The Son of God and The Gates of Hell

Matthew 16:13-21 (ESV)

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.

This passage of Scripture represents a turning point in the ministry of Jesus, as well as one of the most controversial, and debated of His sayings. The turning point comes in verse 21 when Jesus began to talk to his disciples about his death and subsequent resurrection. The controversy and debate arise from the question of what is meant by "on this rock I will build my church." But it seems to me also that even more controversial and debatable is the question, what did Peter mean when he said "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" , and what are "the gates of hell".

Peter's Confession

When asked by Jesus, "who do men say that I am?" the answers were varied, but generally considered him a prophet. But when he said "who do you say that I am?", Peter spoke up with confidence and conviction, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God". The fact that “you” is plural in the text indicates that Jesus did not direct his question to Peter alone; however, true to his impetuous nature, Peter is the one who opened his mouth and blurted out the answer… inspired by God as it turns out! The traditional interpretation of this phrase attributes Peter as recognizing Jesus full Divinity. In other words, Peter recognized Jesus as not merely the Christ, but "the Son of the Living God" hence, God the Son. But this interpretation dangerously reads into the text something that is not there - a preconceived notion based on the accepted doctrine of the Trinity. There is no ground whatsoever for inverting the title Son of God into God the Son… the Bible never does it!

These titles, Son of God and God the Son, are not the same and, in fact, have completely different meanings.  In the first place, the title “Christ” is the equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah, meaning "king, anointed one, or chosen one". Christ is not descriptive of Deity, but representative of Deity! The Hebrew kings of old were messiahs; they were anointed of God, chosen to represent God to the people. Secondly, in Old Testament passages such as 2 Sam 7:14; Psa 2:7; and Psa 89:4,26-28, the concept of “son” is also synonymous with Messiah, and this is surely what Peter meant when he called Jesus the Son of the Living God! As Christ, he is the anointed one of God; God’s representative, the coming one of promise. The title Son of God means essentially the same thing but more fully expresses his unique relationship to the Father as the only begotten of God. Neither of these designations though are descriptive of, or even suggestive of Deity.

Further, note how the parallel passages read. Luke 9:20 says, "You are the Christ of God", while  Mark 8:29 says simply, "You are the Christ". To ascribe Deity to Jesus because of the addition of the term Son of God in this passage is a leap from the clear meaning of the text. Also, it should not be overlooked that Jesus blessed Peter for his bold confession saying "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven." Do we really want to argue with what God revealed to Peter? Peter's revelation was consistent with the Scriptures regarding the identity of Messiah, and nowhere does the Bible teach that Messiah would be God, 2nd Person of a Trinity, or otherwise. And so, the Father fully revealed to Peter the truth about His Son, and Jesus required no further explanation from him. The teaching of progressive revelation, that God revealed himself as triune in nature over time, does not serve truth, but only gives license to theologians to change the text and attribute their own twisted meaning to Scripture.

One last observation should be pointed out here. In verse 20 Jesus himself affirms his identity as “the Christ” and charges the disciples not to make it known. If in fact the phrase “Son of the living God” goes beyond the meaning of Christ and attributes Deity to Jesus, wouldn’t that have been the focus of Jesus charge of silence to His disciples? After all, how much more of a shock would it be to learn that they were in the presence of Almighty God in the flesh? Yes, I think Jesus would have told them not to tell anyone he was God, because they certainly were not ready for such a revelation yet. But that’s not what he did, he charged them not to tell anyone he was the Christ! Even Trinitarian scholars know that the disciples had no concept of a Triune God at this time. It is not sound reasoning to think that God the Father revealed to Peter that Jesus was also God! Let’s wake up! Jesus, by his own admission, is the Christ, the Messiah, God’s anointed One; all synonymous with “Son of God”! I think it is much better to agree with Jesus. Let God be  God, and let Jesus be the Son of God!

Who/What is the Rock?

Jesus answered Peter's "You are the Christ" with "You are Peter". In Greek, Peter is "Petros", meaning rock, or stone. But when Jesus said "and on this rock" he used the word "petra" rather than "Petros". Petra is the word for a large rock, as found in Jesus parable about the man who built his house on the rock, rather than on sand. (Matt 7:24). The question here is "to what or who was Jesus referring when he said "upon this rock I will build my church"? Was the rock Peter himself, or something else?

