The Hell of Fire

Recently, I attended a Church service which presented a video of a man who claimed to have spent “23 minutes in hell.” I learned from the video that he also authored a book by the same title. What he experienced, he called a vision – an “out of body” experience. Now, he seemed genuinely sincere, and very humble, not desiring to set himself up as some kind of prophet or spiritual guru. He was also adamant that everything he said was backed by Scripture – 150 Scripture references to be exact. Plus, he claimed to have partnered with some Bible scholars regarding the Scripture references to be sure that none were “out of context.” Yet, as I listened intently to his story, it seemed to me that, almost without exception, every Scripture he used was either “out of context” or a gross misinterpretation.

At the end of the video, almost an hour, the pastor turned off the DVD player and asked for comments and responses. One man commented that “...he backed everything up with Scriptures, and you can't argue with that.” Others related how we are “more fearful of men than of God” and that's why we are lax in telling people about hell. The general attitude seemed to be that this was indeed a Scriptural message that needed to be preached more often; that people must be told that if they don't repent, the only alternative for them is an eternity in the conscious torment of a fiery hell.

Well, I can't tell you how heavy my heart was after hearing all this. I wanted so bad to stand up and say NO! NO! NO! This is all wrong! Can't you see that this “hellish” doctrine does not honor God at all? Can't you see that it does no justice to God's nature and character, much less to His precious Word? On the one hand, we believe that God is patient, not wanting any to perish but that all should come to repentance; we believe that God is merciful and “His mercy endures forever”; and that he is just!? And yet, this doctrine of an eternal punishing hell requires that, at some point in the future, God is no longer patient or merciful or just, much less loving or kind! He willingly consigns the murderer and rapist along with a good husband and father alike, to the same eternal punishment! The doctrine posits that eternal punishment is "away" from God's presence and yet we must consider that only God can sustain the life of the impenitent and therefore He must keep them forever in the state of misery and torment!

Of course, supporters of the doctrine attempt to vindicate God from this cruelty by pointing out that He created "hell" for the devil and his minions. Therefore, it is man's choice to go to hell, not God's. Yes, they say, men who reject Jesus, regardless of how they live their lives – good or bad – choose hell because they do not choose Jesus! But can this be right? What about those who have never heard? Who never even had a chance to hear? And what about those who rejected Christianity purely on the basis that they cannot reasonably accept such a cruel and merciless doctrine? I cannot help but think that the teaching of this doctrine offends our loving heavenly Father! I do not question the reality of “final punishment” - the Bible is quite clear about that fact. The question is rather, what is the nature and duration of that punishment?

I knew it would not be well received and would serve no good purpose to disrupt the meeting with my opposing opinion, so I kept quiet. After all, how could I fight against 150 Scripture references in only a few moments! Plus, I had the disadvantage of not having had a vision, or “out of body” experience! It never ceases to amaze me how blind people can be to the plain language of the Bible (I once was blind to these things myself), and how open people can be when they hear that someone has had a vision – especially if that vision supports long held traditions!

If this topic is of interest to you (and I think it certainly should be), you may profit from reading a couple of very excellent articles. Just click the links below. I will also be posting more on this topic myself.

God Bless,
Keith

Making the Dead Alive: Translating Sheol as Hades Brings the Dead to Life

The Final End of the Wicked – by Edward Fudge

A Man Under Authority

Luke 7:1-10; Matthew 8:5-13

This passage of Scripture is very instructional and enlightening. Most bible translations give it a pericope heading of "The Centurions' Faith", or something similar. But perhaps it should be given the heading "A Man Under Authority." The Centurion had great faith to be sure, and Jesus commends him for it. However, I think the central truth found here is not so much in the fact of the Centurion's faith as the cause of his faith!

Notice in verse 9 that he says, "for I too am a man under authority..." In the past, for me, the focus of this passage has been on verse 7 where the Centurion says, "...but say the word, and let my servant be healed." Invariably, when I would read this, I thought to myself, wow, what a testimony to this man, and a gentile besides. He had the distinction of one whose faith had surpassed that of any Jew! He really got it! He knew that Jesus didn't have to be present or have to lay his hands on the servant in order for him to receive God's healing mercy. All Jesus had to do was "say the word" and it would be done!

