New Eyes Faith

An Inconvenient Truth

2011-12-27T22:03:00.000-05:00

Al Gore produced a documentary film a few years ago entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" in which he set out to prove as scientific fact that global warming would destroy the earth in due time unless we made some radical changes in our lifestyles. Sadly, many people bought into his idea and are now actively setting out to "save the planet". And thanks to the help of certain celebrities, and businesses seeing an opportunity to capitalize on the world's supposed dilemma, “going green” is the new standard for responsible citizenship. Now don’t misunderstand me, I am in favor of responsible stewardship of the earth, but Al Gores “inconvenient truth” has been shown to be nothing more than lies based on bad science; yet, millions around the globe continue to subscribe to the idea that man is destroying planet earth through greed and irresponsible industry.

While I do not share Mr. Gore’s notion that earth will be destroyed due to man-made global warming, there remains, I believe, an inconvenient truth! However, the truth I speak of has nothing to do with global warming! The inconvenient truth as I see it has to do with a teaching widely held by Christians around the world regarding the nature of God and Jesus. Simply put, the real inconvenient truth is that the so called orthodox Church has embraced a doctrine which has as it’s foundation Greek philosophy rather than Scripture. Despite the fact that not one shred of solid Scriptural evidence exists that the doctrine is true, multiple millions since the formulation of Church creeds in the 3rd thru 5th centuries, regard it as the most important teaching of the Christian faith. This is truly amazing when you think about it… the reformed Church has as it’s motto sola scriptura (Scripture alone) yet supports the doctrine that God exists in three distinct persons yet remains only One God, a teaching which not only defies the reasoning faculties God created us with, but cannot be found in the Bible anywhere.

The word inconvenient as used in this article means "not suiting ones needs or purposes". Some synonyms are "awkward, annoying, troublesome, bothersome". This expresses exactly the problem we have in the Church today. Volumes enough to fill libraries have been written, careers and reputations have been made, and mega churches have been built on the premise that Jesus is "God the Son", a phrase never found in Scripture. Still, men will not open their hearts and minds to the clear words of Scripture on the matter because it does not fit their preconceived ideas and long held traditions. The truth that Jesus is the “Son of God”, a title meaning God’s Chosen One, Messiah, is awkward and troublesome to mainstream Christianity. It does not suit their needs and purposes; it is indeed an “inconvenient truth”!

If you are reading this and have ever questioned the doctrine of the trinity, I ask you to consider well what you read here. One of the main Scripture verses used to support the idea that Jesus is God is John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God,and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him
was not any thing made that was made.”

This is coupled with John 1:14 which says:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Ask yourself dear reader, if it makes any sense at all that God would have John write something in the opening verses of his gospel to declare that Jesus is God the Son, a being in every way equal to God the Father, then close out his gospel with a purpose statement which reads:

“Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” –John 20:30-31 (emphasis mine)

Does it sound as though John is trying to make the point in these verses that Jesus is God? No, of course it doesn’t, because he is not! John clearly tells us that Jesus is “the Christ”. This term has as it’s equivalent the Hebrew messiah and means anointed one, or one chosen by God. In the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) all of Israel’s kings and prophets were anointed ones; ie. messiahs. But Jesus was THE messiah, the one all other messiahs expected and prophesied about, the one who was promised by Moses and would come from the lineage of David the king (messiah) to fulfill God’s plans for Israel and the world. Also, notice the parallelism used in the above verse equating “Christ” and “Son of God”. Christ, Messiah, and Son of God are all synonymous terms referring to God’s appointed man, not a divine being equal to God.

So, again we must ask ourselves, is John 1:1 and 1:14 trying to tell us that Jesus was a divine being called the Word who pre-existed His earth life and created the world? Or, was Jesus a human being, born to a virgin girl through the line of David, by a miracle of God, who was in every way the outworking of God’s word (promise and plan) from the beginning, the one to whom God gave His word and through whom His word (His will and plan) and character would be made known? If you’re still uncertain of the answer, let Jesus tell it in His own words from the gospel of John. Consider the following Scriptures:

“but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did.” –John 8:40
”For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me." –John 12:49-50
“Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.” –John 14:24
“For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me.” –John 17:8
“I have much to say about you and much to judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." –John 8:26
“So Jesus said to them, 'When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.'” –John 8:28
“I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” –John 17:14

The New Testament is crystal clear on this matter. Jesus is the “Son of God” NOT “God the Son”. As Son of God He is “a man whom He [God] has appointed” (Acts 17:31 – also see Acts 3:20 and 10:42). Paul says of Jesus that “there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man, Christ Jesus.” (1Tim 2:5). It is an inconvenient truth because embracing it changes everything. It changes how we interpret other Scriptures and how we understand God’s Word. It requires that men rethink their position, let go of their man-made tradition and truly embrace the clear language of the Bible and the teaching of Jesus Himself when He called the Father “the only true God” (John 17:3). It’s an inconvenient truth, but it’s a truth that will set you free from the bondage of religion and error, and the word of God will open up to you as never before.

Filled

2011-05-01T21:25:00.003-04:00

Have you ever heard one of those songs that just sticks with you… you know, a melody you just can’t get out of your head? Sure you have. We’ve all had the experience. And it’s particularly annoying when the song that’s “stuck” in your head happens to be one you don’t even like!

I play the bass guitar in the praise and worship band at our fellowship and we introduced a new song this past Sunday that I can’t stop singing. I’m OK with being “stuck” on this song because I genuinely like it. The song was written by a young man in our congregation, one of our worship leaders. The lyrics to the chorus say, “I wanna be filled, I wanna be filled, I wanna be filled with the holy spirit”. This is repeated several times in the chorus while the verses speak of surrendering our will to God.

The writer, I’m sure, understands the Holy Spirit to be a Person – the 3rd Person of the Trinity. This also was my belief until I learned the truth about the trinity. I now know that the bible teaches no such thing as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all being of the same essence and equality, yet not three gods, but one. Rather, the holy spirit as presented in Scripture, is God’s gift to the believer at conversion. E.W. Bullinger’s work “The Giver and His Gift” is helpful on this subject. Although a trinitarian himself, Bullinger notes the different usages of “holy spirit” throughout Scripture. Sometimes it is used to refer to God’s gift, and other times as a synonym for God Himself. The gift of holy spirit is God’s personal power at work in our lives; the imparting of divine nature, and that which gives the power we need to become like Jesus. But we must surrender to that influence at work in our hearts. I guess this is why the song has had such an impact on me these last few days. (I wake up singing it to myself… I sing it throughout the day… I’m singing it now!) I realize how often I fail at surrendering my will to His, and allowing myself to be led by the gift of God’s holy spirit within me.

Nevertheless, it is my desire to be “filled” with the holy spirit! But the real issue is: What exactly does that mean? Paul helps us understand by contrasting spirit-filling with intoxication. He says, “don’t be drunk with wine… but be filled with spirit.” (Eph 5:18) To be intoxicated with wine is to lose control of one’s faculties. A drunk person cannot be reasoned with or properly judge reality. By contrast Paul says, be filled with spirit.
I was amazed in my research to realize that I have been mislead about the real meaning of this verse, but I suppose this is also true of the majority of Christians with an orthodox background. Most bible translations capitalize the word “spirit” which automatically leads the reader to believe that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit. Some translations even add the word “holy” to the text for clarity. And most translations add the definite article “the” so there is no mistaking that Paul refers here to the Holy Spirit. However, the original Greek text does NOT have the definite article, nor does it include the word holy, it simply says “plerousthe en pneumati” – be filled with spirit. To capitalize the word spirit and add “the Holy” is not only inaccurate, but misleading!

Further, this verse is read by many as though Paul is saying don’t be intoxicated with wine but be intoxicated with the Holy Spirit. This is just not the case at all! Paul uses methusko for wine, which means “to be drunken”; but for “filled” he uses the word pleroo, which has nothing to do with intoxication! The word is variously translated as “complete, fulfilled, finish, made full, satisfy, filled,” etc. .Consider how the word is used in the “Sermon on the Mount”. Jesus said “Blessed are you who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for you will be filled” (Matt 5:6). Also in Acts 5:3, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie…”. As in the previous two passages, the word is used figuratively here in Ephesians to mean “be fully supplied or abound with spirit; that is, live in such a way that we are satiated with, and motivated by, our new spiritual nature rather than a carnal one. Paul said the same thing in Gal 5:16 where he uses the term “walk in the spirit”. Again, there is no article in Gal 5:16, nor should spirit be capitalized. Literally, he says “walk in spirit”; ie. live your life according to the spiritual nature.

Ephesians 5:18 is also written as an imperative in the present tense indicating that it is a command to be carried out on a continuing basis rather than as a single, or occasional event. I have actually heard it taught in the past that because we are imperfect vessels, we leak, and therefore Paul tells us we need to be refilled from time to time. But this really reveals a most unfortunate and basic misunderstanding not only of the nature of man, but, but the nature of God as well. We are not empty vessels to be filled up with a substance called “spirit”, much less to be inhabited by another person; ie. the person of The Holy Spirit. Paul does not teach that we are to be intoxicated, consumed, or taken over by a force or influence outside of ourselves. Instead, we are commanded to yield the right of way to the divine nature; to leave no room in our lives for wasteful, carnal, activities. We are to become complete, fully satisfied in spiritual things.

Furthermore, it is our responsibility to do this. More than making good decisions, it is learning to hear what God is saying to us on a personal level and responding in a positive manner. This is how Jesus lived, and He is our example. Not that we can ever achieve intimacy on the same level as the uniquely begotten Son of God, but it is certainly a worthy goal.

Faulty, nonsensical, and foolish interpretations of Scripture could be avoided if those in responsible positions would take the time to be more investigative and thorough in their research and study. More attention should be paid to the volume of excellent scholarly work available today, enabling us to more accurately interpret Biblical literature. But it seems that many, while paying lip service to being “filled” with the spirit, are more interested in quirky manifestations or keeping within their traditions than exploring the truth as it is already revealed in Scripture. God help us - help me - to be a better student of the word, and a better example of what it truly means to be “filled with spirit”!

The Plain Words of Scripture

2011-01-23T16:30:00.003-05:00

"Those who accept my commandments and obey them are the ones who love me. And because they love me, my Father will love them. And I will love them and reveal myself to each of them.” --John 14:21

Have we missed this simple truth? Has it been lost in traditional Christian "theo-il-logical"doctrine? Notice the language. 'If you obey me it shows that you love me, and the One who sent me will love you, and I will love you.' Is this the language you would expect from the 2nd person of a tri-unity, as understood (or, at least taught) in trinitarian theology? The key word is "unity". If indeed there are three persons within the One God, and if there is unity among the three persons of the Godhead, does this verse even make sense? Doesn't it contradict the "unity" within the godhead?
The note in the JFB commentary on this verse reads,

"Mark the sharp line of distinction here, not only between the Divine Persons but the actings of love in Each respectively, towards true disciples." — Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

I don't suggest that JFB endorses a unitarian view of God, but it is interesting that they note the "line of distinction" between the "actings of love" as they put it, as well as the divine persons. And they are absolutely right to point out that distinction. But the complexities involved in Jesus' simple statement are immense if we are to understand him as a 2nd person of a trinity! Isn't it more sensible to simply recognize that he speaks as a person who is not God, yet acting and speaking on His behalf, as the one commissioned by Him? He is, after all, the very 'image and likeness of God', according to Hebrews 1:3. And everyone knows that an image and a likeness, no matter how exact it may be, is still a representation, and not the actual thing itself.

I urge my readers to look at the entire context of this verse (the whole chapter) and see that Jesus consistently refers to the Father as "greater" than he, as well as the One who gives him the words to speak. I think most people instinctively understand this passage, and others like it, as demonstrating the unique and close relationship Jesus had with the Father. But when we attach divinity to Jesus and insist that he is also God Almighty, we not only go beyond what is written, we also complicate beyond understanding what was given to us in plain words!

Image via Wikipedia

Now lets look at the phrase "accept my commandments and obey them". What does it mean to "accept" the commandments of Jesus? Accept is the word "echo" in the Greek. It is a verb meaning to hold, possess, to receive, to take into oneself, have ability. Indeed, it is translated variously as, has, possess, accept, keep. In other words, more than the acknowledgment of and/or rote obedience to this command or that command, it means to allow the commandment to become a part of one's thinking and action in everyday life. Observe that the only place in the NT where Jesus gives a specific 'command' is John 13:34; 15:12 and 17 where he tells his disciples to follow his example and "love one another" as he has loved us.

I think it very likely that the sense of Jesus words about obeying his commandments relate to the idea of patterning our lives after His... to love what He loves and hate what He hates... to embrace what He clearly taught as truth, as important and vital to faith, and to reject all else. This quite naturally brings to mind the place where Jesus was asked a simple, direct question by a scribe. In Mark 12:28-29 the scribe asked, "which is the greatest commandment?" Jesus' answer tells all. In this passage, Jesus first quotes the 'shema' - "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One". Clearly, He was speaking of His God and His Lord as One single person - God, the Father! What could be more simple and straight forward? God the Father, the Lord God Almighty, Yahweh, is One single person and Jesus recognizes and affirms that truth! It is this God, the One True God of Israel (John 17:3), that Jesus also affirms as being worthy of our complete love and devotion; ie. with all the heart, soul, and strength. The point should be obvious. If Jesus subscribed to and lived by the creed of Israel, affirming it as THE GREATEST commandment, then it is wise for us who claim to be His followers to subscribe to and live by the same creed... is it not?

My wife and I recently moved into a new home and after 3 months, we're still unpacking and getting organized. While going through some things in my office I came across an interesting document. It's something I found several years ago and printed out for distribution to a Bible class I was teaching at the time. Apparently, since I took the time to copy and print it, I thought it was a clever argument proving beyond doubt that Jesus is God. Now, however, I see the flaw in the reasoning. Take a moment to look at the document below.

Now look at it again from the very top. This supposed "trilemma", is founded upon the assertion that Jesus claimed to be God. And therein lies the problem! Jesus NEVER claimed to be God! And if Jesus never CLAIMED to be God then the entire argument is without merit and, in fact, has no practical significance.
My friends, the words of Jesus should not be ignored. To obey him is to love him, and loving him guarantees that God will love us as well! When we love Jesus, we love God because he acts and speaks on behalf of, and with the authority of God the Father. Then, says Jesus, he will reveal, or show himself to us, and both he and the Father will come to us. Understood in context, it is "on that day" that we will know that Jesus is "in" the Father and the Father "in" him, and also that we are "in" him. It is of resurrection day that Jesus speaks. Want assurance that God loves you? Want to know that you will enter into life in the coming age when Jesus returns? If we love Jesus, God will love us also, and in the same way that He raised Jesus from the grave, so He will raise us and we will then see Jesus face to face, and reign with him in the kingdom of God. What a glorious hope!

The Calf Path

2010-09-04T00:14:00.000-04:00

I came across a wonderful poem recently that speaks truth so eloquently. Perhaps, like me, this will be your first encounter with these sage words penned over a century ago. But whether you've heard it before or not, I thought it worthwhile to share on this blog. Enjoy the wise words of an obscure poet named Sam Walter Foss.

One day, through the primeval wood,
A calf walked home, as good calves should;
But made a trail all bent askew,
A crooked trail as all calves do.

Since then three hundred years have fled,
And, I infer, the calf is dead.
But still he left behind his trail,
And thereby hangs my moral tale.

The trail was taken up next day
By a lone dog that passed that way;
And then a wise bell-wether sheep
Pursued the trail o'er vale and steep,
And drew the flock behind him, too,
As good bell-wethers always do.
And from that day, o'er hill and glade,
Through those old woods a path was made.

And many men wound in and out,
And dodged, and turned, and bent about
And uttered words of righteous wrath
Because 'twas such a crooked path.
But still they followed - do not laugh -
The first migration of that calf,
And through this winding wood-way stalked,
Because he wobbled when he walked.

This forest path became a lane,
That bent, and turned, and turned again;
This crooked lane became a road,
Where many a poor horse with his load
Toiled on beneath the burning sun,
And traveled some three miles in one.
And thus a century and a half
They trod the footsteps of that calf.

The years passed on in swiftness fleet,
The road became a village street;
And this, before men were aware,
A city's crowded thoroughfare;
And soon the central street was this
Of a renowned metropolis;
And men two centuries and a half
Trod in the footsteps of that calf.

Each day a hundred thousand rout
Followed the zigzag calf about;
And o'er his crooked journey went
The traffic of a continent.
A hundred thousand men were led
By one calf near three centuries dead.
They followed still his crooked way,
And lost one hundred years a day;
For thus such reverence is lent
To well-established precedent.

