"Innocent of blood"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Soul" of the Matter

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

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

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

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

God said to Adam and Eve...

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

But Satan deceived the woman.

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

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

The best place to start is in the beginning.

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

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

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

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

Isaac Newton Was A Heretic!

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

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

ISAAC NEWTON’S TWELVE ARTICLES
ON GOD AND CHRIST
C. 1710S-1720S KEYNES MS 8, KING’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE

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

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

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

submitted by
Keith

The Hell of Fire - Part 2

The Hell of Fire
“23 Minutes in Hell”


Nothing has caused more confusion about the doctrine of final punishment than the erroneous idea that all men are born with immortal “souls” that live forever! Perhaps no lie of the Devil has been more widely accepted. I will deal with this in more detail in a separate article, but for now let us focus on the next most confusing issue, the word aionios, usually translated “eternal” or “everlasting”.

Eternal Fire - Eternal Punishment

In our western way of thinking, these words elicit thoughts of a timeless existence which is incomprehensible to the human mind. The same Greek word “aionios” is used for eternal, or everlasting life (zoe aionios). Have you ever tried to imagine FOREVER? It makes you dizzy doesn't it? Although the word aionios does carry with it the idea of perpetual, ongoing, the more proper understanding of it is “age” (as in time), particularly used for the future.

In this light then, eternal life is better understood as “life in the age to come”! It is not so much life without time, as life in a future time (age). Insomuch as the age to come has no revealed or foreseeable end in Hebrew thought, it is described as perpetual – never ending. But to say that “time is no more” is inaccurate for it is really only time outside of the present age.

The main point to understand about aionios is that it speaks of a future age. It is my understanding that scholars have argued this point for many years, but for some reason it hasn't been accepted or understood by the general bible-reading, church-going public. But if this is correct, then just as eternal life is to be thought of as life in the age to come, so should eternal fire and eternal punishment be understood as referring to the age to come.

Consider the following passage of Scripture in Jude...

“Don't forget what happened to those people that the Lord rescued from Egypt. Some of them did not have faith, and he later destroyed them. You also know about the angels who didn't do their work and left their proper places. God chained them with everlasting chains (note that everlasting here is a different word - not aionios) and is now keeping them in dark pits until the great day of judgment. We should also be warned by what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the nearby towns. Their people became immoral and did all sorts of sexual sins. Then God made an example of them and punished them with eternal fire.” -- Jude 1:5-7 (CEV)

NOTE: Some (very few) translations use the name Jesus in place of Lord here. ASV, NASB, KJV, WEY, RV and most others render verse 5 "the Lord" saved a people out of Egypt. Not Jesus. Lord is the correct translation of kurios which is the word used in the Greek text here. The NET correctly notes (24) "The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Ihsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel." - (NET footnotes on verse 5). Yet they argue that "Jesus" is supported by many early witnesses, while noting that there were many scribal variants.

Here Jude reminds his readers that God “destroyed those who did not believe”; this was their punishment – total destruction! And he uses the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah as an “example” of eternal fire! It is evident that Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning. If you go to that place on the map today you will not find any human souls writhing in torment in the fire. No. Jude uses the destructive punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah as a symbol of the fire which is to come. In other words, just as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by raining down fire and brimstone from heaven, so He will do to the ungodly in the judgment of the coming age! To solidify this truth, consider what the apostle Peter said...

“if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly” -- 2 Peter 2:6 (ESV)

Can it be any clearer than that?

The Bible seems to be quite specific about the fate of the ungodly and unbelieving. They will suffer extinction! While there are some Scriptures that seem to suggest that souls suffer perpetual torment in a burning hell, closer examination reveals that God has other, more merciful and just, plans for them.

Consider also what Paul has to say about the subject...

“They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from (or destruction that comes from) the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.” -- 2 Thess 1:9-10 (ESV)

The usage of the phrase “eternal destruction” here is the same as that of “eternal fire” in Jude. It is symbolic of the punishment which is coming in the next age. If this were not the case, we would have Paul teaching that souls will be in a perpetual state of destruction, yet never actually being destroyed. Unfortunately, there are some who believe that exactly! But this really makes a muddle of the language and (in my opinion) does great injustice to the nature of God.

It is interesting that in all of the New Testament, there are but a few places that actually deal directly with final punishment. They are 1 Thessalonians, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. The others are found in the gospels, where Jesus talks about “hell fire” and “everlasting fire”. The everlasting fire we have already dealt with as being fire representative of the age to come. The imagery of “hell fire, worms, and unquenchable fire” in the gospels, are all references to gehenna, the refuse dump of Jerusalem. Jesus used this place (that would be clear to any Jew) to illustrate the destruction of the wicked in the age to come, where the fire cannot be put out until it has completed it's job – total destruction. Complete information about gehenna can easily be found in any good Bible dictionary.

The doctrine of final punishment, as taught by Christian “orthodoxy”, is not “right thinking” at all (the meaning of orthodoxy is right thinking)! The evidence for final destruction, as opposed to eternal punishment, is overwhelming when one simply takes the time to study it. But for some reason, many orthodox believers are more eager to defend the traditions than to believe the truth. They find destruction to be too merciful a punishment for sin, and of course, extinction is impossible because of the supposed immorality of the human soul. And as we suggested at the first, this may well be the most devious lie that Satan has perpetrated on mankind!

Keith Dyer

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?