Of course, what I didn't understand is WHY he only had to "say the word" and the actual reason for which he commended the Centurion! Somehow, I always related the authority to the spoken word, but the reason Jesus could simply speak the word and get results is because he was under God's authority. Now you may think I am rather thick headed not to have seen this before, and you could be right. But my previously held belief, that Jesus is also God, hindered my appreciation of the facts, and the truth of the Centurions insight and understanding.

Time and again Jesus affirmed that he only did what the Father told him to do, and he only said what the Father told him to say. The Centurion understood this perfectly because he himself was a man "set" under authority! As a man under authority, he understood the power of one in that postition. His words carried the full backing of Rome and, for all practical purposes, when he spoke, it was as if the words came from the Emperor of Rome himself. It was this very fact, that he understood Jesus as a man under the authority of God, that produced faith in him!

Luke points out that "when Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him"! This word "marvel" means to wonder, to be in awe of something. To get the gist of the word "marvel" you might picture someone scratching their head, as if in wonderment; or dropping their jaw after hearing something they didn't expect or that didn't quite register. It's interesting to note that Jesus was said to be in this state of mind only one other time, and that was in Mark 6:6 when "he marvelled because of their unbelief"!

Here in Luke's gospel, Jesus simply follows up with the statement that "...I have not found so great faith, no, not in all Israel." But in Matthew's account, he adds a rebuke saying "...the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness." (Matthew 8:11-12). This rebuke to Israel and commendation of the Centurion, I suggest, is not just because a gentile demonstrated great faith, but because he recognized Jesus as a man commissioned by God and vested with His full authority! How else could he expect a spoken word to carry such power, not even being within hearing distance of the servant? Unless, the Centurion recognized Jesus as God... but his words exclude that possibility! (...I also am a man... v8)

Here is yet another example of how my "faith eyes" have been made new! Understanding Jesus as fully human, without the need to see that he is at the same time God, has allowed me to see Scripture in a different way. Should we not join with the multitudes in Jesus day who were "awe-struck... and ascribed the glory to God who had entrusted such power to a man." (Matthew 9:8 - Weymouth Version)

Jesus: Highly Exalted Lord

Philippians 2:5-11 is a passage of Scripture often used to defend the teaching that Jesus is God. But is this the meaning Paul intends to convey? I don't think so. As often seems to be the case, those who use this passage to defend the deity of Christ tend to depend heavily on a few words, or a phrase, and totally disregard context.

The word focus here is "form" which, in the Greek text, is morphe. The basic meaning of the word is "shape". However, there are those who argue that morphe refers to the "essential nature" of a thing, while others argue that it refers only to the "appearance" of a thing. Scholarship is divided on this issue so, if you want to use the word morphe to defend the deity of Christ, you may cite various scholarly works to do so. However, it is just as easy for the opposing view to do the same thing.

I like what the authors of "One God and One Lord" say regarding this matter.

When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

I concur with that view. In every instance I could find, the word morphe (or one of it's combinations) refers to appearance and not "inner nature."

But rather than continue with more debate on the meaning of the word morphe, I want to highlight the context of the verse. Paul is instructing the Christians in Philippi regarding the attitude they should possess, namely, humility. In this regard he points to Jesus as the supreme example, and the one we should emulate. It should be noted that if Paul and the Christians at Philippi understood Jesus to be God, Paul's admonition to "have this mind in you..." (verse 5) would be senseless. How can one hope to have Jesus' mind if Jesus is God? Once again, quoting from the authors of "One God and One Lord":

If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say it? Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God,” but rather, “being in the form of God.”

The point of Paul's discourse here is to show that because Jesus humbled himself, and was obedient even in the face of death, God highly exalted him! (verse 9) I suggest that when Paul used the phrase "being in the form of God", he was speaking of Jesus current form, i.e. that of the resurrected Christ in a new and "glorified" body. Though he is now seated at the right hand of God, it was never his aim or ambition to be equal with God. Rather, he took "the form of a servant." To say it another way, the "form" refers to the exaltation. The fact that God exalted Jesus did not change his essence; he is still very much human, yet seated at God's right hand. The exaltation (form) is a direct result of his humility (form).