A moral lesson this might teach,
Were I ordained and called to preach;
For men are prone to go it blind
Along the calf-paths of the mind,

And work away from sun to sun
To do what other men have done.
They follow in the beaten track,
And out and in, and forth and back,

And still their devious course pursue,
To keep the path that others do.
They keep the path a sacred groove,
Along which all their lives they move.
But how the wise old wood-gods laugh,
Who saw the first primeval calf?
Ah! Many things this tale might teach -
But I am not ordained to preach.

For those who may be interested, this poem is found in the book "Pagan Christanity?" by Frank Viola and George Barna. This is a must read for anyone who has questions about the established orthodox Church, as it exists today. The book does not address doctrinal issues, but rather examines various practices common to many church denomiations today. This small work (only 269 pages) is packed with eye-opening, documented fact, and historical information of which most people have no awareness. It simply asks the question, "have we really been doing it by the book?"

If you value truth you'll appreciate this book. Whether you agree with all the author's conclusions or not, the facts cannot be disputed. This is not about bashing the Church. I love the Church that is the body of Christ, but the institution it has become is a far cry from the organism it is meant to be!

We Will Rise!

2010-08-12T00:33:00.007-04:00

"If a man dies, will he live again? All the days of my struggle
I will wait Until my change comes." --Job 14:14 (NASB)

"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who
are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth;
those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life,
those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."
-- John 5:28-29 (NASB)

It's rather odd, I think, that everyone seems to want to go to heaven, but no one really wants to die. Yet, at funerals, death is tauted as the doorway to life. It is said of the dead that they are "in a better place now", or they've "gone to their reward". I even heard it said once that this certain person was "enjoying life more than ever."

I understand that all this may, in fact, serve to provide comfort to the bereaved. I do not wish for those who are dealing with the death of a loved one to go without comfort, but there is a problem here if we are to call ourselves Bible believing Christians. Does the Bible actually teach life after death in the way it is understood today in popular Christian culture? As Christians, we are to find comfort in truth, are we not? In 1 Thess 4:13-18 the apostle Paul addresses this very issue. Apparently there were those in Thessalonica who were confused about what would happen to those who were already dead when Christ returned. Paul clearly pointed them to the resurrection saying "the dead in Christ will rise first". The remainder of the verse reads "then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord". Those who subscribe to a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church point to this verse for support (misguided support, in my opinion). But one thing is certain, Paul tells us plainly here when Christians will be with the Lord, and it is not at the time of death. Notice the phrase "so we will always be with the Lord". The word "so" ("thus" in some translations) means "in this way" or "by this means". How will we be with the Lord? It will be either by resurrection or by rapture, but in either event, it will not happen until the appearing of Jesus from heaven! Until then, the dead must sleep.

And so we must ask "what is the source of these ideas which are so prevalent in the Church today, such as souls leaving the body and going to heaven at death; ideas in which so many seem to find comfort? The answer is Greek philosophy - pagan thought - which infiltrated the Church very early. For Plato and other Greek philosophers, the soul was imprisoned in the body and death was the means of the souls' escape. Think about it... what is evident here is that dead persons who are supposedly in heaven now, have no bodies!! Yet, the Bible is very clear on this subject: new bodies are obtained via the resurrection, and the resurrection of the dead will happen only at Jesus' appearing!

Resurrection, THE major tenet of the Christian faith, has taken second place to death in our modern version of orthodox Christianity. Paul clearly tells us that our faith hangs on the fact that Jesus was truly raised up from the state of being actually dead. In fact, if Jesus didn't rise, says Paul, "our faith is in vain" (1Cor
15:14,17), and the dead in Christ have truly perished (ie. there is no hope for them beyond the grave - (1Cor 15:18)). If the souls of dead Christians were now in heaven, verse 18 would not be true, would it? It is the fact of Jesus' resurrection, who is the firstfruits of those that sleep (1Cor 15:20), that guarantees the resurrection of all the dead in Christ when He appears again (1Cor 15:21-23). This is the blessed hope of the believer! (Tit 2:13 ( KJV)) Resurrection means coming back to life after being dead, not merely getting a new body!

Image via Wikipedia

Headstone in a small family cemetery in Northern Missouri

Churches today give lip service to resurrection as something that will occur, because it is known to be taught in the Scriptures. But in fact, the present belief system of souls going to heaven at the time of death, is not only a contradiction of resurrection, it is an erosion of Christianity's central truth, the resurrection of the believer! In the Church's current system, only the body is dead while the souls of the dead are alive in the presence of God with no need of a body. It would be constructive for Christians to ask themselves, if dead persons are living what point is there to the resurrection? If the dead are more alive than ever; if they've gone to their reward; if they really are in a better place, if they are whole and at peace in God's presence, what possible good and what reasonable purpose would it serve to once again have a body, albeit an immortal one? Further, why would Paul refer to death as an enemy? This is the question men like John Wycliffe, and Martin Luther asked, who believed in the biblical doctrine of the sleep of the dead awaiting resurrection.

But long before Wycliffe and Luther, Justin Martyr, an early Church Father of the 1st century, wrote about his "orthodox" belief. Below is a reprint of the entire dialog from which other author's have quoted. To be clear, we do not recognize Justin Martyr as being of equal authority to Scripture, but his views do show that early Christian thinkers had a very different interpretation of the Scripture, than is widely taught today, which necessarily affected their perspective on the issues of life and death.

THE OPINION OF JUSTIN WITH REGARD TO THE
REIGN OF A THOUSAND YEARS. SEVERAL
CATHOLICS REJECT IT

And Trypho to this replied, “I remarked to you sir, that you are
very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the
Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place,
Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to
be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the
patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and
other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came?
or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the
appearance of worsting us in the controversies?”

Then I answered, “I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as
to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly,
that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that
such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the
other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the
pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.
Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called
Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach
doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical,
and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this
before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I
can, of all the arguments which have passed between us;
in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same
things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men
or men’s doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered]
by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are
called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth],
and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say
there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their
souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not
imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he
would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sad-
ducees, or similar sects of Genistae, Meristaeans, Gali-
laeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do
not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but
are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worship-
ping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the
heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-
minded Christians on all points, are assured that there
will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years
in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and
enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others
declare.

Notice that Justin regards himself as being "right-minded" (orthodox) but allows for others who are "true christians" (orthodox) to "think otherwise" regarding the literal 1000 year reign of Christ. But when it comes to souls going to heaven when they die, it is, in Justin's view, tantamount to denying the resurrection. Have Christians today unwittingly taken the power out of the Biblical doctrine of the resurrection from the dead by subscribing to the idea that we have immortal souls which go either to heaven or hell at the time of death? This, it seems to me, is a serious issue, among others, which should be re-examined by honest and thoughtful Christians desiring to know and practice truth and the Christianity of the first Church!

Both Jesus and Paul believed and taught that the dead are dead. The early Church believed and taught this truth as well, and we would do well to follow their lead. It is most unfortunate that Greek, pagan, philosophy has so infiltrated Christian thinking, not only with regard to death and resurrection, but many other unbiblical beliefs held by modern Christianity. It would behoove every sincere Christian to study the Scriptures regarding death and resurrection, the soul of man, and heaven and hell. Study as if you knew nothing at all about Bible doctrine and I assert that you will find something very different from what is commonly taught in Churches today.

Jesus Christ: In The Flesh

2010-05-01T22:56:00.004-04:00

“By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;”
--1 John 4:2 (NASB)

This is a significant verse validating the all important truth of Jesus humanity, as clearly taught elsewhere in the Scriptures. Traditionally, it has been understood as an argument against the docetic gnostics (“docetism" - from docetae, meaning “to appear”), in which it was asserted that Jesus was not truly flesh and blood, but only "appeared" to be human. Since John uses the phrase "in the flesh" and warns, in verse 3, that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world (1 John 4:3), it seems very likely that this is what John was thinking here. However, I suggest that John had something more in mind than an argument against docetism only!

We must not allow pre-conceived notions to define what John means by "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh". The AMP and NCV bibles both slant the verse to make it sound as if John supported the traditional doctrine of incarnation - that Jesus pre-existed in heaven, came to earth, and took on flesh. For example, the AMP says "every spirit that acknowledges ... that Jesus ... has become man and has come in the flesh ..." This translation boldly suggests that Jesus was something other than human prior to being born. The NCV puts it even stronger saying, "... every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ came to earth as a human..." This really goes beyond the bounds of the original lanquage. In both of these bible versions the translators project their own preconceptions about Jesus’ pre-existence onto the Greek text! Thankfully, none of the other major versions take such liberties with the text. Instead, they stick to the simple reading "come in the flesh".

So what does it mean to, "come in the flesh"?

The word "come" is erchomai (perfect tense), denoting something that has been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. In other words, it happened and has not been reversed or changed – it is still in force – Jesus was born human and remains human. This could be a specific reference to Jesus birth. I am not aware of any scholars or commentaries that share this opinion, but that doesn't mean it’s wrong. Just consider what I say here, and you be the judge.

The language employed here (has come) should not be construed as meaning 'has come from heaven'! Yet, this is exactly where most scholarship seems to go. The fact is, to say one "has come" does not have to refer to movement from one place to another. It can be be used metaphorically as well! For example, the Bible also says that John "came neither eating nor drinking" (Matt 11:18, also see Matt 21:32). It's the same thing! No one understands this to mean that John came from any particular place. It simply refers to the fact that John "showed up" doing what he was called to do (preaching his message of repentance) in a simple an unpretentious way. Further, and perhaps more precisely, John himself uses this kind of language while in prison. Expressing doubt about whether Jesus was the the Messiah that Israel was waiting for, he sent messengers to inquire of Jesus, “Are you the one who is to come, or do we look for another?” (Matt 11:3) This was a way of speaking of the expected Messiah! He was to “come” in the sense that he was a promise to be fulfilled – a man through whom God would work in a mighty way to bring deliverance to Israel.

The fact that John adds the phrase "in the flesh" emphasizes not merely Jesus' human nature, but the fact that his body was really human. This would speak not only to docetic ideas, but other heresies as well, including that of Cerinthus who believed the man Jesus and the Christ were separate entities. The Cerinthian heresy taught that the Christ was the “Divine Spirit” who temporarily entered Jesus, the man, at his baptism and left him at his crucifixion.

It is vital to see that John is not speaking only of Jesus, the man, but of Jesus, the Christ (the Messiah). In the Lexham translation of the Bible, the note on this verse suggests the alternate reading "every spirit that confesses Jesus as Christ who has come in the flesh." This is also the way the NET bible reads and, in my opinion, is the correct rendering because it clearly associates Jesus as the Christ. This goes back to 1John 2:22 where the warning is "who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?" (Also, see John 9:22) To me, John is clearly saying that Jesus and the Christ are one and the same, and that he was a genuine flesh and blood human being. And I would further suggest that John may have had in mind Jesus’ lineage. The Jews did, after all, expect one to come who would be like Moses, and who would be from the line of David.

In every prophecy foretelling Messiah's coming, it was never suggested or even hinted at, that he would be God. The expectation of Messiah was that he would be a man - a man chosen by God, anointed of God, without sin, but nonetheless a man (See Matt 11:3; Acts 2:22; 1Tim 2:5; Heb 4:15) Yet, in virtually every commentary on this verse, both classic and modern, it is suggested that John claims Jesus to be both human and Deity. Where exactly does the text say that Jesus is Deity? Where does the bible ever say that Christ and God are the same, or equal? Nowhere!! Christ is not Jesus last name, and it is NOT a synonym for God!

Given John's own stated purpose for writing in John 20:31, "that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God" (another title for the Christ), It seems unlikely that he would argue from a Trinitarian point of view. John was saying, in a most emphatic way, that the Messiah Jesus, was a real human being with a traceable genealogy. In this way, he argued not only against the docetist’s and other heretical groups such as that of Cerinthus, but perhaps even those ideas which eventually came to be known as orthodoxy, attributing a second (divine) nature to Jesus!

Gnosticism - More Than A Present Threat (Re-Blog)

2010-04-25T00:07:00.002-04:00

I recently came across an article having to do with the dangers of Gnostic thought which has infiltrated some Christian teaching. This, among other things, has been a topic of discussion with me and some of my brothers as we have gathered together for fellowship. Although an old religion, it has had a bit of a revival in recent years, especially with the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls. Just "google" gnosticism and a number of sites will come up in the results, featuring current gnostic teachers. The basic idea of Gnosticism (or, those who have knowledge) is that only spirit is good, whereas the physical world is bad - including the body. Hence, the platonic idea of the soul being "freed" from the prison of the body upon death. But there are many facets to this early mix of philosophy and eastern mystic religion, some of which sadly parallels certain popular ideas within Christianity today.

The following is a reproduction of the article I read from the blog source, focusonthekingdommagazine.org. I hop you will find it to be informative and thought provoking. Enjoy.

"In a recent article (Discernment, May/June 1999, PO Box 129, Lapeer, MI 48446), a writer remarks on the pronounced dangers of a Gnostic approach to salvation and Scripture, currently espoused in some “charismatic” circles. The author’s point is that those who rely heavily on “experience” give themselves over to subjectivity and personal feeling uncontrolled by the text of Scripture.They have faith in their own experience rather that in the promises of God. By “Gnostic” is meant a form of popular religion which originated in New Testament times and probably before. Some “Gnostics” claimed to be Christians andother Christians who opposed them saw the dangers of their allegorical, and often philosophical, approach to the Bible. Gnosticism was a blend of popular spirituality, neo-Platonism and eastern mysticism, producing an attractive “soup” designed to satisfy human spiritualhunger. “Christian” Gnostics simply appended the name of Jesus and Christ to their variety of essentially pagan teachings, and the result seemed to the less well-instructed to be close to the faith of the New Testament. Bible writers often fought the counterfeiting techniques of the Gnostics.

The author, John Marston, who reflects on current Gnostic tendencies (and there are several prominent writers who also see parallels in contemporary Christianity), points out that one Gnostic characteristic is the failure to take plain words at their face value. This tendency has caused the rift which divides the amillennial Christian from the premillennial Christian. There is much truth in this observation. The literal and natural reading of the words of the Bible is the first choice for the wise student. For example, the noun “resurrection” in the New Testament is found some 40 times to mean the resurrection of the literally dead to life, either in the case of Jesus (the only one yet to have been resurrected) or of the faithful of all ages at the return of Jesus to the earth (see I Cor. 15:23). It would therefore be a major mistake of interpretation to decide that in Revelation 20:5 the noun resurrection cannot mean the raising of the literally dead to life again. Yet this is the grave weakness of amillennialism.

Amillennialism (readers should not be daunted at all by the technical terms: the ideas involved are very simple) proposes that Satan has already been “bound so that he cannot deceive the nations any longer” (Rev. 20:3) and that the resurrection of the dead mentioned in Revelation 20:5 means the figurative resurrection of a person not literally dead, but dead in sin. Such“resurrection,” amillennialism teaches, happens to the individual when he or she is converted. Premillennialism says no. Resurrection, the noun, should mean what it means in some 40 other passages — the actual coming to life of adead person who has died literally.

If any of our readers is in doubt on this point, he should consult not only the normal meaning of the noun “resurrection” (which never refers to conversion), but the immediate context in Revelation 20:1-6. Here we read plain words, crystal clear information: “Those persons who had been beheaded came to life…This is the first resurrection.” It would be an amazing misunderstanding to argue that “the coming to life” again of “those who had been beheaded” means anything other than what it says: The literally dead came back to life. Such is the strong advantage of the premillennial understanding of this passage. It takes words at their normal, natural face value.

Gnostic tendencies are found today also in the widely held belief that man isa bipartite creature with body and immortal soul and that his “soul” departs consciously to heaven or hell at the moment of death. Thus we hear often thatso and so has “gone home to be with Jesus in heaven.” Pleasant as such a viewmay seem, it has no biblical basis. If we want to grasp the biblical view of life after death, I Thessalonians 4 is among many passages which lays it out clearly. Having described how Jesus “died and rose again,” Paul says that dead Christians will rise from death in the future. When Christ returns, Paultaught, the dead, who he says are now asleep, will be woken up from sleep (the word “raised” is the same in Greek as the word “awaken”), caught up to meet the Lord in the air and “thus we shall come to be always with the Lord.”

Did you catch that? “Thus we shall always be with the Lord.” In this manner —by this process of being woken up at the future coming of Jesus — we shall come into the presence of Christ. By no other means. Pause and reflect. If itis possible to be “with Christ” before the resurrection, Paul would have beenwrong to say “By this means we shall be with the Lord forever.” The words of Paul, coupled with the words of Jesus in John 5:28, 29and Daniel in 12:2, tell us with complete clarity that the dead are asleep until the resurrection day. When they are raised from death (awoken from the sleep of death) they will then come into the presence of Christ and be with him forever. By resurrection, alone, and not by survival as an “immortal spirit,” we will be ushered into Christ’s presence — for the first time, at the resurrection when Jesus comes back to inaugurate his Kingdom on earth (Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:10).

