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!

The Calf Path

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Will Rise!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image via Wikipedia

Headstone in a small family cemetery in Northern Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Christ: In The Flesh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hebrew Background to the New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Undeniable Proof

T

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

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

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

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

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

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

The word “Father” here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. 

This is manifest: (1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term” Son” when he comes to speak of the “one Lord Jesus Christ;” and, (2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father “to his creatures.” He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name “Father” is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa 103:13; Jer 31:9; Mal 1:6; Mal 2:10; Mat 6:9; Luk 11:2, etc. __Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible, Albert Barnes (1798-1870) (emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______ 

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

a Deut 4:35, 39; 6:4; Is 46:9; Jer 10:6, 7; 1 Cor 8:4

b Mal 2:10; Eph 4:6

c Rom 11:36

d John 13:13; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 4:5; 1 Tim 2:5

e Col 1:16