An Inconvenient Truth

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

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

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

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

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

This is coupled with John 1:14 which says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plain Words of Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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