Gnostic tendencies affected other major popular Christian doctrines. Origen (died 254 AD) was a philosophically-minded theologian whose allegorical treatment of the Bible caused him to hunt for hidden, so called “spiritual” meanings which were merely the invention of his own imagination.

Many earnest believers are quite unaware that it was the teaching of the mystically-minded Origen about the “eternal begetting of the Son” which helped to develop the now famous teaching that Jesus is coequal and coeternal with the Father. We strongly urge that Bible students in search of saving Truth examine the roots of some of their central historic teachings. Do they really come from the Bible, or rather from the strong philosophical and Gnostic tendencies which invaded the church soon after the death of the Apostles? Paul warned us, but have we heeded? (Acts 20:28-31; II Tim 4:1ff.)"

The Hebrew Background to the New Testament

2010-04-16T22:28:00.000-04:00

I thought the following reproduction of a few paragraph's' from Anthony Buzzard's booklet "Who Is Jesus?" would be helpful. One of the pitfall's of the average believer today is the failure of current Christianity to understand the Hebrew context of Jesus and His message. Indeed, it would appear that this disconnect happened centuries ago in the time when the creeds of Christianity were formulated. The following is a useful summary of the early Church's understanding of Hebrew Scripture concerning Jesus.

It will be useful by way of summary and to orient ourselves to the thought world of the authors of the New Testament to lay out the principal passages of the Hebrew Scriptures from which they derived their unified understanding of the person of Christ. Nowhere can it be shown that the Messiah was to be an uncreated being, a fact which should cause us to look outside the Bible for the source of such a revolutionary concept.

The original purpose for man, made in the image and glory of God, was to exercise dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26; Psa 8). That ideal is never lost beyond our recovery for the Psalmist speaks of the “glory” with which man has been (potentially) crowned so that “all things are to be subjected under his feet” (Psa 8:5, 6). As the divine plan unfolds it becomes clear that the promised “seed of the woman” who is to reverse the disaster caused by Satan (Gen 3:15) will be a descendant of David (2 Sam. 7:13-16). He will call God his Father (2 Sam. 7:14) and be appointed as God’s Son, the Messiah, to whom God entrusts rulership of the earth (Psa 2). Prior to taking up his royal office, however, the Messiah is to sit at the right hand of the Father and bear the title “Lord” (Psa 110:1).

As Son of Man, representative man, he will take his place in heaven prior to receiving from God authority to administer a universal empire (Dan 2:44; 7:14; Acts 3:20, 21). Having at his first coming suffered for the sins of the people (Isa 53; Psa 22), he is to come again as God’s firstborn, the ruler of the kings of the earth (Psa 89:27), foreshadowed by David who was also chosen from the people (Psa 89:19, 20).

As the second Moses, the Messiah was to arise in Israel (Deut 18:18), deriving his divine Sonship from a supernatural birth from a virgin (Isa 7:14; Luke 1:35), and being confirmed as God’s Son through his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4). As High Priest, the Messiah now serves his people from heaven (Heb 8:1) and awaits the time of the restoration of all things (Acts 3:21), when he is destined to be reintroduced into the earth as King of Kings, the divine figure of Psalm 45 (Heb 1:6-8). At that time, in the new age of the Kingdom, he will rule with his disciples (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; 1 Cor 6:2; 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 2:26; 3:21; 20:4). As Adam heads the original creation of human beings on earth, so Jesus is the created Head of the New Order of humanity, in whom the ideals of the human race will be fulfilled (Heb 2:7).

Within this Messianic framework the person and work of Jesus can be explained in terms understood by the apostles. Their purpose even when presenting the most “advanced” Christology is to proclaim belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God (John 20:31), who is the center of God’s whole purpose in history (John 1:14). Though Jesus is obviously coordinated in a most intimate way with his Father, the latter remains the “only true God” of biblical monotheism (John 17:3). Jesus thus represents the presence of the one God, his Father. In the man Jesus, Immanuel, the one God is present with us (John 14:9).

-- Who Is Jesus?, pages 25&26, by Anthony Buzzard

Another Undeniable Proof

2010-04-11T20:18:00.004-04:00

"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him" (1 Cor 8:6) [1] _New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

It is interesting that, in defense of the Trinity, this verse is sometimes offerered as a proof. Yet, it proves no such thing, because it makes a clear distinction between God the Father, and Jesus Christ the Lord. Also, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit here, so how can it be said to support a doctrine of "three in one"? At best, it might be a proof text for a Binity, but certainly not a Trinity!

But it appears much more likely that Paul knew nothing at all of a Trinity, or a Binity. Rather, Paul makes reference here of one, single, unitary God, and one Lord, Messiah. In verses 4 and 5, Paul's language is clear. He speaks of only One God (v4); and though there be many lords (v5), yet for us (Christians) there is only one Lord Messiah (Christ), and that is Jesus.

This is so clear, I don't know how it can be mistaken, or misconstrued to mean that the one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, is One God but two co-equal Persons of the same essence within the one godhead. Keep in mind that it is not Paul's objective here to make a theological statement about the nature of God; he is not even making a philosophical observation about the nature of God. What Paul is doing is drawing attention to the fact that although pagans may recognize many gods and many lords, real or imagined, Christians worship the One True God and follow the one Lord, Messiah Jesus. The "so called" gods of the pagans, are no gods at all. In other words, although the world may worship many different gods, for the Christian there is only one God, and He is the Father. Although the world may recognize many lords (masters), for the Christian there is only one lord, the one sent by God, and that is Jesus Christ.

God is directly referred to as "the Father" about 70 times in the New Testament, and many more indirect references are made; but Jesus is never called God with the correlative "Son"; ie. God, the Son. Jesus is, of course, the Son of God, and the Christ (Messiah), neither of which is the same as God.

Albert Barnes, a Trinitarian, acknowledges the following regarding "One God, the Father" in 1 Cor 8:6:

The word “Father” here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him.
This is manifest: (1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term” Son” when he comes to speak of the “one Lord Jesus Christ;” and, (2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father “to his creatures.” He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name “Father” is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa 103:13; Jer 31:9; Mal 1:6; Mal 2:10; Mat 6:9; Luk 11:2, etc. __Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) (emphasis mine)

These are valid points with which I heartily concur. However, Barnes then goes on to suggest that at other places in Scripture the term "Father" does mean the 2nd person in the Trinity as suggested by the following Scriptures: Luk 10:22; Luk 22:42; Jn 1:18; Jn 3:35; Jn 5:19-23, Jn 5:26, Jn 5:30, Jn 5:36; Heb 1:5; 2Pe 1:17, etc. This distinction is made, in Barnes opinion, because of the correlative use of the term "Son". But in review, I see no warrant for making this distinction other than a personal bias of keeping up the tradition of the Trinity. We do not question whether Jesus is the Son, only what it means to be the Son.

One of the most quoted Old Testament Scriptures found in the New Testament is Psalm 110:1

"The LORD says to my Lord, sit at My right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."

The word LORD, in all capital letters, is not a true translation of the Hebrew text. It is a well known fact

among scholars that in order to preserve the holiness of God's name, and because of their literal adherence to the command about taking God's Name in vain, scribes replaced the sacred Name with four letters - JHVH or YHWH - known as the tetragrammaton. These four letters are representative of God's actual Name, Jehovah, or Yahweh.

Remember, this is a Psalm of David; it is David speaking here, in the Spirit. The LORD (Yahweh, Almighty God), speaks to someone that David calls "my Lord". God is not speaking to Himself. This is a clear reference to Messiah. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary says of the phrase "to my Lord"

According to Jesus’ interpretation of the passage (Matt. 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44), this is a reference to the Son of God in heaven in the presence of the Father. David himself confesses the Son to be his Lord, that is, his master or sovereign. --Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson's new illustrated Bible commentary (Ps 110:1). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.

The point in all this is to say that Paul surely understood Jesus to be the human Lord, Messiah, and in no way, God Almighty. This, in fact, is what he argued for with all who would listen (Acts 18:5; 18:28). The word "Lord" is used here in the sense of governor, master, or king. The idea is that Christians acknowledge only one ruler over their lives, the one who God sent to be the Christ. Whether, as some suggest, Lord does not necessarily indicate an inferior status than God, is irrelevant. There is no question that God "gave" all authority to Jesus, both in heaven and in earth (Mat 28:18). What we must recognize is that the titles Lord and Christ do not indicate shared essence; ie. to call Jesus Lord or Christ is not the same as saying he is true God (as the creed says, "very God of very God").

Honestly, I don't think these arguments would even be necessary if a mystical, incomprehensible, doctrine such as the Trinity had not been introduced and subsequently embraced by the Christian Church many years ago. To me, a simple reading of the text, and the very fact that Paul makes a distinction between the One God and Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, is undeniable proof that he does not recognize a Trinity. Certainly, he could have worded his letter differently, had he intended to suggest anything other than One, singular Person God, and one Lord who is His Messiah!

_______

[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

a Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; Is 46:9; Jer 10:6, 7; 1 Cor 8:4
b Mal 2:10; Eph 4:6
c Rom 11:36
d John 13:13; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 4:5; 1 Tim 2:5
e Col 1:16

A Critical Easter

2010-04-04T23:53:00.000-04:00

As I write this post, it is the evening of Easter Sunday, 2010. I've been reflecting today on the state of Christianity, at least,within the circles I am familiar with, and am truly amazed at how far off the mark we seem to have gotten on so many issues! I take no pleasure in being critical, but it's impossible not to be when the errors against Biblical truth are so blatant. And yet, I don't think most people even consider that their understanding of the faith is, in fact, unbiblical in many respects.

I wrote a post back in December regarding the fallacy of the incarnation and the reality of the resurrection. You can read it all here. But to revisit briefly, it is my assertion that the Church has gotten it's priorities "out of whack" with regard to holiday celebrations. We place entirely too much emphasis on Christmas, and not nearly enough on Easter! The fact is, even a brief survey of the New Testament reveals that little is said regarding Jesus' birth, but his death and resurrection are key themes throughout. In fact, if you remove the birth of Christ from the New Testament, you remove only a couple of chapters from Matthew and Luke's gospel. If you remove the resurrection from the New Testament, you will have nothing left to speak of! So, why is it that no one seems to recognize this, or call it into question?

What's worse, we say we base our faith on the the Bible, the Word of God, and yet so little of what we have come to accept as Bible truth, actually comes from the pages of the Bible itself.

The choir at my church sang a song today which elicited a very emotional response from the congregation. It was beautiful, musically speaking, but left a lot to be desired in terms of sound doctrinal content. The chorus went something like this:

More than the crown, more than the throne,
More than the heavens, that He called home
Jesus left it all, because He loved us more.

The verses went on to proclaim, in wonderment, how Jesus left the safety of heaven to navigate the dangers of the earth; though He was already a king, He left it all behind to become a pauper, because he loved us more. A very moving premise, leaving one with a sense of "mystery" but not one shred of Scriptural evidence to back it up! The song merely borrows from the doctrine of "incarnation" and never once mentions resurrection. How sad. How misguided. How totally off the mark of the message of Easter.

But that isn't the end of it. I wish it were the only part of the service for which I was critical. Throughout the entire sermon the pastor made reference upon reference to Jesus being God, of God coming to die, of God not wanting us to fear Him so He sent Jesus who said "If you've seen me you've seen the Father." As if Jesus literally meant that they were physically looking upon the Father when they saw him.

When one becomes aware of error it stands out like a big red zit on the end of ones nose. You just can't miss it! I don't claim to know it all; I certainly have much to learn. But what I have come to realize, beyond a shadow of doubt, is this: The Scriptures nowhere speak of Jesus leaving heaven to come to earth, they do not refer to Jesus as God with a capital "G", Jesus nowhere calls himself God, and Jesus did not raise himself from the dead! Jesus affirmed that there is only One God (John 5:44; 17:3), and that He was his God (John 20:17), and the Scriptures clearly teach that God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 3:15; Romans 10:9).

The best part of the service was the reading of the Scriptures regarding resurrection. How disappointing that almost everything that followed seemed to disregard and/or contradict what the Scriptures said! It's time for the Church to wake up.

Three Undeniable Proofs

2010-03-18T00:58:00.003-04:00

The Scriptures are literally full of texts which declare God as the Father, and the Only God. Nothing changed in the New Testament regarding the revealed nature of God, as Father and as Almighty. Nevertheless, the centuries old doctrine of the Holy Trinity has turned plain language and simple, direct, concepts into an unintelligible mystery. I have a solution to that problem... ditch the unbiblical doctrine and replace it with the clear teaching of Scripture!

It's time for another reformation!

There are many undeniable proofs throughout the Bible, but in this article I want to highlight only three texts that reasonably prove Jesus is NOT God, sharing essence in a multiple Godhead, or equal with God in any way. They are John 17:3, Matt 16:16 , and Ephesians 1:17

Undeniable Proof #1

John 17:3

"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

Any person can read this text and clearly see that Jesus delineates Himself from "the One True God". In order to hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, one must explain away Jesus' own words. Remember, it is Jesus who said this; the same Jesus all Christians claim to be Lord and Master!

In order to attain eternal life, one must know the only true God, and the one that God sent (commissioned). The "True God" is obviously a reference to "the Father" to whom Jesus prayed. The Father is the only true God! All verses following must be interpreted within the context of Jesus declaration about the identity of the true God. For example, look at the continuation of Jesus prayer in verse five.

"And now, glorify Me together with Yourself, Father, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."

There are several ways to understand this verse. First, if we take it literally, Jesus pre-existed his earthly life and shared glory with God. He is now requesting to have that glory again and to return to his pre-existent state. This is apparently how trinitarians interpret what Jesus is saying here. But even if it is true, we must deal with his statement about the only true God. If the Father is the "true" God, then Jesus is not... there cannot be two "true" Gods! There is no co-equality here, as the doctrine of the trinity teaches.

In addition, it may be argued that if Jesus gave up glory in order to become a man, then he couldn't have been God during that time. This plays into the theory of "kenosis" from Phil 2:7 where it says he "emptied" himself. But the problem with kenotic theory is that Jesus was always conscious of His Godhood, according to the trinity doctrine. Giving up glory he had, would be tantamount to giving up divinity.

Another problem with this understanding is that asking God to restore glory which He previously had, makes him totally cognizant of His Deity at this time, when he doesn't seem to remember that he is fully God at other times. This "sporadic" awareness of Deity does not seem to be consistent with a divine being... and certainly not consistent with humanity. At least, I've never had the experience of realizing that I'm actually God! What about you?

There is, of course, another way to interpret this verse while adhering to Jesus statement about the One True God, and staying in agreement with his complete humanity, as well as other Biblical texts. First, look at 2Tim 1:9...

"who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began..."

Paul says that we received grace according to His purpose in Christ BEFORE time began. Notice the past tense of the verbs. How could we be called before we existed in time? And further, no one suggests that we were around before time to receive His grace! It's obvious, and everyone acknowledges, that Paul refers to God's plan from before time. Also, in Eph 1:4 Paul makes a similar reference. How is it possible for us to have been chosen before the foundation of the world? Only in God's mind, His eternal plan!

Given these comparisons, and removing any bias towards a trinitarian theology, can we really prove that Jesus was Deity from John 17:5? Jesus was also in God's mind, His plan, before time, and that is precisely how we should understand John 1:1. The word - the plan - was with God in the beginning, but it did not become Jesus until He was born in Mary.

What Jesus is asking here is for the Father to fulfill Scripture concerning the glory that was promised to the Messiah; Jesus' glory was in God's mind before time and He prays that it now be made manifest. I believe this to be an honest assessment of the text without twisting or stretching it in any way.

Finally, we should not miss the import of 1Pet 1:20-21.

"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God."

I really don't think I have to say anything more, but in case you missed it,

to be "foreknown" is not the same as pre-existing!
God "gave" him glory, He didn't return it.
God's purpose in Jesus is that our "faith and hope are in God"

Jesus himself is not the True God, but the one who was "sent" (commissioned) by the True God, to reveal the True God (17:3). Just read through the remainder of John 17 and see how Jesus spoke the words that God gave him (17:8,14); that God has given Jesus His Name (17:11,12); that we are not of the world just like Jesus is not of the world (17:14,16); that we are sent as he was sent (17:18); that we may be one even as Jesus and the Father are one, and that they (Jesus and the Father) may be in us even as Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Jesus (17:21-23).

Undeniable Proof #2

Matt 16:16

"Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

This confession is found also in Mark and Luke (Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20), but here, in Matthew,s account, Jesus responds with a telling statement. He says: "Blessed are you...for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father..." (Matt 16:17). It is amazing to me how often I've heard people use this verse to make their claim that Jesus admitted to being God; yet, he makes no such claim for himself here, or anywhere else for that matter! He claims only that Simon's assessment of his identity is "revealed" by the Father and that he (Simon) is "blessed" for his spiritually attuned judgment. This means only that Peter recognized Jesus as God's Messiah for which Israel had long been waiting. Luke's use of the term "Christ of God" (Luke 9:20) qualifies Matthew's "Son of the living God".