Jesus, as the Messiah, was destined to be king, not only of Israel, but the whole world. As the Messiah, he was neither God Almighty nor servant of any man, yet he now has the "form of God" because he assumed the "form of servant."

"Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." --Philippians 2:9-11

The word "therefore" means "for this reason." If Jesus was himself God, he had no need to be exalted or given a supreme name by any other member of a trinity. The very fact that this text clearly says "God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name" should give serious pause to any notion that Jesus is deity. But even greater, the statement in verse 11 which plainly conveys the fact that it brings glory to God when Jesus is confessed as Lord!

There can be no doubt we are dealing with two separate entities here - God and Jesus. We are to have "the mind of Christ", says Paul. To have the mind of Christ is to humble ourselves and be submissive to God in every way. The implication is that as God exalted Jesus, he will also exalt those who share his attitude. (James 4:10; 1Peter 5:6). That exaltation will happen at the second appearing of Jesus Christ. At that time, either by rapture or by resurrection, we will be changed and given new bodies which are made like his glorious body (Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:51-52; 1 Thess 4:16-17), and we will reign with him in his kingdom! What a glorious prospect, especially for those who may be suffering in this life (2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10).

Is this passage not clear and simple language conveying the one truth that God exalted Jesus because he humbled himself and the same is expected of us?

Jesus is NOT a Trinitarian!

It still amazes me that for so many years it never really occurred to me that God was not a trinity, or that Jesus was not God. The fact is though, I had lots of help with that particular mindset. Now that I have discovered the truth that has been right in front of me all these years, I can see it everywhere. Jesus did not believe in the trinity!

While reading through the gospels recently, I came across a passage of Scripture that jumped out at me in this regard. Mark 12:28-34 reads as follows:

28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 And the scribe said to him, "You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. --Mark 12:28-34 (ESV)

In verse 29, Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy chapter six; "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one." This is called the "shema" and to this day you will hear it recited in every Jewish synagogue, and hear it on the lips of every sincere Jew. It is now, and was in the days of Jesus, the creed of Israel. It is the thing which made the nation of Israel stand out from the other nations; the belief in ONE God. But more than just one God with regard to those whose practice was to worship multiple gods, the shema is a declaration that God is a singular Being! Notice in verse 32 that the scribe agreed with Jesus by saying "You have truly said that he is one..." But then he adds "...there is no other besides him."

The shema acknowledges, that Yahweh alone is the God of Israel AND that He is ONE; i.e. not multiple in any sense. If this was the creed of Jesus, should it not be the creed of any and all who claim to follow Jesus? Should not every Christian declare, along with Jesus, that God is ONE?

The practicality of seeing that Yahweh alone is God, and Jesus is not, is immense. Belief in the trinity requires a philosophical outlook that is not supported in the plain language of the Bible. It requires us to love and trust a God we cannot possibly hope to understand or relate to in any way. It reduces our knowledge of God to a philosophical concept, and it's difficult to love and trust a philosophical concept! On the other hand, Jesus teaches us that God is a singular being - a person - worthy of our love and trust.

Jesus, quoting Hebrew Scripture, affirmed that the greatest of the commandments is to "love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." When I believed in God as a trinity, I generally always associated God with Jesus and therefore unwittingly gave him the glory that was due to God alone. By following the example of Jesus and affirming that God is ONE, we can love and trust God in the way that Jesus taught us. At the same time, we can give Jesus all the praise due to his name without confusing him with God.

If the Bible is God's message to mankind, and I believe it is, then it honors Him when we take Him at his word. Jesus never claimed to be God, but he did worship, pray to, and teach about a personal God; a God Who he called "the only True God" (John 17:3); a God with Whom he was intimately acquainted. It was also Jesus prayer that as he and the Father were one (unity of purpose), that we would also be one (John 17:11). And, that as he was in the Father and the Father in Him, that they would also be in us and we in them (John 17:21-23).

