Church Pastor Finder

Church Pastor Finder

If you are a Pastor looking for a Church or if you are a Church looking for a Pastor here is a new site that you can place your ad for Free!!!. Why pay for your add when you dont have to.

Jesus Christ: Incarnated or Created?

We now will examine the historical background of the development of what has become the cornerstone of Christian orthodoxy, the doctrine of the “Incarnation.” We will see that this doctrine arose neither in a vacuum, nor strictly from the text of Scripture. It was the result of the influence of certain beliefs and attitudes that prevailed in and around the Christian church after the first century. Pagan mythology, Gnostic views of redemption and human pre-existence, and the misunderstanding of Johannine language all contributed to the teaching that God Himself became a man, which is the essence of “Incarnational theology.”

Although the “Incarnation” is assumed to be a basic tenet of Christianity, the term is used nowhere in Scripture. This is even admitted by Trinitarian scholars: “Incarnation, in its full and proper sense, is not something directly presented in Scripture.” [1] The doctrine of the Incarnation was actually formulated during the next several centuries. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church verifies this fact:

The doctrine, which took classical shape under the influence of the controversies of the 4th-5th centuries, was formally defined at the Council of Chalcedon of 451. It was largely molded by the diversity of tradition in the schools of Antioch and Alexandria…further refinements were added in the later Patristic and Medieval periods. [2]

The reason the councils and synods took hundreds of years to develop the doctrine of Incarnation is that it is not stated in Scripture, and the verses used to support it can be explained without resorting to a doctrine that bears more similarity to pagan mythology than biblical truth. Teaching the Jews that God came down in the form of a man would have completely offended those living at the time of Christ and the Apostles, and greatly contradicted their understanding of the Messianic Scriptures. As we saw in Chapter 9, this doctrine is derived most prominently from the gospel of John, and in particular from the phrase in John 1:14 (KJV): “And the Word was made flesh….” But was “the Word” synonymous with “the Messiah” in Jewish understanding? Hardly. The Jews would have understood it to mean “plan” or “purpose,” that which was clearly and specifically declared in Genesis 3:15—a “seed” of a woman who would destroy the works of the Devil. This plan of God for the salvation of man finally “became flesh” in Jesus Christ. This verse is not establishing a doctrine of Incarnation contrary to all prophetic expectations, nor a teaching of pre-existence. It is a teaching of God’s great love in bringing into existence His plan to save mankind from their sin.

Before proceeding, we must define what is traditionally understood by the “incarnation” of Christ. Keep in mind that we strongly affirm the reality and necessity of the virgin birth of Christ as the only way he could have been born without the inherent sin of mankind that would have disqualified him from becoming the Lamb of God. But the traditional “formula which enshrines the Incarnation …is that in some sense God, without ceasing to be God, was made man.” [3]

We will quote the New Bible Dictionary, a Trinitarian source, for a working definition and explanation of this doctrine:

It appears to mean that the divine Maker became one of His own creatures, which is a prima facie contradiction in theological terms. [4]

When the Word “became flesh,” His deity was not abandoned or reduced or contracted, nor did He cease to exercise the divine functions which had been His before…The Incarnation of the Son of God, then, was not a diminishing of deity, but an acquiring of manhood. [5]

One wonders how a pre-existent “God the Son” can become a man without any “diminishing of deity,” or that he could live a “fully human” life without ceasing to exercise the divine functions he had been exercising since eternity began. Trinitarians say this is part of the “mystery” of the Incarnation. The New Bible Dictionary admits that the concept is not developed or discussed in the New Testament:

The only sense in which the New Testament writers ever attempt to explain the incarnation is by showing how it fits into God’s overall plan for redeeming mankind…This evangelical interest throws light on the otherwise puzzling fact that the New Testament nowhere reflects on the virgin birth of Jesus as witnessing to the conjunction of deity and manhood in His person—a line of thought much canvassed by later theology. [6]

If the deity of Jesus was not at first clearly stated in words (and Acts gives no hint that it was), it was nevertheless part of the faith by which the first Christians lived and prayed…The theological formulation of belief in the Incarnation came later, but the belief itself, however incoherently expressed, was there in the Church from the beginning. [7]

We disagree with the assertion that the doctrine of the Incarnation was “in the Church from the beginning.” Since the doctrine is clearly not in Scripture, how can it possibly be considered a part of “the Apostles’ Doctrine”? Because scholars admit that this doctrine is biblically tenuous, we must examine why Christian theologians of the third century and later became so preoccupied with establishing it as the cornerstone of a Trinitarian Christian faith. In doing so, we will see some of the changing assumptions and beliefs that led to the development of this doctrine. We must first establish the fact that the very process of turning from historical truth to mythology was clearly prophesied by the Apostle Paul at the end of his life. This is amazing but not surprising, in light of the many times in Scripture that God has warned His people about being influenced by pagan culture.

Turning from Truth to Fables

“Incarnation,” at least in the most common Christian conception, is the belief that Jesus is not a created being, but the invisible God “clothed” in human flesh. To quote a recent book on the identity of Jesus by a popular author, Jesus “thought of Himself as God in human flesh.” [8] Thus, in our view, the biblical account of the creation of the Last Adam is exchanged for a myth. The concept of God, or any spirit being, becoming a baby is completely inconsistent with biblical truth. [9]

We recognize that the doctrine of the Incarnation is not the direct result of the incursion of pagan mythology, as if some Church leaders of the second century made up a story they knew would sound like mythology. We do think, however, that Church leaders of the third and fourth centuries after Christ were not diligent to allow the whole of Scripture to determine Christian doctrine. In the absence of a complete commitment to the whole Bible, they misconstrued the language of the gospel of John and used it to establish a doctrine that does not harmonize with Old Testament prophecy, the Synoptic Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. The result has been to shift the center of the Christian message from the historically documented resurrection to the Incarnation, a very mystical, mythological and mysterious idea. [10] As Maurice Wiles admits, “The Church has always recognized the highly mysterious nature of incarnational belief.” [11] —We would argue that this doctrine has done more to weaken the foundation of the rational core of the Christian faith than have all the assaults of so-called heretics” put together.

The idea that God Himself came and lived among us in the form of a man echoes pagan mythology, and at the very least has left the Christian message open to unnecessary ridicule. A pre-existent divine being taking on human flesh and being raised by regular human parents sounds so mythological that it has often been derided by critics, especially Jews and Muslims. This is even admitted by our Trinitarian source:

Such an assertion, considered abstractly against the background of Old Testament monotheism, might seem blasphemous or nonsensical— as indeed, orthodox Judaism has always held it to be. [12]

Robinson discusses the mythological character of the traditional and popular understanding of the Incarnation, or “the Christmas story”:

Traditional Christology has worked with a frankly supranaturalist scheme. Popular religion has expressed this mythologically, professional theology metaphysically. For this way of thinking, the Incarnation means that God the Son came down to earth, and was born, lived and died within this world as a man. From “out there” there graciously entered into the human scene one who was not “of it” and yet who lived genuinely and completely within it. As the God-man, he united in his person the supernatural and the natural: and the problem of Christology is how Jesus can be fully God and fully man, and yet genuinely one person.

The traditional supranaturalistic way of describing the Incarnation almost inevitably suggests that Jesus was really God Almighty walking about on earth, dressed up as a man. Jesus was not a man born and bred—he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, he talked like a man, he felt like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up—like Father Christmas…Indeed, the very word “incarnation” (which, of course is not a Biblical term) almost inevitably suggests it. It conjures up the idea of a divine substance being plunged in flesh and coated with it like chocolate or silver plating…The supranaturalist view of the Incarnation can never really rid itself of the idea of the prince who appears in the guise of a beggar. However genuinely destitute the beggar may be, he is a prince; and that in the end is what matters. [13]

Some in the “History of Religions school” have even suggested that the doctrine of the Incarnation was derived from Gnostic redeemer myths. [14] Though the specific Gnostic redeemer myth is now thought to have been developed after the theory of “God became a man” was already established, the mythological character of the doctrine of the Incarnation is evidently derivative and influenced by pagan God-man beliefs of the first few centuries after Christ. The doctrine sounds so similar to many other myths concerning divine beings who came and lived among men that it is hard not to conclude that Christian thinkers employed the language of pagan religions instead of adhering diligently to biblical language (Scripture).

The idea that God or the gods could come down in the form of men was a common view in New Testament times. We see a very clear example of this in the book of Acts, following the healing of a crippled man:

Acts 14:11-13
(11) When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!”
(12) Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker.
(13) The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

It is worthy of note that Paul and Barnabas did not take this opportunity to explain that it was not they who were gods come in human form, but Jesus (who was supposedly “God made man”). Instead, they argued against the mythological basis of such pagan beliefs and practices:

Acts 14:14 and 15
(14) But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:
(15) “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them.

As this section of Scripture implies, most people influenced by Greek and Roman religion and culture believed in a variety of myths involving the intermingling of gods, men, women, and even animals. For example, the Romans believed that Romulus and Remus were twins born of a mortal mother and Mars, the war god. The story was told that they were set afloat in a basket on the Tiber River. A she-wolf found the babies and raised them. A shepherd found the twins and brought them up to adulthood. The twins decided to build a city at the spot where the wolf found them, but Romulus killed Remus and founded Rome, supposedly in 753 B.C.

The Roman mythological pantheon included a triad, meaning a group of three gods, composed of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus. [15] Jupiter was the god of the heavens and Mars the god of war, while Quirinus represented the common people (the Greeks had no similar god). By the late 500’s B.C., the Romans replaced the archaic triad with another triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. Juno was associated with Hera [the wife of Zeus], and Minerva with Athena, who sprang fully grown from Zeus’ head.

The chief god in the Greek pantheon, Zeus, visited the human woman Danae in the form of golden rain and fathered Perseus, a “god-man.” Hercules (Herakles) was the son of Zeus, who fooled Alcmena by impersonating her husband, the general Amphitryon. In his descent into the realms of death, Hercules had become the Saviour of his people.

Another pagan myth particularly closely akin to the idea of the Incarnation is that of Dionysus. A. N. Wilson cites this myth as an example of what he believes is Christian mythologizing by the Apostle Paul:

Dionysus discards his divine nature and walks in the human world disguised…Dionysus, the god disguised in human form, tells him that his efforts to resist the new movement will be completely worthless; he is not contending against flesh and blood, but against a god. “You are mortal, he is a god. If I were you, I would control my rage and sacrifice to him, rather than kick against the pricks” [From Euripides, The Bacchae]. [16]

Critics of Christianity like Wilson have a field day with the likeness of the Incarnation to these pagan mythologies, and scoff at the notion that Jesus is “God” made manifest. There are enough things that the critics will find objectionable in the genuine Christian message. Why distort Scripture and thus give them legitimate ammunition?

It seems that believing myths is endemic to the human race. One of the advantages of myths, legends and stories compared to historical truth is that the former can be changed at any time and few will mind as long as it makes a better story. Because myths frequently form the core of a people’s identity and their sense of value in the cosmos, they are prone to believe stories that elevate their own status by the intermingling of the divine with their own history.

Mythology was an integral part of the life of the average person in the first century, and many rulers tried to associate their own birth with a god. Because of this mythological backdrop of the pagan religions of his day, the Apostle Paul went to great lengths to communicate the historical and scriptural basis for belief in Christ’s suffering, death and resurrectionaccording to prophecies spoken generations before. Instead of myths invented by man and bereft of the possibility of authentication, Paul and the believers of the early Church declared their faith in a Messiah who was a vivid and specifically prophesied historical figure. Only the true God could both declare His intentions well in advance and then perform them perfectly in a way that could be verified by eye-witnesses and later students of the Bible.

No one was ever an eye-witness to the fables of mythology, which were kept alive by the naïve credulity of devotees of pagan religions. Nor was the coming of any mythological figure accurately prophesied centuries before in a coherent body of prophetic literature. The Christian faith, therefore, stands alone among all the world’s belief systems, which, with the exception of Judaism, are based on unverifiable mythologies. Even the secular “religion” of Evolutionism is based upon a grandiose myth—that the minutely ordered cosmos arose spontaneously by chance from chaos, gradually increased in complexity by a series of small, random mutations, and eventually produced the minds of Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan, who were “smart” enough to conceive of and rationalize such a preposterous fable. [17] In contrast, Christians are expected to ground their faith on a rational, scriptural and historically verifiable foundation, so that their testimony cannot be discredited by later discoveries.