"Son of God" is a title of agency in the Bible, as well as the whole of the Greek-Roman world. Israel is called "the son of God", angels are called "sons of God", and even Christians are "sons". What we all have in common is that we "represent" God in some way. Angels were sent to relay God's messages and do His bidding, Israel is the nation God used to bring Messiah to the world, and Christians are the means by which the gospel is to be preached to the world. We are, in that sense, agents of God. Even the Roman Caesar's were called sons of God because they supposedly spoke on behalf of their gods. I don't mean to put Christ on the same level as angels, and certainly not equate him with a Roman emperor, but I'm simply making the point that the term "son of God" refers to agency.

Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is the True God's authorized Agent - His Vice Regent. He was given this title at birth, as announced by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:35), as a direct result of the miraculous begetting by the power of God. To be "Son of God" in the Bible means you are not God! In the same way, being my father's son means that I am not my father.

There are many other things we could discuss here. For example, in the trinity doctrine the Father, Son, and Spirit share "essence" which supposedly reconciles the validity of three person's yet only one God. However, the idea of "essence" uniting more than one person into one being breaks down upon further scrutiny. My father and I share the same essence, and so do my brothers ;ie. we are all human. But we are not one human, we are still three separate persons - three separate beings.

The bottom line is this: Jesus did not correct, adjust, or try to tweak Peter's answer in any way. If Jesus was "God the Son", as the trinitarian doctrine has it, this would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to make it clear. Wouldn't it have been more honest, more forthright, to say "well Peter, you're partly right, but you have much to learn yet." What nails this truth down for me is that Jesus commends Peter, calls him "blessed", and acknowledges that God the Father "revealed" this to him! What was revealed? Not that Jesus was the 2nd person in a triune God, but that Jesus is the Christ of God; ie. Son of God.

Jesus is the Messiah, and I can find no indication anywhere in the Bible denoting that Israel expected the Messiah to be a God-Man. The Son of God is not the same as God the Son, which is a term nowhere found in Scripture. This is undeniable proof for me.

Undeniable Proof #3

Ephesians 1:17

"that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him"

In trinitarian teaching, Jesus is called Lord because he is equated with the Lord God of the Old Testament. Since there is only one God who is called The LORD, and since there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, He must be God. But apparently Paul did not understand this reasoning because he calls the Father of glory, "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ". Notice that it is not just "Father" of our Lord Jesus, but THE GOD (ho theos in the Greek)! How is it that God can have a God? And this is not an isolated text. (Compare Eph 1:3). Even Jesus himself recognizes the Father as his God according to the following Scriptures:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46)

And after his resurrection, having been immortalized with a glorious new body.

"Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

And again, many years after having ascended into heaven, he still holds to the same understanding.

"Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God." (Rev 3:2)

'He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." (Rev 3:12)

Dear readers, I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, don't you? If it is, in fact, God's word, written by men who were moved by God to record His thoughts, then we must take it seriously - and I do. The plain, unavoidable, fact is that Jesus nowhere claims the designation "God" for himself, but everywhere - even after his resurrection and ascension into heaven - submits himself to, and acknowledges that he himself has a God. Certainly, if Paul believed, and taught his converts, that Jesus was the 2nd person of a trinity, he would have been more careful in how he worded his prayer.

These are, in my mind, undeniable proofs that the trinity is not a sound Biblical doctrine. Instead, it is inspired by man, handed down, and accepted virtually without question by the majority, even in the face of clear texts such as we have presented in this article.

I encourage you to research these facts for yourself. There is great freedom and joy in discovering truth!

One of Us

2010-03-12T02:04:00.003-05:00

"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." -- Heb 4:14-15 RSV

This verse has always been meaningful to me, but all the more powerful in the past couple of years since coming to the truth that Jesus is not God. As a "recovering" Trinitarian (lol), I always believed Jesus to be fully human and therefore capable of temptation, but I never thought too deeply about His Deity co-existing with His humanity because doing so inevitably led to questions I couldn't answer. Since I couldn't answer the questions without denying Christ (at least, that was my thinking at the time), I just accepted it without trying to explain it. But we have the God-given gift of thought, the ability to analyze and discern, which brings to light some serious weaknesses in the doctrine of Christ's "dual nature". How difficult could it have been for a "God-Man" to overcome temptation? Is it even possible for Jesus to have been tempted at all, let alone in the same sense that I experience temptation?

'Yes', people say, 'He was a man, but He was also God... no wonder He could be sinless... no wonder He could exercise such virtue and self control... how else could he have done all those miracles?' Without even realizing it, subscribing to a belief in the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ places a barrier between us. We take refuge in His humanity because we can relate to weakness and temptation, but we separate Him from ourselves via His Deity! It has been said that virtually all Trinitarians are practicing Monotheists, because it is impossible to hold a rational thought of three persons in One God without being guilty of worshiping three Gods. So, we can think of, and focus on, only one Divine Person at a time. And it is likewise impossible to hold a rational thought of a God who became fully man, yet is still no less God. That is mysticism.

It is Jesus' genuine humanity that the Bible writers want us to see! (Acts 2:22; Rom 5:14-15 RSV; 1Tim 2:5) It is that very humanity that allows Him to be a high priest who can really "sympathize with our weaknesses," because He truly is one of us! The orthodox Jesus, although claiming to be fully human, cannot possibly sympathize with my weaknesses, if he is at the same time conscious of being God.

Let's be real. We haven't a clue what it is like to be God. If Jesus was both God and man, how is it possible for him share in our "'weaknesses"? And yet, if the Scriptures plainly stated His dual nature, if they unequivocally declared the Trinity of orthodoxy, then I would believe it. But the truth is there are no such Scriptures, and they make no such unequivocal declarations! What the Bible does say clearly, however, is that He was "born" of a virgin - He had a beginning (Luke 1:35; 2:7 RSV); He grew in every way like any normal human being, developing and cultivating His relationships (Luke 2:52); and He related to Jehovah not only as His Father, but as His God (Mat 27:46; John 20:17; Rev 3:12; Eph 1:3; 1Pet 1:3).

Jesus prayed to His God and Father constantly, sometimes rising early and at times all night. I imagine His prayers were for, among other things, strength and guidance and wisdom. I suggest that it was this intimate relationship He held with His Father, along with a revelation and understanding of His life's mission and purpose, that strengthened Him to always make the right decisions and to keep from sinning (Heb 2:10; 12:2). The impressive truth is that we are likewise expected to pray and keep ourselves from sinning! Most Church goers, I think, are keenly aware of the high moral standard to which we are called. But is it in vain that these demands are placed upon us? Should we just "'give up" and forget about ever living without sinning?

I don't want to suggest that it is possible for us to be sinless in the same way that Jesus was, it's too late for that even if we never sinned again! But the fact is, we must keep on striving to make the right choices and keep ourselves from falling into willful sin. However, this is only possible so long as we believe it is possible; and it is much easier to believe it possible when we see that Jesus is authentically human, and not also God.

Let's read the Bible for what it actually says instead of reading through the lens of tradition. And let's give the highest praise to God, the Father, for His "unspeakable gift" through Jesus Christ, His highly exalted Son (2Cor 9:15).

Christology of Hebrews

2010-02-07T23:00:00.002-05:00

It is so important to analyze – even be critical – of what we hear and read, especially when it comes to matters of faith and bible interpretation. I don’t mean we should be critical to such a degree that it fosters unbelief; but critical thinking can be healthy in so far as it encourages deeper thought and further study. In fact, I believe it is essential in coming to a knowledge of the truth! (1 Tim 2:3-5) In other words, don’t just accept everything written or spoken by well-meaning scholars and/or teachers as gospel truth. (2 Tim 2:15)
Since discovering the reality that the trinity doctrine is a contrivance of man, rather than a revelation of God, I have come to appreciate the necessity of critical thinking when using reference tools in my personal Bible study! All the books and reference tools in my Bible study library are fundamentally orthodox and traditional in their content. The fact is, a significant majority of the Bible reference works written, both past and present, were authored by Trinitarian scholars.
Our traditions have taught us that the orthodox view is THE correct view of the nature of God and Christ and therefore the ONLY acceptable view. All other views must therefore be false, even demonic. This tends to keep people from taking any other view seriously, much less actually reading literature which introduces an opposing view to their own. Yet, I know of no orthodox Christian who can satisfactorily answer for themselves, let alone those outside the household of faith, basic and reasonable questions regarding the conflict of the supposed “dual nature” of Christ. The patent answer to this obvious disparity is simply that “it’s a mystery”.
But the Bible makes no such conflicting statements. And if we allow ourselves to read with “new eyes” (that is, read without the filter of centuries of traditional teaching – as difficult as it may be) and do proper exegesis of the texts of Scripture, the Bible becomes a much more understandable, even believable book.
One of the Bible reference tools I use is the Nelson Study Bible. I haven’t thrown it away, nor will I. In fact, I still use all my reference works. But instead of taking their conclusions as the final authority, I’ve learned to be critical, and think for myself. Below is a reproduction of a table found in the Nelson Study Bible (NKJV) which I came across recently while reading in the book of Hebrews. The first column of the table gives the Scripture reference to Christ in Hebrews and the second column conveys the authors’ interpretation of it’s meaning. I have added a third column for my own commentary on each point.
//////////////////////////
The Majesty of Christ
Hebrews is perhaps the greatest
Christological book in the Bible, giving
us a detailed description of the at-
tributes and accomplishments of
Jesus Christ. The following chart is a
summary.

Christ is…	This means…	My commentary…
heir of all things (Heb 1:2)	As God’s “firstborn” Son, Christ will inherit infinite glory and honor.	Amen! In fact, he has already been “highly exalted” and given a “name above every name” (Phil 2:9-11)
the One through whom God made the worlds (Heb 1:2)	Christ was the Agent who created the universe.	Not so! The idea that Christ created the world comes from two false assumptions. The First false assumption is, that Christ is part of a triune God. If this is so, then the Father God was apparently not capable of creating the world on His own. The fact is, God alone created the world (Isa 44:24, ) and even Jesus agrees (Mat 19:4; Mk 10:6; Luke 11:40). The Second false assumption is, that the correct translation of the Greek word aion is world, or universe! Actually, an aion is an age. It was “through” Christ that God made the ages. He is the focal point of every age, past, present, and future. It makes no sense, within the following context of chapter one (esp. v9), to speak of Jesus as being the creator of the physical world.
the brightness of God’s glory (Heb 1:3)	Christ reflects the majesty of God.	Amen to that!
the express image of His person (Heb 1:3)	Christ is God made visible, in the flesh.	Now that is quite a leap from what the text says! Although Christ is the “exact” representation of God, he is still a “representation”! He IS the image of God we were meant to be had it not been for the fall of Adam. Jesus was the perfect man because he represented/reflected God’s glory, perfectly!
upholding all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3)	Christ holds the universe together (Col 1:17)	Most Bible versions say “all things” rather than universe in both Hebrews and Colossians. The “all things” being held together is a reference to the new creation, not the physical universe.
seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3)	Christ is reigning and ruling with God the Father as Lord over all.	According to Acts 2:36, Jesus Christ has been “made” lord and Christ by God the Father. His lordship is now over the church – his body (Eph 1:22) – but will one day be over all the earth! (Rev 19:15) Then, when all his enemies are subdued, he will hand over the kingdom to God, that “God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:25-28)
better than the angels (Heb 1:4)	Christ is to be exalted more than the angels, no matter how glorious and awe-inspiring they are.	Duh! The Jews were not angel worshippers and didn’t need an exhortation to worship Christ above angels. The whole point of Hebrews is to show that God did a better thing in speaking through a son! Christ, although man, re-presented God better than any angel.
Captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10)	Christ is the founder of the effort to “bring many sons to glory” (Heb 5:9)	*The word “founder” is translated from archegos, and is rendered in various versions as prince, leader, author, pioneer, and captain.* The “founder” of our salvation is God the Father. God alone is the designer, the originator, of the plan of salvation. Jesus fulfilled God’s will in making His plan of salvation a reality. In bringing “many sons to glory”, it must be understood that Jesus is the “firstfruits” of those that sleep. (1 Cor 15:20) As archegos of salvation, he is the first to fully experience that salvation because God raised him from the dead. He is now leader of all who follow after him by faith. When he appears again (his second coming), “we will be like him” for we will “see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2). This phrase “see him as he is” must be a reference to the fact that he is a glorified human being, otherwise John would be saying that we will become God when we see him. Even Trinitarians do not believe that!
the destroyer … of … the devil (Heb 2:14)	In dying for our sins, Christ overcame our greatest enemies – death and the devil.	How true! He is victor over sin and death, and in him, we are also overcomers in every way. (1 Jn 5:4, Rom 8:37)
a merciful and faithful high priest (Heb 2:17)	Christ brought the ultimate sacrifice before God – his own blood – so that we might have fellowship with God.	Praise God, the sacrifice of his life’s blood did indeed make it possible for us to have fellowship with God! However, it should be noted that the bible doesn’t really say that Jesus presented his blood before the Father. This is conjecture based on the pre-sumption that he is the God-Man of the trinity. It is true that the role of high priest was to take the blood into the holy of holies once a year, on the day of atonement, and this is where the symbolism comes from; however, the point the writer wants to make here is that as high priest, Jesus had to be human in order to atone for humanity.(Heb 10:4-5)
worthy of more glory than Moses (Heb 3:3)	Unlike Moses, who was merely a servant in the house of God, Christ is the “Son over His own house” (Heb 3:6).	That’s right, Jesus is worthy of more honor than Moses, and that is because he is more than a servant or great prophet, but a unique son! The better translation of v6 is “faithful over God’s house as a son” This is in line with v4 which reads “the builder of all things is God.” Otherwise, it sounds as if the house is the son’s, when in fact, it is God’s! Notice also that in v2, Jesus was “faithful to him who appointed him” just as Moses was also appointed and faithful. And who appointed Moses? The same God, the only true God (Jn 17:3), that appointed Jesus. (Acts 10:42, 17:31; Heb 1:2)
a high priest who can sympathize with our weak-nesses (Heb 4:15)	While on this earth, Jesus experienced the temptations and trials of living in a fallen world. He understands the struggles we face and has com-passion for us.	He understands us perfectly because he is one of us! (Heb 2:17) Yes… Jesus is no longer on the earth, he is in heaven. But prefacing the statement with “While on this earth”, and the use of the word “experienced” leads one to think that Jesus pre-existed his life on earth and merely experienced humanity. This kind of manipulation robs this text, and others, of it’s full impact
always alive to make intercession (Heb 7:25)	Christ’s priesthood is eternal. We will always have a perfect represent-ative for us before the throne of God.	He’s always alive now, but he is not eternal in the sense that he always lived before! The first part of this verse says he is able to fully save those who come to God “through” him.
Mediator of a better covenant (Heb 8:6)	The old covenant with its earthly tabernacle and imperfect priests has been super-seded by the sinless Christ. He is our high priest who is interceding for us before God in heaven.	It is true! But Christ mediates a better covenant because it is founded upon better promises, not because he is sinless and the priests of the old covenant were not. Notice also that the verse declares that Christ’s ministry as high priest has been "given” him, or “obtained” by him. How did he obtain it unless it was given to him? And who gave it? It was God who gave him the better ministry! (1 Tim 2:5)
our model for enduring hostility from sinners (Heb 12:2-3)	When we are discouraged, we can find strength and inspiration in Christ’s willingness to persevere.	Amen to that! But as soon as we consider Christ to be more than a man – to be God as well as man – the inspiration is lost! We cannot fully relate to a person who, although touted to be human like us, is at the same time, God! It is here that the similarity ends and the analogy breaks down. Notice that in the referenced Scripture, it was because of the “joy that was set before him” that he endured the cross and the hostility of sinners. What was that joy? Was it not the in-heritance of God’s kingdom on earth, where it was promised that he would reign supreme? Was it not the promise of the highest exaltation, that he should sit at the right hand of God? Similarly, our motivation, our inspiration, to endure hostility is that, we also will be exalted (James 4:6,10) and will reign with him, (Rev 5:10, 20:5)
that great shepherd of the sheep (Heb 13:20)	Christ will care for us and lead us to our eternal home.	Amen! He is indeed the great shepherd of the sheep. It seems, however, to be far too easy to overlook the part of this Scripture that says of God that He “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” As shepherd, he knows the way, because he has been there; and he has both the power and authority to lead us, because it has been given to him!

Virtually every verse in this table which shows the majesty of Christ, also demonstrates the fact that Christ is not equal to God. Rather, Jesus is portrayed as a chosen vessel, exalted servant, and unique son. He is worthy of our praise, absolutely, but certainly not God himself!

