcott wrongly thought Christ's "perfection" was not reached "till after death," and therefore denies His sinlessness. He wrote:
(Hebrews 2:10) The conception of it is that of bringing Christ to the full moral perfection of His humanity (cf. Luke xiii. 32), which carries with it the completeness of power and dignity. . . . This "perfection" was not reached till after death.
—-Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit, p. 49
If indeed the Lord Jesus Christ did not reach this "perfection" until "after death," this would mean that He was imperfect and therefore sinful throughout His earthly life. Such is the gravest of heresies. He was perfect and sinless and impeccable from the moment of His birth in Bethlehem.
IF WESTCOTT IS MEANING THIS, THEN YES HE ID DENYING JESUS WAS COMPLETELY PERFECT AND SINLESS WHILE IN THE FLESH - Keith Hunt
3. Westcott wrongly thought that Christ's "perfection" had to do with His "earthly discipline." He wrote:
(1 John 3:3) (even as He (Christ) is pure) The result of the perfection of His earthly discipline (Heb. v. 7 ff.) still abides in His glorified state.
—Westcott—1-3 John, op. cit., p. 101
This appears to base the Lord Jesus Christ's "perfection" upon "His earthly discipline," which would mean that without this "discipline," He would be less that perfect. Such is contrary to the Bible, and constitutes a denial of the sinless-ness and impeccability of the Lord Jesus Christ. He had a perfect and sinless human nature as well as a perfect and sinless nature of deity, as the God-Man.
AGAIN IF WESTCOTT IS TEACHING SOMETHING LESS THAN CHRIST BEING SINLESS AND PERFECT AS GOD IN THE FLESH, THEN HE WOULD BE IN HERESY - Keith Hunt
F. Hort holds a heretical view of what is involved in Christ's messiahship
1. Hort falsely held that Old Testament prophets had "Christhood" and had "messiahship." He wrote:
(1 Peter 1:11) "Touch not mine anointed ones (Tw'n cristw'n mov') and do my prophets no harm," where the Divine anointing or Christhood and prophethood are set in parallelism as kindred attributes of the children of Israel. . . The prophet, the people to whom he belongs and to whom he speaks, and the dimly seen Head and King of the people all pass insensibly one into the other in the language of prophecy; they all are partakers of the Divine anointing, and the messiahship which is conferred by it.
—-Hort-—1 Peter, op. cit., p. 52
If this is true, then the Lord Jesus Christ did not have any unique "messiahship " at all, but was only one in a long line of "messiahs." This is a false view of the meaning of the Old Testament promised "Messiah."
THIS IS ALL ON HOW YOU VIEW THE WORD "MESSIAH" IN ANY GIVEN PASSAGE, AND WHO IT IS REFERRING TO. A WEAK ARGUMENT BY WAITE - Keith Hunt
2. Hort emphatically denied that the "sufferings destined for Messiah" were fulfilled in the "sufferings of Christ" when here on earth. He wrote:
(1 Peter 1:11) (the sufferings destined for Messiah) This cannot possibly mean the sufferings of Christ in our sense of the words, i.e. the sufferings which as a matter of history befell the historical Christ. . . .
—Hort—1 Peter, op. cit., p. 54
Here is a complete denial of the accuracy of prophetic utterance, and a misconception of the Word of God and of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah. It is a denial of Peter's words as well.
CHRIST DID SUFFER MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY AS ANY HUMAN DOING THE WORK OF GOD, AS CHRIST DID, AND BEING REJECTED AND SCORED AND MOCKED. HE ALSO SUFFERED AS ANY HUMAN WOULD SUFFER BEING SCOURGED AND EXECUTED ON A CROSS - Keith Hunt
G. Westcott and Hort are confused and in error on the proper teaching of the Person and natures of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1. Westcott denies the "express affirmation" by John that the "Word" was "Jesus Christ." He wrote:
(John 1:18) He does not expressly affirm but assumes the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ (v. 17).
—-Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 16
John 1:14 most clearly and "expressly affirms" that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotton of the Father." What more "express affirmation could you need?
2. Westcott elevates the possibilities in a "perfect human life" of a regular human being, and then lowers the Lord Jesus Christ by applying this to Him. He wrote:
(John 2:2:3) A perfect human life, a life lived, that is, in absolute harmony with the Divine, will therefore in every point reveal to those who have the eyes to see, something of God, of His "glory." This beign so, it is clear that all the acts and sufferings of "the Son of Man" were essentially revelations of glory. . . .