This is a call for the Church to awaken from the stupor of Greek philosophy and tradition. Let God be God, and let Jesus be who he said he is... the Messiah... the anointed one... God's chosen servant.

Jesus is not a trinitarian!

Jesus: Son of David

Part III - Jesus: Son of Man, Son of God, Son of David

“And all the people were amazed, and said, "Can this be the Son of David?”
--Matthew 12:23

What did the people mean when they asked, "Can this be the Son of David?" Of course, Jesus' genealogy recognizes Him as being from the lineage of David (Matthew 1:1; Luke 3:31). But the question came as a result of the healing of the demon possessed man. This miraculous deliverance from demon possession was, according to Matthews view, taken as a definite sign of the the expected Jewish Messiah, the Chosen One of God, who would fulfill the prophecies concerning the throne of David. Thus, he is referred to as "Son of David", another title for the Messiah.

Although Jesus never used the title for Himself, others used it with great expectancy and faith, desiring mercy from Him for their particular needs. In Matthew 9:27, the blind man called out to Jesus as "Son of David" and asked for mercy. In Matthew 15:22 the Canaanite woman called Him "Son of David" when asking for mercy for her daughter. In Matthew 20:20, two blind men said "Lord, have mercy on us, 'Son of David'!" And in what is called His "triumphal entry" into Jerusalem in Matthew 21:9, the crowds shouted, "Hosanna to the 'Son of David'! Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the Lord!"

Fundamental to understanding this concept of the One coming in the Name of the Lord is Nathan's promise in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, namely, the raising up of a successor to David from his offspring, and the confirmation of his "house" and kingdom forever. This prophecy provides the basis for Psalm 2:7; 89:4; and 132:11. And even greater is the reference in Psalm 110:1 which is the most quoted Old Testament Scripture in the New Testament regarding Messiah Jesus. In fact, the one place where Jesus does refer to the Son of David is in Matthew 22:42 when he asks the Pharisees what they thought of the Christ, ie. whose son he is. In order to understand Jesus response, we need to look at the Psalm in it's Hebrew form.

In Psalm 110:1 there are two forms of the word "lord" used. The first is a direct reference to the Lord God, Yahweh. This word, translated LORD is used throughout the Old Testament and always refers to Yahweh, the personal name of God. The translators use all capital letters to distinguish it from other, lesser lords. The second use of Lord, which has only the first letter capitalized, is the word "adoni". This word is used 287 times in the KJV and refers only to men. It is sometimes translated master, and even sir. So who is this "lord" which David calls "my lord"? This is a clear reference to the the LORD's Messiah. The LORD God, said to David's lord, "Sit at my right hand..."

In Ezekiel 37:22-28, the prophet tells of a future time of peace and prosperity in which God's servant, David, shall be king over all Israel. This is figurative language referring to the promise made in 2 Samuel 7. David's offspring is simply called "David" to emphasize the keeping of God's promise to David, but it clearly indicates a descendant of David. Also, in Micah 5:2-4, the son of David is proclaimed as the one who would shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, and in the majesty of the Name of the LORD. Although the phrase “Son of David” is not found in this passage, the reference to Bethlehem, the city of David, is given as a figure of speech for the person himself.

All the above, in addition to many other Scriptures, identify the Son of David as a Messianic person who would come as savior and king, dispensing the righteous judgment and mercy of God. This was demonstrated in the person of Jesus through His ministry of teaching, deliverance, healing, and other acts of compassion. So then, when Jesus asked the question of the Pharisees as to how they understood the Christ, their answer, 'he is David's Son', was correct. However, Jesus calls to their attention the fact that David refers to him as his Lord. So, how can he be David's son and call him lord? Jesus answer shuts the mouth's of His enemies by demonstrating that as the promised Messiah, He is both a descendant of David AND the unique Son of God, and thus, greater than David. Jesus was directly saying to them that he was the Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah.