J. A. T. Robinson articulately sums up the sense in which Jesus embodies or “incarnates” God, not as a mythological figure, but as the one whom God sent to perfectly represent Him and do His will:

Jesus is a man who incarnates in everything he is and does the Logos who is God. He is the Son, the mirror-image of God, who is God for man and in man. The “I” of Jesus speaks God, acts God. He utters the things of God, he does the works of God. He is his plenipotentiary, totally commissioned to represent him—as a human being. He speaks and acts with the “I” that is one with God, utterly identified and yet not identical, his representative but not his replacement—and certainly not his replica, as if he were God dressed up as a human being. He is not a divine being who came to earth, in the manner of Ovid’s metamorphoses, [18] in the form of a man, but the uniquely normal human being in whom the logos or self-expressive activity of God was totally embodied. [19]

Jesus makes no claims for himself in his own right, and at the same time makes the most tremendous claims about what God is doing through him and uniquely through him. Jesus never claims to be God personally; yet he always claims to bring God completely. [20]

A strong argument against the idea that God became man in order to redeem us is that there is not a single prophecy that supports the idea. Nowhere in the body of Prophetic Literature does it say that God ever intended to make Himself into a man in order to redeem mankind. All the prophecies foretold of a human being who would be uniquely qualified and empowered to rule and reign and establish righteousness in the earth. For this reason, Satan was continually attempting to destroy the Christ line whenever he was able to determine its course. When Abraham was singled out, Satan escalated the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. When Jacob was identified as the one through whom the Christ would come, he and his children became the object of Satanic attack.

This was the consistent story throughout the Old Testament, and it is clearly seen in the New Testament also. As soon as Herod knew that the baby had been born, Satan inspired him to have the child killed. Would Satan have been so determined to destroy the child if he had known that it was God Himself who had made Himself into a baby? Did he think that by killing the baby he could destroy God ? The fact is, such a notion is completely foreign to the Prophetic Literature, which is radically trivialized by the idea that God meant all along that He would come Himself. Never do we read that a voice thundered down from Mt. Sinai or anywhere else: “Don’t make me come down there!”

It is true that the Messianic hope was at its root an anticipation of a human being that could completely represent God on earth. That is why the prophecy so clearly spoke “The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him.…” (Isa. 11:2). This human being would certainly have some divine attributes in order to carry out his job, but it is going too far to say, as theNew Bible Dictionary does, that:

The ascription by the Old Testament of various titles, functions and relationships to the God head, served to prepare the Jewish mind for the Christian doctrine of a triune Deity, which is necessarily connected with that of the Incarnation. [21]

The fact is, nothing prepared the Jewish mind for the idea of a triune godhead, as is evidenced by the millions of monotheistic Jews who still think the idea is nonsensical (see Chapter 5 of One God & One Lord for a detailed explanation of the Messiah the Jews expected from the prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures).

Can Only God Save?

As the subtle influence of Gnostic doctrine infiltrated the Church, early Church leaders and teachers began to accept the idea that for Christ to have been the Redeemer, it was necessary for him to transcend creation, that is, be an uncreated being, part of an eternal godhead. [22] Their reasoning was that creation could not be redeemed by a creature, but only by God Himself. We will now seek to prove that neither of these assumptions is supported by biblical evidence, and that each has led to an unscriptural conclusion that Jesus Christ is God “incarnate.” We will further show that this reasoning still prevails in the Christian Church today despite the biblical evidence to the contrary.

We must consider this assumption that Christ had to be “uncreated,” “eternal” and “fully God” in light of what will be handled in depth in the next chapter on the rejection of Scripture and logic by the early Church fathers and the Nicene Council. It is our considered opinion that this idea was not derived from the Bible, but was introduced under the influence on the Church of the belief in a transcendent God who was completely detached from the process of creation. [23] Indeed, as we saw in the previous chapter, one of the main earmarks of Gnostic thought was that God was not the Creator of this present creation, which was evil, but that this present cosmos was the work of a lesser, evil deity called a “demiurge.” This concept was complete speculation and mythology, but it had an influence on the direction of the Church’s teaching. The acceptance of myths into the core of the Christian Gospel sowed the seeds of a disastrous diminishment of the power of the Gospel message. Indeed, the historical validity of Jesus of Nazareth being the promised Messiah is the very core of the Gospel and a necessary element for salvation, because we must have faith in our heart that God has in actual fact raised him from the dead. That is, we are asked to believe in the validity of an historical event, because that event, like no other, demonstrated and proved that Jesus of Nazareth was who he said he was: the Son of the living God, Christ the Lord.

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Obviously, we are not expected to just “have faith” in the resurrection without evidence, as if we were children believing in the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. We see from Acts 1:3 that Christ provided the disciples with many convincing proofs of his resurrection:

Acts 1:3
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

This issue of the historical validity of the Christian Gospel, especially the Resurrection, is forcefully advanced in the New Testament as a part of “the Apostles’ Doctrine.” The Apostle Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 that unless Jesus was truly raised from the dead, our faith and preaching are vain (useless and worthless), and we are still in our sins. Any doctrine that compromises this historical bedrock of the Christian faith ought to be held in the profoundest suspicion. The resurrection of Christ is the lynchpin of the Gospel, and the affirmation of his Sonship and Messiahship. It is the fact of the Resurrection as the proof of the Messiahship of one Jesus of Nazareth that the early Church propounded. This is the historical truth upon which the Christian Gospel is built.

However, even today it is common to hear respected Bible teachers and commentators say that the essence of the Gospel is that “God became a man and died for our sins.” One modern defender of incarnational theology argues that if one does not believe that Jesus is God incarnate, that person will die in his sins. The verse he uses to substantiate this position is found in (surprise!) the gospel of John. We will quote the verse exactly as it appears in his newsletter with his inserted bracket: [24]

John 8:24b (KJV)
…for if ye believe not that I am he [God], ye shall die in your sins.

We strongly disagree with this interpretation, and assert that the real meaning of the verse is clear in light of the stated purpose of the gospel of John: to prove that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (20:31; cp. Matt. 16:16). In other words, if one chooses to not believe in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as the Redeemer to mankind, he will die in his sins. To go beyond this simple and easily understandable verse and assert, as orthodox Christianity has, that one must believe that Jesus is God incarnate or he will die in his sins, is, in our view, completely reprehensible. If only one person were discouraged from accepting Christ’s sacrifice on his behalf because of this teaching, that would be too many. But, no doubt, some people have thought they were lost in their sins simply because they could not believe in the Trinitarian view that God became a man.

The aforementioned apologist for orthodoxy makes the further comment about the necessity for the Redeemer to be God Himself. His reasoning is essentially the same as the thinking of the Christians under the influence of Gnosticism in the centuries after Christ:

Throughout the Old Testament, God says that He is the only Savior. Obviously this must be true because salvation is an infinite work, including as it must the full payment of the infinite penalty for sin required by God’s infinite justice—something which only God could accomplish. Consequently, for Jesus to be our Savior, He must be God. Paul called him “God our Savior” (1 Tim. 1:1, 2:3; Titus 1:3 and 4, 2:10 and 13, 3:4) as did Peter (2 Pet. 1:1) and Jude (v. 25)…Thus, God in His infinite love and grace became a man through the virgin birth so that He, as a man, could take the judgment we deserved and make it possible for us to be forgiven.[25]

The logic of this argument begins with the premise that only God can save. Beside the influence of pagan thought, this idea comes from the fact that God is called “Savior” in Scripture. For example:

Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.

Because the above verse seems to say that God is the only savior, the argument is that Jesus has to be God in order to save us, and if he is not God, then he did not save us, and we will die in our sins. But this is a fallacious argument because it fails on several counts. First, it fails to recognize the distinction between God as the Author of salvation and Christ as the Agent. [26] God, Christ and others are all referred to as “savior,” but that clearly does not make them identical. The term “savior” is used of many people in the Bible. This is hard to see in the English versions because, when it is used of men, the translators almost always translated it as “deliverer.” For example:

Nehemiah 9:27
So you handed them over to their enemies, who oppressed them. But when they were oppressed they cried out to you. From heaven you heard them, and in your great compassion you gave them deliverers [“saviors”], who rescued them from the hand of their enemies.

This in and of itself shows that modern translators have a Trinitarian bias that was not in the original languages. The only reason to translate the same word as “Savior” when it applies to God or Christ, but as “deliverer” when it applies to men, is to make the term seem unique to God and Jesus when in fact it is not. This is a good example of how the actual meaning of Scripture can be obscured if the translators are not careful or if they are theologically biased.

God’s gracious provision of “saviors” is not recognized when the same word is translated “savior” for God and Christ but “deliverer” for others. Also lost is the testimony in Scripture that God works through people to bring His power to bear. Of course, the fact that there are other “saviors” does not take away from Jesus Christ, who is the only one who could and did save us from our sins and eternal death. [27]

Second, the term “savior” must be understood in relationship to what people were being “saved” from. The “saving” that God did prior to His Son’s coming was rescuing His people from their various bondages and captivities, not the ultimate salvation of saving His people from their sins. That job had to wait until the birth of the man who was the Lamb of (from) God, not the God who became a Lamb.

The third problem with this argument is that it fails to take into account a common idiom employed in prophetic utterances, namely that actions are often attributed directly to God when in fact they will be carried out by His agents. Matthew 1:21 (NRSV) says that the name “Jesus” or Yeshua means “Yahweh saves,” and proceeds to give a prophetic utterance based on the name: “…for he will save his people from their sins.” His name means “Yahweh saves,” and yet it says that “he [Jesus] will save.” This kind of language has a rich biblical background that must be understood clearly to avoid confusion.

Jesus, Yeshua, is the same name as the “Joshua” of Old Testament fame. By studying the relevant biblical records, we learn that Yahweh did not “save” Israel by doing the job Himself, or by becoming Joshua. Joshua “saved” Israel by obeying God and leading the children of Israel out of the wilderness and into the Promised Land. The salvation was wrought by God empowering both Joshua and the people who went forth in faith to claim the victory that God guaranteed for them if they would go get it. Yet leading up to this victorious accomplishment of Joshua’s were several prophetic utterances spoken by God Himself, strongly stating that He would do the job. For example:

Exodus 23:23, 27, and 28
(23) My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.
(27 I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.
(28 I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way.

It seems very clear in verse 23 that God said that He Himself would do the delivering. But, in this same context a few verses later, He says that the Israelites will drive His enemies out:

Exodus 23:31
“I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you.

What is going on? Is God the “savior” here or not? The fact is, this is typical of prophetic language. [28] The principle we see over and over in Scripture is this: God says that “He will do” something that in fact He will empower His servants to do with His help. More specifically, when God says that He will do something, He means that He will sendsomeone with whom He will work to bring His will to pass. In the above case, it was Joshua, but also Moses, Gideon, the other judges, David and many others were the active agents of the salvation that God “wrought.” [29] In the case of sending someone to die for our sins, He sent Jesus, the namesake of Joshua. Only rarely in Scripture does God act sovereignly (i.e., without a human agent), and in the case of Jesus, He did not take matters into His own hands, but entrusted His will into the loving and obedient hands of His beloved Son. God, as His manner has always been, sent the perfect person into the battle and worked with him until the job was done. So in a very real sense, both God andJesus “saved” us, as Old Testament heroes saved Israel, and therefore it is appropriate that each should be called “savior.” [30]

We agree that Man, in his fallen condition, could never produce a qualified candidate for the job of Messiah, nor initiate anything resulting in the redemption of mankind. Because sin is inherent in mankind, and because the wages of sin is death, the death of a sacrifice was required to atone for it (Heb. 9:22). Animal blood, though provisionally adequate before Christ by the grace of God, failed to satisfactorily meet the requirements of a complete atonement. God, being spirit, has no blood; furthermore, God, who is immortal and eternal, cannot die. Therefore the only solution was that a man with perfect blood (that is, a sinless man) had to die. But because all men have been tainted by sin, there would be no possibility for a sinless human to exist without some kind of direct, divine intervention. However, we must reject the proposition that the only way God could satisfy the requirements of redemption was by becoming a man Himself.

Contrary to the assumption that Christ must be God for redemption to be accomplished, we find, upon closer scrutiny, that the opposite must be the case—that unless he was a man, Jesus could not have redeemed mankind. God’s “infinite” (we prefer a less mathematical and more biblical term like “immortal”) nature actually precluded Him from being our redeemer, because God cannot die. He therefore sent a man equipped for the task, one who could die for our sins and then be raised from the dead to vanquish death forever. This is the clear testimony of Scripture.

Romans 5:15
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man [Adam], how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

If it were a major tenet of Christianity that redemption had to be accomplished by God Himself, then this section of Romans would have been the perfect place to say it. But just when Scripture could settle the argument once and for all, it says that redemption had to be accomplished by a man. The theological imaginings of “learned men” that only God could redeem mankind are rendered null and void by the clear voice of God Himself speaking through Scripture: a man had to do the job. Not just any man, but a sinless man, a man born of a virgin—THE MAN, Jesus, now The Man exalted to the position of “Lord” atGod’s right hand.