Generally, there are three schools of thought regarding this issue. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that Peter himself is the rock to whom Jesus referred. As such, apostolic succession is based on the person of Peter as the first pope. While there is some Scriptural support for the idea of Peter being the rock, there is no Scriptural evidence for a succession of pope's. Another way to interpret "upon this rock" is that Jesus Himself is the rock to whom he referred. Again, where there is Scriptural support for Jesus being the foundational rock upon which the church is built, it's difficult to justify this meaning in context. It's an abrupt change of direction in language; almost as if he acknowledges Peter as a small rock then points to himself as the big rock saying, “and on this rock (me) I will build my church”. The better interpretation, and the one generally favored by most evangelical Christians, is that the rock upon which the church is built is the truth revealed by God, and confessed by Peter that, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

The Church is founded on the confession that Jesus is God's Son, the Christ, and that He was sent to show us the Father and ultimately become the sacrifice for our sin. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. It is confessing with the mouth that He is Lord, and believing with the heart that God raised him from the dead that affects our salvation. When I first became a Christian I was told that my sin offended God and that Jesus died to satisfy that offence. Jesus, as God's Son, was sacrificed on my behalf so that I might have a relationship with God through him. The doctrine of the Trinity was taught later. At no time was I ever told I must believe that Jesus is God in order to be saved! And I submit that it is the same for multitudes. It is after entrance into the the Church by confession of Jesus as the Son of God that the language of Scripture is changed so that Jesus becomes "God the Son", 2nd Person of the Trinity, equal to God the Father in every way yet not a second God but somehow, mystically, three persons in One God. But in spite of the fact that teaching about the person of Jesus and his relationship to God has been distorted by Greek philosophy introduced into the Church in the early years, the Church continues to grow on the basis of Peter's confession.

The Gates of Hell

This church, which Jesus identifies as "my church", will not be stopped or hindered by the "gates of hell". This is good news no matter how you interpret, but to what exactly was Jesus referring?

I was reading an introduction to a study on the book of Acts prior to writing this article in which the author referred to Matthew 16:18. His sense of the meaning was that the devil and his armies would have no power to hinder the advancement of the Church. In other words, that author, like the majority of the protestant christian church, understands “gates of hell” as referring to the powers, or forces, of the devil. The fact that Jesus assures us that they will not prevail is a strong affirmation of his power, and our ultimate victory. This is a wonderful truth! However, though I am well aware that we christians are engaged in warfare against the forces of evil (Eph 6), and we have power over them in the name of Jesus, I don’t believe this passage has that intended meaning. Yet, in my nearly 40 years of being a Christian, I can’t recall a single sermon or teaching to the contrary!

I began writing this on a Sunday evening and just that morning our associate pastor made reference to Matthew 16:18 in his sermon. His take on it was a little different. To him, the gates are not representative of power, they are not weapons. Therefore, in Christ, we have the power to break down and overcome every obstacle that would stand in our way of advancing the Church. We have been assured of victory as we storm the gates of hell. I agree that gates are not weapons, but once again, the central idea in his interpretation is the supposition that the forces of evil are in hell! But where does that idea come from? The Bible I read reveals that the devil is the “god of this world”; “the prince and power of the air”, and that his demons are the evil angels, the “principalities and powers that dwell in the heavenlies.” (2Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2; 6:12; 1Pet 3:22).

The answer to our question, what is meant by “gates of hell”, is obvious, I think, if we take the time to define some terms and examine it closer. There are three words in the New Testament that are translated (by some versions, most notably the KJV) as hell. The word “gehenna” is used by Jesus to refer to a place of fiery destruction (Matt 5:22,29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15), and translated as hell in the NASB, KJV; tartarus is found only once in the New Testament at 2Pet 2:4, and refers to a prison where evil spirits are being held in chains for judgment. Then in our text and several other places, the word hades is used (Matt 11:23; Luke 16:23; Acts 2:27,31; Rev 6:8, 20:13,14). Hades is the god of the underworld in Greek mythology. Over time, his name came to designate the underworld itself, the abode of the dead. As such, Hades is the only Greek word providing a near equivalent to the Hebrew word sheol. Like Hades, sheol is the dwelling place of the dead in Hebrew thought. Whatever one may think about the state of the dead (whether conscious, or asleep awaiting resurrection) one thing is certain, Hades is not the same as Gehenna, nor is it the lake of fire or the prison where evil spirits are confined; Hades is the realm of the dead. And in fact, according to Rev 20:14 hades will be thrown into the lake of fire! The Bible nowhere teaches that the devil and his angels dwell in hades!

Second, the Hebrew Scriptures say that “hell is never satisfied” or “never gets full” (Prov 27:20; Isa 5:14) This is a use of sheol conveying the idea that death continues to claim lives, and so long as people die, they will end up in sheol, the place of the dead. There is no return. Gates are meant either to restrict or prevent what is outside from getting in, or to restrict or prevent what is inside from getting out! Since hades/sheol continues to grow it is reasonable to assume that the gates are in place, figuratively, to keep the dead inside. There is only one way to enter hades, and that is by death. In the Old Testament and subsequent Jewish tradition the “gates of Hades” are expressed as the gates of death (Job 38:17; Psalm 9:13). In other words, once one is dead he has no power to leave, the gates are closed - and one would assume - locked. However, according to Jesus, the gates of hades cannot prevail against his church!

