Is It Really So Difficult to Believe?

During my morning devotions today I read through the first two chapters of Philippians. As is my practice, I  highlighted several verses and phrases which stood out to me, and made notes. The first thing I read was, of course, Paul's greeting. Here is what he says in verse 2 of the greeting to the Philippian christians:

"Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." -- Philippians 1:2 (ESV)

Paul is clear about his understanding of God and Jesus. This is not unlike the greeting in all of his other New Testament epistles. He consistently refers to God and Jesus as separate; one who is God and the other who is Lord. An introduction like this would be inappropriate if he thought Jesus was God. If that was his understanding, He certainly doesn't convey the message very well!

Are we really to believe that Paul was purposefully vague about the Trinity so that later generations could have this truth revealed to them? No. Paul clearly understood WHO God is. To Paul, God is the Father,  the only God, and Jesus is His Son, the Christ (Messiah), who is Lord, but not equal in any sense. (see 1Cor 8:5-6; 1Tim 2:5) The Bible simply does not support the teaching of a Triune God, or the dual nature of Christ as both human and yet fully God. All scholars agree that NO Bible Scripture explicitly teaches any facet of the Trinitarian doctrine, it is understood that it came to its apex after the 3rd century Council of Nicaea, presided over by the Roman Emperor Constantine. History clearly shows that the trinitarian view of God was not accepted by all believers, and even rejected several times in later years by other Councils.

Brothers and sisters, the doctrine of the Trinity is at odds with the plain words of the Bible. Why is this so difficult to see and understand? Having been there myself, for almost 40 years, I still have trouble wrapping my brain around a reasonable answer to this question. How did I miss it all those years? I think the truth may be that I didn't miss it at all, I simply chose to ignore it. And, I think also, that this may be true for most common people who claim to love and believe the Bible. We read passages like this and wonder; how does this reconcile with the teaching that Jesus is God? But then we satisfy ourselves with the standard arguments we've always heard; "it's a mystery", or "you have to take it by faith", then go on as though it didn't say what it says.

I thank God that I have been able to perceive reality, the reality that is clearly stated in Scripture but overlooked by so many, for so many years, about the true nature of God and his Son, Jesus. There is no mystery! The truth is apparent if we will read the Bible for what it says and not for what we've been taught. And I am encouraged greatly to know that there are many others out there, just like me, who also embrace this truth.

The thought that comes to me over and again, is what Jesus said when he spoke to the woman at the well in John 4. He said,

"...You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free!" -- John 8:32 (ESV)

I thank God that I was freed from the curse of sin through faith in Jesus! But the truth, as clearly revealed in Scripture, has enlightened me to the fact that, having become a christian, I also became bound to an error. Further, this error was responsible for a gripping fear that said: "If you don't confess that Jesus is God, you cannot be saved." But I was bound by an ideology that was never taught by Jesus or his early disciples! The Bible does not command us to confess Jesus as God, but as Lord, and that God raised him from the dead! (Rom 10:9-10) Thank God I am no longer bound by that unfounded fear.The truth that the Father alone is truly God has made the Scriptures come alive to me in a new way! I now readily see what the Bible says in certain passages, rather than skimming over verses that just didn't fit what I was taught to believe. The Bible finally makes sense when viewed from this perspective, and I find a cohesion in its message, throughout, that I couldn't find before.

In the passage I mentioned above, Jesus explained to the woman that "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." (Jn 4:24) What does this mean? First, I contend that worshipping God in spirit essentially means to worship him from the heart, the inner most being, as opposed to a certain form, ritual, or ceremony (neither this mountain nor in Jerusalem - Jn 4:21). But I also think it means to worship Him in accordance with Jesus' own message. In addition to saying "God is spirit"  he also said "...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (John 6:63) If His words are spirit, it is because they are God's words which He gave to Jesus. They are words of life which God, THE Spirit, gave to Jesus who faithfully spoke them from the heart!

Further, we must worship God in truth! The words "spirit and truth" are combined here to suggest not only that worship must come from the heart, but that it must also be in accordance with Jesus own revelation to us about who God the Father is. It is impossible to obey this command if we fail to understand Jesus own words concerning The Father.

"One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?”  Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.’ -- Mark 12:28-30 (NASB) 

“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." --Mk 13:32 (ESV)

"How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?" -- Jn 5:44 (ESV)

"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." -- Jn 17:3 (ESV)

"Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” -- Jn 20:17 (ESV)

This is but a few of the Scriptures that clearly debunk, from Jesus own perspective, the teaching that God is a Trinity and Jesus is both God and man. When the evidence from the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament epistles is taken into account, it is overwhelmingly contrary to the teaching of the Trinity!

Brothers and sisters, open your eyes and be free from the bondage of an erroneous doctrine that has ruled over the minds of the christian masses for far too long. May the God of Jesus reveal this truth to you.

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

Vain Deceit

Colossians 2:8 (ESV)

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

It is assumed, and taught, by many Trinitarians that a group of theologians got together in the 3rd century and solved the riddle. That is, how could Jesus be a man and yet say and do things that only God could; and more importantly, how can we maintain monotheism and still believe in the Godhood of both Jesus and the Father? But does anyone else find it odd that the formulation of this doctrine came three centuries after the death and resurrection of Christ? And further, isn’t it rather suspect that we can find no Biblical illustrations attempting to explain the Trinity such as those which are used today?