Jesus: Son of Man

Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David - Part II

Son of Man

The term “son of man” is probably Jesus' favorite title for himself. The term appears 30 times in Matthew's gospel, 14 times in Mark's gospel, 25 times in Luke's gospel, and 12 times in the gospel of John. It is also found many times throughout the Old Testament, especially in Ezekiel where God refers to the prophet often as “son of man”. Perhaps the most notable passage though, is Numbers 23:19,

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a 'son of man', that he should change his mind...”

Here we get the real impact of the meaning of the term. Son of man is placed in opposition to Deity. To say one is a son of man is to say that he is human, that's it. Eerdman's Bible Dictionary says the term Son of Man is

“...a Semitic idiom for an individual human being or for mankind in general, particularly as distinguished from God”

As mentioned earlier, the term appears extensively throughout the book of Ezekiel. When God calls Ezekiel “son of man”, it is way to emphasize, or call attention to, His Deity and Ezekiels humanity - he is simply calling him “man”. Likewise, when Jesus refers to himself as “Son of Man” he is affirming his humanity. But in addition to his humanity, he affirms his status as God's Messiah, the Chosen One – His vice regent, or “right hand man”, if you will!

The 80th Psalm illustrates this point well. Here David prays for the restoration and salvation of Israel which he refers to as the “vine out of Egypt” (verse 8). But prophetically, this also looks forward to Jesus as “the true vine” (John 15:1) who also was brought out of Egypt (Matthew 2:13-19; Hosea 11:1). Then in verse 17 we find the term “son of man”.

“But let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!” Psalms 80:17 (ESV)

Notice that the “son of man” is the MAN of God's right hand, who God MADE strong for Himself...”

Also, in the book of Daniel we find...

“I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” --Dan 7:13-14 (ASV)

This is probably the main Old Testament background for Jesus use of the term for Himself. Notice in both texts above that the “Son of Man” is MADE strong and GIVEN glory and a kingdom! Throughout the gospels Jesus constantly reaffirms the message that he does not act on his own but that his words, his deeds and his authority are all GIVEN to him directly from his Father. He never contradicts his own assertion of being the “Son of Man” by suggesting that he is also God Almighty (although many trinitarians use certain texts to support that view).

Matthew 12:32 clearly shows the difference between the “Son of Man” and God. Here, in Jesus own words...

“And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Now this is a strange thing for Jesus to say, if He is Deity. According the the doctrine of the Trinity, all three persons are “co-equal” - they are all three equally God. How are we to understand this then? If Jesus is both God and man, and the Holy Spirit is God, do not both deserve equal respect and honor? How can one blaspheme the Holy Spirit – God, and not be forgiven; yet blaspheme the Son of Man – God, and receive forgiveness? Something is amiss.

I think the answer is an easy one, if we can accept it. The simple truth is that Jesus, as the “Son of Man”, is human – anointed of God, but not himself God; the Holy Spirit here is God's power at work in His Messiah, - NOT a 3^rd person in a Trinity. We should remember that “ the spirit” was GIVEN to Jesus “without measure”, according to John 3:34. In other words, Jesus was endowed abundantly with God's Spirit so that Paul could say “...in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell.” (Colossians 1:19).

In Mark's account (Mark 3:28-30) we are given the answer to what it means to blaspheme the Spirit in verse 30, "for they had said, 'He has an unclean spirit'." So then, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the same as saying Jesus did miracles by demonic power rather than by God's power! To make such a statement would be to totally miss and fail to recognize the nature of Jesus relationship to God. But the point I wish to make here is that Jesus , the Son of Man, was a fully human Messiah, anointed with God's spirit, but not himself God.

One last text I'd like to mention is Hebrews chapter 2. I like the reading from the NET Bible, which says...

"2:5 For he did not put the world to come, about which we are speaking, under the control of angels. 2:6 Instead someone testified somewhere:
“What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?
2:7 You made him lower than the angels for a little while.
You crowned him with glory and honor.
2:8 You put all things under his control.”
For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control. At present we do not yet see all things under his control, 2:9 but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone. 2:10 For it was fitting for him, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 2:11 For indeed he who makes holy and those being made holy all have the same origin, and so he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 2:12 saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I will praise you.” 2:13 Again he says, “I will be confident in him,” and again, “Here I am, with the children God has given me.” 2:14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), 2:15 and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. 2:16 For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants. 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted."