The crux of the Christian faith is not a mythical and mystical “incarnation” by which God supposedly became a man, but the historical event of a purely righteous man’s death on a tree, and then his being raised from the dead by God to everlasting life. It is this simple but powerful truth that began to be exchanged for a “mystery.” [31]

Creation, Not Incarnation

Jesus makes clear reference to two distinct categories in John 3:6 when he says that the “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” Jesus clearly declared God to be “spirit” (John 4:24). Note that he did not say, “I am spirit,” or “God is flesh” or even “The Father is spirit.” By thus placing “God” in the category of “spirit,” when he himself is clearly a man of flesh and blood, Jesus effectively excluded any possibility that he was God. If God, being spirit, can incarnate Himself as a man, then the clear scriptural distinction between flesh and spirit disintegrates. But God the Creator, who is spirit, can create flesh, as He did in Genesis 1. His spirit brooded upon the face of the water, speaking into being things that had not existed before. These things were in “the flesh,” but were not He. They were His creation, but He stood apart from them and judged them to be very good.

Creation is the means by which God has brought things to pass outside of that which would occur naturally. He caused a human life to begin in the womb of Mary by an act of supernatural creation, not mystical incarnation (Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35). He waited for a willing woman to bear this child, a woman whose confession and testimony were befitting the honor bestowed upon her. In this way He brought into the world a human being who fulfilled the necessary conditions for becoming the Messiah. That was only the first hurdle. Then He had to work with the growing child to help him maintain his sinless condition until the time he could be anointed with holy spirit and thus be empowered to do the work to which he was called (Acts 10:38). Yes, God had to provide (by creation) the body that could be sacrificed, but Jesus had to obey Him flawlessly for his body to finally be the perfect sacrifice that it needed to be. Thus, God and Jesus each had a responsibility that the other could not perform, and upon which our redemption depended.

Let us reiterate a point we have already made in the first two chapters: the assertion that Jesus was God in human flesh nullifies the absolute necessity of Christ’s obedience, because, as God, no temptation he faced would have been genuine. God cannot be tempted, because God cannot sin (James 1:13). It is also axiomatic that God can neither “obey” nor “disobey” Himself. Nor does He need to command Himself to do anything, for as God, the perfect moral being, He always acts in a timely and perfectly righteous manner.

Another unsolvable problem caused by the “incarnation” is that it destroys the plan that God established of a first Adam and a last Adam. Romans 5:12-19 clearly defines a critical, logical parallel between Adam and Jesus Christ in the context of the redemption of mankind. A major consequence of the doctrine that God became man is that it destroys this key parallel, for Adam is hardly comparable to an eternally pre-existent being. Rather, he was a created being made in the image of the One who created him, God. Adam was not “fully man and fully God,” “100 percent man and 100 percent God,” “coequal with God the Father,” or “of the same substance as the Father.” Adam was a created, empowered being who chose to disobey a direct command of God, with dire consequences to himself and all mankind as a result.

Jesus Christ was also a created being, made a man in the same way that Adam was originally made, that is, a masterpiece of God’s creation, given dominion over Paradise and every creature He had made. Jesus could have no intrinsic advantage over Adam, or his qualification as Redeemer would be legally nullified. He was the Last Adam, not the firstGod-man. The differences between Adam and Jesus were circumstantial, not essential: Adam started tall with no navel; Jesus started short with a navel. Adam was created fully formed and fully able to comprehend the voice of God. Jesus had to learn from his parents. Adam did not have to suffer the indignity of a humble birth and be considered illegitimate, the son of common folk. Adam had only to dress and keep the garden and care for his wife. He had to keep from eating the fruit, or die and bring death to all his descendants. Jesus had to drink the cup of suffering and die so he could be raised to conquer death and make it possible for others to eat of the “fruit” of eternal life.

In a head-to-“Head” comparison, Adam had every advantage, yet Jesus overcame where Adam fell. He chose to obey God’s will, which was that he present himself as a perfect sacrifice for sin. For the legal requirements of redemption to be satisfied, whatever Adam was, Jesus Christ had to be. Scripture declares very clearly that Jesus was a created human being like Adam was. In fact, they were both the result of God’s direct creative activity.

As we have stated, the whole Bible is simply the story of two Adams. Except for the initial genetic perfection that they shared in common, the contrast between them is stark. Here is perhaps another way to summarize Romans 5:12-21:

Two Adams
Two created beings
Two Sons of God
Two men
Two gardens
Two temptations
Two choices
Two attitudes
Two decisions
Two results
Two races

Other Problems with the Doctrine of the “Incarnation”

Aside from its mythological character, what are other problems with the idea of God becoming a man? First of all, it is illogical and self-contradictory when we are true to the accurate biblical usages of words. The Bible explicitly states that “God is not a man…” (Num. 23:19), which defines two distinct categories, God and man. [32] In terms of symbolic logic, it could be stated in this way: P is not Q. If Q, then not P. If God is not a man, then if someone is a “man,” he cannot be “God.”

God’s holiness precludes Him from becoming anything other than what He is. Rubenstein points out the illogic of the assertion that “God can do anything.”

Athanasius [a bishop of Alexandria who spearheaded what became the orthodox Trinitarian position] says that God can do anything He chooses to do, and that He chose to turn Himself into a man for the sake of our salvation. Jesus Christ is not one of God’s creatures, he insists, but God Himself, incarnated in human form. These sound like clear statements, but, actually, they are hopelessly confused.

Can God do anything He chooses to do? Of course—except those things that are inconsistent with being God. Can He choose to be evil or ignorant? Could He be the Devil—or nothing at all? [33]

Perfection cannot be improved upon or changed. He is not a pantheistic “god” who dwells in everything. He is holy, meaning that He stands apart from and above His creation, yet is intimately involved with it. Therefore, God cannot alter His essential nature, which by definition is perfect, and perfection cannot be improved upon. But even if He could, in doing so He would, by definition, no longer be “God.”

If Jesus Christ is “God in human flesh,” there are other scriptural casualties. First, it renders the pathos of Gethsemane virtually meaningless, when Jesus prayed three times forthis cup to be removed from me (Luke 22:42). If he is “of the same substance” as the Father, and an eternally integral part of a “Godhead,” then his will is of necessity the same as “God’s.” If he struggled only in his “human side,” as Trinitarians argue, while accepting the assignment in his “divine side,” we are certainly left unimpressed by the difficulty he faced, compared to the way we face temptation without the benefit of a “divine” side that is sure to dominate.

If it were “God’s” will that Jesus should die, and Jesus is “God” in human flesh, then it was clearly also his will to die. Why then did Jesus wrestle so intensely with the assignment to sacrifice himself, finally surrendering and saying “…nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done”? If this struggle were between his divine and human natures, then why invoke God his Father in prayer in what was really an internal, almost schizophrenic, struggle? [34]

In our considered opinion, attempting to artificially exalt Christ via theological manipulation results in the complete negation of the heroic character of this free act of his will. Unless he was really a man, “…in all points tempted like as we are…” (Heb. 4:15 – KJV), with real freedom to turn his back on the assignment, the value of his act as a magnanimous sacrifice (an emptying of his own will and desire) is virtually eliminated. If he were God, he could hardly deny himself or disobey his own directive. Seeing Jesus as an empowered human being who had to obey God like we do is the proper context and backdrop for appreciating his heroism. Seeing him as essentially God, endowed with a divine perspective of human events, results in a view that he was only going through the prearranged motions. In that case, his heroic commitment and example collide with his supposed “deity” and sink into a gray and uninspiring sea of inevitability.

Along with the demise of Christ’s heroism is the destruction of the logic of Philippians 2:8-11, and a diminishing of his exaltation based upon the merits of his obedience. Scripture here reveals that God highly exalted Jesus Christ in response to his humbling himself to be obedient unto death, even a death as humiliating and painful as crucifixion. If Christ were “coeternal” and “pre-existent ” with “God the Father,” and if he already occupied the highest position in glory before the “incarnation,” then what is the significance of this special exaltation relative to his obedience unto death? Was he not simply returning to his former elevated station, one that could hardly be denied him since he willingly gave it up with the understanding that he would be able to return to it? If we are truly concerned about giving Christ his proper due and honoring him appropriately, does it not make more sense to place his accomplishments in a theological framework in which his heroism is more apparent rather than less? [35] Consider the power of James Moffatt’s translation of Isaiah 9:6 in this regard:

Isaiah 9:6
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!”

Yet another casualty of the “Incarnation” is the significance of his Lordship. Acts 2:36 says that God made Jesus of Nazareth “both Lord and Christ.” If Jesus Christ were already “God,” then one cannot comprehend the granting of the title “Lord” to him as anything particularly notable, because he already had every right to the title and had already been exercising it in the Old Testament. Again we find that manmade theological attempts to exalt Christ beyond what is specifically revealed in Scripture result in a radical demeaning of the value of his obedience and accomplishments on our behalf. Man, however sincerely, cannot add to Jesus’ greatness by making him something that Scripture does not. In fact, any attempt to do so significantly subtracts from the greatness of the biblical message. When we let the Word of God speak for itself and allow every piece of the puzzle to fit together without squeezing it to fit our own traditions or preconceived notions, both God and His Son are glorified, reason is satisfied and the Christian Church is blessed as it builds upon a sound cornerstone.

The “Pre-existence” of Christ

As Paul prophesied, myths began to replace the clear and simple assertions of Scripture. One of the myths that arose was that Jesus Christ existed prior to his birth. This idea led to the necessity of the doctrine of the Incarnation, which attempts to explain how God became a human. In his thorough examination of the doctrine of the Incarnation, James D. G. Dunn recognizes that the concept arose late in the first century through a mistakenly literal interpretation of the gospel of John. Dunn devotes many hundreds of pages to documenting that the doctrine of pre-existence can be substantiated only from John:

Only in the Fourth Gospel does the understanding of a personal pre-existence fully emerge, of Jesus as the divine Son of God before the world began sent into the world by the Father…at the end of the first century a clear concept of pre-existent divine sonship has emerged, to become the dominant (and often the only) emphasis in subsequent centuries. [36]

Other verses in the New Testament have been used from time to time to attempt to establish the doctrine of pre-existence, but many scholars have concluded that neither Paul nor Peter nor James nor the Synoptics portray Jesus as a pre-existent being. [37]

Without the idea of Christ existing in some form before his birth, there would be no need for the doctrine of an “incarnation.” There have been many non-Trinitarians through the ages who have openly stood against the Trinity but who have believed that Jesus was the first of all of God’s creation and was the being through whom God created the world. Apparently Arius, the bishop who debated with Athanasius at the Counsel of Nicaea in 325 A.D., held this position. [38] In examining the gospel of John, Chapter 6, we freely admit that there are verses in Scripture that seem to say that Jesus actually existed prior to his birth. However, there is a greater weight of evidence against such an incongruous notion (can one exist before he exists?), and the verses that seem to say he did “pre-exist” can be understood in a way that does not support such a counterintuitive notion. Furthermore, the few “pre-existence” verses are outnumbered by many clear verses that teach that Jesus began his life as a seed in the womb of Mary.

The first place the Messiah is mentioned is in the Old Testament, and there is no statement that Jesus was already alive in any form. On the contrary, countless references to the Messiah speak of him in the literal future tense. For example, “I will raise up for them a prophet…” (Deut. 18:18), is typical in speaking of the Messiah in a future tense. Another example is in Samuel: “…I will raise up your offspring…I will be his father, and he will be my son…” (2 Sam. 7:12 and 14). Trinitarians say that the Messiah was “God the Son,” the second person of the Trinity, who was “co-eternal” (i.e., never created). In that case he would “already” have been the Son, and the use of the future tense is misleading, even inaccurate. Another example is: “…His name will be called Wonderful Counselor…” (Isa. 9:6 – NASB). The phrase “will be called” shows clearly that the people did not think the Messiah was already around. If the Messiah were already alive, he would have already had a name. There are theologians who believe that Jesus appeared in the Old Testament, but there is no place where the text says that “Jesus” appeared. God and angels came into concretion for people, but never Jesus, for he did not yet exist. [39]

If Jesus did “pre-exist,” then the only way that he could become a baby would be to “incarnate.” Thus, the fact that the Scripture does not mention any such “incarnation” is a good argument that it never actually occurred. This is made even more apparent when the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are read, because they clearly indicate that Jesus’ life began when God impregnated Mary. For example, the wording of Matthew 1:18 is specific. Most translations read something like: “This is how the birth of Jesus came to be….” The Greek word translated “birth” is genesis, which technically means “beginning,” and is translated “birth” only when the context demands it. It was apparent that the early copyists were unhappy that the Bible said “the beginning of Jesus Christ,” so in many Greek texts they changed “genesis,” “beginning,” to the closely related word, “gennesis,” which definitely means “birth.” [40] Thankfully, there are honest people doing textual work today and it is openly admitted, even by Trinitarians, that the original word used in Matthew was genesis (“beginning”).