The Good News

By now I hope you see where we are going with this.  For all the righteous dead, and for those yet to fall asleep in Christ, there IS an exit!! The gates of hell, or we might say, the grave or power of death, has no authority over the true believer. We will rise!! In verse 21 it is recorded that Jesus began to tell the disciples about his coming suffering and death, but that after three days he would be raised. This is the turning point in Jesus ministry referred to earlier but it also gives context and credence to our interpretation of “gates of hell” as the power of death. The good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ, is that death does not have the final say in the lives of those who submit themselves to God, through Jesus. There is coming a day, a day when Jesus will return to set up the kingdom of God on earth. And in that day the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive and remain will be changed, in a moment, a twinkling of an eye, and so shall we all be with the Lord. Death will be swallowed up by life - the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church! This is good news indeed. Jesus said, “This is eternal life, that they may know You Father, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” (John 17:3).

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Sympathizing With Our Weakness

"Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." -- Heb 4:14-15 RSV

This verse has always been meaningful to me, but all the more powerful since coming to the revelation that Jesus is not God. As a "recovering" Trinitarian (LOL), I always believed Jesus to be fully human and therefore capable of temptation, but I never thought too deeply about the deity of Christ co-existing with his humanity because doing so inevitably led to questions I couldn't answer. Any attempt to answer those questions and still retain the belief that Jesus was both God and man, just led to more confusion. And so, I just accepted it without trying to explain it.

But God has created us with the wonderful ability to think, to analyze, to discern, and when exercised positively, light is shed regarding some serious weaknesses in the doctrine of Christ's "dual nature". After all, how difficult could it have been for a "God-Man" to overcome temptation? Is it even possible for a God-Man to have been tempted at all, as other human beings experience temptation?

'Yes', people say, 'He was a man, but He was also God... no wonder He could be sinless... no wonder He could exercise such virtue and self control... how else could he have done all those miracles?' Without even realizing it, adhering to the Trinity doctrine, and consequently, the dual nature of Christ,  places a barrier between Jesus and man. We take comfort in the humanity of Christ  because we can relate to weakness and temptation, but at the same time, we separate ourselves from Him by believing him to be God!

It has been said that virtually all Trinitarians are practicing Monotheists, because it is impossible to hold a rational thought of three persons in One God without being guilty of worshiping three Gods. The fact is, we can think of, and focus on, only one Divine Person at a time. And it is likewise impossible to hold a rational thought of a God who became fully man, yet is still no less God. That is mysticism, and no Scripture supports it.

It is Jesus' genuine humanity that the Bible writers want us to see! (Acts 2:22; Rom 5:14-15 RSV; 1Tim 2:5) It is that very humanity that allows Him to be a high priest who can really "sympathize with our weaknesses," because He truly is one of us! (Heb 4:15) Think of it! While it is claimed that the orthodox Jesus is fully human, if he is also fully God, then he can be neither one nor the other! A God-Man would be a very different creature from any human I know. He would be in a class all by himself, and for that very reason he could never possibly sympathize with our weaknesses!

English: The Holy of Holies, lithograph by J.R. Jones, at the Library of Congress (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The main function of a High Priest was to be a mediator between God and man. The book of Hebrews is clear that the High Priest must be a man in every way (Heb 2:17-18), and Paul complies when he explicitly states “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;...” 1Tim 2:5). The high priest of the Aaronic priesthood entered into the “holy of holies” on the day of atonement to offer sacrifices for the nation. He was required to mediate in this way once each year. But Jesus “passed through the heavens” to enter into the literal holy of holies - the presence of Almighty God - to offer himself, once and for all, a worthy sacrifice for the sins of men. This, he could only accomplish as a real human being.

Let's be honest, no man has a clue what it is like to be God. If Jesus was truly both God and man, he could not possibly be a qualified mediator, and how then would it be possible for him “sympathize with our weaknesses"? And yet, IF the Scriptures plainly stated a human/divine dual nature, if they unequivocally declared the Trinity as taught by orthodoxy, then I would believe it. But the truth is: there are no such Scriptures that plainly state it, and not one that makes any such unequivocal declaration! What the Bible does say clearly is that He was "born" of a virgin - He had a beginning (Luke 1:35; 2:7 RSV); He grew in every way like any normal human being, developing and cultivating His relationships (Luke 2:52); and He related to Yahweh not only as His Father, but as His God (Mat 27:46; John 20:17; Rev 3:12; Eph 1:3; 1Pet 1:3).

Jesus prayed to His God and Father constantly, sometimes rising early and at times all night. I suggest that it was this intimate relationship He held with His Father, along with a revelation and understanding of His life's mission and purpose, that strengthened Him to always make the right decisions and to keep him from sinning (Heb 2:10; 12:2). The impressive truth is that we are likewise expected to pray and keep ourselves from sinning! Most christians, I think, are keenly aware of the high moral standard to which we are called. But is it in vain that these demands are placed upon us? Are we actually supposed to obey the Scriptural injunctions literally or should we just "'give up" and forget about ever living without sinning?

The fact is, Scripture demands that we strive to make right choices and keep ourselves from willful sin. But this is only possible so long as we BELIEVE it is possible; and it is much easier to believe it possible when we understand that Jesus is authentically human, and not also God.

Let's read the Bible for what it actually says instead of reading through the lens of tradition. And let's give the highest praise to God, the Father, for His "unspeakable gift" through Jesus Christ, His highly exalted Son (2Cor 9:15; Phil 2:9-11).