Man’s Thoughts

Probably the most well-known illustration used to prove how there could be three distinct persons in One God-Essence is that of water, steam, and ice. The argument is that they are of one substance, but different forms. There are however, numerous problems with this comparison. First, the Trinity doctrine states explicitly that each person of the Trinity is not only distinct from each other, but each are God in themselves, yet forming only One God, not three separate gods; so there is unity in trinity. The water, ice, steam illustration falls short in that water must be altered to form ice or steam. Even though ice and steam retain properties of water, they cannot be called water - they have been altered. In addition, in the Trinity, each Person exists simultaneously, each being fully God, whereas, water can only be in one form at a time - either it is water, steam, or ice - not all three! This may be a good illustration for Modalism, but not the Trinity.

There are other illustrations that have been tried as well. It has been pointed out that each beam of light is made up of three separate rays, the actinic which is invisible, the luminiferous which is visible, and the calorific which gives heat and can be felt but not seen. On the surface, this sounds like an excellent example of the Father who is invisible, the Son who is visible, and the Spirit whose presence can be felt. But again, take notice that all three rays must be present simultaneously in order for it to be light. The actinic ray alone, is not light. All three rays must be present together to make light. In the Trinity, Jesus is fully God, as are the other Persons.

There are more, such as the three leafed clover, the triangle, the egg, or even time - past, present, future - but these are also useless in describing the indescribable Trinity! But what is even more striking to me is that none of these attempts to explain or describe the idea that God is Triune, can be found in the pages of Scripture. In virtually every instance, Scriptures referenced to support the Trinity must be interpreted from a preconceived notion that God is Triune. In other words, you must already believe it is so, then you can infer it from certain Scriptures and construct all sorts of mental sketches to support the veracity of the idea. Every commentary, dictionary, or other resource book I have researched, agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found explicitly in Scripture. The assertion is that it is a revealed doctrine, but in reality it is a fabricated doctrine; high sounding words with no substance; an opinion, and nothing more.

So again, we are expected to believe that 3rd century theologians, called together by the Emperor Constantine, put in writing what was already believed and taught by the Christian majority. Nevermind that there are no explicit Scriptures that tell us God is three,while there are 1000’s that clearly describe Him as One, and that He alone is the creator. Nevermind that Jesus did not claim Deity or equality with God in any way, but always affirmed that God was greater than himself, that his authority and power were given to him by God, and that God was not only his Father, but his God. And nevermind that the Holy Spirit does not have a name, and seems to be curiously missing in many of the Scriptures where one would expect him to be if he were an equal member of the Trinity. The council of Nicea, in 325 AD, dealt primarily with advancing the idea of the Deity of Christ. Concerning the 3rd Person of the Trinity, it says only “and we believe in the Holy Spirit”. It took another 100+ years to formulate the Trinity that we know today stating that each Person - Father, Son, and Spirit - are equally God.

God’s Thoughts

The Bible tells a very different story and uses entirely different ideas to illustrate the relationship between the Father and the Son. In John 15, Jesus calls himself the Vine. He refers to the Father as the Gardener, and the disciples are the branches. Notice the figures in this teaching of Jesus. They show exactly the relationship between God, Jesus, and believers. Clearly, the Father and the Son are not of the same nature, or essence. God, the Gardener, planted the vine and cares for it, pruning its branches and so forth. The Vine, Jesus, has his roots in the soil and is of the same substance as the branches. The branches must be “in” the vine in order to bear fruit and be useful. The Vine gives life to the branches but nothing in this illustration attempts to describe a Triune God or that Jesus is himself God, for if that were the case, then every true believer would also be god because we are “in” Christ. John tells us how Jesus could have life in Himself, he says, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” -John 5:26 (ESV)

Also, consider 2Cor 4:4. Here, Paul says that Christ is the “image” of God. Image is eikon (icon) in the Greek. An icon is an image, a representation of something. We speak of certain persons as being “iconic figures”. The meaning is that these people are representative of something bigger than themselves - a movement, a corporation, etc. Bill Gates, for example, is an iconic figure as the founder of the massive, worldwide Microsoft corporation. When I look at my computer desktop I see icons. Each icon represents a different file or program. Whichever file or program I want to work with, I simply click on the appropriate icon and it takes me there. That’s what Paul meant when he said that Jesus is the image of God; He represents God - He is our way to God. It is this principle precisely that Jesus revealed when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by (or through) me.” An icon is NOT the thing it represents, it gets you to the thing it represents!

Paul also speaks of Jesus as having “the fulness of the Godhead (God-essence, or Deity)” dwelling in him (Col 2:9; 1:19). If Paul believed Jesus was God, the 2nd Person of the Trinity, he would not have to say that the fulness of Deity dwelt in him. This would be already evident. Note that in Col 1:19 that God was pleased to have His fullness dwell in Christ. Paul understands Jesus as one in whom God’s fullness was expressed, and it was God’s plan that it should be that way. This is very different from being God. These are clear and unequivocal statements of Christ's nature. Not "God the Son", the 2nd Person of a Triune God, or any such metaphysical theory, but a man begotten by God, in whose character, actions, and words, we see the invisible God.

The Bible does not contain illustrations used to describe God’s nature as being “three in one”; because it never states that God is Triune in nature. But Paul warned us against falling prey to “philosophy and empty deception according to the traditions of men” (Col 2:8). The KJV uses the phrase “vain deceit”. Beginning in Paul’s day, and taking root in the creeds of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Church has been led astray by deceitful vanities which have no ground in Scripture.

Brothers and sisters, truth matters! It’s time to take a serious look at the doctrines we have so blindly accepted and see the truth we’ve been missing!

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.