As Peter declared by revelation, “For he was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you” (1 Pet. 1:20 – NASB). Christ was in God’s foreknowledge before the world began, but was not yet a reality. Christians are spoken of in exactly the same way. Romans 8:29 says Christians were foreknown. Ephesians 1:4 (KJV) says Christians were chosen before the foundation of the world. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says Christians were chosen from the “beginning.” 2 Timothy 1:9 (NASB) says the grace of God was granted us from all eternity. Yet no theologians say that Christians “pre-existed,” so it is inconsistent of them to take the same wording about both Christ and Christians and arrive at two different conclusions—that Christ “pre-existed,” but Christians were only “foreknown.”

Angel Christology

Many Trinitarian theologians elevate the “high Christology” of the gospel of John and proceed to read into the writings of the Apostle Paul that he understood Christ to be some form of pre-existent, angelic being. But even before Jesus was born, some Jewish rabbis and authors were identifying God’s Messiah as an angelic being. For example, the Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, identified Christ as an angelic being in Isaiah 9:6. [41]

The widely held and deeply rooted belief that Christ was a created being was a major obstacle that had to be overcome in order for the Trinity to be accepted by most Christians. In the first place, it is a clear tenet of Scripture that, born as a baby, Jesus became the glorified Christ with a new body and acquired the position of “Lord” that the Word says he earned by virtue of his obedience to God. It was quite inconceivable to the Jews and early Christians that God Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, could undergo growth and change, because the Bible clearly testifies that He is perfect and does not change (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). Thus, the fact that Christ did grow and change presupposed that he was not God, but a creation of God(Luke 2:52). No wonder centuries of theological debate were required before the Trinity was accepted in the Church! Not only was it non-scriptural, but it flew in the face of another ancient myth that we have been discussing—Jewish Angel-Christology. [42] The doctrine of the Trinity was not accepted immediately, but had to gain ascendancy by replacing the beliefs already in existence.

The battle for the ascendancy of Trinitarian doctrine was fought on many fronts, and the weapons included excommunication and the sword. Doctrinally, the battle raged fiercely. There were many questions that Trinitarians had to either answer or sidestep, and the path was a winding one with many detours. It is not within the scope of this book to cover the whole matter in depth in order to show all that was going on theologically in the early centuries in the Church, but these facts are available to learn from many objective historical sources.

The essence of the Gospel, that God “made” the man Jesus “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), had to be downplayed, even done away with. If Christ were God in eternity past, and if he were God in the flesh, then it was hardly a “promotion” or “honor” for him to be “made Lord.” He was simply returning to the position he occupied previous to his earthly “incarnation” after his guest appearance here on the earth.

To change from the original biblical understanding that Jesus became “both Lord and Christ,” to the new doctrine of what is actually “God regaining His rightful position as God,” yet another new doctrine had to be developed. This was the doctrine of the “two natures in Christ,” which is commonly understood as Christ being both “100 percent man and 100 percent God.” This new idea of the two natures in Christ also had to overcome obstacles, and it did. Martin Werner writes:

But the notion of a transformation [that Jesus went from a baby to “Lord”] had been too clearly set forth by Paul and the Synoptics to allow its being completely disregarded. Accordingly, the Church in its theology made a concession to the transformation-scheme when once the Angel-Christology had been definitively repudiated. This took the form of the notion that the “human nature,” with which that divine nature had united itself in Jesus, had become deified through the Resurrection and Exaltation. [43]

As we mentioned above, the Church began to accept and teach that only God Himself could redeem mankind. If so, then it follows that an angelic being or a creation of God could not do so. Let us again state emphatically and categorically that the teaching that the redemption of mankind had to be accomplished by God and not by a man is grossly unbiblical. The Bible clearly teaches that the Redeemer had to be a true man, and not a hybrid “God-Man.”

God Is the Source of the Messiah

There are a number of verses that refer to Jesus coming “from heaven,” “from above,” “sent from God,” etc., and these are all found in the gospel of John. We explored some of the reasons for this language in the Fourth Gospel in Chapter 8, but we will now address the issue further because of the way the gospel of John is used by Trinitarians to establish the doctrines of Pre-existence and Incarnation:

• …no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: even the Son of Man” (3:13 - NASB).
• “He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all (3:31 – NASB).
• For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God… (3:34 – NASB).
• “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world” (6:33 – NASB).
• “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me (6:38 – NASB).
• “What then if you should behold the Son of Man ascending where He was before? (6:62 – NASB).
• …I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world (8:23).
• …I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me (8:42b – NASB).
• “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; I am leaving the world again, and going to the Father” (16:28 – NASB).

These verses may seem to be impressive proof that Jesus did “pre-exist” in heaven before his birth, but in Chapter 8 we explained the purpose of such figurative language. Beyond that important truth, however, how would the people to whom Jesus was talking understand his words? The Jews were not even expecting God to impregnate a virgin in order to bring forth their Messiah, much less that God Himself would mystically transform Himself into the Messiah. The concept of God having such a direct relationship with a mortal woman was foreign to Jewish thinking. Mary, upon being told she would bear “the Son of the Most High,” said to the angel, “How will this be”…“since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34).

A quick study of Jewish commentaries on the Old Testament verses that Christians use to show the virgin birth in prophecy will demonstrate that the Jews did not then, and do not now, interpret them to mean a virgin birth. That is one reason Christ was accused of being “illegitimate” (John 8:41). James Dunn, himself a believer in the doctrine of pre-existence, wrote in Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation: “We have examples of men who are said to be the offspring of a union between some god and mortal woman (Dionysus, Heracles, Alexander the Great), but this was foreign to Jewish thought, and Jewish writers seem to have avoided the conception completely.” [44] Thus, the Jews would not have understood Christ saying that he “came from above” to mean that he was “incarnated.” How would they have understood him?

If studied in the language and culture in which they were spoken, words or phrases that seem to communicate one truth often communicate something else entirely. This is a common occurrence in verbal intercourse. James Dunn’s exhaustive study devoted to the origin of the doctrine of the “Incarnation” was motivated by a desire to understand the words of the New Testament in their original context. He writes: “My concern has been all the time, so far as it is possible, to let the New Testament writers speak for themselves, to understand their words as they would have intended, to hear them as their first readers would have heard them…” [45] Unfortunately, Dunn is not sensitive to idiomatic language and falls into the same trap many Trinitarian New Testament scholars do, that of taking figurative language literally, and literal language figuratively. Once again we see that the proper acknowledgement of figures of speech is absolutely crucial for sound biblical exegesis.

There is a common Hebrew and Aramaic idiom that when God is the author of something, the Jews spoke of it as “coming from God,” “coming from heaven,” “coming down from heaven,” etc. For example, the very prologue of John most often used to substantiate the doctrine of Incarnation says in John 1:6 (KJV): “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.” Does this mean that John, too, was a pre-existent divine being who was sent from heaven and became a human by an “incarnation”? Clearly not, but he was “sent from God” in the sense that he was commissioned by God to perform an important function.

There are many other examples of this idiom. God said in Malachi that He would “open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing,” and today we still use the word “Godsend” for a blessing that comes at just the right time. The Bible speaks of the “bread from heaven” referring to manna, but the manna did not float down like snow. Rather, it appeared like frost on the ground. It was said to “come down from heaven” because God was its source. God being the source is the best explanation for Christ’s statements that he was sent by God, came from above, etc. The Jews would naturally have understood Christ’s statements that way, and there is no evidence at all that they would have expected Christ to be speaking of a literal descent from heaven or an “incarnation.”

In regard to the example of John the Baptist as a man “sent from God,” consider the following verse:

Matthew 21:25
[Jesus asked the Jews:] John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven [i.e., was God its source?], or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’

John’s baptism was “from heaven” because God was the source of the inspiration. So too, Jesus “came from heaven” because God was the source of the seed created in Mary. It would be an intrusion on the language and the culture of the times to insist that the Bible teaches an incarnation when there is evidence that the words used to “prove” it have an entirely different meaning. We will quote one final example that should suffice to make the point. James 1:17 says that good and perfect gifts are “from above” and “come down” from the Father. Obviously, this verse is saying that God is the source of the wonderful things spoken of. No one believes that unless something literally drops from the sky it is not from God.

The Prophetic Perfect

There is yet another Jewish idiomatic expression that we need to be aware of when studying the verses about Jesus Christ. When something was absolutely going to happen in the future, it is often spoken of as occurring in the past, or as already in existence. [46] This is very well known to Hebrew scholars, and it is called by different names including: “the prophetic perfect,” “the historic sense of prophecy,” and “the preterite of prophetic vision.” The distinguished scholar and author of Young’s Concordance wrote: “The past is frequently used to express the certainty of a future action.” [47] Before Abraham had any descendants, God said to him: “…To your descendants I have given this land…” (Gen. 15:18 – NASB). Jude 14 (NASB) speaks of Enoch’s prophecy, which literally reads “…the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones.” Of course, the Lord has not yet come, but the event is so certain that it is placed in the past tense. There are many more examples of this in the Bible.

In his magnificent work, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E. W. Bullinger showed that the switch from the literal future tense to the past tense for emphasis was technically the figure of speech heterosis, and we have already introduced the concept of heterosis in Chapter 8. As an introduction to the subject of the past being used instead of the future for a future event, Bullinger writes:

[The past tense is used instead of the future] when the speaker views the action as being as good as done. This is very common in the Divine prophetic utterances where, though the sense is literally future, it is regarded and spoken of as though it were already accomplished in the Divine purpose and determination. The figure is to show the absolute certainly of the things spoken of. [48]

Some of the examples of the Hebrew text speaking of a future event in the past are:

• Genesis 15:18. The Hebrew text reads, “…to your descendants I have given this land.…” However, this promise was made before Abraham even had any descendants to give the land to. Nevertheless, God states His promise in the past tense to emphasize the certainty of the event. In order to avoid possible confusion, the NIV has, “…To your descendants I give this land.…”

• 1 Samuel 2:31. The Hebrew text is in the past tense and literally reads, about Eli the High Priest, “Lo, the days are coming, and I have cut off your arm… [i.e., “your strength”]. Almost all modern versions translate this verse in the future tense so it makes sense to the modern reader. The NIV has, “The time is coming when I will cut short your strength.…”

• 1 Samuel 10:2. The Hebrew text is in the past tense and says, “…you have found two men.…” Most modern versions convert the past to the future so the reader is not confused. The NIV reads, “When you [Saul] leave me [Samuel] today, you will meet two men near Rachel’s tomb.…”

• Job 19:27 is one of the great statements of hope in the Bible. Job knew that sometime after he died he would be resurrected to life and be with the Messiah. The Hebrew text makes this future resurrection certain by portraying it as a past event. The Hebrew text literally reads, “…my eyes have seen him…[the Redeemer].” The NIV converts the past to the future so the reader will not be confused: “I myself will see him with my own eyes….”

• Proverbs 11:7-21 offer an interesting contrast. In verse 7, the past tense of the Hebrew text makes the future destruction of the wicked person a sure thing, reading, “…the hope of the unjust man has perished.” In contrast, in verse 21 the Hebrew text, speaking of the righteous man, reads, “…the seed of the just has escaped.” Of course, the actual judgment of the righteous and wicked is still future, and most modern versions say that the hope of the wicked will perish while the seed of the just will escape. God’s justice for both the righteous and the wicked is assured, and the use of the idiom warns of that in a powerful way.

• Isaiah 11:1 is a great prophecy about the coming Messiah. God foretold the coming of the Messiah from the line of David. He used the prophetic perfect idiom and placed the prophecy of the coming Messiah in the past tense. The Hebrew text reads, “…a shoot has come up from the stump of Jesse….” The modern versions use the future tense and read, “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse….” The coming of the Messiah was absolutely certain, and God represents that certainty in the text.