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

The Thief on the Cross

“And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” --Luke 23:43 (NET)

This passage is considered a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul, and is typically cited to support the teaching that, upon death, the souls of the redeemed go directly to heaven. In this bible account the thief on the cross says to Jesus “remember me when you come into your kingdom". Clearly, he believed Jesus would indeed come into a kingdom at some future time. The prevailing interpretation understands Jesus' answer as a promise of something which far exceeded the petition. In effect Jesus said to him, "there is no need for you to wait until that day, you will be with me this very day."

This interpretation seems clear-cut, but we must ask: is that how the thief understood Jesus words, and more importantly, is it the meaning Jesus intended? If Jesus had something different in mind, what would it be, and how would one justify it based on the text? Virtually every mainstream bible resource supports the traditional view. In fact, pick up any bible commentary and you'll find pretty much the same thing. They unequivocally declare that in using the word 'today' Jesus defines the specific time in which the thief would be with him in paradise. The meaning of the text seems unmistakable!

But there IS another way to read the verse. It is a fact that the punctuation of a bible translation is left to human design and is not considered inspired. If one simply places the comma after the word 'today', the meaning is dramatically altered. The adverb, semeron (today), would then modify the verb 'I say' rather than 'to be', and so read “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.

It has been argued that it would be nonsensical for Jesus to use the phrase "I say to you today" because it is already obvious that He was speaking today! But this argument is merely an attack on the intelligence of those who support that reading. Of course we realize that Jesus was speaking 'today'!! But it is not unheard of for one to preface a statement with the phrase “I'm telling you right now...”, in American vernacular. It's simply a way of pointing emphatically to what is being said. Similarly, could not Jesus have responded to the thief's request in such a way?

In a book by Anthony Buzzard, reference is made to a German translation which renders Luke 23:43 as “Truly I give you my assurance today: You will one day be with me in Paradise.” In a note, the author adds “Jesus does not wait until the last day, but promises the thief even now that his request will be granted.” (Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven, Buzzard, p.242).

Consider also, that a similar grammatical construction is found in Acts 20:26 where Paul says to the Ephesian elders "I declare to you THIS DAY that I have been faithful". Some argue that if Jesus meant “I tell you the truth today”, semeron would need to precede the verb, but that isn't necessarily true. It is clear what Paul means here. THIS DAY translates semeron, just as in Luke 23:43, and here, as in Luke 23:43, 'today' does NOT precede the verb. Should it then read "I declare to you, this day I have been faithful"? Obviously, that is NOT what Paul meant to say!

So then, we can see that moving the comma in Luke 23:43 is plausible. But we must still answer the question: why would we want to alter the the traditional understanding? The answer, in short, is that the traditional interpretation is based on faulty Biblical understanding of the human soul, and what happens at death.

Consider the following arguments...

1. What is meant by “paradise”? The word paradeisos is found three times in the Bible.

• In 2Cor 12:2-4, Paul equates “the third heaven” with “paradise”. Evidently, it is God's abode, where Christ ascended after God raised him from the dead. It was there that Paul heard things which, he said, cannot be repeated or, simply could not be uttered.
• In Revelation 2:7 we read of the “paradise of God” wherein is the tree of life which is promised to the one who conquers. Many scholars equate this with the garden of Eden and may also be the same paradise that Paul visited in 2Cor 12.
• Then, of course, in our text Jesus refers to a place called paradise which, apparently is the same paradise as described in 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. But this is problematic; which brings us to the next argument.

2. 

   English: Print by Gustave Doré illustrating the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from the Gospel of Luke Русский: Притча богач и Лазарь из Евангелия от Луки, художник Гюстав Доре (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   Where in Scripture can it be shown that Jesus entered heaven that very day? According to Acts 1:3 Jesus did not ascend into heaven until at least 40 days after his resurrection. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day. Luke had previously recorded Jesus as saying “and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again." -- Luke 18:33 (NASB).There has been much speculation on how Jesus spent those three days, but according to Matt 12:40, Jesus said of Himself that he would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many assert that by “heart of the earth” is meant Hades, the place described in Luke 16 in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). But it should be observed first that paradise is not mentioned in that story, only “Abraham's bosom” or “Abraham's side”. Heaven is never referred to in any other bible text as Abraham's bosom. Secondly, since it is a parable there is no reason to believe that Jesus was giving a factual account of the afterlife. In fact, the parable was not designed to teach about heaven or hell. Jesus was using a popular idea of the time to figuratively “poke a finger in the eye” of the self-righteous Pharisees. It was really about the Pharisee's attitude concerning rich and poor and of misinterpreting the Law of Moses for their own gain.
   The more accurate understanding of “the heart of the earth” is, idiomatically speaking, in the grave or, the tomb. Some translations read “in the lower parts of the earth”. Any explanation that has Jesus going somewhere or doing something during those three days fails or refuses to acknowledge the plain sense of Scripture that Jesus was dead and in the tomb for three days.
   