The Kingdom of God: Is it "within" you?

2010-01-16T01:05:00.002-05:00

Many Bible versions, most notably the KJV, translate Luke 17:21 with Jesus telling the Pharisees that the kingdom of God is "within" them [you]. There seems to be no shortage of books and other media regarding the Kingdom of God "in you" but is that good Bible exegesis? I have heard this teaching all my adult life, and still hear it quite often. Failure to properly understand Jesus words in Luke 17:21 has led to an abundance of erroneous teaching on the subject. Unfortunately, it is even used by new age groups whose false teaching says you can prosper and have everything you want, now, because "the Kingdom of God is within you."

Is it any wonder that modern Christianity perceives the Kingdom of God as something primarily spiritual? The reign of God in ones heart? Certainly God wants to rule our lives and that is characteristic of what the Kingdom of God is to be like... the will of God being done in earth as it is in heaven. But newer scholarship seems to recognize that Jesus was not teaching a purely spiritual concept here. Many modern translations such as NASB, RSV, NET, NIV, and others, render the verse in question as "among you", "in your midst" or something similar. This makes a huge difference in understanding, and makes much more sense of Jesus response in context.

The “Dictionary of Biblical Imagery” gives a fair treatment of the subject as indicated by the following:

“Although the kingdom of God is not a political term in the usual sense, from the Jewish perspective—where religion and politics are not neatly divided—it bears political implications. If God is king, then Caesar is not (cf. Acts 17:7), nor is his client—king Herod. Jesus points out that the kingdom “is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ ” (Lk 17:20 NRSV). Instead, he says, “the kingdom of God is entos hymin” (Lk 17:21), that is “in your midst” or “within your grasp” (not “within you,” as if to say “in your heart”).” -- Ryken, L., Wilhoit, J., Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D., & Reid, D. G. (2000, c1998). Dictionary of biblical imagery (electronic ed.) (479). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Also, the NET Bible renders the phrase "in your midst" and explains the choice of translation in the footnote as follows:

"This is a far better translation than "in you." Jesus would never tell the hostile Pharisees that the kingdom was inside them. The reference is to Jesus present in their midst. He brings the kingdom. Another possible translation would be "in your grasp." For further discussion and options, see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1414-19." The NET Bible: Compact Edition - Premium Bonded Leather, Amazona Black

How true! How easy it is to neglect the most basic rules of Bible interpretation - context - especially when we want to preserve a tradition.

For a Biblically sound treatment on the subject of the Kingdom of God, I suggest you read Anthony Buzzards book, The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah: A Solution to the Riddle of the New Testament. In fact, I would not hesitate to recommend any of Mr Buzzard's books.

It was not Jesus intention to teach a spiritual Kingdom within. The Jews of Jesus day were expecting a Messiah to establish God's reign on the earth and Jesus never taught otherwise (See Matthew 5:5). However, Jesus did say that the Messiah must first suffer, die, and be raised from the dead, before the Kingdom would come. (Mark 8:31)

In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked Jesus, just prior to his ascension into heaven, if this was the time he would restore the Kingdom to Israel. Many commentators have assumed that the apostles were still spiritually inept and just didn't get it. They were still looking for an earthly, political, kingdom, when Jesus had spent the previous three years teaching them that His kingdom was a spiritual one. I don't think it is fair to assume that Jesus' "hand-picked" men just didn't get it. And, after all, Jesus did not correct or rebuke them for their ignorance here, he simply said "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority." --Acts 1:7 (ESV)

Some have thought that the disciples couldn't clearly understand Jesus teaching until they were baptized with the Holy Spirit, but that baptism was for "power" to be witnesses, not sudden enlightenment from spiritual ignorance (Acts 1:8)

Bottom line... the Kingdom of God is not "in" you, but it is coming and it is within your grasp. Further, we should not confuse the Kingdom of God and the Church, they are not the same thing. The Church, as the "body of Christ" is to complete Jesus' mission, which was to preach the gospel of the kingdom (Luke 4:43; John 17:18). Where the word is being preached and the people respond in faith, we should expect "signs" to follow as confirmation that the Kingdom of God has come near! (Mark 16:20; Luke 10:8-9)

As the redeemed ones, the Church, we now have citizenship in that heavenly Kingdom, but it isn't here yet. We are however, representatives of that Kingdom! (Eph 2:19; Philippians 3:20; 2Cor 5:20)

Some Thoughts About Incarnation and Resurrection

2009-12-09T22:27:00.002-05:00

Christmas is the time of year when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. Never mind all the tradition and commercial baggage that the holiday has acquired over the years, or the fact that Jesus was probably not even born in December; it is still recognized as one of the holiest days on the Christian calendar. We talk about the Christmas “spirit” which is a spirit of peace and love, and we give gifts to one another in remembrance of the greatest gift ever given, the gift that God gave to the world – His Son. Now I’m all for peace and love and the giving of gifts… that’s a good thing; but at the same time, I’m concerned that the real meaning and impact of the Christmas story is lost in all the hype of the Christmas holiday.

It seems to me that religious tradition and retail business have joined forces to mask the real story of Christmas – the one the Bible actually teaches. When one carefully reads the accounts of Jesus birth in the Scripture it becomes obvious that many liberties have been taken to embellish the story. Commercialism hasn’t embellished it, but religious tradition has certainly done so.
It is an interesting fact that, aside from Matthew and Luke and a few Old Testament prophecies, neither the birth of Christ nor any details of his birth are mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. The birth event is a given. In fact, there is no clear record of any Christian group celebrating the birth of Christ before around the 4th century CE. Interesting, to say the least. Of course his birth is an important fact of history, but the central tenet of the Christian faith is that God raised Jesus from the dead! The resurrection of Christ is the foundation of Christianity. Paul said,

“For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received — that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures ..." -- 1 Cor 15:3 (NET)

The 4th – 5th centuries were a turning point for Christianity. At that time the creeds were formulated, demanding belief in the deity of Christ as a requirement for salvation. Today, the Christian Church celebrates the Christmas story, telling about how Christ was born, but beneath the plain words of Scripture lies the teaching that his birth was not really a birth at all, but an “incarnation”. I question whether most ordinary Christians even understand what “incarnation” means! Literally, it is “enfleshment” – the taking on of human flesh. The whole idea of pre-existence comes into play here. Now, rather than a savior being “born” we have a being who always existed as God, entered the womb of a young girl and became a human, literally wrapping himself in human flesh. It's interesting that Paul did not include this in his list of things of "first importance." Certainly, if the incarnation were a true Biblical fact, it would be of great importance!

I don’t mean to be crude in the use of this artwork, but when I finally got my head out of the sand I didn’t like what I saw! I realize that I had been misled. How foolish I felt, not to have discovered the simple truth before! I pray that somehow, God will use me, use this blog, to help others get their heads out of the sand as well. I like what the the authors of “One God and One Lord” write in a footnote on page 369 of their book.

"The reader can decide for himself which of the following sounds more logical and scriptural:
a) God Himself became a man, coming down to earth from heaven to do a job. He is treated poorly while trying to do the job, and is killed. He then raises Himself from the dead and goes back to where He came from, declaring Himself victorious.
b) God created a human being, whom God prepared and commissioned to do a job. The man comes from a humble, earthly origin, is treated poorly and killed. Because he did such a good job, however, God raised him from the dead and promoted him to an exalted position in heaven."

The incarnation has led us away from the resurrection, in so far as vital Christian doctrine is concerned. Even John Knox, one of the reformers, warned:

“the more fully the logic of pre-existence is allowed to work itself out in the story [of Jesus], the less important the [his] resurrection is bound to become.”

There is no better, no more beautiful, way to tell the story of Jesus’ birth than is given in the pages of holy Scripture. There is no need to embellish the truth as God gave it. I don't wish to stop celebrating Christmas, I simply think it should be understood accurately! And when I hear from Christian leaders that the incarnation is of primary importance to the Christian faith, I cringe.

The central point of the Christian faith is NOT that God became a man! But God commissioned a man who died and was buried for the remission of sins; whom also God raised from the dead as the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep", by whom we might obtain immortality through faith in him. (1 Cor 15:20-21)

This is the Christian hope! Jesus lived a sinless life remaining obedient to death, and God raised him from the dead and exalted him to the highest place of honor, making him both Lord and Christ. (Phil 2:8-11; Acts 2:36) Through his death, atonement for our sin has been made, and by faith, we will also live as he now lives. He truly is, as James Moffatt puts it, our “divine hero”!

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title that he bears – A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince!” – Isaiah 9:6 (Moffatt)

How Good Is He?

2009-11-15T23:12:00.000-05:00

"And Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good?
No one is good except God alone.'” --Mark 10:18 (ESV)

This account of the Rich Young Ruler is also recorded in Matthew and Luke, but with some variations which we will discuss further on. The full context goes from verse 13 through 31 and is all about eternal life and the coming Kingdom of God. Although the main point of the passage has to do with obtaining eternal life, many have stumbled over Jesus' response to being called "good teacher", which has led to serious questions.

I recently listened to a debate on the doctrine of the Trinity between a unitarian christian and a trinitarian christian. During their discourse, the unitarian debater cited Mark 10:18 and pointed out that Jesus clearly distinguished himself from God by not accepting the man's well-meaning address to him as “good”. In other words, the fact that Jesus refused the title "good" for himself demonstrates that he did not perceive himself as being God nor make himself equal with God in any way. Now, that makes perfectly good sense to me! However, the trinitarian debater responded (in what I thought was a rather condescending tone) by asking “well then, how good is Jesus? Was he good enough to go to the cross as the perfect lamb of God? Was he good enough to be the only human never to have sinned? Just how good is He?” This response was apparently meant to downplay the argument that Jesus denied any goodness of his own, and attempted to suggest that the unitarian position made Jesus “not good”. Of course, this was not the intent of the unitarian debater at all.

Unfortunately, many have misunderstood this verse. Some commentaries suggest that Jesus was using the moment to severely reprove the young man for a foolish habit of compliment and flattery. But certainly Jesus response carried much weightier intent than a simple rebuff. Most commentaries I've read, however, suggest that Jesus response meant to persuade the young man to recognize that He was God. In essence, Jesus was saying 'You call me good, are you willing to go all the way and recognize that I am, in fact, God?' It seems to me that this is a weak attempt to support the position that Jesus is God.

So, how good is Jesus? And what was the true intent of his response to being called “good”? I humbly suggest the following:

First of all, the rich man was not attributing divinity to Jesus by calling him good. As I mentioned earlier, most traditional commentaries say that Jesus response was an invitation for the rich young man to acknowledge that he (Jesus) was God. This idea projects modern Christology into an ancient Monotheistic setting and is not at all realistic, in my view. My opinion is that the young man was merely using a common address of respect towards a teacher of the law of Moses. Jesus' response was not a disclaimer to divinity since he did not have to disclaim something that was not being attributed to him in the first place. In Hebrew thought, God alone is worthy of the title good because only He is good in the absolute sense; ie., He is not dependent on any outside force or influence. Rather, His goodness is intrinsic! Certainly men are capable of doing good things and may have good character, but only in a 'derived'sense. Whatever goodness may be demonstrated in our lives comes only from the image of God in which we were created. By calling Jesus “good master” the man recognized that Jesus was a man of exceptional character, and that if anyone would have the answer to his question about eternal life, it would be Jesus.

Second, the account in Matthew's gospel sheds additional light on the subject. The accounts in Mark 10 and Luke 18:18 are essentially the same, but in Matthew 19:16-17 the man does not address Jesus as good, but asks “what good thing” can be done to inherit eternal life. To this, Jesus responds, “Why do you ask me about what is good?” and then follows up with "no one is good but God." In all three accounts, the emphasis is on what the man can do to get what he wants, and the fact that God alone is good. With this understanding, Jesus most certainly distinguished himself from God by not accepting the title “good”! The impact of Jesus response "why do you call me good" or "why do you ask me about what is good" was meant to correct the man's false assumption that one could either be or do something good enough to warrant favor from God. Although Jesus points the man to the commandments (the Good God's Good Word), Jesus had just finished teaching that the kingdom of God could not be earned, but must be received as a little child! Even Jesus recognized that his goodness was not innate or absolute, but derived from his relationship of complete trust and obedience with his heavenly father!

Third, to further understand this passage, we must recognize that our 20th century American view of eternal life does not really line up with that of Jesus and first century Judaism. I cannot treat the subject fully here, but in short, we should understand the concept of eternal life in terms of life in the age to come. The phrase in Greek is aionios zoe, but the translation of aionios as 'eternal' is not quite right. Rather than no beginning or ending, aionios has more to do with a period of time. Our word eon is a transliteration of the Greek aion which is the root of ainios. Since we cannot know when this present age will come to an end and the new age begin, and because each successive age (eon) is likewise beyond our ability to know, we call it eternity. But in reality, only God is immortal and therefore, eternal; time does not come to an end... we only enter a new age of time! In the Hebrew mindset, God would send a messiah - a king - an anointed leader - who would inaugurate the new age by establishing God's righteous kingdom on earth! Jews expected God to resurrect the righteous dead at that time, and this is what was meant by 'eternal life'. The young man was asking Jesus what he should do in order to insure that he would be resurrected to life in the age to come - the coming Kingdom of God.

Jesus response highlighted the futility of looking to good works for eternal life by pointing out that he lacked something even though (in his own estimation) he kept all the commandments. By telling him to "sell his stuff”, Jesus forced the man to hold himself up to the light of God's commandments. Could he really say he loved "his neighbor as himself" if he was unwilling to give what he had to to poor? And by inviting the man to 'follow' him, Jesus made available an opportunity to enter into a personal relationship wherein he could come to truly know God. This is in agreement with what Jesus said in John 17:3... "And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only True God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

If one would have life in the age to come, it cannot be purchased or earned in any way; rather, it will be the outcome of knowing God through Jesus Christ whom God sent! Certainly Jesus was good, no man was ever as good as him. But God alone is good in the absolute sense. And because of God's goodness we are assured of everlasting life in His coming kingdom by placing our faith in, and following the example of, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ, the Fulcrum of History

2009-11-05T21:50:00.000-05:00

I've been reading/studying the book "One God & One Lord; Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith" in which the authors make the case for the Biblical teaching that God the Father alone is God and Jesus is His fully human son, our Savior and Lord. In closing out Chapter 14, they write a section entitled "Jesus Christ, the Fulcrum of History" which I thoroughly enjoyed and have reproduced below. A fulcrum is "the point or support on which a lever pivots", but can also mean "an agent through which vital powers are exercised." The latter is, I believe, what the authors mean when they refer to Jesus as the fulcrum of history. Enjoy!

We have now come to the end of our Genesis to Revelation survey of the biblical evidence that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the man Jesus Christ, His Son. We have repeatedly made the point that the vivid and compelling view of Jesus thus portrayed greatly facilitates our ability to identify with him and to appreciate the majestic plan of God who sent him. Our minds reel at the immense love of both God and Christ to bring to pass our redemtpion. Our words fail, but the following passage says it best:

Romans 11:33-36
(33) Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and His paths beyond tracing out! (34) Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor? (35) Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him? (36) For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.

In concluding this section of this book, we ask you to consider, from the perspective of Jesus, what his life must have been like, and how that life brought such glory to his Father.

Born in a manger in Bethlehem, he grew up in Nazareth much like thousands of other Jewish boys. In the synagogue, the Temple and at home, Jesus heard the Old Testament Scriptures. What must it have been like for him in the moment that he first understood that he was the "promised seed" of genesis 3:15, the Messiah to Israel and the Redeemer of mankind? Apparently, this realization dawned on him before he was twelve years old, because, in answer to his parents' urgent questioning when they realized they had left him behind at the Temple in Jerusalem, he stated, "Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?" Jesus understanding of his identity led to a corresponding understanding of his purpose in the fulfillment of God's original dream. Jesus came to realize that he, and he alone, could do what was necessary to bring to pass an everlasting family of God in Paradise.

Think of the focus he must have had in his heart through his teenage years when, no doubt, many of his peers were frittering away their time with trivial teenage pursuits. Think of how goal-oriented he must have been throughout his twenties, when many other Jewish young men were consumed in establishing their secular careers. Think of how he steeled his heart throughout his earthly ministry, beginning with the time when he was face to face with the Devil in the wilderness.

Think of his agony in the garden of Gethsemane when he was tempted to the limits of his endurance and asked his heavenly Father if there were any other way than the Cross to redeem mankind. Unlike the first man tempted in a garden (the first Adam), Jesus chose to obey his God. Think of his resolve when, after hearing from his Father that there was no other way than the Cross, he arose and walked forth to meet his executioners.