• Isaiah 9:6 also speaks of the coming Messiah. To mark the certainty of the future event, the past tense is used in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text of Isaiah 9:6 reads, “…to us a child has been born, to us a son has been given, and the government has been on his shoulders, and he has been called Wonderful, Counselor…” Of course, the birth of the Messiah was future, and the noted commentator Edward J. Young writes:

  We must note again how impressive this fact was to Isaiah. He speaks of the birth as though it had already occurred, even though from his standpoint it was future. We know that Isaiah is not speaking of a past occurrence, for the simple reason that to do so would not yield a good sense. Whose birth, prior to Isaiah’s time, ever accomplished what is herein described? To ask that question is to answer it. Furthermore, we must note that the Child whose birth is here mentioned was also the One whose birth had been foretold in chapter 7. [49]

• Jeremiah 21:9 speaks of the certainty that those people who surrender to the Babylonians will spare their life. The Hebrew text reads, “…whoever goes out and hassurrendered…will live….” Of course, no one had surrendered yet, and so the modern versions read, “…whoever goes out and surrenders…will live.…”

The idioms of the Hebrew culture come over into the New Testament text as well. Bullinger explains that the idioms of the Hebrew language and culture are reflected in the Greek text. He writes:

The fact must ever be remembered that, while the language of the New Testament is Greek, the agents and instruments employed by the Holy Spirit were Hebrews. God spake “by the mouth of his holy prophets.” Hence, while the “mouth” and the throat and vocal chord and breath were human, the words were Divine.

No one is able to understand the phenomenon; or explain how it comes to pass: for Inspiration is a fact to be believed and received, and not a matter to be reasoned about. While therefore, the words are Greek, the thoughts and idioms are Hebrew.

Some, on this account, have condemned the Greek of the New Testament, because it is not classical; while others, in their anxiety to defend it, have endeavored to find parallel usages in classical Greek authors. Both might have spared their pains by recognizing that the New Testament Greek abounds with Hebraisms, i.e., expressions conveying Hebrew usages and thoughts in Greek words.” [50]

We agree with Bullinger, and would like to add that there is also the possibility that there was an Aramaic original text underlying some of the Greek text and giving it a Semitic flavor. A New Testament example that Bullinger gives is Ephesians 2:6: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.” This verse is usually translated in modern versions just as it reads in the Greek—in the past tense. That causes a problem. In the rest of the Bible, the translators have almost always translated the “prophetic perfect” as a future tense so the reader will not be confused, so the average Christian is not used to seeing a future event described in the past tense. Thus when they read that Christians are “seated” in the heavenly realms, they have no training to help them understand that this is a way of stating that in the future we will absolutely be seated with Christ in the kingdom of heaven. [51] Most of them try to “spiritualize” the verse and come up with some way we are seated in heaven now, even though that contradicts what both experience, as well as what the rest of the New Testament says about us being on earth now.

Another clear example of the prophetic perfect in the New Testament occurs in the book of Jude. Jude 14 speaks of Enoch’s prophecy, which literally reads, “…the Lord came with ten thousands of His holy ones.” Of course, the Lord has not come yet, but his coming is so certain that it is placed in the past tense. It can easily be seen how idioms of the language like the “prophetic perfect” put translators in a tough position. If they translate the text literally, many Christians will be very confused. However, if they do not, then the powerful way that God communicates what will absolutely occur in the future is lost.

It is important for us to understand the prophetic perfect. For example, we are studying the Scripture and we come across a reference to the Messiah that is obviously future, (Isaiah 53:5 which speaks of the Messiah already having been pierced more than 700 years before he was born), we are not confused, but understand that God is using the idiom to communicate the certainty of his being pierced.

There are many important examples of the “prophetic perfect” in the Bible, and an exhaustive list would be very difficult to compile. However, the examples listed above should be enough to show that a future event may be spoken of in the past tense to show that it will absolutely come to pass. The fact that the past tense is used for a future event all through Scripture should be evidence that it was commonly understood.

 

Conclusion

It should now be clear that the doctrine of the Incarnation is not biblical and was developed by man, particularly in the third through fifth centuries in conjunction with the doctrines of the Trinity and the dual nature of Christ. Based upon this evidence, we propose that the idea of incarnation give way to a simpler and more biblical explanation of Jesus’ origin—that God was his source by the same process of special creation that brought the heavens and the earth into being. We agree that it is important for Christians to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, because without that teaching, Jesus is merely the offspring of Joseph and Mary, and tainted by the sin of mankind. If so, he would be incapable of being our Redeemer, because he could never present himself as the perfect sacrifice for sins. In that case, Christianity would indeed fall apart. But nothing is lost if a shift is made in Christian thinking from Jesus being the “incarnation” of God to Jesus being the creation of God, his Father. How sad that the vast majority of Christians believe the fable that God became a baby. The truth is nearly just the opposite—a baby became the Lord!

---

Trinity?? Do You Want To Know The Truth? Watch!!!

Please watch this video to learn the TRUTH! about the Son Of God!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXADpdG6Uqc

He Is Truly The Son Of God

Son Of God

Who is Jesus of Nazareth? When He walked upon this earth over nineteen hundred years ago He asked His disciples: “Whom do men say that I, the Son of man am?” They answered that some declared Him to be John the Baptist, while others claimed that He was Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.  He said to His disciples, “But whom say ye that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). Here we find the correct answer as to whom Jesus is. The man who knows and believes this and can give this answer from the depth of his heart in spirit and in truth is blessed. He has had revelation from heaven through the Word of truth. Hear the answer of truth! “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Unless we come without any strings attached, without any wresting or twisting of these words, and believe them just as they are stated, we cannot know the living God. Neither do we understand His plan of salvation.

 ”Thou art the Christ,” means, “Thou art the Anointed One.” Now those who contend that Jesus was God Himself or the High God can never believe that Jesus was the Anointed One. Why? Those who advocate that Jesus is God Himself claim there is a triune God and therefore is equal to and co-existent with God the Father.

 In Acts 10:38 we find these words: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Let us think honestly and clearly before God. If Jesus were God Himself or part of a trinity Godhead, equal and co-existent with two other parts in a God head of three, it would be impossible for Him to be anointed by any one of the other two. That would make one of them greater than He. The Bible clearly states that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” If God had not anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost and with power, could He ever have accomplished anything worthy of mention? How many sins could He have forgiven? How many sick could He have healed? Could He have raised the dead? You see, Jesus was not God, but was the Son of God and was dependent upon His Father. (John 5:19-21)

Now hear the Word of the Lord. It may change your theology; it may destroy what you have believed for years; but it is the truth.  John 5:19 states, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” Look closely at this for a moment. If Jesus were God Himself, or even equal with God, then Jesus could do nothing of Himself and neither could God. Someone will say that He can do what He sees the Father do. That is true. Jesus can do what He sees His Father do, but if they are equal, God must also see His father act before He is able to do His wonderful acts. God has no father. Even a child prejudiced to the teachings of men can see the error in this line of thought.

 John 5:20 states, “The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.” Now if Jesus were God Himself, or equal with God, and had been with God from all eternity, would God have to show Him the works that He did? Friends, the doctrines of the trinity and of the pre-existence are doctrines of the devils that are to destroy men’s faith in the true God and in Jesus His Son.

In John 5:26 and 27, we read, “As the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” Now you either believe this or you deny it. Notice, the Father has life in Himself. God only has immortality, but how did Jesus get life? The Father gave it to Him, both natural life through birth, and immortality through a resurrection. If Jesus were God Himself or equal with God, God could not give Him life, for He would already have it even as the Father has it . Then again, how did Jesus get His authority to execute judgment? Hear again the Word of God. God gave it to Him. Could Jesus be as great as the Father, if the Father is the one who anointed Him with power and gave Him life and gave Him His authority? The only reason Jesus has the authority He now has is because God gave it to Him.

In John 5:30 Jesus repeats again, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” Could Jesus do anything of Himself alone? He said He could of His own self do nothing. Did God ever do anything by Himself? In Isaiah 44:24 it is said of God, “I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself.” Many say that Jesus helped to create the earth or that He was the Creator, but here the speaker said, “I stretched forth the heavens alone and spread abroad the earth by myself.” Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” The disciples of Christ knew full well that Jesus was not God, neither any part of a trinity Godhead, but was the Son of God, begotten by the Spirit and power of God according to the Word of God born of the virgin Mary. Born – really born – not incarnated, but born!

I would like to say here that the words “God the Son”, ”pre-existent” , “trinity” , and “incarnate” are nowhere found in the Bible. They are terms put to use by the satanic host to deceive ministers and churchgoers and to rob them of ever knowing the real Son of God. This is what Peter had reference to in 2 Peter 2:1 when he said, “There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Friends, do you deny the Lord that bought you? Do you know which Lord bought you? It could not be God Himself, for God cannot die. It cannot be a trinity Christ, for He would be equal with God. Since God cannot die, neither could a trinity Christ. The Scriptures declare that Christ died for our sins. (1 Cor. 15:3) According to the Scriptures, the Son of God, born of a virgin, brought into existence by the power of God, being anointed with life from God, power and authority from God, died for our sins, thus giving His entire life for us. But, thanks be to God, He raised Him up from the dead.

 The world, by accepting the pre-existent theory and the doctrine of the trinity, deny the flesh and bones that God caused to be born to be our Savior. Dear friends, if you deny the flesh and bones that God caused to come forth to life from Mary’s womb, you deny the Lord that bought you. This is what Jesus had reference to when He said that many false Christs would arise and deceive, not a few, but many. Today more people believe and pay tribute to and glorify and pray to a false Christ, who never did die for them, than they that accept a flesh-and-bones Savior who died on a tree for our sins. The false Christ is the pre-existent Christ, the trinity Christ, the Christ that is said to be God Himself. The true Christ is the Son of the living God and the anointed of Him.

 In John 6:57 we find, “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father.” Notice that the living Father sent the Son. Could one God be equal with another when one was sent of the other? Notice also Jesus said, “I live by [and through] the Father.” Without the Father, Jesus never would have existed and had life.

In John 7:16 Jesus said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” If Jesus were God Himself or a part of a trinity God, how could He say, “My doctrine is not mine” ? If Jesus were equal to the Father and the doctrine He was giving was not His, does Jesus have a doctrine just as equal and powerful and strong as the doctrine of His Father? And does the Holy Spirit also have another doctrine? Would their doctrines be the same or different?

 Jesus gave us to know that He had nothing to do with the origin of the doctrines which He spoke. They originated with the Father, and the Son spoke the doctrines of the Father. In John 7:28 Jesus said, “Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.” If Jesus were God Himself, would He not have had to send Himself? He said, “I am not come of myself.” Friend, did you or I come of ourself? We had nothing to do with it. We did not come into existence by our will, for we had no will, no life, no intellect, until we were born. The same is true of Christ. Jesus did not come of Himself, but God sent Him. If there were three equal Gods, why would one God send another one of the other two to die? If one could send one of the other two to die, would not the one that had power to send be greater? When God spoke of Jesus in the old testament he said: Deuteronomy 18:18   I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.   Deuteronomy 18:19   And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Jesus spoke Gods words that he himself gave to him. 1 Chronicles 22:10   He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever. Hebrews 1:5   For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

 In John 8:28 Jesus said, “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” When one God has to be taught of another God, the God that does the teaching would be the greater. If Jesus were co-equal with God and co-existent with Him, He would not have to be taught from the Father.

 Again, Jesus said in John 8:42, “I proceed forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” Jesus told us in John 10:18, “I have power to lay it [my life] down, and I have power to take it again. ” Where did He get this power? He said, “This commandment have I received of my Father.” When one person gives another person commandments, one is supreme to the other. Jesus said in John 10:29, “My Father … is greater than all. “1 Corinthians 11:3   But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Friends, do you not understand that Jesus is the anointed flesh and bones which God brought forth to life by His Holy Spirit, His own power, and that there is no other Savior of truth who could die for us? First John 2:22 says, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Anointed One?” Friend, if you contend that Jesus is God Himself, or a part of a trinity God, or a pre-existent Jesus, with power to create before He was born, then He could never be anointed by the Father.

Understand this, “He is antichrist that denieth the Father and Son.” The Father is God and Jesus Christ is His Son, born of the virgin by the power of God. They are two separate and different beings. Anyone who denies this is antichrist. Which side are you on?

May God help you to believe in His Son, even as the Ethiopian eunuch, who said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

1JN 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

1JN 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

1JN 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

1JN 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Is Jesus Co-Equal Or Is He Subordinate To God The Father?

Is Jesus Co-equal Or Is He Subordinate To God The Father?
Lesson – 3K
Comparative Bible Study Lessons
www.comparative biblestudylessons.com
© 2010 Willy Trifon

From the preceding lessons, we’ve studied the scriptures that “True Jesus” is indeed the Christ the “Son of God” (Lesson-3G).   As a Man the scriptures are consistently and unmistakably clear that the Lord Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever (Lesson-3I). Although Jesus is a Man, He is not an ordinary man but a “Very Special Man” according to the His Apostles and His disciples who knew Him very well (Lesson-3J). As a “Very Special Man” the “true Jesus” is not God, even though He possesses special attributes that distinguishes Him from ordinary man, for the true Jesus is distinct or a separate being from God the Father.

