This simple fact will give additional force and clearness to a point already stated, namely, that incarnation was not Christ's taking our nature into union with Himself. This truth should be carefully pondered. It is fully brought out in 2 Cor. v.—"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." (Ver. 14-17.)
[6] The "breast" and the "shoulder" are emblematical of love and power—strength and affection.
[7] There is much force and beauty in verse 31—"The breast shall be Aaron's and his sons'." It is the privilege of all true believers to feed upon the affections of Christ—the changeless love of that heart which beats with a deathless and changeless love for them.
[8] The reader will bear in mind that the subject treated of in the text leaves wholly untouched the important and most practical truth taught in John xiv. 21-23, namely, the peculiar love of the Father for an obedient child, and the special communion of such a child with the Father and the Son. May this truth be written on all our hearts, by the pen of God the Holy Ghost!
[9] The case of Simon Magus, in Acts viii, may present a difficulty to the reader. But of him, it is sufficient to say that one "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" could never be set forth as a model for God's dear children. His case in no wise interferes with the doctrine of 1 John i. 9. He was not in the relationship of a child, and, as a consequence, not a subject of the advocacy. I would further add, that the subject of the Lord's prayer is by no means involved in what is stated above. I wish to confine myself to the immediate passage under consideration. We must ever avoid laying down iron rules. A soul may cry to God under any circumstances, and ask for what it needs: He is ever ready to hear and answer.
[10] The statement in the text affords no warrant for the idea that our Lord Jesus Christ is not, equally with the Father, the object of worship. We utterly abhor and reject such a blasphemy.
Let the reader turn to John v. 23—"That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent Him." How can any one, in the face of such a passage as this, attempt to teach that it is wrong to present worship to the Lord Jesus? Woe be to the man who so teaches! He is plainly at issue with God.
Again, look at Rev. v. 12—"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." What mean these words if our Lord Jesus Christ is not to be addressed in prayer or worship?
Was the martyr, Stephen, wrong when he said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit"? Was Paul mistaken when he besought the Lord to remove the thorn?
But it is needless to multiply passages: the teaching of the inspired volume, from cover to cover, establishes, beyond all question, the rightness of presenting prayer and worship to our Lord Jesus Christ; and therefore all who teach otherwise are in direct opposition to the Word of God.