   
   
3. Third, as noted above, being in the earth for three days is a picture of being dead and in the grave! If Jesus, the whole person, was not actually dead, it would render his resurrection pointless, for what need would he have for a glorified body if he could already go anywhere and do anything he wanted without one?! For Jesus to be dead he must have ceased from all activities associated with life, including consciousness. In numerous passages of Scripture, we are informed that the dead are unconscious.

• “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5.
• “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Ps. 115 :17.
• “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:4.

Further, he must have been truly dead in every way in order for resurrection to maintain it's literal meaning as restoration of life, not merely revivification of a dead body.

4. Fourth, Acts 2:29-36 clearly shows that David was in the grave and did NOT go to paradise or heaven when he died? If David, a man after God's own heart, did not go to paradise/heaven when he died, why would Jesus proclaim that the thief would accompany him to paradise that very day?
   
   
5. Fifth, that the thief would not immediately go into paradise/heaven is in agreement with the rest of Scripture regarding what happens after death, not the least of which is the fact that Paul calls death "an enemy" in 1Cor 15:26. If it were true that we go directly to heaven at the time of death, we should then welcome it as a friend, not refer to it as the last enemy to be conquered! Not only so, but other Scriptures put our union with Christ “at his appearing”, which means either rapture or resurrection, not at death!

6. Finally, interpreting Luke 23:43 as “..., today you will be with me” does not prove the existence of a soul existing independent of the body, but presupposes it. In other words, one must already have in mind a view that man is made up of parts, such as soul and body, or body, soul, and spirit, and then read it into the text, including the placement of the comma. But numerous scholars, going back at least as far as Eusebius, and more importantly, the Bible itself, sees man as a whole being; a single unitary person.
   
   Note the following quotes from various scholars:

• Lake 2009, pp. 586–97: ‘The English translation of nepeš by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body—dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit—trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation that too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. (See body; spirit.) N. Porteous (in IDB, 4:428) states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied nepeš, though he could use nepeš with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev. 19:28; Num. 6:6).” Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unit of vital power” (BDT, 492). In this connection, the most significant text is Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [nišmat hayyîm], and the man became a living being [nepeš hayyâ]” (the KJV rendering “living soul” is misleading). … It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul.’
• Vogels (1994), "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion 7: 80, ^"It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.".
• Dixon (2000) [9.2.1968], "What Is Man?", Emmaus Journal, "Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an “immortal soul” is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible.".

One last thought. There are several accounts of people being resurrected from the dead in the bible, both Old and New Testaments. With the exception of Jesus, all resurrection accounts were to normal physical life and not immortality. In no case do we have anything written about their experiences while in the realm of the dead. There are no protests by anyone about having to leave paradise to come back to physical existence in the earth! It seems clear that death was an experience of complete insensibility. Although this is an argument from silence, it is, at least, worth considering.

In light of all the above facts, it would not be likely that Jesus was alive and in Paradise on that very day, much less, promise the same to the thief on the cross? By saying to the thief, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”, Jesus associated paradise with the coming kingdom of God on earth and affirmed that the thief would have a place in that kingdom when he comes again to establish it. And so it is with us. When we die, we sleep until Jesus returns and awakens us. At that time, and only then, “...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:l0

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Ten Thousand Angels

“Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?” --Matthew 26:53 (ESV)

I play the bass guitar and sing with the worship band at my church. Having also been a worship leader, I like to keep informed on what people are doing and saying in the contemporary worship arena. I read an article recently which posed the question “Did Jesus Really Have a Choice?” In this article, the author makes reference to the old hymn, “Ten Thousand Angels”, and asks, could Jesus really have changed his mind and come down off the cross? The author did not offer answers, but petitioned comments from his readers. An intriguing question to ponder, inviting some interesting opinions.

The song's chorus goes like this:

He could have called ten thousand angels

To destroy the world and set Him free.

He could have called ten thousand angels,

But He died alone, for you and me.

Jesus helped by Simon of Cyrene, part of a series depicting the stations of the Cross. Chapel Nosso Senhor dos Passos, Santa Casa de Misericórdia of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Oil on canvas, XIXth century, unknown author. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I did some research on the hymn and discovered that it was written by Ray Overholt in 1958, who was not even a Christian at the time. His own story reveals that after writing many secular songs he wanted to write a Christian song, so he opened a Bible, which he admittedly knew little about, and began reading in Matthew 26:51ff where Jesus tells Peter to put away his sword. Jesus then says to Peter that he could at any time ask his Father and He would send 12 legions of angels. Mr. Overholt did not know at the time that 12 legions was 72,000, nevertheless he thought 'Ten Thousand Angels' sounded like a good song title! He then did some additional investigation to fill in the verses for the song. In a nutshell, it was Mr Overholt's most well-known song, and he became a christian only after singing it in a small country church where he responded to the preacher's message that followed.

In the article I read, the author was questioning the validity of lyrics in songs that may be doctrinally unsound. Although it could result in a popular song, he asks... is it actually true? Could Jesus really have come off the cross? If he could, would God have to rethink His plan of salvation? If Jesus didn't die on the cross, what about all the OT Scriptures that foretold of his suffering and death? What if Jesus didn't complete his mission on the cross, would he be guilty of sin – disobedience to the Father? If he sinned, could he be God?