Thus the “true Jesus” is the “Son of God” but not “God the Son”, the second person of the Trinity (Lesson-3B.2), for the true Jesus can never be one of the persons in the so-called Triune God. The Trinity doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, but one being. Members of the Trinity are said to be co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will (Lesson-2C.1). Those who advocate the Trinity doctrine encounter many questions in explaining their belief. Whenever faced with blatant contradiction their only defense is to say that it is a mystery (Lesson-2D.4).  The basic reason why it is allegedly so mysterious is that to equal one God, the three person have to be co-equal and co-eternal with each other and the members of the Trinity have to be one in essence, nature, power, action, and will.

Let us study the clear passages of the Bible so we may come to know the truth about the “true Jesus”, why He is a Man and not God, even though He possesses special attributes that distinguishes Him from ordinary man.  This is to make people aware of the scriptural truth so they cannot be misled or tricked to believe “another Jesus” who is different from the “true Jesus” preached by the Apostles.
Jesus did the works for the Father who sent Him

3K.1   When the Apostles introduced the Lord Jesus to the men of Israel, what did they say about Him? Did they explain that Jesus is co-equal to God or is He subordinate to God?

In Acts 2:22, this is written:

“People of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus from Nazareth was a very special man. God clearly showed this to you by the miracles, wonders, and signs he did through Jesus. You all know this, because it happened right here among you. (New Century Version)

The same verse in another version of the Bible:

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus from Nazareth was a very special man. God clearly showed this to you. God proved this by the powerful and amazing things which He did through Jesus among you. You know this is true. (IEB)

The Apostles clearly declared to the people of Israel . . . . . 

• that Jesus of Nazareth was a “Very Special Man”.
• And God proved that Jesus is indeed a very special Man by doing the powerful and amazing things through Jesus.

The fact that Jesus was a “Very Special Man” attested or proven genuine by God is proof enough that Jesus is not God or equal to God. This is further proven by the fact that it is God who did the powerful and amazing things through Jesus.

Did Jesus himself confirm that it was indeed God the Father, who gave Him the wonderful works to accomplish, thus testifying that He was indeed sent by the Father?

In the following verses, these are written:

But I have testimony greater than John’s. The works that the Father gave me to accomplish, these works that I perform testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me.  Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, (John 5:36-37, NAB)

“I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. (John 17:4, NKJV)

Yes, Jesus Himself confirmed that the wonderful works He did was indeed given to Him by the Father to accomplish, and these works testify that He was indeed sent by the Father.

Note, the above statement is corroborated by Jesus’ own statement in John 17:3, that He was indeed sent by God and the Apostle’s statement in Acts 3:13, that Jesus is a servant of God.

Why Jesus cannot be co-equal to God the Father?

In John 13:16, Jesus himself said these things:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. (NKJV)

The above verse undoubtedly prove that the Lord Jesus is not equal to God the Father because He was sent by Father and did the things given to Him. Thus, the Father who sent Jesus is unquestionably greater than Jesus.

Questions to Ponder:

If Jesus is indeed co-equal and co-eternal, in one in essence, nature, power, action, and will as God in the Trinity (Lesson-2C.1), then. . . . . Why did the Apostles declare to the people of Israel that Jesus is a “very special Man”? Why did they not declare or clarify that Jesus is also God?  Why did Jesus Himself say that the Father gave Him the works to accomplish, making Him a servant of the Father? Are they not suppose to be co-equal and one in power and action as one Triune God? Why did Jesus Himself say that the Father sent Him, making Him lesser than the Father?  Are they not suppose to be co-equal and one in power and action as God in the Trinity?

Jesus pleaded with God and followed God’s will

3K.2   What else did the Lord Jesus do that clearly show that He is indeed subordinate or not equal to God the Father?

In Hebrews 5:7, this is written:

Yet while Christ was here on earth he pleaded with God, praying with tears and agony of soul to the only one who would save him from [premature ] death. And God heard his prayers because of his strong desire to obey God at all times. (Living Bible)

In deep sorrow, the Lord Jesus Christ pleaded with God, praying with tears and agony to the only one who could save Him from death, thus Jesus by praying to God and seeking salvation clearly proved that He is indeed subordinate or not equal to God.

What did Jesus say in His prayer that further proves that He is subordinate to God?

38. Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”
39. He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
42. He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.” (Matthew 26:38-39 &42, NKJV)

Furthermore, Jesus said to the Father in prayer, ” not as I will, but as You will.”, signifying submission to God in obedience. By submitting Himself to God’s will, Jesus said “Your will be done”, Jesus showd that He is indeed subordinate to God the Father.  It also clearly shows distinction and independence of wills, proving further that Jesus is distinct (not the same being) from God and therefore not God himself.

Questions to Ponder:

If Jesus as “God the Son” is indeed co-equal and one in power, action and will with “God the Father” in the Trinity (Lesson-2C.1), then . . . . . . Why did Jesus prayed and pleaded to God who could save Him from death, if they are one and the same Triune God? Why did Jesus obediently submitted to the will of God the Father? Are they not suppose to be co-equal and have one will, as one Triune God? How can “God the Son” pray to “God the Father” and still be one and the same Triune God?

Jesus a servant of God who is greater than Him

3K.3   How did the Son Jesus taught the early Christians, in clear and unmistakable words, that He is indeed subordinate or not equal to God the Father?

In John 14:28, the Lord Jesus Himself declared this as He talked to His disciples:

“You have heard Me say to you, `I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, `I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.  (John 14:28, NKJV)

In clear and unmistakable words, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself declared that the Father is greater than Him, thus affirming that Jesus is indeed subordinate to the Father.

Why is the Father greater than Jesus?

In John 20:17, Jesus Himself said this to Mary Magdalene just after His resurrection:

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, `I am ascending  to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” (NKJV)

In declaring that the Father in heaven is His Father and His God, Jesus affirmed the truth that God, the Father in heaven is greater than Him.

In what other way did Christ affirm that the Father is greater than Him? 

In John 13:16, Christ Himself taught this to his disciples:

Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him.  (RSV)

Jesus taught this truth to His disciples, “a servant is not greater than his master”.

Is Jesus really a Servant of God, thus making God His Master?

“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. (Acts 3:13, NKJV)

Yes, the Apostles declared that “the God of our Fathers glorified His Servant Jesus” thus confirming the teaching of Jesus that He subordinate to God who is His Master.

In clear unmistakable words from the Lord Jesus himself and His Apostles it is proven beyond doubt that Jesus is indeed subordinate to God who is His master.

Questions to Ponder:

If Jesus as “God the Son” is indeed co-equal and one in power, action and will with “God the Father” in the Trinity (Lesson-2C.1), then . . . . . . Why did Jesus declare that the Father in heaven is His Father and His God? Does it mean that “God the Son” has a God in the person of “God the Father” in heaven? If that is correct, then there would be two Gods? Why did the Apostles declare that Jesus is a Servant of God, making Him lesser than God who is His Master?  Are they not supposed to be co-equal as one and the same Triune God?

 

Jesus is under God’s authority who put all things under Him

3K.4   How did Apostle Paul, carefully and in an unmistakable manner, clearly explain that Jesus is indeed subordinate to God the Father?

In 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, these are written:

For the scripture says, “God put all things under his feet.” It is clear , of course, that the words “all things” do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. 
But when all things have been placed under Christ’s rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him;  and God will rule completely overall. (TEV)

The same verse in other versions of the Bible:

“God will put everything under his feet.” (When it says “everything,” it is clear that this does not include God, the One who put everything under Christ’s authority.) 
After God does this, Christ will put himself under God’s authority (the One who put everything under Christ). This is the way that God will be above all things in everything. (IEB-NT)

This is how Apostle Paul explains the authority of God over Christ.

• God will put all things or everything under Christ’s feet.
  • When it says “everything,” it is clear that this does not include God, the One who put everything under Christ’s authority.
• After God has done this,
  • Christ will put himself under God’s authority (the One who put everything under Christ).
• In this way God will be above all things in everything.

Therefore, God is certainly superior to Christ Jesus and that Christ Jesus is unquestionably subordinate to God.

How else did Apostle Paul, affirm God’s authority over anyone?

In Ephesians 4:6, God’s authority is clarified further: 

There is one God. He is the Father of everyone. God is above everything, through everything, and in everything.  (SEB-NT)

The same verse in several versions of the  Bible:

There is one God and Father of everything. He rules everything and is everywhere and is in everything. (NCV)

Apostle Paul affirmed that there is only one God and He is the Father of everyone. God is above everyone including Christ Jesus who has declared in John 20:17 that the Father in heaven is His Father and His God.

Why is God the Father above all and that includes the Lord Jesus Christ?

In Psalms 89:6-7, these are written:

6. For who in the heavens can be compared to the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened to the Lord?
7. God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, And to be held in reverence by all those who are around Him. (NKJV)

Truly, no one can be likened or compared to the Lord. God is greatly feared and held in reverence by all those who are around Him, and that includes the Lord Jesus Christ who now sit at HIs right hand in heaven (Heb. 10:12).

In clear unmistakable words from the Lord Jesus himself and His Apostles, it is proven beyond doubt that Jesus is indeed subordinate to God for Jesus Himself is clearly under God’s authority.

Questions to Ponder:

If Jesus as “God the Son” is indeed co-equal and one in power, action and will with “God the Father” in the Trinity (Lesson-2C.1), then . . . . . . How can Jesus be equal to God when it is God who put all things or everything under Christ’s authority? How can Jesus Christ be equal to God when He, Jesus himself, is under God’s authority? How can Jesus Christ be equal to God, when God is the Father of everyone and that includes Jesus himself (John 20:17)?

Is Jesus The Son Of God In Scripture?

Is Jesus The “Son Of God” According To The Bible?
Lesson – 3G.
Comparative Bible Study Lessons
www.comparative biblestudylessons.com
© 2010 Willy Trifon

 

The controversy as to who the “true Jesus”―the Lord Jesus Christ is, that is, how He should be correctly known regarding His person and nature traces its roots from His ministry here on earth in the first century and continues to this day. Indeed this is a very important issue because the possession of the right knowledge about the “true Jesus” will ensure his chance of salvation on the day of Judgment. This confusion was prevalent among His contemporaries but not among His Apostles and disciples. Christ’s identity was not a problem to His Apostles and disciples because they knew Him very well. This is the very reason why Christ’s Apostles and disciples wrote their testimonies in what is now called the New Testament of the Holy Bible.

The Great Deception, as prophesied by the Apostles had indeed come, as proven by the existence of various doctrines of “another Jesus” that are being preached among Christians today. It is therefore very important to strictly limit our study to what is written in the Holy Bible. This is to make sure that no one will be deceived to leave the simplicity and purity that is in Christ Jesus, nor misled or tricked to believe “another Jesus” who is different from the “true Jesus” that was preached by the Apostles.

The Gospel was written to proclaim that Jesus is the Christ, the “Son of God”

3G.1   What was the purpose of Christ’s Apostles and disciples in writing the truth about the “true Jesus”?

In John 20:30-31, these are written:

Why This Gospel Was Written
30. Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31. but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. (New American Standard)

The purpose of the Apostles in writing the truth about the “true Jesus”. . . . 

• is for people to know that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. And by believing this truth, one may have eternal life in Christ’s name.

Thus the very purpose why the Gospel was written was to proclaim that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”

The Apostles declared that Jesus is the Christ, the “Son of the living God”

3G.2   What did His Apostles say, when Jesus asked them, “who do you say that I am”?

In Matthew 16:13-17, these are written:

13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi he put this question to his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of man is?”
14. And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15. `But you,” he said, “who do you say I am?”
16. Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17. Jesus replied, “Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. (NJB)

Simon Peter answered and said,

• You are “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

How did Jesus affirm the truth that He is indeed the “Son of the living God”?
Jesus replied and said to him, “”Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.”

Thus, the Apostles indeed knew the “true Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

Jesus Himself said and confirmed that He is the “Son of God”

3G.3    What did Jesus “say who He is”, when He was confronted by Jewish leaders at the Temple in Jerusalem?

In John 10:22-36, these are written:

 ^22-24They were celebrating Hanukkah just then in Jerusalem. It was winter. Jesus was strolling in the Temple across Solomon’s Porch. The Jews, circling him, said, “How long are you going to keep us guessing? If you’re the Messiah, tell us straight out.”

 ^25-30Jesus answered, “I told you, but you don’t believe. Everything I have done has been authorized by my Father, actions that speak louder than words. You don’t believe because you’re not my sheep. My sheep recognize my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them real and eternal life. They are protected from the Destroyer for good. No one can steal them from out of my hand. The Father who put them under my care is so much greater than the Destroyer and Thief. No one could ever get them away from him. I and the Father are one heart and mind.”