—Westcott—John op. cit., p. 46
Westcott's view of the true hypostatic union of God and Man in Christ is defective. Here he so exalts the human beings into making it possible to behold their lives and see "something of God," on the one hand, and on the other hand, he demeans the Lord Jesus Christ and lowers Him,, by talking about Him in the same breath with sinful, frail man. He was God as well as perfect, sinless, holy Man in a sense that cannot even be compared with sinful, immoral, fallen man. He had a true humanity, this is true, but He is the incomparable Christ.
3. Westcott expressed amazement that Christ's work was "co-ordinate with" that of "the Father," calling it "remarkable." He wrote:
(John 5:17) The form of the sentence is remarkable. Christ place His work as co-ordinate with that of the Father, and not as dependent on it.
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 84
Why is it so "remarkable," if, that is, you hold to Christ's absolute Deity and that He was "very God of very God" who was co-equal with God the Father ....in every attribute, barring none?
4. Westcott agree with "elements" in two wild interpretations of Christ's "ascending up" both of which violate the true nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. He wrote:
(John 6:62) What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?) This incomplete question. . . has been interpreted in two very different ways. . . . According to the first interpretation the "ascending up" is the Ascension as the final spiritualizing of the Lord's person, whereby the offence of the language as to His flesh would-be removed by the apprehension of the truth as to His spiritual humanity. In the second, the "ascending up " is referred to the "elevation" on the cross. . . . Each of these two integrations appears to contain elements of the full, meaning.
—Westcott—John, dp. cit., p. 109
This is pure heresy from two standpoints: (1) to say that the first interpretation contains "elements of the full meaning" is to say that the Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection body was not real or corporeal but spiritualized in some way. There was never any "spiritualizing of the Lord's Person." (2) To say that Christ's "ascending up" refers to the "cross" is ridiculous on the face of it. The Lord said "ascend up where he was before" and He most crertainly was never on the "cross . . . before." Here is an obvious desire to escape the literal, physical, bodily ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ into heaven by Westcott, which is heresy.
IF WESTCOTT IS SO DENYING THE BODILY ASCENSION OF CHRIST TO HEAVEN, THEN YES THAT WOULD BE HERESY. BUT WAITE MAYBE READING INTO WESTCOTT IDEAS NOT REALLY MEANT - Keith Hunt
5. Westcott denied that "the Son of Man" was "necessarily identified" with "the Christ" in his understanding. He wrote:
(John 12:34) (who is this Son of man?) The question clearly shews that the title "the Son of Man" was not necessarily identified with "the Christ."
—Westcott—John, op. cit., p. 184
Here is a clear place especially where the heresy of Westcott appears in regard to the Person and natures of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is very fuzzy and double-minded in his treatment of the natures of Christ—-splitting them into various compartments as he does throughout his writings-—-but here he comes out and denies that there is an essential and a "necessary identification "between "the Son of Man" and "the Christ." This separation of "the Son of Man" and "the Christ," as if there are two persons represented (like the Christian Scientists!) is heresy. He is one and the Same Person.
6. Westcott further splits and dissects the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ into "Jesus" and "the Christ." He wrote:
(Hebrews 5:5) (So Christ (the Christ) also . ..) It is not said that "Jesus" glorified not Himself, but "the Christ," the appointed Redeemer, glorified not Himself.
—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 122
The Bible knows of no such dissection of the Person of the Son of the Lord Jesus Christ. "Jesus" was every bit the "Appointed Redeemer" as was "the Christ," since they are one and the same Person, and cannot be arbitrarily divided up as apostate Westcott and apostate Hort seek to do repeatedly in their books. This is heresy. Matthew 1:21 says clearly: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His name Jesus: for He shall save his people from their sins." It was "Jesus" who was to "save" and to "redeem," and Westcott has no biblical grounds whatsoever for this heretical bifurcation of the the anthropic God-Man Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
7. Westcott wrongly implied that Christ prayed to be delivered or have "victory over death" which was the "fruit of sin." He wrote:
(Hebrews 5:7) The question has been asked for what did Christ pray? . . . Perhaps it is best to answer generally, for the victory over death the fruit of sin.
—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 126
The Lord Jesus Christ always had the victory over death, and he didn't have to pray for this. As the ever-living One, the Creator of the universes, He had no problem with death. He could have been praying, on the contrary, to be spared dying in the Garden of Gethsemane rather than at the cross where He knew He must pay for the sins of the world. But the sad implication here is that somehow "death" also was the fruit of "sin" which might have been His own. This implication, however slight, should never have been present.
8. Hort wrongly implied that "Christ" was not "God." Hort wrote, as noted before also:
(Revelation 1:2)... John's conveyance of the revelation to the churches, just as he had received it from the angel, and the angel from Christ, and Christ from God.
—-Hort-—-Revelation, op. cit., p. 7
As we had discussed above, Hort rejected the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ, first of all, was the prime Revealer of Revelation, and secondly, that Christ was not "God," since He got His revelation from "God." .....