Think how God must have felt as he watched his only-begotten Son suffer at the hands of evil men. Think about God's fathomless love in sacrificing His Son for you. If you are a parent you know how you hurt when your child hurts. If it were possible, most parents would gladly take upon themselves the suffering of their children. It took far more love for God, whose love for His Son is beyond our comprehension, to watch Jesus suffer and die than it ever would have taken for God to somehow become a man, if that were even possible, and go through the suffering Himself.

Think of the pressure on Jesus as he was beaten and tortured beyond description and then nailed to the tree, realizing that the destiny of all maknkind was riding on his "going the distance" for his Father. Throughout his life, Jesus had built an unwavering trust in the Word of his heavenly Father. In entrusting the mission of the ages to His Son, God had "put all of His eggs in one basket." In essence, all the Old Testament prophecies of Christ's life, death, resurrection and exaltation comprised the "good reputation" God gave His Son to live up to. Because Jesus had genuine freedom of will, he could have made one big lie out of all the prophecies about him from Genesis 3:15 through Malachi. In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus could have turned his back on his Father, just like the first Adam did when he was tempted.

No doubt the angels watched in horror and with bated breath as Jesus hung on the tree. Surely God was doing all He could to help His Son, yet at that point it was up to Jesus alone to be faithful unto death. The entire destiny of mankind was riding on the flesh-and-blood shoulders of the Man from Galilee. At exactly the right moment, when he had fulfilled all of the Word of God that he had hidden in his heart, Jesus breathed his last breath with the words, "It is finished," and gave up his most precious possession - his life, entrusting himself to God's promise of resurrection.

What a bittersweet moment that must have been for God and the heavenly host. How horrifying to see the Son of God die, and yet how scintillating to realize that the destiny of mankind was now in the hands of the Creator. There was no question that God Almigty would keep His Word and raise His Son from the dead. There was no question that God would then highly exalt him as Lord, upon whom those who so chose could believe and receive everlasting life. Because, by his free-will obedience, he died and was "planted" in the ground, the Promised Seed would one day bear much fruit after his kind.

The Church Epistles are the apex of God's revelation to mankind, setting forth the "all truth" of God's curriculum for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Each and every epistle begins with a greeting from "God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ," and they illustrate the oneness of God and His Son. As with the gift of holy spirit, which Jesus Christ received from his Father and first poured out to mankind on the Day of Pentecost, so Jesus received the revelatoin of the Church Epistles and gave it to the Apostle Paul (Gal 1:11 and 12). The Church Epistles are "the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17), as he received it from his heavenly Father.

In the Church Epistles, God describes Himself as "the Father of Jesus Christ." What an incredible illustration of God's humility, and also of how highly He reveres His Son and what he acomplished. How God beams with pride as He says, in essence, "I'm Jesus dad." How touched the Lord's heart must have been when he received from his Father this revelation now recorded in the Epistles. This must be the epitome of recognition for the Lord Jesus.

By making Jesus the genetic equal to the first Adam, God equipped His Son to be the Redeemer of mankind. It was Jesus, however, who had to choose to obey the written revelation of his Father, and he did. God then kept His Word and raised His Son from the grave. How can we ever adequately thank God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ for what they have done for us? Certainly, one way we can thank them is to pour out our lives in service to them day by day.

If you are a Christian, God and His Son have equipped you to walk the path of righeousness that Jesus Christ blazed. Via the gift of holy spirit, you have the divine nature of God. You can do the works that Jesus did, and greater works. As you do, know that you will be richly rewarded for these works at his appearing, after which you will live forever with him and all God's people in Paradise. All of this, and its unfathomable yet-to-be-made-known blessings, was made possible by one man, The Man who "became obedient to death, even death on a cross."

Philippians 2:9-11
(9) Therefore God highly exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

When the testimony of Scripture is so profoundly clear about the identity of Jesus Christ, we must now examine how it became so radically altered in the historical development of orthodox Christian doctrine. How is it that the vast majority of Christians have believed something fundamentally unbiblical and unintelligible, and which effectively diminishes the accomplishments of the one they sincerely meant to exalt?

-- Excerpt from "One God & One Lord;
Reconsidering the Cornerstone
of the Christian Faith", pp 312-314

submitted by
Keith Dyer

How God Relates to Humanity

2009-10-05T21:58:00.000-04:00

Can A Holy God Relate to Sinful Man? It's a valid question. It has been asked for centuries and has been explained in various ways. The most popular answer however, seems to be the traditional orthodox view of the Incarnation - God became a man - the Word became flesh!

Many years ago I came across a reprint of a story told by the great Paul Harvey. You've heard of him, right? "And now... the rest of the story!" What a great line! He had a wonderful way of telling the simplest thing. This particular story was called "The man and the birds" which he told at Christmas time. It's been many years since I first read it and I no longer have the paper copy. Since I must rely strictly on memory, I'm certain I won't get all the details right, but It went something like this...

"A man was at home on Christmas Eve with his wife and children. The Church was having a special service that evening so the wife was busy getting herself and the children ready to go. The man was not a Christian, but she hoped he would go with them, just this once. After all, it was Christmas Eve! But as always, he said, 'no, I don't believe in that stuff... you go ahead.'

He watched from the window as they drove down the long drive from their house to the highway. It was just beginning to snow, and much more was expected before the night was over. When the car disappeared from view he sat down in his favorite chair by the big picture window, intending to settle into a good book. After a short while he heard a noise like something had hit the window, but he just shrugged it off. Then he heard it again... thud. This time he got up and looked outside. To his amazement, he saw a flock of birds in the snow. By now it was snowing much harder, in fact it appeared to be a blizzard, and the birds had apparently been caught in the storm and grounded. They must have seen the light from the window and attempted to fly to safety.

He thought to himself, I must do something to help. So, he bundled up and went outside to the barn. Once there, he flung the doors open wide and turned on the lights. 'There, he thought, that should do it, they will see the light from the barn and make their way into safety!' But alas, they just kept flopping around in the snow. He approached them now from the other side and tried to shoo them towards the barn, but this just seemed to scare them all the more!

At the end of his wits, he thought to himself... if only I could become a bird, if I were one of them I could show them the way to the barn, the way to safety! If only... and just then the Church bells began to ring. Ding! Dong! Ding! Dong! At that moment, the man understood - it all became clear - and as he sunk to his knees in the snow, he said to himself, 'that is exactly what God did - God became a man!"

After reading that story for the first time I remember being extremely impressed with it's simplicity and thinking that nobody would have trouble getting the concept of the Incarnation after hearing it. And this is what has always been taught, right? God became a man in order to communicate His love for His creation. He became a man to show us the way to safety; the way to heaven. This is how a holy God could relate to sinful humanity; by becoming one of us!

However, as good as it may sound, there is one big problem with this story! The idea of God becoming a man is nowhere taught in the Bible. The doctrine of the incarnation is as fanciful as the story of "The Man and the Birds" told by Mr. Harvey! Although entertaining and emotionally charged (at least when Mr. Harvey told it) it's only a story. Likewise the doctrine of the incarnation is little more than a religious fairy tale conceived by men who were driven by Greek philosophy more than Hebrew Scripture!

I lost my faith! Not in God, just in the idea that God became a man! But, if God did not become a man as tradition demands, "how does a holy God relate to sinful humanity?" After all, what better way to communicate to us than to become one of us, right?

Actually, I think there is a very simple answer to this question without resorting to the mysticism of an incarnation. The concept of Jesus literally existing prior to His human birth, leaving the glory of his heavenly home to enter the womb of a young virgin girl and "take on" human flesh, is really more of a Gnostic idea than a Biblical one. And the argument that God had to become one of us in order to relate to us, is entirely without Scriptural evidence.

Consider this scenario. Anyone who has ever created or invented anything went through a certain process in order to bring it into being. Lets take something simple like a desk, for instance. Without belaboring the point, the one who conceived of, and made the desk, made it according to the image he saw in his mind. Once the image was fixed there had to be a plan, a blueprint, to bring it into being. When the desk finally took physical shape, there would be nothing about it that the creator/inventor did not fully know and understand! After all, he made it!! If anyone could relate to the desk, if anyone could completely understand the desk - what it was made of, what it was designed for, it's purpose, how it could best be utilized, how long it was meant to last, etc. - it would be the one who invented it; the creator. I think you see my point. And in this example we're talking merely of an inanimate object. How much more a human being made in the very image of his Creator?

Now consider the other side of it as well. Man was made in God's own image and likeness (Gen 1:26-27). Not only can God totally relate to His creation without becoming one of them, but His creation can also relate to Him! How? Because He put something of Himself in each and every one of us! His image! Men have long debated what, exactly, the image and likeness of God is, but whatever it is, we are like Him in some way so that we can know and understand Him. Until he sinned, Adam, the first man, walked with God in the garden without fear, and in perfect relationship. And even though the "image of God" in us has been tarnished by sin, yet in every man is something of the image of God that draws us toward Him! Abraham was the 'friend' of God, and Moses talked to God! The very fact that we have the capacity of thinking about these ideas is, in a sense, proof that we can know and relate to our creator, is it not?

Paul is helpful on this point in the epistle to the Romans. Beginning in Romans 1:19 we see that men have an innate knowledge that there is a God, along with a need to worship. Of course, because of sin, the need to worship and the object of that worship get twisted and perverted. But anyone willing to be honest with him/herself can discern that God reveals Himself through His creation. Further, through our own sense of morality, of right and wrong, of justice and mercy, and our ability to love, we can relate to our creator because these traits are all extensions of His own.

I remember reading somewhere, and I believe it's true, that in ancient Eastern cultures like that of the Hebrews, the essential question asked about God was basically, "what does He expect from me?" In other words, they related to God in a very practical way because they understood that they were made in His image. To the Greek mind, however, the question was quite different. Greeks, whose philosophical foundations tended to be a bit more complex asked, "what is God?" They related to God on a more philosophical and metaphysical level. Therefore, they could not perceive how God could relate to them at all.

This fundamental idea seems to be a contributing factor to the gnostic system in which God Himself could not possibly have created this world. To the gnostic, the world and the flesh is inherently evil. Only spirit is good. Therefore, through a series of emanations from God, each emanation becoming more detached from God, the world and man was finally created. This kind of thinking was already making "in-roads" into the Christian church of Paul's day. Many of the church epistles issue warnings which address Christ's essential nature as a real, flesh, human being, but exalted and given supremacy. (Col 1:18; 2;18-23; Phil 2:9; 1John 4:2)

Some scholars believe that John's writings were designed, in part, to combat gnostic thought. Particularly John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and word was God." In traditional orthodox thought, this verse is positive proof that Jesus is God, making the Word equal to Jesus (which is why trinitarian translators use the capital "W"). If Jesus and God are of the same essence then it tears down any gnostic assertion that God is so detached from creation that He could not have created it Himself.

"All things were made through him (the Word), and without him (the Word) was not any thing made that was made." (John 1:3 - ESV)

But this purpose of combating gnosticism can be easily accomplished without resorting to making the word (logos) a pre-incarnate being. Logos is a common word throughout the Greek New Testament and is most often translated as "word". But it really goes beyond the meaning of a single word to define "the idea, the complete thought." It denotes both reason and speech. As such, it is the expression of God's mind. This logos which was in the beginning with God, and in fact, was God, became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us! (John 1:14) However, it is illogical to change the meaning of logos in John 1:1-3 and force it as a synonym for Jesus when it is never employed as such anywhere else in the Bible. The word that became flesh in John 1:14 was most certainly Jesus, but in John 1:1 the word was not yet a person. The verse does not say "in the beginning was the 'Son', and the Son was with God and the Son was God.'

Think about it. God reasoned; He had a plan (logos); He spoke and the world came into being. ("And God said, let there be..." - Gen 1:3,6,14). This is logos. His word was with Him and not with another. (Isa 44:24; Isa 37:16 - ASV) Likewise, God reasoned; He had a plan; and "when the fulness of time had come" (Gal 4:4) His plan became a reality, a real flesh human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth - the Christ! This expression of God's mind was fully God's own and not another's (with Him), and the word was God in the sense that it totally expressed His thoughts and His person. The NEB translation renders this phrase in John 1:1 as "what God was, the word was." This is not difficult to understand. It is still an effective refutation of the gnostic idea of creation, but even more, it refutes any notion that Jesus was an angel or had any physical pre-existence.

In spite of all this, however, the early Church, after the death of the apostles, fell into the very errors the apostles warned them about. One can readily see how the early Church fathers fell into the trap of gnostic thought, given their extensive backgrounds in Greek philosophy. I'm not suggesting they purposely changed the message of Christianity to suit their needs. But without Hebrew roots to guide them in their interpretation of Scripture, and their desire to make Christianity palatable to the world, making Jesus into a "God-Man" based on a few misunderstood passages from New Testament writings, was likely a very natural progression for them.

In conclusion, God relates to His creation perfectly. There is no need for Him to be one of us. Jesus, the unique Son of God, is the perfect example of what the image of God is suppose to look like in a man (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). This is demonstrated to us in His life. In His death, the sin barrier is removed so we can come to God without fear or condemnation. And through His resurrection and ascension, God has made Jesus to be both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), highly exalting him and bestowing upon him the name that is above every name (Phil 2:9). In following Jesus example of faith and obedience, we are promised a glorious entrance into the kingdom of God when He returns.

Did Jesus Come from Heaven?

2009-09-24T15:04:00.000-04:00

The Scriptures speak of Jesus as being "sent" by God; i.e., John 3:17; 3:34; 5:23; 5:36; 6:38; 7:28-29. When one is "sent" he goes by command of one with higher authority to fulfill a specific task. This is what it means to be sent! In the case of Jesus, he was sent from heaven. One of the Scriptures that has contributed significantly to a literal understanding of this is John 6:33 where we find the words "he who comes down from heaven", and again in John 6:38 where Jesus says "I have come down from heaven." Also in John 7:29 which says "... I come from him, and he sent me." Even Paul seems to agree in 1 Cor 15:47 which says, "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man [Jesus] from heaven." That seems to settle the issue doesn't it? Jesus was sent to earth by God - he came down from heaven! But is it proper and reasonable to interpret these verses in such a literal fashion?

Actually, the phrase "come down from heaven" can be understood in two ways. Of course, the traditional view is that Jesus is himself God - the second person in a trinity - who descended to earth and became a man. But the problem with this view is that, although popular, the Scriptures do not actually teach it. In spite of it's lack of Biblical support either in the Old Testament, the Synoptic gospels, or the Church Epistles, the majority of Christians still accept the incarnation (enfleshment) as 'gospel truth'. I did! I held to the traditional view of Jesus as God for well over 30 years. But after allowing myself to consider the possibility that I could be wrong, and after much study, prayer, and discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the incarnation doctrine is just a fabrication. By combining the virgin birth passages in Matthew and Luke, and the Scriptures mentioned above from the gospel of John, inferences are then drawn that Jesus literally "came" from heaven. But in order to make those inferences, one must totally ignore other powerful Scriptures which clearly teach the opposite!

The virgin birth is a miracle to be sure, but tradition has made entirely too much of it. The virgin birth is exactly what it says it is - a birth! There is no need to convolute the truth! Jesus was conceived when God implanted perfectly created human seed into Mary. The result was a birth! The Scripture reads in plain language that Jesus was "born". Study the following (Mat_1:16, 18, 25, 2:1; 11:11; 26:24; Luk_1:14, 35, 57; 2:6-7, 11; 7:28) and read my blog post "Jesus: Son of God". Being born, even though the conception is miraculous, does NOT presume preexistence; if Jesus preexisted his earthly birth in heaven, then Mary would have been no more than a conduit, not a mother! To be born means to be produced, brought forth, brought into life.

There is another way to interpret the phrase "come down from heaven". When Jesus referred to himself as "coming down from heaven" it was John's way of attesting the fact that Jesus' power and authority came directly from God. We must remember that the authors of each gospel wrote from a particular point of view, and to a particular audience in order to tell the story of Jesus from their own perspective. John wrote to Hellenistic Jews. His perspective was that Jesus was indeed the promised and long awaited Messiah whose life, even before the resurrection and ascension, was so in sync with God the Father that he could speak of himself as being "one" with Him (John 10:10), and could say "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). John's gospel has long been known as 'the spiritual gospel', and for good reason. Unfortunately, traditionalists have selectively interpreted it literally rather than spiritually which has caused much confusion.

The phrase "from heaven" is a Hebraism which was not confusing to Jesus' listener's. They readily understood it's meaning. The same term is used in Luke 20:1-8 where Jesus confronts the Pharisees regarding their understanding of John's baptism, whether it was "from heaven or from man". The contrast Jesus drew (heaven/man) clearly explains the meaning of the phrase 'from heaven'. Jesus was asking whether the origin of John's authority and his commission to baptize had it's source from God or from mere human design.