I found it fascinating to realize that the writer of the song, although not a believer at the time, got it right about Jesus own will. Now, in crediting Mr. Overholt for 'getting it right', I don't mean to suggest that he was correct in all points of the song's lyrics. In context, it was about Jesus fulfilling his destiny (see Matt 26:54), by going through with the suffering of the cross, not about calling angels to take him off the cross. Nevertheless, Jesus himself said that he could have called on his Father to send 12 legions of angels (Matt 26:53) which is a powerful revelation, not only of Jesus' special relationship to the Father, but of his own free will! And, calling on the angel armies may suggest that Jesus could have bypassed man's salvation and went directly to judging the world!

Very often as I hear those who teach and preach, remarks are made about Jesus' “free will”, but it's as though they are speaking from both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they say he could have rejected his passion on the cross, and on the other that his Deity drove him to the obedience of the cross, making it beyond his ability to change. This is the kind of thinking revealed in the various comments that were given to the article to which I refer. As I read through each comment I knew I had to offer a view of my own.

The following is an edited version of what I wrote in response to the article:

Yes! Without a doubt, he could have rejected the cross, but I'm so glad he did not! There is no mystery here. The fact that he didn't call on the angel armies to free him and subsequently, died on the cross, is the reason God raised him from the dead and exalted him as both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36), and also why he is now worthy of our worship. Rather than asking the the question posed in the article, I think we should be asking "is it right to use language such as "robed in flesh", “three in one”, “Holy Trinity”, “triune God” and "God the Son" in our songs of worship, and doctrine. These terms are not found in Scripture, nor do they describe Biblical ideas! Instead, they are based on inferences and misinterpretations of Scripture which severely detract from the truth that Jesus was a genuine human being, a real man, the second (or last) Adam (1Cor 15:45, Rom 5:14ff), and that His Father is the only true God (John 17:3, 5:44).

John 1:1 says the "word was God", not that the word was "God the Son". John tells us Jesus was given the Spirit "without measure"(John 3:34). Paul defined this further when he wrote "For in him (Christ) the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily." (Col 2:9). Note also that in Col 1:19 it was pleasing to "The Father" that this should be so. If Jesus was in fact, God, there would be no need for Paul to write that the fulness dwelt in him. Naturally, all the fulness would be in him if he was God! The fact that Paul even writes it, proves that he did not think of Jesus as God. Further, Paul tells us It was God (The Father) who "in Christ" was reconciling the world to Himself. (2Cor 5:19).

Brothers and sisters, God cannot sin, God cannot be tempted, and God cannot possibly die! But Jesus, the man could do all three. That he was tempted “in all points” just like every other man means he could have sinned; he could have been disobedient. The fact that he was tempted, yet without sin (Heb 4:15), made him unworthy of death, since death comes by sin (Rom 5:12). And there is no dispute (at least among Christians) that he truly died, otherwise he could not have been truly resurrected from the dead! But God did raise him from the dead and thereby he became the "first-fruits" of those who sleep! (1Cor 15:20-23) Praise God, because Jesus overcame sin and now lives forever, we have forgiveness of sins and are promised eternal life as well.

The real question here is: “Are we interested in truth, or just keeping our tradition?” Our worship and doctrine took a wrong turn in history and we have unwittingly replaced the worship of God the Father with Jesus, as “God the Son”, worshiping him as God to the exclusion of The Father! But in John 4:23-24, Jesus says true worshipers will worship "The Father" in spirit and truth and that The Father is seeking such to worship Him.

Music is a powerful medium! Unfortunately, a vast majority of Christians learn theology from the songs we sing. We should stick to Biblical language in our songs and worship and refrain from terms, phrases, and concepts, which have no Biblical foundation. It's time for the Church to rethink doctrines like the Trinity which has gone virtually unscrutinized by most believers, and became the "official" doctrine of the Church through a history of ecclesiastical power wars, violence, and Imperial edict.

The author desires your reaction by checking one of the reaction boxes below. Please share your thoughts by posting a comment.

Who is God in John 1:1?

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

--John 1:1 (ESV)

I have always found it interesting, to say the least, that the word “word” (logos) is capitalized here. Some years ago my son was questioning the doctrine of the Trinity after hearing arguments against it from an American convert to Islam. Now, I must confess that I was very flustered when questioned about this admittedly contradictory teaching. Before I even attempted to defend it, I prefaced my remarks with the undebatable statement, “it’s a mystery - you must take it by faith!” I knew that Trinitarian apologists depended heavily on the gospel of John, especially 1:1 to support the doctrine of the Deity of Christ and I remember going directly there to make my case. It made perfect sense to me at the time, that because the word was given a capital “W” it was obviously meant to highlight the fact that Jesus was being identified as the Word and the Word was God. If Jesus is God, and the Father is God, and the Spirit is God (although this passage says nothing about the Spirit), then the Trinity must be a true doctrine because the Bible also sets forth the truth that there is only One God. And since the Bible cannot contradict itself, the One God must be composed of three persons... case settled, the Trinity doctrine is upheld.