H. Westcott is confused about the various names of the Lord Jesus Christ, like "Lord," "Jesus" and "Christ," wrongly dividing the Person of Christ.
1. Westcott wrongly refers to the Lord Jesus Christ's "Divine personality" rather than to the God-Man Person with the two separate natures in one Person. He wrote:
(Hebrews 1:4) (being made a little lower than the angels) They also rightly point out that it is used of the Lord's Human Nature and not of His divine personality. ...
—Westcott-—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 17
First, I don't know what Westcott means by "divine," since he uses this to apply to human beings such as we are, and not exclusively to Deity or to God. This is, in and of itself a weak expression. Second, the Lord Jesus Christ did not have a "divine personality." He had a human nature and He had a nature of Deity or a God-nature or, in Westcott's words (defining, them as equal to Deity and God), He had a divine nature. He had but one Person, and that, one Person was the combination of Deity and humanity, of God and man, of theos and anthro-pos. To use the word "personality" which sounds like "person" when what might be meant would be "nature" is confusing in the extreme. Third, since there was a hypostatic union of the God-Man natures into one Person, what happened to the one nature, happened to the other nature from the standpoint of "being made a little lower than the angels." The Person is one. This temporary state, pending His resurrection, when He ascended far up above all principality and powers and higher than the angels, was a state, by virtue of the Incarnation, of the entire God-Man Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Westcott uses the names of the Lord Jesus Christ as a tool to divide up His Person arbitrarily like the Christian Science people wrongly do today. He wrote:
Speaking (Hebrews 1:4) generally we may say that Jesus directs our thoughts to His human nature, Christ to His Work as the Fulflller of the old Dispensation, Son to His divine nature, Lord itself to His sovereignty over the Church.
1. Of these Names that which is distinctive of the Epistle is the human name, Jesus.
—Westcott—Hebrews, op. cit., p. 33
There is no warrant from Scripture whatsoever to speak of "Jesus" as being the Lord Jesus Christ's "human name." He is ever and always the God-Man. He is Deity combined (but not confused) with humanity. Regardless of His many titles or names, they each and every one of them carry with them His full credentials as both Deity and humanity. This is true whether the name is "Lord," or "Jesus," or "Christ," or "Son of Man," or "Son of God," or "Alpha," or "Omega," or "the Lily of the Valley," or any of the scores of other names given to the Savior in the Bible. Matthew 1:21, I remind you, spoke of the name "Jesus" because He would "save his people from their sins." There is nothing more depicting Deity or God Himself than "saving people from sins." In fact, none but God could accomplish such a feat. This is no more a human name of the Lord Jesus Christ than any other of His Names. Westcott seems to demean the Savior throughout his writings consulted by being able to use "Jesus" as merely the "human name" and thus not conveying His Deity/humanity Person. By whatever name is used, the entire Person of the Lord Jesus Christ is conveyed. He cannot be dissected or divided up by names used for Him. Westcott does the same for "Jesus" on page 74 (Hebrews 3:2), and on page 164 (Hebrews 6:20), and again in 1 Peter 5:5 (op. cit., p. 180). In all of these passages, he cites the words "the human name, Jesus."
THE BOTTOM LINE: WESTCOTT AND HORT WOULD INDEED SEEM TO BE IN THE SAME BOAT WITH SOME TODAY, WHO DENY "CHRIST" "JESUS" AS EVER ETERNAL PAST AND FUTURE; AS GOD WITH GOD, AS A MEMBER OF THE VERY GODHEAD FROM ETERNITY PAST; AS THE "I AM" OF MOSES' DAY. AS THE GOD MEMBER WHO BECAME GOD IN THE FLESH - IMMANUEL - GOD WITH US. LIKE MANY TODAY WESTCOTT AND HORT MAY HAVE BEEN ONES WHO JUST DID NOT UNDERSTAND OR BELIEVE WHO JESUS REALLY WAS. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME BOAT AS WAS "THE CHURCH OF GOD, SEVENTH DAY," IN DENVER; WHO FOR OVER 100 YEARS DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH ABOUT THE REAL JESUS; THEY CAME TO THAT TRUTH BY 1987 AND HAVE A VERY FINE BOOKLET ON THE SUBJECT, ADMITTING THEIR ERROR AND PROVING THE TRUTH OF CHRIST JESUS THE MESSIAH. THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO SEND YOU THAT BOOKLET FREE OF CHARGE - Keith Hunt
The Heresies of Westcott and Hort on the Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. A. Westcott explained away some of the miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ by downplaying or omitting the literal phase of the miracle.
TO BE CONTINUED