Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 6
Pike cites Lactantius claiming the “filthy clothes” represent Christ’s first coming “in the flesh,” and that after doing God’s will he receives dominion and judges God’s house; how does tying incarnation to “filthy garments” challenge modern instincts about comfort, honor, and what faithfulness looks like in a body that can suffer?
Another way to ask: Lactantius says the “filthy clothes” point to Jesus coming “in the flesh” and suffering before receiving authority to judge. How does that idea challenge what you think faithfulness should look like in a body that can hurt?

Direct Answer Based on Chuck Pike’s use of Lactantius, the “filthy clothes” idea frames Jesus’ first coming as humble, suffering, and exposed to human shame—suggesting faithfulness may involve discomfort and dishonor before vindication and dominion.

Support from Transcript:

  • Chuck quotes Lactantius: “The filthy clothes represent the first coming of Christ in the flesh.”
  • Lactantius contrasts first and second advents: “we know that there will be a second glorious return,” implying the first was not glorious in appearance.
  • He interprets suffering imagery: “The scorched in the fire refers to he suffered torture from men and was then extinguished.”
  • He connects obedience to later authority: “after he has done the will of God…he will receive dominion and become judge over the house of God.”
  • The Zechariah 3 scene itself involves removal of shame/filth and re-clothing, reinforcing a movement from humiliation to cleansing and authority.
Discussion Follow-ups If Jesus’ faithful obedience involved “filthy garments,” what does that imply about our expectations for comfort and reputation? Where might you be avoiding faithfulness because it could look lowly or costly?

Jumpstarter 6 of 10
Back Questions Next