Of course, there were many Biblical facts I overlooked regarding the issue of Jesus’ nature, not the least of which is the irrefutable fact that Jesus NEVER claimed the designation “God”, for himself - EVER!. But, like most other Christians today (and the last 1700 years), I was taught the supposed “cornerstone” of Christian doctrine, the Trinity, and as all Trinitarians do, whether they realize it or not, I read that doctrine into this verse, as well as every other passage of Scripture that seemed to suggest it. I didn't realize it then, but I was guilty of reading my own preconceived ideas into the Scripture, thus changing its meaning in order to support what I believed to be true.

Every good Bible student knows that in the original manuscripts there is no punctuation or distinction between upper and lower case so, logos was NOT capitalized in the original documents. Further, there is nothing special or out of the ordinary about the syntax of logos in John 1:1 compared to its appearances everywhere else in the New Testament - over 300 times! It is always translated as word, saying, thought, account, speech, etc. Only here in John 1:1 is it capitalized and purported to provide proof for the Deity of Jesus. Further, logos is not used again in any verse of new testament Scripture as a reference to Jesus; so why do the translators capitalize logos in John 1:1?

Make no mistake, this is not done as a result of pure translation! It is interpretation based on the bias of the translators. This interpretative maneuver does a disservice to the English Bible reading public because it equates the Word with a personal being, separate and distinct from God the Father, and having an existence in eternity along with Him. This Trinitarian doctrine of the literal  pre-existence of Jesus is no more than inference and conjecture given credence by translators capitalizing the Word. Thus, it is read as though John were saying that “Jesus was in the beginning with God and Jesus was God”, or that “the Son was in the beginning with God and the Son was God”.But we must posit the question: is this what the writer, John, wanted to say? If it is indeed what John meant to say then he could easily have done so plainly. But he did not! He said “the word” was in the beginning with God, and the word was God”! Further, the word of John 1:1 is said to be God, not the Son of God, or "God the Son". Look at it again: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” 

Who is God in this verse? 
Generally it is accepted that by God, in the first instance, is meant “the Father”. But if that’s true, then to be consistent, John must be saying that the Word was with the Father, and the Word was the Father. Do Trinitarian Christians really mean to say that Jesus (the Word) was Yahweh? Were they one and the same? If, as Trinitarians claim, the terms Jesus, the  Word, and God the Son are all synonymous, why didn’t John clarify by saying “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was the God the Son”?

This traditionally accepted view of John 1:1 is fraught with inconsistencies and errors of reason. The kind of logic that identifies the Word of 1:1 as a separate being, now known as "God the Son", on the basis of verse 14 (and the Word became flesh) is frankly, unfounded and nonsensical!. It is true that the word did become flesh, and John definitely equates that word with Jesus. But, if the logos of John 1:1 is taken in it’s normal usage, (plan, purpose, account, message, etc.) the conclusion of a pre-existent being would not only be avoided, it would be preposterous.

It has been suggested that John was drawing on the Hellenistic thinking of the day in his use of the term “logos”. Under the definition of “logos” in the “Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon” it says that

“A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1.” --Strong, J. (2001). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

But the notion that John, an uneducated fisherman from Galilee, would have been familiar with the Greek philosophy of Heraclitus, Plato, or even a more contemporary Philo, doesn’t seem very likely. More probable is the observation that John used Hebraisms readily understood by Jewish readers of his day. In fact, John may well have been thinking in terms of the Hebrew davar (word), or perhaps more likely the Aramaic “memra” (word), in his use of logos. Remember that although the gospels were written in Greek, the authors, with the exception of Luke, were Hebrew and thought like Hebrews. In fact, modern scholarly work has recognized that Aramaic was the predominant language of the common people of Israel at that time, including Jesus himself. If this is true, then John would have used “word” (logos/davar/memra) as a synonym for God (Yahweh). This usage would have clear implications of John’s Jewish monotheistic roots and mindset. 

The “Encyclopedia of Religion” states:

“Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity … Although the Hebrew Bible depicts God as the father of Israel and employs personifications of God such as Word (davar), Spirit (ruah), Wisdom (hokhmah), and Presence (shekhinah), it would go beyond the intention and spirit of the Old Testament to correlate these notions with later trinitarian doctrine.”

In his book, “The Only True God, A Study of Biblical Monotheism”, the author, Eric H.H. Chang writes in detail regarding the usage of memra in the Targums (a commentary of the Hebrew Scriptures in Aramaic). The “Word of the Lord God” is often used in tandem with “Yahweh God” as though it were a separate being. For example, in Genesis 18:17 the Targum reads thus:

“And the Lord said with His Word, I cannot hide from Abraham that which I am about to do; and it is right that before I do it, I should make it known to Him.”