 ^31-32Again the Jews picked up rocks to throw at him. Jesus said, “I have made a present to you from the Father of a great many good actions. For which of these acts do you stone me?”

 ³³The Jews said, “We’re not stoning you for anything good you did, but for what you said—this blasphemy of calling yourself God.”

 ^34-36Jesus said, “I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, ‘I tell you—you are gods.’ If God called your ancestors ‘gods’—and Scripture doesn’t lie—why do you yell, ‘Blasphemer! Blasphemer!’ at the unique One the Father consecrated and sent into the world, just because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (The Message)

When confronted by the Jewish leaders, who was accusing Him of blasphemy; Jesus said, “I’m only quoting your inspired Scriptures, where God said, ‘I tell you—you are gods.’ If God called your ancestors ‘gods’—and Scripture doesn’t lie—why do you yell, ‘Blasphemer! Blasphemer!’ at the unique One the Father consecrated and sent into the world, just because

•  I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 

Why were the Jewish leaders mistaken about their accusation that Jesus called Himself God, when in fact, He said, “I am the Son of God”?

• “I told you, but you don’t believe”. “You don’t believe because you’re not my sheep” (John 10:25-26).

Very true indeed, the Jewish leaders cannot understand that Jesus is indeed, the “Son of God” because they are not His sheep.

• Christ’s sheep are His Apostles and disciples. They knew Him very well, His identity was not a problem to them. The Apostles indeed knew the “true Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”.

3G.4   How did Jesus confirm that He is indeed the “Son of God” when He was talking to the blind man, whom He just made to see?

In John 9:35-37, these are written:

5 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?”
36. He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”
37. And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.” (NKJV)

Jesus affirmed the truth that He is indeed the “Son of God” when He said to the previously blind man, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.”
 

3G.5   How did Jesus confirm that He is indeed the “Son of God” when He was confronted by the chief priest and scribes?

In Luke 22:66-70, these are written:

66. As soon as it was day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him into their council, saying,
67. “If You are the Christ, tell us.” But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will by no means believe.
68. “And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go.
69. “Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God.”
70. Then they all said, “Are You then the Son of God?” And He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.” NKJV

When the priest and scribes said, “Are You then the Son of God?”

• And He said to them, “You rightly say that I am.”

Thus, Jesus affirmed that He is indeed the “Son of God”. .
John the Baptist testified that Jesus is the “Son of God”

3G.6   What is the testimony of John the Baptist about Jesus?

In John 1:29-34, these are written:

29. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
30. “This is He of whom I said, `After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’
31. “I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”
32. And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.
33. “I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, `Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
34. “And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.” (NKJV)

John the Baptist said this about Jesus,

• And I have seen and testified that this is the “Son of God.”

How did John the Baptist know that Jesus is indeed the “Son of God”?

• God, who sent John to baptize with water said it to him. (John 1:32-33)

God introduced Jesus as ” My beloved Son”

3G.7   How did the God, the Father in Heaven, introduce Jesus just after He was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan river?

In Matthew 3:16-17, :this is written

16. Then Jesus, when He had been baptized, came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
17. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ (NKJV)

God introduced Jesus, through a voice coming from heaven saying,

• This is “My beloved Son”, in whom I am well pleased.
   

3G.7   How did God introduced Jesus after He was transfigured before Apostles Peter, James and John?

In Matthew 17:1-5, these are written: 8

1. AND AFTER six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart.
2. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light.
3. And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him.
4. And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
5. He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” (Revised Standard Version)

God introduced Jesus, through a voice from the cloud saying:

• This is “my beloved Son” with whom  I am well pleased;

God also commanded. . . . . .  “listen to Him”.
 

The Angel proclaimed the Holy One to be born will be called the “Son of God”

3G.9   What did the angel say who is the Holy One to be born of Mary? 

In Luke 1:35, this is written:

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (NKJV)

The angel said to Mary, that Holy One who is to be born,

• will be called the “Son of God”
   

Apostle Paul proclaimed that Jesus is the “Son of God”

3G.10   Just after Apostle Paul’s conversion in Damascus, what did he immediately proclaim about Jesus in the synagogues?

In Acts 9:15-20 (also verses 1-14), described how Apostle Paul was chosen by the Lord Jesus as His instrument to carry His name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the descendants of Israel.

15. But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
16. for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.”
17. So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
18. And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
19. and he took food and was strengthened.
Saul Begins to Preach Christ Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus,
20. and immediately he {began} to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” (New American Standard)

After Saul regained back his sight, he was baptized and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying,

• that Jesus is the “Son of God”.

In the Bible, the term “Son of God” is applied repeatedly only to Jesus. 

3G.11   What are some of the Bible verses that proclaim that Jesus is indeed the “Son of God”?

In the following verses these are written:

• Matthew 4:3 – Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” (NKJV)  
• Matthew 4:6 – and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: `He shall give His angels charge concerning you,’ and, `In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ” (NKJV)  
• Luke 4:3 – And the devil said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” (NKJV)
• Luke 4:9 – Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down from here. (NKJV)
• Mark 3:11 – And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.” (NKJV)
• Luke 4:41 – And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” And He, rebuking them, did not allow them to speak, for they knew that He was the Christ. (NKJV)
• Matthew 8:29 – And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” (NKJV)
• Matthew 14:33 – Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.” (NKJV)
• Matthew 27:54 – Now when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, “Truly this was the Son of God!” (NKJV)
• Mark 1:1 – The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (NKJV)
• Mark 15:39 – Now when the centurion, who stood opposite Him, saw that He cried out like this and breathed His last, he said, “Truly this Man was the Son of God!” (NKJV)
• Romans 1:4 – and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, (NKJV)
• John 1:34 – “And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”  (NKJV)
• John 1:49 – Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (NKJV)
• John 11:27 – She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”  (NKJV)
• John 20:31 -  but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (NKJV)
• Acts 9:20 – Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. (NKJV)
• 2 Corinthians 1:19 – For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us by me, Silvanus, and Timothy was not Yes and No, but in Him was Yes. (NKJV)
• Galatians 2:20 – “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (NKJV)
• Hebrews 4:14 – Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. (NKJV)
• Hebrews 6:6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. (NKJV)
• Hebrews 7:3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually. (NKJV)
• Hebrews 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? (NKJV)
• 1 John 3:8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. (NKJV)
• 1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. (NKJV)
• 1 John 5:5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (NKJV)
• 1 John 5:10 All who believe in the Son of God know that this is true. Those who don’t believe this are actually calling God a liar because they don’t believe what God has testified about his Son. (NLT)
• 1 John 5:13 I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (ISV)
• 1 John 5:20 We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God–in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life. (TEV)
• Revelation 2:18 “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write, `These things says the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass: (NKJV)
• Matthew 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. Then the high priest said to him, “I demand in the name of the living God that you tell us whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” (NLT)

Throughout the New Testament, as shown in the numerous verses above, the phrase “Son of God” is applied repeatedly, in the singular, only to Jesus. 

Questions to Ponder:

If Jesus is indeed “God the Son” the second person in the Trinity (Lesson-2C.1), then. . . . . Why is the term or title “God the Son” not used in the Bible? Why did the Apostles fail to explain or even just mention in their writings that Jesus is also “God the Son”.

______________

The Gospel was written so people may believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. Thus, the  “true Jesus” is indeed, simply and purely the Christ, the “Son of God” according to the proclamation of God, the testimonies of Jesus Himself, the testimonies of Christ’s Apostles and disciples, the testimony of John the Baptist, and of the angel who talked to Mary. Throughout the New Testament the phrase “Son of God” is applied repeatedly (in singular) only to Jesus. Let us therefore believe this basic truth that the “true Jesus” is the Christ, the Son of God, so we may have eternal life in His name. (John 20:31)

Note: Jesus was never referred to by any writer in the Bible as “God the Son”. This is the reason why the phrase or title “God the Son” cannot be read in the Bible as the title God the Son is associated more with the development of the Trinity doctrine which include the doctrine of Incarnation.

The Christmas Lie

How many of us lie to our children about Christmas? Santa Claus? Flying reindeer?

Did you know that Christmas is not even mentioned in the Bible? That it is a man-made, pagan holiday, much like Kwanzaa, and others similar?

Did you know that Christmas is now, more than anything, a commercialized celebration for those wanting to make money at that time of the year? That the spirit of Christmas is a fraud?

Are you aware that more depression, suicide, stress, loneliness, take place at Christmas more than at any other time of the year?

The one true, living God does not even condone the celebration of His son’s birthday. Did you know that, in the Bible, only evil people such as King Herod celebrated birthdays? (See Mark 6:21)

The fact is that Jesus wasn’t even born in December, as many believe. And do you know that by celebrating this holiday, you are sinning against what God has commanded?

According to Leviticus chapter 23, God’s people, Jews and Christians alike, are to celebrate forever only those festivals mentioned therein. Passover/Days of Unlevened Bread, Pentecost/Feast of Weeks, Feast of Trumpets, Day Of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles. These Holy Days are what God’s people should be celebrating forever in accordance with God’s Commandments.

John 8:44 states that “[the devil] is a liar and the father of it.” So has it ever once occurred to you that we are being deceived by the father of deceivers when it comes to Christmas and the celebration of other pagan holidays?

Friends, most of us are guilty of going along with this lie about Christmas, one that is practiced world-wide. But it isn’t too late to change our ways, if we want to please God. Instead of following the crowd, how about remaining separate and apart, trying to please God instead of man? Come Judgment Day, you may be glad you did.

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them concerning the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are My Feasts.” (Leviticus 23:1,2 KJV)

Mark of the Beast Video……You be the judge

Very good video. Worth the watch. God be the judge. A lot of truth in this video.
Make sure you watch the whole video though.

http://blowthetrumpet.org/TheMarkoftheBeastVideo.htm



SABBATH DECEPTION

NO SABBATH    (Col 2:16 & Rom 14:5)

COLOSSIANS 2:16 ?

  Whenever the question of the Sabbath is discussed, those who
do not keep it holy will inevitably appeal to Colossians 2:16 as
their authority for disobeying the fourth commandment of God.
What exactly did Paul mean when he wrote:

        “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or
in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath
days:”    Colossians 2:16

   Yes, when Paul said “Sabbath” he meant the seventh day
Sabbath – but that does not mean that Paul was canceling the
requirement for obedience to a commandment of God.  What God
has commanded only God can set aside.  One may search the New
Testament for a thousand years and he will not find a single
verse that says God has abrogated one “jot or tittle” of His
fourth commandment.

  What then was Paul talking about when he said to let no man judge you in respect of Sabbaths?  When we look at this verse in its context it soon becomes apparent that Paul was warning about the “Colossian Heresy” which was another gospel based on asceticism and the worship of angels in order to gain assistance from cosmic powers.  The essence of this heresy was that Christ alone was not sufficient to deliver us from our slavery to sin.

  As you will see from the following verses, Paul was warning
against three things that were being added to the gospel.

        1.  Traditions of men.

        2.  The worship of angels.

        3.  Submitting to doctrines of men.

COL 2:8  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and
vain deceit, after the TRADITION OF MEN of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

COL 2:16  Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink,
or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the
Sabbath days:

COL 2:18  Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary
humility and WORSHIPING OF ANGELS, intruding into those
things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

COL 2:20  Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments
of the world,  why, as though living in the world, are ye
subject to ordinances,  (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using;) AFTER THE
 COMMANDMENTS AND DOCTRINES OF MEN?

  It should be obvious that KEEPING THE SABBATH DAY HOLY
IS NOT A DOCTRINE OF MEN!

 Paul was not doing away with God’s commandment; he was warning against the false teachers who were saying that if believers did not eat and drink the right food and keep the festivals, new moons and Sabbaths ACCORDING TO CERTAIN HUMAN REGULATIONS they would lose their reward.

According to verse :23 below, they were teaching that without
these ascetic regulations one could not overcome the flesh:

COL 2:23  These [DOCTRINES OF MEN] have indeed an
appearance of wisdom in promoting rigor of devotion and self-
abasement and severity to the body, but they are of no value in
checking the indulgence of the flesh.  (RSV)

  One commentator summed up these verses by saying:

  “We conclude then that in verse :16, the warning is not
against the Sabbath, festivals and dietary laws as such, but
rather against those who promote these practices as
indispensable aids to Christian perfection and as needed
protection from the “elements [evil spiritual forces] of the
world” thus denying the all sufficiency of Christ.
                   (Samuele Bacchiocchi,  From Sabbath To Sunday)

Now really, doesn’t that explanation make a lot more sense than
the notion that Christians are no longer required to obey the
fourth commandment?   It is a true saying that: “The commandment
is not nullified by the condemnation of its abuse.”.