The above Scriptures, when read in context, make it abundantly clear that Jesus as “Son of Man” is human, and therefore separate in “substance” or “essence” from God. The whole point the writer of the book of Hebrews is making is to show that the New Covenant established through Jesus is superior to the Old. Jesus Himself is superior over all that have gone before him, including angels, the prophets, Moses, and the priesthood. So then, Jesus, as “son of man” is the human Messiah. One might rightly say that Jesus is divine, but it cannot be said that he is Deity from either the title “Son of God” or “Son of Man”.

Jesus: Son of God

Jesus: Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David - Part I

What do these titles or names of Christ say about him? It has often been suggested that “Son of God” refers to the deity of Jesus, while “Son of Man” refers to his humanity. Son of David, of course, speaks of Jesus as the expected “Messiah” of Israel, but what about Son of God and Son of Man? Do they represent His deity and humanity, respectively? Is that really what the terms are meant to convey? To answer these questions it's always best to start at the beginning.

Son of God

The beginning of Jesus is recorded in Matthew 1:18-20 and Luke 1:35 – his birth. Of course, in the Trinitarian scheme, Jesus pre-existed his birth at Bethlehem, so he had no beginning. But is it possible for one to exist before he exists? Let's look at the text of Luke 1:35...

“And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God.”

Here we have, in simple terms, the reason Jesus is called “Son of God”. The word therefore means “for this very reason” (dio kai in the Greek). In other words, the child born will be called the Son of God because – for the precise reason that – the Holy Spirit (here equated with the power of the Most High) would come upon Mary. Notice also that the word born is “genao” in the original language. This word family is also where we get "genesis", which means "origins". Genao means “to bring forth, conceive, procreate, bear, be born”.

There is nothing in the above text to indicate any pre-existent being who “entered into” Mary's womb and became a human embryo. Nowhere in the Bible do we find language such as “put on flesh”, “clothed in flesh”, “take on human nature”, etc., in connection with the nature of Christ or his birth. And we definitely do not find the term “God the Son” anywhere in the Bible! No, this is the plain language of a life coming into existence - being born - at a specific point in time. However, given the fact that Mary was miraculously impregnated with seed by the power of God and thus without a human father, Jesus would “be called holy—the Son of God"!

Whatever else may be said about the nature of the Son of God, we must recognize immediately that "Son" of God is not the same as God. Since God alone is immortal, without beginning or ending, it must be understood that a Son of God cannot be God in the same sense because there IS a beginning for the Son. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is clearly seen as separate from, subordinate to, even dependent upon God the Father. Rather than equality to God, the Sonship of Jesus is seen in his unique relationship to God.

The fact is, "Son of God" IS NOT a title belonging only to Jesus, much less an indication that he is himself deity. There are others in Scripture who are also called sons of God.

• The angels are referred to as “sons of God” (Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; Psalm 29:1; Luke 20:36). Jesus tells us that angels do not marry and cannot die. By inference they do not procreate (Luke 20:35-36). Therefore, angels are all created individually by God. He made so many of them, and no more. They are sons of God by reason of their individual creation.

• Adam is called the “son of God” because he was God's original creation, uniquely made (Luke 3:38). All men after Adam are “procreated” beings - they are made after Adams kind, not directly created by God (Genesis 1:1-12,21,24-25,28).

• Christians also are called “sons of God” (Romans 8:14 and 19; Galatians 3:26; because we are of the new creation. We have been “re-created”, born of “incorruptible seed” (1 Peter 1:23, 25, 2:1) as a result of receiving Jesus' and His message, and therefore authorized to be called “sons of God” (John 1:12).

So then, when the Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, instead of deity, it is a reference to his unique status with God. This in no way diminishes Jesus! In my view, it raises him to the status of the fully human, unique Son that He is, and makes His sinless life and suffering a greater accomplishment. It also keeps Paul's "two Adams" comparison, in Romans chapter 5, in tact. I'm simply making the point here that the designation “Son of God” does not refer to deity, but to uniqueness.