Here, “the Lord” is Yahweh and “with His Word” is memra. This distinction is not seen in English translations of the Bible. The Word here is not to be understood as a separate entity any more than we are to understand “Wisdom” as a separate being who was with God in the beginning (Prov 1:20; 3:19; 8:12). Rather, the Word, like wisdom of Proverbs, is a personification of God’s creative thought, speech, purpose and plan which, in reality, equates to God Himself since it expresses His very being. John also uses a similar grammatical construction in 1John 1:2 where he refers to “eternal life” as being “with the father”.

Take into account also that regarding the promise of the Messiah, the Bible never proclaims or even alludes to the idea that God Himself would become a man, or that a being known as “the Word” or “God the Son” would become a man. Note what God said to Moses:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.” -- Deut 18:18-19 (ESV)

Consider the critical points in this prophetic word:

1. That God Himself would “raise up” the prophet. God accomplished this "raising up" when He miraculously created and implanted human seed into the virgin Mary (Luke 1:35). In this way, the birth of Jesus, the "second Adam" (Rom 5:12-19; 1Cor 15:45-49), God's word became flesh in that HIs plan was given expression through the vehicle of a human being whom God Himself prepared for such purpose (Heb 10:5-10). Also, Luke adds the helpful insight that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52)
2. That this prophet would be “like you [Moses]” and “from among their brothers”, meaning he would be a man, an Israelite, who had a close relationship with God, just like Moses. The bloodline of the Messiah can be traced through the Bible, but Matthew and Luke both give a detailed genelogical list of Jesus family tree. Take special note however, of Luke’s geneology where he traces Jesus ancestry all the way back to Adam, “son of God” (Luke 3:38). The point here is often overlooked but critical in understanding that Jesus was, according to Luke, a real human being with roots all the way back to the creation of the first man! There is no hint in Luke that Jesus was a hybrid "God-Man", only that Jesus was completely human and fathered by God. The parallel of two Adams found in Paul's' writings supports that he considered Jesus to be a man who came into existence like all men, through birth, with the exception that he was miraculously conceived.
3. That God would “put [his] my words in his mouth”. Over and over, Jesus himself declared that he did not speak his own words on his own authority but he spoke the words of his Father, God. The incarnation, “the word became flesh”, is God’s expressive mind embodied in the real flesh and blood person, Jesus of Nazareth, not a pre-existent being, God the Son, taking on human flesh. The Scripture says that “the Word became flesh”, not that God the Son became flesh! There is no such person as "God the Son" in the Bible or it's teachings. However, if Jesus was indwelt by the the Word (logos) or Memra of Yahweh, then it was Jesus explicitly speaking God's words, in God’s  Name, and not his own - which is exactly what Jesus said, and what Moses prophesied! (John 14:10, 24; 17:8; Deut 18:18-19)

The Last Word

Finally, if John intended to convey to his readers that Jesus was God, an equal member of a Trinity, he not only could have said it plainly in John 1:1, he would have had ample opportunity to say it plainly throughout his gospel. But conversely, he closes his gospel with the simple, straightforward, statement of intent; that “...these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,... (John 20:31). Neither the title “Christ” nor the phrase “Son of God” means God in the Bible. Christ is the equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah” which means ‘anointed one’ or “chosen One”. John’s argument was the same as that of Paul and the early Church; that Jesus was the Christ, (Acts 5:42; 17:3; 18:5,28) not that he was God. LIkewise, “Son of God” is a synonym for Messiah. To interpret “Son of God” as meaning “of the same substance”, as do the creeds of Christendom, is to ignore all logic and meaning of words, and to insert Greek philosophy into God's word. One cannot be both a Son of God and God, equal in every sense.

Conclusion
There is no question that most English translations of the Bible make certain passages, especially in the gospel of John, misleading. However, prayer and reason can prevail in revealing the correct interpretation of Scripture, so long as the seeker is willing to admit that he/she may have been mislead in their current understanding. Too often, we Christians ask for guidance of the Spirit to aid in our understanding, while concurrently approaching the Bible as though we already know certain things we have been taught to be factual. This is closed mindedness, and a closed mind is certainly no way to discover distinctions between truth and error. We must value truth over all, and be willing to let go of tradition, no matter how deeply seated!

A little reason goes a long way in uncovering the verity of the matter, but sadly, the doctrine of the Trinity has prevailed for so long, because of group mentality and fear, that an incomprehensible mystery is now touted as divine truth.Someone has perceptively said, “A lie repeated often enough carries more weight than the truth!” It’s time for Christians to rethink this incomprehensible doctrine, ask honest questions, and desist from the reliance of creeds that were formulated centuries after the death of Christ and the apostles!

The more I study, pray, and contemplate this truth - that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son - the more concerned I become of the ramifications for today’s church. I cannot help but wonder how God will judge this enormous deception and twisting of Scripture that has invaded His Church and deified His Christ, usurping the place of God the Father who, according to Jesus, is the only true God! (John 5:44; 17:3) I can only pray that with the plethora of information available today via the internet, along with the many quality books being written on the subject, more and more people will become enlightened to the truth. If God could get through to me, having been thoroughly entrenched in the false doctrine of the Trinity for almost 40 years, then I am convinced that He can, and will, make Himself known to others who sincerely seek the truth!