An Inconvenient Truth

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

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

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

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

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

This is coupled with John 1:14 which says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plain Words of Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

Image via Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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.)"