Think about this: Jesus was charged with blasphemy for saying 'My Father is working until now, and I am working' (John 5:17) because he spoke of God as his Father. If the Pharisees had understood his claim to be 'from heaven' as meaning that he existed in heaven prior to his life on earth, wouldn't that have given them even weightier grounds on which to accuse him? The only explanation for their failure to make that accusation must be that his claims were understood by his Hebrew audience as an assertion of the origin of his authority- not a prior life in heaven!

To "come down from heaven" and to be "sent" by God, are synonymous terms. The word "sent" in the New Testament is apostello from which the word apostle derives (see Mark 3:14). Essentially the word apostello means "to set apart... send out". The point is, to be sent (apostello) is to be commissioned, or charged with a task. According to John 6:38, Jesus came down from heaven (the source of his authority was from God), not to do his own will (not to promote his own agenda) but to do the will of the one who sent him (the will of the One by whose authority he was commissioned). Jesus was not literally sent down from heaven, he was commissioned by God with a specific task! What was that task? To do the will of the One who sent him! According to Luke 4:43 the will of God was for Jesus to preach the good news about the kingdom of God!

"but he said to them, 'I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.'"

The writer of the book of Hebrews acknowledges this in 3:1 which refers to Jesus as "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." In other words, as the apostle of our confession, Jesus was commissioned with the divine task of preaching the good news The force of the truth that Jesus was sent in the sense of being authorized by God for a specific purpose is even clearer when we realize that John the Baptist was himself "sent" in the very same sense!

"Now there was man sent (apostello) by God whose name was John. ( John 1:6)

And even greater clarity is given when we read the following...

"As you sent me into the world, so I have sent (apostello) them into the world". (John 17:8)
"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent (apostello) me, even so I am sending (apostello) you." (John 20:21)

Does anyone believe that John the Baptist or the apostles came down out of heaven? Of course not! But we do believe that they exercised a heavenly derived authority in their work and doctrine.

Likewise, Paul, in 1Corinthians 15:47, was not comparing Adam's humanity with Jesus' divinity! If you follow the analogy through, in context (1Co_15:45-49), Paul is using the word "heavenly" as meaning 'from God'.

The purpose of this article is not to demean the lord Jesus in any way. But to make him into God, when the Scriptures clearly distinguish him from God, severely detracts from his humanity. How could Jesus have been "...in all things ... made like unto his brethren..." (Hebrews 2:17) if he preexisted as God and was literally sent down from heaven? Or even more confounding, to be both God and man at the same time? Who can understand such a thing.... who can relate to such a being?

"But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me". (John 5:36)

Jesus is "a man whom he [God] appointed" (Acts 17:31) His work and his message had it's origin and authority from God, and he was empowered by God to fulfill that commission. The fact that he accomplished this God-given work as a genuine man, NOT as God or God-Man, makes it all the more powerful and meaningful to those who claim to be his followers.

Will You Go to Heaven When You Die?

2009-07-31T22:52:00.000-04:00

From childhood, it has been my understanding that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell when they die. Of course, as I got older, I learned that it wasn't just being a good person that got you into heaven, but being born again! (John 3:3) In fact, I learned that it is impossible for any person to be good enough to earn a place in heaven, that's why Jesus had to die on the cross. He became our substitute, We were the ones who deserved death, because we are sinners. But Christ never sinned, yet He died in our place, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we could live forever – with Him – in heaven.

I think that pretty well sums up the basic concept of modern-day Christianity. Now, I have since come to a much deeper understanding of what the Bible teaches about our salvation. But for this article, I want to focus on the orthodox Christian view of "going to heaven" when we die because I think we have been misguided on this subject.

As I reflect on my past, it's difficult for me to pinpoint any one sermon, Bible class, book, recording, or article that actually supported, with solid Scriptural evidence, the common Christian teaching that we go to a place called heaven when we die. Yet, it was taught as matter of fact and the concept is so pervasive in our culture that it is accepted without question as Bible truth.

Reading through my Bible, however, I find that Jesus teaches often about the kingdom of God ; the first Christians, as recorded in the book of Acts, preached and taught about the kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus; and we find the kingdom mentioned often in Paul's epistles as well. However, "going to heaven" seems to be curiously missing! Is it possible that heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God, or kingdom of heaven?

In my recent studies on the subject I have discovered that, in fact, the Bible nowhere promises a place called heaven as the final home of the Christian believer! The idea that souls go to heaven at the time of death is apparently more of an inference resulting from the misinterpretation of certain scriptures, rather than a true Biblical teaching.

Recently I had to attend the funeral of my father-in-law. He was a good man and will be greatly missed. But as a believer, the family is comforted in knowing that his eternal home is fixed and secure in Christ. However, my family, like many other typical Christian families, believe that he was ushered directly into the presence of Jesus, in heaven. Now, don't misunderstand me... I don't have a problem with the idea of going to heaven to be with Jesus when I die. The issue for me is: is that what the Bible teaches? If it is, I gladly accept it; but if not, I want to know the truth!

Shortly after my father-in-laws death, while the family was still at the hospital, one of the family members, in an effort to say something comforting to the others, began to relate something she had read recently in a book. I will not mention the book or the author, since I have not read it for myself, but as she told it, the author was writing about death from the perspective of those who are already in heaven. This author imagined that when the death of a saint was announced, all of heaven gathered together to welcome the new soul into heaven as though they were witnessing a birth, and as the new soul poked itself through heaven's portal, the angels announced, "It's a boy!!"

Well, that may be an amusing and lighthearted way of looking at death, and perhaps even helps to bring comfort to some at a time when the reality of death can be so heavy. But is it really advisable for Christians to be comforted by something other than truth? Should we not rather comfort ourselves with what God says? I think we should... I think it's what God expects of us!

The following quote from the Zondervan Study Bible regarding the topics of heaven and hell is quite telling.

"Most Christians have definite, though hazy, notions about heaven and hell. We are confident of our resurrection. We are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons. Saved and unsaved will exist forever as self-conscious, aware individuals. Usually we speak of "heaven" as the place where believers go at death, and "hell" as the place where unbelievers go. But when we explore the use of these words in the OT and NT, we discover how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!"

Notice that is says: “we are confident of our resurrection” and “we are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons.” These two statements are in direct opposition to each other! If we are ever-living persons, of what value is a resurrection? Yet, there can be no doubt about this mindset among most Christians today. Even more surprising though, is the last sentence in the quote above which states that an exploration of the Bible on the subject reveals “how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!”

Many dictionaries, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary include the phrase “home of the children of God” in their descriptions of heaven; however, there does not seem to be any basis for this idea from Scripture. It is simply recorded as a “given” without citing reasonable, specific, Scripture references! Consider the following...

Nelson's New Christian Dictionary reads:

heaven 1. Eternal abode of God, the uncreated spiritual realm inhabited by God as well as his angels. 2. Source of everything that is good and changeless and proceeds from God. Thus, in Matthew the question is asked, “Whence was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25). Jesus and his work are from “heaven” and from “above” (John 3:13, 31, 35). Accordingly, “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:7), and the Lord’s Prayer is that God’s will be done “on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). 3. Believer’s hope and eternal home which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard” (1 Cor. 2:9). It is a place of love (1 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 3:19), rest (Heb. 4:9), joy (Luke 15:7), knowledge (1 Cor. 13:12), and perfect harmony (Rom. 8:17; Rev. 22:3).
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

The above source does very well until it comes to point #3. Notice that heaven is given as the “Believer’s hope and eternal home...” But even a brief look at the Scripture references cited on that point, leaves much to be desired in actual support of the statement!

The following is copied exactly from Nelson's Bible Dictionary. I have chosen to use this information in it's entirety because it seems to be quite accurate. The only problem lies in the fact that what the articles below describe is thought to be experienced upon the believers death, when his soul departs the body and goes to heaven. I do not believe this happens. I believe we sleep in death until the return of Christ at which time we will be resurrected. But, read and judge for yourself.

HEAVEN — a word that expresses several distinct concepts in the Bible:
1. As used in a physical sense, heaven is the expanse over the earth (Gen. 1:8). The tower of Babel reached upward to heaven (Gen. 11:4). God is the possessor of heaven (Gen. 14:19). Heaven is the location of the stars (Gen. 1:14; 26:4) as well as the source of dew (Gen. 27:28).
2. Heaven is also the dwelling place of God (Gen. 28:17; Rev. 12:7–8). It is the source of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10). Because of the work of Christ on the Cross, heaven is, in part, present with believers on earth as they obey God’s commands (John 14:2, 23).
3. The word “heaven” is also used as a substitute for the name of God (Luke 15:18, 21; John 3:27). The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are often spoken of interchangeably (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). At the end of time a new heaven will be created to surround the new earth. This new heaven will be the place of God’s perfect presence (Is. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Then there will be a literal fulfillment of heaven on earth.

HEAVENLY CITY, THE — the city prepared and built by God for those who are faithful to Him (Heb. 11:10, 16). Known as the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), this is the city that is to come (Heb. 13:14). These references in Hebrews find their fulfillment in Revelation 21–22. The New Jerusalem is illuminated by the glory of God. It serves as the dwelling place of God among His redeemed forever.

HEAVENS, NEW — a term that, when used with “new earth,” refers to the perfected state of the created universe and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The phrase is found in Isaiah 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, and in a slightly modified form in Revelation 21:1.
Rooted deep in Jewish thought was the dream of a new heaven and a new earth, a re-creation of the universe that would occur following the Day of the Lord (Is. 13:10–13; Joel 2:1–2, 30–31). The concept of a re-created universe is closely related to the biblical account of the Creation and the Fall and the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1–3). Because of their sin, “the creation was subjected to futility . . . [and] the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:19, 21). The need for a new heaven and a new earth arises from human sin and God’s judgment, not from some deficiency or evil in the universe (Gen. 3:17).

The apostle Paul referred to the Old Testament doctrine of the Day of the Lord and applied it to the events that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ (2 Pet. 3:10, 13). When Christ returns, this present evil age will give way to the age to come. The universe will be purified and cleansed by the power of God. This will be reminiscent of the purging of the earth in the days of Noah, but on a universal scale.
Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson.

I believe the above article faithfully describes the Biblical teaching about heaven; but as you can see for yourself, heaven is not depicted as as a place, apart from this earth, where souls go after death to pass await bodily resurrection. Rather, the heavens that have anything to do with people are “new heavens” and are associated with the “new earth”. And the heavenly city, where the righteous will also dwell, will come down from heaven and rest over the earth! But what must be understood here is that the new heavens and the heavenly city do not currently exist as destinations for the righteous dead. Instead, they are promised as part of the age to come - the coming kingdom of God, which will be established at the second coming of Christ!

So then, if the information above faithfully represents what the Bible says about heaven, where did the idea come from that righteous souls go to heaven when they die? I will reserve the answer for another article. But if this topic is intriguing to you, I highly recommend that you read some of Anthony Buzzard's writings on the subject. Click here to go to his website articles page..

Keith

Jesus: The Perfect Man; Our Perfect Example!

2009-07-14T21:16:00.000-04:00

"And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" --Acts 1:9-11 (ESV)

Here's a good question to ponder...
If Jesus is God, the 2nd Person in the Trinity, and He existed as God before coming as a man, did He cease being a man when He left this earth? Did He go back to His prior state of Godhood that He enjoyed prior to the incarnation, as suggested by Trinitarian doctrine?

Several years ago I was teaching a lesson on how Jesus' perfectly modeled for us walking in the power of the Spirit. The premise of the teaching was that Jesus did what He did and said what He said, not because He was God, but because He was full of the Holy Spirit! In other words, everything He did on this earth, He did as a man, anointed, filled, and led by the Spirit of God. The lesson I was attempting to draw was that since Jesus gave us the example of his own life, as a man, we should be encouraged to do as He did. We also are anointed, filled and can be led by the Spirit of God. And he said "...whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father." (John 14:12 (ESV))

One of the Scriptures I used to support my teaching was Philippians 2:7 where it says that He (Jesus) "emptied Himself" and became a servant. This phrase, "emptied himself", has been interpreted various ways. But for me, at the time, I understood it as meaning that Jesus set aside - or laid down - His Diety. This is known as the "kenotic theory" (kenosi being the Greek word meaning emptied). Given this "emptying" or temporary giving up his Divine nature, He could then be filled with the Spirit and be our perfect example of a Spirit-filled man! The idea that, being God, yet willingly coming to earth to live a totally human life - not as God in any way - was very appealing to me because His example for us was real and believable.

At the time, of course, I didn't realize that the kenotic theory, or kenosis, was actually rejected by modern, up-to-date, scholarship. The reason it is rejected, even by Trinitarian scholars, is because emptying himself of Deity would mean that Jesus was temporarily NOT God. According the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus never ceased being God at any time and was always conscious of his Deity. He merely "took on" human flesh, so He was always conscious both of His humanity and His Deity.

The reason I bring all this up is because I realize now that even some years prior to my current understanding of Jesus complete humanity (not God), I had found, in the kenosis, a way to reconcile his Deity with his humanity. I knew that Jesus had to be a man in order for his temptations to be real, and he had to be human for his example to be meaningful for us, but I thought he also had to be God! The kenotic theory solved the problem.

Jesus, being led and empowered by the Spirit, made great sense to me; but I also saw, even then, that while laying down His Deity while here on earth (although a mistaken idea), He DID NOT lay down His humanity when He ascended into heaven! I remember my elation at this discovery from Acts 1:9-10 which says

"as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight."

Then it goes on to say that he will come again

"in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

You see, this means that Jesus did not drop his body off and spiritually ascend into heaven thus returning to His previous state of glory with the Father. Clearly, when Jesus rose from the dead, his body changed because he was apparently able to appear and disappear at will, yet his body was solid and he could eat and be touched (Luke 24:39-42) . It was this body that the disciples physically "saw" being taken up into heaven, and according to the text, he will come again in the same way; i.e. physically, in the body he had then!

Now I understand that the kenosis of Phil 2:7 has to do with his willingness to humble himself and be obedient even to the point of death on a cross. The fact of his humanity - being anointed by God and empowered by the Spirit - does not have to be confused by any idea of a dual nature. This only causes problems when trying to make sense of his life, his words, and his work!

Consider this...

As a man, he was born and thus had a beginning. (Luke 1:35)
As a man, he developed an intimate relationship with his Father God, from an early age. (Luke 2:40,45)
As a man, he continued growing and finding favor with God and man.(Luke 2:52)
As a man, he had complete dependence on God. (John 8:28; 12:49-50)
As a man, he learned obedience through the things he suffered. (Heb 5:8)
As a man, he succeeded where Adam failed. (Rom 5:14ff)
As man, he lived a complely sinless life. (Heb 4:15)
As a man, he was the perfect image of God, that we were meant to be. (Gen 1:27; Heb 1:3)
As a man, he was the first to be raised from the dead and the only one to ever ascend into heaven. (1 Cor 15:20-23; Acts 1:11; 3:21; 2:34)
As a man, he has been made both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)
As a man, God highly exalted him and gave him a name above every name. (Phil 2:9)
As a man, he now sits at the right hand of God as our mediator and intercessor! (Rom 8:34; 1 Tim 2:5)
As a man, he will come again to be king over all the earth. (Acts 1:11; Luke 1:33; Rev 11:15; 20:4)
And as a man, he will finally hand over the kingdom to The Father, so that "God may be all in all." (1 Cor 15:28)

Jesus is truly the perfect man, our champion, and our perfect example!

It's almost surreal that I could be writing about Jesus being human and not God when only a little over a year ago I would have fiercely defended the Deity of Christ. I had always been taught that all of the cults had this one thing in common - every cult denied the Deity of Christ. This is a huge problem for evangelical Christians because it is taught that Jesus must be God in order to have paid for our sin!

Now, you may call me a cultist if you like, but the way I see it, I have come to the simple understanding of the plain teaching of Scripture, and have adopted a much more exalted view of Jesus than I ever had before! People seem to think that denying the Deity of Christ is taking something away from him, but this is not true. I take nothing away; rather, I ascribe to him all the glory given to him by God! (1 Pet 1:20) Taking this view of Jesus preserves the veracity of Scripture and the uniqueness of Christ, giving him greater status as the perfect man and our perfect example! And to me, it makes much more sense of the Biblical message.

God Bless,
Keith

God: Who or What?

2009-06-13T22:43:00.000-04:00

"But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles— to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'" -- Acts 26:16-18 (ESV)

Isn't it interesting? As Paul retells the story of his conversion experience he notes that when Jesus appeared to him, he appeared with instructions regarding Paul's life mission; i.e. to open the eyes of the spiritually blinded and turn them from "the power of Satan to God." He also said that in their turning to God, they would "receive forgiveness of sins ... by faith in me [Jesus]." So, we have Jesus appearing to Paul and speaking to him about pointing people to God through faith in Himself!