  The question we need to ask is this:  “Was Paul condemning the Sabbath day, or was he CONDEMNING THE DOCTRINES OF MEN who added ritualistic and ascetic restrictions to faith in Christ?”   In order to answer that dispute, one must look at the broad picture.  There is not a single verse in the New Testament which states that Paul taught a new doctrine that canceled the Sabbath commandment; nor is there any record of a controversy between the Jews and Gentile Christians over Sabbath-keeping.  If Paul had been teaching that the Sabbath commandment had been repealed, it would have split the church wide open and he would have had to answer the objections continuously in his epistles.

      Think about it – if the Jewish believers made such a fuss about circumcision being optional, imagine what they would have said about the Sabbath day being revoked.

   At some point we must use common sense and reason to interpret what has been written.  For example, does “Let no man judge you in meat and drink…” mean that Christians can be drunkards?  Of course not, because you know that God’s word forbids drunkenness.  Well, it also forbids Sabbath-breaking!

  It is only logical to assume that if God was going to cancel one of His commandments, he would make that fact very clear. Surely, if someone said to you: “Let no man judge you in respect of murder or adultery”  you would not assume that God had changed His mind about those sins without solid proof. Certainly, you would demand more evidence than one lonely verse in the book of Colossians?   Or would you?
 

          THE CHURCHMEN vs THE SABBATH    (Romans 14)

Many churchmen use Romans 14:5-6 as proof that New Testament
believers no longer have an obligation to keep the Sabbath day
holy.  So let us examine those two verses, just as a Judge
would consider evidence in his courtroom, and then decide
whether or not they testify against Sabbath keeping.  Paul
wrote:

     “One man esteemeth one day above another: another
      esteemeth every day alike.  Let very man be fully
      persuaded in his own mind.

      He that regardeth [observeth] the day regardeth it unto
      the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord
      he doth not regard it.  He that eateth, eateth to the
      Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not,
      to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”

                                                Romans 14:5,6
 

   The Judge would ask: “Where is the Sabbath mentioned in
those verses?”.  The Sabbath is not mentioned there, or in the
entire book of Romans!  No court in the land would allow verses
that do not mention the Sabbath to be used as evidence in an
argument against the Sabbath – so why should we?

   You see, Paul could not have been talking about keeping the
Sabbath day holy because obedience to God’s law is not
optional.  It is ludicrous to suggest that any of the Ten
Commandments can be disobeyed “unto the Lord”.  Think of the
absurdity of saying “He that stealeth, to the Lord he stealeth;
and he that stealeth not, to the Lord he stealeth not.”

   What then was Paul talking about?  He was talking about fast
days.  The whole 14th chapter of Romans is about food and how
people’s beliefs about eating should not be interfered with.
The fast days could be observed according to each believer’s
conscience.  A man could eat -or not eat, keep the day – or not
keep it.  It is as simple as this: Each man could observe FAST
DAYS, or not observe them, according to his own convictions.

   He that does not eat, regards the day.

   He that eats, does not regard the day.

   The “days” that Paul was referring to were the traditional
fast days mentioned in Zechariah 7:5-6.  The Gentile Christians
in Rome did not keep them because they had no cultural interest
in the anniversary fasts that were observed during the Jew’s
captivity in Babylon. 1

   Even the Jews themselves had different convictions about the
observance of those days – because those fasts were never
commanded by God.

   After the captivity (when the temple was being rebuilt) the
men of Bethel also wondered if they should observe these fasts
unto the Lord.  For example, they asked Zechariah: “Shall I
weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done these many
years?” (Zech 7:2-3.)

   When you read Zechariah’s answer, notice the striking
similarity of his words with those of Paul to the church at
Rome …

COMPARE   Zechariah 7:5-6 “…When ye FASTED and mourned in
the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years,

        DID YE AT ALL FAST UNTO ME, even to me [The Lord]?
          And when ye did EAT, and when ye did drink, did ye
          not EAT FOR YOURSELVES, and drink for yourselves?”

WITH

     Romans 14:6-7 “He that regardeth the [fast] day
          regardeth it UNTO THE LORD; and he that regardeth not
          the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.  He that
          EATETH, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks;
          and he that EATETH NOT, to the Lord he eateth not,
          and giveth God thanks.

          For none of us LIVETH TO HIMSELF, and no man dieth to
          himself.”

   If you were the Judge in the case of the CHURCHMEN VERSUS
THE SABBATH, would you be willing to say that Paul had cancelled
one of the commandments of God based on the evidence you find in
the 14th chapter of Romans?

   In our opinion, the evidence from Romans and Zechariah
demands a verdict for Sabbath observance.  The church must obey
the Fourth Commandment – that is the only decision that will
uphold the Law of God.

                      CASE CLOSED!

Footnote:

  These are the four traditional fasts that were mentioned
   in the book of Zechariah:

   1.  (The fast of the fourth month) In remembrance of the
         breaking of the wall of Jerusalem.
   2.  (The fast of the fifth month)  In remembrance of the
         burning of the temple.
   3.  (The fast of the seventh month) In remembrance of the
         killing of Gedaliah, which completed the dispersion.
   4.  (The fast of the tenth month) In remembrance of the
        beginning of the siege of Jerusalem.

   See – Jer 52:6, Jer 52:12-13, 2 Kings 25:25, 2 Kings 25:1

   It is of interest to note that those dates commemorate the
   judgments of God upon a people who refused to keep the
   Sabbath Day holy.  (See Jer 17:19-27)

How The Sabbath Was Changed

How the Sabbath Was Changed

Today I want to answer the question which so many listeners have been concerned about since our first broadcast on the Sabbath question. How did the change take place, substituting Sunday for Saturday as the day of worship? This is possibly one of the most disturbing religious questions among thinking Christians today. Unfortunately, the issue is not examined publicly very often for reasons that we’ll consider today. But multitudes have wondered when, how and why the change came about. We have established in previous broadcasts that the Bible itself speaks with absolute consistency on this subject. No Change Documented in the Bible In both Old and New Testament there is not a shadow of variation in the doctrine of the Sabbath. The seventh day, Saturday, is the only day ever designated by the term Sabbath in the entire Bible. Not only was Jesus a perfect example in observing the weekly seventh-day Sabbath, but all His disciples followed the same pattern after Jesus had gone to heaven. Yet no intimation of any change of the day is made. The apostle Paul, who wrote pages of counsel about lesser issues of Jewish and Gentile conflicts, had not one word to say about any controversy over the day of worship. Circumcision, foods offered to idols, and other Jewish customs were readily challenged by early Gentile Christians in the church, but the weightier matter of weekly worship never was an issue. Why? For the simple reason that no change was made from the historic seventh day of Old Testament times, and from creation itself. Had there been a switch from the Sabbath to the first day of the week, you can be sure the controversy would have been more explosive than any other to those Jewish Christians. History Gives Some Clues If the change did not take place in the Scriptures or through the influence of the apostles, when and how did it happen? In order to understand this, we must understand what happened in that early church soon after the apostles passed off the stage of action. Paul had prophesied that apostasy would take place soon after his departure. He said there would be a falling away from the truth. One doesn’t have to read very far in early church history to see just how that prophecy was fulfilled. Gnosticism began to rise up under the influence of philosophers who sought to reconcile Christianity with Paganism. At the same time, a strong anti-Jewish sentiment became more widespread. Very speculative interpretations began to appear regarding some of the great doctrines of Christ and the apostles. The Conversion of Constantine By the time Constantine was established as the emperor of Rome in the early fourth century, there was a decided division in the church as a result of all these factors. I think most of you know that Constantine was the first so-called Christian emperor of the Roman Empire. The story of his conversion has become very well known to students of ancient history. He was marching forth to fight the battle of Milvian Bridge when he had some kind of vision, and saw a flaming cross in the sky. Underneath the cross were the Latin words meaning “In this sign conquer.” Constantine took this as an omen that he should be a Christian, and his army as well. He declared all his pagan soldiers to be Christians, and became very zealous to build up the power and prestige of the church. Through his influence great blocks of pagans were taken into the Christian ranks. But, friends, they were still pagan at heart, and they brought in much of the paraphernalia of sun-worship to which they continued to be devoted. We mentioned in a previous broadcast about the adoption of Christmas and Easter into the church. At the same time, many other customs were Christianized and appropriated into the practice of the church as well. Sun Worship You see, at that time the cult of Mithraism or sun-worship was the official religion of the Roman Empire. It stood as the greatest competitor to the new Christian religion. It had its own organization, temples, priesthood, robes—everything. It also had an official worship day on which special homage was given to the sun. That day was called “The Venerable Day of the Sun.” It was the first day of the week, and from it we get our name Sunday. When Constantine pressed his pagan hordes into the church they were observing the day of the sun for their adoration of the sun god. It was their special holy day. In order to make it more convenient for them to make the change to the new religion, Constantine accepted their day of worship, Sunday, instead of the Christian Sabbath which had been observed by Jesus and His disciples. Remember that the way had been prepared for this already by the increasing anti-Jewish feelings against those who were accused of putting Jesus to death. Those feelings would naturally condition many Christians to swing away from something which was held religiously by the Jews. It is therefore easier to understand how the change was imposed on Christianity through a strong civil law issued by Constantine as the Emperor of Rome. The very wording of that law, by the way, can be found in any reliable encyclopedia. Those early Christians, feeling that the Jews should not be followed any more than necessary, were ready to swing away from the Sabbath which was kept by the Jews. Historical Accounts Some of you may be greatly surprised by the explanation I’ve just made, and I’m not going to ask you to believe it blindly. I have before me a multitude of authorities to verify what has been said. Here are historians, Catholics and Protestants, speaking in harmony about what actually took place in the fourth century. After Constantine made the initial pronouncement and legal decree about the change, the Catholic Church reinforced that act in one church council after another. For this reason, many, many official statements from Catholic sources are made, claiming that the church made the change from Saturday to Sunday. But before I read those statements I shall refer to one from the Encyclopedia Britannica under the article, Sunday. Notice: “It was Constantine who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday and who appointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman empire.” Now you can check these statements in your own encyclopedias or go to the library and look into other historical sources. Here is a statement from Dr. Gilbert Murray, M.A., D.Litt., LLD, FBA, Professor of Greek at Oxford University, who certainly had no ax to grind concerning Christian thought on the Sabbath question. He wrote: “Now since Mithras was the sun, the Unconquered, and the sun was the Royal Star, the religion looked for a king whom it could serve as a representative of Mithras upon earth. The Roman Emperor seemed to be clearly indicated as the true king. In sharp contrast to Christianity, Mithraism recognized Caesar as the bearer of divine grace. It had so much acceptance that it was able to impose on the Christian world its own sun-day in place of the Sabbath; its sun’s birthday, the 25th of December, as the birthday of Jesus.” History of Christianity in the Light of Modern Knowledge. Looking a bit further into historical statements, Dr. William Frederick says: “The Gentiles were an idolatrous people who worshipped the sun, and Sunday was their most sacred day. Now in order to reach the people in this new field, it seems but natural as well as necessary to make Sunday the rest day of the church. At this time it was necessary for the church to either adopt the Gentile’s day or else have the Gentiles change their day. To change the Gentiles day would have been an offense and stumbling block to them. The church could naturally reach them better by keeping their day.” There it is, friends, a clear explanation by Dr. Frederick as to how this change happened. Another statement very parallel to this one is found in the North British Review. But let’s move on to a statement from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 153. “The church after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath or seventh-day of the week to the first, made the third commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s day.” Catholicism Takes Credit for the Change Now a quote from the Catholic Press newspaper in Sidney, Australia. “Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claims to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles. From the beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first.” The Catholic Mirror of September 23, 1894, puts it this way: “The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.” To point up the claims we’re talking about, I want to read from two Catechisms. First, from the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine by Reverend Peter Giermann. “Question: Which is the Sabbath day? Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” Second, from Reverend Steven Keenan’s Doctrinal Catechism we read this: “Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day; a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.” Then from Cardinal Gibbons’ book, The Question Box, p.179, “If the Bible is the only guide for the Christian, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in observing Saturday with the Jew. Is it not strange that those who make the Bible their only teacher should inconsistently follow in this matter the tradition of the Catholic Church?” One more statement taken from the book, The Faith of Millions, p. 473. “But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistency but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text from the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.” That is a most interesting statement, is it not, friends? And it is a very true statement. There is some inconsistency somewhere along the line, because we have examined the statements of history, and you can check them for yourself in any library. I’m not reading anything one-sided here at all. I’ve tried to give you an unbiased picture. Although we have seen the claims made by the Catholic Church in their publications, we are not reading them to cast any reflection upon anyone, by any means. We are simply bringing you a recital of what has been written and what claims have been made. - From the Joe Crews Radio Sermon Library