Clearly, God is referenced as a distinctly separate being from Jesus. Note that Jesus did not say that Paul would turn them from the power of Satan to Me! It is, of course, by faith in Jesus that men come to God. This is in complete agreement with what Jesus said himself in the gospels (which we noted in the last blog post (John 14:1-6).

It is very curious to me that people don't seem to pay much attention to the word "God" as it is used in the English language. For example, in today's Christian culture if someone is heard uttering the phrase "God damn", it is considered taking the Lord's name in vain. Now, let's think about that for a moment. It may be crude and improper to say such a thing, especially when it is directed toward another human being. We do not wish for God to damn anyone and it is vulgar to say it. However, we must ask ourselves, "in what way is using this term taking God's Name in vain?"

It seems to me many people have a serious misunderstanding of the definition of God! God, as it applies to OUR God, the Father of the lord Jesus Christ, is a designation for the Supreme Being - the Creator and Originator of Life. God's Name however, is Yahweh, or Jehovah! So sacred is that Name, that ancient Jews would not dare to speak it or even write it; hence the letters YHWH (known as the tetragrammaton), to avoid actually using the proper Name. In the King James Bible, where the tetragrammaton appeared, the translators supplied the term "LORD." The word God is descriptive of "what" He is, just as "man" describes what we are. Yahweh, on the other hand, is descriptive of "who" He is - it is His Name!

Now, here is where it gets confusing. If, as orthodoxy suggests, God is a tri-unity, then when we use the word God, it is understood that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is meant. In speaking, or writing the term God, we must already have in our minds a being who is three persons, yet only one (a concept that, of course, makes no logical sense at all). But if "God" describes the divine Trinity, what sense would it make for any New Testament writer to use it in the same sentence with the terms Father, Jesus, or Holy Spirit?

For example: In Rom 1:8 Paul says "I thank my God through Jesus Christ." Why would it be necessary for Paul to thank God "through" Jesus Christ, if Jesus is already God. If thanks was intended for one person of the Godhead, it would make better sense to simply say "I thank the Father", or "I thank Jesus", or "the Spirit." Or, if thanks were meant for two it might be said "I thank the Father, with Jesus", etc. Otherwise, it would be just as accurate to say "I thank God" without qualifying it further, knowing that the term "God" includes the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Now then, if when God and Jesus appear together the word God is taken as meaning "the Father" it would make sense to use the words together, i.e. "I thank the Father through Jesus Christ", but that raises another big problem! Using the word God to mean "Father" would not work because in Rom 1:7 and many other places in the NT, Paul greets Christians with the familiar greeting "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In this case, if God already means "Father" it would not only be unnecessary to qualify God as "our Father", it would make the sentence extremely awkward. One would simply expect Paul to say Grace to you and peace from God.

Needless to say, this whole argument is rather silly! Just as silly, I would suggest, as the idea that the Bible actually instructs us in the idea that God is three persons in one, and that Jesus is both fully human AND fully God at the same time! Why must we complicate the relationship between God and Jesus when that relationship is plainly stated in Scripture (with the exception of a couple of verses) as Father and Son? The only reason that can be given is that the tradition of the Trinity has become so firmly seated that it is difficult to think outside the box that has been created for us. As we have seen, both here and in the last post from the book of Acts, neither Paul nor Luke seem to have had any concept of Jesus being God, or of God being a Trinity.

I hope this point about "God" makes sense to somebody. If not, please show me where I am wrong.

Gob bless,

Keith

"Innocent of blood"

2009-06-08T00:34:00.000-04:00

Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. --Acts 20:26-27 (ESV)

While reading through the book of Acts I took notice of this phrase "innocent of the blood of all of you." These words, found in Acts 20:26 are a Hebrew idiom. It is likely that the saying has it's roots in Ezekiel 33, especially verse 8 where it says,

"If I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die, and you do not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked person shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand" Ezek 33:8 (ESV)

Paul declares his innocence of the blood of all men, i.e. that if any man would die a sinner, Paul himself would be free from guilt. Why? Because he "did not shrink from declaring... [to them] the whole counsel of God."

The "whole counsel" means all of God's purpose and plan. In other words, he left nothing out of his teaching and preaching that would keep men in ignorance, or lead them astray, regarding God or His plan of salvation for mankind.

That being the case, we should understand that Paul taught everything the Hebrew Scriptures revealed concerning the kingdom of God, salvation, and the penalty for sin. But he also must have explained fully the purpose and person of Jesus Christ, and who he is in relation to God and His awesome plan! This can be plainly observed in the surrounding context (verses 18-32) where he relates "the gospel of the grace of God" (v24), to "proclaiming the kingdom" (v25), to "the word of his grace" (v32). All of these phrases speak to what Paul said in verse 20, "...I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable..." Acts 20:20 (ESV).

But the most telling verse in this regard, I think, is verse 21.

"testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Acts 20:21 (ESV)

Here Paul makes a clear distinction between the person of God (The Father) and the person of Jesus (Lord and Christ). The gospel as Paul preached it included both repentance toward God AND faith in the Lord Jesus! Now this may seem insignificant to a "hardcore" trinitarian, but to me it speaks volumes! Here, as in many other places in Paul's own writing, if Luke wanted to suggest that Paul understood God as a trinity, or that Jesus and the Father were the same being wouldn't he just say so? Why not simply say, repentance and faith toward Jesus Christ who is God Almighty -or- who is a divine person within the multi-personal One God?

Certainly there are places where Paul mentions the Father, the Son, and the Spirit together in the same verse or passage, but the appearance of these terms in the same sentence do not constitute oneness of essence. Nowhere in Paul's writing does he couple God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ together as though they were one being. Rather, he always separates the persons, distinguishing between Father, Son, and Spirit, but never suggests, or even hints, that they are one being or one essence! This Scripture (Acts 20:21) simply reveals that Paul taught what the Lord Jesus himself taught.

"...The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." Mark 1:15 (ESV)
"...Believe in God; believe also in me." John 14:1 (ESV)
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6 (ESV)

Repentance toward God means to change your mind toward God and believe the good news about His coming kingdom. Faith in Jesus means putting your trust in Jesus as God's appointed Messiah whom God commissioned to provide the way for us to get into God's kingdom!

The following verses in Paul's letters are very enlightening! If you take the time to read through them, it is easy to see Paul's view of the relationship between God and Christ.

(Rom 1:7; Rom 5:1; 5:11; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 10:9; 15:6; 15:30; 16:20; 1Cor 1:2-3; 1:9; 6:11; 8:6; 12:3; 15:57; 2Cor 1:2-3; 11:31; 13:14; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2-3; 1:17; 5:20; 6:23; Phil 1:2; 2:11; Col 1:3; 3:17; 1Thess 1:1-3; 2:15; 3:11-13; 4:1; 5:9; 5:23; 2Thess 1:1-2; 1:8; 1:12; 2:16; 1Tim 1:2; 2Tim 1:2; Philemon 1:2

Now, going on in Acts chapter 20, we come across a phrase in verse 28 which has been the cause of much confusion. But, as is the case with most Scriptures which seem to be contradictory, there are reasonable explanations to clear them up.

"Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood." Acts 20:28 (ESV)

The way this verse reads, it sounds as though Paul is saying that it was God's own blood that was shed for the Church. This, of course, supports the trinitarian view, that Jesus is God. However, there are other renderings of the verse which clarify this issue and make much more sense.

The key to the correct translation of this verse is in the last phrase, "with his own blood." This is the way it is translated in ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV and many others. However, Darby's translation renders the phrase "with the blood of his own." This completely changes how we understand the verse. "His own" would refer to Jesus, who is God's own Son! CEV also translates it such, as does the NET. The NCV says "death of his own Son" which, essentially means the same thing!

Although the translators of the ESV chose to render the verse "with his own blood", they do note the alternate reading of "with the blood of his own." NLT also has a footnote providing the alternate reading "with the blood of His own (Son)". Also, footnotes in HCSB show clearly that some MSS read "church of the Lord" while others read "of the Lord and God". NIV and TNIV both have notes showing the alternate "of the Lord". The NKJV also notes in the margin that "M-Text reads of the Lord and God." As you can see, all authorities, regardless of their choice of translation, recognized the overwhelming evidence on this verse. The footnote in the NET reads as follows:

Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. --note 114 on Acts 20:28, NET

The translators of the NET Bible are honest here, I believe. Although they are without doubt trinitarian in their understanding of Scritpure, they apparently understand that rendering the Greek "his own blood" is of no value in making sense of this verse. Given the wide variety of MSS reading's, it cannot be said with certainty that 'his own blood" is the correct translation. In fact, where it is translated such, it is only a preference based on the predisposition to belief in a trinity. I suggest that it is both fair and reasonable that the phrase should most naturally be read as "with the blood of his own."!

It is most informative to read through the book of the Acts of the Apostles. If read with "new eyes" it becomes apparent that we have strayed from the message believed and preached by the early Christians. Most certainly Paul was careful to include all vital information about God, His kingdom, and the Christ. He was free from any guilt - innocent of the blood of all men - because he left nothing to imagine or infer! Paul clearly taught that God was both "The Father" of Jesus and "The God" of Jesus, and that God made Jesus both "Lord" and "Christ", the Head of the Church, and appointed him King of the coming kingdom!

The "Soul" of the Matter

2009-06-04T00:16:00.000-04:00

In my last post regarding Hell, I noted that the one orthodox christian belief that has caused more confusion than any other is, perhaps, the idea that "souls" separate from the body at death and must go somewhere, ie. heaven or hell.

This has been a long held belief among most christians and, in fact, is a common belief among the majority of peoples and religions of the world - both past and present! Every religion and culture believes that man has a "soul" or "spirit" which has the ability to live outside of the body. This has led to belief in ghosts and other apparitions, as well as the practice of ancestor worship, necromancy, and the like. It is not surprising then that christianity has it's own belief system of the dead living on in some other metaphysical form. There is one big problem with this idea however; the Bible, which is supposed to be the christians' rule for faith and practice, nowhere teaches such a thing as souls living apart from the body!

Since childhood, I have been taught that I have a soul that lives forever. I never really questioned it. Someone wisely said, "We accept what we've been taught, and teach what we accept." How true. As part of my formal religious education, I was taught that men are spirit beings that have a soul that live in a body. That being the case, I've always imagined my body as a house - a shell, while the real me is my soul or spirit within my body. It was never very clear to me, I confess, but I believed it was taught in the Bible and correlated very nicely with the idea of man being made in the image of God; hence, our three-part nature.

I have recently come to the understanding that the teaching I received was all wrong! The fact is, the world and the church alike, have fallen prey to the oldest lie in the book, and what makes it so effective is, they don't even know it. Christians, especially, think they are enlightened in the question of what happens when a person dies, but we have been deceived. Here is the plain truth recorded in the book of Genesis.

God said to Adam and Eve...

"...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." --Genesis 2:17

But Satan deceived the woman.

"But the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die.'" --Genesis 3:4

Somehow, the common definition for death has been altered and softened. We now understand death as meaning a separation of the soul from the body. In this way, only the body actually dies while the real person (the soul) continues to live - either in eternal bliss, or eternal torment. But is this what the Bible teaches, or is it a lie of Satan handed down to us as tradition? To find the answer we must be willing to lay aside our tradition and see what the Bible actually teaches concerning the soul.

The best place to start is in the beginning.

"then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. --Gen 2:7 (ESV)

Man is animated dust! The word translated "creature" is nephesh in the Hebrew text, also translated "soul" in the KJV and others. Notice that the text says that "man became a living creature" (soul), not that he has (or acquired) a soul! Man was created an integrated, unified whole; not body, soul and spirit in the sense of separate, independent substances. I will do a more in-depth study of this concept in the future, but for now we should simply understand that the Biblical teaching of man's nature is as a unified being. When a man dies, all of him dies; there is a cessation of life; he is dead in every way. If man had a soul which detached itself from the body at the time of death, then only the body could be said to be dead. But God said "you shall surely die" (Gen 2:17). The use of the singular personal pronoun "you" signifies the person, the whole person, not just a body.

Further, if death does not mean "the cessation of life", why is death called an "enemy"? (1Corinthians 15:26) If death means that the soul leaves the body and goes directly into the presence of God, would it not be considered a friend? The fact is, death is not a friend, it is an enemy! And to believe that we continue living, that only the body dies, is to believe Satan's age-old lie. Not only that, but it destroys the doctrine of the resurrection of the body! If souls are already in a blissful state with God in heaven without a body, what purpose could there possibly be for a resurrection? Think about it!

When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, he didn't call his soul back from heaven to be reunited with his body. No. That would have been a cruel thing to do... don't you think? It is time for the church to question traditional beliefs and pay more attention to what the Bible actually says. It is time for every sincere christian to be more analytical and discerning regarding the messages heard from the pulpit. We should not simply accept everything we hear simply because the preacher is charismatic or exciting or because it agrees with what we've always heard. While the teacher may be "judged with greater strictness" (James 3:1) we will all be held accountable for what we believe and accept as truth! (Mark 4:24)

Isaac Newton Was A Heretic!

2009-05-28T19:42:00.000-04:00

Do you remember the story of Isaac Newton from elementary school? How he discovered the law of gravity while sitting under an apple tree and an apple fell on his head? To this day I don't know how much of that story is true and how much is tradition; however, I do know that Isaac Newton is considered by many, "the father of modern science." But did you know that he was also a devout Christian and theologian? And not only that, but he believed the doctrine of the Trinity was a 3rd/4th century corruption of the pure message taught by the apostles and revealed in Scripture. I guess that makes him a heretic, huh?! (-:

Now this may not be news to you, but I had never heard this about Isaac Newton until recently! So, for those of you who, like me, were not aware that Isaac Newton was not only a student of the Bible, but a Unitarian Christian, I invite you to read his "Twelve Articles on God and Christ."
You can find more writings and information about Isaac Newton at "The Newton Project". Enjoy!

ISAAC NEWTON’S TWELVE ARTICLES
ON GOD AND CHRIST
C. 1710S-1720S KEYNES MS 8, KING’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
Artic. 1. There is one God the Father ever-living, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, and one Mediator between God and Man the Man Christ Jesus.
Artic. 2. The father is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see, all other beings are sometimes visible.
Artic. 3. The Father hath life in himself and hath given the son to have life in himself.
Artic. 4. The father is omniscient and hath all knowledge originally in his own breast, and communicates knowledge of future things to Jesus Christ and none in heaven or earth or under the earth is worthy to receive knowledge of future things immediately from the father except the Lamb. And therefore the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy and Jesus is the Word or Prophet of God.
Artic. 5. The father is immoveable no place being capable of becoming emptier or fuller of him then it is by the eternal necessity of nature: all other beings are moveable from place to place.
Artic. 6. All the worship (whether of prayer praise or thanksgiving) which was due to the father before the coming of Christ is still due to him. Christ came not to diminish the worship of his father.
Artic. 7. Prayers are most prevalent when directed to the father in the name of the son.
Artic. 8. We are to return thanks to the father alone for creating us and giving us food and raiment and other blessings of this life and whatsover we are to thank him for or desire that he would do for us we ask of him immediately in the name of Christ.
Artic. 9. We need not pray to Christ to intercede for us. If we pray the father aright he will intercede.
Artic. 10. It is not necessary to salvation to direct our prayers to any other than the father in the name of the Son.
Artic. 11. To give the name of God to Angels or Kings is not against the first commandment. To give the worship of the God of the Jews to Angels or Kings is against it. The meaning of the commandment is Thou shalt worship no other Gods but me.
Artic. 12. To us there is but one God the father of whom are all things and we of him, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him. That is, we are to worship the father alone as God Almighty and Jesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the great King the Lamb of God who was slain and hath redeemed us with his blood and made us kings and Priests.

Scripture references on articles.
Article 1: 1 Timothy 2:5 (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6), with influences from the opening line of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son our Lord”.
Article 2: Colossians 1:15 (cf. 1Timothy 1:17); 1 Timothy 6:16.
Article 3: John 5:26.
Article 4: Matthew 24:36 (cf. Mark 13:32); John 5:19-20, Revelation 1:1; Revelation 5:3; Revelation 19:10; Revelation 19:13.
Article 8: 1 Timothy 6:8.
Article 10: Ephesians 5:20.
Article 11: Exodus 20:3.
Article 12: 1 Corinthians 8:6; Matthew 5:35; John 1:29, 36; Revelation 5:9-10.
© Stephen David Snobelen and King’s College, Cambridge The Newton Project Canada: www.isaacnewton.ca

It's good to know that those of us who see the problems with certain orthodox doctrines, such as the Trinity, are in good company in our dissent. We didn't make it up. Biblical Unitarianism is NOT a new idea. And Isaac Newton is only one example of many profound thinkers who have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity throughout the history of the Church. Praise God for this voice, and others, from the past! But the bottom line is that the voice of Scripture still speaks clearly to all who are willing to hear.

submitted by
Keith